Music Collection #3: Ryan Adams, Gold and Bonus Disc

Artist: Ryan Adams
Album: Gold
Favorite Song: New York, New York
Origin: Birthday/Christmas/Hanukkah Gift (I think)

Ah, Gold, named for the title track Gold to Me. Er, no wait ... that's Ben Harper.

Silver and Gold? U2.

After the Goldrush? Neil Young.

Well, then maybe it's just named after Adams' ambition that the record would go gold. And I think it did. And I'm pretty sure it's the only one his albums that has. In a way, that's because probably got the most publicity - the lead single was New York, New York which just happened to be released right around September 11th. I remember my brother complaining once that it was a little unseemly that Adams had rushed out a New York City tribute single so quickly. I had to tell him that it was actually recorded well before 9/11 - the video, in fact, features the Twin Towers in the background. But that song was the first by Ryan Adams I ever heard, and it was enough to get me to put the album on my holiday wishlist. (The only sour part of the song - the weird sax outro, which one review I saw mentioned as the highlight of the track. No. Saxes in rock music is a definite no.)

The real strength of the album, though, is its variety of style. Most of Adams' albums are genre exercises, and each has a different feel to it. This one, I think, does the best job of melding his various styles and influences. Now, maybe it's just because I got this album first, but this, to me, is what Adams sounds like. One common thread through the album is the heavy use of the organ. When The Stars Go Blue, for instance, contains one of my favorite musical moments ever - a little 2-second organ riff about a minute in. (Touch, Feel & Lose is another organ-heavy track, made more sublime/ridiculous by the scene in Ryan Adams: Live in Jamaica where he performs it with a gaggle of Jamaican schoolchildren singing backing vocals. "Cry, cry, cry.")

Artist: Ryan Adams
Album: Gold Bonus Disc
Favorite Song: Cannonball Days
Origin: Birthday gift from my parents

I got this last year for my birthday. When I opened it Annie was like "Doesn't your mom know you already own that?" Well, yes, but not the 21-track, 2-disc version! I've actually not bothered to get all of Adams singles, b-sides, rarities, etc. as, frankly, he puts out enough music already - 8 albums since 2000. But this was easy enough to get, and a 5-song bonus disc seemed to make it worth the extra few bucks (I've always hated paying $12.95 for import singles with 2 extra lousy tracks, or even asking for such things as gifts.) Problem is, the first time I listened to this, I didn't like it, which is odd for Adams music. But I gave it a few more spins, and I certainly warmed up to it. Sweet Black Magic and Cannonball Days are good enough that they probably should have made it onto the album. Only The Bar Is A Beautiful Place, unnecessarily long and string-laden, is a clunker.

One of the first times I remember listening to this and really digging it was shortly after Jamie was born. He was probably 3 months old or so, and I was dancing in front of the large window in our living room (he enjoys looking out at the front yard and the cars in the street). There I was, dancing with my infant son and singing along with lyrics about shooting up.

Music Collection #2: Ryan Adams - Heartbreaker

Artist: Ryan Adams
Album: Heartbreaker
Favorite Song: Oh My Sweet Carolina and To Be Young (Is to be Sad, Is to be High) - tie
Origin: Amoeba, San Francisco, I think (purchased new)

This album is, without a doubt, Ryan Adams' finest. At least, that's what all of the critics say, and I always listen intently to what music critics say, since there words are like manna from heaven. Anyway, I really like this album, but I'm not sure that it's my favorite by Adams. I'm not sure that I have a favorite, actually. But this album certainly captures in 15 tracks many of the themes running through his work - heartbreak (Amy, Come Pick Me Up), drug use (To Be Young), existential angst about his Southern roots (Oh My Sweet Carolina).

What it lacks, except for a couple tracks, is the dueling bombastic/melancholy split in Adams' persona. It's this split, I think, that causes a lot of critics and listeners to feel that he's not very authentic, or even that's he's just a plain ol' asshole. I think there's two things wrong with this analysis. One, I think it assumes that most musicians/artists really are authentic, and that Adams' inauthenticity is therefore unique and bad. This, frankly, is either a willfully blind or exceedingly naive way of looking at rock music. All musicians construct a persona, so that you're not listening to John Lennon or Joe Strummer or Mick Jagger, but "John Lennon," "Joe Strummer," and "Mick Jagger." They are all, to different degrees, playing characters based on themselves. Or, perhaps that's being too harsh. They are all putting forth a different side of their personality that they feel is appropriate for the situation, just like how you don't behave the same way in front of your Grandma that you do in front of your friends.

Second, I think critics fail to see how the two halves of Adams personality logically co-exist. His situational personality switches between that of a forlorn lover and a hard-partying rocker, but both are ways of dealing with the basic unhappiness of his music. Read through his lyrics - this is not a guy who's happy with his life. I don't mean that he's clinically depressed, just that he never really sounds satisfied with anything, especially love. Most of his love songs are, in fact, songs about break-ups or missed chances. And these songs are full of regret - he's not yet ready to give up on finding the right girl. In fact, contrary to many stereotypes, Adams is usually the one holding out hope for a relationship while the girl walks away ("Oh, I love you Amy/Do you still love me?").

So, getting back to Heartbreaker, I think this album does a wonderful job of establishing the forlorn lover side of Adams' persona, which is the more "authentic" side embraced by the critics. Certainly, Amy (quoted above) or Come Pick Me Up ("Come pick me up/Take me out/Fuck me up/Steal all my records/Screw all my friends/Behind my back/With a smile on your face/And then do it again") are great, great songs of heartbreak and mixed emotions. If your preferred method of drowning your sorrows is drinking beer and whiskey at 2 in the morning at a dive bar in Greenville, Any Southern State, then these songs would be the perfect soundtrack. If you prefer to deal with heartbreak by snorting cocaine and busting up your rat-trap hotel room in Chelsea, NYC, you may be better favored by Adams' later albums, or by listening to To Be Young (Is to be Sad, Is to be High) on repeat ("Young gal, ya done me bad/So I went and did you wrong/Then I got high/Lord, I got high").

Ye Olde Sisyphusean Task

As I stated in my original post explaining my project to blog my entire music collection, the idea came from my wife, Annie. Figuring I suppose that misery loves company, she has now embarked on the project as well. Will this be the moral support I need to soldier on through 800(?) cds? Will our dueling blogs thrive or wither through competition? Will we somehow engage in a division of labor allowing the us to finish the project together? Join me, dear reader(s) to find out the answers to these questions and more!

UPDATE: One thing that's interesting about Annie and I working on this project simultaneously is that many of our opinions are going to overlap. Compare my post on the 10,000 Maniacs with hers. Eerily similar. I'm going to refrain from reading Annie's comments on a particular album before writing my own, and vice-versa, but naturally our thoughts and opinions are going to line-up sometimes - that's part of why I married her, after all. :)

Music Collection #1: 200 Cigarettes, 10,000 Maniacs, Ace of Base

Artist: N/A
Album: 200 Cigarettes Soundtrack
Favorite Song: Cruel to be Kind by Nick Lowe
Origin: Amoeba Music, San Francisco

Annie owned this movie, and I finally agreed to watch it with her one time. It was a lot better than I thought. Not high cinema, but an entertaining look back at the early 80's, complete with the requisite New Wave soundtrack. I found the album for $6.95 (the price tag is still on the case) in the used bin and picked it up. I think this was shortly after we had consolidated our music collection, and I was at Amoeba selling my duplicates (Annie, of course, would not part with her copies, even when mine were in better shape).

The album itself is something of a mixed bag. It's got some awesome early 80's rock - the aforementioned Cruel to be Kind, Elvis Costello's (What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding, The Cars Just What I Needed - as well as some passable covers, such as The English Beat's Save It For Later by Harvey Danger. There's also some real crap, such as Bow Wow Wow's I Want Candy and an unbelievably awful medley of Blondie tunes (a medley, wtf!).

The only time I really remember listening to this all the way through was just after we bought our house, and we were painting the living room. I was scraping old paint off the ceiling, and we were alternately listening to fun albums and Bob Uecker's radio broadcasts of the Brewers. Otherwise, I put the 8 or so good songs from the album on my computer at work, and so I hear them on the randomizer now and then.

Artist: 10,000 Maniacs
Album: Our Time in Eden
Favorite Song: N/A
Origin: Unknown

This CD is something of Annie's and so I've never listened to it. A couple of these songs are relatively well-known - These are Days and Candy Everybody Wants (which is sort of a dirty-sounding title, if you think about it). And I've heard a live version of Jezebel. Otherwise, none of these songs sound remotely familiar.

Artist: 10,000 Maniacs
Album: Few & Far Between Single
Favorite Song: N/A
Origin: Streetlight Records, Santa Cruz, CA

I believe that Annie got this as part of a buy 3 get 1 free deal from Streetlight's singles bin. Apparently it was $3.95. The a-side is from the aforementioned Our Time in Eden album (boy, that's a really pretentious title, now that I think about it). Two of the b-sides are from the MTV Inaugural Ball from 1993 - back when mixing music and politics was still considered cool.

Michael Stipe provides guest vocals on both of the Inaugural Ball tracks. Which brings to mind the real reason that these 10,000 Maniacs albums are in our collection - they're one of those artists with an R.E.M. connection - Grant Lee Phillips, Husker Du, Pylon, etc. - that, if you're a big enough R.E.M. fan, you feel compelled to own and, if not exactly enjoy, at least know something about. Man, the 10,000 Maniacs probably owe a few hundred thousand dollars worth of royalties to the fact that Natalie Merchant dated Michael Stipe for a while (or at least spent time together being artsy-fartsy).

Artist: 10,000 Maniacs
Album: MTV Unplugged
Favorite Song: Because the Night
Origin: Streetlight Records, Santa Cruz, CA

This one I actually bought myself (see above for R.E.M.-related explanation), and even enjoyed, although this copy is Annie's (see above for explanation of how all of my duplicates ended up at Amoeba). This is one of those albums that I listened to quite a lot for a while, especially Because the Night (Patti Smith cover) and Jezebel. Tracks from this probably even ended up on mixtapes that I made. But at some point, I just stopped listening to it. I honestly don't think I've heard it since I graduated from Santa Cruz in 2001 (omigod, I graduated from college 5 years ago).

Artist: Ace of Base
Album: The Sign
Favorite Song: None
Origin: Known only to God

This is the kind of album that emphasizes rule #3 - every album must be blogged. No exceptions. Only Annie can possibly explain why she owns this. I, however, am reminded of that horrible months-long period in 9th grade when the title track from this album ruled the airwaves and introduced Middle America to the ankh. Ah, memories.

A New Beginning

After a long absence, I have returned to this blog flush with divine inspiration. Well, not divine, really. I have been reading Slate's feature Blogging the Bible, an attempt by David Plotz to blog his way through the Hebrew Bible. It's an entertaining and interesting read, putting a lot of well-known stories in context for someone who's never read the Bible himself. But, more importantly, it's a project. That is, Plotz has set himself a goal (and an attainable goal at that) in writing about the Bible, chapter by chapter, book by book. The problem with many blogs is that they have no direction, and thus it's easy to get sidetracked with mindless posts or by just quitting altogether. But a project has a purpose, a beginning and an end, and with a goal in mind, a reason to keep posting.

So then, what will my project be? My lovely wife Annie suggested something that never occurred to me - blogging my way through our music collection in alphabetically order. Sure, I could just blog about the good albums, the great songs, the best mixtapes, etc. But then, that wouldn't be a project! Going A to Z, covering the lousy albums, the brilliant albums, the embarassing albums, and everything in-between, that's a project worth blogging about.

A project, of course, needs rules. There are only 3 rules:

1) The blogging will proceed in alphabetical order by artist, chronologically by album. This is the order our collection is kept in. A note, however: Annie decided on the alphabetization style, so some artists are, to my mind, out of order. For instance, R.E.M. comes at the beginning of the R's (for shame!), and bands with number names (i.e. 10,000 Maniacs) come at the beginning.

2) Newly purchased albums will be blogged alphabetically as usual, unless that portion of the alphabet has already been passed by, in which case it would be inserted as an addendum whenever I have a chance (and something to say about it).

3) Every album in the collection must be mentioned! The post need not be profound, but the entire collection must be blogged. There are no exceptions.

Munich, ad naseum

One last post about this movie, now nominated for a best picture Oscar.

This is an excellent article about the movie and its politics, far better than my rantings from December (and, helpfully, written by someone who has seen the movie).

Munich, Part 2

So, despite my lengthy post below, I have not yet exhausted my thoughts on the subject of violence and the mushy thinking that accompanies discussions of it. Now, as I noted below, my recent ruminations on this topic have been prompted by movie reviews of Munich. And, admittedly, movie reviews are not exactly a sophisticated realm of socio-political discussion. Most of things I have read in these review echo arguments that I have heard again and again elsewhere.

First, to return to the topic of revenge in Munich. One thing that bothers me about the discussion surrounding this movie is that revenge is discussed absent the concept of alternatives and the fact that Israel was de facto at war with its enemies. In war, killing one's enemies is not considered to be morally problematic. So why are the killings in Munich presented as morally troubling "revenge" killings? They are no more revenge than the Allied invasion of Normandy was "revenge" for the Fall of France. Also, what was the alternative? Revenge is considered wrong in law-abiding societies because it substitutes extra-judicial killing for the legal process. But there was no real chance to apprehend and try those behind the Munich massacre. (Besides, when Israel apprehended and tried Adolf Eichmann for his role in the Holocaust, it was widely criticized for its methods. In fact, some argued Israel should have just killed Eichmann instead of proceeding with a show trial.)

Second, one oftens hears complaints about the use of the word "evil" to describe terrorists, murderers, psychopaths, genocidaires and other assorted folk. This word does not lead us to better understand these people. Perhaps not. But here is the definition of evil. It applies. And to not use the word displays, to me, a greater lack of understanding. It is to refuse to call a spade a spade, and then to pat yourself on the back for doing so. It is ignorance masquerading as sophistication. Those who shoot, hack, or starve to death innocent people are evil. This does not, it is true, reveal the nature of there malevolence, nor their motives. But it does pass moral judgment on the killers, and that is, unto itself, useful. The greatest problem with discussing genocide is not that we are too quick to call the perpetrators evil, it is that we are too slow to. And that tardiness in identifying evil leads to tardiness in combatting it.

Munich

So yesterday I read my first review of Munich, the new Steven Spielberg movie about Israel's counterterrorism operation against the Black September terrorists who massacred the Israeli Olympic team in 1972. And my conclusion is this: movie reviewers shouldn't write about politics. Now, granted, this review was in The Onion, but still. The review was peppered with several of the grating tropes that populate commentary on the Middle East by people who don't know much about the subject.

The movie concerns the psychological and moral toll taken on the Israeli agents who carry out the killings, which is certainly an improvement over standard action movies where heroes kill without any remorse or second thoughts. It also has the important benefit of being true to the real story, and true to what we know about soldiers in general. However, the implication that reviewers have drawn from the movie (which I think is Spielberg's intention, given his comments elsewhere) is that basically, the movie shows the futility and immorality of vengeance. They note the uselessness of the "cycle of violence" and the "tit for tat" that characterize politics in the Middle East.

The frustrating thing about these terms is that they are both condenscending (to both the Israelis and the Palestinians) and largely meaningless. First of all, the "cycle of violence" is condemned loudly and often by all manner of commentators, but almost always with the implied solution that Israel should not retaliate against Palestinian atrocities. That is, Israel should step forward and put morality first. Rarely if ever are the Palestinians the ones encouraged to break the cycle. This is insulting to both sides. It seems to imply that the Palestinians are incabable of moral reasoning, and therefore cannot be expected to restrain themselves. It likewise holds the Israelis to a higher morality - they should countenance atrocities in the name of the peace process.

Furthermore, the "cycle of violence" seems to imply that A commits an atrocity, and then B commits an atrocity, and then A, and then B ..., as if all atrocities and all violent acts are equal. This is simply not the case. Some acts, such as the Munich massacre, are on such a scale (whether in terms of lives lost or the callousness of the act) that they cannot simply be brushed aside and lightly forgiven or ignored. And this goes both ways - when it appeared in 2000 that the Israeli army had deliberately gunned down a child, Muhammed al Durah, this was an act which went beyond the day-to-day violence and tragedy in the Middle East. The Palestinians could not simply forgive this crime (or alleged crime, as it now seems that the event may have not occurred as originally reported). In these situations, a response is necessary, and the response is necessarily violent.

But too often, these responses are dismissed as simply "vengeance," meant to imply that there is no other purpose than killing the killers to get even. But this is not true. Counterterrorism is concerned with killing the killers because that prevents them from striking again, because it puts them on the defensive, because it holds the individuals responsible accountable, because it achieves the strategic end of not giving in to terrorism. It short, there are a number of good reasons to kill those who have attacked you, especially when the attack is brazen and indiscriminate. Vengeance this is not, it is strategy, it is politics.

Finally, critics of the "cycle of violence" fall back on one last argument - what has 50 years of violence achieved? Well, Israel has survived. It has maintained and even expanded its borders. It is prosperous and modern. It is democratic. It has given the Jewish people a homeland. In short, 50 years of violence has accomplished a great deal. This is not to say that peace would not have been preferable. But peace was never really a choice. Instead, Israel has made hard choices, and they have included several mistakes. But to dismiss out-of-hand what has been remarkably successful strategy is simply unfair.

Power Grab

So the President thinks that he has the right to operate domestic spying operations without warrants? Huh. There are a million good articles written on this subject already, so I'm not going to bother linking to any. Go to any political or news site and you'll find a dozen or two.

But what really strikes me about this is what a completely audacious power grab this was by the President, and how it is exactly the sort of Executive Branch overreach that the Founders feared. Basically, the President felt that the existing laws passed by Congress did not grant him the power he needed, and that they hampered him by requiring that he obtain warrants from the Judicial Branch. So what did he do? He simply decided to go ahead and take the power he wanted regardless of the checks on his power imposed by the other two branches of government. And, most disturbingly, he did so in complete secrecy, such that no one would have even known about it without the skillful reporting of the New York Times.

Think about this, the President has claimed (based on laughably ridiculous Constitutional arguments) that he may do whatever he wants if he feels that it is within his power. And he feels almost no need to justify or explain his actions. That's exactly how our system is not supposed to work. And it is entirely consistent with other Bush Administration moves to increase the power and reduce the transparency of the Executive Branch. The actual substance of the policy is irrelevant.

Musical Frankenstein

So I found a link to an cool song creation site. (Note that you have to disable pop-up blocking.) Anyway, you just enter some words, and it creates a track using clips from famous songs. It doesn't matter what you enter - you could even enter this post.

Lazy Reviewers

So the other day I was reading a review of Wilco's Kicking Television and the reviewer was talking about how Wilco had gone through several different incarnations. True enough. But then he referred to the band during the Summerteeth period as being "Beach Boys knock-offs" or something like that. And here's the thing - using harmonies does not make a band like the Beach Boys. But you would never know it by reading music reviews. Every band that harmonizes is compared to the Beach Boys (melodic songs earns you a Beatles comparison, literate singer-songwriters are hailed as Dylan).

Anyway, I realize that writing music reviews is difficult - as Elvis Costello (among others) said "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." But still, be a little original. Try to write without constant comparisons to other bands, because no two bands truly sound alike. Or at least admit that a band is a mixture of different elements from different influences. And try to avoid comparisons to the biggest acts in history. Wilco never sounded like the Beach Boys. Elliott Smith never sounded like the Beatles. Conor Oberst is not the next Dylan (subscription required).

Murderdeathkill, Part II

As an update to my previous post, I hereby request that my faithful reader(s) [Hold on, lemme count. Let's see ... 1 .... That's it? Shit.] submit their plan(s) for their own murders. Remember, nothing banal. The plan must be fiendish in its intricacies.

Murderdeathkill

So obviously, everyone in the world has thought about how they're likely to die, how they'd like to die, what the worst way to die would be, etc.

But today, I was thinking about what would be the most effective way for someone else to murder me. Now, I suppose the most effective way would be to drop an atomic bomb directly on me or something like that. But I'm thinking of something more elegant than that.

And what I came up with is this: poisoned pretzels.

I love pretzels, and I pretty much can't not eat them if they're around. Even if I knew that they were poisoned, I'd probably still eat them.

Now, thing is, I'm also very sensitive to how my pretzels taste. So my murderer should either use something that won't effect the favor and/or will kill instantly. I'd recommend iocaine powder (odorless, tasteless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadly poisons known to man).

Also, my murderer should be careful to pick a type of pretzel that I'm fond of, just in case I'm being a bit picky that day, or I'm not that hungry. None of this Rold Gold shit. The pretzels must have the correct crunchiness, saltiness, density, and dryness. Of course, I'm not going to give my exact preferences in all of these categories, because that would make things too easy for my potential murderer. I mean, I'm already providing him/her with a plan, does he/she really expect me to fill in all the details, too? If so, you are one lazy murderer.

Anyway, in conclusion, poison some good pretzels and you'll probably get me. Or just find yourself an atomic bomb. Either way.

Random Hatred

So, we all know that random hatred of perfect strangers for irrational reasons is morally-upright and socially acceptable, right? Right. But what happens when the person you irrationally hate is also someone you admire? Such is my dilemma.

I give you A.C. "Carl" Newman, front-man of the New Pornographers, one of my current favorite bands. He writes brilliantly catchy, and yet off-beat, songs which combine disparate elements from across the rock spectrum into music that no one with good taste could dislike.

And yet ... I get the feeling that I hate him.

It all started when Annie and I went to see the New Pornographers at an in-store appearance at Amoeba in San Francisco. The set was short and messy, but fun. But Newman's stage banter was a bit much, y'know? He asked the crowd to recommend burrito places, and then proceeded to rattle off the names of several burrito places in the Mission. Who does he think he is?

Then there's this interview. Read it. Go ahead. It's riddled with smug I'm-the-front-man-of-a-critical-darling-band quips. Where? What are are you, lazy? Read it yourself. They're in there! I swear!

Oh, and also? He's Canadian! Yes, Canadian. He even admits it!

And finally, there's this picture. Look at it. Can you possibly come to any other conclusion than that he's an asshole? If you can, you're dead to me.

To recap:
1) Burritos
2) Interview
3) Canadian
R) Picture

What's that? My arguments don't make sense? That's why they're irrational! Haven't you been paying attention?

So, in conclusion, buy A.C. "Carl" Newman's music. It will make your life better. But while you do, curse his very existence. This I command!

Cheap Shot of the Week

It's a good thing that the French don't have the problems of racial animus, incompetent governance, and intractable social issues like us poor benighted Americans.

Perhaps the Awesome-est Thing Ever

Try this.

Overstatement of the Week

Oh, by the way, I'm elated that the A's didn't hire Orel Hershiser's '88 Dodger-ass to be their manager. I couldn't stand the thought of raising a child in a world as perverse as that.

A Brief Foray into Indie Music Criticism

Heart + Sleeve = Death Cab for Cutie

Heart + Sleeve + Drum Machine = The Postal Service

Pain and Baseball

Ah, so it finally happened again. The zombie corpse of Kirk Gibson has arisen from a traffic and smog filled L.A. cemetary to haunt baseball once more, this time coming in the form of Albert Pujols.

I watched the conclusion of Game 5 the other night, and it was the kind of drama that makes baseball (and sports in general) so exciting. You can't sit there and say "Eh, seen it before" or "Oh, this plot is soooooo predictable." There is no plot. Just the sight of David Ecksteins slapping a ball into leftfield with two strikes and two outs. In Houston, I'm sure it looked more like the wheels coming off a big-rig at 80 mph. Then the walk to Edmonds. The big-rig is now jack-knifing. And then Pujols hit the gigantic-est homerun I have seen since Jose Canseco's moon-shot in the Skydome during the '89 ALCS. The big-rig is now engulfed in flames, rolling end-over-end, crushing all in its path.

And the stadium went silent.

And somewhere in Houston, a 9-year-old's childhood ended. Replaced with the pain and suffering that come with your team's failure on an epic scale. It's one thing to be bad year-in and year-out. But to get so close and then to fail so spectacularly can mean only one thing: God hates you. Not dislikes. Hates.

And I know. I can still vividly remember the arc of that ball off of Kirk Gibson's bat. I can remember my little 9-year-old heart hoping and praying that it would land harmlessly in Canseco's glove. But instead, it landed 20 rows up in the rightfield bleachers. And the A's lost the Series right there and then. There was no coming back. And it continued to haunt them - even their win the next year was tainted by the earthquake and Gibson.

Gibson!!!

They haulted that motherfucker out the ICU and put him right onto the field, didn't they? He was on crutches, bandaged head-to-toe, barely able to lift his arms. His homerun can be explained only by steroids, bionics, and a corked bat. I can't be the only one who remembers his bat exploding in a shower of cork and superballs, can I? Others remember the spent syringes falling from his pockets as he rounded second base, right? I mean, I shit you not, the man had to be rebooted at home plate.

That's who we got beat by. So I totally understand, Astros fans, if you're sitting around thinking "Best hitter in the game, sure, but you mean we got beat by a guy named Poo Holes? What the fuck?"

ACLU and Communists

So a few weeks ago, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy had a series of posts (one, two, three, and four) about the ACLU's famous decision to expel Communists from the organization. What struck me in particular about these posts is that they mirror an argument we once had in my family regarding that decision.

Both of my parents had worked at the ACLU, and one day on a long car ride we somehow came around to the topic of the expulsion of Communists from the organization. My mom maintained that it was hypocritical of a civil liberties organization to expel members based on political beliefs - the equivalence of McCarthyism. My dad and I both argued that it was perfectly proper to remove people who didn't, after all, believe in civil liberties.

Volokh's first post makes much the same point as my dad and I did (and it should be noted that Volokh was born in the Soviet Union, so he certainly has more first-hand experience with Communism in the actual, rather than theoretical, form).

However, reading further, I learned a number of things about the ACLU and it's Communist ties that I had not been aware of at the time of our initial argument (and perhaps not my parents, either).

First, the ACLU decision came in 1940, when the Soviet Union (and, by extension, all Communist Parties and their card-carrying members) was allied with Nazi Germany. This was also just a few years removed from the bloodiest purges in Soviet history. In other words, the danger of Communism, so often exaggerated, was very real at the time of this decision.

Second, the ACLU expulsion of Communists also extended to anyone who believed in a "totalitarian" ideology (i.e., Nazis and Klansmen, as well as Communists). So this was not just an internal purge aimed at left-wingers, it was an attempt to make clear that the organization was firmly opposed to totalitarian suppression of civil liberties, no matter what the rationale.

Third, Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU, was himself an admirer of Communism and the Soviet Union, and even went as far as to defend the suppression of civil liberties in the Soviet Union in the name of expanding and nuturing Communism.

I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties.

In other words, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union did not (at least in 1934) believe in the good of civil liberties for their own sake, but only as a means to an end. And that end was the triumph of "workers rule." Only after the Nazi-Soviet alliance did Baldwin turn against the Communists.

Given this, I have to say that not only was the ACLU's decision to expel Communists correct, it probably saved the organization as we know it. Had the ACLU continued to be dominated by Communists, it likely would have been utterly discredited by switching to pro-fascism in 1939 and then anti-fascism in 1941 (as all loyal Communists did). The coming of the Cold War would likely have been the death knell of the organization.

But instead, it decided in 1940 to reaffirm civil liberties as its primary goal (and as an end unto themselves) and has thus been an important defender of the Bill of Rights for the last several decades (despite the slings and arrows of many conservatives, such as the first President Bush).