The Seven Sisters of Sleep

More book stuff about drugs.   In this case, a book written in 1860 by Mordecai Cooke, intended as a definitive guide, at the time, on how to get f**ked up.  Or rather, how people around the world got high back them.   Cooke has been accused to writing this to suggest that what they do in China or India or South America is appropriate for them and not for UK souls, but I didn’t get that impression.  What Cooke was going for was suggesting that our natural nightly downtime had some competition from various inebriants of varying quality and potency, scattered across the globe.  

These were 1) tobacco, 2) opium, 3) cannabis, 4) betel nut, 5) coca, 6) Datura (aka Jimson weed), and 7) fly agaric (Europe’s magic mushroom). 

Tobacco – why does this qualify as a sister of sleep?  Isn’t nicotine a stimulant?  MC cites an 18^th century priest railing against the drug citing blackened lungs of heavy smokers revealed in autopsies.  So in the 1700s they knew what tobacco did!  Amazing.  But to read Cooke’s account, you would think that tobacco was LSD.  So far it’s a chapter on tobacco itself, then a chapter on smoking it in pipes, a chapter on snuff (tobacco consumed in the nose), and the next on chewing tobacco (most popular in the US where everyone spits).  Finally a chapter on “pretenders” (tobacco substitutes of various types, none of which he considers comparable though acknowledging that others do).

 

Finally we can move on… to opium.  After a tedious chapter on how opium is made (like anyone needs to know) he proceeds to finally tell us: WHAT DOES IT DO.   And so far as I can tell it’s the LSD of the 1800s.  Except that it’s addictive.  Thank you, Albert Hofmann. 

In fact there are not just one but – as with tobacco - several chapters on opium.  And what I found surprising was this.  By now we’ve been consistently presented with the spectacle of the opium addict, reduced to poverty and crime, health ruined, to support his habit.  But apparently there were “chippers”, occasional users, who may have used regularly but probably more like once a month instead of daily.  These opium users show no health issues, lived long healthy lives, and had normal lifestyles.  In other words, they were not addicts.  Overall Cooke takes the position that opium is actually no worse than alcohol in terms of aggregate damage caused to its users and society as a whole (what economists would refer to as negative externalities).  He observed that drunkards frequently became extremely violent under the influence of alcohol, whereas chronic opium users retreated into a dreamlike catatonia which threatened no one other than the user himself.  The real problem for either substance is excessive consumption, not consumption per se.

Next, there’s an extensive section on HEMP and HASHISH, with the inevitable reference to Assassins from Syria.  From what he says, recreational cannabis use was well known at that time, except that it was extremely uncommon as such in the Western world – that is to say, hemp was well known in its non-marijuana properties but cannabis was only smoked recreationally outside the Western world, with the Middle East being a consistent consumer of hashish, which is highly concentrated marijuana.  He makes some brief mentions of Fitzhugh Ludlow, who was a contemporary of his.  In fact, it would seem the express reason for Ludlow to write his book, The Hasheesh Eater, was specifically because marijuana and hashish were so little known in the US at the time.  Oddly, although Ludlow’s book was published in 1857 and reissued several times in the following decade, Cooke makes no specific references to it.  Apparently he didn’t read it.  For that matter, I don’t see any evidence that Cooke actually even tried hashish.  And that looks to be the case with the majority of the exotic substances he chronicles.  I would hope he at least smoked tobacco or drank alcohol.

Next is a chapter on coca leaves, mainly consumed by the Indians of Peru.  The active ingredient is cocaine, which was synthesized soon after this book was written, and acts as a more concentrated version of the coca leaf.  From Cooke’s writing it does not appear that coca leaves were exported abroad for recreational consumption, and my impression is that cocaine itself was initially marketed as a legitimate drug before being banned and turned – much later – into the rich and famous party drug.  Even so, although far less concentrated and effective than cocaine, chewing the leaves did produce a substantial narcotic effect and this practice counts as a form of recreational use, which was popular and widespread in that part of the world at that time.

Next are chapters – only one each – on eating clay/dirt/lime (quicklime/whitewash); low doses of arsenic, obviously a poison in higher doses, but also addictive and with no apparent narcotic properties; Datura, belladonna, and henbane, all of which appear to cause hallucinations but possibly death.  Betel Nut stains your teeth and makes you high.  Apparently he did not try it.

Finally, one chapter on fly agaric (magic mushroom), which mainly grows in Siberia and the far east of Russia, in Kamchatka (remember RISK?).  The big fun thing about this is that the active ingredient survives unscathed into the user’s urine.  The same person, or someone else, can conceivably drink that – if so inclined – and trip all over again.  Even Cooke couldn’t ascertain if there was a limit on how many times it could be so “recycled”.  But since Mexican mushrooms, which appear to be the strongest and most trippiest of all the psychedelic varieties (psilocybe cubensis), were not commonly known outside the little villages in Mexico until Gordon Wasson blew the whole scene open in the late 1950s, Cooke would have been oblivious to that branch of the shroom tree.  

Storm of Steel

Merry Christmas!  I’ve already covered the Christmas Truce of 1914 in a prior blog, but I still believe World War I is an inexhaustible source of holiday blog material.  The ironic juxtaposition of trenches, poison gas, and pointless slaughter really fits in with Christmas.  Or Festivus.  Anyhow.

A few weeks back we met our old Paris buddy Jean in Virginia, and while browsing through Barnes & Noble with him I picked up this book by Ernst Junger.  It’s his memoirs of World War I in the Imperial German Army.  

Junger was actually in the French Foreign Legion immediately before the war and returned to Germany to fight.  He started out as a private and won a commission through Germany’s equivalent of Officer Candidate School.  He served  throughout the war, though wounded several times.   Immediately after the war he wrote this.   Oddly, he never joined the Nazi Party, though he and Hitler exchanged autographed copies of their books.  During WWII he served as a captain in the Wehrmacht in Paris, France, in a non-combatant role.   He lived all the way to 1998.

I recall an Internet article on WWI a few years ago, which served to dispel the notion that troops were in combat continuously throughout the war, and this is reflected in Junger’s story.  In fact, the troops were rotated from behind the lines, second line, and front line, and even front line service could be fairly quiet if there was no battle actually going on at the time.  The battles themselves were terrifying, and Junger was amazed to survive brutal bombardments and fairly accurate enemy fire.  Grenades were popular because they could be thrown around corners in traverses.  Gas warfare figures heavily in his story, and is yet another peculiar horror of this war, and mostly absent thereafter.  The nature of mobile warfare – tanks and motorized infantry, e.g. WWII – make slow-moving clouds of poison gas impractical once the trenches are left behind.

The majority of his opponents were British, and all of his service was on the Western Front.  He had a high opinion of their morale and skill.  On rare occasions Junger faced off against the French, and they were also deadly foes.   His quotes of French were correct (!).  Despite serving through November 1918, he makes no mention whatsoever of Americans, and only brief mentions of tanks, after battles with no direct experience in combat against them.  Although the cover illustration shows Germany’s A7V and a British Mark IV, he makes no specific reference to either and a brief reference to smaller, faster tanks, presumably the French Renault FT.   The book ends abruptly with the end of the war and he offers no opinion on the outcome.

The obvious comparison is with “All Quiet on the Western Front”.   That story, though, is fiction, whereas Junger’s account is first person non-fiction.  Remarque’s story is apolitical; the German soldiers show no particular love or loyalty to the Kaiser or even Germany, nor any hostility to him or to the opposing sides.  The general idea is that the war is a huge slaughter and an equally huge mistake on the part of everyone concerned – i.e. pretty much anti-war.  Both film adaptations were American, with US actors.  Storm of Steel has yet to come to the big screen, and after having read it from cover to cover, I suppose I can ascertain why.  

Junger makes only passing references to the Kaiser.  He won the Pour Le Merite, the “Blue Max”, Imperial Germany’s highest award.  Nowhere in the book does he express the opinion that the war is wrong or a mistake, or that Germany bears responsibility for it; the closest is a later, vague acknowledgement that things could be going better for his side.   There is really zero politics here and certainly NO anti-war sentiment.  Hell, Junger even makes jokes.  He respects the British and French as worthy opponents (no mention of Americans, Russians, Italians, Austrians, Turks, etc.).   For him, war was glorious, fun, and exciting.  This alone seems to turn off many readers, especially since he’s happy to describe the appalling casualties he witnesses, even on his own side, which he obviously saw more of.  This lack of passion or remorse hits many people the wrong way – how could you go through WWI and NOT become a pacifist?  Well, that was his take on the whole thing, and people are free to disagree with him.  Apparently his non-combat role in WWII was simply because of his age, not his inclination. 

Movie directors and producers being fairly liberal and anti-war, no one short of Mel Gibson could be expected to turn this book into a movie, though even so I’m puzzled even the Nazis didn’t tackle it.  Be that as it may, it serves as a good compliment to “All Quiet on the Western Front” and well worth reading in its own right.

Rockville Pike aka Route 355

We discovered Miller’s NJ Alehouse in Paramus, on Route 4.  They have a fantastic chicken cheesesteak.  As it was, I found there are two Miller’s Alehouses in the DC area:  one in Sterling, Virginia, the other on Rockville Pike (355) in Rockville, Maryland, where Shakey’s Pizza used to be (so far as I know the only remaining Shakey’s is in L.A., and I went there in summer 2010).   Anyhow.  Here’s a blog which serves as a HEY YOU to my readers from Montgomery County, Maryland, and former classmates at St. Martin’s. 

Wishing to visit my mom in Frederick, I decided to avoid 270 and take the long way, up 355.  At this point in its life, 355 is called Rockville Pike.

Rockville.   This is the county seat of Montgomery County, Maryland, and the location of its courthouse complex.  The old red brick building is still there, a “newer” concrete block dating from the 1930s (the former District Court), a brand new District Court building across the street, and a newly expanded Circuit Court building next to that.  The original courthouse was Hungerford’s Tavern, a real tavern.  Imagine if the local Hooters or Buffalo Wild Wings served as a courthouse.   Mind.  Blown.

Wisconsin Ave./Rockville Pike/355.  What we think of as 355 is actually VERY old.  It used to be called Rock Creek Main Road, and stretched from what became Washington, DC, all the way to Frederick.  In June 1863, Confederate forces stopped by Rockville on their way up to get their asses kicked at Gettysburg.

It starts out under the Whitehurst Freeway in DC as Wisconsin Ave., goes up the hill, and proceeds northwest to Friendship Heights, in Maryland.   Further stops:

1.         Chevy Chase.  Not the actor.  No idea why they both have the same name.  This is a densely developed urban area with lots of fancy stores, including Mazza Gallerie and Saks Fifth Avenue.

2.         Bethesda.  Home of the Naval Hospital, where I was born in January 1969.  The Chinatown bus stops here, on its way to/from Arlington, VA to NYC, and we stayed here for a bit in summer 1990 waiting for our sea shipment to come over from Paris. 

3.         White Flint Mall.   Now it’s kind of run down and half empty.  I took my LSAT prep classes there in fall 1989.  There seems to be a mattress store every block around here. 

4.         Downtown Rockville, including the courthouse complex.  Rockville Mall was closed in 1994.  There’s some new development here and a movie theater.

5.         Gaithersburg.  Where we used to live (actually, Montgomery Village) and includes Lakeforest Mall, still alive.

6.         Germantown.  Home of Clutch.  The Cider Barrel is still there, but it has been closed the last few times I went past it.  Check out “Opossum Minister” on From Beale Street To Oblivion, as it seems singer Neil Fallon used to live in Montgomery Village.

7.         Clarksburg.   Here the road is two lanes and winds through old houses and no particular development.

8.         Hyattstown.   Likewise.  Now it’s a country road, going up and down hills with farms on either side.  And it’s 2016.   

Leaving Montgomery County…

9.         Urbana, first stop in Frederick County.   75/80 Drag-A-Way is closed down.  I brought my Firebird Formula here several times in the late 1990s.

10.        Frederick, passing by Francis Scott Key Mall, and ending at Route 26. 

Of course, driving this way takes time, but it’s also extremely calming and therapeutic.  Part of the fun is remembering what something used to be.

1.         Drive-in Theater on Hungerford Drive.  Gone.  The Giant across the street used to be a Hechingers.  My dad was big time into hardware, so whereas Best Buy and Barnes & Noble are my current favorite stores, Hechingers (old days) and Home Depot (more recently, up to his passing in 2004) were his temples.

2.         Burger Chef gone.   Now it looks like they’re ALL gone.  If they can bring Roy Rogers back from the brink of extinction, why not Burger Chef?  Or Red Barn?  Yeah, I know – all those horrendously unhealthy burgers and fries we used to eat back then.  Now everything is “gluten-free” and “healthy”.  We’re still dying, though.  Why is that?

3.         King Pontiac is now just King Buick GMC.   The King farm is still behind it, and my dad told me stories about their family.  I bought my first new car, a 1992 Firebird there, on November 22, 1992.  Reed Brothers Dodge, across the street, is still around, and is apparently one of the older car dealerships in the area. 

4.         Montgomery College is still around.  However, I had no occasion to go there, we went to UMCP.  Why no Montgomery County campus of University of Maryland?

4.         Lots of Asian food places too, almost as many as mattress stores.  Is there a connection?

5.         Chafitz – the TV and appliance store - is gone.  It’s a mattress store now.  Or a liquor store.

6.         Phineas, a prime rib restaurant, is gone.  That’s were my parents revealed to us, in September 1978, that by January 1979 we’d be living in Paris.  And my Dad wouldn’t have to mow lawns anymore.

7.         Congressional Plaza.  Now it’s fancied up, but that is apparently one of the older shopping centers.

8.         Shakey’s.  As noted, it’s gone, now a Miller’s Alehouse.  The Toys R Us across the street moved down to Nicholson Lane, and Montrose Road and that area is getting a huge development of high rises to make the older condo building (the Forum?) look small and lost by comparison. 

9.         St. Martin’s Catholic Church & School.  It’s at a crossroads with Summit Ave. – who figured that thing out?  We went there as kids, and I remember many Christmas masses there.  I still go there occasionally, out of sheer nostalgia.  Mind you, it’s a church and not a cathedral.  The pastor joked about reading it called that in the local paper, and remarked, “I missed the part when they made me a bishop…”

            I went to school here from first grade until fall semester (1978) of fifth grade, as did my brother.  At the time we left for Paris, January 1979, my sister was too young for school.  The first and second grade building is now closed up and used for storage.  The third through eighth grade building is completely gone, replaced by a different one.  Now my memories of recess and playing at the school are receding into oblivion, but I can remember the church, its basement, the school buildings, and the rectory across the street with its large field in front.  When I passed by they were selling Christmas trees on that lot.

10.        Corner with Montgomery Village Ave.  The Holiday Inn is still there, as is Lakeforest Mall.  Gaitherstowne Square is still there too.  The A&P is now something else.  For that matter, the A&P in Fort Lee, NJ only recently turned into an ACME, as did the Pathmark in Edgewater.  I point this out because ACME doesn’t sell beer, but A&P did.  At least the one in Fort Lee.  GF would refer to it as “The A and the P”.

11         From Gaithersburg up through Germantown and most of the way to Frederick, as noted before, are incredibly rural, and at that point the memories drop off from the past.  By the time we were kids 270 (70-S) was in place, so our few trips north of Gaithersburg were on the highway.  Besides which, 355 had long since stopped being called Rockville Pike, i.e. Hungerford Drive north of downtown Rockville.

Enjoy it up and down, thankfully as Montgomery County’s main commercial road it is unlikely to disappear any time soon.

Westworld

Recently Episode 10, the final episode of season 1, was broadcast.  As yet I’m unaware if a second season will be on its way, but apparently plans are in place for that.   This is a remake of a 1973 film, which actually had a sequel (FutureWorld, 1976) and a brief TV series (Beyond Westworld, 1980), neither of which I’ve seen.

Basic Premise.  The company has developed a fantasy world staffed with lifelike androids (hosts) programmed to cater to the whims and desires of the guests (humans).  The main such world is WestWorld, patterned after America’s Wild West, while the original film also included a Roman world and a medieval world, both absent from the current HBO series.  As a practical matter, the male hosts act as cannon fodder – they can be killed, but their guns cannot harm the guests – and the female hosts are anatomically correct sexbots.  Well, in theory.  But the general idea is that the robots begin malfunctioning in a particularly deadly fashion – in the original, it’s attributed to an unintentional computer virus, in the HBO series we begin to wonder if it wasn’t intentional….

Westworld (1973).  Recap:  a pair of rich guys, Peter (Richard Benjamin) and John (James Brolin, the father of Josh Brolin) indulge in Westworld, where they can play out fantasies of being wild west outlaws yet – theoretically – not suffer the retribution of the robotic “hosts”.  The most noticeable is called The Gunslinger, played by Yul Brynner. 

Of course, nothing goes according to plan, and the Gunslinger proves capable of killing John.  He stalks after Peter, chasing him through the other two worlds with a final showdown in the depths of the company’s underground complex. The Gunslinger-as-unstoppable-killer-robot is a precursor to Arnold’s Terminator a decade later.  The “computer fantasy world gone haywire” is clearly similar to “Jurassic Park”.  Overall the movie is suitably disturbing and exciting – but one thing it isn’t is confusing.

Westworld (2016 HBO Series).  This is a full remake.  It’s missing RomanWorld or MedievalWorld - perhaps in subsequent seasons, but I haven’t seen anything in the current narrative to suggest that.  If anything, there are too many bugs in Westworld as it is, much less expanding.  However, they’re really knocking themselves out by bringing this up to the next level. 

It has an A-list cast.  Anthony Hopkins is here as the ultimate mastermind of the complex, Ford.  Others include (but are not limited to) Evan Rachel Wood, Thandie Newton, James Marsden (Cyclops in the X-Men films), Jeffrey Wright (from “Hunger Games”), Jimmi Simpson (House of Cards), and Ed Harris as a particularly nasty guest, the Man in Black – itself an intriguing role for an actor who usually plays good guys (e.g. John Glenn, RIP, in “The Right Stuff”).  Everyone does a knockout job in the acting category.  No complaints there.

The production values are high (as you would well expect from HBO), but where HBO really ramps this up from the movie is on two items.  First, the hosts (the robots) begin to develop self-awareness.  In particular, Maeve (Newton) talks to her human technicians and persuades them to upgrade her programming.  Eventually she takes her rebellion to the next level.

Second, the plot becomes extremely byzantine and complex.  In fact, it gets downright confusing.  Are there multiple timelines?   Are these events flashbacks or are they happening in real time?  Much of this seems to be from the perspective of Dolores (Wood), who is a host, not a guest.  Maeve’s point of view is also well represented, with Teddy (Marsden) a distant third.  Brynner’s Gunslinger never got that treatment.  But as I said, confusing.  To me that level of complexity compromises the enjoyability of the show.  All will be revealed?  Actually, not exactly.

While there were a few loose ends at the end of E10, don’t assume that means there will be a season 2.  Ever see “Dirty Sexy Money”?  The series ended on a cliffhanger yet the show wasn’t picked up.  Talk about frustrating…   

Comparison with “Jurassic Park”.  I posted a humorous meme on Facebook about this, but in reality Michael Crichton was behind both of these, so the similarities are hardly a coincidence.  However, I don’t see dinosaurs gaining human intelligence, much less self-awareness (T Rex to programmer: “Make me a vegetarian.”)

Everybody Wants To Be Dazed and Confused

I finally caught this one, the most recent film by Richard Linklater.  His most famous project would be “Boyhood”, a film he took 14-something years to make allowing the actors to actually grow, which was remarkable.

Now that I’ve seen “Slacker” through “Everybody Wants Some” I can comment on the majority of his films – certainly the most high profile and popular.

Good

A Scanner Darkly.   Fantastic rotoscope, killer cast (Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr., Woody Harrelson, Winona Ryder) but much of the credit has to go to Philip K. Dick for providing the essential plot.  It’s clear to me that Linklater is a big PKD fan – as I am – but I’ll give him credit for doing justice to this story.

School of Rock.  Jack Black teaches private school students how to play heavy metal.   I share Black’s musical tastes and probably give them a pass for this reason alone.

Dazed and Confused.   The first film which put him on the map.  Ben Affleck and Matthew McConnaughey are here, but at the time they were nobodies.   Excellent soundtrack.  Basically it’s a day in the life of a bunch of high schools students in the middle 1970s, leading up a night of shit happening.

Bad

Before Sunrise/Before Sunset/Before Midnight.   Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy meet in Vienna (Sunrise), then Paris (Sunset), then Greece (Midnight).  They simply TALK for the entire films.  It’s boring AND pretentious.

Slacker & It’s Impossible To Learn to Plow By Reading Books.  The first two.   Highly pretentious stream of consciousness crap.  

Waking Life.   Similar, but uses the rotoscope effect from “A Scanner Darkly”.  But this time he didn’t have an excellent PKD story, he simply strung together a series of unrelated sketches which are basically people bullshitting.  Guess what – Ethan Hawke is here.

Tape.   Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman and Robert Sean Leonard talk and argue in a motel room.  The highlight is UT’s character pretend to narc on EH’s character (a drug dealer), inducing the latter to flush his stash down the toilet.

In Between

Boyhood.   A remarkable gimmick, but aside from that the film is pretty boring.  The Oscar is won by a gimmick.  There you go.  Ethan Hawke’s character originally drives a GTO.

Everybody Wants Some.  A de facto sequel to “D&C” even if no characters or actors remain the same.  It takes place at some south Texas college in 1980.  A bunch of baseball players hang out, drink, smoke dope, and eventually play some baseball.  Almost all of them are complete assholes, which gets tiresome immediately.  Like “D&C” it has a killer soundtrack but a less than compelling story.

Fast Food Nation.  Interesting story and a quasi-documentary, better than “Supersize Me”, with which I get it confused. 

Bad News Bears.  Competent remake of the 1976 Walter Matthau film, with Billy Bob Thornton as Matthau’s character.

Overall I’d say he has a terrible habit of making extremely pretentious films.   If I were running a totalitarian dictatorship and this guy was mine to order around and execute if he didn’t do as he was told, I’d have him simply make PKD stories into movies with killer soundtracks.  That or a bullet to the head.  

Metallica & Diamond Head

Hardwired….to Self-Destruct came out on 11/18, the same day we saw Diamond Head at the Fish Head Cantina in Baltimore.   HTSD was the first Metallica album since Death Magnetic, which was released in September 2008, though the joint venture with Lou Reed, Lulu, dates from November 2011.  The third CD has a bunch of extra stuff, some of which was previously released.  I found it a worthwhile addition at a reasonable price.

Diamond Head.   I’d reviewed them earlier, in 2008, as well as Metallica around the same time.   By now the only original member is guitarist Brian Tatler.  They’re originally from Stourbridge, which is outside Birmingham, England. The band had its original run from 1976-1983, broke up, reformed from 1990-94, and then again from 2000 to the present.  Duncan Scott (drums) and Colin Kimberly (bass) were only in the ’76-83 version, while singer Sean Harris had been with some of the more recent reunions but apparently is permanently estranged from Tatler.  The remainder of the current band is singer Rasmus Born Anderson, rhythm guitarist Andy “Abbz” Abberley, bassist Dean Ashton, and drummer Karl Wilcox.  Tatler is playing a sunburst Les Paul Standard instead of a Flying V these days.  RBA is young and energetic, shaved head with a beard – an extra from “Vikings” – and does an excellent job of copying Sean Harris’ vocals.

They have a new album, self-titled Diamond Head, which sounds like a competently executed 2016 version of their prior material. They played about three songs from it.   Aside from those songs, and one from Canterbury (commercial flop third album, a bone thrown to the hardcore fans in the audience), the set focused on Lightning to the Nations and Living on Borrowed Time, the first two albums, of which the former provides all the best songs that Metallica in their excellent judgment saw fit to cover – including my favorite, “Sucking My Love”.  “Am I Evil” closed the set, with “Streets of Gold” (???) as the encore. 

By the time we got into Metallica – 1985 – they were an opening act at Donington (Ride the Lightning tour) then for Ozzy Osbourne (Master of Puppets).   We never saw them in a club, where you can get close up to the stage.  Their club stage would have been in the San Francisco area back in 1983-84 when Kill ‘Em All was the newest album.

As I noted back in 2008, if you remove Iron Maiden, Saxon, and Def Leppard from the mix of NWOBHM bands – i.e. the three most successful bands which survived the general demise of the genre itself – you’re left with a few worthy mentions.  Of these, thanks to Metallica, DH are probably the best known.   Angel Witch, Witchfynde, and Vardis are the next ones down.  All three have fairly recent albums, Vardis’ (Red Eye) being the newest (2016), Angel Witch As Above, So Below (2012) in the middle, with Witchfynde’s, Play It To Death being the oldest (2008).  Generally the “updated” albums sound like a more modern version of the original material, a balanced blend of them which tends to work, though naturally we’re going to prefer the original material if only out of sentimentality.  I think that holds true no matter how well the band does at putting out new material. 

Hardwired.  By now I’ve heard it three times (twice in the car, once through the videos).  Looking back at my reviews of St. Anger and Death Magnetic, the prior two albums, I see that I liked St. Anger more than Load and Re-Load, and Death Magnetic more than St. Anger.  Likewise, I like this one more than Death Magnetic.  James has his massive riffs, Kirk has his widdly-widdly Satriani solos, I generally ignore Lars & the bassist, and pay some attention to the clever song titles and growling vocals. 

Tracks;  “Hardwired…to Self Destruct”; “Atlas, Rise”; “Now That We’re Dead”; “Moth Into Flame”; “Dream No More” (Cthulhu tribute!), “Halo On Fire”;  “Confusion” (PTSD tribute); “ManUNKind”; “Here Comes Revenge”; “Am I Savage?”: “Murder One” (tribute to Lemmy, though no Hawkwind references - @#^$@#%^); and “Spit Out The Bone”.  The tracks seem to have a little bit of step to them – that extra beat that takes it from just 4/4 to something with a discernable groove, yet without being overtly funky.  Each has its own music video, mostly footage of the band playing with some sort of gimmick.  Despite the awesome subject matter, “Dream No More” had a fairly unimpressive video.  “Halo on Fire” features a female Kurt Cobain, somehow.  In fact, they’re all fairly mundane and unimpressive as music videos go – many of them apparently done by someone who didn’t even bother to read the lyrics – with one notable exception.  The video for “Murder One”, the Lemmy tribute song, is certainly good – and provides the missing Hawkwind references.  :D

Band.  It’s funny, I’m watching these recent music videos, one per song, and getting a subjective impression of each band member.  JAMES:  Your GF’s Dad.  LARS:  Your GF’s creepy uncle.  KIRK:  Your GF’s ex-BF.  ROBERT: Your GF’s mom’s new BF.

However, I suppose I’m a stick in the mud, because notwithstanding an upward trend in quality after the nadir of Re-Load, I still prefer the first three albums, with Cliff Burton.  Having said that, I will be happy to see Hetfield & co. in concert if and when they bring Hardwired to our local concert venue (DC or NYC areas), however large or small that might be. 

I have a feeling it will be somewhere larger than the Fish Head Cantina.

The Monarchist Party

Now we have President-Elect Donald Trump.   Whoa.

Watching the election night coverage on Tuesday, and seeing Trump’s electoral vote tally rise far faster than Hillary’s, it dawned on me that, “Trump is going to win this.  After all….”  And my first reaction was to think…

“Well, we all have to die someday anyway.”

Now I see that Trump is backtracking on some issues and making a few proposals (Second Amendment) which sound like they came from Mitt Romney or John McCain.  I believe that – bluster and bullshit aside – he did NOT really expect to beat Hillary Clinton and now is faced with the task of actually being President.  That includes a real platform, not this random nonsense he farted out during the election.  I mean, if he didn’t expect to be elected, what difference did it make what he proposed?   YUGE WALL?  Why not?  Repeal Obamacare?  Why not?  Execute Hillary?  Sure.  All under the vague and pompous banner of “Make America Great”. 

Was there anything else?  I don’t recall.  He couldn’t articulate anything more than that and since he contradicted himself daily and had no chance of winning (right?) I paid little attention to this orange Casino Hitler, his stupid speeches, or his Kool Aid Minions.  My vote was locked in for Johnson. 

All this reminds me of the Monarchist Party.   Back at the University of Maryland, College Park (1986-1990, AD), there was student government.  It had very little power and was mostly a joke.  So much so, that a group decided to take that to its logical extreme and actually run AS a Monarchist Party.  Their leader was King Tom, and his #1 campaign promise was building a moat of beer around the campus.  College Park is the main campus of the University of Maryland, mostly on the west side of Route 1 inside the Beltway, though Frat Row, Leonardtown, and Richie Coliseum are on the east side.  I don’t recall seeing a map of this plan, but it would have to involve bridges north and south of College Park for Route 1 to cross.  Nowadays it would be filled with some hipster-approved IPA.  Anyhow. 

Despite – or perhaps because of – these ludicrous campaign promises, the Monarchists did win, and King Tom did become student government president.  Guess what – NO MOAT.  Drive down Route 1 if you don’t believe me.  Nope, so far as I can tell, he simply did what the last student government president did, and most likely what his successor, whoever that was, did after him.   I believe their only power is to distribute student activities fees among the groups.  Beyond that, I couldn’t tell you – except that building moats was probably outside his power.

While I’m on the topic of the election, I’d like to address three issues.

Reasons for Hillary’s Failure.  We went from “Hillary will win in a landslide” to “Trump has been elected.”  Why did this happen?

1.         Many feel that Hillary’s email issues caused Democrats to defect en masse to Trump.  She messed up on email security and you’ll vote for the enemy.  Yeah, I don’t think so.  For every confused Democrat I’m sure there was at least one GOP-er who was horrified that Casino Hitler won his party’s nomination.

2.         Trumpers Drank the Kool Aid.  Actually, Trump won less votes than Mitt Romney.   The GOP candidate won less votes than the prior guy.   GOP voting numbers have been relatively stable for the last few elections.  Try again.

3.         Hold on, who is voting?  I think the biggest issue was that since the election was said to be a foregone conclusion, why bother voting?  This lulled too many voters – most of them Democrats - who normally would have come out to vote in a close race, to stay away from the long lines at the voting booths on Tuesday.  I find that the most plausible explanation for Trump’s victory over Hillary.

The Protests.  Apparently not everyone is happy that Trump won.   So we have protests.   A few observations about this.

1.         Your proper time to “protest” was on election day.

2.         If you didn’t actually vote for Hillary, and stayed home, what business do you have protesting?

3.         Let’s assume that 100% of the protesters did in fact turn out to vote, and voted for Hillary Clinton.  Despite that, Trump still won.  Doesn’t that show that more people wanted Trump to be president?

4.         The protests will not convince Trump to step down.  They won’t induce Congress – controlled by the GOP – to change the election.  They won’t induce the electors to change their votes.  They won’t convince the Trump voters.  They won’t convince the third party voters.  And they won’t convince all those people who stayed home instead of voting.  So who will it influence?  The protesters themselves.  If they can get this crap out of their systems without interfering with the rest of us, fine.  Whatever makes you feel better.  But don’t try to prevent the rest of us from getting on with our lives.

5.         Stories of people dying because an ambulance couldn’t get through traffic blocked by protesters appear to be recycled stories of Black Lives Matters protesters causing similar fates, themselves originally made up.

6.         People have a right to protest for whatever reason they want, no matter how stupid or unpopular the cause.  This includes KKK marchers.  What they don’t have a right to do is block traffic, kill people, beat people up, or destroy property.   None of that endears the protesters to the nation at large and is in fact counterproductive.

7.         As asinine as I find these protests, the litany of Trumpers telling protesters to get back to work – if they have jobs – is equally annoying.  The Trumpers are showing just as much arrogance and cluelessness as the PC crowd and SJWs they bitch about. 

Not My President.  For the last eight years we’ve endured the anti-Obama crowd whining, “not MY President”, “it’s the WHITE House!”, “kick out the Kenyan”, etc.  Now that Trump has won, his supporters somehow expect us all to fall in love with the guy and shut up.  Nope.  Facebook – among other forums for public opinion - will be full of anti-Trump stuff for the next 4-8 years.  We’ll make fun of his bizarre orange tan, his Boris Johnson hair, his tiny hands, his thin skin, his bankrupt casinos, his hot immigrant wife, his spoiled kids, and whatever mistakes he makes will be blown up 100x.  The slightest hint of dishonesty and corruption will be grounds for incessant demands for impeachment.  Turnabout is fair play.  If the Trumpers want to deny they’re fascists who expect complete obedience to authority and no tolerance for dissent, they can prove it by showing the same thick skin to criticism and complaints as Obama had to all this time.  From what I’ve seen so far, Trump is incapable of laughing at himself – unlike Obama – and his followers likewise do a poor job of tolerating opposing viewpoints.   It’s like they need trigger warnings and safe spaces.  Trump won?  Tough s**t for everyone who didn’t vote for him.  Trump is ridiculed and made fun of?  Tough s**t for him and his minions.  Consistency is all we ask for….

Anyhow.

As of November 18, it’s still two months to go before Obama moves out and Trump moves in.  That’s two months for him to figure out what the hell he’s going to do for the next four years.  My subjective impression – and we’ll see how accurate my prediction works out to be – is that his more outlandish proposals will fall into the same oblivion as King Tom’s moat of beer, leaving us with a platform of politically feasible policies indistinguishable from what any other conservative Republican president – e.g. Mitt Romney, John McCain, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, etc. (except for outliers like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul) – would do.  If that’s the case, I think we can all sleep a little easier.  We survived 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of George H.W. Bush, and 8 years of Dubya.  A properly restrained Trump – assuming that’s possible – is not something to worry about.   And if it is? 

“Well, we all have to die someday anyway.”

US Model 1917 Enfield

I’ve mentioned the Mauser 98K rifle already, now it’s time to talk – briefly – about this one.  Fittingly, it’s November 11, Veteran’s Day.

My grandfather (mother’s father) served in the US Army, the AEF, during WWI, fighting in France.  Unfortunately he died when I was very little – and I have no memory of him alive – so I didn’t get a chance to ask him about this.  According to my mom, my grandmother threw out all his WWI stuff and he never talked about it.  His discharge papers, dating from May 1919, indicate he served in the 307 Infantry Division.

The AEF is typically shown carrying the 1903 Springfield rifle.  But due to production issues, 75% of US soldiers fighting in WWI were actually issued this one, the 1917 Enfield.  Both rifles are chambered in .30-06 (the .30 caliber rifle round, spitzer, introduced in 1906) – as are the Browning 1917 (water cooled) and 1919 (air cooled) machine guns, the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), and last but not least, the famous M1 Garand.

I don’t know for a fact which rifle my grandfather carried, but odds are it was the Enfield.  Even Alvin York, the famous US soldier, carried one, though in popular culture he’s shown with a Springfield, the more popular rifle.

  Apparently, the Springfield Armory could not make enough Springfields (the rifle) to supply the whole AEF, so Winchester and Remington stepped in to produce this model, a .30-06 version of a British rifle originally in .303.  I stopped by the Armory when I visited Springfield a few years ago, and it’s not that big.  The museum is nice.

Anyhow.  Generally bolt action rifles are slammed as long, heavy guns, but I didn’t find this one to be.  It’s not that big, heavy, or long, and is about as fun to fire as any other bolt action rifle.  As noted, it takes .30-06, which is a fairly popular round.  Personally, I find working the bolt after each shot to be fun, so semi-auto rifles like the AR15 and AK47 are not as enjoyable to fire.  The heavy wood, the bolt, even the bayonet, make the bolt-action rifle seem more like a real weapon.  With its combination of steel and plastic, I can see why Vietnam-era soldiers called the M16 “the Mattel gun”.  However, with 30 round magazines and a quicker rate of fire, each of those is clearly a superior military weapon, or a “shit hits the fan” civilian weapon, than any bolt-action.  I do have the bayonet, though, which is long and bad-ass.

After WWI it was effectively retired.  WWII use was limited to UK Home Guards, plus some of the US troops in the Philippines who defended the islands against the Japanese in 1942 were equipped with these.   Nationalist Chinese troops sometimes used them – though they’re usually equipped with Mausers.  Denmark's Sirius Patrol in Greenland still uses this rifle. 

Someone wrote into the National Rifleman about what appeared to be a 1917 Enfield bayonet with plastic grips and a 1960s date marking.  It turns out they used the same bayonet on the 1897 Winchester shotgun.  In the trenches, the US soldiers would hold the trigger down and pump the gun, quickly sweeping any Germans out of that traverse - much to the annoyance of the Germans.  While the rifle was well out of the US arsenal by the time Vietnam rolled around, the shotgun was still in use, so they issued brand new bayonets for it.  Mystery solved!

FYI:  US troops fighting in the North Russia group used Mosin-Nagants, both because it was the local rifle (7.62x54R) and because the US had a surplus of them left over from a contract with the Tsar which could not be delivered before the Russian Revolution.  US troops sent to Vladivostok (east Russia) used Springfields. 

Vs. Springfield.  My understanding is that US troops preferred the Springfield, and most gun writers (self-professed experts) seem to agree that the Springfield is the better rifle, though for all I know much of this could be one writer simply repeating what another said, and so on, until an “everyone knows” consensus is reached which no one bothers to question.  It’s supposedly heavier than a Springfield, but to me it’s a light rifle anyway, so that issue doesn’t ring with me.  To me, a Springfield reminds me heavily of my Mauser 98K, hardly surprising as they simply copied the Gewehr 98 (the WWI version of the 98k) to make the Springfield.  My wishlist for guns includes the Gewehr 98, the Gewehr 43, an FN FAL, and a few others.  If I win the lottery, it’s time to look into Class IIIs.  In the meantime, bolt actions are fun to fire and cheap to buy: including this one.

Movie.  The Lost Battalion (2001) featuring Ricky Schroeder, portrays a unit of the 308 Division which was cut off by the Germans in the Argonne Forest in 1918.  Mostly New York bastards, they refused to surrender even after being not only surrounded but attacked several times.  A German officer complains, "these Americans don't retreat when they're supposed to," to which his superior sarcastically remarks, "how inconsiderate of them."  The main rifle featured - by US soldiers - is the Enfield.

A Face In The Crowd

Thanks to Reason Magazine for a brief article describing this film, and another, “Meet John Doe”, both of which I had been unaware of previously.

This was a 1957 film which brought Andy Griffith to stardom and led to him getting his famous TV show.  More recently he was known for “Matlock”.  He died fairly recently, in 2012.   He was born in North Carolina, died there, and went to UNC-Chapel Hill.

Anyhow.  A radio exec, Marcia Jeffries (Patricia Neal, who I recall from “The Fountainhead” as Dominique Francon, alongside Gary Cooper as Howard Roark) discovers “Lonesome” Rhodes (Griffith) in the drunk tank of the local jail in northeast Arkansas.  She quickly realizes that he’s a flamboyant, charismatic personality and catapults him to local stardom.  Soon he’s in Memphis and impresses Mel Miller (a younger – but still looking old – Walter Matthau) who he thereafter refers to as “Vanderbilt ‘44” when Miller reveals his academic credentials. 

Eventually Rhodes winds up in New York and befriends some powerful people, including Senator “Curly” Fuller, who is running for President but isn’t particularly popular.  Rhodes cultivates a Will Rogers persona of an honest, simple country boy from Arkansas but shows considerable guile and duplicity behind the scenes and no compunction about hawking patent medicines of dubious value – the company’s own medical expert considers the product to be worthless and the best that can be said about it is that “it won’t kill you.”   

Marcia falls in love with him, and he proposes to her, then his wife (???) shows up and warns her about his wandering penis.  When confronted he claims he received a Mexican divorce but will return to Mexico to straighten it out.  Sure enough he does – and brings back a new, 17 year old bride (Lee Remick).  D’oh! 

The final straw for Marcia comes when Rhodes succeeds at improving Fuller’s poll numbers and brags that his contribution should be rewarded with a cabinet level position.  Defrauding America with sugar pills is one thing, but this clown will now be in the President’s cabinet?  Give me a break.  Marcia sabotages him by putting him ON THE AIR when he thinks he’s off the air - then he boasts that his fans are idiots and he could sell them rotten meat without an issue.  When his audience hears this the phones ring off the hook and his career takes an immediate nosedive – during the time he’s in the elevator from the top floor down to the lobby.  Even his own staff – a team of black servants – can’t help laughing at him.  We don’t see whether he kills himself – Marcia herself tells him “JUMP!” – but in any case you can stick a fork in him, he’s DONE.

It’s tempting to compare him to Trump, which was Reason’s point in bringing up the movie at this particular time.  Hillary’s campaign has succeeded at revealing some fairly unsavory remarks DT made in private, in particular his bragging about grabbing women intimately.  So far he hasn’t come out and expressed his own contempt for his followers, and so far they seem to write off whatever he says, no matter how outrageous and politically incorrect, as “locker room talk”, as if all men brag in the locker room that they simply walk up to women and grab their vaginas.  It’s moot: even if he confessed to murder or child molesting, his backers would whine “BENGHAZI!  EMAILS!” and still support him.   

For me the movie is remarkable for several reasons.  First, I’ve only seen Griffith as “Andy” and “Matlock”, never in this particularly loathesome role.  Give him credit for knowing how to act, huh?  (Jon Lovitz: ACTING!) Second, the movie is astonishingly cynical for 1957, when I imagined Hollywood was wholesome and innocent until the Vietnam War 10 years later ruined everything – at least until Reagan came around in 1980.  Third, I like Matthau and appreciate seeing him yet again.  Fourth - check out a much younger Mike Wallace (pre-60 Minutes) in this film. Thank you, 

Inglorious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino’s WWII epic, it’s actually quite good.   In some ways it’s a bit overindulgent, but it has charming characters and enough wanton violence to make it all work.  I made it a point to see it in the movie theater when it came out, and when it came out on Blu-Ray I also made it a point to buy it.  Good thing, as this version has two bits which are “…very interesting….”  

First is the “full” “Stolz der Nation” (“Nation’s Pride”), the movie-within-a-movie about Zoller, the incredibly annoying German sniper (Daniel Bruhl) who chases after Shoshanna, Melanie Laurent’s character.  I say “full” because it’s really only about 10 minutes long.  But it is fun to watch.  Did I mention I have that same Mauser 98K he uses?  Well, not that exact rifle, but the same model.  Made in Austria in 1944.  Anyhow.

Second is a feature about the original 70’s film.  The director got a bit part in this movie, as an audience member.  It gave me just enough interest to rent it from Netflix and watch it.  I’d think they could have included the entire film, but once you see it for yourself, you’ll know why. 

It sucks.

First, the original.  Spelled “Bastards”.  It’s another poorly made 70s WWII film like “The Dirty Dozen”, “Force Ten From Navarone”, etc.  A ragtag team of American soldiers, all disciplinary cases for various reasons and NONE of them even remotely likeable or sympathetic – one even has a mustache and long hair, typical for 70s films where the actors have contemporary grooming out of place in the 1940s - wind up on their own after a German plane machine guns the MPs escorting them.  They make an initial attempt to escape to the Swiss border, with the help of a German deserter, until they run into a band of French resistance fighters joined up by an OSS officer – a colonel – who parachutes down and winds up commandeering this group for his mission:  to hijack a German train with the newest V2 rocket.   So these shitty soldiers wind up doing some good after all.  Whoopee.   Watch it ONCE out of curiosity and do NOT buy the damn thing.  I’m glad I didn’t.

Back to QT’s version.

Eloquent, charismatic, yet menacing Hans Landa, an SS officer known as the “Jew Hunter”, flushes out Shoshanna from her hiding place in rural France.  Oh, thank you for the milk.   She escapes and winds up running a theater in Paris which has been – how conveniently! – picked to premiere “The Nation’s Pride”, a propaganda film about a German sniper – still only a PFC despite his exploits – Fredrick Zoller (Bruhl).  Since all the big VIPs of Nazi Germany, including Goebbels, Goering and Hitler, will be at this premiere, it’s a good opportunity to end the war early with a bang.  This is where Aldo Raines (Brad Pitt) and his misfit team of Jewish “bastards” come into play.  Landa arrests them, but then – cleverly realizing that Germany probably WON’T be winning the war – persuades Raines to allow him to negotiate a deal with his superiors which will put Landa somewhere cozy in the US after the war and not in front of a firing squad, the most likely outcome for an SS officer who made a career of killing Jews. 

As you might have heard, Hans Landa steals the show.  Here’s what I find remarkable.  Several of QT’s actors are the real thing.  Christoph Waltz (Landa) is Austrian.  Diane Kruger (Bridget Von Hammersmark) is German.  Daniel Bruhl (Zoller) is half German – his father born in Brazil - and speaks fluent German.  Michael Fassbender (Hicox) (better known as the “young Magneto” in the X-Men films) is half German, half Irish, and also speaks fluent German.  The Gestapo guy even remarks, expressing his skepticism,  “I can’t quite place your accent.”  And Til Schweiger (Stiglitz) is also German.  Hell, even Mike Myers is here, as the British officer who briefs Hicox on his mission (I think he’s pretending to be Austin Powers’ WWII era ancestor).  Really it’s an all-star cast, and everyone really does a spectacular job.  Bravo.

As you can see, the plot has nothing in common with the original.  I take it as QT’s “homage” to those poorly made, lousy plot, low budget 70s films like its namesake, and the outlandish plot of his own likewise mirrors his source material.  But by adding in Landa, Raines, and an excellent cast, QT ironically makes an excellent film that’s actually worth watching more than once.  Danke!

Evil Queen, Evil King

Tempers are flaring on Facebook these days about the election.  In particular, the Trumpers and Hillary crowd are at each others’ throats, and the Johnson camp – myself included – have been caught in the crossfire.  Even nominal Libertarians are pulled in to vote for Trump or Hillary instead of Johnson.  At this point I don’t believe my blog will change anyone’s mind, but I do feel some points are worth making.

GOP Victories.   Obama won handily in 2008 and 2012 against McCain and Romney.  Not landslides, but not razor-thin margins.  George W. Bush’s victories against Gore (2000) and Kerry (2004) were razor-thin, even to the point where recounts were necessary.  For his part, Bill Clinton easily beat George H.W. Bush in 1992 and Bob Dole in 1996.  The last overwhelming GOP victory was in 1988:  Bush Sr. vs. Dukakis.  Let that sink in.

Neither major party has enough hardcore voters to carry the election by themselves.  Appealing to independents and moderates is a must.   So picking a candidate that ONLY your side likes is a recipe for failure.  The Democrats did it in 1988, and the GOP has been doing it ever since 1992.

Good vs. Evil.  A few weeks ago I discussed Machiavelli, and “The Enemy Within” episode of Star Trek, the Original Series, in which Kirk and Spock agreed that a starship captain needs some evil in him to be effective.  Ronald Reagan we could call 60/40 (good/evil), while Jimmy Carter was probably 90/10.  What’s the right balance?  Ideally over 50 on the good, but 60-75 is probably the max.  Beyond that, you wind up with a President who is too good for his own good, too naïve, and even with the benefit of experienced advisors, may still be too trusting of foreign leaders.  With dangerous bastards like Vladimir Putin out there, we need someone who can compete on his terms.  My impression is that Hillary will lock horns with him – and NOT necessarily effectively - while Trump would sell out the country if he could make a profit on the deal.  His loyalty to anyone outside his own family is nonexistent.

Remember Spielberg’s movie “Lincoln”?  Abraham Lincoln is probably our most esteemed and virtuous President.  Yet even he showed some very clever guile and duplicity behind the scenes.  My impression is that Spielberg wanted to show us that even with that, Lincoln was still a good President and a good man – but that there was more to him than we give him credit for. 

Among the current candidates, Hillary Clinton is probably no better than 50/50, and most likely 40/60.   She falls below the threshold of good vs. evil.  Disqualified?  Maybe, but Donald Trump is more like 5/95.  Finding any trace of good in this man is almost impossible.  Whatever good he has is reserved for his immediate family, and the country does not qualify.

 

Gary Johnson looks similar to Carter in this regard.  I don’t see a whole lot of cynicism or guile, but there is some there.  And Weld probably has enough.  So in addition to their superior platforms, and both being former state governors – the highest ranking executives in this country short of President – I’d say they meet the requirements.  Barely.

In fact, because both Hillary Clinton AND Donald Trump are evil, neither is an acceptable substitute for the other and neither should be President.  We should not vote for one to avoid the other.  We should not settle for less than a GOOD President, as opposed to a less evil President.   I can’t say I’ll be able to persuade anyone at this …juncture…but the least I can do I present the argument.