Saturday, May 31, 2008

Ain't No Cure For The Summertime Blues

Eddie Cochran (1938-1960) died in an taxi accident in England while on a concert tour to capitalize on "Summertime Blues" (1958) about the trials and tribulations of teenage life in the USA.

The song was written in the late 1950s Eddie Cochran and his manager Jerry Capehart as a single B-side, but it peaked at #8 Billboard Hot 100 on September 29, 1958.

The song was used in the 1980 movie "Caddyshack." In March 2005, Q magazine placed it at #77 in its list of the 100 Greatest Guitar Tracks. Cochran's songs have been covered by artists such as The Who, The Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, The Stun Gunz, The White Stripes, The Sex Pistols, Tiger Army, and Paul McCartney.

The local NPR station marked the beginning of summer by playing Eddie Cochran's "Summertime Blues." Can this blog be far behind? If this is a (fair & balanced) celebration of the summer solstice, so be it. Rock on (forever), Eddie!


[x YouTube/Lucavtx Channel]
"Summertime Blues" (1959)
By Eddie Cochran




Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Here Come Da Judge!

Copyright © 2008 Ben Sargent

The "deal" between the FLDS parents and the State of Texas broke down when District Judge Barbara Walther stipulated yesterday that the mothers had to sign the court order before she, the judge, would sign the order returning the children into effect. Problem: the children are scattered hither and yon in foster homes throughout the second-largest of the United States and many, if not most, of the mothers have scattered to be near their children. Finding those mothers and obtaining those signatures will take weeks? months? or forever? In the last case, some of the mothers may have disappeared or they may have returned to the main compounds of their sect on the Utah-Arizona border. So, the West Texas soap opera is back to square one. The hearing before Judge Walther did produce the lovely, family images of "Prophet" Warren Jeffs with his 13-year-old "spiritual wife" back in 2005:




If this is (fair & balanced disgust, so be it.


[x San Angelo Fishwrap]
Judge's Experience A Match For Massive FLDS Case
By Paul A. Anthony

Barbara Walther smiled when she asked Gerry Goldstein whether he needed a copy of the Texas Family Code during a court hearing last week.

The 51st District Court judge offered to give the high-profile San Antonio attorney her copy, and longtime observers were not surprised when Walther soon after began picking apart Goldstein's reading and interpretation of state law.

"She's a very caring person outside the courtroom," said a former local district attorney, Steve Smith, who prosecuted cases in Walther's court for 12 years. "Inside the courtroom, you better have your t's crossed and i's dotted — even your lower-case j's dotted."

Walther is a former court master who heard family law cases exclusively for five years. As such, she is well-versed in the statutes that will be used beginning today to question whether the state can retain custody of the 416 children it removed this month from a polygamist sect's ranch.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' ranch is northeast of Eldorado in Schleicher County, at the southern end of a court district that also includes Tom Green County.

When the court bailiff commands hundreds of attorneys, reporters and observers to rise this morning, Barbara Lane Walther and her no-nonsense, sometimes-acerbic style will take center stage in what is likely the largest custody hearing ever seen in Texas.

Walther, 55, is known as an exacting jurist, impatient with attorneys who approach a case or enter an argument unprepared. State district court judges typically make between $125,000 and $140,000 a year. She declined to comment for this story, citing the workload of the case she is about to hear.

A reason for Walther's approach to court may be because Walther herself prepares so well, said 119th District Judge Ben Woodward.

"She's very qualified," Woodward said. "This is going to be a very challenging case, but she's got the qualifications and the background to meet the challenge."

Born and raised in San Angelo and a survivor of the polio epidemic that struck the city in the early 1950s, Walther earned a law degree from Southern Methodist University and practiced criminal law in Dallas for five years before returning to her hometown in 1983.

Four years later, she closed her practice to take an appointment as Title IV-D Family Law Master for a 12-county region that included San Angelo. The position, named for the law that created it and operated through the state Attorney General's Office, required Walther to hear family law cases involving children whose parents received state assistance.

"She knows (family law) very well," Woodward said.

By running for the seat of retiring 51st District Judge Royal Hart and winning it in 1992, Walther joined what at the time was a sea change in the Tom Green County district courts, a Republican replacing a Democrat. Her victory was the final blow for Democrats in the local judiciary after years of erosion in support.

Walther has yet to draw a challenger since her initial campaign, and is running unopposed for a fifth four-year term this November.

"She's a very warm person," Smith said. "She's very well-liked."

Unless court is in session, and an attorney is wasting her time.

Noting the exchanges last week between Walther and Goldstein, an observer remarked to one local attorney on the entertainment value often found for spectators in Walther's courtroom.

"That's because you're not a lawyer," he replied.
___________________________________________________________________
The Walther file

Name: Barbara Lane Walther.
Age: 55.
Hometown: San Angelo.
Family: Husband, Steven; two grown children.
Education: Bachelor of Arts, University of Texas, 1974; J.D., Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, 1977.
Occupation: Judge, Texas' 51st District Court — Tom Green, Coke, Irion, Sterling and Schleicher Counties.

Copyright © 2008 The E. W. Scripps Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Yearning For Sanity

Life is good. I am not the Attorney General of Texas, nor am I the 51st District Court Judge in Deep West Texas, nor am I a caseworker in the Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) Division. All of those folks are dealing with a nightmarish fallout from the removal of the 400+ children from the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints) compound outside Eldorado, TX. Without a dog in this fight, it's hard not to feel sympathy for parents whose children were taken hither and yon by CPS caseworkers under the direction of a ruling by the state judge with jurisdiction over the environs of Eldorado. Now the kids, who nearly all have the same pair of family names: Jeffs or Jessop, will be toted back to the Yearning For Zion Ranch as the FLDS compound is known. Complicating all of this was the release (leaked by the Texas CPS Division?) of the despicable — and currently jailed — FLDS Prophet, Warren Jeffs swappin' spit with a couple of teeny-boppers in prairie dresses. Lovely. What I know about "The Principle" (upholding plural marriage) supposedly foresworn by all in Utah except the FLDS is from watching the first two seasons of HBO's "Big Love." This prime time soap opera provides the lives of 3 really desperate housewives who live with 1 husband in a Salt Lake City suburb in 3 houses side-by-side on a cul-de-sac. Lovely. Art imitates life. One small quibble: the mainstream fishwraps and the electonic media keep harping the same erroneous term to describe the plural marriage of one man with more than one wife. It ain't polygamy, folks. Polygamy is gender-neutral and merely means multiple spouses. In the case of one man and more than one wife (like Warren Jeffs with a 12-year-old "spiritual" wife to go along with his dozens of adult wives), the correct term is P-O-L-Y-G-Y-N-Y, polygyny. If this is (fair & balanced) cultural anthropology, so be it.

Copyright © 2008 Ben Sargent

[x Associated Press]
Texas, Polygamists Reach Tentative Deal On Kids
By Michelle Roberts

More than 400 children removed from a polygamist sect's ranch will be returned to their parents beginning Monday, state officials chastened by a state Supreme Court ruling said Friday as they hammered out an agreement with the families.

The children won't be able to leave Texas but they will be allowed to move back to Yearning For Zion Ranch, where child-welfare officials have alleged that underage girls were pushed into spiritual marriages with older men. The parents say there was no abuse, and two courts ruled that the state overstepped its authority in removing all children from the ranch, from infants to teenagers.

Texas Child Protective Services took custody of the children from the west Texas ranch after a raid nearly two months ago. A court order that a judge restore custody to parents applies to only 124 of the children, but state officials said about 300 others taken under identical circumstances also will be returned.

A draft agreement released by CPS attorney Gary Banks says the parents can get their children back after showing identification and pledging to take parenting classes and remain in Texas.

The agreement was reached with 38 mothers of 124 children who filed the complaint that prompted the Texas Supreme Court's ruling Thursday.

The agreement does not specify that the fathers must stay away, and it allows the children to return to the ranch run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, about 40 miles south of San Angelo.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther made revisions to the deal, and attorneys on both sides were reviewing them Friday afternoon.

The high court affirmed a decision by an appeals court last week and said CPS failed to show an immediate danger to nearly all the children swept up from the ranch.

"On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted," the justices said in their ruling issued in Austin.

The Texas high court let stand the appeals court's order that Texas District Judge Barbara Walther return the children from foster care to their parents within a reasonable time period.

Walther ruled last month that the children should be placed in foster care after a chaotic custody hearing involving hundreds of lawyers representing the individual children and parents.

FLDS elder Willie Jessop said Thursday that parents were excited about the court's decision but would remain apprehensive until they get their children back.

"We're just looking forward to when little children can be in the arms of their parents," he said. "Until you have your children in your hands, there's no relief. But we have hope."

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled last week that the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and had offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children.

The FLDS, which teaches that polygamy brings glorification in heaven, is a breakaway sect of the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago.

Texas officials claimed at one point that there were 31 teenage girls at the ranch who were pregnant or had been pregnant, but later conceded that about half of those mothers, if not more, were adults. One was 27.

Roughly 430 children from the ranch are in foster care after two births, numerous reclassifications of adult women initially held as minors and a handful of agreements allowing parents to keep custody while the Supreme Court considered the case.

Under state law, children can be taken from their parents if there's a danger to their physical safety, an urgent need for protection and if officials made a reasonable effort to keep the children in their homes. The high court agreed with the appellate court that the seizures fell short of that standard.

The justices said child welfare officials could take numerous actions to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care, and that Walther could put restrictions on the children and parents to address concerns that they may flee once reunited.

Texas authorities, meanwhile, collected DNA swabs Thursday from sect leader Warren Jeffs in an ongoing criminal investigation separate from the custody dispute.

A search warrant for the DNA alleges that Jeffs had "spiritual" marriages with four girls, ages 12 to 15.

Jeffs, who is revered as a prophet, is serving a prison sentence for a Utah conviction of being accomplice to rape in the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to a 19-year-old sect member. He awaits trial in Arizona on similar charges.

[Associated Press writer Michelle Roberts is based in AP's Dallas Bureau. Her AP colleague Jim Vertuno in Austin contributed to this report.]

Copyright &3169; 2008, The Associated Press


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

The Aggie Who Makes Me Gaggy

O, Great! This AM, the news emerges that The Geezer's consigliere on economic policy is the Prince O'Darkness. Full disclosure: I receive a reduced Social Security allotment thanks to The Geezer's chief economic/fiscal consultant. The crowning achievement of the Prince O'Darkness' congressional career. Thanks to then-Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) was enacted in 1983 to prevent people with relatively high-compensated government service and relatively low-paying Social Security-covered employment from having their Social Security benefits determined under the more favorable formula used for retirees with the lowest Social Security earnings. According to the Prince of Darkness, gazillions of public school teachers in TX, CA, IL (among several states) were double-dipping by collecting their state-funded retirement pension payments while receiving Social Security benefits. The Prince, undeterred by the reality that many retirees — municipal employees and railroad employees, for example — receive both their municipal or railroad pensions as well as the Social Security benefit to which they are entitled. The Prince O'Darkness targeted classroom teachers as "relatively high-compensated government employees" who should not double-dip their snouts into the public trough. So, the monthly Social Security benefit that is deposited in my account is reduced by 66% so that the Republic will remain strong. No matter that I have satisfied the contribution-requirement for a full Social Security benefit. In the meantime, the Prince O'Darkness and his wife the Princess O'Darkness are the biggest slumlords providing substandard housing to students in College Station/Bryan, TX. The Darknesses were colleagues at Texas A&M University in the Department of the Dismal Science (Econ). They supplemented their joint incomes with the rents collected on run-down houses that they rented to A&M students. Then, when the Prince O'Darkness was elected — first to the House of Representatives and then to the Senate — the Darkness family fortunes took off into the stratosphere of Big Bucks. By the end of the Prince O'Darkness's second term in the Senate (2002), the Princess was serving on the Enron Board of Directors with a 6-figure salary. The Darknesses went back into private life with their ill-gotten gains and now the Prince O'Darkness has emerged as The Geezer's economic consigliere. If ever in the same room with the Darknesses, keep your hand on your wallet. If this is (fair & balanced) bitterness, so be it.

[x Salon]
McCain's Scary Economic Advisor
By Joe Conason

AP/Gerald Herbert
Sen. John McCain speaks in
Phoenix on March 3, 2008.
At left, former Sen. Phil Gramm.

Not only is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm a shill for special interests, his deregulation policies helped spur the mortgage crisis, among other financial disasters.

Even as John McCain struggles to preserve his image as a reformer by dismissing a few of the Washington lobbyists who dominated his presidential campaign, the futility of that effort suddenly became painfully obvious. Dire bulletins in the financial media warned of many billions in rotting mortgage paper held by UBS, the financial conglomerate that just happens to employ former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, McCain's campaign chairman and chief economic advisor. Until two months ago UBS listed Gramm as a federal lobbyist on housing and mortgage issues.

So there at the shoulder of the Arizona maverick is perched yet another special-interest shill, in this instance not merely an errand boy for various dictators but the vice chairman of a Swiss bank whispering advice on how to cope with our economic woes. Or how not to cope, as in McCain's do-nothing approach to the foreclosure crisis, which displayed the strong influence of the financial lobby on his campaign.

Undoubtedly Gramm is promoting the agenda of those who subsidize him, as he has done ever since he entered politics as a servant of oil interests in his home state. He took hundreds of thousands of dollars from energy and financial interests as a congressman and then as a senator, rising to the chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee, where he could really perform major favors. He is famed for slipping in an amendment desired by Enron Corp. back when his wife was on that doomed company's board. His employment by UBS, a company that recently warned some of its executives to avoid entering the United States for fear of criminal prosecution, demands fresh scrutiny of him as well as McCain.

But if Gramm's role as a banker and lobbyist is embarrassing to McCain, the greater harm is likely to be done by his economic advice. He and McCain have been friends since they were young congressional "foot soldiers in the Reagan revolution," as both like to say, and he is often touted (or was until lately) as a likely candidate for Treasury secretary should McCain win the White House.

Now that Gramm has resurfaced in national politics, he surely deserves to be arraigned for his long history of service to powerful interests, dating from the Enron scandal and beyond. But for most Americans, the dubious connections of McCain's lobbying pals, including Gramm, should be less worrisome than the likely results of yet another four years of Republican economic nostrums. Gramm's career stands for the false promises of right-wing ideology and the troubles that such schemes, embodied in legislation, have repeatedly inflicted on us.

The former Texas senator is less voluble these days than he used to be, perhaps unsurprisingly, but in years past he has boasted of his central role in key conservative legislation, especially in liberating major sectors of the economy and finance from public oversight and skewing taxation in favor of the wealthy.

So how has that worked out over the past few decades?

Back in the '80s, Gramm smiled upon the abrupt deregulation of the savings-and-loan industry, described by his idol Ronald Reagan as America's opportunity to "hit the jackpot" of growth. He used his political clout to protect the Texas operators whose crooked machinations eventually helped to bankrupt the S&L industry. In fact, the S&L debacle cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, Gramm had lent his name and energy to passage of the first Reagan budget in 1981, whose sweeping tax cuts failed to prevent recession — and eventually required a long series of tax increases, beginning in 1982, to stanch the enormous deficits they created. At the same time he coauthored the Gramm-Rudman Act, which supposedly placed sharp constraints on federal spending but in reality had little impact.

When Bill Clinton came into office and found that the Reagan and Bush administrations had left the nation in deep deficit, he got no help from Gramm in cleaning up their mess. When Clinton bravely demanded a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans, who had profited hugely from Reagan policies skewed to their benefit, Gramm and his fellow Republicans bawled piteously about the nation's impending doom.

"I want to predict here tonight," he said on the evening that Clinton's budget passed in the spring of 1993, "that if we adopt this bill the American economy is going to get weaker and not stronger, the deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today and not lower ... When all is said and done, people will pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs, the government will spend more money, and the American people will be worse off."

Is it necessary to point out how utterly wrong that prediction turned out to be? Most Americans did not pay more taxes, the economy created millions more jobs, the deficit was sharply reduced, and people were better off by every measure of economic progress, from productivity and profits to homeownership and reduced poverty.

But Gramm was not the kind of economist whose convictions are shaken by evidence, no matter how compelling. So obsessed with protecting bankers from government oversight was he that when Clinton tried to place stronger controls on terrorist money laundering, Gramm opposed even that measure as a "totalitarian" incursion.

Before he retired from the Senate in 2002, he wrote the Gramm-Bliley bill, an act broadly deregulating the financial industry — and now blamed by many economists for the epidemic of speculation and fraud that has shaken the global economy.

Touting those changes as a way to "modernize" American finance for a global future, Gramm said they would bring wonderful new efficiencies and savings to consumers. As with the energy deregulation that he sponsored — which was supposed to bring lower prices and better service, but led to blackouts and price gouging — those economic wonders never quite appeared. The damaging effects of banking deregulation took nearly a decade to be felt, but whether we have experienced the worst still remains to be seen.

Over and over again, from the savings-and-loan fiasco to the Enron shock to the global banking meltdown, the golden promises of deregulation have turned to leaden ruin. Perhaps nobody cares about the lobbyists surrounding McCain, but someone should ask him why he would cherish the advice of a man whose devotion to ideology has already done us so much damage.

[Joe Conason writes a weekly column for Salon and the New York Observer. Conason received a B.A. in History from Brandeis University in 1975. He then worked at two Boston-based newspapers, East Boston Community News and The Real Paper. From 1978 to 1990, he worked as a columnist and staff writer at The Village Voice. From 1990 to 1992, Conason was "editor-at-large" for Details magazine. In 1992, he became a columnist for the New York Observer, a position he still holds. Conason has written a number of books, including Big Lies (2003), which addresses what he says are myths spread about liberals by conservatives. His new book is It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush.]

Copyright © 2008 Salon Media Group


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

I Am The Blogger, The Idol Of My Age?

Billy Joel was 28 years old when he recorded "The Entertainer." Billy Joel sings:

I am the entertainer

And I know just where I stand

Another serenader

And another long-haired band

Today I am your champion

I may have won your hearts

But I know the game, you'll forget my name

And I won't be here in another year

If I don't stay on the charts

I am the entertainer

And I've had to pay my price

The things I did not know at first

I learned by doin' twice

Ah, but still they come to haunt me

Still they want their say

So I've learned to dance with a hand in my pants

I let 'em rub my neck and I write 'em a check

And they go their merry way

I am the entertainer

Been all around the world

I've played all kinds of palaces

And laid all kinds of girls

I can't remember faces

I don't remember names

Ah, but what the hell

You know it's just as well

'Cause after a while and a thousand miles

It all becomes the same

I am the entertainer

I bring to you my songs

I'd like to spend a day or two

I can't stay that long

No, I've got to meet expenses

I got to stay in line

Gotta get those fees to the agencies

And I'd love to stay but there's bills to pay

So I just don't have the time

I am the entertainer

I come to do my show

You've heard my latest record

It's been on the radio

Ah, it took me years to write it

They were the best years of my life

It was a beautiful song

But it ran too long

If you're gonna have a hit

You gotta make it fit

So they cut it down to 3:05

I am the entertainer

The idol of my age

I make all kinds of money

When I go on the stage

Ah, you've seen me in the papers

I've been in the magazines

But if I go cold I won't get sold

I'll get put in the back in the discount rack

Like another can of beans

I am the entertainer

And I know just where I stand

Another serenader

And another long-haired band

Today I am your champion

I may have won your hearts

But I know the game, you'll forget my name

I won't be here in another year

If I don't stay on the charts
If this is (fair & balanced) nostalgia for the marvel of his age, so be it.

[x YouTube/UploaderOfGoodMusic Channel]
"The Entertainer" (1977)
By Billy Joel



℗ © 1977 Billy Joel


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Use Less: A Useless Suggestion?

Duh! No new refineries built in the U. S. since 1976 and hundreds closed down since then. Supply and demand tells us that if the supply of gasoline is reduced or remains level and the demand for gasoline increases, prices go up, up, up. The whole outcry to resume oil exploration in environmentally sensitive areas misses the point completely. There is plenty of crude, but there are fewer refineries converting the crude into gasoline. The supply is reduced at the refinery, not on some drilling platform. The profit incentive is not driven by refineries, it is driven by the expensive business of drilling an oil well. Build more refineries and bring them on line and the supply of gasoline will increase. With increased supply, the price of gasoline will go down, down, down. This marks the conclusion of ECON 101. If this is (fair & balanced) economic truth, so be it.

[x Salon]
Why Gas Is So Expensive
By Andrew Leonard

It's not runaway greed or overregulation. It's the world we live in. It's a price that can be seen in a single gallon of California gas.

I can't decide whether to frame or burn the receipt from a Chevron filling station in Berkeley, Calif., that documents how much I spent to fill the tank of my 12-year-old Nissan Quest minivan on Sunday morning. At $4.09 a gallon for regular unleaded, the total came to $65.68. That's the most I've ever paid for a tank of gas, so I feel inclined to treat the paper record with respect. But a couple of weeks from now, if recent trends hold true, my unwanted milestone will be eclipsed again, and the receipt transformed into a trigger for nostalgia. Four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline? Ah, those were the days.

On Tuesday gas prices hit record highs in the United States for the 21st day in a row. Many Americans are understandably upset and angry. Partisans on both sides of the political aisle believe they know why this is happening. The left blames greedy, customer-gouging oil companies; the right pillories environmentalists for blocking the construction of new refineries, preventing offshore oil development and opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But there's much more going on here than good old greed or restrictive environmental regulations. Explaining the high price of gasoline at my local pump requires taking into account surging demand for oil in China and India, the falling value of the dollar, the impact of commodity price speculation by energy traders and a whole constellation of factors exerting steady downward pressure on supply. Those include the Iraq war, political instability in Nigeria and anti-American intransigence in Venezuela and Iran. There's also the ever-popular peak oil thesis: As the production of existing oil fields in Russia, Mexico, the North Sea and possibly Saudi Arabia inexorably declines, discovery and exploitation of new sources of oil are becoming steadily harder and more expensive.

Even the people who have spent their entire lives studying the price of oil don't know for sure how to weigh each factor for responsibility in the total equation. Perhaps the safest thing to say is that it's all in there, in my $65 receipt. Kidnappings of oil executives in Nigeria and the nationalization of Exxon-operated facilities in Venezuela. Chinese economic growth and hedge fund manipulation. ANWR and air quality. The price of gas in the United States is a consequence of global economic growth, rising standards of living, greed, politics and the stresses induced by 6.5 billion people going about their business on a planet with limited resources.

Sound complicated? It most certainly is, which is one reason why we should avoid the temptation to simply blame greedy oil companies or radical environmentalists. But it's also strangely simple -- the world, and its manifold dilemmas, can be seen in a single gallon of California gas. Let's take a closer look.

On May 26, the average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in California was $4.09 (remarkably, exactly what I paid on May 25). A variety of taxes account for 66 cents of that total. The federal government and the state of California both charge separate 18-cent excise taxes. State and local sales taxes account for roughly 29 additional cents. There's also a 1-cent "state underground storage tank" tax that funds the cleanup of groundwater-polluting tanks.

In mid-May, 19 cents of the total price of a gallon of gas in California could be chalked up to the "refinery margin" -- the costs of refining crude oil into gasoline along with the slice of profit extracted by the refinery operator. Over the course of 2008, that number has fluctuated, from a high of 48 cents in late March to the current low. Another nickel or so of the price of each gallon accounts for the "distributor's margin" -- the costs of getting the gasoline from the refinery to the filling station, marketing the gasoline and the profit cut taken by the retail dealer.

The drop in the refinery margin from 48 cents to 19 cents over the last two months suggests that refineries are having trouble passing on the full costs of the most recent increase in crude oil prices to their customers. Refineries are caught in a bind. Even as Californians are cutting back on consumption, the cost of crude is continuing to rise. But if the refineries continue to raise their own prices for gasoline at the same rate that the cost of crude is rising, they run the risk of depressing demand even more.

The disjunction between the enormous profits to be made drilling for oil and the much tougher business of transforming that oil into gasoline and selling it can be confusing, especially when the same company is handling both parts. My gallon of gas was purchased from a Chevron gas station -- which is not surprising, considering that Chevron controls 25 percent of gasoline refinery production in California.

In 2008, Chevron recorded its largest first-quarter profit ever: $5.17 billion. But according to the San Francisco Chronicle, Chevron's profits from refining and selling gasoline in the United States were actually down 99 percent in the first quarter of 2008 from a year earlier, and "during the previous two quarters, the company actually lost money making gas." That $5 billion in profits is derived primarily from extracting the oil out of the ground and selling it on the open market where prices are set.

The relatively small percentage of the price of a gallon of gas that goes toward refinery profit margins pokes some holes in the notion that environmental regulations -- at least as applied to refineries -- are a primary villain in inflicting high gas prices on the public. According to this theory, which seems to get more media time with every nickel jump in the price of a gallon of gas, "extremist" air quality regulations combined with legal harassment by environmental activists have inhibited refinery owners from building new refineries.

Central to this proposition is the idea that the real bottleneck for gas prices is not in the supply of oil, but in the ability to process it and refine the oil into gasoline. An example of how this works came after Hurricane Katrina, when numerous refineries in the Gulf Coast region were knocked out of commission, and the price of gas spiked because the remaining refineries couldn't make up the difference. If environmentalists hadn't prevented new refineries from being built, argued the critics, there would have been enough slack in the system to avoid such oil shocks.

It is true that no new refineries have been built in the United States since 1976 and hundreds have closed down. Between 1985 and 1995, laments the California Energy Commission, 10 refineries closed in California alone. It is also true that overall refining capacity is down, in both California and the entire United States. But total production of gasoline is up, nearly 20 percent, since 1976. Instead of building big new refineries, refinery owners closed smaller, inefficient -- unprofitable -- facilities and expanded and improved the production lines at their existing complexes.

So, sure, environmental regulations have added to bottom-line costs, but they have by no means crippled the industry -- and anyone who has ever lived downwind of a refinery complex is probably deeply grateful for the restrictions that make the air breathable. In fact, at least one study of California refineries in the Los Angeles area found that even though environmental regulation compliance costs rose significantly, overall productivity rose faster at the refineries that were forced to upgrade than at refineries not subject to comparable environmental regulations.

To understand why California gas prices are historically above the national average, the likely explanation isn't environmental restrictions on refinery operations, but the reality that California's strict air quality regulations require a special blend of gasoline that only a few refineries outside of California are capable of producing. So when demand spikes in California, or a disaster (or simple maintenance overhaul) takes out even just one refinery complex for any extended period of time, prices rise quickly across the state because supply can't easily be found to replace the lost production.

This problem is not unique to California. The U.S. gasoline market features scores of different blends of gasoline mandated for different regions. Blends vary within states, according to seasonal change and depending on local wild-card factors such as state mandates for ethanol content. It's a crazy-quilt system that is fundamentally inefficient because refineries optimized to produce the blends required in one region cannot quickly turn around and make up for shortfalls experienced in other regions. It also plays to the advantage of local refineries by limiting their competition -- a Government Accountability Office study asserted that California gas prices were 7 cents higher than the national average for this very reason.

The federal government could eliminate such madness with a stroke of a pen. It could mandate that all gasoline adhere to some uniform fuel standard. But depending on where the line was drawn, as economist and oil price expert James Hamilton notes, such a move would likely raise pollution in some areas and costs in others -- ruffling feathers all across the country. It would also work against the interests of refinery operators, who benefit from not having to face full competition in their protected districts.

But questions about refinery capacity, environmental regulations and Balkanization of the overall market shrivel when compared with the real force responsible for the dramatic rise in gas prices over the past eight years. Far and away, the largest factor contributing to the total price of a gallon of gasoline in California (and anywhere else in the United States) is the cost of crude oil.

As of 2005, about 40 percent of Californian gasoline is derived from in-state wells, 40 percent comes from foreign sources, and 20 percent comes from Alaska. The California Energy Commission uses the price of Alaskan North Slope crude oil as the benchmark for calculating its breakdown of gas prices. On May 19, it pegged Alaskan North Slope oil at $3.03 per gallon of gasoline -- or about 75 percent of the price Californians pay at the pump.

As for any other grade of oil, the price of Alaskan North Slope is set on the open global market, according to what bidders are willing to pay for it. Such bidders include traders who are merely hoping to cash in on steady price appreciation, but also include anybody who actually needs to take physical ownership of the product for whatever purpose. This is one reason why accusing oil companies such as Exxon and Chevron of gouging the consumer misses the point. Exxon doesn't set the price of crude oil, nor does it unilaterally set the price of gasoline at the pump. Those prices are set by what buyers -- refineries, industrial complexes, distributors -- are willing to pay. And for years now, buyers have outnumbered sellers.

According to the California Energy Commission, "for every one dollar increase of the cost of a barrel of crude oil, there is an average increase of about 2.5-cents per gallon of gasoline." In 2000, the price of a barrel of crude was about $25; in May 2008, $133. You can do the math.

Just as there are manifold reasons explaining why global demand is currently growing faster than supply, there are a variety of things that governments could do to assuage the problem. Some would make absolutely no long-term difference (and could even contribute to higher prices by boosting short-term demand), such as the gas tax holiday proposed by John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Others could chip away at pieces of the problem: We'd know a lot more about the role of speculation in setting prices if the electronic exchanges that currently don't have to report trading activity to the government were properly regulated.

It seems reasonable to assume that the price of oil will rise to a point at which even the seemingly bottomless appetite of China begins to slake. At that juncture, we could see a massive bubble pop, as traders scramble to unload their futures positions. But it also seems increasingly likely that the world has reached that critical point at which it is simply impossible to find and develop new sources of cheap oil to replace what we have already discovered and are daily consuming.

In that case, price will be the ultimate regulator of both the market and consumer behavior. A few years back, when crude oil and gasoline prices were just getting started on their historic run-up, American driving habits failed to change much in response, and we heard that demand for gasoline was what economists like to call "inelastic." In other words, our willingness to consume wouldn't stretch up or down as prices fluctuated. People had to drive to work or to the grocery store or to the kids soccer tournament. So we filled our tanks and cut back on the fine dining.

But the drumbeat of record gas prices has changed that equation. We now realize that we just hadn't reached the proper price point necessary to make a real difference in our behavior. Today, Americans are driving billions of fewer miles than they did a year ago. Sales of fuel-efficient cars are surging and the price for a used Ford Expedition is plummeting because the market is glutted by SUV owners desperate to unload their gas guzzlers. It's clear that millions of Americans, just like me, are staring gape-mouthed at their filling station receipts and thinking, “There's gotta be a better way.”

And there is. But it's not likely to come about by political attempts to twist OPEC's arm or legislating lower prices. Nor can (or should) Americans try to stop Chinese or Indians from buying new cars and installing air conditioning. Instead of striving to remake the world so it gives us cheaper gas, maybe we should listen to what the price of a gallon of gas is trying to tell us: Use less.

[Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon Formerly, Leonard was a senior editor at Salon and author of "Salon's Free Software Project," an online book-in-progress exploring the history and culture of the free software movement.]

Copyright © 2008 Salon Media Group


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Full Disclosure: A Voting History

In (choke) eleven elections, this voter cast a ballot for the winner (Mr. Peanut in '76) exactly ONCE! That 40-year exercise in futility should lay to rest the suggestion that this voter is predictable or votes a straight party ticket. Nor is this blogger ideologically pure. "All over the (electoral) map" is the description that fits best. In 2008, I will cast my KOD (Kiss O'Death) ballot for The Hopester should he survive the primary campaign with "She Who Must Be Obeyed" aka The Hillster. If The Hillster gets the nod, I will cast my ballot for Ralph Nader (I). Under no circumstances will I vote for The Geezer (and his 100-year Iraqi War) nor will I vote for Bob Barr (L) who looks like Heinrich Himmler's lovechild with that mustache. There it is and here I stand. If this is (fair & balanced) political confession, so be it.
This blogger's voting record:




Election

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008
Voted For

Goldwater (R)

Humphrey (D)

McGovern (D)

Carter (D)

Carter (D)

Mondale (D)

Dukakis (D)

Perot (I)

Dole (R)

Gore (D)

Kerry (D)

????
Copyright © Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Quick! Call In A Rhetorician!!

Graphic designer Steven Heller offered a meditation on lapel pins and such that supporters of The Hillster, The Geezer, or The Hopester might wear in the upcoming slog to the White House. Of all the suggestions, I liked the one from "Nancy" the best because it illustrates the buffoonery of The Dubster and all of the buffoons who voted for him. If this is (fair & balanced) elocution, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Campaign Momentos
By Steven Heller

Comment By "Nancy"


Any one of the candidates: A nuclear symbol and the slogan, “At least she/he can pronounce it.”

[Steven Heller is the co-chairman of the MFA Design program at the School of Visual Arts. He writes the “Visuals” column in the New York Times Book Review. He is the author of the forthcoming Iron Fists: Branding the Totalitarian State.]

Copyright  The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Avast, Me Hearties!

When The Hillster referenced (repeatedly) "a vast right-wing conspiracy," perhaps she was rehearsing for September 19. On that day, we observe "Talk Like A Pirate Day." In fact, see a Web site for this important observance by clicking on this link: Talk Like A Pirate Day Site. The Hillster might make a campaign stop at a Talk Like A Pirate Day observance and recite her litany about "a vast right-wing conspiracy." The Hillster used the phrase, "a vast," without realizing that "Avast!" means "Stop and give attention." It can be used in a sense of surprise, "Whoa! Get a load of that!" which today makes it more of a "Check it out" or "No way!" or "Get off!" If this is (fair & balanced) buccaneering parlance, so be it. PS: I always thought that a "buccaneer" was a helluva price to pay for corn. (Groan)

[x (One Of The) Knoxville Fishwraps]
By Charlie Daniel

Click on image to enlarge.


[Charlie Daniel was born in Richmond, Va.and grew up in Weldon, N.C. He attended Weldon Public Schools and Fork Union Military Academy in Fork Union, Va. He was a private in the Marine Corps and studied Political Science at the University of North Carolina, which is where he started drawing cartoons for The Daily Tar Heel in 1955. Daniel came to Knoxville in 1958 as the editorial cartoonist for The Knoxville Journal. He moved to the Knoxville News Sentinel in January 1992 and has been the editorial cartoonist at this daily ever since.]

Copyright © 2008 Charlie Daniel


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Man, What Are You Doin' Here?

For six months in 1972, Billy Joel played in LA's Executive Lounge piano bar under the name "Bill Martin." This experience is what gave him the material for "Piano Man." That song sold more than 4 million copies. As of January 2007, the song "Piano Man" is still in the top 100 rock songs on iTunes. As I was rolling along this afternoon in my portable karaoke lounge on 4 wheels, I found myself singing along with Billy Joel and I kept coming back to the refrain in "Piano Man" where the people in that bar keep asking "Bill," "Hey man, what're you doin' here? As I pound away on my own keyboard, that phrase resonates in my soul: "Hey, man, what're you doin' here? Unlike Billy Joel, I am not going to end up in any Hall of Fame, nor do my compositions sell millions of copies. Instead, I just keep bloggin' and (once in a while) vloggin'. If this is (fair & balanced) futility, so be it.

[x YouTube/WogBlogger Channel]
Billy Joel — "Piano Man"



[William Martin (Billy) Joel's first major album Piano Man was released in 1974, and it showcased his gift for writing ambitious pop tunes that were both catchy and sentimental. Expansive singles like "New York State of Mind" (1976) and "Scenes From an Italian Restaurant" (1977) cemented Joel's position as a blue-collar New York troubadour and helped make him one of the decade's most popular touring acts. His 1977 album The Stranger was packed with hit singles, including "Movin' Out, "Just the Way You Are and "Only the Good Die Young," and was perhaps the height of his fame. He continued to produce hit singles like "Uptown Girl" throughout the 1980s, though critics carped that he had replaced his early passion with nostalgic ditties and highfalutin message songs. Still, by the turn of the century he had sold over 100 million records and was one of the most successful recording artists in history. Joel's albums include Turnstiles (1976), 52nd Street (1978), Glass Houses (1980), An Innocent Man (1983), River of Dreams (1993) and My Lives (2005). "Movin' Out," a dance musical based on his songs and choreographed by Twyla Tharp, played on Broadway from 2002-2005. Joel was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1999.]

Copyright © 1974-2005 Billy Joel


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Today's Trifecta: Rat Has A New Use For His "No Stupidity Zone" Sign

Rat shows Goat his latest invention: The No-Stupidity Zone Sign. If only Sparky The Wonder Penguin could have borrowed Rat's invention to use on Turd Blossom. But we don't live in a perfect world. If this is a (fair & balanced) deterrent against stupidity, so be it.



[x Pearls Before Swine]
By Stephan Pastis

Click on image to enlarge.


[ Stephan Pastis was born in 1968 and raised in San Marino, California, a suburb of Los Angeles. He graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in 1989 with a degree in political science. Although he had always wanted to be a syndicated cartoonist, Pastis realized that the odds of syndication were slim, so he entered UCLA Law School in 1990 and became an attorney instead. He practiced law in the San Francisco Bay area from 1993 to 2002. While an attorney, he began submitting various comic strip concepts to all of the syndicates, and, like virtually all beginning cartoonists, got his fair share of rejection slips. Then, in 1997, he began drawing "Pearls Before Swine," which he submitted to the syndicates in mid-1999. In December, 1999, he signed a contract with United Features (and resigned from the law firm three years later).

Copyright © 2008 Stephan Pastis


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Tom Tomorrow Gives Turd Blossom What Patty Gave The Drum (A Beatin')

Why doesn't Karl Rove wear a flag pin on his lapel? Hmmmmmmmm? What has Sparky The Wonder Penguin discovered about Turd Blossom? (Plus in Tom Tomorrow's alternative universe, Sparky gets to shake Turd Blossom until The Blossom's eyes rattle around in his head. Go, Sparky, Go!) If this is (fair & balanced) low-information signaling, so be it.

[x This Modern World]
By Tom Tomorrow

Click on image to enlarge.


[Political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow, aka Dan Perkins, draws a weekly cartoon, "This Modern World," that appears online in Salon, and "WorkingforChange.com," as well as in dozens of alternative newspapers across the United States. He won the 1998 Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for "This Modern World." Tom Tomorrow has penned six books, including, When Penguins Attack!, Tune In Tomorrow, The Wrath of Sparky, Greetings from This Modern World, and The Great Big Book of Tom Tomorrow.

Sparky The Wonder Penguin, is one of Tom Tomorrow's most inspired characters. The penguin is a strong liberal advocate, but he briefly became a Republican after being hit on the head with a random falling toilet in an early appearance in "This Modern World."]

Copyright © 2008 Tom Tomorrow


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Don't Be Fuelish

By way of YouTube, this vlog (formerly blog) presents the work of Marcy Shaffer on our fuelish dilemma. If this is (fair & balanced) fuelishness, so be it.


[x YouTube/VersusPlus Channel]
All Pumped Up
[Gas at $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 a Gallon]
To "What Kind Of Fool Am I" (Words & Music By Briscusse & Newley)
Parody LyrIcs By Marcy Shaffer
Janis Liebhart - Lead Vocal
Greg Hilfman - Music Director

Monday, May 26, 2008

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

The "No Stupidity Allowed" hit-list for Rat is growing with each passing hour. At the head of the line? This blogger who — like the lonely tree that falling in the unpopulated forest — rants and raves in the blogosphere when there is no one there to hear the babbling. Close behind in the stupidity-queue would be The Hillster and her repeated reminders about an assassination in California in June '68. Folliwng her in line would be The Geezer with his unending self-disclosure of ignorance (about economics, lobbyists, and the difference between Sunni and Shia, for starters). Of course, no vertical array of the stupid would be complete without The Dubster. Poor Rat would wear out his "No Stupiding" sign in wacking The Dubster for all of the stupid things that fool has said in his lifetime. The Dubster isn't first in line because (When, O When, O Lord?) he's on his way out. If this is a (fair & balanced) attack on hebitudinousness, so be it.

[x Pearls Before Swine]

Click on image to enlarge.



[Attorney-cum-cartoonist Stephan Pastis sketches "Pearls Before Swine," which features the arrogant, self-centered, and totally hilarious Rat, who leads his four-legged friends through misadventure after misadventure. Joining him for the journey are Pig, the slow but good-hearted conscience of the strip; Goat, the voice of reason that often goes unheard; and Zebra and the eternally inept Crocodiles who pursue him. Together this mindful menagerie mocks the flaws and shortcomings of human nature through Pastis's cynically biting wit.]

Copyright © 2008 Stephan Pastis


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

The Hillster's Chickens Come Home To Roost

Between 1992-1997, Keith Olbermann and Dan Patrick co-anchored "Sports Center" on ESPN. Olbermann left ESPN (followed by Patrick some years later) and ultimately turned up as "the talent" (as they say in TV-land) on "Countdown With Keith Olbermann" on weeknights on MSNBC. As his former partner, Dan Patrick, describes it, Olbermann "saves democracy" with his commentary. In the recent aftermath of The Hillster's gaffe about the 1968 RFK assassination (during a Democrat primary campaign, hint hint), The Keithster took off the gloves and administered the verbal equivalent of corporal punishment to The Hillster. If this is (fair & balanced) excoriation, so be it.

[x MSNBC]
Countdown With Keith Olbermann, May 23, 2008
"Senator Clinton, You Invoked A Nightmare"



[Keith Olbermann currently hosts "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC, an hour-long nightly newscast that reviews the top news stories of the day along with political commentary by Olbermann. A native New Yorker, Olbermann received a bachelor of science degree in communications arts from Cornell University in 1979.]

Copyright © 2008 Microsoft


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

A Frank Rich Bitch Finds A Niche

The Richster cannot comment on HBO offerings? "Big Love" begins shooting for its third season on HBO at a time when life imitates art. The State of Texas has managed to create its own polygynist melodrama with its knee-jerk raid on the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Deep West Texas. Here is a case where The Richster will be standing at the intersection of Culture & News and he can't even shout: "Read All About It." When it comes to HBO's "Big Love," The Richster will be struck dumb? It's hard to believe that the "Butcher of Broadway" would ever go into the tank for HBO. Let The Richster write whatever and wherever he will. He can file a 'full disclosure" statement before he sticks it to HBO — or any other media corporation, like The New York Times Company. Unmuzzle The Richster! If this is (fair & balanced) muckraking, so be it.

[x Slate]
My Frank Rich Bitch: Will The Times' Ethics Cops Please Leave Him Be?
By Jack Shafer

The only phrase that inflicts more trauma upon my press critic ears than "conflict of interest" is "potential conflict of interest."

Not everybody reacts the way I do. There's an entire subcaucus of ethicists who prowl the news pages and the airwaves searching to expose journalists who have competing professional or personal interests. While it might be the right thing for writer John Doe to forever recuse himself from writing about Acme Industries because he worked for the firm X years ago, or because his brother works for one of its co-ventures now, or because his son just won an Acme Industries scholarship, or because he owns a few shares in Acme Industries, I tend not to mind as long as Doe discloses his gnarliest entanglements. I care more about assessing what Doe actually writes than unraveling every snag, loop, and knot from his life in search of a gotcha.

Which brings us to New York Times columnist Frank Rich. The Times and HBO announced this week that HBO has hired Rich as a "creative consultant" but that he will continue as a Times columnist. According to the Reuters story, "Rich will contribute to the network's original programming development, and could become a producer on any projects he helps shepherd."

The Times reports that it will prohibit Rich "from writing in his column … about either HBO or its parent company, Time Warner," but not from discussing Time Warner properties, Time magazine or CNN, nor its "primary competitor, Fox News Channel." As Rich and his boss, Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal, explained it to Times reporter Richard Pérez-Peña, "for a political column, such material remains fair game."

In other words, Rich will continue to write the "Week in Review" opinion column about the "intersection of culture and news" that he's contributed to since April 2005. The only change will be no mentions of HBO and Time Warner the corporation.

Is such censorship necessary? Advisable? And will Rich be able to pull it off?

First, the censorship question. Is the man who contains more opinions than the Gallup Poll so inherently corruptible that his editors must strike the letters HBO from his vocabulary? Do we really think that the former "Butcher of Broadway" would play the ringer for the channel or the corporation that owns it? I could be persuaded that Rich needed gagging if he wrote news stories, but he's an opinion columnist! Opinions are subjective! Their origins and justifications are messy! As long as a disclaimer accompanies any mention of HBO or Time Warner in Rich's copy and a similar disclaimer rests at the bottom of his pieces, why not let him sound off about them? If he hits his head and turns into a shill for his new corporate masters, a Times editor can kill those pieces or fire him.

Is the ban advisable? For the embargo to be meaningful, it would have to extend to any mention of HBO shows. In recent years, the channel has produced a lineup of undeniably great programs that have woven themselves into our culture, including "The Sopranos, "The Wire, "Sex and the City, "Big Love, "Curb Your Enthusiasm, "Deadwood, "Da Ali G Show, "Carnivale, "OZ, "Six Feet Under, and "Lucky Louie" (just kidding). And that's not even mentioning its documentaries. If Rich's column is really supposed to be about the "intersection of culture and news," denying him references to the HBO canon would be like forcing him to write with only his pinky fingers. He'd still get his columns out, but would they be any good?

The more you think about it, blotting HBO and Time Warner out of Rich's column would probably prove impossible. HBO isn't just a cable channel that broadcasts lots of great TV series and Hollywood movies before they're shipped via DVD, it's a producer of theatrical films, it's a sports channel, and in the past it has partnered with other film companies to distribute feature films. Does the Times really want to block Rich from writing about any Hollywood production that may have brushed against HBO while in development? Also, a recurring topic in Rich's columns over the past decade has been media conglomerates (he's sorta against them). If he's forbidden to write about Time Warner—one of the largest media conglomerates—will it be possible for him to revisit media conglomeration?

Serve me my Frank Rich uncut, or not at all.

[Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large. Before joining Slate, he was editor for two city weeklies, Washington City Paper and SF Weekly. Much of Shafer's writing focuses on what he sees as a lack of precision and rigor in reporting by the mainstream media. One frequent topic is media coverage of the War on Drugs, which according to Shafer is often unfair and alarmist.]

Copyright © 2008 Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

The Butcher On Broadway?

As the drama critic for the NY Fishwrap, The Butcher (On Broadway) was infamous for his reviews of Broadway shows. Today — standing at the intersection of Culture & News — a kinder, gentler drama critic (except when it comes to mention of The Dubster) emerges with his review of the Broadway revival of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s "South Pacific." However, today's Butcher goes beyond theater criticism to offer a meditation on the meaning of "South Pacific" on Memorial Day 2008 — more than a half-century after the show opened. If this is a (fair & balanced) plea for the United States to take its place in a multicultural world, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Memorial Day at "South Pacific"
By Frank Rich

New York is a ghost town on Memorial Day weekend. But two distinct groups are hanging tight: sailors delighting in the timeless shore-leave rituals of Fleet Week, and theatergoers clutching nearly impossible-to-get tickets for “South Pacific.”

Some of those sailors served in a war that has now lasted longer than American involvement in World War II but is largely out of sight and mind as civilians panic about gas prices at home. “South Pacific” has its sailors too: this 1949 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical tells of those who served in what we now call “the good war.”

The Lincoln Center revival of this old chestnut is surely the most unexpected cultural sensation the city has experienced in a while. In 2008, when 80-plus percent of Americans believe their country is in a ditch, there wouldn’t seem to be a big market for a show whose heroine, the Navy nurse Nellie Forbush, is a self-described “cockeyed optimist” who sings of being “as corny as Kansas in August.”

Yet last week one man stood outside the theater with a stack of $100 bills offering $1,000 for a $120 ticket. Inside, audiences start to tear up as soon as they hear the overture, even before they meet the men and women stationed in the remote islands of the New Hebrides. Among those who’ve been enraptured by this “South Pacific” the most common refrain is, “I couldn’t stop myself — I was sobbing.”

This would include me, and I have been trying to figure out why ever since I first saw this production in March. It certainly wasn’t nostalgia. I was born two months before the show’s Broadway premiere in April 1949 and had never before seen “South Pacific” on stage. It was mainly a musty parental inheritance from my boomer childhood. My father had served in the Pacific theater for 26 months, and my mother replayed the hit show tunes incessantly on 78s as our new postwar family settled into the suburbs.

Like countless others, I did see Hollywood’s glossy 1958 film version. As the British World War II historian Max Hastings writes in Retribution, his unsparing new book about the war’s grisly endgame in the Pacific, “Many of us gained our first, wonderfully romantic notion of the war against Japan by watching the movie of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s ‘South Pacific.’ ” But the movie of “South Pacific,” a candy-colored idyll dominated by wide-screen tourist vistas, is not the show. Its lush extravagance evokes the 1950s boom more than war.

In the 1960s, after the movie had come and gone, Vietnam pushed “South Pacific” into a cultural black hole. No one wanted to see a musical about war unless it was “Hair.” Unlike its Rodgers and Hammerstein siblings “Oklahoma!” and “The Sound of Music,” it never received a full Broadway revival.

Today everyone thinks they’ve seen the genuine “South Pacific” only because its songs reside in the collective American unconscious. “Some Enchanted Evening.” “Younger Than Springtime.” “There Is Nothin’ Like a Dame.” But few Americans born after V-J Day did see the real thing, which is one reason why audiences are ambushed by the revival. They expect corn, but in a year when war and race are at center stage in the national conversation, this relic turns out to have a great deal to say.

Though it contains a romance, “South Pacific” is not at all romantic about war. The troops are variously bored, randy, juvenile and conniving. They are not prone to jingoistic posturing. When American officers try to recruit Emile de Becque, a worldly French expatriate, in a dangerous reconnaissance operation, they tell him he must do so because “we’re against the Japs.” De Becque, who is the show’s hero, snaps at them: “I know what you’re against. What are you for?” No one bothers to answer his question. The men have been given a job to do, and they do it.

“South Pacific” isn’t pro-war or antiwar. But it makes you think about the costs. When, after months of often slovenly idling, the troops ship out for the action they’ve been craving, the azure tropical sky darkens to a gunpowder gray. Their likely mission is to storm the beach at Tarawa, where in November 1943 more than 1,000 Americans and 4,600 Japanese would die in less than 76 hours in one of the war’s deadliest battles.

This is a more fatalistic World War II than some we’ve seen lately. When America was sleepwalking on the eve of 9/11, the good war was repositioned as an uplifting brand. Nostalgia kicked in. Perhaps we wanted to glom onto an earlier America’s noble mission because we, unlike “the greatest generation,” had none of our own. The real “South Pacific” returns us to the war as its contemporaries saw it, when the wounds were too raw to be healed by sentiment.

That reflects the show’s provenance. It was hot off the press: a nearly instantaneous adaptation of Tales of the South Pacific, the 1947 novel in which the previously unknown James A. Michener set down his own wartime experiences in the Pacific.

Many theatergoers who saw “South Pacific” in 1949 had sons and brothers who had not returned home. Just 10 days after it opened at the Majestic Theater on 44th Street, The New York Times carried a small story datelined Honolulu. A ship had arrived there bearing “the bodies of 120 American war dead,” the remains of men missing in action since 1943. “Thus ended the last general search for the men who fell in the South Pacific war,” the article said.

Watching “South Pacific” now, we’re forced to contemplate Iraq, which we’re otherwise pretty skilled at avoiding. Most of us don’t have family over there. Most of us long ago decided the war was a mistake and tuned out. Most of us have stopped listening to the president who ginned it up. This month, in case you missed it, he told an interviewer that he had made the ultimate sacrifice of giving up golf for the war’s duration because “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf.”

“South Pacific” reminds us that those whose memory we honor tomorrow — including those who served in Vietnam — are always at the mercy of the leaders who send them into battle. It increases our admiration for the selflessness of Americans fighting in Iraq. They, unlike their counterparts in World War II, do their duty despite answering to a commander in chief who has been both reckless and narcissistic. You can’t watch “South Pacific” without meditating on their sacrifices for this blunderer, whose wife last year claimed that “no one suffers more” over Iraq than she and her husband do.

The show’s racial conflicts are also startlingly alive. Nellie Forbush, far from her hometown of Little Rock, recoils from de Becque when she learns that he fathered two children by a Polynesian woman. In the original script, Nellie denigrates de Becque’s late wife as “colored.” (Michener gave Nellie a more incendiary word in his book.) “Colored” was cut in rehearsals then but has been restored now, and it lands like a brick in the theater. It’s not only upsetting in itself. It’s upsetting because Nellie isn’t some cracker stereotype — she’s lovable (especially as embodied by the actress Kelli O’Hara). But how can we love a racist? And how can she not love Emile’s young mixed-race children?

Michener would work out this story in his own life. In 1949, he moved to Hawaii, where he would eventually make a third, long-lived marriage with a Japanese-American who had been held in an internment camp during the war. “South Pacific” works through this American dilemma for the audience, too. Years before Little Rock’s 1957 racial explosion, Nellie moves beyond her prejudices, propelled by life and love and the circumstances of war. She charts a path that much of America, North and South, would haltingly begin to follow. (In the script, we also hear of racism in Philadelphia’s Main Line.) “South Pacific” opened as President Truman was implementing the desegregation of America’s armed forces — against the backdrop of Ku Klux Klan beatings of black veterans.

Then and now, the show concludes with the most classic of American tableaus: Emile, Nellie and the two kids sitting down to a family meal. It’s hard for us to imagine how this coda must have struck audiences in 1949, when interracial marriage was still illegal in many states (as it would be in 16 until 1967). But nearly 60 years later, this multiracial family portrait has another context. The audiences watching “South Pacific” in this intense election year are being asked daily to take stock of just how far along we are on Nellie’s path and how much further we still have to go.

And so as we watch that family gather at the end of “South Pacific,” both their future and their country’s destiny yet to be written, we weep for the same reason we often do when we experience a catharsis at the theater. We grieve deeply for our losses and our failings, even as we feel an undertow of cockeyed optimism about the possibilities of healing and redemption that may yet lie ahead. Ω

[Frank Rich is an op-ed columnist for The New York Times who writes a weekly 1500-word essay on the intersection of culture and news. Rich has been at the paper since 1980. His columns and articles for the Week in Review, the Arts & Leisure section and the Magazine draw from his background as a theater critic (known as "The Butcher On Broadway") and observer of art, entertainment and politics. Before joining The Times, Rich was a film critic at Time magazine, the New York Post, and New Times magazine. He was a founding editor of the Richmond (Va.) Mercury, a weekly newspaper, in the early 1970s. Rich is the author of a childhood memoir, Ghost Light (2000), a collection of drama reviews, Hot Seat: Theater Criticism for The New York Times, 1980-1993 (1998), and The Theatre Art of Boris Aronson (with Lisa Aronson, 1987). Rich is a graduate of the Washington, DC public schools. He earned a BA degree in American History and Literature from Harvard College in 1971.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

In Memorium: Matthew T. Morris (1984-2008)

No snark, no smartass. Tomorrow is the day to remember Matthew T. Morris and all of the young people like him. Hooah! If this is (fair & balanced) respect, so be it.

[x Austin American-Statesman]
Photo By Larry Kolvoord



Pallbearers carry Spc. Matthew T. Morris' casket. He died in Iraq and was buried in Central Texas State Veterans Cemetery in Killeen, TX.

[x Austin American-Statesman]
Spc. Matthew T. Morris Was Killed April 6 In Iraq
By Sue Banerjee

Relatives said he was supposed to propose to his high school sweetheart this week in mid-April.



Instead, Army Spc. Matthew T. Morris, 23, who died in Iraq on April 6, was brought home to Central Texas on Monday morning in a flag-draped casket.

"I always remembered how he would be looking at me across a crowded room and wink and blow a kiss to me," said Julia Richardson, his girlfriend of three years whom he met at Cedar Park High School.

Morris was assigned to the 2nd Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, at Fort Hood. He died when an explosive detonated near his vehicle in Balad, Iraq.

Morris' body arrived at the National Guard facility at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport on Monday and was placed in a hearse headed for the Beck Funeral Home in Cedar Park. The procession included family members; 75 to 100 members of the Patriot Guard, a group of motorcyclists who ride to honor slain soldiers; and members of the Austin police and Travis County sheriff's departments.

Family members said the motorcyclists were an appropriate farewell for Morris who had a passion for his own bike.

"He loved to ride it, and the louder the better," said his mother, Lisa Morris of Cedar Park.

Before enlisting in the Army in 2005, Morris attended the Fishburne Military School in Waynesboro, Va., for more than a year. There, he met a history teacher who inspired him to want to become an educator.

"After his service, he wanted to go back to school and get a four-year degree to become a teacher," his mother said. "He wanted to make a difference and give back to the community."

His friends remembered him as someone who loved to play video games, barbecue and go for trips on the lake.

"He would always be there for somebody and was always the highlight of a night," said Robert Dolcelli, his best friend of eight years.

Morris' father was also an Army man. Glenn Morris was stationed in Thailand during the Vietnam War. Morris said his son believed that serving in the military would make his parents proud.

"He was a very creative kid, and when he wasn't in a challenging environment, he tried to make life interesting," Glenn Morris said. "He excelled in a military school structure and in a team environment."

Morris joined the military as a power-generation equipment repairer and was deployed to Iraq in November. He became a driver for a team that trained Iraqi soldiers.

"He was embedded with the Iraqi army," his father said.

His mother said Morris enjoyed his duties and respected his service to the country.

"He was so proud to wear his uniform that he walked taller in it, and you could see the pride he had in his service even when he was in a T-shirt and shorts."

Copyright © 2008 Austin American-Statesman


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

'Sup, Blog?

Forget the Old School Swift Boat Veterans. Say hello to "Minnesota Democrats Exposed" as the blogosphere will likely be the political battleground in Campaign '08. The Hopester had better get ready because the Righty attack dogs are going on the Internet.

Copyright © 1993 Peter Steiner and The New Yorker


Actually, the 2008-caption should read, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're an attack dog." If this is (fair & balanced) techno-terrorism, so be it.


[x NY Fishwrap]
Senate Race in Minnesota Shows Power of Bloggers

By Monica Davey

On a laptop at a kitchen table in a Twin Cities suburb, headlines ripping into Al Franken, the satirist whose campaign for the United States Senate is seen as one of the most competitive in the nation, are written up day after day for Minnesota Democrats Exposed, a political blog created by a former Republican Party researcher.

The Future? Blogger Brodkorb, slaving over a hot keyboard.


Michael B. Brodkorb, the blog’s creator, has worked on the campaigns of some of this state’s top Republicans. Mr. Brodkorb’s critics say the Web site’s claims, screamed in red uppercase letters, are often breathless, far-fetched and painfully partisan.

But Minnesota Democrats Exposed has dealt several blows to Mr. Franken’s campaign lately: revelations that he owed $25,000 to the State of New York for failing to pay workers’ compensation insurance and that his corporation was in forfeiture in California.

With only weeks until the state Democratic Party’s convention, where Mr. Franken is expected to win the party’s endorsement to run against Senator Norm Coleman, the Republican incumbent, people here disagree about how much these financial questions will matter to voters in the fall.

What Mr. Franken’s circumstance has proven, though, is that no Minnesota candidate this fall can afford to ignore Mr. Brodkorb, or the rest of the state’s universe of Web sites devoted to local politics. Experts here say the abundance of these blogs is a mirror onto this state, its partisan split in recent years and its long tradition of intense political activism (by some measures, voter turnout here was the highest in the nation in 2006). That said, they are anything but Minnesota Nice.

Eric Pusey’s liberal-leaning mnblue, for instance, tracks Mr. Coleman’s moves on a “Weasel Meter.” Some blog live from the smallest of political meetings and the forgotten campaign stops. Enough of these writers have cropped up here now to make a Minnesota Organization of Bloggers, better known here as the Mob.

“We’ve kind of got a center of gravity going on up here,” said Mitch Berg, part of a group that started a True North Web site in 2007.

The Franken campaign has played down the significance of the revelations first raised on Mr. Brodkorb’s site, but there are signs the tax problems may be trouble for Mr. Franken, a former comedian who has worked hard to show voters that his campaign is serious. A recent poll of voters by The Minneapolis Star Tribune that showed Mr. Coleman leading Mr. Franken (though within the margin of error) also found that 42 percent of those polled were not satisfied with Mr. Franken’s explanations of his tax problems; 28 percent said the problems made them less likely to vote for him.

“This looks like random incompetence mostly,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. “But Franken has taken a pounding, getting tattooed by story after story, which is preventing him from making this a referendum on the incumbent.”

In March, Mr. Brodkorb reported that Mr. Franken’s corporation, Alan Franken Inc., owed a penalty of $25,000 to the state compensation board in New York for failing to carry workers’ compensation insurance from 2002 to 2005. State officials said they sent Mr. Franken 12 letters on the matter, but received no answer.

Mr. Franken, who has since paid the debt, declined an interview on the issue. Andy Barr, a spokesman for the campaign, said Mr. Franken had not known of the oversight by the corporation (which consisted of Mr. Franken, his wife, Franni, and an assistant or two), and received none of the letters. The state’s letters were sent to the Frankens’ New York apartment, officials there say; the couple moved to Minnesota at the end of 2005, though the family still owns the apartment.

In April, Mr. Brodkorb wrote that Mr. Franken’s company was in forfeiture in California. Other reporters found the reason: California authorities said Mr. Franken’s company had failed to pay franchise tax fees from 2003 to 2006, and owed nearly $5,000, which Mr. Franken has since paid. Mr. Franken’s company paid no franchise taxes to the state in those years, Mr. Barr said, because Mr. Franken believed his accounting firm had shut down the corporation after 2002.

The reports led Mr. Franken to hire a new team of financial advisers to review his finances. Late last month, Mr. Franken announced the findings: although he had paid state income tax on his earnings, his accountant had, in some cases, paid it to the wrong states. Like professional athletes, entertainers are, in some instances, required to pay taxes to states where they earn money. He had paid more than $917,000 in state taxes to New York and Minnesota from 2003 to 2006, but should have sent parts of that sum (the total would actually have been about $4,000 higher) to 17 other states where he performed. Mr. Franken’s supporters, and several Democratic-leaning blogs, have dismissed the problems as meaningless, an accountant’s bureaucratic errors.

“We’re in two wars and a recession,” Mr. Barr said. “This is not the time to try to have an election about something else.”

Still, the campaign was clearly worried: it created an emergency phone bank one evening to call the more than 2,500 Democratic convention delegates and alternates and deliver the news before it came out the next day in the newspapers.

Many state Democrats (here, the party is known as the D.F.L., for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) dismiss Mr. Brodkorb as a mouthpiece for accusations the Republicans dig up and want to present in a way more likely to catch on than a news release. Indeed, Mr. Brodkorb, 34, once worked on the campaigns of Republican leaders including Mr. Coleman, and last year managed, without pay, the campaign of Ron Carey to be re-elected the state’s Republican chairman.

Mr. Brodkorb began his blog anonymously in 2004 when he was still working for the state party, then identified himself in 2006. “Look,” he said in an interview in his kitchen, “while my perspective is through partisan blinders, I think it passes the smell test every day.”

But Mr. Brodkorb insists that he gets tips from Democrats, too, and is not paid by the state party or any candidate. Tom Erickson, a spokesman for Mr. Coleman’s campaign, said it had not provided leads connected to Mr. Franken’s tax woes, adding, “Michael has an extensive network of sources.”

Republicans have seized on the slow trickle of developments, questioning Mr. Franken’s explanations and suggesting that more issues might emerge.

“There are so many unanswered questions,” said Mr. Carey, the state Republican chairman. “What resonates with people is, ‘I pay my taxes. Why shouldn’t he pay his?’ And it’s one of those things we’re probably at the opening chapters of the book in this story.”

Then again, already, there were other stories bubbling forth.

D.F.L.-leaning sites like MNPublius, the creation of Matt Martin, 23, had turned to claims that Mr. Coleman might face his own financial embarrassment: Mr. Coleman this month declined a D.F.L. demand that he return campaign donations from workers at a firm that once lobbied on behalf of a faction of Myanmar’s military government. Other sites raised questions about the state Republican Party’s own financial reporting issues; state party officials acknowledge they are reviewing Federal Election Commission filings since 2002, but argue that their sort of errors have been common among state party organizations.

[Monica Davey is the NYT's Chicago bureau chief.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.