‘bias’ – does that mean there’s both good AIDS and bad AIDS?

So, would the NYTimes fire a reporter they discovered had once demonstrated on behalf of a cure for breast cancer? Would they fire a John Kerry when they found out he had once worked to end a disastrous and outrageously immoral war? Would they fire a former member of ACT UP?
We only know the answer to the last question. Perhaps it was too easy, but it still surprises us – we now know it’s yes, certainly. In fact, after almost a quarter century, is AIDS still a shameful diagnosis and are an individual’s efforts to end the plague of dubious merit, and even unethical? [If the answers were to be yes, neither I nor the overwhelming majority of my friends have merit or ethics, and we would never be able to get jobs honestly.]
“My motivation is expediency as well as ethics” the Times represenative told our friend Jay Blotcher when he asked why he had been fired from his position as a “stringer” reporting from his current home in upstate New York. The paper had recently discovered he had once been an important part of ACT UP, so they maintained he would necessarily be biased reporting any story.
This outrageous story has legs. Even though they’ve already kicked him out, it’s almost certain to be the most important story Jay will ever give to the paper which once valued his contributions, but it’s not one his editors will like. For more, see Bloggy [“What a crappy paper”] and Atrios[“This is just fucking unbelievable”].

war in symphony

Now I remember why I go to live performances of symphonic music! Transcendence.
Also remembered only when we got there was why we had purchased tickets weeks ago for tonight’s Orchestra of St. Luke’s concert. Once we saw the programs at Carnegie Hall the poetry readings listed as intervals on a schedule of very serious musical stuff quickly reminded us why we decided to sign up.
Oooh, but good, political activism in a good classical music program, is it even possible? Yes, and in great performances as well!
We have to credit the New York players and the excellent conductor, Donald Runnicles, for the performances, but I’m not sure who was/were the heroes responsible for putting the provocative program together in the midst of our own wars and political terrors. This is only my footnote, and perhaps it was only a coincidence, but the day happened to mark the anniversary of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.
See the Carnegie Hall site for complete program notes [absent the poetry texts] and an audio link with comments from Runnicles.
Excerpts from leftist and antiwar poetry by Wislama Szymborska, Virgil, Bertolt Brecht, W. H. Auden, Siegfried Sassoon and Seamus Heaney, all read sympathetically by our favorite Abe Lincoln stand-in, Sam Waterston [who has also appeared as himself in ads for The Nation], were placed as lyric hinges separating major pieces, equally political, by Aaron Jay Kernis, Richard Strauss, Karl Amadeus Hartmann and Dmitri Shostakovich.
The orchestra was assembled, but both it and the darkened hall remained silent for the uncompromising reminder delivered in the first of the six readings. Syzmborska’s “Children of the Epoch”.[here in excerpt]:

We are children of the epoch.
The epoch is political.
All my daily and nightly affairs,
all your daily and nightly affairs,
are political affairs.
Whether you want it or not,
your genes have a political past,
your skin a political tone,
your eyes a political color,
What you say resounds,
what you don’t say is also
politically significant.

The Kernis, “Sarabanda in Memorium”, was very “New Romanticism” pretty, but less than halfway through the sixteen-minute piece described as somehow related to September 11, my attention began to flag. Kernis is a very good composer. I’m just never sure he really has anything new to say.
The performance of “Metamorphosen”, which the aged Strauss composed in the midst of the physical and cultural ruin of his beloved Germany in 1945, seemed too slow, and it never really took off, the way it always seems to in my memory, or at least in the von Karajan recording we have at home. But I have to admit that any enjoyment of the piece was compromised by the constant chatter of a couple nearby for whom the evening’s august program represented more an occasion for serious foreplay than art. So maybe it was just me – or them.
Ah, but after the intermission the orchestra finally showed what it was able to do as a large ensemble.
A reading of Auden’s mournful “September 1, 1939” set the tone for the second half of the evening.
Perhaps it was only coincidence, but now with the last two pieces as the number of players on the stage increased, first with Hartmann’s melancholy 1939 [violin] “Concerto Funebre”, and then to 60-strong, with Shostakovich’s happy, end-of-the-war Ninth Symphony, the quality of music was phenomenal.
Vladimir Spivakov was the wonderful soloist in the Hartmann piece.
Waterston’s last readings were Sassoon’s “Everyone Sang”, describing the end of the first Great War, followed by Heaney’s “The Cure at Troy”. These poems preceded the Shostakovich, and matched his music in its spirit of hope.
The Hartmann never sounded better, although I’ve only had the opportunity to hear it in recordings up until now, and the reading of the 1945 symphony in E-flat Major, with its toy soldier/circus music elements, was magnificent. Odd, that one, and especially odd to find, as Barry said, that any Shostakovich piece could be the lightest work on a program of symphonic music shared by three other composers.
My own thought as the piece made its way to its delightful conclusion? What a wonderful way to end a horrible war!
And a wonderful evening.

And for the record, and for our present times as well, this is the complete Brecht poem:

FROM A GERMAN WAR PRIMER

AMONGST THE HIGHLY PLACED
It is considered low to talk about food.
The fact is: they have
Already eaten.
The lowly must leave this earth
Without having tasted
Any good meat.
For wondering where they come from and
Where they are going
The fine evenings find them
Too exhausted.
They have not yet seen
The mountains and the great sea
When their time is already up.
If the lowly do not
Think about what’s low
They will never rise.
THE BREAD OF THE HUNGRY HAS
ALL BEEN EATEN
Meat has become unknown. Useless
The pouring out of the people’s sweat.
The laurel groves have been
Lopped down.
From the chimneys of the arms factories
Rises smoke.
THE HOUSE-PAINTER SPEAKS OF
GREAT TIMES TO COME
The forests still grow.
The fields still bear
The cities still stand.
The people still breathe.
ON THE CALENDAR THE DAY IS NOT
YET SHOWN
Every month, every day
Lies open still. One of those days
Is going to be marked with a cross.
THE WORKERS CRY OUT FOR BREAD
The merchants cry out for markets.
The unemployed were hungry. The employed
Are hungry now.
The hands that lay folded are busy again.
They are making shells.
THOSE WHO TAKE THE MEAT FROM THE TABLE
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the contribution is destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry
Of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary men.
WHEN THE LEADERS SPEAK OF PEACE
The common folk know
That war is coming.
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out.
THOSE AT THE TOP SAY: PEACE
AND WAR
Are of different substance.
But their peace and their war
Are like wind and storm.
War grows from their peace
Like son from his mother
He bears
Her frightful features.
Their war kills
Whatever their peace
Has left over.
ON THE WALL WAS CHALKED:
They want war.
The man who wrote it
Has already fallen.
THOSE AT THE TOP SAY:
This way to glory.
Those down below say:
This way to the grave.
THE WAR WHICH IS COMING
Is not the first one. There were
Other wars before it.
When the last one came to an end
There were conquerors and conquered.
Among the conquered the common people
Starved. Among the conquerors
The common people starved too.
THOSE AT THE TOP SAY COMRADESHIP
Reigns in the army.
The truth of this is seen
In the cookhouse.
In their hearts should be
The selfsame courage. But
On their plates
Are two kinds of rations.
WHEN IT COMES TO MARCHING MANY DO NOT
KNOW
That their enemy is marching at their head.
The voice which gives them their orders
Is their enemy’s voice and
The man who speaks of the enemy
Is the enemy himself.
IT IS NIGHT
The married couples
Lie in their beds. The young women
Will bear orphans.
GENERAL, YOUR TANK IS A POWERFUL VEHICLE
It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men.
But it has one defect:
It needs a driver.
General, your bomber is powerful.
It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant.
But it has one defect:
It needs a mechanic.
General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.

[Brecht text from the Amherst Peace Vigil]

just another evening out

storefront1.jpg
inside the Pernice show at Storefront, Anees bandited on the left

Last night we met our friend Anees at Storefront for Art and Architecture, for the opening of an exhibition, “Small Works, 1994-2004”, by Manfred Pernice. Anees is an artist and architect, and Barry and I visit a lot of galleries, so we thought it would be a good ensemble.


storefront2a.jpg
one of Pernice’s assemblages

It was, thanks also to the interesting crowd, but above all thanks to the somewhat baffling content but intelligent aesthetic of the stuff in the vitrines, all resting on wonderful, slightly-eccentric-shaped plinths. The work was assembled from found materials (paper, tin, cardboard, tape, magazine cutouts) cut and pencil-marked, and generally resting on or beside some pseudo-instructive text or diagram, and everything seemed to be attached to the virtually untranslatable German word, “Verdosung“. I’ll hazard the English, “canned”, or “boxed-up”.
To learn more, maybe we’ll have to get to Anton Kern Gallery, where another Pernice show, “COMMERZBANK”, opened a week earlier.

public.jpg
Riviera Gallery, still unidentified except for baby blue window paint spelling out the title of the show, “PROJECTS I WANT TO START & THE ONES I CAN’T FINISH”

Leaving Anees to his colleagues, and maybe some late study, we took the L to south Williamsburg where a relatively obscure, almost-new space, Riviera Gallery, was celebrating the opening of a small group show.
I was especially interested in the richly detailed paintings of Hyemi Cho and the enigmatic icons of Alex Lee.
Cho’s work seemed to represent a personal odyssey through an alien world. Because they included work created over more than a half dozen years and because of their variety, all within an idiosyncratic style, the dozen or so wood panels would have represented a good mini-retrospective were they the work of an older artist. We met Hyemi last night and we were charmed, but that was after we had attached ourselves to the paintings.
Alex Lee showed work using cut-out magazine pages on which he carefully covered predictably beautiful faces of the [mostly] male fashion models with the flat baby blue paint used for the gallery’s window text I mentioned in the caption above. Only their noses and the designer costumes they were selling remained. Each was beautifully enclosed by a pristine white, generic wood frame he had made himself. Do we ever ask what is really inside the pictures we admire? We’ve met Alex before, and last night he related an anecdote that reminded us that even the way we approach the simplest, most familiar of images is culturally determined. But it was probably a story from which the work we saw last night should stand independent. Maybe another time.

relish.jpg
staff and guests smooze at Relish

We ended the evening by walking around the corner to go to dinner at our favorite Williamsburg boite, Relish. Minutes after we had arrived, crowds of people passed our corner booth heading for the back, the red room, where we never go. It very quickly became obvious that something was going on, and I finally hailed the hot waiter with the black outfit and studded belt who was regularly sneaking a peek into the room – even when he had nothing to carry into the room. In spite of the roar of that crowd and the music being played in our part of the diner, we had already begun to suspect that they were broadcasting “Queer Eye For the Straight Guy” [yeah, in Williamsburg]. The waiter leaned in to us and seemed to be shy about answering.
Actually, while it turned out that our suspicion about the broadcast was confirmed, what we thought might be sheepishess was just his fumbling to explain that this particular episode was featuring the hair salon on the corner, which was called simply, “PUBLIC” [very cool, and just next door to Riviera Gallery], and that the crowd in the back room was made up of stylists, clients, neighbors and those who loved them.
It’s about fame.

he just can’t stop

fanaticism.gif
“Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism”

Remember the three other nutty proposals?
In the White House our First Constitutional Scholar and Pontifex Maximus is reported today to be proposing an alteration to our fundamental law, but only oh, so reluctantly.
The NYTimes today reports, without comment, “In his remarks on Tuesday, [Bush] emphasized that ‘an amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. . . .'”
It doesn’t take much of a memory to recall the three other pressing purposes for which this preacher has already proposed dividing the nation and rewriting a Constitution which he would be unable to actually read himself: sanctifying the flag, declaring every fetus sacred and keeping god in our national oath.
The latest purpose, embodied in the proposed “marriage amendment” is described by its sponsors as necessary for essentially the same reason, to keep [one particular interpretation of*] religion a part of what is in this case fundamentally just a legal contract.
Bush is talking about his god, or at least the god of his constituency. There’s always been an obvious pattern here, and it’s one not generally described by the media, even this morning.
A secular state must not define sacred flags, oaths, wombs or marriages, but instead it should be very concerned when its head insists on doing so – whether he does so out of superstition or for political advantage.

*
Atrios recently reminded us just how much the Judeo/Christian idea of marriage has itself evolved – quite a bit, it turns out:
1. Marriage should consist of a union between one man and one or more women.
Gen 29:17-28. II Samuel 3:2-5
2. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to
his wife or wives.
II Samuel 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21
3. Marriage will be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If she is
not a virgin, she shall be executed.
Deut. 22:13-21
4. Marriage to a non believer shall be strictly forbidden
Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30
5. Marriage is for life and no law shall permit any form of divorce.
Deut 22:19; Mark 10-9-12.
6. If a married man dies without children. His brother must marry the widow.
If the brother refuses to marry the widow or deliberately does not give her
children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a
manner to be determined by law.
Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10
7. In lieu of marriage (if there is no acceptable man to be found) a woman
shall get her father drunk and have sex with him in order to have children.
Gen 19:31-36
But then, today thoughtful people know that scriptures have always been social and political tools, designed to get other people to do what you want them to do

[image, a 1762 William Hogarth engraving belonging to Oxford’s Ashmoleon Museum, from The Victorian Web]

disgusting!

taxes.jpg
he still has to figure his taxes, but now the real threat is to his social security

Stop taxing the wealthy; it’ll be good for everyone, they said.
Now it’s, omigod, we’re out of money – we can’t fulfill the promise of social security! [supposedly not funded by income taxes anyway, since that would be “socialism”]
Wealthy 78-year-old, not-yet-or-ever-to-be-retired Alan Greenspan’s response to the crisis? Cut social security benefits and raise the retirement age. Just tell the masses they can keep working, even if the jobs are disappearing and nobody wants to employ older people anyway.
Not to depend too much on an ad hominum argument, but the Greenspan himself, like everyone else in this government of ours, will never need social security benefits to pay the bills. Besides, he obviously doesn’t expect to retire anyway. He’s far too useful to his bosses: He virtually excludes the possibility of reintroducing taxes to relieve the massive revenue shortfall.

“Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base,” Greenspan said. “The exact magnitude of such risks is very difficult to estimate, but they are of enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side.”

Note to file: The U.S. now has just five tax brackets, and you reach the very top rate of 35% only on income over $319,000. That percentage remains the same regardless of whether you make $320,000. or billions more. Of course no one pays these percentages in the end, but even the base figures are so modest they would be unimaginable in the rest of the modern world, which actually gets something back for its tax outlays, including real social security.

[image is Norman Rockwell’s Saturday Evening Post cover from March, 1945, “Income Taxes”, from Curtis Publishing; notice interesting content titles listed on the top right]

another Republican war, this one on faggots everywhere,

even Log Cabin Republicans.
And the Democrats are not blameless either.
Bush has just now officially come out in support of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

marriage.jpg
[but I no longer think so]

First of all, the media has it wrong. Is their reading deliberately false? This report is from Reuters:

Bush did not endorse specific legislation as the vehicle for the amendment but the White House said the president approved of the broad principles offered by Republican U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado.
Her proposed amendment says “marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”
Bush left the door open to states to provide homosexual civil unions and other legal arrangements for the gay community.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said these arrangements could include hospital visitation rights, insurance benefits and civil unions.

Bush’s decision to support a Constitutional amendment defining marriage means open war on faggots. It not just an attempt to make our fundamental, secular law define “sacred marriage” narrowly.
If successful, this amendment would virtually outlaw gay and lesbian relationships. The estimable Atrios writes that it would

. . . prevent states from establishing same-sex civil unions of any kind. The sweeping language could also potentially overturn anti-discrimination statutes with respect to housing and other things, allowing landlords to refuse to rent to same-sex couples, or government provided partner health benefits. Don’t believe me? Call up some smart lawyers and ask them.

I consider neither the right to marry, and certainly not , for that matter, what I think of as the dubious privilege of performing military service, to be the first priority for gay rights activists when Queers still have no protection for the most basic rights of employment or residence in most parts of this benighted nation. [significantly, mainstream gays were already focused on marriage and military service, and that strange invention, “hate crimes”, years before the Supreme Court recently “gave” them the right even to have gay sex!] I still regard both marriage and military service only as significant economic benefits which should be available to all, but I realize that sometimes events take a shape and a direction neither anticipated nor intended, and you then have to work with what you have. But let’s leave the churches out of marriage, please, except as eccentric ritual.
Watching what has happened in the last ten days or so in San Francisco, I was first shocked, then pleased and then shocked again, the second time by my emotional reaction to scenes of joy and excitement surrounding the couples who have lined up to have their commitments registered formally by the state, er, city.
Are we going to see these [more than 3000 so far] unions declared dissolved, “divorced”, when California’s forces of reaction, led by an ex-terminator, are able to regroup? And will that be followed by the still more disastrous blow of a 28th Amendment to the federal Constitution, for the first time removing civil rights?
I think there’s going to be a very big fight.
Even if the rights only now being exercised by a long-suppressed minority survive these threats, will the battles be won at the expense of the larger war against the so-called Christian Right and its cynical Republican enablers? Will the Democrats once again collapse this year in confusion and cowardice?
Nader is not the enemy, guys. Greed, ignorance, stupidity and fear, much of it “Democratic”, is the enemy, as it always is.

For more on the mendacity of Bush and the media, see bloggy today. This is an excerpt:

Do not trust the mainstream media to tell you the truth about this.
One last thought. The Democrats’ (including Kerry and Edwards but not Kucinich) position on this, one of “we don’t support gay marriage but we don’t support the amendment either” is bullshit. This kind of splitting hairs is revolting when we’re talking about civil rights, and they’re going to be painted as homo-loving liberals by the GOP no matter what they do. Why not take a principled position rather than some stupid focus group-created one? I will hold my nose and vote for the Democratic candidate, but I can’t say I’m excited about it, unless a miracle happens and we get Kucinich.

[image from Princeton University]

best news scoop of the year?

Headline of lead story in current the Onion: Osama Bin Laden Found Inside Each Of Us

WASHINGTON, DC—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday that Osama bin Laden, prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has “at long last been found.”
“For more than two years, we combed the Middle East looking for bin Laden,” Rumsfeld said. “Frankly, it was starting to be an embarrassment. You can imagine our surprise when we finally found him hiding deep inside the darkest recesses of each and every one of our souls.”

For some of us, the revelation is no surprise at all; we’re very good at creating our own demons.