In the Beginning (Guitar)

These days I’m teaching guitar – informally.   And it brings me back to my earliest days learning to play guitar.  Here are my thoughts.

Guitar Learning 101.   My first attempt at learning guitar was at Marymount, with a teacher giving lessons, who we’ll call Mr. M.  Mr. M gave me some basic strumming exercises which bore no resemblance to any music I wanted to learn, and did not even deign to inform me as to their relevance or importance as any skill set I would need for any particular form of music.  Possibly they related to the Beatles’ skiffle origin, but again, I was arrogantly given these instructions without the least bit of instruction.  Needless to say I gave up on that immediately.

Guitar Learning 201.  Fast forward a few years – 1985 – and my brother came back from lessons with Joel (where is he now?) beaming that he’d learned the intro riff to Whitesnake’s “Saints & Sinners”.  Woohoo!  Now we’re talking.  The next week I went to Joel and started learning AC/DC and Black Sabbath riffs.  Not the entire songs or any solos, just the intro riffs.  You’d bring a cassette of what you wanted to learn, and Joel would figure it out by ear and teach you how to play it: he’d even write it down on blank tablature sheet so you could refer to that at home and practice from that. 

Of course, learning that way got us started out quickly, but eventually you realized that it was sui generis: without learning principles, you would need his assistance to learn everything and weren’t learning the basics.  Joel was happy to teach those if you wanted.  He also explained that reading sheet music was of marginal utility for a guitarist:  standard music notation was designed for classical instruments like piano and violin, while tablature was expressly designed for guitar. 

Guitar Learning 301.  Fast forward (not all that far, actually) to freshman year at University of Maryland, College Park, fall 1986.  I met a friend named Baron (where is HE now?) who showed me what I thought was impossible: he had learned, note for note, practically all of Black Sabbath’s songs – including the solos.  WHOA.  That blew my mind.  Eventually he let slip that he hadn’t figured them out himself, he simply referred to The Black Sabbath Anthology and learned them from the tablature.  However, that does take immense patience, for which he deserves superlative credit.  For my part, I did the same and learned the solos for various Black Sabbath songs, including “Paranoid”, “War Pigs”, “Iron Man”, and “Black Sabbath”. 

    But here’s something even funnier.  If you listen to live material, you’ll notice that Tony Iommi, Angus Young, and most other guitarists rarely play the solos note-for-note in concert.  In interviews, Iommi admits that he never had the patience to sit down and actually write a solo that way, or learn to play his own recorded solos verbatim.   So when Baron blazed away at these solos, as I did later, we were doing something the guitarist himself never bothered to do.  Alex Lifeson, of Rush, is among the few guitarists who meticulously works out a solo and diligently reproduces it live. 

Guitar Learning 401.  By my junior year of college, I had learned the secret:  blues & pentatonic scales, from the Heavy Guitar Bible.  Once I learned these scales, picking out AC/DC and Black Sabbath solos myself became simple, and the Black Sabbath Anthology – which I’d lost moving in summer 1988 and never replaced – became unnecessary.  I even managed to learn the extended solo of Black Sabbath's “The Warning”, and the solo to Judas Priest’s “Dreamer Deceiver”, on my own without any tablature. 

First guitar.  My brother and I started out on an old acoustic we’d had for years.  For Christmas 1985 we got our first electric guitar: an Ibanez Roadstar II (black, no pickguard, rosewood fretboard) with three single coil pickups, essentially Ibanez’ proprietary-styled copy of a Fender Stratocaster.  We still have this guitar. 

            For my part, I was enthralled by the Fender Stratocaster, but I realized that those guitars were too expensive to justify a purchase by a beginning guitarist.  Over the Christmas vacation, I worked at the Office of American Services (OAS), the US Embassy section which makes tourist passports.  I earned enough over 2 weeks to buy a cheap copy – by a company called Applause – of a Stratocaster, in cherry sunburst with a maple fretboard.  By November 1986 I’d replaced it with a Japanese Fender Stratocaster in black, rosewood fretboard, and locking tremolo (we’ve since sold both guitars long ago).  But the Ibanez and Applause were my starts.

I still need to refer to tablature for trickier songs, and I never did master the skill set of the Beatles’ strumming and skiffle basics.  But thanks to Joel, I started out on guitar and never gave up.  Thanks to Baron, I learned solos - and indirectly, learned to improvise on scales.  I imagine the next level will be learning the skill sets behind the Beatles’ and Grateful Dead guitar techniques.

California Suite and Carbon Copy

A late entry this time, both due to writer’s block – I’ve exhausted the Christmas issues – and sheer being busy out of town in NJ with the holidays.  So hopefully my readers will excuse the lateness and also the completely non-holiday topic, two movies we watched recently.

California Suite (DVD).   When the recent fuss and scandal about Bill Cosby erupted, I re-watched Eddie Murphy’s “Raw” footage where he discusses – at length – Cosby’s lecture to him about the foul language in his act.  You know, the one where he mimics Cosby: “I would like to talk to YOOOOO… about some of the THINGS, that you SAY…on your SHOW.”   At the end, he talks about consulting with Richard Pryor, who tells him “tell Bill to have a Coke and a smile and shut up,” also “Bill Cosby can [perform oral sex on Mr. Pryor].”  He also implied that Pryor himself had been similarly lectured by Cosby way back when.  So I wondered if Cosby and Pryor had ever worked together.

            It turns out they did: in this film.  This is a 1978 film based on Neil Simon’s play.  It features five couples having various issues.

            1.  Sidney Cochran & Diana Barrie (Michael Caine & Maggie Smith).   The Chicken Lady of Griffyndor is in L.A. nominated for a comedy (that in itself is implausible) at the Oscars.   She bickers back and forth with her husband, who is a thinly closeted antiques dealer in London.  Essential plot? Uptight, pretentious British people.

            2.  Bill & Hannah Warren (Alan Alda & Jane Fonda).   Hawkeye and Hanoi Jane bicker about their daughter Jenny (Dana Plato) who has decided to leave her mother (who lives in NYC but goes to DC frequently because of her important job) and live with her father in sunny, laid back L.A.   Essential plot? Uptight, pretentious Americans.

            3.  Marvin & Millie Michaels (Walter Matthau & Elaine May).   Marvin comes into town for his son’s bar mitzvah only to find to his horror that his brother – a promiscuous bachelor – took it upon himself to send a hooker, Bunny, to his hotel room.  His wife took a flight the next day, and shows up at the hotel leaving Marvin wondering how to hide this blonde passed out in his bed.  Matthau lathers up the same pathos and whining he did as Oscar Madison.  Essential plot?  Oscar Madison finally gets a girl in his bed, but it’s not his wife.

            4.  Willis Panama & Chauncey Gump (Bill Cosby & Richard Pryor) and their respective spouses.  Yes, Cosby and Pryor bump ugly here, big time.  They seem to be doctors competing against each other in Chicago, and that competition spills over into their vacation in L.A.  Essential plot?  Cosby and Pryor fight.  That alone is worth watching.   

Carbon Copy (DVD).  This 1981 film is Denzel Washington’s debut.   Walter Whitney (George Segal) lives a comfortable life in San Marino, California (actually Bel Air), a suburb of L.A.   He drives a Rolls Royce, lives in a fancy house, and has a sexually repressed, uptight wife Vivian (Susan St. James, not to be confused with Jill St. John).  Everything is going fine until Roger Porter (Washington) arrives on the scene. 

            It seems that 20 something years ago, Walter got a job working for Nelson Longhurst (Jack Warden), his current father-in-law.  Nelson was aware that Walter had a relationship with a black woman, Lorraine Porter.  Cynically, Nelson persuaded Walter not only to change his name from Weisenthal to Whitney, but also to dump Lorraine and marry his daughter Vivian.

            Unknown to Walter, Lorraine had a son, Roger.  Recently Lorraine died, and Roger comes looking for his father.  This screws up everything.  Vivian cannot accept having a black son in the household, and kicks out Walter.  His Rolls, which was a company car, goes back to Nelson.  He loses his job.  It turns out 100% of his assets were in Vivian’s name.  So he’s literally homeless and broke.  Moreover, Nelson has the clout to have Walter blacklisted, which prevents him from simply getting another job.  His lawyer Victor (Dick Martin) takes Vivian’s case in the divorce [red flag: obvious conflict of interest, Victor would get a call from the bar about this].

            Roger and Walter find a furnished apartment in Watts, of all places, with Walter taking day laborer jobs like cleaning stables. 

            Is there a happy ending? Yes:  literally a minute before the closing credits roll by.  Seems to me, though, that Walter would have been better off marrying Lorraine back in the day, being in Roger’s life from day one, and telling The Man (Nelson) to piss off way back then.  

Back Country Roads

On my most recent drive back from Fort Lee, ultimate destination Frederick, Maryland (hi Mom!) I varied the route even more.  Normally I’d take I78 west, continue onto I81 west past Harrisburg, follow that all the way to Hagerstown, Maryland, and then loop back east on I70.

However, my travels on Route 30 through Pennsylvania, particularly from York to Lancaster and back, put me across the Susquehanna River at Wrightsville/Columbia.  Route 30 crosses the river on the Wrights Ferry Bridge, a modern 1972 four lane bridge.  Yet parallel to 30 is 462, part of the old Lincoln Highway, and crossing the river on the Veterans Bridge, a much fancier old bridge dating from 1930.  Imagining the traffic across this bridge being Model T’s and A’s is not hard at all – at least not for me. 

The map also shows that Route 30 continues west of York all the way to Gettysburg, where it hits Route 15 coming up from Frederick.  BINGO.   I took this route.  However, while Route 30 is 4 lanes with a median from York to Lancaster, and fairly rapid transit, west of York it zips down to another two-lane country road:  scenic but none too fast.  Two towns along the way have roundabouts, though.  From Gettysburg to Frederick, Route 15 passes through blue mountain scenery, a good complement to the turn-of-the-century small-town route of 30 from York to Gettysburg.  

As it is, Route 30 continues further west of Gettysburg to Chambersburg, where I81 passes through on its way up from Hagerstown.  And Route 15 continues northeast of Gettysburg to Harrisburg, where I81 likewise comes up from Carlisle.  All these roads are connected?  Amazing.  I had no idea.

FARM ON THE FREEWAY.   Sometimes you’re in a hurry.  You don’t have time to take the scenic route.  In that case the freeway is better.  But it’s a rare freeway that gives you any kind of view.   The New Jersey Turnpike is probably the most efficient at bringing you from Delaware to NYC as quickly and directly as possible, but no part of it is attractive.  I70 between Frederick and Hagerstown, and I78 between Allentown and I287 in New Jersey, are the nicest freeways I’ve seen in awhile. 

Bypasses.  Every now and then a major highway passes through a city center.  I95 passes close by downtown Baltimore and Richmond, and right through the center of Providence, Rhode Island.  I91 in Connecticut cuts right through downtown Harford.   Also many newer, modern interstates often seem to run parallel with older, slower routes.  In New Jersey, I80 follows Route 46, I78 follows Route 22 (continuing west into PA), and along the East Coast I95 closely parallels Route 1.  The newer highways tend to bypass the big cities while the older routes run straight through.   It all depends on how much of a hurry you’re in and how much you want to see. 

Other things to consider.  (A) Tolls.  I mentioned in a prior blog, the fastest route from DC to NYC and back has the most tolls.  Driving through PA has no tolls up to NY and only $1 going back.  Modest 4 lane state routes and two lane back country roads almost never have tolls.  (B) Traffic.  Much of the speed of freeways is compromised by construction delays, accident delays, and plain old rush hour traffic.  Theoretically, the NJTP route to NYC is 4 hours under optimal conditions, compared to 5 hours toll-less through PA.  But traffic delays can easily erode that advantage by 30 minutes or an hour, completely negating it.  (B) Night-time.  The picturesque views of the countryside are almost impossible to see at night, so the aesthetic advantage of the back roads is almost nil if you’re travelling then. 

Back Roads Part II – A Vast Conspiracy

If I were inclined to believe that totalitarian dictatorship, despite its dismal track record to date, nonetheless remains the optimal choice of government for a modern society, I could find a clever way of introducing it.   Naturally, Americans and Europeans intoxicated and addicted to this hazy notion of freedom, as abstract and meaningless as it might be, therefore resist vehemently and stridently any overt efforts to restrain said liberty.   Thus subversion and misdirection are necessary to achieve the desired outcome.

My fellow travelers of the so-called Pinko Persuasion, though their motives be pure, nonetheless fall prey to the easy siren song of mass transit.  Buses, trains, light rail, etc.   If we can’t control how people think – though that remains a work in progress on our campuses across the country – at least we can control where they go.   However, America is a huge country.  Adapting the entire country to mass transit on the interstate, intrastate, county, city, and neighborhood level is obviously impractical.

No.  The better solution is this:  adapt the interstates to computer control of otherwise privately owned vehicles.   Upon entering the freeway, the vehicle’s computer links with the Traffic Computer to disclose passengers, origin and destination.   The Traffic Computer coordinates this with all the other vehicles on the same road.  The Traffic Computer takes complete control of each and every vehicle.   Not merely speed, but also steering, braking, and lane changes.  New vehicles will be equipped to allow this; older vehicles can be retrofitted at no expense to the vehicle owner.  A condition of travel on the freeway is the express consent of each driver to relinquish manual control of the vehicle to the Traffic Control computer until the vehicle exits the freeway at its appropriate exit and rejoins the local roads.  

Doing so would allow traffic on the interstate to flow much more rapidly and safely.   55 mph?  Consigned to the horse and buggy era.   Try 100 mph.  That’s more like it.   Drivers can sit back and read, sleep, consume intoxicants, perhaps even engage in more pleasurable activities (monitored by the Traffic Computer – for purely safety reasons, of course) without any fear of loss of control or accidents.   The end result?  Faster traffic, less accidents, and immensely improved monitoring of the travel patterns of America’s private citizens.  

Why not add police stations to the freeways?   “Drivers” or passengers identified as having outstanding warrants could find themselves diverted to the proper authorities by the ever-cooperative Traffic Computer.  Since all drivers relinquish control of their vehicles upon entering the freeway, the Traffic Control computer could theoretically take them anywhere – not merely their intended destination.  If our immediate goals are less ambitious….then others, merely under surveillance, can be observed easily and records retained.  The only way to avoid scrutiny would be to either stay home or remain on the “small roads”.   And our goal is a step closer….

Robert A Heinlein

Lately I’ve been alternating between Robert A. Heinlein (hereinafter, “RAH”) and Philip K. Dick (hereinafter, “PKD”).   I downloaded their respective bibliographies and have been reading them in order of writing or publication, although I’ve already read their more popular and mainstream books.   Since I’ve already written on PKD, I’ll cover RAH now, a topic long overdue.

RAH, born 1909, died 1988, started out as a Navy engineer (USNA Class of 1929) and later turned into a science fiction writer.  Scientists and geeks love his material because he has a very strong basis in sound science and made a strong effort to make his sci-fi technology as plausible as he could. 

Early.  His earlier material, the novels Rocket Ship Galileo through Methuselah’s Children, could be described as “space cadet” fiction.  The protagonist is often a young man with ambitions of being a space pilot.   He encounters problems, adversity, and danger, but always seems to defeat these obstacles by determination, skill, intelligence, and some luck.  Romance is a non-issue, with girls and women being baggage.   Uppity women complain that the spaceship lacks the luxuries and amenities they enjoyed on Earth and somehow expect to find on a spaceship, so the ship’s captain puts them to work in the galley washing dishes for the remainder of the voyage to shut them up.  Absolutely, positively NO SEX.

            If you’re adult looking for sci-fi, his later work is better.  If you’re looking for some Hardy Boys in Space fiction for your 12 year old son or daughter, the earlier work is better.  Describing them all isn’t productive, as there are about 20 of them and they’re all pretty much the same.

Late.   Starting with Starship Troopers, Heinlein began writing for adults in the late 1950s.   He makes up for the lack of sex earlier with rampant promiscuity.  Mind you, this isn’t erotica: the sex is definitely implied yet never described. 

Unlike the earlier stories which are fairly formulaic and consistent, the later stories can be distinguished from each other.  I’ve yet to read one I didn’t like, but the following four should be considered the CORE RAH books to start with – even to own.

Starship Troopers (1959). The space cadets grow up and go to war against an alien bug race.  Powered armor, like Battletech!   RAH also starts injecting politics into the story, which also ups the sophistication.  He has a strangely militant form of libertarianism which resembles fascism at a casual glance.  

In particular, only military veterans have the right to vote, but this has several loopholes:  first, you don't have to be a combat veteran, you simply have to have served in the military; second, you can't vote until you've been honorably discharged and are now a civilian, so active duty military cannot vote; and third, and most importantly, the military has to accept literally anyone who volunteers, regardless of how poorly qualified they might be (e.g. blind, crippled, etc.).  Moreover, the penalty for desertion is none:  not death, simply nothing.  But you won't get your honorable discharge and the right to vote.  I consider this more of a later novel than the last of the early ones.  I saw the movie ages ago, but this is yet another story where reading the book is definitely the way to go; consider the movie a bonus - especially since Paul Verhoeven, who did the film, misunderstood Heinlein's politics and deliberately made the movie as stupid as possible.

Stranger in a Strange Land (1962).  Valentine Michael Smith is the sole remaining human left from an expedition to Mars.  Instead of wolves, he was raised by Martians, so he has supernatural powers he barely understands because he takes them for granted.  Also, his thinking – at least at first – is impenetrable.  He’s entrusted to a crusty old cynic, Jubal Harshaw, and eventually becomes something closer to a sideshow Jesus, with his own cult, although much more articulate and worldly.  Stranger is to Rocket Ship Galileo as Abbey Road is to Please Please Me.  I have the unabridged version released in the recent past, but since I read the abridged (as originally published) version so long before, I can’t tell you what the difference is.

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (1966).  Settlers on the moon colony, which is somewhat of a penal colony, decide to break free from Earth’s dominance.   Mannie, the technician who services the moon’s computer system, HOLMES IV, soon discovers that HOLMES IV has actually achieved self-awareness, and calls him Mike.  They team up with Wyoming “Wyoh” Knott, and start a secret rebellion against Earth.   Mike comes in handy by adapting the moon’s catapult system, designed to get ships lifted off, into a deadly cannon to use against Earth.  Along the way libertarian values are espoused, and Mannie learns how to organize a clandestine organization with cells, etc.   Very anti-establishment, and very entertaining.

Time Enough For Love (1973).  The cornerstone story for Lazarus Long, a fascinating character who pops up in other stories.   Long is the patriarch of the Howard Clan, which is a family of extremely long-lived persons who interbreed only with others specifically invited because they share a genetic propensity for longevity.  Oh, Heinlein was also BIG on genetics, by the way, and it’s front-center in this book.  The clan has also developed a rejuvenation treatment which is proprietary – they do NOT share it with non-clan members.  Long is cynical, lusty, and clever.  He even goes back in time to the early twentieth century and romances his own mother (her story is told, from her perspective, in To Sail Beyond The Sunset).  Did I mention how lusty he is?   Rather than one continuous story, though, this is a collection of related stories which do have a consistent pattern.  

Longevity.  Clearly the rejuvenation business showed Heinlein's obsession with extending life and eternal youth.  I Will Fear No Evil tells of a Monty Burns-type old man who transplants his brain into a young woman in a brief experiment with prolonging life.  And Beyond the Horizon features a world government project to determine if there is life after death.  Unfortunately for us, RAH did not find the answers, but he was certainly active in looking.

Finally, I’ll add For Us, the Living, (not to be confused with Ayn Rand’s novel We The Living, with which it has nothing in common).  It was written in the late 40s but only published recently.  A man from the 40s winds up in the future and has to adapt quickly.  It seems in the future, nudity taboos are gone, so everyone walks around half-naked.  Maybe that was why it was shelved for so long….

Comparison with PKD.  Heinlein is very political, very science oriented, and very fact-and-reason based.  While you may never have all the answers until he gives them to you – which he will – you are never flat out confused or bewildered.  The furthest outside the box RAH gets is Number of the Beast, in which the main characters meet other Heinlein characters – as characters; it also acts as Heinlein’s tribute to Burroughs’ John Carter stories.  PKD loves to twist stuff around intensely, making us doubt our reality and our sanity.  Heinlein remains grounded in reality and never leaves.   Control freak types who prefer everything neat, tidy, and scientific might prefer Heinlein.  Others, who don’t mind thinking outside the box – WAY outside the box – can look to PKD for entertainment.  But since I read them both, they’re not mutually incompatible, just completely different flavors for completely different moods.  Enjoy.

Justice Denied?

Guess what – more civil disorder, thanks to a second instance of prosecutors inexplicably (?) unable to bring indictments against allegedly misbehaving police officers.   Shortly after the Ferguson debacle – even protested in New York City – NYC itself wound up embarrassed after a cop walked free after apparently choke-holding a black man to death – on camera, no less.  Eric Garner, Public Enemy #1, was investigated for bootleg cigarettes.  Clearly a very dangerous man.

Indictment.   This isn’t a conviction, this is merely an official criminal accusation, for which the standard is extremely low, “probable cause.”  Every state has a different criminal procedure, so the specifics vary widely, but generally an indictment is something any prosecutor can get if he asks for it, ESPECIALLY if there is anything close to strong evidence – e.g. videotape – of a crime being committed.  The indictment would fail only if there was practically no evidence at all.   Mind you, the defendant doesn’t have to be implicated beyond a reasonable doubt, that standard is reserved for trial.  The indictment is merely an accusation.

Given how easy it is to secure one, how do we explain the prosecutor in Ferguson, Mr. McCulloch’s, apparent failure to do so against police officers not once but FIVE TIMES, including this one?  Perhaps it’s because his father was a cop, killed in the line of duty.  Perhaps it’s because he wanted to be a cop himself.  Perhaps it’s because he’s a prosecutor, and as such works with and for cops every day.  To expect this man to be objective and go after a police officer accused of killing a criminal is just too much.

I don’t know about the prosecutor in the Eric Garner case, but even Judge Andrew Napolitano, a conservative talk show host, wondered why that indictment failed.  At least this should go to trial.

Mind you, the prosecutors in Florida, who were sympathetic to Zimmerman and reluctant to press charges, at least brought that case to trial.  The same holds true with the Rodney King trial of officers (Koon, Powell, Briseno & Wind) in April 1992 (that travesty appears more the fault of the Simi Valley jury and less that of the LA prosecutors).  To not even get an indictment smacks of extreme corruption.

Personally, I don’t know for certain if Officer Wilson is innocent or guilty.  That would have been for a jury to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, at a trial.  Why would Michael Brown, who was apparently unarmed, attack Wilson?  Why would Wilson shoot Brown, who was apparently unarmed?  Wilson’s story was that he was immediately threatened by Brown, even to the point where he claimed Brown would take his weapon from him.  In that case, why didn’t he shoot Brown in the arms?  Arnold to John Connor, after shooting a mental institution security guard in the legs, even after Connor had specifically given the Terminator orders “not to kill anyone:” “he’ll live.” 

            And how much times did he shoot?  Six?  There are as many holes in Wilson’s story as there were in Brown’s body.  Plus, the delay in picking up Brown’s body, the delay in filing reports, the delay in disclosing Wilson’s identity, all elements which pile up and look extremely unprofessional – as if the police department was in cover-up mode, because they knew Wilson screwed up – big time.   Bottom line is that there was much more than enough evidence to satisfy a probable cause standard, and thus an indictment, and thus a trial. 

Now we have the NYPD closing ranks around a cop, Daniel Pantaleo.  Even after the police themselves (!!!) ruled Garner’s death a homicide, somehow we’re deprived of even an indictment. 

Christopher Dorner.  You may recall the manhunt in LA for this “rogue” LAPD officer who issued a rambling manifesto before being surrounded in his cabin and taking his own life.  According to Dorner, he was fired from LAPD for making a false report against a fellow officer, Evans, who he accused of beating a handcuffed, mentally ill suspect.  An LAPD investigation concluded that Evans had not done so.  Dorner appealed the termination all the way up to the California Supreme Court, and at each level the LAPD decision was affirmed. 

            Dorner’s manifesto alleged, among other things, that (1) LAPD is extremely racist and that he was routinely called a “nigger”, yet such activity was ignored and accepted; (2) that the superiors at LAPD responsible for the Rodney King beatings were not only still on the force, but had been promoted; (3) that LAPD does not hold its officers accountable for mistreatment of civilians, closing ranks to protect its own – Dorner’s crime was not filing a false report, but filing a report at all. 

            Unfortunately for Dorner, he also saw fit to call out to various celebrities, e.g. Charlie Sheen, in what appears to be an effort to solicit their support for his cause.  The result, though, was that the celebrities in question ignored him, and the press mocked him for doing so without addressing any of the substantive issues raised in his manifesto.  Without retroactively re-trying Dorner’s specific case, certainly the events in the recent past indicate that Dorner’s complaints about LAPD should be re-examined objectively. 

Thin Blue Line.  I saw this bumper sticker around fairly often: a black rectangle with a thick blue line crossing horizontally in the middle.  This is a cop callout, symbolizing the role of police in keeping law & order amidst the darkness of crime in society.  Often the police perceive themselves as the only defenders of justice against a rampaging horde of violent criminals.   Is the black of the rectangle also supposed to imply the race of their opponents?  Possibly, but not necessarily.   But the cops consider themselves to be a sacred fraternity.  Internal Affairs (the PD section responsible for disciplining cops and wiping out corruption) seem to be pariahs.  Ratting out a fellow cop is verboten. 

            Examine “Magnum Force” (1973), the 2^nd “Dirty Harry” Callahan (Clint Eastwood) film.  A radical subset of the SFPD, including officers portrayed by Robert Urich, David Soul, and Tim Matheson, turn vigilante and begin taking out mob figures who somehow managed to escape the criminal justice system.  Assuming Callahan to be sympathetic, they attempt to recruit him, without success.  As frustrated and disappointed as Harry might be with the obvious shortcomings and inconsistent success of the system, he’s still sworn to uphold it (notwithstanding chucking his badge at the end of the first movie).

            “Serpico” (1973) is a similar story – although in this case, actually true.  In his case, Serpico was trying to stop corruption in the NYPD, which was widespread and open.  But no one helped him, he was ostracized, and almost killed when his fellow officers refused to back him up on a drug raid in a violent part of town; presumably he was “set up”.    

Bad Cops.  Every profession has its “bad apples”.  There are bad lawyers, bad judges, bad doctors, bad accountants, bad chefs, bad talk show hosts, bad actors, bad interior designers, bad priests, etc.  Cops are humans, humans are imperfect, and thus make mistakes, some not quite so honest.  It used to be that if a cop went bad, an innocent person went to prison based on perjured testimony or phony evidence.  Now it seems the court and prisons are cut out of the deal, and the bad cops simply fast-forward to being executioner as well. 

            The Bar takes attorney discipline extremely seriously.  They do NOT want outsiders coming in to discipline their own, so they are scrupulous about weeding out bad attorneys.   But it seems the police close ranks and protect their bad apples, shielding them from discipline and prosecution.  The prosecutors do their part by weaseling the indictment procedure in favor of suspect cops.  And the result is a police force which is no longer accountable to its own people.   “To care and to protect” – but who protects us from them?  Is this a good thing?  Is the Thin Blue Line worth it?   Many of us would disagree.  Not all cops are bad, of course, but those who are should be held accountable.  

  

Riots.   After the King verdict was announced, LA erupted in riots which lasted for 5 days and killed 63 people.  “Dark Blue”, the movie with Kurt Russell, features some of that.   At the original riots in Ferguson, the police made obvious use of military vehicles and weaponry, compromising their legitimacy and helping Rand Paul’s chances in 2016.  This time around the armored cars and Urban Assault Vehicles seem to be stowed away – at least away from the cameras. 

            On the other hand, the rioters attack their own neighborhoods, loot their own stores, and help themselves to merchandise which has no real connection to Brown’s shooting.   I see the NYC protestors seem to be the more Ghandi non-violent types, laying down, holding hands across the West Side Highway, deliberately avoiding violent confrontation with the police but still making a nuisance of themselves to everyone else in NYC.  The indiscriminate violence of the Ferguson crowd is liable to further entrench the Red State Reactionaries who take the police at their word and firmly believe Wilson and Pantaleo must be 100% innocent. 

Civil Suits.  Even without criminal charges or convictions, the victim’s relatives can still bring a civil suit against the police, for wrongful death.  Since the civil action is completely different and has a much lower standard of proof – preponderance of the evidence – the lack of an indictment or conviction in the criminal case is not necessarily a bar to a civil recovery.   Garner’s estate has filed a $75 million civil suit against NYPD; it is highly likely that Brown’s family will do so against the Ferguson PD.  In addition to Federal charges and convictions against the same 4 LAPD officers, Rodney King successfully sued LAPD and won $3.8 million, something which no one ever seems to mention.

Solutions?

1)         The most obvious is to use independent, outside investigators and special prosecutors to handle these matters.  The local DA cannot be trusted to do this.  Should we act surprised when these clowns cover for their cop buddies?  Enough. 

2)         Federal charges.   In some sense the Feds do this when they come in and bring their own charges, as they did against the Rodney King officers.  Maybe Eric Holder can finally be useful for a change.

3)         Civil Remedies.  Recall also, as noted above, that Rodney King walked away with $3.8 million, so not only did he survive, he earned some measure of justice.  That’s $3.8 million more than I have. 

Justice denied? – STAY TUNED.  

King Arthur & Camelot (x3)

Recently I acquired “Camelot” on Blu-Ray, the musical about King Arthur.   With no less than three major films on the subject, my blog topic has arrived.

No knows if King Arthur really existed, and if so, when.  We’re just sure it was England and some time in the Middle Ages, probably in that vague time before the definite lineage was conclusively established, after the Roman Empire collapsed and when the Vikings were raiding from Minnesota, minus the horned helmets we know they never wore.  Our best guess is the fifth and sixth centuries. 

The idea is that Arthur somehow united the knights of England into a Roundtable Coalition of chivalry and honor, as opposed to “might makes right”.  The wizard Merlin served as his advisor and supported him with magic. His Queen was Guenevere.  Unfortunately, Arthur’s top knight, a Frenchman named Lancelot du Lac, fell in love with the Queen and this romance doomed the Coalition to collapse from hypocrisy.  Arthur had a half-sister, Morgan La Fey, who seduced him and gave him a suitably arrogant and cynical bastard child Mordred, consistently a villain in the story.  Fairly early in the story Arthur acquired the sword Excalibur, which gave him “supreme executive power” over England without a “mandate from the masses”.  He either pulled the sword from a stone or was distributed by the aquatic tart, the Lady of the Lake – or possibly both.   

Camelot (1967).   Richard Harris, lately Dumbledore in the “Harry Potter” films, and father of Jared Harris, the stuffy Brit on “Mad Men”, plays King Arthur.   Vanessa Redgrave is Guenevere, the Queen, and Franco Nero (aka Django!) is Lancelot du Lac.   Lots of song and dance here, very dramatic and fun…until Lance and Jenny fall in love, which screws everything up.

            I thought I recognized Lionel Jeffries, i.e. King Pellinore, was also Caractacus Potts (Dick Van Dyke’s) father, in “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang”.  He was only 40 something at the time and was playing characters much older than himself.  He was younger than Dick Van Dyke.

            Like “Excalibur”, the film bogs down in its second half.  The Roundtable Coalition breaks down and knights are exiled because they tell Arthur about Lance & Jenny.  After telling Jenny he’d never leave her no matter what season it was, Lancelot leaves anyway. Then Arthur is manipulated by Mordred (David Hemmings) into trying and condemning Guenevere.  Of course Lancelot comes to the rescue!  [Someone should do a mash-up which splices in Lancelot from “Holy Grail” slicing through the bridal party to rescue Terry-Jones-as-Prince.]

            My parents loved this film and we had it on VHS.  Even as non-music-lovers they still had the soundtrack tape.   Again, reviewing the movie with the benefit of 2014 knowledge… I see:

            A)         Richard Harris’ resemblance, not merely by face but also voice, to Jared Harris.  No way I had seen “Mad Men” back in Paris in the early 80s.

            B)         Guenevere is kind of slutty!  “Lusty days of May?”  Manipulating three knights to take on Lancelot?   The palace whore indeed.  If her promiscuity was common knowledge, why burn her at the stake for romping around with Lancelot?  “Now you’ve gone too far.”

            C)         Mordred.  I never noticed him at all before.  Funny, I had seen “Blow Up” and several other movies Hemmings was in.  However, I had noticed Merlyn, who called him “Wart”, and this business of pretending to be animals.  “What do you see?”  That stuff.

            D)         Did Arthur really NOT know?  I believe he did, but decided the shame of being the cuckold was the price he had to pay to avoid fighting Lancelot and burning Guenevere.  He was even willing to effectively disband the coalition and exile all those knights whose sole crime was telling him what he didn’t want to hear but already knew anyway.  Mordred simply forced his hand. 

Monty Python & the Holy Grail (1975).  The English comedy troupe put its own spin on the story, focusing on the quest for the Holy Grail and completing omitting Guenevere, Mordred, and even Merlin.  The French role here is not Sir Lancelot (John Cleese) but a French castle somehow in England, full of nasty rogues who taunt them from above.   Cast: Arthur (Graham Chapman), Sir Galahad (Michael Palin), "brave" Sir Robin (Eric Idle), Sir Bedevere (Terry Jones in perpetual falsetto) and the aforesaid Lancelot.  Add in also a bit of animation from Terry Gilliam, who also stars as a squire.  Amazingly funny!  Really, this should be mandatory King Arthur viewing.  Hits include “Just a Flesh Wound”, “the Grail Shaped Beacon”, “Huge….Tracts of Land”, “Answer these Questions Three”, “Some Call Me…Tim”, “The Vorpal Bunny”, “The Knights who Say Ni”, “Anarcho-Syndicalist Peasant” (my favorite) and many, many more.  And how can we forget that meaningful ending which resolved all the issues and closed the story so conclusively?  Not likely. 

Excalibur (1981).   “Camelot” was a musical, “Holy Grail” was a comedy, now we had “Excalibur”, which was serious, bloody, cynical, confusing, plus some naughtiness thrown in for the ladies – you know, the crowd who hates “Lord of the Rings” but loves “Game of Thrones”. 

            Arthur (Nigel Terry) pulls the sword from the stone.  Arthur consults Merlin (Nicol Williamson).  Lancelot (Nicholas Clay) joins the gang.  Morgana (Helen Mirren) seduces Arthur and pops out Mordred.  Lancelot falls in love with Guenevere (Cheri Lunghi), much to their shame, so he runs away.  Arthur and his knights go off in a vague and confusing quest for the Grail.  Mordred returns and fights Arthur.  Lancelot returns.  Everyone dies.  Sorry.  Patrick Stewart, Gabriel Byrne, and Liam Neeson all have minor roles as they started out their careers.

           

Which is best?  Well of course you should watch all three, and they tend to complement each other.  As you can tell, “Excalibur” was bloody and naughty, but those otherwise redeeming elements are compromised by a story which drags on interminably and disappears into a vague and confusing plot fog.  “Holy Grail” has little pretense of giving us a real story as opposed to a linear progression of highly funny scenes bordering on super ludicrous.  “Camelot”, as cheesy and musical as it may have been, actually tells the story in the most direct and simple manner.  So that one might be the best to cap off the trio.  Enjoy.

Nirvana

I’m posting this on Thursday because I’ll be out of town this weekend.  Moreover, my lazy writer’s block has me retrieving an issue which I meant to address earlier but never got around to until now:  one of the top Four Grunge bands, Nirvana.  Actually, I did discuss this band earlier, but that was before I got all three of their albums. 

As I mentioned earlier, my favorites of the grunge genre are Soundgarden and Alice in Chains, both of which I saw back in the early 90’s, the former on the Superunknown tour, the latter on the Facelift tour with Layne Staley, opening for the Clash of the Titans (Anthrax, Slayer, Megadeth) and Van Halen.   Those two bands have a strong Black Sabbath influence which I liked. 

I heard so much Nirvana on the radio – particularly, of course, “Smells Like the Teen Spirit” – and music videos that I was never inclined to actually purchase any of their music.  None of it impressed me.  Kurt Cobain did not impress me.  Nor, for that matter, did Pearl Jam or Eddie Vedder, and while I have Ten and a few others by PJ, I’ve never bothered to see them in concert either.  Of the four bands, Nirvana seem to have a PUNK influence and less Iommi there.  Again, not impressed.

Bleach (1989).  This is their first album, and has Chas Channing on drums instead of Dave Grohl.  Krist Novoselic is the bassist, and of course the guitarist/vocalist/songwriter is Kurt Cobain.  I got the deluxe version with all the extra tracks and live stuff, basically to binge on everything.   It’s more raw and punk-oriented than Nevermind but OK to listen to.

Nevermind (1991).  This is clearly the album that blew them open big time.  “Smells Like The Teen Spirit”?  Yes, it’s on here.  The only songs I like are “In Bloom”, and the extra track (of course I got the two disc “deluxe edition”) “Curmudgeon”, which is Hawkwind-esque.  Whoever decided which songs should be the singles was 100% correct, as the other songs aren’t as good, though not as shitty as to qualify as filler. 

In Utero (1993).   As to say “f**K you” to the record company and all the lesser bandwagon fans who bought Nevermind at Sam Goody or FYE for $16.99, Kurt and the boys got as radio-unfriendly as they could on this album, even to the point of having an obnoxious song called “Radio Friendly Unit Shifter”.   

Kurt Cobain kills himself.  In April 1994 Kurt Cobain shot himself.  Game over.  His body was found after several days. 

            Apparently he was unhappy.  Duff McKagan, the GNR bassist, says shortly before that he was on the plane with Kurt going to Seattle, and Kurt was remarkably upbeat, out of character for him.  Duff said, “ok, that told me that something was very wrong with him.”  He had stomach problems and was also addicted to heroin.

            Among the Gen X crowd I was hanging out with at the time, at Montclair State University in New Jersey, who worshipped Kurt as a modern-day rock god, the suicide really bummed them out.  I was neither happy nor sad, and since Kurt had tried to kill himself before, not surprised either. 

Dave Grohl.  After Nirvana, drummer Dave Grohl formed a band, just for the hell of it, the Foo Fighters.  Like Tool, this band just to screw around ended up being more successful than many bands who actually try to be successful.  Grohl has also played in Queens of the Stone Age and Them Crooked Vultures, a supergroup with QOTSA guitarist/vocalist John Homme and Led Zeppelin bassist John Paul Jones.  I find Grohl much more likeable and normal than Kurt Cobain, though I’m not a big fan of the Foo Fighters and have never seen them in concert.