Thursday, March 29, 2007

[boomers] the party continues but for how long


Croydonian asks "Just what's with the over 50s? They are into heroin, mysticism, atheism, questioning their sanity and schmaltz." Or so a poll of their favourite songs would seem to suggest. A list of songs follows .

The estimable Man from Croydon would appear to be a Generation X or no older than a latter day Boomer.

The Boomers are remembered for free love, Woodstock, Timothy Leary, the universality of jeans and T shirts, Vietnam, rebellion, letting their children run wild, Charlie Manson, helter skelter, hard rock, Twiggy and hippies. Musical innovation, as a cultural phenomenon, began with them - Floyd, the later Beatles, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, the Doors, Eno and so on.

The drugs and craziness were certainly there - White Rabbit, Velvet Underground, Hendrix, Joplin et al, until the grand dream finally crashed. The last generation to do anything like them were in the 20s - Beiderbeck, Jelly-Roll Morton, Charleston, flapper girls, the Bright Young people and so on.

Both eras were born out of adversity - the aftermath of the Great War and the Korea/Vietnam experience, both started partying like there was no tomorrow, both rebelled against all constraint, all religiosity. Donald Ogden Stewart, in A Parody Outline of History, (New York: George H. Doran, 1921), touched on it in this dialogue:

MILES: I didn't see you at church last night, Mistress Priscilla.

PRISCILLA: Well I'll tell you, Miles. I started to go to church-- really felt awfully religious. But just as I was leaving I thought, "Priscilla, how about a drink-just one little drink?" You know Miles, church goes better when you're just a little boiled-- the lights and everything just kind of-- oh, it's glorious. Well last night, after I'd had a little liquor, the funniest thing happened. I felt awfully good, not like church at all-- so I thought I'd take a walk in the woods. And I came to a pool-- a wonderful honest-to-God pool-- with the moon shining right into the middle of it. So I just undressed and dove in and it was the most marvelous thing in the world. And then I danced on the bank in the grass and the moonlight-- oh, Lordy, Miles, you ought to have seen me.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, who was being parodied here, wrote an ode to the times: The Beautiful and Damned (1922). He believed the party would never end, it must not end; for it to end was admission of something darker:

The gaudy world of which Fitzgerald wrote-- the penthouses, the long week-end drunks, the young people who were always on the brink of madness, the vacuous conversation, the lush intoxication of easy money-- has in large measure been swept away. [New York Herald Tribune Obituary, 21 December 1940]

Fitzgerald and a generation somehow knew it couldn't be sustained:

"the sense that life is essentially a cheat and its conditions are those of defeat, and that the redeeming things are not 'happiness and pleasure' but the deeper satisfactions that come out of struggle."


The post-James Dean
Boomers were also rebels without a cause until the cause presented itself in the form of Vietnam and the generation finally had a cutting stone on which to hone its nihilistic disdain. Student unions were alive and vibrant, huge demonstrations and sit-ins abounded, free love was the ideal in the late 60s. The Weathermen bombed. People were stoned out of their brains, as they were in the 20s.

A reporter once asked Fitzgerald what he thought had become of the jazz-mad, gin-drinking generation he wrote of in "This Side of Paradise." His answer was:

"Some became brokers and threw themselves out of windows. Others became bankers and shot themselves. Still others became newspaper reporters. And a few became successful authors." [New York Herald Tribune, op.cit.]

There'd been a definite edge, a global sense of the power of youth, that anything was possible. It was a high, a buzz and they never wanted it to end.

Ditto with the Boomers, with one added proviso - most are still partying, even now, unto credit debt and second mortgages - parties, after all, require money to sustain; they have absolutely no idea when the party must stop, no concept of growing old gracefully, to hell with all other generations. There's one life to live and it's getting shorter and shorter with every passing year.

This is the real tragedy of the over 50s.

[bloggers say] thursday, march 29th [4]

Lord Nazh is considering which Republican to endorse - a difficult job, as the candidates are so poor. He thinks he has the answer:

Fred Thompson is a true American statesman and has the experience that matters. Fred is a real conservative. From tax cuts, to cleaning up government, to his vital role in the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Fred Thompson has a record of fighting for conservative values.

Fred has the knowledge and expertise on the issues that matter most in today's world. Fred Thompson, like Ronald Reagan, has the ability to bring conservative principles to the Oval Office, communicate to Americans, and bring our Nation together.

Could do worse, I suppose. What do you think? Who else could take on the Lizard Queen and whip her?

[bloggers say] thursday, march 29th [3]

The Devil's Kitchen, quite naturally, was going to answer questions directed to the UKIP:

Dizzy Thinks that
the impending SNP thrashing of Nulabour would be a threat to UKIP. Dizzy speculates that, were the SNP to win, then they might very well hold, and win, a referendum on Scottish independence and this would, in turn, lead to the breakup of the UK.

...I suspect that both the Tories (in their present incarnation) and NuLabour would also renegotiate entry, but they might try to do so under different terms. This would be far harder and probably well-nigh impossible...

This is the point - that Thatcher negotiated a good deal for Britain but do you see any leader with the wherewithal to take on the EU monster and win concessions acceptable to Britain's new constituent parts?

[bloggers say] thursday, march 29th [2]

Mr. Eugenides is looking at the cost to the EU of climate change legislation:

The EU bloc must find €1.1 trillion from its coffers over the next 14 years, if it is to fulfil ambitious climate change goals, a new study has indicated.

Of course, "its coffers" is code for "our pockets".

One of the reasons I'm convinced of climate change, apart from it being bleedin' obvious and the scientific evidence, is the vehemence with which the evil pollies have latched onto it.

Far from this issue being effectively opposed, what the sceptics are really opposing is the pollies hijacking of the issue for their gain. One needs to look at the minds of the cynical elite. They're not going to back a losing argument. They're going to back one which stands up and makes them billions.

[bloggers say] thursday march 29th [1]

Justin Martyr, about whom Chris was probably not thinking when he wrote his post

Chris Dillow writes of incentives taking effect only in the long term and concludes:

"But that's all it is - a hunch. As Bryan says, it's hard to say for sure using formal empirical methods . And this raises a question. Why, when the full effects of policies are so uncertain, are so many people so dogmatic about their likely effects? Are introspection and common sense really sufficient to justify strong beliefs?"

To me, this really says it all and applies as equally to climate change and its sceptics, Christianity and its sceptics, everything and its sceptics.

One is then reduced to following indicators - trails, if you like, of cause and effect. To take snippets of evidence of something working or not, along with records that it has or has not. This is one of the key reasons I think the Christian explosion of the first three centuries AD was something more than a great idea, remembering, of course, that it was not initially spread by the sword.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

[mybloglog] why you should consider it

Let's face it - some of us have got ridiculously long blogrolls now. In my own case, I must use BlogRolling [without which I wouldn't survive] to deal with this but another scheme which also helps is MyBlogLog [both these are in the sidebars here].

The thing is, with the best will in the world, I try to get to the Blogpowerers first, followed by Regulars and then I rotate the rolls and tackle a whole roll at a time. That's the theory. In practice, when I come online, I can instantly see, in visual form, who's been in, it reminds me and I tend to click on the photo immediately, intending to return to my plan later.

Now if one clicks on, say, Guthrum, it brings up his site and sidebar and there's Toque, whom I've never visited and so on. You know how it is. Now if we were all doing this, it would be so much easier.

Where it breaks down is when someone who runs MyBlogLog himself, like Tom Paine, of The Last Ditch, comes in to view other blogs invisibly [don't know how he hides himself] and so one doesn't know if he's been in or not. Each to his own.

[wc fields] never give a sucker an even break - part 1

What to say about this film? Newsday says:

Younger audiences, conditioned to the present-day's affection for the slam-bang sight gag, may be impatient with the elaborate handiwork and polish applied to such bits by comedians of Fields' vintage. But if they sit still long enough, they may find something akin to poetry in these slow-cooking routines.

Slow-cooking, dated, with a star who's no Valentino - what's to love? For those who like their comedy exquisite - a lot. This film is truly surreal in a Pythonesque way, with the plot mirroring the behind the scenes situation, plays within plays, total lack of concern with either the laws of physics or continuity and the constant flow of wry observations, sometimes to the camera itself. Plus the roguishness of Fields, the master of timing.

Now you can get it on DVD, I think a new generation of discerning filmgoers is going to discover why this film is on so many people's Top 100 list.

From the Filmsite:

Never Give a Sucker an Even Break (1941) is a tour de force of W.C. Fields' off-beat humor, double-takes, broad comedy and priceless lines and sketches. The screenplay by John T. Noville and Prescott Chaplin was based upon Fields' own original material (under the nom de plume Otis Criblecoblis).

The film is absurd, irrational, surrealistic, innovative and wacky, with no real plot - it was cut so severely that it appears to be an erratic hodge-podge, without cohesion or continuity. W. C. Fields' last starring role in a feature-length film, it consists mainly of a series of flashbacks (the script's action is read by a film producer played by Franklin Pangborn) and a number of disjointed, funny and bizarre scenes spoofing his own cinematic career, Hollywood and the filmmaking industry.

The film itself is covered here.

[blogfocus wednesday] some surprises this evening

Straight into it, in the middle of this very busy week and it's an early Blogfocus today [hideous day tomorrow for yours truly]:

1 Winfred Mann is new on our block and her post is so different to the ordinary blogpost it is arresting. Here she relates when she first saw G-d and I for one take this quite seriously:

It was about 5:30 AM, and it felt very cold. The early morning sky was tremendously dark hanging like an enormous blanket over the city; no stars were visible on this still windless early morning. I carefully made my way down the driveway onto the sidewalk noting the shadowy tree figures created by the single lamppost at the corner of the block. I began staring upward into the darkness thinking about how unusual everything appeared, almost black on black. The light from the lamppost, without which I’m sure I would have seen nothing, almost resembled a wayward moon disrupting the magnificent stillness of the moment. I intentionally avoided looking directly at the glaring sphere and focused on the stark black sky. It was beautiful.

2 Celia Green is another interesting character, a retired academic and she's writing about a subject I had a bit of a problem with in 1994:

When I say that I could never draw social security however hard up I was, because I had been left without any usable qualifications, I mean not merely hard up relative to the cost of remaining physically alive, but hard up relative to the cost of providing myself with the equivalent of a residential college (hotel) environment and the secretarial and other facilities that might have been provided by the sort of academic career which I should have been having, as well as a Professorial salary.

3 Paul Burgin, at Mars Hill, is extraordinary. Not only does he like Gordon, he says so in no uncertain terms. When he apologizes, he also does so in no unceratin terms:

Seems like I was totally wrong when I wrote this post, since this happened. I could say more, but it's kinda late and Iain Dale has (unusually) written something political where I agree with not just one part of the entry, but just about every single word he says!

Nine more bloggers here.

[fresh fields] new daily series for a few weeks

WC Fields polarized opinion - you either loved his comedy or hated it. My plan is to present one of his scripts, "Never Give a Sucker an Even Break", over a period of days and to run a daily quote by him.

Often quite surreal, he wasn't everyone's cup of tea and he's most definitely dated but rather than that detracting from the charm, it seems to enhance it and give it a 'period' flavour. Some of his witticisms even smacked of great wisdom.

He based his comedy on being a lush and a sponger and hating just about everyone - but particularly children and dogs. His attitude towards women was ambivalent - he could be a charmer but he was also quite impossible. I think he neatly fits into the 'curmudgeon corner' of the blogosphere and so to today's quote:

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again. Then quit - no use being a damned fool about things.

[us] being alone versus loneliness

Isn't the blogosphere amazing? Despite the tat, the porn, the dire politicking, sometimes humanity breaks through and it's a reaffirmation of things good. I get a huge buzz when that happens, better than anything artificial.

Just found a blog by chance, Ruthie Zaftig, single mom, and it was her birthday. She posted on her day alone and concluded:

"Today, like most days, no one had occasion to speak to me. I've been at this school for a year and a half, and I still only know a handful of people. It never fails to amaze me how I can be surrounded by so many people and still feel so alone."

Ruthie, I have the opposite problem. I am speaking to hundreds each week and 50% are ladies your age [it's my work] and it's the same effect. I need to just get a break at the end, which is why I make it so difficult for anyone to reach me.

We have a triple system of doors and I've disconnected the domaphone and the bells to our place. I'm also protected by a 'grandmother army'. As I'm in the net, no one can get me by phone. I have no mobile. I'm alone but never lonely. It's all in the head, girl and you can be as alone or not as you choose.

There are people who want to know you but they're far flung. There is also the power of the blogosphere. Mine is a humble site but people do come to visit and if each one of them reading this were to visit you, and if some of our big guns like Ellee or Mr. E or Tea and Margaritas closer to home would also do that, it could get something moving.

And these are not people wanting something from you or letting you down or putting you down.
Hope you get some new friends out of this.