Personal Commentary

Signs of Dementia

Thomas Frediman is at it again. This week he reassured us that the Gulf oil spill is not this president’s Katrina. Obama is doing everything right, and Bush did everything wrong. This in the same week that Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said, “They told us it was under control. Then they told us it wasn’t,” about the spill. It may just be me, but that sounds a lot like the former Democratic governor of Louisiana telling Bush they had the response to Katrina under control. Then telling him they didn’t. Maybe pictures of an oil rig spouting geysers of fire and falling into the sea isn’t as sure a sign of disaster as radar images of a hurricane heading towards New Orleans. Both presidents would have been better off ignoring what somebody else told them and taking quicker control of the situation.

But that’s not what has Friedman in a twist. It seems we’ve missed another opportunity. George Bush shouldn’t have wasted his time standing on the rubble of the twin towers with a bullhorn saying, ” I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” Obama should never have engaged in all the finger pointing about who’s to blame or “we’ve been on top of this since day one” garbage. Both presidents would have been better off heading straight to Congress and demanding something much more important.

A tax hike. On gasoline.

An extra dollar a gallon at the pump seems to be about right to Mr. Friedman. I guess Rahm Emmanuel is right. Never let a crisis go to waste. After all, a new tax is a panacea for what ails our country. Ram ‘em through whenever you get a chance, and there is no better opportunity than when the country is worrying about a real problem.

I’m sorry to pick on Mr. Friedman. He’s not the only one over at the New York Times that seems to have lost their logic gene. In just the past couple of weeks we’ve learned what a terrible thing it is that people aren’t watching the network news anymore, or CNN or MSNBC or (gasp!) reading the Times – they’re watching an evil news network that shall not be named or listening to that pesky talk radio. We’ve learned how bigoted the people of Arizona are, as well as 70% of all Americans, for passing such a “troubling” illegal immigration law. Perhaps, like the administration, they haven’t read the law and don’t understand that if the Arizona law is racial profiling waiting to happen then so is the SEVENTY YEAR OLD Federal immigration law. Oh, and the Tea Party. They’re hillbillies. No, they’re racists. No, they’re – what is it they are now? Please.

I don’t think the Old Gray Lady is just old. I think she has dementia. She remembers what happened in the sixties like it was yesterday. But she just can’t seem to remember that two out of three Americans are against about every position they take today.

A tax hike? On gasoline? As a response to 9/11? They must be crazy.



Unwritten

Every year I get older. That’s not true, really, not anymore. Now I  see something on the satellite or on the web that makes me feel older every day. There have been a couple of documentaries recently that made my tooth longer. Both are about dead musicians, but not the usual famous, indulgent, overdose tales of woe. Sad none the less, and not simply because I recalled their epochs as much more recent to my memory then they actually were.

The first was A Skin Too Few, chronicling the brief career and death of Nick Drake, a British singer/songwriter of the early 1970s. He only record three albums. None of them were successful. His music did not fit into the acoustic folk tradition of that time, and his lack of audience exacerbated his history of depression. In November of 1974 he died of an overdose of antidepressants. It was ruled a suicide. He was 26 years old. A familiar story in many respects, but the music in the documentary made me pay attention.

I purchased all three of his records – Five Leaves Left (1969), Bryter Layter (1970) and Pink Moon (1972). There is a depth to the words and music of these recordings, and a powerful virtuosity to the acoustic guitar.  It is easy to see why Drake was difficult to categorize and promote in the early ’70s. It is hard to categorize him today, a Cat Stevens with a much more complex imagery, perhaps. I was certainly never aware of him during his lifetime. In 2000, a renewed interest in his music was sparked with the use of Pink Moon in a Volkswagen commercial. That song is often the first sited when mentioning Drake’s music, and it is beautifully melodic bit of song, but it was his second album, Bryter Layter, that hooked me. I had heard the song Fly from this record before, from the the soundtrack of The Royal Tenenbaums. And like that song, this album features a much fuller instrumentation with Drake’s voice floating high above and his intricate guitar anchoring every song.

I have since acquired posthumous releases like Made to Love Magic and Family Tree. They are uneven, but still contain glimpses of brilliance. The somber home recordings found on Family Tree are particularly haunting in their often desperate lyrics, considering the nature of Drake’s death.

The Drake documentary attuned me to other such fare, and it was not long after that I saw The Future is Unwritten. It is the story of Joe Strummer, founder of The Clash. I was not drawn to this because of Strummer’s association with The Clash. I was never drawn to the punk bands of the late ’70s and early ’80s. The music seemed too one dimensional, almost without subtlety and always angry. Many of my peers raved about London Calling, by my interest in The Clash ended with Should I Stay or Should I Go and Train in Vain.

No, what drew me in was the music Strummer made after The Clash, particularly with The Mescaleros. This oeuvre includes only four albums, the last released posthumously, following his death from an undiagnosed congenital heart defect in December of 2002 at the age of 50. I was also very interested by the songs Strummer identified as influences in the documentary. Songs like Crawfish by Elvis Presley and Corrina, Corrina by Bob Dylan.

Following the demise of The Clash, Strummer recorded Earthquake Weather in 1989. It was a precursor of his later solo work, but it was not what the public or critics expected and led to his release from Sony Records. Strummer didn’t record again for a decade until the release of his first record with The Mescaleros in 1999. Strummer and The Mescaleros recorded three albums from 1999 to 2002.  The jewel of these recordings is Streetcore, a stylized rock album in the tradition of David Bowie or Peter Gabriel. The sampling and world music instrumentation and subtle, sharp guitars are mesmerizing. It not only induced me to investigate all of Strummer’s solos efforts, but to take another look at his work with The Clash. What I found was the seeds of his solo work and a reggae aesthetic apparent, most notably, on Sandanista!.

And, ultimately, this brought to mind the dichotomy in many of my favorite bands. Are you a Lennon person or a McCartney person? Is it Page or Plant? Roger Waters or David Gilmour? The Clash offers this choice as well – two strong musical presences forming the core of a seminal band. When these presences are separated, one of the artists will tend to embody in their subsequent work what you liked most about the original band. Mick Jones was Strummer’s counterpart in The Clash. Jones had great success immediately following the break-up of The Clash with his band Big Audio Dynamite. But I found the music of Big Audio Dynamite encompassed all the things i didn’t like about The Clash. I didn’t realize until I saw The Future is Unwritten that Strummer’s influence was a part of The Clash that appealed to me forcibly.

To demonstrate the legacy of both these artists, Nick Drake and Joe Strummer, and to highlight what I like about them both, I have also posted playlists under the My Playlists tab on this site. I hope they don’t make you feel older, as they did me, but rejuvenated by the music.



Leaps of Logic

Thomas Frediman wrote an editorial for the New York Times on April 4, 2010 that I was agreeing with. The engine of economic growth is small, start-up companies, he said. It seems those types of companies accounted for virtually all job growth in the United States between 1980 and 2005.

According to Freidman, “You cannot say this often enough: Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from start-ups. And where do start-ups come from? They come from smart, creative, inspired risk-takers. How do we get more of those?”

I couldn’t wait for his conclusions. What are the first things that come to mind when asked, “How do we get more start-up companies?” I bet what came to your mind is not what came to Freidman’s. “There are only two ways,” he says. Only two, and here they are: “Grow more by improving our schools or import more by recruiting talented immigrants.”

What? These are the ONLY two ways to get more start-ups in America? And they involve education and immigration policy? I don’t suppose these policies being hot-button political issues has anything to do with this logic.

Just get this straight, Mr. Freidman leaps to the conclusion that our colleges and universities aren’t producing enough would-be entrepreneurs and that if we allow Juan to cross the border unfettered he’ll get an “improved” education and start a new company. Yet even Freidman admits there are thousands of foreign students in our colleges and universities and millions of foreign graduates in professional jobs in this country. Sounds like our underperforming schools and backwards immigration policy is working for them.

Go back, then, to the original premise. “Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from start-ups. How do we get more of those?” What if we told would-be entrepreneurs in and graduated from our schools that we we will reduced or eliminate their corporate taxes during the start-up phase, say for three to five years. Not only is that a strong incentive to start a new company, all the new employees of the company will be paying taxes, increasing revenues. Many cities already do this sort of thing with reinvestment zones, providing investors tax breaks for redeveloping blighted neighborhoods. New businesses and consumer spending in the zones more than make up for the tax breaks.

But new companies are having difficulties getting investment capital – too risky, much more risky than, say, mortgage loans. Perhaps, while we’re in the mood to tells banks what to do, we should require a certain percentage of their loan portfolios be for new businesses. If banks want to make more consumer or business loans, they have to increase the capital they invest in new businesses.

Now that’s just two MORE ways to get more start-up companies in America, because Mr. Freidman is right, “Good-paying jobs don’t come from bailouts. They come from start-ups.” They do not come when politics takes the place of policy.




See more Personal Commentary HERE.