Fest Fest

It's that time of year again in Chicago. This past weekend was the Pitchfork Music Festival, and in a week and a half comes Lollapalooza. Except for the fact that I'm not much of a festivalgoer (the last time I went out for one was WOMAD in the early '90s, I think; I'm much happier watching bands in the clubs), it's an embarrassment of riches.

I wasn't at Pitchfork, but Jarvis Cocker was who I most would've liked to have seen. I heard Public Enemy was pretty good (they performed Nation of Millions all the way through), but Flavor Flav is hard to take seriously these days (in truth, being hard to take seriously is the whole point of Flav, but now that he's got so much reality-show baggage, it's hard to even make the effort). The scuttlebutt was also good on Animal Collective and Cut Copy, who were delayed in getting to the stage but who reportedly made up in energy what they had to give up in performance time. For first-hand wrap ups, check out Greg Kot in the Trib or Jim DeRogatis in the Sun-Times.

As for Lolla, I'm not going there, either. But if I were going, I'd be curious to see Radiohead (to find out if I'd like them any more than I did when I saw them open for P. J. Harvey while they were touring their first album; I wasn't impressed at the time, but I have enjoyed their albums since, so I'm willing to give them a second chance), the Rage Against the Machine reunion, Kanye, Gnarls Barkley, Bloc Party, Lupe Fiasco, Gogol Bordello, the Raconteurs, The National, Black Lips, Broken Social Scene, and various others (see, I told you it was an embarrassment of riches). I'd also try to check out Mark Ronson to see what he did, exactly. I know him for his work as a producer with the likes of Amy Winehouse and Lily Allen. I've heard one song credited to him--a cover of Kaiser Chiefs' "Oh My God"--but that featured a guest vocal by Lily Allen and sounded like it should've been called a Lily Allen single rather than a Mark Ronson one. And if he is more of a producer than performer, would that mean that one should expect special guests at the performance? Speaking of special guess, there are also rumors that some local presidential candidate might make a surprise appearance (my money would be on him showing up during Wilco's set on Saturday evening). I also have a feeling that I've heard a rumor about Al Gore dropping in, too, but for the life of me I can't remember where U might've heard that). From all evidence (especially if you don't mind hobnobbing with massive crowds outdoors), this will be the place to be on the first weekend in August.

All in the . . . Timing

This weekend is bringing the big X-Files sequel. Are you excited? Are you going to stand in line? Is it going to be massive?

I say no to all those questions. Given all the problems we're facing these days, is there really a desperate need for metaphorical paranoia just waiting to be filled?

Shifting Sands

The ground under the presidential campaign is moving. After our recent back and forth over Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's assertion that he supports Barack Obama's plan for quick U.S. withdrawal from his country, it seems that the idea is now starting to stick. After al-Maliki met with Obama, even Iraqi spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh, who released the "clarification" of al-Maliki's earlier statement to Spiegel, seemed to be won over by the talk of withdrawal. He didn't say anything about 16 months, but he did say that Iraq would like to see the U.S. military presence gone by the end of 2010. By my count, that's 23 months after the next president takes his oath of office.

Although the coverage of the John McCain campaign is, unsurprisingly, focused primarily on McCain's criticism of Obama, his shifting position on the U.S. presence in Iraq is slipping through. Reporting on the candidate's visit with the Bush clan at Kennebunkport, the New York Times includes this little tidbit:

But Mr. McCain, who met privately with the first President Bush for 20 minutes, also appeared to embrace, if only in passing, the possibility of withdrawing most American troops from Iraq by the end of 2010. Asked at the news conference if it was conceivable that enough progress could be made in the next two years so that American troops could be fully withdrawn, Mr. McCain replied, "Oh, I think they could be largely withdrawn, as I've said." Previously, he had envisioned that in a McCain administration, most troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.

We'll keep an eye out in case this turns into a full-fledged embrace of Obama's vision of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Clarifying al-Maliki

The al-Maliki/16 months story just keeps on giving. The New York Times writes that, after the Iraqi statement (that wasn't actually released through Iraqi government channels) claiming that al-Maliki's remarks had been translated incorrectly, Spiegel clarified that the translator had been provided by al-Maliki's office and, just for good measure, provided a copy of the untranslated comments to the Times. Funnily enough, the Times translation ("Obama's remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq") wasn't that different from what Spiegel had printed originally. Meanwhile, the Times also clarified some of what brought about the Iraqi "clarification." Officials of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad pointed out that the al-Maliki's statement was being interpreted in the United States as support for Obama's 16-month timetable. After some period of persuasion, the Iraqis came to realize that, despite this being pretty much what al-Maliki said, it must not have been what he really meant. Ah, the wonder of second thoughts. The fact that the second Iraqi statement was so wan, however, may suggest that those "second thoughts" didn't tell the whole Iraqi statement, either. Obama and al-Maliki are reportedly scheduled to meet on Monday. Where will al-Maliki's stated position stand after that?

Should We Stay or Should We Go?

[UPDATED]
I know, it's far too easy a title. And it's been a question that's been around for quite a while as well, at least since "Should we have even gone in the first place?" became sort of moot. But all of a sudden, we've got a new angle from which to look at U.S. involvement in Iraq. In an interview appearing in the German magazine Spiegel, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that, although he wasn't trying to get involved in the American presidential election, he pretty much sided with Obama over McCain as to how soon U.S. troops should leave.

Clearly, this is significant. Although al-Maliki is most likely discussing this for reasons of his own national election, it has pretty clear implications for us. The U.S. position has always been that the military is not occupying Iraq so much as helping the country. If al-Maliki says, "Thanks, we appreciate the help, but we think we can take it from here," the only reason not to withdraw is because we're, y'know, occupying Iraq.

The Obama campaign wasted little time in putting out a statement to the effect of, "Yeah, we agree." McCain's spokesperson did a little dancing, arguing that al-Maliki, unlike Obama, has always said that conditions on the ground should determine when the U.S. pulls out, and he's pretty much said the same thing again, following up with a statement from the campaign itself that timing isn't really that important, anyway. Well, al-Maliki hasn't contradicted his point of view about conditions on the ground, but his point seemed to be that timing is important. The most interesting response, however, may well have come from a professed Iranian Iraqi government bureaucrat which claimed that al-Maliki's statements had been mistranslated by Spiegle. Unfortunately, he doesn't explain what precisely was translated incorrectly, or what the correct translation would be. Further adding to its credibility problems is the fact that the statement came out from the U.S. military rather than any sort of Iraqi government entity. Yeah, nothing odd going on there.

Whether al-Maliki will stand up for his statement or fold under sure pressure that he's getting from the Bush administration, the timing of this, coming as Obama is starting a tour of Iraq and Afghanistan, can't be a coincidence. If Obama and al-Maliki get together to talk at some point over the next few days, they'll certainly be having some intriguing discussions.

UPDATE--I've made a couple of corrections to fix typos and clarify a point that actually conveyed the opposite of what I intended.

Q but No A

Not many answers tonight, only questions and more questions.

What's really the difference between a line and a horizon? Is the actual trick here that, by definition, you can never reach the horizon, that no matter where we are, the horizon stays the same distant away at all times?

I've spent a couple of summers in Central Texas and I know that this isn't something that one does by choice, so why is Netroots Nation, essentially a convention of progressive bloggers (formerly Yearly Kos), holding it this year's meeting in Austin in July? I like Austin, and I wouldn't have any problem spending a weekend there, but not in the summer if there was any way I could avoid it. At least, I suppose, Netroots Nation isn't in Austin in August.

Did Robert Novak force Phil Gramm out of the McCain campaign? Novak claimed Gramm was back in favor after calling us a "nation of whiners" last week. Was Gramm's resignation from the campaign today a response to Novak's story?

Does this whole exercise remind you too much of an old Larry King column for USA Today?

Waiting for Dark Knight

Well, it's after midnight, so there are handfuls of people out there who've already started to watch Batman: The Dark Knight. I haven't seen a lot of movies lately, but I haven't had great luck in guessing out my superhero movies this summer. After what I think is months of not going to the movies (I could be wrong, but it's possibly that I've only been to one in 2008), I went last weekend to see Iron Man (which would be that previously mentioned one). I figured that it came out way back in May and was unlikely to hold onto its theater space as the summer progressed. I figured that I could see The Incredible Hulk this weekend if I wanted to. Not quite. Iron Man has been doing pretty good business, so it's still around. The Hulk, on the other hand, which came out six weeks later than Iron Man, is--according to Moviefone--playing at precisely one theater within the Chicago city limits. I may still try to catch it at that one, but we'll have to see if it seems worth the trouble.

Meanwhile, Batman's coming to town with a vengeance. It's playing all over everywhere at most times of the day and night. And while most theaters, after tonight's midnight showings, don't have the movie opening before about 10:00 in the morning, IMAX has set up an orgy of Bat-indulgence. The IMAX at Navy Pier is going for a show every three hours all weekend long. Yes, that includes 3:00, 6:00, and 9:00 in the morning. Did I mention that they're sold out? In fact, many of the showings all over town for this weekend are already sold out. I've been thinking that IMAX may be the way to go to see Dark Knight, but I'm also starting to get a funny feeling that August may be the way to go, as well.

Even More Linkblogging

It's summertime, which means easy living, jumping fish, high cotton, etc., etc. Here are a few more stray items.

I'm not sure exactly what Liddy Dole was up to, but boy, was it strange. The Senate was considering a bill that would, among other things, triple funding for international AIDS efforts. The bill was already named after the recently deceased Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde, but Dole wanted to add Jesse Helms, one of the most notorious foes of AIDS research and funding (even if Bono ultimately talked him in to supporting funding to combat AIDS in foreign children). Needless to say, the AIDS community was up in arms, but I can't imagine that conservative supporters of Helms could be happy about this, either--could they want Helms's legacy to be associated with an issue he so vociferously opposed? The AP story reporting the bill's passage makes no mention of the proposed name change, which didn't make it through. Is this Liddy's passive-aggressive way of suggesting that she doesn't really want another term?

Am I the only one who thinks it would be wonderfully entertaining to watch Maureen Dowd engage in a little "harmless teasing" of John McCain?

Via Boing Boing, a new Black Canary Barbie is making waves on the other side of the Atlantic. Calling her "S&M Barbie" and making special note of her "kinky fishnets," The Sun whips up quite tizzy. My favorite part is this quote from an appalled Christian group: "Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far." Indeed.

Just Some Linkblogging

I can't tell you why, exactly, but I'm sitting here tonight with nothing much to say. Maybe it's because Chicago's hitting the 90s and I tend to get sluggish when the temp goes up. Maybe it's because I've spent too many late nights sitting here writing things like this and I'm exhausted. Maybe it's something else entirely--like I said, I can't really tell you why.

Obama and McCain both gave foreign policy addresses today--Obama repeated his desire to bulk up U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and McCain shifted his position to argue that we need to bulk up U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

We could go back and talk about that New Yorker cover, but after you point out that if the target of the lampoon says, "Yeah, that's pretty much what we think," by definition it's failed as satire, there's not really a lot more to build on.

Glenn Greenwald goes over the depressing reasons why the Democratic Congress has so little interest in investigating Bush administration crimes and misdemeanors--they're complicit. Nothing especially new here, but it's nice to see a lot of the arguments in one place. It also gives us reason not to get our hopes up by reports that the House Judiciary Committee may consider Dennis Kucinich's impeachment resolution. According to Molly K. Hooper in CQPoltiics:

Conyers said he wants a public discussion of the issues being raised by Kucinich, but does not plan to take any action on the resolution. "We're not doing impeachment, but he can talk about it," the chairman said.

I suspect we should take Conyers at his word on this one.

A couple of days ago, Mark Evanier linked to recollections in Variety from Lorenzo Semple, Jr., about the origins of the Batman TV show (which hasn't officially been released on DVD but is available in pirated form--or so I understand). Evanier points out that Semple's version doesn't completely agree with stories producer William Dozier told over the years, but memories more than forty years old have a way of doing that.

Hmmm. This isn't too bad for having nothing much to say. And since I'm linkblogging anyway, go check out our friend Lori Howard's self-help blog. She established it about a year ago, but she's made a new commitment to updating it more regularly.

Now That's Funny

I was planning to write something about this whole New Yorker flap, but when I was looking around the New Yorker home page tonight, I noticed something I hadn't seen earlier today. Now, it's possible that it was there earlier, but it's exactly the kind of thing they might add after a day like today.

I'm late to the game on this, so you may well have seen this around (it's not like it was scarce today). The latest its cover of The New Yorker has caused quite a stir. Although I found Barry Blitt's image surprising at first, it's pretty clearly meant to be satirical. It's The New Yorker, after all, which is not exactly the National Review. Unfortunately, with virtual no change, the image could very well grace the cover of that conservative stalwart (and if you don't believe me, just ask Jonah Goldberg. Much of the blogosphere--and ultimately the Obama campaign itself--was up in arms, and New Yorker editor David Remnick was coming out to defend his publication. This is the context in which I noticed that if you click on the cover at the issue's Table of Contents you'll be taken to a slide show of other Blitt covers. See, he's got progressive values--he's not attacking Obama.

And that's the problem with the cover. Blitt isn't intending to attack Obama, but without building their own contexts of the magazine and the artist, it's impossible to know. Britt told The Huffington Post:

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

Yes, those ideas are ridiculous, but that's what's so frustrating about them: The fact that they're ridiculous has done very little to slow their viral distribution. In Remnick's interview with Huffington Post, he explains:

What I think [the image] does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's — both Obamas' — past, and their politics.

Unfortunately, "holding up a mirror" doesn't help us recognize anything that we didn't already know was there. The image does nothing to illuminate or offer insight into the situation.

I hate to fall back on the old cliche of the media being out of touch, but I think that's what happened here. Remnick and Britt don't realize how full of vitality these potentially toxic ideas are outside of Manhattan. In defending the image, Tom Tomorrow passed along what he would've expected from such an image:

Personally I'm not sure why the conversation about this goes any further than, "Oh yes, that was a mildly amusing reference to those crazy right wing emails everyone has heard about," before moving on to other topics.

The difference between Tomorrow's experience and ours here at Talk Talk Talk Talk Talk Central is that we haven't just heard about "those crazy right wing emails," we've received them from (who we'd previously assumed to be) moderate friends. When we've called them on it, the senders have defended their actions and argued the truth of the content they passed along. These are lies that have resonance, and passing them along seemingly uncritically serves no one's interests except those who oppose Obama. Of course, it's not the responsibility of The New Yorker to support one candidate over another or try to help anyone get elected, but they're not providing good satire, either. For satire to be effective, it should be extreme to some degree, but this is almost a literal depiction of the smears going around against the Obamas. As I wrote before, readers have to understand the context of The New Yorker as a somewhat liberal entity, and those who see the cover without being able to supply that context will have no reason to do anything but take it at face value.

Musings on Taste and Art (Which Probably Lead Nowhere)

I've been thinking the last few days about whether various artistic tastes are based on anything. We've been reruns of what seems to me a fairly indifferent TV show that's been widely praised, and there were also what seemed to me some fairly questionable awards at the 48-hour film presentation we attended last night. I'm not really interested in talking about the details of any of that, because that gets too close to an "I'm right and they're wrong" point of view that ultimately doesn't end up in anything much more than an "Am too--are not!" type of argument. What I'm more curious about instead is how do we build our individual artistic tastes. You can learn about an artform, which can give you a recognition and appreciation of various aspects of it, but I believe that influences taste only a bit. Generally, as you mature, your tastes become somewhat refined, but can you have any success in attempting to refine them in a certain direction? There are certain qualities that you can look for in art, but while recognition of them may help in appreciation, it doesn't necessarily mean that you'll be moved more or less by them. Or does it?

To pick an older example completely at random (basically because it just popped into my head), I never really enjoyed Miami Vice as a TV show. Many of the people I knew swore by it, but it just didn't do anything for me. I can't completely remember, but I suspect I saw an episode when it started but wasn't overly impressed, so I didn't make an effort to see it again. I didn't, that it, until friends and critics started talking it up. On at least two occasions, I consciously decided to watch it to see if I could tell what people saw in it. Both times, without even realizing it at first, my attention lapsed and I picked up a newspaper or magazine or something. About ten minutes later, after I'd missed some important plot developments and no longer knew what was going on, I'd realized that I'd stopped watching. I never made a decision to stop, it just sort of happened. For reasons that are not at all clear, that show--which was considered compelling viewing by many people (some of whom I even respected)--couldn't hold my attention, even if I was intentionally trying to watch it.

Another example for me is REM. I got the first album when it was new, and it just didn't resonate with me as it seemed to among my friends and the critics. They put out more and more music, but it just did nothing for me. But then they put out Out of Time, and all of a sudden, I was a fan. A while after that, I saw one of their earlier albums in a used CD bin and picked it up--I was a fan now, after all. I took it home and played it, and nothing. I still didn't like the earlier stuff. I knew people with whose tastes I normally agreed with who considered the '80s REM albums among their favorites, and I've got no reason to argue that they're simply not that good, it's just that they don't move me.

There are a number of other examples I could give, and no doubt you could, too. What do other people see that I don't? And conversely, there are other instances in which I see something that others don't. I can't help but wonder if I had more training in psychology or something if such disparities could be explained. Anybody who has an explanation is welcome to offer it.