Music Reviews: Little Richard, King Floyd

Little Richard

Little Richard (born Richard Penniman) likes to refer to himself as "The Architect" of rock-n-roll. He certainly is one of the founding fathers. He was and is a flamboyant larger than life personality who had massive influence on a wide range of disparate peer and subsequent musicians such as Otis Redding (who worked in his band), Elton John, Bon Scott and Brian Johnson of AC/DC, Prince, Tina Turner, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix (who also briefly worked in his band), Jerry Lee Lewis, Queen, David Bowie, James Brown, Bruno Mars, Wilson Pickett (who copied and extended his hard screaming style of singing), Bob Seger, Billy Preston and many many more. Like fellow 50s stars Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley and Ike Turner, Little Richard transformed up tempo blues and R&B shuffles into rock-n-roll. For his part Little Richard was himself heavily and primarily influenced by gospel performers such as Marion Williams, Mahalia Jackson and Rosetta Tharpe (who gave the teenaged Little Richard his first big break in show business) and also pop or blues performers such as drag queen pianist and singer Esquerita and jump blues singer Billy Wright. More than any of his contemporaries, Little Richard brought an expressive performance style to his live shows, something that would and did drive both men and women to frenzies. He may have been among the first performers to inspire women to throw their underwear at him. As he was often performing in the segregated south this wasn't always the safest thing to have happen. 

Where Elvis Presley might swivel his hips and Chuck Berry would do his trademark duckwalk (originally designed to hide a problem with one of his pants legs) Little Richard raised the bar exponentially on what people could expect to see at a rock-n-roll show. Along with his EXTREMELY loud tenor voice, Little Richard also would play the piano with a foot on top, hump and bang the piano, jump on top of the piano, scream (in key of course), strip off his top and occasionally more, use light shows, and just generally put on a physically demanding show that would always leave him totally exhausted and the audience begging for more. He would do all this in heels, sequins and capes, a six inch pompadour, plucked eyebrows and caked on makeup. 

Although Little Richard's shows in the South started out segregated by the end of the show often blacks and whites would be dancing in the same place or worse yet, together, something which scandalized the authorities. The famous powerhouse New Orleans based session drummer Earl Palmer, who played on most of Little Richard's 50s hits, said that he helped invent rock and roll just by dropping shuffle rhythms and moving to straight-eighths out of desperation to try to keep up with Little Richard's frantic right hand. Little Richard was quite capable of playing various slow blues and gospel shuffles but it's on the fast numbers that he really shines. His voice is so loud I almost imagine it making the speakers and microphones jump in the studio. It's often overlooked as to how much rock-n-roll grew out of New Orleans music. You can hear a little of what Palmer was talking about by listening to "Directly From my Heart" and "Lucille". "Lucille" is a sped up rewritten version of the first song. As you might notice some of Little Richard's 50s hits sound quite similar to each other. From Earl Palmer's pov this is because rock-n-roll was nothing more than really fast blues. He's said that much of Little Richard's music was quite simple but extremely exciting.

Little Richard rarely spoke publicly about his sexuality, maybe in part because it was so obvious to everyone who knew him. His band members were mostly straight and occasionally joked about flying under the radar with groupies who wrongly assumed they were all like Little Richard in terms of their preferences before discovering that they weren't. Little Richard has also said an effeminate image also helped him become something of a crossover success with white audiences. So although his style was not entirely an act it's certainly something that he may have deliberately exaggerated. There were few quicker ways for a black man in the 1950s South to get in serious, criminal or even deadly trouble than to be seen as interested in a white woman. Little Richard avoided that by confounding people who didn't know what to make of him. Ironically though, songs like "Miss Ann" appear to be about a romantic dalliance with a white woman. Although his biographies, a few of his statements, and stories by some of the aforementioned band members tell of Little Richard's same sex interests and escapades, he was also married for a short time and allegedly also had relations with women. Perhaps definitions just don't apply to Little Richard. In his first big hit "Tutti-Frutti" , he had written these lyrics:

"Tutti Frutti, good booty / If it don't fit, don't force it / You can grease it, make it easy"

Unsurprisingly the record company determined those lyrics might be a bit hard to sell in segregated decidedly gay-unfriendly 50s America. Another writer was bought in to help Little Richard reshape and rework the song. Because Little Richard is strongly religious, like many other similar gospel and pop performers down through the years he has occasionally struggled with what he saw as his sinful secular lifestyle and has repeatedly withdrawn from and returned to performance, at times even becoming a preacher.  Check out "The Rill Thing", "The King of Rock-n-Roll", "Freedom Blues" and "The Midnight Special" for examples of his seventies sound. He made three albums on Reprise that were of a piece with then current rock, soul and funk stylings. Little Richard has made various comebacks over the years but of course now age and health concerns have strictly limited his public appearances and performances. Still, if you don't know Little Richard, you don't know rock-n-roll. Not really. He's one of the last people still alive who actually started rock-n-roll. WOOOOOOOOOOOOO! SHUT UP!!!

Good Golly Miss Molly  Jenny Jenny Tutti Frutti Keep a knockin  Directly from my heart
Lucille Long Tall Sally I don't know what you've got (w/Jimi Hendrix) Rip it Up
Send Me Some Loving Slipping and Sliding  Miss Ann  Ooh My Soul  Wondering
The King of Rock-n-Roll  The Midnight Special  Freedom Blues Heeby-Jeebies
Shake a Hand  Ready Teddy  She's Got It  The Rill Thing By The Light of The SIlvery Moon






King Floyd

King Floyd was a New Orleans funk/soul singer who attained some brief fame in the early to mid seventies. His first hit , "Groove Me" became a hit by accident. No one wanted to distribute his first single so Floyd and his record company were reduced to trying to break it themselves by handing out free copies to DJ's or other trend setters. "Groove Me" was the B-Side with "What Our Love Needs" as the A-Side. Floyd and his management thought that "What Our Love Needs" would be the hit. One radio DJ who received the record played the A-Side for about a month with not much interest coming in from listeners. A different DJ took the single to a party where as it turned out everyone wanted to hear "Groove Me" for the entire duration of the party. That's how the song broke in New Orleans. It soon rose to national prominence. It stayed on the R&B charts for 20 weeks. It reached as high as #6. Floyd's next release was the lyrically innocent but sonically downright naaasssty "Baby Let Me Kiss You". The way Floyd groaned and moaned the song it sounded to some people as if "to kiss" wasn't the only transitive verb that Floyd intended to perform upon the young lady. The song was pulled from some radio stations for being risque but perhaps because of the controversy it did even better than "Groove Me", reaching #5 on the R&B charts. Even today that song is still less profane and more erotic than a million modern songs full of profanities.

King Floyd had a very down home New Orleans/southern sound to his music which made sense as his early hits were overseen by New Orleans legend Wardell Quezergue, a pianist, arranger, producer and bandleader who was one of the godfathers of the New Orleans music scene. Quezergue had worked with everyone from Fats Domino to Jean Knight and Dave Bartholomew among others. King Floyd also recorded with the Memphis Horns and the Muscle Shoals group.

King Floyd was not a great singer or one who was going to blow people off the stage with volume. But I liked his work. He was smooth without being syrupy. Check out his ode to monogamy "So True". On most of his early work the bass is VERY prominent, and often even carries the melody, something you hear often in some funk music. There's also a fair amount of space in the arrangements. I LOVE LOVE LOVE his song "Handle With Care". It's so simple and yet so intense. "Think about it" is an Otis Redding song which Floyd sings in Redding's style. "Don't Leave Me Lonely" is a string laden tearjerker ballad. I like the guitar fills but find the song a bit saccharine. But everyone has different tastes, no?
All good things come to an end. As happened with many soul or funk musicians of Floyd's generation the advent of disco brought a swift and premature end to his commercial music career. Floyd tried to adapt by recording the disco tune "Body English" but after that he found himself without a record company and never again had any sort of hit. He passed away in 2006.  His work was consistent. If you are curious about early seventies funk or simply are tired of overproduced simplistic modern R&B you could do worse than to listen to some of Floyd's work. Music like this is why I love live bands.

Groove Me  What Our Love Needs  So True I Feel Like Dynamite  Handle With Care
Baby Let Me Kiss You  Hard to Handle Body English  Think about it  Can't Give It Up
Don't Leave Me Lonely Woman Don't Go Astray

What's your retirement plan?

After a long hectic day of fighting crime while maintaining my secret identity as a mild mannered accounting IT analyst I was minding my own business when out of the blue the batcave emergency phone rang. As most people don't have that number and those that do know not to bother me during the time when the phone rang, against my usual instincts I decided to answer it. It was indeed an emergency. An older maternal relative, one of my few remaining ones, needed help. She had been hesitant to call as on both sides of my family I have over the years quite deliberately cultivated a reputation as someone who can be a little cold when it comes to money. I'll help if I must but there's a 100% chance I'm going to want to know how you got yourself in a spot where you need my help, if I can ever expect this money back, and what is your plan so that I don't have to give/loan you my money again. I like my money more than I like my little cousins, nieces and nephews. And I love them very much indeed. Ok, that's hyperbole. But not by all that much. I'm not going to put all my relative's business in the street as that would be wrong and is not really the point of this post anyway. I did decide to assist her and have no expectation of seeing that money again. I decided to help because she is a) far past retirement age, b) is a woman, and c) had no one else but my brother and I to turn to. Younger and especially male relatives probably would have not gotten assistance. That may be "sexist" or "ageist" but it is what it is. Enough said on that.

What inspired me to write this post was that in helping my relative and finding out some of her story I was inspired to take a honest look at my own wealth (or relative lack thereof) and future retirement plans. I'm doing much better than I was five years ago but am definitely not where I'd thought I be twenty years ago. Like the saying goes, life is what happens while you're making other plans.

Traditionally your retirement package was supposed to be akin to a three legged stool. You were supposed to be able to rely on a) Social Security b) company pension and c) personal savings and investments. To stretch the analogy somewhat that stool could be covered in the security blanket of a paid off house, affordable health care insurance for seniors and maybe an annuity or two. So during your golden years, you should ideally be able to enjoy a lifestyle close to if not better than what you had when you were scuffling and struggling in your youthful days. Things didn't work out that way for my relative. Things probably won't work out that way for a lot of people if the data means anything. There are a lot of reasons that saving is not as "easy" as it would have been for the generations that preceded mine. The two biggest reasons in my opinion are a stagnant real income and acceptance of easy credit to buy almost everything. Real income is stagnant because of globalization, destruction of unions, automation and importation of cheap labor at both the high end and low end of the job market. There are fixes to this of course but they are outside of what I want to write about today. In order to deal with that loss of income people have adapted to using credit cards for everything and worse, carrying balances. When you do this not only do you buy stuff you probably wouldn't buy if you had to pay for it with cash, but you also waste your money on penalties, fees and interest charges. 
LINK

Roughly three-quarters of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, with little to no emergency savings, according to a survey released by Bankrate.com Monday.

Fewer than one in four Americans have enough money in their savings account to cover at least six months of expenses, enough to help cushion the blow of a job loss, medical emergency or some other unexpected event, according to the survey of 1,000 adults. Meanwhile, 50% of those surveyed have less than a three-month cushion and 27% had no savings at all.

Last week, online lender CashNetUSA said 22% of the 1,000 people it recently surveyed had less than $100 in savings to cover an emergency, while 46% had less than $800. After paying debts and taking care of housing, car and child care-related expenses, the respondents said there just isn't enough money left over for saving more.

Fewer companies provide pensions these days, having largely replaced them with 401K plans. The issue with 401K's is that not only are many people really not all that savvy investors but more importantly the risk and liability of market swings have been switched from companies to employees. Risk is fine and perhaps even a requirement when you're young. But when I retire I would prefer the certainty of knowing I will have a yearly pension payment of $XX,000 until I die rather than be exposed to market risk. Unsurprisingly the big shots at companies, the CEO's and other company officers tend to still have pensions and quite lucrative separation agreements.

We've discussed Social Security before. Although AFAIK the program is still actuarially sound for at least the next few decades, it likely will need some adjustments. It will continue to be attacked both by conservatives who never liked it in the first place and strangely enough liberals or "centrists" looking to make grand bargains. Do I think the program will pay out the same benefits when I get to the front of the line as it does currently? I've never been a lucky man so I would tend to doubt it. We shall see. I just went over to the SSA website to calculate my expected retirement benefit. It was nice, but was hardly enough to keep me even close to my current standard of living.

Finally there is personal savings. Compared to the other two legs of retirement this is the easiest for the individual to control. You get to make decisions on how you spend your money. You also get to make decisions on what career you pursue and/or what second job or other business opportunity you perform. And if you're young, as I no longer am, you have years and years and years to work and transform that income into wealth. Sadly many people ignore personal savings and spend money as if they're millionaires. They carry balances on credit cards. They buy things that they've lost interest in a year later. By the time they reach the point where retirement is no longer a theoretical concern they find that years of living paycheck to paycheck have taken their toll. So my relative's emergency just reminded me that I must do a better job of saving the money I earn at my corporate job, continue to earn and build a financial life outside of my twice a month paycheck, and look for ways to cut unnecessary spending. I don't think two or three decades down the line there will be any cavalry riding over the hill to save me from financial mistakes or unforeseen setbacks. That's a sobering feeling but also strangely enough an exhilarating one. I have to make the moves now to guarantee that I don't wind up broke and homeless. It's all on me.

Questions:

Are you content with your level of wealth/savings?

Do you think you are or will be ready for retirement?

If you were flat on your back financially do you have people who would help?

Do you often help relatives out financially?

Detroit mob beats driver who hits child

I was going to write about a foreign policy situation that was on my mind but that can wait as some news a bit closer to home is getting national attention. A suburban man named Steven Utash (pictured above with family) driving a pickup truck accidentally hit a young Detroit boy who ran out into the street. The man got out to help/see what happened and was attacked by a group of teens and men who beat him into a coma.

One of two teens is charged with assault with intent to murder after their arrest on suspicion in the brutal beating of a driver who hit a Detroit boy last week, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy announced Monday. Bruce Edward Wimbush Jr., 17, faces charges of assault with intent to murder and assault with intent to do great bodily harm. Wimbush is to be arraigned at 2:30 p.m. today in 36th District Court before Magistrate Millicent Sherman. The 16-year-old hasn’t been charged yet and remains in Wayne County Juvenile Detention Center, with a court hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m. at the Juvenile Detention Center. The two are believed to have been among a crowd that attacked Steven Utash, 54, of Clinton Township on April 2 after his truck struck a 10-year-old boy who ran into the street. When Utash got out to check on the boy, he was severely beaten by people “with their fists and feet,” according to a news release from Worthy.

LINK
I was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan. There are many reasons I live outside the city but a major one certainly has to be crime. The city has a high number of crimes of violence and theft. The city has a new police chief who has overseen many high profile arrests and raids as well as an increasing number of Detroit citizens who, faced with home invasions, have fought back with deadly force. But an incident like the one shown in the video below the jump can lead to increased fear and loathing between city and non-city residents. It also may lead to a man dying. Accusations of racial animus and bias are over local radio stations and newspaper comment sections. I don't really know about that. I suspect that the mob may well have attacked the driver regardless of his race. But that's small comfort to the driver who is currently clinging to his life or to the young boy with a broken leg. If some or all of the mob can be shown to have acted out of racial animus then they should be charged under the relevant hate crimes laws. I have no problem with that. I do find it sadly ironic that locally some mostly white people are immediately certain that race was an issue in this case but did not see race in the George Zimmerman case.

We can't take the law into our own hands without giving everyone else the same ability and thus devolving into a Max Max society. Some cynics would likely claim that some areas of Detroit are already like that. This incident brought up questions of when if ever it is appropriate to hit someone and not stop. My understanding is that you're supposed to stop or go to the nearest police station. It also raised the question of who is at fault when a pedestrian is hit. When I learned to drive it was drilled into me that the pedestrian almost always has the right of way, even if they do something stupid. I do a lot of driving in Ann Arbor, where pedestrians and bicyclists routinely ignore the most basic traffic laws. However here the initial police investigation has determined that the driver was not at fault. So there was no reason for anyone to have attacked Utash. Now if this man dies, would his family or friends then be justified in finding the people who did it and removing them from the planet. Because that is what would be on my mind. But where does it stop. There has to be one law for everyone. And that means that no matter how much you might want to deal out some street justice, you can't do that. Many of us have been in or will be in an auto accident at some point in our life. Should we really expect that even in tragic situations like this one, that we should prepare for a mob attack? There is another local case where evidently white or Arabic men beat a white Army vet because he said or did something nice for a black person. UPDATE: Prosecutor declines to file charges against men who beat Army vet. She says vet started the confrontation. LINK



Fox 2 News Headlines

HBO Game of Thrones Recap: Two Swords

Well we're back. Everybody ok? Everyone had a good year? Everyone's loved ones safe? That is not counting the Starks. They are most definitely not okay as Season Four's premiere takes special pains to beat into the head of anyone thick enough not to have figured that out from the horrific events of Season Three. Season Four opens up with Ice, the Stark heirloom Valyrian greatsword and symbol of Ned Stark's authority, being melted down and made into two swords by orders of that great pragmatist, Tywin Lannister. Just for kicks or because he's nothing if not a thorough man, Tywin also has a wolf pelt (is this the remains of Grey Wind?) burned. The symbolism is strong in this one, Lord Vader. Tywin gives one of the new swords to Jaime Lannister and acidly explains that the extremely rare Valyrian steel is from someone who doesn't need it anymore. Tywin is pleased as punch to have his bouncing baby boy back again, even missing a hand. He plans for Jaime to return to Casterly Rock to rule. These plans don't coincide with Jaime's own though and he angers his father by refusing to leave the Kingsguard. His father coldly dismisses him. Tyrion, Bronn and Podrick are part of the greeting party to meet Prince Oberyn Martell of Dorne, who is arriving for the wedding between King Joffrey and Margaery Tyrell. Typically, Prince Oberyn has marched to the beat of his own drummer and entered King's Landing earlier than expected. 

Both Prince Oberyn and Tyrion being sent in their respective envoy roles are intended as passive aggressive insults by both House Lannister and House Martell to each other. Tyrion is of course a dwarf while Prince Oberyn is attending in place of his brother, Dorne's ruler Prince Doran, who claimed to be too ill to attend. Prince Oberyn is the brother of Elia Martell, who was raped and murdered by Gregor Clegane, The Mountain. Prince Oberyn has not forgotten and doesn't mind reminding people he hasn't forgotten. He is easily riled up and appears to be almost completely id. Both he and his paramour Ellaria Sand enjoy the intimate company of both genders. Just hearing "The Rains of Castamere" song is enough to make Prince Oberyn stab a Lannister flunky. This could have been comedic if done the wrong way but I think it just barely worked. Oberyn certainly embodies the Latin stereotype. 

Daenerys ' dragons have become much bigger and squabble with each other over meat. They also aren't above snapping at their "mother". Daario and Grey Worm gamble to see who gets to ride at Daenerys' side. Neither wins but it doesn't matter as Daario later brings flowers to Daenerys under the guise of teaching her about local ways. She likes him. She REALLY does. I'm only a young man with not a lot of experience in these things but when a woman looks at a man like that, something is about to happen. Jorah, aka Lord Friend Zone, had better make his move fast!!  Daenerys intends to take the slaver city of Meereen. She's not intimidated by warnings in the form of crucified slave children along the road.

In King's Landing, Sansa is coping about as well as you think someone would cope if they believed that they were the only member of their family left alive and had heard of the savage mutilations done to their relatives' corpses. Tyrion is unable to comfort her. He's also unable to make peace with Shae, who is becoming more insistent in her attempts to share his bed again. Against all logic Shae blames Tyrion for his marriage to Sansa, even though she knows he didn't want it and has not consummated the marriage. Speaking of lack of rationality Cersei was not super happy to see Jaime again and blames him for as she sees it "leaving" her and getting captured and mutilated. In fact she's so unhappy that she no longer wants to play the twincest game anymore. In Cersei's mind banging your brother is hot. Banging your one handed brother is evidently not. Adding to Jaime's stress is the fact that Brienne (rather humorously attired in a skirt and leather outfit) keeps reminding him of his promise to Catelyn Stark to protect and release her daughters. 

Brienne also interrupts an atypically honest discussion between the Queen of Thorns and her granddaughter Margaery (cleavage alert!) where the two are discussing the upcoming wedding and Joffrey's viciousness. Brienne explains to Margaery how Renly really died and her plans for revenge. Margaery doesn't really care. As Margaery says, Joffrey is king now. This plays out under a statue of Joffrey standing on a dead wolf. Say one thing for Joffrey, he doesn't lack for ego. As Jaime and Ser Merin discuss and argue over security protocols for the wedding Joffrey talks about how he defeated Stannis . He mocks Jaime's mutilation and apparent lack of great deeds.

Up North, Jon Snow is trying to process the deaths of his brother and stepmother. This seems to be a bit of a misstep. He appears more numb than anything else. Maybe that's the feeling they were going for but I didn't find it all that convincing. Of course Jon's sworn to take no part in non-Wall activities and has his own problems to deal with. Jon Snow has a tribunal to face which is presided over by his old enemy Alister Thorne. The recently exiled Janos Slynt (who betrayed and helped execute Ned Stark) is also there. Both men are eager to shorten Jon by a head but are overruled by Maester Aemon. For his part Jon is confident and tells nothing but the truth. He warns of the impending Wildling attack though Thorne doesn't believe him. South of the Wall Tormund is taken aback by Ygritte's intensity in creating arrows and reminds her that if Jon Snow is still alive it's because of her. Both Tormund and Ygritte are nonplussed by the arrival of Styr and his Thenns. This group of wildlings has been raiding, raping and killing. Styr, at least, also practices cannibalism. Styr's wrongness can't be overestimated. This was well done. Sansa likes to go to her godswood both to pray and for solitude. This being King's Landing, her comings and goings are watched by spies of various factions. Ser Dontos, the inept knight whose life Sansa saved, comes to her in the godswood to thank her. Dontos gives her an amethyst necklace that was his mother's.

In the night's final and most intense scene Arya and The Hound ride through the northern part of The Riverlands, now no longer under Tully control. The Hound speaks of how Arya is safe with him because he doesn't steal/rape. He intends to ransom Arya to her Aunt Lysa at The Vale. Arya reminds him of his murder of the butcher's boy and in what appears to be a shout out to Omar from The Wire, The Hound shrugs and says a man's gotta have a code. They approach a tavern where Arya recognizes Polliver, a Gregor Clegane/Lannister soldier who killed her friend Lommy and stole her sword Needle, which he still has. The Hound doesn't want any more trouble at this point and tries to stop Arya but she's too quick. Both The Hound and Arya enter the tavern. Polliver and his group of Lannister soldiers are drinking, carousing and on the verge of raping the innkeeper's daughter. Polliver recognizes The Hound. In an attempt at camaraderie Polliver tells of all the torture and stealing he's been doing under The Mountain's banner and how it's all legal. He doesn't notice Arya's expression. Polliver then says that The Hound should join them in the King's name. The Hound says "F*** the king" and orders Polliver to bring him some chicken.

In a really cool set piece which reminded me of a similar scene from There Will Be Blood, The Hound drinks not only drinks his beer but also Polliver's.  His face dares Polliver to do anything about it. He also says he wants two chickens now and if Polliver says one more word then The Hound will have to eat every chicken in the joint. Polliver asks him if he's ready to die and The Hound snarls that someone's going to die. The violence finally breaks out and The Hound shows that he really is the Big Dog when it comes to killing people. Arya takes the opportunity to kill a few on her own, especially Polliver, who she kills with Needle in the same way he murdered Lommy. The Hound and Arya depart. It's something of a bonding moment, as Arya now has her own horse, something that previously The Hound did not trust her to have.

This was a good premiere that set the stage for future events and reminded us that the past is still very much a part of people's present day experience. These wounds may be obvious, like Jaime's missing hand, or internal like Sansa's horror at imagining her mother's and brother's deaths and seeing her father's but the wounds are still there just the same. Tyrion was mostly reacting to other people so he didn't have a whole lot to do. I thought the introduction of the Martells was a little over the top but this is television not print. I liked the reminder that The Hound is a very dangerous killer. It's what he does. Although we may, if we are Stark bannermen, cheer at Arya getting a little payback, in my mind it's still important to recognize that killing people and travelling with one of the most notorious killers in all of Westeros, is certainly not the life that either of her now deceased parents would have wanted for her. It's a tragedy.

*This post is written for discussion of this episode and previous episodes.  If you have book based knowledge of future events please be kind enough not to discuss that here.  NO SPOILERS. NO BOOK DERIVED HINTS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS. Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea....

Book Reviews: The Devouring Dragon

The Devouring Dragon: How China's Rise Threatens Our Natural World

by Craig Simons

I'd like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realized that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we... are the cure.
Agent Smith 
This book details the numerous ways (warming skies, shrinking forests, vanishing animals, poisoned rivers and seas, floods, etc) in which China's growth harms the world environment. China leads the world in CO2 emissions. It produces double the amount that the United States does. China burns most of the world's coal. Forests are disappearing and animals are being hunted to extinction because of Chinese demand. Starting this book it is initially difficult to avoid the conclusion that China in particular and the world in general are overpopulated. The Chinese market threatens almost every worldwide natural resource. Simons argues that China is raising the world's metabolism with grim results. Disturbing and frankly deficient Chinese cultural practices like poaching tigers, elephants, rhinos, or sharks to near extinction are detailed. Unfortunately so-called traditional Chinese medicine targets such animals for alleged medicinal or sexual value. The more normal worldwide practice of building dams, increasing industrial productivity, and expanding human settlement into previously untouched areas causes problems within and beyond China. I am sympathetic to wild animals. So I was angered by detailed descriptions of various Chinese cruelties (taking bile from a bear by the sadistic, senseless and cruel method of sticking a knife into a live bear's liver and letting it bleed out). But putting aside odd culinary and cultural aspects, China is doing very little that so-called Western nations haven't done. Chinese partisans point that out whenever China is correctly criticized for its environmental devastation and degradation.

Westerners have criticized the Abrahamic religious view that man has dominion over the world and its flora and fauna. This Western view of man as being above and outside of nature is echoed in Confucian views of man establishing dominance over nature.

So we should dismiss prejudice and look at the facts. There are fewer wildernesses and wild animals remaining in Europe and the Americas precisely because as generally "Western" nations, most of the countries on those continents pursued an unsustainable mode of development that wreaked havoc on the natural world. But today those nations have a higher standard of living than other nations. Just speaking of the United States, I can drive long distances, have my home as hot or as cold as I like it at any time of the year, purchase any kind of food anytime I want regardless of local season, and waste water or electricity with abandon. All of this has a cost. The problem, as this author repeatedly says, is something which economists have called the tragedy of the commons. You can read more about it here. The basic concept is pretty much the same as externalities. If some process which is important to me causes problems to you but you lack ownership over the resource I'm using, then I have no incentive to change. And unless you want war it's hard for you to stop me. This is doubly true if:

1. I don't like you anyway.
2. I'm convinced that your complaints are really the hypocritical bleats of a rival/competitor.
3. I'm positive that success requires my actions.

All of these things may be true with regards to China and the Western powers. Under a purely cold hearted capitalist model China may not care if pollution created in China wafts over to the western coast of the US.

• The population of China is equivalent to the population of North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand, and all of Western Europe -- combined.
• The population of China is equivalent to the combined population of the former Soviet Union, plus Pakistan, Afghanistan, Finland, Poland, Slovakia, Romania, and Hungary. Oh, and all of Southeast Asia, Japan, and both Koreas.
• The population of China is equivalent to the population of Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East put together. 
• The population of China is equivalent to that of the world's second most populous country, India, plus that of Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh.

LINK

The days when the West could make China bend the knee by dispatching a few battleships to its coast are gone. China can't be forced to act against its will. China will only alter its approach if the United States and other advanced economies stop offshoring so much capital investment and labor to China and/or if China itself sees a benefit, real or imagined, to adapting to a more sustainable lifestyle and economy. Currently the incentives generally run in the opposite direction. And few people in the non-Western world are going to listen to Westerners lecturing them about sustainable lifestyles. They all want cars and nice clothes and air conditioning and meat and cigars and fur coats and everything else that they see rich (Western) people in advertisements enjoying.

Simons is fully aware that we can't force Chinese change. But he still ends the book by saying he is optimistic. He thinks that if the US can lead the way China will respond, especially as the costs of despoiling their environment become more obvious to Chinese citizens. 
I can't really share his optimism. As a Chinese zoologist quoted in the book said, " As a CITES negotiator I've been to thirty or forty countries over the years. I've met people all over the world. And I often tell them that I've never found a nation with a more selfish attitude toward wildlife than we Chinese have. This is not an exaggeration. If we're going to save any wildlife we have to be honest about it. Traditional Chinese medicine and our traditional idea that we should eat everything are the problem. If we can't change our mentality, all of our wildlife and all of the wildlife in the neighboring countries will be gone." To conclude, although this book may wrongly be seen and dismissed by some as the latest invocation of Yellow Peril, it actually is a reminder of just how much every living creature on this planet is connected to everyone else. If you remove wolves, deer get out of control and destroy grasslands and forests. And so on. It is not that China must change so that it may be kept down. Everyone must change for the good of the world community. And it must be the Chinese themselves who lead the way in abandoning their outmoded practices. Shame will probably need to play a role. This book is short, direct and to the point.

Rude Italian Hand Gestures

Apropos of almost nothing at all I ran across this video when I was searching for the name of a particular gesture. I love the lady's deadpan comedic expressions. I was also greatly amused by this video because it reminded me of my college Italian teacher, who for the most part did not deliberately teach her class the more profane expressions but when annoyed certainly used a few of the gestures shown here. I guess if you ever find yourself in Italy or among certain groups of Italian-Americans some of these things could come in handy for letting people know exactly what's on your mind.

Are Rap Music Lyrics Criminal Confessions?

Did you know that there is an increasingly frequent prosecutorial tactic of using rap music lyrics, or at least rap music lyrics written by black musicians, as evidence of criminal activity or conspiracy or as crimes in and of themselves? It's something that doesn't make a lot of sense to me but there are a lot of things in this world that don't make a lot of sense to me. In order to make these kinds of arguments you would think that prosecutors would have to do violence to all sorts of standards of evidence as well as the first amendment and basic logic but I'm not a prosecutor. I thought that you might have some sort of right to free speech and the ability to create fiction, even disturbing fiction, without having it be seized upon as a criminal confession but apparently I was wrong.

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — The case had gone cold. Four years after the 2007 murders of Christopher Horton, 16, and Brian Dean, 20, detectives here had little to go on. No suspects. No sign of the gun used to shoot the men. No witnesses to the shooting outside a house where officers found Mr. Horton sprawled next to a trash can and Mr. Dean on the front porch.  But in 2011, the case was reassigned to a detective who later came across what he considered a compelling piece of evidence: a YouTube video of Antwain Steward, a local rapper with the stage name Twain Gotti, performing his song “Ride Out.” “But nobody saw when I [expletive] smoked him,” Mr. Steward sang on the video. “Roped him, sharpened up the shank, then I poked him, 357 Smith & Wesson beam scoped him.” Mr. Steward denies any role in the killings, but the authorities took the lyrics to be a boast that he was responsible and, based largely on the song, charged him last July with the crimes. 

Today, his case is one of more than three dozen prosecutions in the past two years in which rap lyrics have played prominent roles. The proliferation of cases has alarmed many scholars and defense lawyers, who say that independent of a defendant’s guilt or innocence, the lyrics are being unfairly used to prejudice judges and juries who have little understanding that, for all its glorification of violence, gangsta rappers are often people who have assumed over-the-top and fictional personas. In some of the cases, the police say the lyrics represent confessions. More often, the lyrics are used to paint an unsavory picture of a defendant to help establish motive and intent. And, increasingly, the act of writing the lyrics themselves is being prosecuted — not because they are viewed as corroborating an incident, but because prosecutors contend that the words themselves amount to a criminal threat.

LINK
I'm not a big rap music fan and haven't really been since the early to mid nineties or so. The music no longer speaks to me. That said, in today's pop music and certainly among the past there have been all sorts of lyrics that may or may not be disturbing, challenging, stupid, boastful, sexist, racist, simple, complex and every other adjective good or bad that applies to art that human beings created. These lyrics are usually understood by most people who do not exclusively breathe through their mouth as not to be taken literally. For example, consider the following:

Dangerous song lyrics that were really criminal confessions.

Well I stand up next to a mountain and chop it down with the edge of my hand
Voodoo Child (Slight Return)- Jimi Hendrix

I'm your doctor when in need/Want some coke have some weed
You know me I'm your friend/Your main boy, thick and thin
I'm your pusherman
Pusherman- Curtis Mayfield

I hear the click clack on your feet on the stairs/I know you're no scare eyed honey
There'll be a feast if you just come upstairs/But it's no hanging matter/it's no capital crime
I can see that you're just fifteen years old/No I don't want your id
Stray Cat Blues- The Rolling Stones

Freedom came my way one day/And I started out of town
All of a sudden I saw sheriff John Brown
Aiming to shoot me down
So I shot -- I shot --- I shot him down and I say:
If I am guilty I will pay
I Shot the Sheriff- Bob Marley

You let me violate you/You let me desecrate you
You let me penetrate you/You let me complicate you
Help me I broke apart my insides/Help me I've got no soul to sell
Help me the only thing that works for me/Help me get away from myself
I want to f*** you like an animal
Closer- Nine Inch Nails

Your world was made for you by someone above
But you chose evil ways instead of love
You made me master of the world where you exist
The soul I took from you was not even missed
Lord of This World- Black Sabbath

I've got something to say/I raped your mother today
And it doesn't matter much to me/As long as she spread
Last Caress- The Misfits                                                                                                           

If this logic put forth in the NYT story holds then someone should have arrested Jimi Hendrix for EPA violations, arrested Curtis Mayfield for racketeering, narcotics trafficking and conspiracy charges, arrested Keith Richards and Mick Jagger for pandering and statutory rape, arrested Bob Marley for first degree murder, arrested both Trent Reznor and The Misfits for rape, and arrested Ozzy Osborne and Geezer Butler for being the Devil.
Seriously.
To me this is very simple. If a prosecutor has serious evidence that someone committed a crime then of course they should pursue a case against that person. But using a piece of music as such evidence and actually convicting a person of charges based on nothing else than their music is ridiculous, unless you also believe that Robert DeNiro is a dangerous hit man/mob boss/serial killer; The Shining really was Stephen King's confession of child abuse; or that based on his characters' descriptions and internal thoughts in A Song of Ice and Fire, George R.R. Martin is a man with an unhealthy interest in teen girls who should be locked up before he harms one. I mean how stupid is this? Using a rap video as evidence in a criminal trial of a rapper seems like using the infamous eyeball scene in Casino to prove that Joe Pesci is really a dangerous killer for the Chicago Outfit.  

This appears like nothing so much as (1) a way for lazy prosecutors to avoid doing serious work of finding real evidence of criminal behavior and (2) for authoritarian types to shut down black identified music that they don't like. It's the same of story of assuming that whatever black people are doing, in this case rap music, is pathological. And race aside, I think the actions of these police and prosecutors show a serious and quite problematic hostility to free speech. But I could be wrong of course...

Thoughts?