Tom Watson

Comment of the Week

I'm bringing this feature back after the electon flurry - but it ties directly to the results (and yes, I'm hoping to do some non-political blogging through the end of the year). We welcome in Larry, a Reagan Democrat, who has a warning to his once and future party: don't take me for granted. I think this election did indeed begin the win the middle for the Dems, and the trick will be for us to be a political party and not a movement while sitll maintaining strong progressive values. Anyway, here's Larry:

I am "back" to the Democratic party, but they don't necessarily have me permanently. The ideas that animated the conservative revolutions are still alive. It remains sadly true that power corrupts; that corruption swept parties out of power in 1980, 1994, and 2006. I wish the victorious Democrats well and hope they succeed and remain honest.

Comment of the Week

In a week that brought more than 2,000 spam comments - many of them with vile messages - it's a relief to get back to real comment-droppers, though this is still related to the blog-paralysing attack. I'm giving it  to Brendan, who argues that it was all part of a plan (a vast right-wing conspiracy, as it were) - honorable mention to Tony and Slappy for their quips:

I think this has been a coordinated, targeted attack, and not comment spam as everyone believes. I say this because your blog does indeed have word verification turned ON, which means it wasn't spam-bots haphazardly posting clickable links to rogue sites. Each entry was done by hand, which given the size of each post and sheer volume of them, and, as I'm sure everyone noticed none of the links appeared as embedded links. To me this means someone was deliberatly posting scores of lines in each message, like chaff from a fighter plane, hoping to distract from the issues that you write about.

Another possibility is that they intended to associate tomwatson.typepad.com with porn, kiddie, gay and othewise, by posting keywords that would get picked up by webcrawlers and the blog-crawler sites, and possibly get you blacklisted or banned for illegal content.

Maybe not, but I've seen plenty of things like it in security. Now where's my tinfoil hat? They are going to begin the universe-wide broadcast in a few minutes. :)

Comment of the Week

Sean smacks down my boomer sentiment and musical tastes in this week's comment (I haven't been as regular with these as I want to be, but them's the breaks). Here's the pull-quote:

As silly and ill-formed as the "review" is, it's a sentiment I share. The Who are not "artists," (they haven't been a real band in about 35 yrs) they're an oldies act with a proper schtick, still peddling Culturally Important Signifiers, like mini-operas, decades after they were worn out. Someone like Jon Pareles should know better, but guess what...he's a boomer himself, so The Who, like most of their ilk, get a free pass (and this is from someone who adores the Who Sell Out). Ditto, Springsteen the Stones, and anyone else you care to name.

What Haider's really stumbling on about is The Rolling Stone Effect: where stars in general, but boomers esp. are slobbered over by critics (witness Kurt Loder's 5-star review for Springsteen's The Rising, and Wenner's 5-star suck up for Jagger's Goddess In The Doorway)eager to keep those rock-is-eternal, the-sixties-are-still-with us myths alive. (Prediction: new Who album--4 stars.) But the Sixties are long gone, and no amount of false-boomer worship is gonna bring em back anytime soon.

He's right about the Rolling Stone rating system and the "giants of rock" hagiography it supports. But I humbly submit that I'm not part of that. Pete Townshend's not an oldies act, if you follow along. He is very much an artist (and as such, has released some god-awful stuff in the last three decades, but also some brilliant sides). The Stones? Springsteen? Yeah, they're masters at leveraging the past, selling to the incredibly power boomer demographic (I'm a last-minute boomer, by the way - just caught the wave). But they also come up with the hooks, and sometimes, they light it up along the way.

Finally, I'm not a Sixties guy - late 70s was the sweet spot for me, musically: the coming of age moment. It was a weird, wonderful time and the arena bands competed with the tiny clubs and destructive punk bands for my dollar. I was picky, too - the hippie shit left me cold. I hated The Dead, long drawn-out jams, drum solos. I loved power chords, short songs, stuff I could play myself. I've broadened since then (no weight jokes please) and could care less about the age of any musician; truth be told, I'm about halfway between Dylan and the Arctic Monkeys, generationally speaking.

And I agree with Sean and with Jason (who has said this before) that "Culturally Important Signifiers" in rock are pretty much dead; indeed, throughout pop music in general. It's just the music, in my ears, at my desk, on the train, or blasting through the speakers across from this old leather chair.

Note: If you care, you can see what I listen to on my office PC here - every track, artist, etc. I enjoy checking this out every now and then, but it doesn't count the iPod, the car, the home stereo.

Comment of the Week

There was some discussion in the comments on my post about Maureen Dowd's misogynistic snipe at Hillary Clinton about whether I actually meant to suggest that Senator Clinton has a realistic change to be elected President - "the first [woman] in U.S. history with a real shot at the Presidency," as I put it. In other words, is Clinton electable?

My answer: yeah, she is.

To be sure, handicapping Presidential races twoyears out is an inexact science. Things have to break right for her - in the opponent sweepstakes, especially - and she may have to weather some Democratic primary losses (John Edwards is the next-strongest candidate, barring a Frankensteinian Al Gore rebirth). It'll be a fight. But I can see her whipping anybody not named McCain on the GOP side. She was wrong about the war and there's certainly a whiff of dynasty about her career, but she may well be the toughest, most disciplined major elected politician in America.

Now, this puts me at odds with most of the readers' comments - even those who blasted Dowd for her blatantly anti-feminist language mostly thought Clinton is already toast, the victim of a. her ambition, b. her gender, c. demonization by the right, or d. all of the above. Chuck's comment is typical:

HRC is where she is at because she married a fast track guy. Nepotism is not merit and the vast dumb-voter conspiracy will never cast their votes her way. She will lose... she is now a "brand" created by the GOP with years of demonization and hatred. Hillary is hated like no other. NO one I know would ever talk about her with ANYTHING other than disdain in public.

Respectfully, I disagree - and point to this comment by Sally, who sums up my current POV on the efficacy of a Clinton candidacy and earns comment of the week:

Too many Dowdisms are about Hillary's gender although that is vehemently denied time and again. As terrible a person and president Bush is, I doubt anyone has written as many negatives about him (or Cheney or Rumsfeld) in one column as the anti-Hillarys do. Get over the fantasy Republicans want her to run. Just like they are anxious for Bill to be her campaign manager. I think not, ladies and gentlemen.

Comment of the Week

I love when this happens. You write a post, seemingly in isolation from most of the world, and then someone incredibly close to the situation finds the post (however obscure the subject matter) and responds. It's happened so many times on this blog, I can't begin to count: an old bandmate of Johnny Thunders drops me a line, Guitar Center works argue about their employer in response to a post, authors respond directly to criticism of their work. And so on.

This week's comment kudos go to "Metro-North Conductor," who with a little fast clickwork, is revealed to be Bobby, a terrific blogger who writes from the conductor's POV over on his excellent site, Derailed. Here's what he had to say in response to this post of mine:

According to Metro North Revenue rules, a single ride ticket, like the one the hispanic commuter had, are non-transferable between lines. If this individual had a montly ticket, like yourself, his ticket could be used on all three lines.

I've never understood this policy, but it probably has something to do with how CT funds their portion of Metro North versus how NY funds it.

Having said this, I would have let the guy go. I think I might know who your particular conductor was, and believe me, he would have thrown you off just as fast as the hispanic guy.

Of course he would have let the guy go - most of the conductors I run into would have; it's what made the incident memorable. In any case, here's a bonus from Bobby - who often writes about the celebrities he meets up and down the rails - and this one has an incredible common sense lesson about politicians:

During the 1992 presidential campaign, then Governor Bill Clinton made a campaign stop in Grand Central. He was followed by a huge press corp, jostling cameras and carrying microphones. As I walked by the crowd I paused to see what all the commotion was about. Clinton saw me, a workingman dressed in full uniform. He paused (he knew this was a great photo opportunity,) and held his hand out to me. He looked me straight in the eye and firmly grasped my outstretched hand with his right hand as he clasped my forearm with his left. He made me feel as if I were the only person in that cavernous station, and I was not surprised when he won the election that November.

Howard Dean on the other hand did not impress me at all. It was after the democratic primaries but shortly before he had been named Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He boarded the train and sat down right across from the train’s lavatory. Unfortunately, most lavatories on our trains emanate a foul barnyard odor. Smart commuters avoid the seats surrounding the lavatory like the plague. Even though there were several other seats available, he chose to sit right across from the lavatory.

Now I ask, if a man does not have enough sense to not sit across from a bathroom on a Metro North train, how can he ever hope to be the leader of the free world?

 

Comment of the Week

This week's highlighted feedback comes from frequent contributor Sean (sorry about the original miss-ID) - he takes on the stupid shoot-out endings to too many great World Cup games (the latest being England, which fought ferociously to survive 2 OT's a man down only to lose the pathetic crap shoot that is the FIFA ending). In any case, here's Sean's argument:

Absolutely, sudden death is the way to go. Back in 98, FIFA instituted the "golden goal," international soccer's version of NHL overtime. France beat Paraguay on one about 23 mins into OT. For some reason this format was overruled, and we're back to the same old skills competition to decide who moves on. Absurd.

Maybe they're worried about a fluky goal deciding a major championship, or maybe it's a matter of exhaustion, but the alternative is far worse: rigid, boring, matter-of-fact penalty kicks.

Look at the NHL playoffs: there is no truer sudden death sport than playoff hockey. Every misplay, every non-clear, every hit not taken can quickly end your night, or your season.And if the FIFA guys want to talk tired, just show them a tape of the five ot Penguins-Flyers game from 99, and tell to keep on playing.

UPDATE: The perfect example was today's Italy-Germany semifinal - imagine the lack of real excitement if it had gone to kicks. The late goals were astonishing, and well-earned - they should play 15 min OT's till someone scores.

Comment of the Week

Got this great comment (full post really and a nice story at that) from Chris in the UK, and it keeps the "British rock giants" theme going here, so it's comment of the week:

Congrats on your daughter and handing down the guitar habit. I look foward to doing the same in due course.

This is as much a comment on the "Pete Townsend is not only human but reads select blogs and posts comments", which came to mind yesterday. I was walking down the street pushing my 8 month old son on Notting Hill Gate, London ( where I now live, after growing up in Chicago and living in DC). I stop to look in a window, look up, and there's Jimmy Page standing next to me.

First, a quick background note, I'm 37, and a guitar geek since 11 years old. I was born just too late to participate in the 60s and 70s, but they still were a potent backdrop to my youth. My earliest musical bedrocks were the Beatles and the Stones, inheritances from my parents. But my first peer-influenced discovery was Led Zeppelin, and at 11 years old I was obsessed with their records. When John Bonham died, I was holding my first (cancelled) rock concert tickets courtesy of an uncle, a chaperone right out of "Dazed and Confused".

At the same age picked up a guitar and started pulling these records apart trying to figure out where all the weird sounds were coming from. My musical journey continued swiftly from british blues rockers into blues, old R+B, jazz, then punk, post-punk, country, I got into all sorts of open tunings, fingerstyle, slide, etc, and the art of underplaying in service to a good song, and I left the slightly embarrassing stadium heavy-rock far behind in pre-adolescence.

Jumping back ahead over two decades, so there's Jimmy Page next to me.. Instead of ignoring him NYC Celeb style, I proceed to gently initiate a conversation. He asks my name. I tell him that he's responsible for my having picked up a guitar for the first time. He asks if I still play. We talk about Chicago and its music. The cancelled tour. He asks after my son, wondering if I still play with an infant in tow. I tell him that I have a guitar in open D for him to plonk a chord on. A very genial few minutes of chat, then we move on.

It was jarring to be brought back to the state of mind of that age, the hero-worship stage of youth in which these towering figures, whether giant rock gods, or maybe, baseball stars, could no more be human than Odin or Thor.

Because, later came true adolescence, when under the DIY, punk and indie influence, rock gods, like all father figures, were very uncool, and heroes abandoned for a more human lot of influences, and books, and peers. You literally forget what one's 11-12-13 year old mind is like. But then something cracks a back window view into it.

I laughed afterwords and thought that if you had told my 12 year old rock-loving self, "oh, one day, you'll chat with Jimmy Page on a street corner", that would have been as weird to me as saying one day you'll walk on the moon.

But then I thought it was probably the same for these British kids, who felt the same way about Chess 45s, when they got to meet Willie Dixon and Howlin Wolf as adults. As kids they didn't imagine bluesmen walking down the street, or worried about the bills, or maybe buying some ribs and beer in Chicago. They too must have at some point spent so much time immersed in the sounds from a flat plate of vinyl that their imagination had no room for mere mortals behind them.

Anyway, keep up the good writing, and teaching your daughter.

Tags:

Jimmy Page, Pete Townshend

Comment of the Week

I'm borrowing a technique I've seen on a bunch of blogs, and elevating a comment to front page status - hopefully, each week. Now, which to choose.....hmmm.....let's see. Think I'll go with this one:

Tom, Thanks for being first to comment on my Blog. Hope you're a Who fan because you get a free CD. You can always sell it to help a pet charity. Your Blog is fascinating and I will come back. Pete Townshend

So, no fair - Tom K., Bruce, Tony Alva, Steve-o, Ralph, Fitz, Brendog, Slappy and the rest will have to wait. And a rather suspect choice of weeks to open this little featurette? Yes, rather. But what the hell: it's been a long, tough slog of a week in other non-blogging aspects and I need a little shot of The Punk Meets the Godfather. I want to revel in the glory for a few more moments. Fred convinced me, actually. Knee-deep in a major Townshend jag (as am I), he noted:

When your idols become your readers, well that's just super cool.

Yeah, it is. And that's why Pete is my initial Comment of the Week.

UPDATE: Getting lots of email from really smart people, terrific writers all, reduced to basically saying "cool, man." I feel the same way - and, incidentally, haven't heard that much usage of that phrase since about 1979. I also like PowerPop's take on it - rings true to me:

You know that great scene in Annie Hall, when Woody and Diane are behind the guy in the movie line who's spewing complete nonsense about Marshall MacLuhan, so Woody steps out of the screen and brings MacLuhan in to say he's wrong, wrong, wrong?

How many times in your life have you wished for that opportunity?

It's now yours.

Cool, man.

Tags: Pete Townshend