Saturday, March 24, 2007

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j152/AmberAlley/Shangri_Las.jpg
Look out! Look out! Mary Weiss is back!
Fresh from the angst-ridden '60s,
a 'Leader of the Pack' resurfaces
Bruce Ward
The Ottawa Citizen

The Shangri-Las were four Catholic high-school girls from Queens who sang traumatic teen operettas then disappeared, casualties of the British Invasion that changed pop music.

The girls, all attitude and angst, wore high black boots and leather vests and left plenty of footprints. The Ramones were huge fans, as were Blondie's Deborah Harry and the New York Dolls.

Mary Weiss was the 15-year-old lead singer. She could sound sexy and dangerous with one breathy sigh. Sociologist Donna Gaines described Weiss's voice as a "squelp" -- a "combination squeal and yelp" that is "the sound of a real teenage girl declaring her love."

Weiss went into exile when the band folded in a flurry of litigation and hurt feelings. Now she's back with a new album, Dangerous Games, and there's gonna be ... tortured, tangled hearts, deep regrets and spiky recriminations.

Other girl groups went for sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. With the Shangri-Las it was death.

Leader of the Pack, their biggest hit, tells how a biker speeds off to his doom when his girlfriend dumps him because her dad hates the guy.

In I Can Never Go Home Any More, a girl runs away because her Mom bugs her relentlessly about her boyfriend; Mom dies without ever finding out that her daughter really loves her. The eloping teenage couple in Give Us Your Blessing dies in a car crash -- yes, their eyes were filled with tears -- because their parents refuse to approve their marriage.

The message was pretty clear. Parents screw up your life, no matter what you do.

The dialogue in the songs is brilliant because the group -- twin sisters Margie and Mary Ann Ganser, and Weiss and her older sister Betty -- had a perfect grasp of the vernacular. This snippet from Leader of the Pack shows the other girls interrogating Weiss:

"By the way, where'd you meet him?"

"I met him at the candy store/ He turned around and smiled at me/ You get the picture?

"Yes, we see."

Songwriter Jeff Barry, who had a hand in writing and producing the Shangri-Las' best songs, said their records were "a movie for the ear" by design.

"We were conscious that we were making little soap operas with sound effects," he says in Always Magic In The Air, a superb history of the Brill Building era by Ken Emerson.

"It was all to evoke the imagination that MTV has eliminated today. This was radio ... Songs sound better with your eyes closed."

Leader of the Pack straddles the line between pathos and put-on but, as Barry recalls, Weiss performed it with utter sincerity.

"I remember sitting opposite (Mary Weiss) when she sang it, me on one side of the hanging microphone and she on the other, my side dead.

"I directed her in it, saying 'Look what happened to this guy. Here he is. He loves this girl. And just think about her: she stands there and sees him pull away on his motorcycle.' I got her all psyched up and she was crying. When she sang, 'Look out! Look out! Look out!' you can hear it. Her performance is a big part of the success of that record."

Producer-hustler George "Shadow" Morton dreamed up the sound effects for the records. To get the vroom-vroom sound on Leader of the Pack, he brought a motorcycle into the recording studio, and revved it up as the tape rolled. Walkin' In The Sand, Morton's first record with the Shangri-Las, brought together the main elements -- an over-the-top storyline, spoken words, sound effects and surging harmonies.

Not every night was dark and stormy for the Shangri-Las. Give Him A Great Big Kiss is an irresistibly buoyant romantic fantasy about a greaseball hunk type the Shangri-Las were always falling for.

"I hear he's bad," the girls tell Weiss in one of the greatest bits of teen dialogue ever recorded.

"Mmm, he's good bad but he's not evil," she says, summing up the sort of semi-delinquent who looked instantly dated the moment The Beatles hit America.

"Is he tall?" they want to know.

"Well, I haveta look up," she says -- to be kissed, natch.

Then the girls go too far: "Is he a good dancer?"

"Whatta ya mean, is he a good dancuh!" snaps Weiss. Like there's a snowball's chance she'd be seen with a guy who couldn't dance with authority.

"Well, How does he dance?"

"Close," she answers in a voice so steamy it might make the Class Nerd faint. "Very, very close."

That exchange is way sexier than any Janet Jackson video, even if Jackson is half naked.

For Weiss, the recording studio was a confessional of sorts.

"I'm kind of a shy person," she told Emerson, "but I felt that the recording studio was the place that you could really release what you're feeling without everyone looking at you ... I had enough pain in me at the time to pull off anything and get into it and sound believable."

Weiss didn't have the best start in life. Her father died when she was a baby and her mother more or less gave up. Her one significant contribution to her daughter's upbringing was to sign Weiss, only 14, to a ruinous contract with a record company.

The Shangri-Las looked and talked like real teenagers, or how real teenagers wanted to look and sound, if not for parental disapproval.

You might figure the Gansers for the unlucky type who got pregnant in Grade 11 and wound up waitressing while Mom looked after the baby. Mary looked plenty wised up, but vulnerable too. Betty was in and out of the group a dozen times. She's not pictured in many of the group's publicity photos.

Mary Ann Ganser died of a likely drug overdose in 1971; Margie died of breast cancer in 1996. Weiss' sister is fine, but she's out of the picture as far as a comeback goes.

Weiss, meanwhile, isn't rushing into anything.

"I'm talking it very slowly," she told New York magazine. "I just want to have fun now. People can take advantage of you in your youth. And they're not going to do it again."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

See you Sunday.
Do What You Do

March 24, 2007

By Adam Lucas

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J.--Ty Lawson was gassed.

You might not have seen it, but he was. There were four minutes and eight seconds left in the East Regional semifinal and his hands were on his hips, his mouth was wide open, and he was gasping for air.

Brandan Wright was shooting free throws, so Lawson took the opportunity to sidle over to the Carolina bench.

"Man, I'm tired," he told Roy Williams.

That is point guard speak for, "I need a rest."

Another time, another game, Williams would have looked down his bench and pointed his finger at Bobby Frasor or Quentin Thomas. "Get Ty," he would have said, and Lawson would have taken a seat beside Joe Holladay.

Not on Friday. Not in the middle of what was--according to sports information as of 2 a.m.--Carolina's best NCAA Tournament comeback.

"You've got eight more seconds until the timeout," Williams told his droopy point guard.

"OK," Lawson said. "I'm staying in."

Of course he is.

Four minutes left, round of 16, there is no other choice. This is the time that you do what you do. Lawson plays. We pray.

Wes Miller, for example. As Carolina stretched the improbable lead from three points to five points, the entire Tar Heel bench was standing--some of them, these 6-foot-6 trees, were standing on their tiptoes.

Not Miller. The shortest Tar Heel was crouched down, his hands on the floor. Asked what he was thinking right at that moment, right as he watched Danny Green coax a turnover out of Southern Cal, he said exactly what you were thinking and exactly what I was thinking:



"Whew. I was thinking I couldn't take it."

It's harder to watch than it is to play. Not physically. Physically it is not that difficult to sit in your recliner and watch the Tar Heels, rising only to protest the latest blown call or exchange a high five.

But mentally, it is harder. On the court, there is no time to think about what is happening. Just run down the court, run the offense, see the ball, crash the boards. That is why Green didn't have time to consider the ramifications of his enormous play that gave the Tar Heels the lead for the first time.

You remember it. Green got a steal out of a media timeout. He fired ahead, and it looked like Wayne Ellington was going to coast in for an easy dunk.

Except he missed it.

It wasn't quite Brian Reese's missed dunk against Cincinnati in 1993 in this same arena, but it was close enough to be painful. All this comeback, all this work, and now a dunk was bouncing off the back of the rim. There would be no one there to rebound it. This could be a comeback-snuffer. Surely Green would not have bothered to waste the energy to run down the floor and follow the play.

Right?

"No, no, no," said Green, who was playing in front of a sizable chunk of family and friends. "I wanted to chase it. I had to chase it. I thought he might get cut off and need to pass it back, so I wanted to be there for that. Luckily, Brandan and I were there to follow it up."

Yeah, that was pretty lucky. Or maybe it has to do with all those practices in an empty Smith Center, all those afternoons with Williams screaming, "Run!" at his team as they go through another 2-hour session.

Oh, about Williams. You were doing what you do. You changed seats or wore your lucky shoes or sat completely still lest you disturb the comeback mojo. And what did he do?

Exactly what he always does--let his team work through their problems.

He watched a 42-33 halftime deficit balloon to 49-33 with 17:43 remaining. There were no timeouts called. The lone timeout he used all game came with 0.8 seconds left in the first half, when the Tar Heels diagrammed a terrific play that gave Wayne Ellington a perfect look at a three-pointer, but it didn't fall.

How do you let your team fall behind by 16 points without calling timeout? Go ahead, admit it, you were saying that in your living room or in your seat at the Meadowlands. Call timeout, Roy! You don't get to take them home with you after the game!

How do you let that happen?

You trust your team. And they reward you.

"We look over at Coach Williams, and he's not calling a timeout," Marcus Ginyard said. "He's just telling us to get the ball up the floor and continue to play. All the players can feel the confidence Coach has in this team. It's really hard to say how important that is for a player, for a coach to feel that confident about his team and the way he knew we'd be able to come back."

Hey Roy, how about a favor? Next time, if you know it, can you flash us a little sign or something? Scratch your nose or cross your eyes or whatever it takes. Maybe then these games won't be quite so exhausting. How can a basketball game sap every ounce of your energy and at the same time wire you to the point that you can't sleep for hours?

There's bad news for Williams, too. At some point during the comeback, the Tar Heel bench turned into a melee. It was at about that point that Dewey Burke clocked his head coach in the jaw with a misplaced forearm. Burke later claimed that Wes Miller had initiated the contact that led to the collision. Williams wasn't having any of it.

"How many plus points does Dewey have?" he asked in a happy Carolina locker room. "I think we've got to take some away for that."

Well, OK. But just be aware it might be necessary to repeat the performance on Sunday. This is the NCAA Tournament and there are eight teams left. This is no time to take a chance. Ty and Brandan and Marcus and Danny and you other guys in argyle, you were important. But don't forget about the fan in Gastonia leaving the room, the diehard in Richmond changing into his lucky t-shirt, the slightly obsessive Tar Heel in Swansboro laying her hands on her team poster, and even William Graves and his magical shiny belt buckle (seriously, check it out).

"You know what I think the turning point of the game might have been?" Woody Durham asked after the Tar Heel Sports Network went off the air. "I think it was when I said, `Go where you go and do what you do.'"

Everyone nodded. It made perfect sense. Probably, he was right. It made as much sense as anything, because how else do you explain recovering from a 16-point second-half deficit in the NCAA Tournament?

Doing what you do--no matter who you are or what it is that you do, from the head coach right on down to whoever holds up the bottom end of the Tar Heel totem pole--did it. This was an acceptable explanation for what had just transpired. At some point, life will return to normal and you can drive to work on a different route or use a different toothpaste or wash your shirt.

Yes, it is irrational and it is silly.

Just keep doing it.

Adam Lucas's third book on Carolina basketball, The Best Game Ever, chronicles the 1957 national championship season and is available now. His previous books include Going Home Again, focusing on Roy Williams's return to Carolina, and Led By Their Dreams, a collaboration with Steve Kirschner and Matt Bowers on the 2005 championship team.

Friday, March 23, 2007

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/9884/nw050106cov1dt.jpg
From The New York Post:
DUKE: WHO WON'T PAY

By JOHN PODHORETZ

March 23, 2007 -- IT seems that the trumped-up charges against three young men who played for the la crosse team at Duke University will be dismissed either today or sometime next week.

That will mostly end their ordeal, though they'll still have to deal with millions of dollars in legal fees (which, in the end, the city of Durham, N.C., will probably have to pick up).

The same can't be said of their false accuser - who is in a world of trouble, since you're not supposed to make false accusations to the authorities.

But her dire fate will seem positively sunny compared to that of Durham DA Mike Nifong - who is certain to be sued for defamation, likely to be disbarred and very possibly charged with an open-and-shut case of perjury that could land him in jail for a long time.

Yet some of the most disgraceful actors in this case will go unpunished.

I'm referring to a huge cohort of the professors at the top-flight university attended by the three unjustly accused men.

Some 88 of them - more than 10 percent of the entire Duke professoriat - engaged in a shocking rush to judgment in the weeks following the party where the accuser falsely alleged she had been raped.

They signed an ad declaring they were "turning up the volume at a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down."

Their shameful conduct helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere that tempted and seduced DA Nifong to believe he could ride an indictment of the three young men to political victory in the Democratic primary that took place only weeks after he charged them.

It is not too much to say that many of the adults at Duke, who should be stewards for their students, actually wanted the false rape story to be true because it fulfilled their ideological predilections.

Since the academic work of those who organized the ad centers around the notion that the white male power structure subjugates and violates all those who are neither white nor male, the case was actually a dream come true for them.

After all, a poor African-American woman said a gang of white boys - a gang whose number changed each time she told her cock-and-bull story - had raped her only a few yards from the Duke campus.

These academics must realize there is something more than faintly ridiculous about professors living in bucolic splendor with lifetime tenure at one of America's most prestigious universities claiming that they and people like them - students whose admittance to the university represents an irrevocable ticket into the highest reaches of the American power structure - are being socially suppressed.

So here the accusation of a race-and-sex crime falls right into their laps.

Ah! At last! Proof!

Here it was: Real-world support for their absurdly airy conspiracy theories.

So what if the tale made no sense, that anyone with eyes to see could perceive almost from Day One that it was a preposterous invention?

So what if the lives of young men in their charge were at stake? It was time to "turn up the volume" - not to save countless African-American women from rape, but rather to justify their own ideas.

There will be consequences for the unseemly conduct at Duke. The university's president, Richard Brodhead, may not survive his own rush to judgment. His conduct may lead the school's board of trustees to look for a successor who won't destroy reputations at the drop of a hat to satisfy the desires of the politically correct.

But for those 88 professors - what consequences will they experience?

Consequences? Don't make me laugh.

The tenured ones will continue to enjoy their aristocratic installment in Durham. The untenured will be supported in their efforts to find similar perches elsewhere by the rest of the Gang of 88, because that's how academic politics works.

How about even the loss of even a single night of sleep?

Oh, no. Not these folks. They're fighting the white patriarchy. They're on the side of the dispossessed and oppressed. They're giving voice to the voiceless. They're giving hope to the hopeless.

They're fools at best and monsters at worst - and neither fools nor monsters are much troubled by attacks of conscience.

jpodhoretz@gmail.com

Thursday, March 22, 2007

http://www.oliviersentucq.com/dotclear/images/jesse1.jpg
From The Village Voice:
Born to Run Home

East Village icon Jesse Malin returns
for some inspiration, and gives it right back

by Richard Bienstock


"New York is a great place to leave and come back to," says Jesse Malin, who recently returned to his hometown after a brief move to Los Angeles, where he recorded much of his third solo album, Glitter in the Gutter. "They've got some good-hearted people and decent Mexican food," he admits of his westward jaunt, "but I didn't last out there. I like to hang out, run into different people, just walk the streets—do that in L.A. and everyone thinks you're a male prostitute. But I need that contact, that spontaneity. It inspires me."

It's clear that Malin, presently holed up in a corner booth at Life Café on Avenue B, never wants for inspiration here. He's relaxing—as much as I imagine the fast-talking, constantly buzzing 39-year-old ever relaxes—with a cup of hot tea, chatting up with easy familiarity just about every customer coming or going. He politely apologizes for the repeated interruptions, much as he did when a similar scenario played out during our last meeting, at Dojo on St. Marks Place. And it explains why his apparent ubiquity around these parts has led some to jokingly refer to Malin as "the mayor of the East Village." I'd mention this, but I've heard he's not too fond of the tag.

And yet his prints are all over the area. Located a few blocks south and west of Life Café is a building that, back in the early '80s, housed the club A7, where Malin's teenage hardcore band Heart Attack would open for Bad Brains and SS Decontrol and blast through songs with titles like "Hitler" and "God Is Dead"; today, he leases the space for his neighborhood bar, Niagara. Between then and now, in sorta chronological order, Malin dropped out of high school, disbanded Heart Attack, worked odd jobs ranging from gas station attendant to health-food store clerk to all-purpose "man with a van" (the mention of which now inevitably leads to a comical tale about moving Barbra Streisand's bed), formed the East Village glam-punk act D Generation, recorded three undervalued major label albums, befriended childhood heroes Joey Ramone and Joe Strummer, opened the infamous St. Marks Place club Coney Island High, watched D Generation disintegrate and Coney be shut down, and, around the turn of the century, re-emerged on the local scene as a storytelling solo artist, mining a sound that pulled predominantly from his love of classic rock, Americana, and powerpop.

"There are some people who were like, 'What the fuck are you doing? You sound like Bruce-Seger-Cruisers-Jovi-whatever,' " says Malin. "But to me it's all just rock 'n' roll, and you take those three or four minutes you have in a song to say what you gotta say. When I was younger, it was all pretty angry and aggressive, but now I'm more secure; I'm capable of exposing more of myself without being so self-conscious about it. And I think I'm more comfortable doing this, and actually a little happier."

Happier, perhaps. Happy—not exactly. Malin writes songs that are built for dusk or dawn, weary with regret for dreams unfulfilled or rife with anxiety for those yet to be realized. His narratives are plainly stated yet unabashedly poignant, instilled with a true believer's sense of hope but seemingly preordained to end in despair. But in contrast to his two prior solo albums, Glitter in the Gutter—which features guitar contributions from Josh Homme and old friend Ryan Adams, as well as a vocal duet with Bruce Springsteen on the piano ballad "Broken Radio"—is, at least musically, a largely upbeat affair, its songs outfitted with ringing, widescreen guitars and coated in a sparkling production sheen. Furthermore, says Malin, the album, at its core, "is not a crying-in-your-beer record. It's more about hope." Case in point: For Glitter, Malin re-recorded his song "Since You're in Love," a tale of rejection and depression set in a 9/11-scarred New York that first appeared on 2004's The Heat. This time, he jacked up the tempo, added some new lyrics, and changed the name. The new title? "Happy Ever After." He still doesn't get the girl, but, he says, "I thought it was a nice sentiment, to be able to offer love anyway, instead of just saying, 'Fuck you.' "

Which, in a way, kinda sums up the album. "When I was writing these songs I kept asking myself, 'How do people experience everything life throws at them without becoming jaded and cynical?' " says Malin. "The truth is you just find a way to keep going, because you never know who you might meet tomorrow, or what might happen next."

Malin needs that contact, that spontaneity. It inspires him.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

http://www.shootermovie.com/media/poster.jpg
Shooter
A Film Review by James Berardinelli

3 of 4 stars

We live in a world in which conspiracy theories abound, so it comes as no surprise that many thrillers incorporate governmental backstabbing, double-dealing, and cover-ups into the fabric of their story. In a time when paranoia and distrust of the government have become second nature, a movie like Shooter strikes a responsive chord. The film takes the cynic's view of the U.S. political power structure and paints an identifiable portrait. The message is twofold: never trust anyone in power and paranoia is good because they are out to get you. It also helps that director Antoine Fuqua is able to sustain tension and keep us guessing through the course of this better-than-average thriller.

Shooter, based on Stephen Hunter's 1993 novel Point of Impact, is 24 expanded for the big screen. (The presence of two 24 alumni - Kate Mara and Rade Serbedzija - strengthens the sense of connection.) Because the TV show has twenty-four 45-minute episodes in which to weave its story, it can afford subplots and down time. Shooter has two hours and doesn't fritter away even one of its 120 minutes - it's a straight shot to the end target. Character identification comes as a result of the film being populated by recognizable types: the Wronged Man, the Romantic Interest, the Helpful Sidekick, and the Treacherous Conspirators. These individuals are familiar, so it takes less to flesh them out than it might if the characters were being built from scratch. This allows more effort to go into developing the plot and executing the action sequences, which are almost non-stop from the half-hour point.

Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg) is an ex-Special Ops sharpshooter who has been retired since finishing a tour of duty in Ethiopia. He's living in middle of nowhere when Colonel Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) and his "guard dog," Jack Payne (Elias Koteas), arrive on his doorstep asking for help. According to their intel, someone is planning to assassinate the President in the next two weeks. They would like Swagger to do some recon and figure out how best to foil the attack. He agrees and soon finds himself in Philadelphia trying to save the President's life, then finding the tables turned when he is framed for the assassination attempt. With two bullets in him, he's on the run from thousands of law enforcement officials. He has only two allies: Sarah (Kate Mara), the girlfriend of his ex-Marine partner, and FBI agent Nick Memphis (Michael Pena), who has discovered evidence of a conspiracy.

Mark Wahlberg makes Swagger the kind of guy it's easy to root for. He's noble, he has been duped and betrayed, he's smart, and he's on the side of right. He's a mix of Jack Bauer and MacGyver, and Wahlberg understands how to present his resourcefulness and courage without making them seem cheesy. He portrays Swagger as a human not a superhuman. Michael Pena underplays the sidekick role, leaving the spotlight to Wahlberg. Kate Mara is cute, but doesn't have a lot to do. As the co-conspirators, Danny Glover, Elias Koteas, and Ned Beatty (as a corrupt Senator), ooze malice. We want these guys dead. Now.

Shooter does what any good thriller should accomplish - it thrills. It's fast-paced, energetic, and doesn't follow a path that seems pre-ordained from the beginning. Director Antoine Fuqua recovers from the disastrous misfire of King Arthur to provide us with the kind of movie one might reasonably expect from the director of Training Day. Despite the modern trappings, there's something retro about the way the proceedings unfold. It's the good guys against the bad guys, with impossible odds and only one way out. These are the kinds of films Stallone and Schwarzenegger made while at the height of their popularity. What differentiates Shooter from its '80s precursors is that Wahlberg is a superior actor and the mood has shifted from Reagan-era jingoism to Bush-era cynicism. Swagger uses Rambo-like tactics, but at heart he's the anti-Rambo.

Shooter really isn't overtly political. (For example, we don't know whether the President is a Democrat or Republican, and it doesn't matter.) It gets in its jabs, but this is primarily the struggle of one man against the system, and that's a battle everyone can relate to. The movie taps into something visceral in each of us and keeps us wondering what Swagger will do next and how he will escape from each successive trap. Involvement is key to any thriller's success and Shooter delivers it. Even in a climate where the pervasive influence of 24 can be argued to have caused "thriller fatigue," Shooter is worth the price of admission.

United States, 2007
U.S. Release Date: 3/23/07 (wide)
Running Length: 2:00
MPAA Classification: R (Violence, profanity)

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Michael Pena, Danny Glover, Elias Koteas, Kate Mara, Rhona Mitra, Ned Beatty, Rade Serbedzija
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Screenplay: Jonathan Lemkin, based on Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter
Cinematography: Peter Menzies Jr.
Music: Mank Mancina
U.S. Distributor: Paramount Pictures

© 2007 James Berardinelli
The image “http://www.laist.com/attachments/tony/cathyseipp.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
Remembering Special Friend,
Conservative Columnist Cathy Seipp

By Susan Estrich


Wednesday, March 21, 2007


LOS ANGELES —

About Cathy Seipp

On Monday, her daughter Maia sent the e-mail that Cathy Seipp’s friends and readers have long been dreading. Her mother was in the hospital, her lungs had collapsed, the doctors were trying to make her comfortable, she was passing peacefully. Cathy has been fighting lung cancer, although everyone is quick to point out she wasn’t a smoker. It has been almost five years since they opened her up and closed her again, concluding that the cancer was inoperable and sending her off for chemotherapy, although for the first three and a half years, she never wrote about it, because she “didn’t want to be written off as Lung Cancer Girl.”

That’s Cathy. Smart, funny, tough, loving. You couldn’t help but think as she encouraged Maia to skip senior year in high school and apply to college early for more than the combination of the Canadian tradition of surpassing the12th grade and Maia’s own desire for bigger challenges. It was also Cathy sending her off, getting her settled, making the point that she was entitled to her life.

And so Maia went off to the University of California at San Diego last fall, and Cathy’s friends trouped in from around the world to cook her dinner and take her to chemo. There have been fewer posts lately, and more trips to the hospital, emergencies, bad signs.

Every time the message came in to say there was a new post, I held my breath, hoping it would be Cathy ranting about the friend whose casseroles were too big for the refrigerator, or berating herself for taking issue with Maia’s messiness (she and I exchanged notes about that one, both being mothers of teenage girls), or of course taking on liberals for their failings of insight and imagination.

Cathy was a conservative by choice, not by upbringing, and she delighted in exposing liberals for their elitism and insensitivity. As all her bios boast, she was from the city where the 405 and the 605 meet, and if you don’t know where that is, it’s because Las Alamitos is not Beverly Hills, and Cathy never forgot where she was from. She just couldn’t wait to get away from there. She came after me when I took on the Los Angeles Times for not publishing enough women writers (no preferences for her), but I decided that my mistake, and theirs, was not putting her name at the top of the list of whom they should hire.

Of course, she spent years writing a column in the defunct Buzz magazine on the inside doings at the Times that took no prisoners, so the truth was that the paper wasn’t about to hire her either. She wrote for the National Review, and the International Women’s Forum, and various other entities I tend to avoid, and she wrote her blog, Cathy’s World, www.cathyseipp.journalspace.com.

In October 2005, when she first wrote in her blog about her cancer, Cathy had this to say:

“I’m beginning to feel a responsibility to point out that lung cancer, which kills more people annually (about 163,000) than the next four most common cancers (colon, breast, pancreatic and prostate) combined, is terribly underfunded compared to other diseases: $950 in research money per lung cancer death, compared to $8800 for breast cancer and $34,000 for AIDS.

"That’s because the vast majority of lung cancer (about 85 percent) is still caused by smoking, even though the rate for lifelong nonsmoking women like me (and Christopher Reeve’s widow) has been going up for some mysterious reason, and the general attitude is that smokers deserve whatever they get.

"But half of all lung cancer patients have been nonsmokers by the time of diagnosis, sometimes for decades, like Warren Zevon. If they deserve to get sick, then I suppose so do people who are overweight or don’t exercise or who have promiscuous sex with strangers, all of which are contributing factors for various illnesses that get much more sympathy in the form of research dollars. Maybe the amount of attention we pay to a disease should have less to do with how many celebrities, magazine editors and junk bond kings carry its banner, and more with how many people actually die of it.”

Lung cancer was one of the few subjects we agreed on; I lost my best friend seven years ago, and watched in horror as the money from the tobacco settlements got spent building highways. We also agreed about things like mothering, kids and friendship. As for the rest, we had to agree to disagree. But I was always interested in how Cathy put it, where she came down and how she got there, because I knew she’d be as tough on herself as any critic would be. So I checked in every day to see what she was thinking, until the end. Ours was an old-fashioned relationship, the kind people used to have with people they disagree with, the kind that is too often under attack these days.

It’s too bad we’ll never meet, Cathy wrote to me not long ago, and my heart skipped a beat, but of course I knew what she meant. We e-mailed. She posted. We lived in a new world, by the old rules. It may be the best of both.

Rest in peace, my friend.

Susan Estrich is currently the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California. She was previously Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and was the first woman President of the Harvard Law Review. She is a columnist for Creators Syndicate and has written for USA Today and the Los Angeles Times.
http://www.unproductions.com/cal.gif
From Newsday:
Larry ’Bud’ Melman dies

Associated Press
March 21, 2007, 6:29 PM EDT

The balding, bespectacled nebbish who gained cult status as the oddball Larry "Bud" Melman on David Letterman's late night television shows has died after a long illness.

The Brooklyn-born Calvert DeForest, who was 85, died Monday at a hospital on Long Island, the Letterman show announced Wednesday. He made dozens of appearances on Letterman's shows from 1982 through 2002, handling a variety of twisted duties: dueting with Sonny Bono on "I Got You, Babe," doing a Mary Tyler Moore impression during a visit to Minneapolis, handing out hot towels to arrivals at the Port Authority Bus Terminal.

"Everyone always wondered if Calvert was an actor playing a character, but in reality he was just himself -- a genuine, modest and nice man," Letterman said in a statement. "To our staff and to our viewers, he was a beloved and valued part of our show, and we will miss him."

The gnomish DeForest was the first face to greet viewers when Letterman's NBC show debuted on Feb. 1, 1982, offering a parody of the prologue to the Boris Karloff film "Frankenstein." "It was the greatest thing that had happened in my life," he once said of his first Letterman appearance.

DeForest, given the nom de tube of Melman, became a program regular. The collaboration continued when the talk show host launched "Late Show with David Letterman" on CBS in 1994.

Cue cards were often DeForest's television kryptonite, and his character inevitably appeared in an ill-fitting black suit behind thick black-rimmed glasses.

The Melman character opened Letterman's first CBS show, too -- but used his real name because of a dispute with NBC over "intellectual property." DeForest, positioned inside the network's familiar eye logo, announced, "This is CBS!" DeForest often draw laughs by his bizarre juxtaposition as a "Late Show" correspondent at events such as the 1994 Winter Olympics in Norway or the anniversary Woodstock concert that year.

His last appearance on "Late Show" came in 2002, celebrating his 81st birthday.

DeForest also appeared in an assortment of other television shows and films, including "Nothing Lasts Forever" with Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd.

As per his request, there will be no funeral service for DeForest, who left no survivors. Donations can be made in his name to the Actors' Fund of America.

Monday, March 19, 2007

http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/peter_pace.jpg
Gen. Pace vs. Parson Warner
By Patrick J. Buchanan

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you," said Leon Trotsky. And that is surely true of the culture war.

Before an editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, not only endorsed presidential policy by which active homosexuals are discharged from the service, he declared that policy to be right morally.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immorality. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." [Don't drop `don't ask, don't tell,' Pace says By Aamer Madhani, Chicago Tribune March 13, 2007]

Equating homosexual sex with adultery, Pace added, "(I)f we find out so-and-so is sleeping with somebody else's wife," we do not tolerate it. As Pace was supporting policy, why did he find himself in a Beltway firefight?

The responses to Pace's moral assertions are indicative of the state of play, the correlation of forces, in America's culture war.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to duck the big question. "We need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population. We don't need a moral judgment from the chairman of Joint Chiefs." [Top military commander's comments on gays prompt outrage, by Jocelyne Zablit, AP, March 13, 2007]

But Pace never suggested gays were not patriotic. He said homosexual activity is outlawed in the service—and is immoral.

The Washington Post allowed as how Pace "is entitled to his opinions, of course," but should have considered the "impact of his public expression of intolerance on the men and women he commands." ['The Right to Serve March 14, 2007]

But if declaring homosexual acts immoral is an "expression of intolerance," the Post is charging the Catholic Church and traditional Christians with 2,000 years of intolerance, as well as all U.S. Armed Forces prior to 1993, when homosexuals were routinely severed.

What do the moralists at the Post say of Pace's "intolerance" of adultery? Should the general have first considered the "impact of his public expression of intolerance" on the adulterers in the barracks or officers' club?

"Homosexuals serve admirably and openly—without fear of prosecution or sneering judgment—in 24 countries, including Israel," retorts the Post. Why Israel was brought in was not stated. And, yes, adulterers, too, have served honorably and heroically. But should, then, the ban on soldiers sleeping with other soldiers' wives also be lifted?

The questions raised by the Post are several:

What is immoral? Whose moral code do we consult? What is not only immoral but ought to be grounds for dismissal? For not everything that is immoral should be illegal and not everything that is illegal is immoral, as Catholics demonstrated during Prohibition.

Two Republican heavies have now weighed in. Ex-Sen. Alan Simpson, in a Post column, "Bigotry That Hurts Our Military," says he has grown since voting for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and now calls it "prejudice" to sever active homosexuals from the service.

He relates the story of professor Alan Turing, a British homosexual who helped crack the Nazi code. "Would Pace call Turing immoral?" asks Simpson, who went from the GOP caucus to Harvard and now as faithfully parrots the latter's values as once he did the former's.

Good question. From what Simpson relates, Turing was a hero. But if Turing spent his nights cruising Soho, he may not have led a moral life and ought not to be bunking in the barracks of Fighter Command. One may be patriotic in public service and immoral in private life. Lots of folks have been—even a few presidents.

It is John Warner, however, ex-chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who hit the issue squarely. Of the moral beliefs of his fellow Marine, Parson Warner declared, "I ... strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Is homosexuality—not the orientation, but the activity—inherently immoral?

On Pace's side, that homosexuality is immoral, we have the Bible and Koran, 2,000 years of Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and natural law, the moral beliefs of virtually every society to the present, and the laws of every state before the 1960s. Up to 1973, psychiatrists treated it as a disorder. Nations where homosexuality is rampant have been regarded as "decadent."

Who, Sen. Warner, are the moral authorities for your assertion that homosexual conduct is moral—other than the Bishop Robinson wing of the Episcopal Church?

What this uproar tells us is that America is no longer a moral community. On the most fundamental issues—abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, euthanasia, sterilization, cloning, and the creation of, and buying and selling of, fetuses for research—we are at war. What part of the nation sees as progress, the other sees as depravity.

And where there is no moral community, there will not long be one country. For in a religious or culture war, there is no peaceful coexistence.

One side wins, the other side loses.

As President Bush said, he who is not with us is against us.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y23/drsanity/therapists.jpg

Taking Muslims at Their Word
by Scott P. Richert

The following article first appeared in the Rockford Register Star on Sunday, January 28, 2007. It is posted here in response to some of the comments in the writebacks to “Jihad in Rockford: The Plot Thickens.”

On September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI delivered his now-infamous Regensburg Address. The reaction in the Muslim world included protests, violence, and the murder of a nun—all over the Pope’s citation of a late-14th-century Byzantine emperor’s rhetorical claim that all that Muhammad brought that was new were “things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Lost in the uproar was the main point of the Pope’s speech: that “not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature” as Christians understand it. In Islam, however, Allah’s “will is not bound up with any of our [Western] categories, even that of rationality.”

Benedict’s speech was a call for dialogue between Christianity and Islam. For a dialogue to take place, however, three conditions are necessary: Both sides must be interested in pursuing the truth, which means embracing reason; both sides must represent their own positions truthfully, without any intent to deceive; and each side must take the other’s claims at face value, as truly representing the other’s position.

In the wake of Derrick Shareef’s arrest for planning to detonate grenades at CherryVale Mall during Advent, a daylong dialogue that Aaron Wolf, the associate editor of Chronicles, and I held with leaders from the Iqra School and Muslim Association of Greater Rockford (MAGR) in February 2002 is perhaps more relevant today than it was when I published an account of it in the April 2002 issue of Chronicles. (The text of the article is available at “Through a Glass, Darkly.”) MAGR estimates that there are now 300 Muslim families in the Rockford area; the school continues to grow, and may expand to include all 12 grades; and local Muslims are becoming more prominent, as doctors, lawyers, and engineers, among other occupations.

What made the dialogue interesting was the candor with which both sides addressed questions about the role of Islam raised by the September 11 attacks. When Aaron raised the question of the media’s use of the term “radical Islam,” Atteya Elnoory, the principal at that time, stated that “We don’t even deal with radical Islam, because we do not know what it is.” Dr. Khalid Siddiqui, then assistant director of the neonatal intensive-care unit at Swedish-American Hospital, the chairman of the board of the school, and now president of MAGR, elaborated on Elnoory’s remark, describing Islam as a pendulum, which can “swing to the extremes and come back to the middle, but you are still within the boundaries” of Islam. Any discussion of radical Islam, he claimed, also depends on your perspective: “You can believe someone is a terrorist, and I don’t.” To prove his point, he cited the example of Osama bin Laden, who recognized the dangers of atheistic communism and “went [to Afghanistan] and used his whole wealth to fight.” When, as Dr. Siddiqui put it, bin Laden was able to do what the United States could not and the Russians were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan, “the CIA interfered and created a very unstable government.” Finding themselves “still oppressed by Israel . . . the only way to get out is to fight. Experience says that.”

As for the future of Islam in America, Dr. Siddiqui argued that non-Muslim Americans should not fear the coming of sharia (Islamic law). “Who is superior to us? Only God. If He made the laws, then He can be unbiased.” Moreover, he claimed, “If you look at the Constitution, it is a pure Islamic constitution,” restricting the power of men and leaving room for the imposition of sharia.

Shpendim Nadzaku, the current imam at the Rockford mosque (who hadn’t yet moved to Rockford when Aaron and I visited), was called upon by the local media to condemn Shareef, and he held an open house at the mosque in the days following the arrest. The local media have presented him—correctly—as a representative of mainstream Islam. What they have not done, however, is attempt to understand what mainstream Islam means in an American context. As Dr. Siddiqui’s remarks indicate, the views of mainstream Muslims are far from the views of most non-Muslim Americans. How many non-Muslims in Rockford believe that the Constitution is a pure Islamic document, and that America would benefit from adopting sharia as the law of the land? How many non-Muslims believe that the definition of terrorism should be different for Muslims than for non-Muslims?

In her December 20 article on Sheik Nadzaku’s open house, Geri Nikolai quoted Nadzaku as saying, “As long as justice is prevalent throughout society, at the end of the day, nothing should cause us to want to slaughter each other.” On the surface, that seems a sentiment with which we can all agree. In Islam, as in the American constitutional system, justice means equal treatment before the law. For Muslims, however, the law in question is not the Constitution but sharia.

In his 1996 book Salt of the Earth, Pope Benedict XVI (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) wrote that:

the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Sharia shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself.

Pope Benedict’s understanding of this question is supported by prominent mainstream Muslims. The Rockford mosque has hosted a speaker from the Midwest chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the chief mainstream Muslim political activist group in the United States. A former chairman of CAIR, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Omar H. Ahmad, told the San Ramon Valley Herald in 1998 that:

Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

CAIR, on its website, declares that jihad, in addition to meaning “struggle against evil inclinations within oneself,” includes “struggle in the battlefield for self-defense (e.g., having a standing army for national defense), or fighting against tyranny or oppression.” And Muslim scholars, such as Syed Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, in Muslims in the West: The Message and Mission, declare that oppression and injustice prevail whenever a society prevents Muslims (and all men) from living under Islam.

After Chronicles published my account of our visit to the Iqra School, I went on Wisconsin Public Radio to discuss the article. An angry caller accused me of misrepresenting Islam. “You said that they want to impose sharia in the United States. That’s not true.” When I pointed out that the remark that upset her was not mine but a quotation from Dr. Siddiqui, the caller indignantly replied, “He may have said that, but he doesn’t mean it.”

Pope Benedict is right: The West must engage Islam. The Muslim belief that Allah is beyond all reason is indeed a stumbling block to dialogue, but an even greater one is the condescending refusal of non-Muslims to acknowledge that faithful Muslims in America really do believe what Islam teaches.

The image “http://www.drammensbyorkester.no/konsertkalender/Frank%20sinatra%202.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.http://www.states4u.com/Sfondi/Park%20Avenue,%20New%20York%20City,%20New%20York.jpg
THEME FROM "NEW YORK, NEW YORK"
by John Kander and Fred Ebb

Monday, 19 March 2007

Song of the Week #48
By Mark Steyn


Start spreading the news
I'm leaving today
I want to be a part of it...

John Kander was born eighty years ago – March 18th 1927 – in Kansas City, Missouri, was educated at Oberlin, and then headed for New York. He wanted to be a part of it and he has been, since 1957, when he was hired as rehearsal pianist for West Side Story. Two years later, he was the dance arranger on Gypsy, and a couple of years after that he began writing music with a young lyricist called Fred Ebb. Four decades later, their second show Cabaret was virtually a permanent fixture on Broadway and in London, and the film version of Chicago won 2002’s Best Picture award.

So we wish John Kander, by common consent one of the nicest guys in a business not known for niceness, a happy 80th birthday. These last three years can’t have been the easiest. At the peak of Chicago’s success on stage and screen, Fred Ebb died of a heart attack, ending the last monogamous writing partnership on Broadway - George and Ira Gershwin, Rodgers and Hart, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Kander and Ebb. ''One reason why they've avoided the career slumps that almost everyone else has had is simply that they've stayed together,'' Alan Jay Lerner once told me. ''A composer and lyricist grow together.'' Lerner had hits like My Fair Lady and flopperoo one-night stands like Dance A Little Closer, the kind of mega-disaster that Kander and Ebb, Broadway’s lone surviving words-and-music team, almost uniquely managed to steer clear of. ''Even when we write lousy, Fred and I always have a good time,'' Kander said to me a few years ago.

Their last show is currently previewing on Broadway with David Hyde Pierce (from TV’s “Frasier”) leading the cast. Curtains is a musical murder mystery, which isn’t as surefire a blend of boffo genres as it sounds. There have never really been any mystery musicals, for obvious reasons. "The audience wants to get on with the mystery. So they don't want to stop for songs," Fred Ebb agreed when I pointed this out a couple of years before his death. "That's the challenge - and I love a challenge." By the time it opens, a play about a murderer stalking a Broadway musical will have itself lost a few of its creators to the grim reaper, including Ebb, librettist Peter Stone and orchestrator Michael Gibson. So, as John Kander prepares for his first first night without Ebb since A Family Affair, with James and William Goldman, 45 years ago, let’s celebrate what is without doubt the team's biggest hit, one of those rare songs that (almost) everyone knows:

If I can make it there
I'll make it anywhere
It's up to you
New York, New York!

It’s a school of song that’s quintessentially American. As Will Friedwald writes:

It exemplifies the anger and the optimism, the ambition and the aggression, the hostility and the energy, the excitement and the excrement that is New York...

“The excitement and the excrement” is a droll way of putting it: Kander and Ebb’s valentine to “the city that doesn’t sleep” is both a cliché and a triumphant vindication that rises above it. Fred Ebb’s words are the last from a lyric written in conventional American songbook style to become part of the vernacular. I especially love a column my old colleague at The Independent Miles Kington wrote a few years ago. Even in a denunciation of the buoyant razzle-dazzle optimism of American showbusiness, the headline was a kind of sour tribute to its potency:

If They Can Make It There, Why Can’t They Keep It There?

There are lots of New York songs, and at least two others in the preferred Post Office city-state formulation. Gerard Kenny’s “New York, New York” (“so good they named it twice”) post-dates Kander and Ebb, and this one, by Leonard Bernstein, Betty Comden and Adolph Green, pre-dates them by three decades:

New York, New York
A helluva town
The Bronx is up
And the Battery’s down…

There’s no copyright in title, though I think you’d have to be pretty demented to write a new song called “White Christmas” or a novel called Gone With The Wind. Jule Styne and Sammy Cahn wrote a song called “Time After Time” in the Forties and so did Cyndi Lauper in the Eighties, which irked Sammy Cahn no end. So, to avoid (or at least mitigate) offence to the man who composed the show on which John Kander got his Broadway break, the new “New York, New York” is officially called “Theme from New York, New York”. It was an assignment song. In 1977, Martin Scorsese was making a film about the big band era, with his on-screen alter-ego Robert De Niro as a touring musician, a sax player, one of the boys on the bus. The gal was Liza Minnelli, still hot(ish) from Cabaret and a seemingly shrewd choice for playing the band’s canary. That made it all but certain that the songs for the film would be by her off-screen mentors Kander and Ebb. It wasn’t a musical, but Scorsese needed a handful of numbers to establish the period and relate to the story, and in particular they needed a big title song to be “written” by De Niro’s and Minnelli’s characters in the course of the plot. The saxophonist was married to the vocalist, and he writes a tune, and several scenes and dramatic vicissitudes later she puts a lyric to it.

So Kander and Ebb went off and wrote a “New York, New York” number, and they played it for Scorsese and his two stars. Fred Ebb was a lethal song demonstrator, in the same class as Sammy Cahn. With Johnny at the piano, Freddie would put his heart and soul and guts into the song, and if he couldn’t sell you a new number nobody could.

And they thought it had gone over well.

And then De Niro beckoned to Scorsese. And, as Fred Ebb put it to me, “they stood up and took one of their famous Italian walks. And we could see but not hear De Niro talking.”

“And he was also gesturing,” said Kander. “Which we knew was not a good sign.”

When the Italian walk was over, De Niro and Scorsese came back to the couch and tried to explain it tactfully. Marty explained how much they liked “And The World Goes Round” and the other songs but that this song was the title song and “Bob thinks” it needs to be really strong and “Bob wonders” if maybe they wouldn’t mind trying again and Bob this and Bob that. “And we were kind of insulted,” chuckled Kander, “at an actor telling us how to write a song. But he turned out to be right.”

“Even though,” added Ebb, “we wrote the new song in a kind of rage.”

It began with a vamp, one of those little musical intros that, when they work, really kick-start a song. But nobody vamps like John Kander, the champ of the vamps. “With Cabaret, we were trying to find the piece, to write our way into it,” he once said to me. “The first thing we wrote was 'Willkommen' and the very first thing that ever happened was that little vamp.” It was the same with Chicago and “All That Jazz”. And, trying to write a big New York song that would be big enough for Robert De Niro, Fred Ebb tossed out a possible first line of lyric:

Start spreading the news.

John Kander liked it and out of the “start sprea-ding the” bit drew a vamp - the ''dum-dum-da-de-dum'', the all-time great killer vamp that’s recognized by the world as a kind of five-note abbreviation for the spirit of New York. That’s why Kander loves vamps: they’re a good way of letting you know whether you’re tonally on track. “When you find something you like, it tells you about the direction you want to go in. I don’t mean you go through the process in a doped-up haze, but you have to trust your unconscious.”

And from that vamp they never looked back. For a song that to its disparagers sounds like just a big up-and-at-‘em showtune, it’s actually quite unusually structured. Fred Ebb opted for a “Sunny Side Of The Street” rhyme structure – ie, rhyming not in couplets or quatrains but across the phrases:

Grab your coat and get your hat
Leave your worries on the doorstep
Just direct your feet
To the sunny side of the street

Can’t you hear that pitter-pat?
Oh that happy tune is your step
Life can be so sweet
On The Sunny Side Of The Street…

Likewise:

Start spreading the news
I'm leaving today
I want to be a part of it
New York, New York

These vagabond shoes
Are longing to stray
And make a brand new start of it
New York, New York…

It was a song that had everything going for it - if only the film hadn’t flopped. But it did, and, although “New York, New York” got a Best Song nomination, it lost to “You Light Up My Life”, which may be the silliest Oscar verdict in that category since “They Can’t Take That Away From Me” lost to “Sweet Leilaini” 40 years earlier.

What transformed the song was Sinatra. In 1978 he was playing a blockbuster engagement at Radio City and asked Don Costa to put together an overture of New York songs – “Autumn In New York”, “Sidewalks Of New York”, and so on and so forth, concluding with Kander and Ebb’s “New York, New York”. And right on the opening pow! of the vamp Frank would enter, wait for the cheers to die down, and, as Will Friedwald put it, “start spreading the news”.

The news spread pretty quickly. “Man, this thing is getting big,” he said to his pianist Vincent Falcone after the Radio City shows. “We have to take it out of the overture.” So they moved it down the running order and made it a stand-alone number, sometimes with the “other” “New York, New York” (from a Sinatra movie after all) serving as a kind of verse, sung slowly, dramatically and very sparely underscored:

New York, New York
A helluva town
The Bronx is up
And the Battery’s down
And the people ride in a hole in the groun’
New York, New York!
It’s a…
Helluva…
Town!

Wham! On “town” the band would wallop in Kander’s famous vamp and the crowd would go wild. The song never looked back, although Fred Ebb had a few misgivings about Sinatra’s reworked second chorus. In the Liza original, rather than a straightforward reprise of “I want to wake up in a city that doesn’t sleep/And find I’m king of the hill, top of the heap”, Ebb modified it:

I want to wake up in a city that doesn’t sleep
To find I’m king of the hill
Head of the list
Cream of the crop
At the top of the heap!

IThat “crop”/“top” internal rhyme is typical of Ebb’s unobtrusive professional craftsmanship. Sinatra changed it to:

I want to wake up in a city that doesn’t sleep
To find I’m A-number one
Top of the list
King of the hill
A-number one!

“I didn’t write ‘A-number one’,” said Ebb. “I don’t even like it. But I like Sinatra singing ‘New York, New York’, and I love having a song that everyone knows.” It got better. In his last years, Frank would blast the final word of that middle section, and then cripple up and clutch his side and howl “Ow!”, or “Every time I hit that note, I get a big pain right here” or some such. Eventually, his version of the song consumed Liza’s. On their tour together in the late Eighties with Sammy Davis Jr, the concluding medley was strung around a joke about Sam trying to avoid letting Frank and Liza sing “New York, New York”, until eventually he forgets himself, launches into “There’s A Boat That’s Leaving Soon For New York”, and bang on the “York” the familiar vamp comes blasting in. (Mel Torme built a whole concert medley round the vamp.) But it was Frank’s version, with Liza in effect sitting in on his cover of her song. In a guest shot on “Arrested Development”, Miss Minnelli hears Tobias Funke singing “New York, New York” and remarks dryly that when it comes to that particular song “everybody thinks of Frank Sinatra”.

Indeed. The song was taken up as the anthem of the New York Yankees: When they won, they played Frank’s version. When they lost, they played Liza’s. That’s one of the all-time greatest musical jokes. Miss Minnelli, alas, didn’t care for it, and insisted that after winning games they played her record. So they said nuts to that, lady, we won’t play your version at all. Liza subsequently and very wisely relented. But even that bizarre showdown captures the swagger and attitude of both the city and the song.

It’s one for the ages now, and, as John Kander celebrates his birthday, he knows that millions and millions of Americans and millions more around the world who are entirely unaware of his name or what he does, nevertheless would instantly recognize that killer vamp. In 1993, I interviewed the Broadway director, George Abbott, then aged 106, and asked him about working on On The Town half a century earlier, and in particular about the Bernstein, Comden and Green “New York, New York”. “I always thought that was the best New York song,” said Mister Abbott. “But I must confess that new one is better. The one the little girl sings.”

The “little girl”, Liza Minnelli, had been given her big break by Mister Abbott on Flora The Red Menace in the early Sixties. It was Liza’s first show, and Kander and Ebb’s. But you can forgive Abbott, at 106, at still thinking of a star he’d directed when she was 17 and he was already in his 70s as a “little girl”.

“Oh,” I said, “you mean, ‘start spreading the news’? You think that’s better than your ‘New York, New York’?”

“Yeah.”

“Did you ever tell Leonard Bernstein that?”

“No.”

“Probably very wise.”

If I can make it there
I’ll make it anywhere
It’s up to you
New York, New York!
http://homepage.mac.com/languageismycopilot/gerry/littlesteven.jpghttp://home.att.net/~droboogie1/Milwaukee99.jpg
Summary of yesterday's very good feature on CBS Sunday Morning:
A Hit Man In More Ways Than One

NEW YORK, March 18, 2007(CBS)

Steve Van Zandt is one of the stars of "The Sopranos," but he started as Bruce Springsteen's consigliore. Sunday Morning correspondent Anthony Mason spoke to the the secondhand man for mobs and rockers.

The infamous Bada Bing club is set in a real-life strip joint just off a hustling New Jersey highway. There, on the set of "The Sopranos," Steve Van Zandt has just been given his script for the next scene.

As Silvio Dante, in his pompadour toupee, Van Zandt plays hit man and top lieutenant to mob boss Tony Soprano. But before he was Tony Soprano's consigliore, he was Bruce Springsteen's sidekick as a guitarist in the E Street Band.

Van Zandt is creatively restless, says his wife Maureen, who also plays his TV wife in "The Sopranos."

"That's what's interesting about him," she told Mason. "That he's a real renaissance man. I know that sounds very cliché, but he is."

His latest incarnation: music impresario and self-proclaimed savior of rock 'n' roll. It started with his syndicated radio show, "Little Steven's Underground Garage," which is now heard on 200 stations. From his New York production office, Van Zandt also books "Underground Garage" concerts that feature new and classic rock bands, as well as the underground garage go-go girls choreographed by Maureen.

Little Steven's radio show now has two million listeners. But in the beginning he had to beg syndicators to get it on the air.

"They said, 'Well, we can't get that on the radio anymore," Van Zandt said. "We sent out 350 pilot shows to every radio station in the country. And every one turned us down. Every one. It became, 'Uh-oh, I've got a war here.'"

At a convention of radio programmers he went on the attack, leading a revolution to put rock back on the radio. For Van Zandt that revolution began on February 9th, 1964 when the Beatles played "The Ed Sullivan Show."

"I saw hope for myself," he said. "It was like, here is something I've never seen before, I didn't even imagine existed. And suddenly, maybe there's hope for my life. Because I didn't fit in anywhere. And I was starting to get concerned, you know?"

So little Steven joined a band, the first of many. In 1970 he signed on as bass guitarist for a group called "Steel Mill." The lead singer was a kid named Springsteen. The two teenagers from New Jersey found they were kindred spirits.

"I mean in the end everyone who had a choice to do something else did it, you know," Van Zandt said. "And in the end, me and him were the only ones left standing. You know what I mean? We were the true freaks! The true misfits and the true outcasts."

He later joined Springsteen's "E Street Band" and co-produced the album "The River." Then, amicably, Van Zandt decided to go his own way — missing out on the success of the next Springsteen album, "Born in the U.S.A.," which sold 20 million copies.

"Oh yeah, it was brilliant," Van Zandt said. "When I joined the band we were making $200 a week. And we finally are about to cash in. And I leave."

As Little Steven, wearing the signature bandana that he says hides a scar from a car accident, Van Zandt recorded 5 albums and produced many more for other acts, but commercially nothing really clicked.

"You can't look back with too much regret," he said. "What little I know I've learned since I left the band. And one of the things you learn as you leave is - you shouldn't have left!"

Even his best-known song of the period, "Sun City," an anthem of protest against apartheid in South Africa, was no help to his career. By the early '90s he felt like he was cast out into the wilderness.

"Oh, I was done," Van Zandt said. "Because I was pretty much blackballed from the industry for being so political. It was not a cool thing to do. And I was a little too successful at it."

Then in 1997, while appearing on the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame ceremonies, his fortunes took an unexpected turn. Producer David Chase was dreaming up a new series for HBO.

"My wife and I happened to watch, happened to light on that induction ceremony with the Rascals and there he was," Chase said. "He just had so much presence, was interesting and funny, and I thought, 'Oh, I gotta bring that guy in.' He looked penetrating, suspicious, you know, ready for anything."

He asked Van Zandt to audition for "The Sopranos," but Van Zandt had never acted before. He ended up moving into character quite easily.

"I spent my whole life trying to learn about who I am. Being somebody else is a vacation," he said.

Just as "The Sopranos" began filming, Bruce Springsteen called. He was putting the E Street Band back together and wanted Van Zandt to tour with him again.

"You know, we grew up together and so I was his kind of righthand man for a long time and the guy he could trust," Van Zandt said. "The guy who didn't really have any ambition to be him, to be the Boss. I like being second in command. I like being behind the scenes. I like being an advisor, you know. I like being consigliore. I was born to do that. I don't know why."

But in his own production company, Van Zandt is the boss, promoting the music he loves. In a new animated series he's developing, the government has outlawed rock. The hero is a familiar looking guy in a bandana.

"I actually lead the revolution below ground," he said. "But above ground I'm a respectable businessman."
http://www.mpa.utk.edu/images/thompson_main.jpg
Hollywood vs. Iran
300.


By Fred Thompson

Editor's note: Click here to listen to the original radio commentary this transcript is based on.

The comic-book movie 300 about the Spartans and the Persians in 480 A.D. is still breaking box-office records. Now it seems the rulers of modern-day Persia — Iran — are not amused.

300, shows a small band of Spartans saving the lives of their countrymen and the seeds of modern democracy by kicking the much larger Persians forces effectively in the backside at Thermopylae until the shear numbers overwhelmed them. If I remember my history, that’s exactly what happened.

But the Iranians have filed a flurry of complaints with the United Nations, claiming 300 is “cultural and psychological warfare.”

Who are these guys who are getting all flushed over our cultural insensitivity?

People who want to blow Jews off the face of the earth. The regime that stormed our embassy in 1979* and kept Americans captive for 444 days. Iran’s Hezbollah puppets have killed more Americans, than any other terrorist group except al Qaeda. Explosive devices from Iran are being used right now against our soldiers in Iraq. They’re clearly more skittish about cultural warfare than the sort that actually kills people — like the one against Israel that Iran financed just a few months ago.

I must say that I’m impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.

*Editor's Note: This piece originally had the date as 1971. This has been corrected.

— Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.

© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS

The image “http://obama.senate.gov/img/superman.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Obama the 'Magic Negro'

The Illinois senator lends himself to white America's idealized,
less-than-real black man.
By David Ehrenstein

L.A.-based DAVID EHRENSTEIN writes about Hollywood and politics.
March 19, 2007

AS EVERY CARBON-BASED life form on this planet surely knows, Barack Obama, the junior Democratic senator from Illinois, is running for president. Since making his announcement, there has been no end of commentary about him in all quarters — musing over his charisma and the prospect he offers of being the first African American to be elected to the White House.

But it's clear that Obama also is running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination — the "Magic Negro."

The Magic Negro is a figure of postmodern folk culture, coined by snarky 20th century sociologists, to explain a cultural figure who emerged in the wake of Brown vs. Board of Education. "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist," reads the description on Wikipedia http://en.-wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro .

He's there to assuage white "guilt" (i.e., the minimal discomfort they feel) over the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history, while replacing stereotypes of a dangerous, highly sexualized black man with a benign figure for whom interracial sexual congress holds no interest.

As might be expected, this figure is chiefly cinematic — embodied by such noted performers as Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Crothers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and, most recently, Don Cheadle. And that's not to mention a certain basketball player whose very nickname is "Magic."

Poitier really poured on the "magic" in "Lilies of the Field" (for which he won a best actor Oscar) and "To Sir, With Love" (which, along with "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," made him a No. 1 box-office attraction). In these films, Poitier triumphs through yeoman service to his white benefactors. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" is particularly striking in this regard, as it posits miscegenation without evoking sex. (Talk about magic!)

The same can't quite be said of Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy," "Seven" and the seemingly endless series of films in which he plays ersatz paterfamilias to a white woman bedeviled by a serial killer. But at least he survives, unlike Crothers in "The Shining," in which psychic premonitions inspire him to rescue a white family he barely knows and get killed for his trouble. This heart-tug trope is parodied in Gus Van Sant's "Elephant." The film's sole black student at a Columbine-like high school arrives in the midst of a slaughter, helps a girl escape and is immediately gunned down. See what helping the white man gets you?

And what does the white man get out of the bargain? That's a question asked by John Guare in "Six Degrees of Separation," his brilliant retelling of the true saga of David Hampton — a young, personable gay con man who in the 1980s passed himself off as the son of none other than the real Sidney Poitier. Though he started small, using the ruse to get into Studio 54, Hampton discovered that countless gullible, well-heeled New Yorkers, vulnerable to the Magic Negro myth, were only too eager to believe in his baroque fantasy. (One of the few who wasn't fooled was Andy Warhol, who was astonished his underlings believed Hampton's whoppers. Clearly Warhol had no need for the accouterment of interracial "goodwill.")

But the same can't be said of most white Americans, whose desire for a noble, healing Negro hasn't faded. That's where Obama comes in: as Poitier's "real" fake son.

The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing. A praiseworthy goal. Consequently, even the mild criticisms thrown his way have been waved away, "magically." He used to smoke, but now he doesn't; he racked up a bunch of delinquent parking tickets, but he paid them all back with an apology. And hey, is looking good in a bathing suit a bad thing?

The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.

Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him
http://graphics.filecorner.com/thedailydose/lll/archives/ecgorefibs22-sm.jpg
Whose Ox Is Gored?
By John Fund / Opinion Journal

The media discover the former vice president's environmental exaggerations and hypocrisy.

Monday, March 19, 2007 12:01 a.m.

The media are finally catching up with Al Gore. Criticism of his anti-global-warming franchise and his personal environmental record has gone beyond ankle-biting bloggers. It's now coming from the New York Times and the Nashville Tennessean, his hometown paper that put his birth, as a senator's son, on its front page back in 1948, and where a young Al Gore Jr. worked for five years as a journalist.

Last Tuesday, the Times reported that several eminent scientists "argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points [on global warming] are exaggerated and erroneous." The Tenessean reported yesterday that Mr. Gore received $570,000 in royalties from the owners of zinc mines who held mineral leases on his farm. The mines, which closed in 2003 but are scheduled to reopen under a new operator later this year, "emitted thousands of pounds of toxic substances and several times, the water discharged from the mines into nearby rivers had levels of toxins above what was legal."

All of this comes in the wake of the enormous publicity Mr. Gore received after his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar. The film features Mr. Gore reprising his famous sighing and lamenting how the average American's energy use is greedily off the charts. At the film's end viewers are asked, "Are you ready to change the way you live?"

The Nashville-based Tennessee Center for Policy Research was skeptical that Mr. Gore had been "walking the walk" on the environment. It obtained public records showing that for years Mr. Gore has burned through more electricity at his Nashville home each month than the average American family uses in a year--and his consumption was increasing. The heated Gore pool house alone ran up more than $500 in natural-gas bills every month.

Mr. Gore's office responded by claiming that the Gores "purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero." But CNSNews.com reports that Mr. Gore doesn't purchase carbon offsets with his own resources, and that they are meaningless in terms of global warming.

The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family. Indeed, their impact is also highly limited. The Carbon Neutral Co.--one of the two vendors that sell offsets to Mr. Gore's company, says that offset purchases "will be unable to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . in the short term."

The New York Times last week interviewed many scientists who say they are alarmed "at what they call [Mr. Gore's] alarmism on global warming." In a front-page piece in its science section, the Times headline read "From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype."

The Times quoted Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, as telling hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America that "I don't want to pick on Al Gore. But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data." Mr. Easterbrook made clear he has never been paid by any energy corporations and isn't a Republican.

Even James Hansen, a scientist who began issuing warning cries about global warming in the 1980s and is a top adviser to Mr. Gore, concedes that his work may hold "imperfections" and "technical flaws." Other flaws are more serious, such as Mr. Gore's depiction of sea level rises of up to 20 feet, which would cause Florida and New York City to sink below the surface.

Sober scientists privately say such claims are exaggerated. They point to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body that released its fourth report on global warming last month. While it found humans were the main cause of recent global warming, the report also indicated it was a very slow-moving process. On sea levels, the U.N. panel reported its s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. The new high-end best estimate is less than half the previous prediction, which was still far below Mr. Gore's 20 feet. Similarly, the new report shows that the panel's 2001 report overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

In an email message to the Times, Mr. Gore defended his work as fundamentally accurate. But it's increasingly clear that far from the "consensus" on global warming we are told exists, scientists are having a broad and rich debate on many aspects of it. Nearly two decades after Mr. Gore first claimed that "we face an ecological crisis without any precedent in historic times," we don't know if that is really true.

Then there is the Gore zinc mine. Mr. Gore has personally earned $570,000 in zinc royalties from a mine his father bought in 1973 from Armand Hammer, the business executive famous for his close friendship with the Soviet Union and for pleading guilty to making illegal campaign contributions during Watergate. One the same day Al Gore Sr. bought the 88-acre parcel from Hammer for $160,000, he sold the land and subsurface mining rights to his then 25-year-old son for $140,000. The mineral rights were then leased back to Hammer's Occidental Petroleum and the royalty payments put in the names of Al Gore Jr. and his wife, Tipper.

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider claims the terms of the 30-year Occidental lease agreement gave the Gores "no legal recourse" to get out of it. She said the Gores never thought about selling the land and would not comment on whether they ever tried to void the lease. "There is a certain zone of privacy once people go into private life," Ms. Kreidler said. She said critics of the arrangement should realize it should be viewed in a "1973 context, not a 2007 context. . . . There was a different environmental sensibility about all sorts of things."

But what about a 1992 context? That is the year Mr. Gore published "Earth in the Balance," in which he wrote: "The lakes and rivers sustain us; they flow through the veins of the earth and into our own. But we must take care to let them flow back out as pure as they came, not poison and waste them without thought for the future." Mr. Gore wrote that at a time when he would be collecting zinc royalties for another 11 years.

The mines had a generally good environmental record, but they wouldn't pass muster either with the standard Mr. Gore set in "Earth in the Balance" or with most of his environmentalist friends. In May 2000 the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a "Notice of Violation" notifying the Pasminco mine its zinc levels in a nearby river exceeded standards established by the state and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. In 1996 the mine twice failed biomonitoring tests designed to protect water quality in the river for fish and wildlife. "The discharge of industrial wastewater from Outfall #001 [the Caney Fork effluent] contains toxic metals (copper and zinc)," the analysis stated. "The combined effect of these pollutants may be detrimental to fish and aquatic life."

The Gore mines were no small operations. In 2002, the year before they shut down, they ranked 22nd among all metal-mining operations in the U.S., with total toxic releases of 4.1 million pounds. A new mine operator, Strategic Resource Acquisition, is planning to reopen the mines later this year. The Tennessean reports that just last week, Mr. Gore wrote SRA asking it to work with a national environmental group as it makes its plans. He noted that under the previous operator, the mines had, according to the environmental website Scorecard, "pollution releases from the mine in 2002 [that] placed it among the 'dirtiest/worst facilities' in the U.S." Mr. Gore requested that SRA "engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices." The Tennessean dryly notes that Mr. Gore wrote the letter the week after the paper posed a series of questions to him about his involvement with the zinc mines.

Columnist Steven Milloy recalls talking with Mr. Gore in 2006 about the 1997 Kyoto Protocol he helped negotiate as vice president. "Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it? . . . Hell no!" said Mr. Gore, according to Mr. Milloy. The former vice president then explained that the real purpose of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support could be mustered for action on environmental issues. Mr. Gore clearly believes that the world hasn't acted with enough vigor in the decade since Kyoto, which may explain his growing use of the global-warming hype that concerns many mainstream scientists. Mr. Gore has called the campaign to combat global warming a "moral imperative." But Mr. Gore faces another imperative: to square his sales pitches with the facts and his personal lifestyle to more align with what he advocates that others practice. "Are you ready to change the way you live?" asks Mr. Gore's film. It's time people ask Mr. Gore "Are you ready to change the way you live, as well as the way you lecture the rest of us?"