The wheat fields have nothing to say to me

I received a surprise, an email from an old flame who asked for a meet up. The trick for me, then, is to come up with what would be the absolutely crudest and cruelest response back for that past due flicker.

Readily: 1) no reply; 2) prickly favorites like "pass" or "no thanks"; or 3) a more deliberated explanation. Or some another drawn out come back.

I love another's. Optional different ways to say (or not say) the same or different things.

Why, oh why, now? Which is a prosaic way to approach the matter. And it's a shady smokescreen because I would bet she was probably drunk off her bored ass, hit with some type of personal or professional complication, and/or overcooked with nostalgia. Which is not to say that I am an enemy of the common folk.

I should say upfront I still very much, uh, love her. I'll get back to this. Don't worry.

Common people, among other things, dig – overdig – nostalgia. And I made a crack on it, because well, nostalgia ain't my bag. It betrays reality. Or at least clear vision. A

clumsy conversation about the state of the state via the economic crisis I had with a friend led to an accusation of me of, well, I thought it was a perversion of outlandish optimism but now, I think more correctly, gross inconsideration.

My friend was confessing the potential dire personal and professional aftershocks for herself and her friends due to the market seism, which I then returned that the financial meltdown was hooey. She soured; my answer came off, to her, too offhanded. I shifted to justifications that the crisis is somewhat exaggerated, should be short-lived and recovery forth comes. Which she mocked. Which is why I felt her stung reaction was that I was too blind in my rosy outlooks, too readily asserting things will get better soon. How do you know?, she

quizzed. I don't but I hope so, I

non-assured. Hope?, she flabbergasted.

More clarification was that was how cycles work: up, down, up, down, repeat. By some accounts, the government's manipulation seems to be working. There was a consumer credit and housing bubble, and systemic failures/fraud by financial/governmental institutions exponentially compounded the mistakes. Too much too easily created cash that sought more too easily created cash. But some of the growth were real, as the fundamental business productivities and innovations were real. I don't know, extreme shortsightedness or instant gratification leanings would judge the current situation as only disaster. I don't know, reining back runaway exuberance should not be unwelcome. Yeah, nothing is immune to catastrophe - which this may end up being, and protract - but it's not fever drunk optimism to see a painful rebalancing as a reset for a squarer foundation, and, likely, a return to renewed irrational uptick soon. The fed fund rate is 1% now. 1. freakin. percent.1

But that was not what she was getting at. Her annoyance stemmed, maybe, from the tone more than the substance of my response. Or, let's say, after extrapolating whatever substance from the ill-received "hooey", I did not overthrow her primary peeved reaction, which I think is absolutely valid: regardless of the historical imperative in an eventual recovery, there is still a human cost - or immediate cost - that I too lightly regard, which is to say she is fair in her denunciation of me for a bright-line insensitivity for others. Which I have no argument against. Not quite.

My crack was intentionally - perhaps not obvious enough - outrageous. I followed it up challenging her to name one sap who was detrimentally effected, say lost his or her job. She could not. Which she at once threw back at me for absurdly requiring a live physical specimen before seeing the situation on the ground (or wallet) for what it is. Well, the bottom

line is I do not give a shit about the fickle twenty/thirty-something mobs shaken by the latest economic shakedown. Years ago, my family only benefited from the trickle-down eighties when one of the haves flushed their toilet, then I was too young to do much in the tech/internet heydays, and more recent, I will still blame youth/inexperience for staying on the sideline through the new century's housing bubble, and you know what?, through it all, with the collapses, downsizes and downturns interwoven, my family/friends/colleagues and myself scraped and scratched by, so that overall things ended up ok. Maybe dread over being modern day Evans cover models ala a Let Us Now Praise Famous Yuppies spook the bend and break confidences of some young folks, but the force of history shows things work out.2 Not that I cannot fore/see the - I'll be cynical - inconvenience or alarm many do/will/might experience from a steep economic cliff dive, yet to those with a perpetual sense of entitlement or rigid tunnel vision for the now, things really are not and will not be that bad.3

Now, for old folks who have seen their retirement expectations materially rocked? - yeah, it does suck.

Which still means getting caught up and worked up in the moment, even an epic disastrous moment, distorts perspective. Let's put it this way, Kipling starts a reliable poem of his with, "If you can keep your head when all about you / Are losing theirs," and continues:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on a turn of pitch and toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss.4

The ongoing downward spiral may suggest lost head territory and its accompanying mayhem and despair. Yet, these are also times of opportunity and transformation. Not only in the cutthroat sense of the stoney Continental aphorism: "Buy when blood runs in the street."5 Though I prefer the Omaha hayseed variation: "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful;"6 which adds the counterintuitive but rather commonsensical bonus that caution be purposeful not only when heads are rolling, but also the opposing extreme of heady brashness.

No, I refer to opportunity and transformation in the sense that well, why not. New

directions, new focus, renewed focus, self evaluation, etc. For the bougie overclass, along with "how bad will it get?", additional questions, I think pertinent, are: "is it really that bad?" and "is it bad?" And I don't even mean it in the dry/fester/stink/crust/sag vs explode dichotomy, though it can mean that; no, I mean it in a more anarchism, mysticism, Earth Mother orientation. Which, life in the woods wise is probably even less for everyone than the conventional and straightforward "it's crazy, it seems it'll never let up, / but please, you got to keep your head up" message. But the race makes us rats, right? I am not pimping that is (only) how life should be lived - radical, pagan, and on a brown rice and sprouts diet, but those are pertinent questions. Otherwise, yes, I'm saying keep your heads, brothers and sisters.7

I finished 1919 by John Dos Passos. I should first say that it fills me with a terrible sadness to imagine I might complete JDP's shitty USA Trilogy before picking up the next volume of Marcel Proust's In Search of Lost Time. Sadness and self loathing, actually. I have no clue why expressing so

was necessary.8 Going through JDP's first and recently second volumes reinforces to me the limits of experimental writing, or of the stream of conscious ilk: a bit tedious, which includes a self-seriousness, and lent a little too cheaply to sallow parody. I am not denying it takes a special kind of guts, tirelessness and/or rigour to, first of all, write the Newsreel and Camera Eye segments, but to put it in the draft and publish draft, goodness, that takes a cake. At the same time, it's also not all that interesting. To be clearer, the Newsreel portions are snippets, incomplete or often disjointed fragments from, I assume, of the period headlines, news clips, pop tunes and advertisements; the Camera Eye's are strictly loose "automatic" unconscious-ish ramblings captured; get it, camera eye. Both modes of expression are sort of interludes to the main narratives but are so pervasive through the trilogy (thus 2/3 far) that "interludes" is an injustice. Sti-

ill, it is a total disservice to say that JDP's trilogy is shitty and the Newsreel and Camera Eye segments are uninteresting because on an absolute basis the experimentations with the collage form and structure are/were important and influential to narrative writing/development, creating layers and supplementing commentary/texture using "real" or outside sources. This boldness applies too to another USA device, Biographies, short sketches of true life notables JDP sprinkles in here and there. It is hard to imagine how these wild structures could not uncage possibilities for writers. It's just that, to me, it is not extremely interesting in and of itself. Some of it turned out to be incredibly moving, such as The Body of an American prose poem, but overall I am so-so on most of the rest of the execution.

The trilogy, or 2/3 in, is also not bad. The multiple narrative threads, ostensibly conventional but not exactly, are very compelling. Along with the drama, history lessons and travelogue, the social and political stuff is jam packed as hell too. And the usage of colloquial voices is world class. JDP today is likely the most lost of the lost generation writers, but well, rediscovering might have a golden payoff.

I must have mentioned before I fucking love Thomas Pynchon. Because I do. Pynchon aligns close to JDP with strong affinities to anarchists, wobblies, class conflict, cynicism, anti-authoritarianism, drifters, good for nothings, etc. Pynchon's latest, titled Against the Day, is set around or about JDP's trilogy, maybe a little earlier, though temporal hopscotching is a Pynchon trademark. Thinking of JDP, I wonder what brought me to him and his USA, and in fact, probably, connecting Pynchon with JDP isn't terribly a novel comparison, because, likely, a decent amount of reviews, discussions and criticisms of Against the Day mentions USA, which possibly steered me to see what Amazon.com had in store.

Anyway, I have been slogging through Against the Day, slowly, now momentarily stalled at about 20% in. It's really super, but, uh, I want to make sure to devote proper focus so I've been 2-timing with ancillary stock from my to-read pile for awhile. But, I bring up 1919 and Against the Day partly because, you know, thinking back a century or so ago (42nd Parallel spans 1900 until America's entry to WW1, 1919 continues through, uh, 1919, and Pynchon's novel is set roughly 1900 - 1920s), wow, those were harrowing times, chockful with messy turmoil, anxiety, and uncertainty, equally on the cusp of transformation and frustration; and for crystal sake, I am talking about the twenty or so years prior to the Black Days of late October 1929 collapse. The legions of poor, or less fortunate, mostly kicked about, got kicked around, and sought ways to keep their heads up. Which... brings us to today and wolfcrys of Great Depression Revisited. I mean seriously. Yeah, I mock the extent of the current financial calamity and the suffering or unnerved young professionals. But it ain't exactly like anyone is getting his or her head stomped by a Pinkerton crew, they never sleep.9

A JDP buddy, I assume, was modernist poet Ed E Cummings.10 EEC wrote since feeling is first which begins, "since feeling is first / who pays any attention / to the syntax of things / will never wholly kiss you," which kinda spells double toil and trouble for me taste testing her lip gloss - if that was my goal, and if that's still a popular cosmetic option. It is possible, at that moment, she indulged conversation not to hear my formulaic contrarian stance on the troubled economy, but instead was in the mood to commiserate the distressing days. Empathy, to start. Possible, sure, anything is possible.11 Inexplicable, thy name is woman.

EEC, in the same poem, goes on, "kisses are a better fate than wisdom." Too late now.

And, is is is. I have to stick with what got me to the game in the first place. I mean, does Coca Cola tinker with its fizz soda recipe for moody generational taste buds? Uh, aside with New Coke.12 So, presently,

irony? Since that ruinous conversation, where she marked me a cold hearted, supercilious silly, to my subsequent email entreaties for hangouts, - did she consult a brush off schematic to sort out the appropriate putdown? Then

again, the problem with being a tortoise-speed writer is that everything has changed. Shortlist of the best moviemakers today is Jia Zhangke.13 I underestimated him with my first exposure to his flick, Unknown Pleasure, but it really popped after mulling in my head a bit. Then the next movie of his I watched, as I was watching it, and immediately at the conclusion, I found I still shortchanged him, and that's from the revised opinion that he's the shit. Still Life is magic.

That too is a shared opinion by many, a search on Google should confirm craploads of links that if clicked through should have e-reams written on Jia Zhangke, his movies and how he is a great cinema poet of rabid globalization, disaffected life, profligate consumerism, real people, and so forth;14 in contrast, what is sparingly mentioned is the contributions of his often main female lead, Tao Zhao.15 I mean, she, after all, is the one giving her face/body/voice to shape Jia's ideas. She's not exactly super sexy, but she also is. Consider the critical/media attention paid in other similarly long-term collaborations, think Karina, think Vitti, Cheung, Hara, or Li, how in god's once green earth is Tao Zhao not elevated, if not higher, then to the same pedestal?16 The point is: please, someone write hosannas to her. Oh, foxy Stephane Audran was also really fantastic and pivotal for Chabrol during his (first) major hot streak.

About the changed situation: there was a lull of silence from her, that broke. Eventually she wrote back. I am nothing but not impersistent. It wasn't like the way it was before, but the way it was before is not easy to describe, nor all it was cracked up to be (nor - shouldn't need pointing out but I will -  without pleasant moments; or, sans nostalgia's hue). BTW, I did not mean, if I did, to create an impression that my friend is a vacuous cheerleader for bourgeois aspirations. Because 1) she probably is not like that, instead rather grounded, kind of soulful, and possesses a cagey wit; 2) bourgeois aspirations are not awful, I dig status and status's trophies; and 3) really, I was not saying anything close to that. I will skip the implication of how she'd look with a cheerleader outfit, and sensational pom-pons.

I do not think no reply is the worst response to my surprise email, even if that was how it went down.17 No reply, obviously, is not doing anyone any favors either.18 I will not get into a I-said she-said thing with this; like many (most, all) failed relationships, ours failed, poorly.

Change. Time advanced; with my non-responsiveness, she called.

Oh why, now, why? Which is a drab, superficial way to approach the matter. And all a fallow sidetrack anyway because I bet she was boozed off her bored ass, sunk in some type of personal or professional malaise, and/or overbaked with nostalgia.

I answered my phone, and conversation. Resolution, however, eluded. In one sense there is no way the outcome could come out the way she envisioned without a fundamental capitulation of,

of my own sensibilities. I do not want to forget or forgive. In another sense, I have forgotten and forgiven - how can I not?, the particulars happen so long ago that they have all been swept out of mind. First off, from her perspective, I've said and'll say this: I am not worth it. I am not. That she somehow bothers to try attests to how the past warps/corrupts perception.19 I, also, was not.

Juxtapose my side of things: she is not worth it. At the moment, I'm at a pretty different place with not only a different, but also rather narrow, range of interests and priorities. And a nostalgia bender with her does not fit. Which has a couple of seeming unfair aspects. One, I probably do hang out with pals and sort of pals where they or their plans do not necessarily (or immediately) match my interest and priority scheme. Two, assuming some pals and sort of pals acquiesce or give no notice to my surly term laden socialization, it does not follow that this ex (or anyone else, for that matter) should conform. Third, admitting to a rather de minimis standard for the "fit" part, for her to return to the tame folds of my tolerable graces, all that may be required is judicious application of buzzwords/phrases. In which case, why not just tell her (or anyone else who so desires) what and how to say them and move the matter along? And of course, there is always the get-over-myself edict. I can 

rationalize or soften, to a certain degree, the rough edges of the iniquities, but this is still real complicated, like, high Hausdorff dimension shit, and really taxing for me, and I do not know, there is not much I can do, by way of a response, that would be entirely satisfying, for me or this ex. And, I am not giving up the impasse. And, there

is preciously little I can do to end that would be satisfying, for me or for  

=======================

1. It's a way oversimplified recap of the market upheaval. Error filled too. Um, housing bubble; made worse by even looser credit (the Republicans' favorite boogie man - subprime loans to black folks) standards; which lead to bad mortgages bundled in derivative products; which hungry hedge funds and foreign money snapped up higher yields, partly thanks to credit agencies not accurately capturing the greater risk involved with the bad mortgages; which kind of folded back into itself as credit default insurance based on the bad (but not accessed as such) mortgages circulated more hungry money (from the insurance premiums) and reinforced the illusion of safety (these mortgage products are insured, yo); which in this parasitic relationship, it's difficult to say who is the host and who's the leech; then the first dropped domino, and mortgage quality deterioration questioned openly; in short order shitload of banks stuffed with all the bad mortgage products stirred a confidence crisis; and as the economy (and demand) was propped up by artificially high home prices before, well, no more propping; demand overall wanes; the banks/entities holding the structured bad debt are screwed one by one, the insurance companies (and banks) responsible for the credit default insurance are screwed one by one, and overall, the falling housing market gives way to a broad economic/demand slowdown (or downturn, or recession, or depression, or THE END OF TEH WORLD!1!!) so pretty much everyone is screwed; and while this is going on, banks de-leverage, essentially not lending money out but holding their own capital tightly in case 1) the bad mortgages they still hold blow up; 2) investors/clients/counterparties pull out their money from the banks; or 3) potential borrowers are not of sufficient credit quality (with the assumption that everyone is infec/sted with the bad mortgages and if not, the slower economy casts a deathly pall generally); so add on top of everything a nasty credit crunch/squeeze, which is a problem in the larger sense that financial institutions making loans for car/home/hdtv purchases are key greasers to move the economy, and in the immediate sense that financial institutions providing short term lending is how many companies finance their day to day operations; in other words, ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!!1! Resolving the credit squeeze is a big deal because there needs to be day to day operations. The lower fed discount rates, fiscal stuff, and TARP are kind of making a difference, I kind of feel. Anyhoo, this, also, is likely more than a little inaccurate, and where it is not, still too broad and underpowered. 29 October 2008 Fed Reserve lowered the Fed Fund rate 50 basis from 1.5%. Echoed perhaps better here.

2. Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, James Agee (words) and Walker Evans (photos). I think a WPA thing, but not 100% sure.
3. And moreover, young folks should get their personal finances/investments in order: retirement accounts, long term horizon, diversified portfolio, reinvesting dividends, etc.
4. Rudyard Kipling, If
5. Most usually credited to Baron Rothschild, one of them.
6. Warren Buffett
7. In order of reference: Langston Hughes, Hank Thoreau, and Tupac Shakur. Google the rest.
8. Proust's multi-volume novel deals and dwells a lot on memory and time, but it is not nostalgic, not at all.
9. Their motto. Actually, JDP's treatment on war is really spot on, like in The Body of an American mentioned above (and Pynchon similarly). And talk about modern times parallel, wars/conflicts have sense today? BTW, 42nd Parallel is the first, 1919 the middle child, and The Big Money finishes it.
10. Met in college, were roomies, travel pals, WW1 ambulatory drivers, and JDP was EEC's best man in the 2nd marriage.

11. Would it make me a horrible person to tease regarding a visit from a bloody monthly guest?
12. 1985
13. Discounting, say, the nouvelle vague heavies Rohmer, Rivette & Chabrol who are 80 +/- and Manoel de Oliveira who will be on the old side of 100 soon. They all have made kickass movies recently but I have to figure they are just as likely to drop dead almost anytime soon.
14. You know, all that good stuff that goes with modernity, and China. Though it is common for a lot of directors to start out hot, which Jia has been scorchingly so. It's gonna be interesting to see how things go with him now that he has cleared out a lot of his pent up ideas and needs to put up fresh material. 
15. She was not in Jia's first feature only.
16. Anna Karina - JL Godard, Monica Vitti - M Antonioni, Maggie Cheung - KW Wong, Setsuko Hara - Y Ozu & Gong Li -YM Zhang. Okay, there are also, of course, great collaboration with directors and male actors, but feel free, go ahead, have fun with list yourself. Tao is as good or better than the above-mentioned actors, deeper & more versatile in talent and performances. I mean, icon Karina, who is certainly good, I do not consider great, is MIA from key Godard flicks during that same span: the shot across the bow Breathless, Masculine Feminine & Contempt.
17. I'm gutless. I want to be a badass but, I dislike intentional cruelty. What am I withholding anyway: my inestimable friendship, a chance for her to do that closure thing, or the favorite cobbler emergency: a booty call? I toy with absolute crudeness and cruelty because it's fun, and because it's useful to explore, but I only wish I could dispense so, but never do.

18. In a poem, Auden offers, "... indifference is the least / We have to dread from man or beast." I don't quite get it, because indifference is pretty sucky. A takeaway nonetheless is that it is still dread-worthy. Not replying is like indifference, I think. Indifference or indifference plus? The poem is The More Loving One.

19. I will say that her efforts are halfhearted and inept (which is definitely not a diss on her), so maybe I am wrong, she applied the deserved attention to the matter.

A Drumroll That Grew Louder

Okay. I finished the bomb book. It was okay. My expectations for it were tepid and limp, at best. It met it. Then another book. And so forth.1

Highlighted from a book:

Somewhere a drummer began a drumroll that grew louder, rough-ins overlapping faster and faster as the fuse burned every shorter – Lew, in the grandstand, was far enough away to see the box begin to explode a split-second before he heard the blast, time enough to think maybe nothing would happen after all, and then the front of that compression wave hit. It was the end of something – if not his innocence, at least of his faith that things would always happen gradually enough to afford time to do something about it in.2

Which knocked my socks off. Beautifully constructed. And for me, instructive, provocative, loaded, etc. Partly, the premise that a split-second, even then, and by the dude who set the explosive and sees the denotation no less, is sufficient time to think nothing would happen, or in essence, anything could happen. Partly, the premise that a split-second may not be enough time for nothing to happen, or obviously, for anything to happen. And then, is it innocence or faith to hold that belief? Is holding such belief good or bad? If a split-second would not afford enough time, then a second? a day? a year? etc.

Implied is even with traditionally regarded longer period of time, things may not happen at a pace to afford time to do something about it in. To do something about it in: it - love? reconcile? forgive? whatever? Then suggesting, perhaps, an imperative (instead of innocence or faith) to step up and act sooner, rather than see whether time can heal some wounds? Anyway, I'm sockless.

Moving on.

Do I hate Barack because he's gay? It really does suck that my feelings toward Barack teeters at or about hate. Part of it is that he crushed the presidential hopes of my dream girl. Another part of it is that discovering Barack more has lead to, overall and more, disappointment. On Barack's site, you know what is not really highlighted much/at all? - his position on gay marriage and the death penalty.3

I'll lay it out there that I'm against the death penalty and any candidate that does not speak in direct or substantial opposition to it has to otherwise re-win my vote. I should add that Hillary don't mind death penalty too much.4

Which still does mean Barack likes lethal injections, or however the s.t.a.t.e. prefers to institutionalize murder. In his audacious book about his audacious life and audacious ideas, Barack comes down to saying (and let's half ignore his own understanding that the death penalty does little to deter crimes) that a limited range of heinous crimes deserves it, such as mass murder or the rape and murder of a child.5 You know, that bad shit that gets folks so riled up that they just gots to kill someone back.6 Anyway, the buzz not too long ago was that the super-est court in the whole super country, the SCOTUS, handed down a narrow decision blocking the execution of a child rapist.7 Barack comments that he sides with the four bad Justices (Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia).8 Which, even while he understands that the death penalty does not deter crimes, and the crime in question does not fit in the heinous death penalty worthy crimes list he previously described (common theme: a prerequisite is homicide), and he understands that capital punishment cases often are rife with errors, questionable police tactics, racial bias (Patrick O. Kennedy is a black dude), and shoddy lawyering (and generally, sexual assault are often the toughest because it relies on circumstantial evidence and shaky testimony, which is not meant to speak to Kennedy's actual guilt or innocence), Barack, in collision with the progress to limit - if not eliminate - the death penalty, speaks in support to broaden the state murder apparatus.9 Holy fuck!

A turning point moment, folks claim and perhaps believe, was Dukakis' poor response to a death penalty question asked in a debate.10 Dukakis had a long anti death penalty stance. Anyway, the famous part was that the question asked was probably over the line, based on the hypothetical rape and murder of his wife. My preferred reply would be, "Dude, if one of my family member raped and murdered someone in your beautiful family, absolutely, I would not want you to seek the death penalty." However, the other famous part was Dukakis' actual reply, described as more or less dispassionately stating he would not seek the death penalty and that his opposition was a life long thing. Famously resulting in a long line of chickenhearted Dems fearing to speak against the death penalty. It's purely a political thing for them now, based on a perceived necessary to demonstrate that they must blindly, irrationally and mercilessly hate evil and crime doers (oppose to actually, like you know, doing something about it). And I have to be resigned to the sad fact that a majority of my (national) political hero/ine likely will be severely compromised individuals from the get go.11

But Barack's view, and his recent criticism on the Supreme Court, is flat out vile. There is shaky or little evidence that the death penalty deters crime, Barack understands and accepts it. He endorses the death penalty primarily as a tool for revenge. In a debate, and to a question on whether the death penalty is a deterrence, GW Bush stated: "I do, that's the only reason to be for it. I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives."12 Rather, in a sort of flip flop fashion, in criticizing the recent Supreme Court decision, Barack championed expanding its (barbaric and fault-ridden) application beyond the narrow range of crime he formerly found to deserve the death penalty. Ok. Whatever, I do not mean to labor through a death penalty discussion. But Barack's position speaks multi-volumes of him as a candidate.

Barack, as far as I know, and aside from what it imports for his family I would otherwise not care one way or another, is not a homosexual. I asked anyway because would my "hate" be justified for his stance against gay marriage if he was gay as evidence of, I don't know, some sort of self loathing? Convoluted and strained? Eh, whatever. He's against gay marriage. That said, so is Hillary (ditto Kerry).13 That said, a devastating civil rights abuse and violation is effectively off the table.

Instead, do I hate Barack because he's black? Or differently, should, or do, I hold Barack to a higher/different standard because he's very, very, very not pale? What does skin color have to do with understanding the fundamental inequality in denying certain people marital status? Something? Nothing? How about John Barrow?

Georgia Congressperson John Barrow is one of those Blue Dog Dems type who despite party affiliation kneels over to suck GW Bush's Texan cock, regularly; he's been described as one of Bush's worst enablers in Congress.14 Anyhoo, this year, his seat was challenged by a legitimately progressive Democrat, Regina Thomas. Barack, in a slightly unusual move - due to the rarity of a presidential candidate endorsing anyone in the primary, let alone in a surefire Democratic district - did a Barrow ad recently, in effect against Thomas. Quick and dirty, black Barack sides with white sleaze Barrow over black queen Thomas: is there a black question? should there be? For that matter, a gay question: based on his own voting record and endorsements of Lieberman and Barrow, when it comes to GW, does Barack swallow?

I have no problems, by the way, with flip flops despite guiltily and sensationally dropping that phrase to describe Barack's death penalty thing. Folks learn and evolve, and change, and so forth. Maybe it is what they flip flop to/from that matters more. Maybe. That's a different, and not to be delved into, matter. More precisely, it wouldn't be fair to say Barack flip flopped because his death penalty worthy offense list certainly wasn't exhaustive or definitive; even though, at the same time, I would pretty much say that homicide seem to be a requisite component. His different position now, if different, and how the change should matter to voters, if it matters at all, I'll leave up to the voters. But flip flop wise, there is more, and more Barrow.

I first took Barack's endorsement of Barrow as fair indication that he is not the "change" candidate some folks probably believe or hope him to be, rather more of the same staid status quo, professional politicking that folks rail against. It hardly seems to me that you can speak authoritatively as the get-us-the-fuck-outta-Iraq candidate when you endorse a pro war, Bush rubber-stamping candidate; does/should not action speak more than rhetoric? I guess, in some circles, the endorsement, among other things, has raised enough eyebrows to start a fuller reassessment of the Obama phenomena; of which, it's about fucking time.

Yet, while Regina Thomas, one would think, matches Barack's (supposed or perceived) platform better, she ran a crappy campaign.15 Or, let's say, she should and could have ran a more robust campaign, versus whatever grassroots pipe dream she lit. Barrow burned over $500,000 of a $1.5 million plus war chest for his Barack-aided primary win July 15.16 Uh, Thomas topped out her entire contribution intake below $30,000. Sure, let's assume that it's a fairly strong Democratic district, even super mega strong, but is a candidate who raises a mere $30,000 a viable candidate? Donna Edwards over in crab state Maryland scored a Democratic primary victory over long incumbent Albert Wynn earlier in Feb this year.17 Donna is fairly regarded as a legitimate progressive candidate, and she neck-to-necked Wynn in fund raising.18 You got to have ciz-ash if you want to be taken serious, kind of, no? Do I hate Barack because he's black and to my knowledge has not endorsed any black candidates, but continues to, and loudly so, endorsed shitty white Congresspersons like Lieberman and Barrow? Flip flopping-like, I cannot fault too badly Barack's maneuvers, on a pragmatic level at least. Hopefully Thomas pulls her shit together next election cycle, and otherwise keeps on keeping on with what she is doing in the Georgia state legislature.

Barrow had been an adamant supporter of a recent controversial piece of legislation, namely, FISA, and within it, an extra controversial issue: retroactive civil immunity for telecom companies. You have to look up about FISA yourself - shouldn't be too difficult - and why it represents another damn betrayal from Barack.19 I didn't intend to go into the de/merits of death penalty, gay marriage, privacy rights, etc., because, well, do I matter? And I don't care too much about swaying the views of others. If someone wants to be stoopid and favor, or callously be indifferent about, government sanctioned murder, then that someone can freely be stoopid. Nobody's perfect. Whatever. And I don't know, what does it mean that I think the death penalty is outdated concept? I hate Barack but adore child rapists? Well, I don't hate child rapists. I was raised in the Catholic Church and the Cub/Boy Scouts, twin institutions that explain it's more a function of good and bad timing than anything else.20

The immediate thing with FISA is that at first blush the obvious and traditional Democrat position is clear, no way in hell. It attacks constitutional/4th Amendment rights, and legitimizes Bush administration's 1/2 decade long plus of violations. Barack voted for FISA.21

The other thing about FISA, disregarding the legislation's pervasive ugliness, is that Barack explicitly stated he would filibuster against retroactive immunity provision. That did not happen. I would not say Barack flip flopped, because that would be a disservice to the meaning of flip flop. Barack mislead or broke his word, plain and simple; neither of which can, or should be seen as, a good thing.

Before continuing, I should add one more thing, the Congress had been controlled by the Democrats for the past two years. Barack had stated prior that his pathetic legislative record was ham strung by a Republican dominated legislature, what the fuck about the past two years? Where had the "change" been, where had the "leadership" been? Rather, the past two years had seen capitulation by Barack, and the Democrats generally, on a series of bad legislation, Republican favored legislation, specifically Bush favored legislation, as exemplified by FISA, and, otherwise, omissions (not to load this down more than necessary but since it is a hot topic, non oversight on the Anthrax investigation, though I prefer non Bush/Cheney impeachment proceedings).22 Fair enough, why the singling out of Barack Obama?

What does Barack's reversal of his stated filibustering of retroactive immunity mean? Does it reward your trust? Does it encourages you to entrust more? Should it be, should it be the end of something, if not innocence, then some type of faith? You decide for yourself.

Surprisingly, I found out that I still have the ability to surprise (certain) folks. Or at least my threat of /interest in supporting/voting for a third party candidate over the presumed Democratic candidate was unexpected, to some. 2000 and 2004 were heart breaking. And still I don't blame Nader, my third party candidate of choice now. The president wins an election, and the candidate that loses does not win the votes. I didn't vote Nader in 2000 because I thought Al Gore was decent enough, though I wouldn't hesitate to say Gore was mainly a party line vote for me at that time. I didn't vote Nader in 2004 because I found Kerry to be a good candidate. But even then, during both national election cycles, Nader brought something vital to the table that the main party candidates could or dare not. In 2000 and 2004, I don't lament that I/we/Americans did not hand over our votes to the Democratic candidate. I lament that Gore and Kerry did not win the votes, or, to be precise, did not win votes sufficiently to clear Supreme Court misdealings.23

I don't hate child rapists because I hate not-quite-yet babies? Fine, Barack will presumably safeguard abortion rights, a profoundly big position Barack seems to be sort of clear on. I don't want to minimize the abortion fight by saying that it's mainly a state issue, a legislative issue, and any resulting new administrative driven policy/initiative likely will be short lived and term in office based, because, on the federal level, the president does direct the budget, sets the moral tone, and un-minimizeably possibly realigns the Supreme Court. But my point is this, even if a certain group of voters have low-ass expectations and are willing to settle, a lot of other people aren't. The ability to draw and hold those single issue voters, the abortion right votes, the anti-Iraq votes, the as-long-as-it's-not-McCain votes, the least worst votes, ain't no asset, but a deadly liability for the candidate. Mainly, it signifies the candidate has no message, a cluttered message, a weak message, or some combination of the three. So.

I don't want to spend all my time hating on Barack, if that is what it seems I am doing, and if so, then contrary to the above, because I do not hate him.24 What I see instead is that Barack's attraction is premised on a cloudy rhetoric of change, principled, or intertwine-ness, and beyond that, it's more standard political buzzword bullshit posturing. What scratching the surface reveals is hardly encouraging, the aforementioned anti gay marriage, pro death penalty, and what the fuck pro corn based ethanol?25 Lingering in Barack's backyard, the not rosy picture only gets thornier: now it's okay to off shore drill, a twisted mandate-less health care scheme, endorsement of pro-Bush/war Barrow and Lieberman, an unstable position with public campaign financing, and spinning flashing sirens for the FISA votes.

Oh crap, this is like the never fucking ending story. The bottom line is that I do not see Barack attempting to win my vote, and by too presumptive extension, the votes of core Democratic voters. In contrast, Barack has emphasized emphatic courting of the marginalia in the center, or the center right, and corporate interest. To me, and I wouldn't hesitate to state solely to me, this puts Barack in a position of not winning the votes on November 4. What Barack has been doing or has revealed as his campaign runs deeper, I feel is immensely alienating; fine, others might not be whiners like me, but whatever Barack has been doing, not much offers reasons to energize the Democratic base. The failure to substantively excite Americans, many who starve for transformation in government, is, I think, super stupid bad.

Then again, you know, I've been on the loser's end enough with my pick for which candidate to support to say I don't know anything about these things. I tend to see Barack as an empty shill/shell, but apparently he's the world's biggest celebrity. Maybe that carries the election day after all. Okay, concluding along, assuming a Democratic victory, what then, roses? Barack never promised a rose fucking garden! Instead he has made many indications of a right and corporate ward shift. Who or what then should have reasons to hold Barack accountable, or who or what would Barack be accounting to? Those tree hugging suckers, or the money grubbers in energy whose vote and campaign contribution may have been purchased by Barack's hint of off shore drilling compromise?

What remains is what to do. I'm totally fine with those who abstain or side by party line despite ever diminishing expectations. I've expressed before the reasonable futility for whatever change a new administration will likely and typically bring.26 And this, after all, comes when typically less than 1/2 of the population votes anyway. But let's say naivety rules and a prospective voter sincerely believes in some type of governmental transformation, what options? Support a third party candidate that better aligns with a progressive platform. Or, vocally and vehemently criticize the perceived wrongward slide of the Democratic candidate/party. Either is more likely to compel Barack to try to win my/your vote. Let him know your vote and/or support comes at a price. Whether Barack becomes a stronger, more viable candidate, or - assuming a foregone Democratic victory - a Barack administration more accountable to a progressive agenda, criticism is a sharper tool than blunt/blind support.

Awhile back, I considered an intriguing challenge might be to identify three measly issues that a particular voter might care about and to see where Barack lands on that ledger. I'd wager probably off target. Someone countered: "but people oftentimes only need one." So let's go with that, a different someone voiced that a Democratic candidate/Barack needs to be supported if only to get out of Iraq. Now, a 2-year Democratic controlled legislature had not shutdown Guantanomo, had not responded to charges of torture, had not impeached Bush Cheney, had not withdrawn budgetary support for the ongoing war, had not conditioned that budgetary support, had not overseen the botch Anthrax investigation, and had not moved any closer to withdrawal, while celebrity candidate Barack had endorsed pro war and pro Bush congressional candidates and had (I'll kindly describe as) equivocated on "the surge", troop withdrawal, and timelining. That is an anti-war candidate/party? Or more pointed, that is an anti-war candidate/party to place trust in? Let's say there is criticism over Barack's doughy stance on Iraq, that is a surer bet for a clearer and more forceful message on Iraq that may electrify the electorate and may actually, assuming a Democratic victory, and even assuming not if the anti-war cry is obstreperous enough, result in positive policy changes. Otherwise, there is nothing to hang on before or after the elections from Barack's grand statement, "I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."27 Oh gee, thanks Mr. Obama.

This has got to be enough already.28 See you at the debates bitches.29

Or, let's end like this. Days ago, waking, pulling clothes on, the hygiene thing, pocketing loose change, phone, and such, I left my apartment and apartment building. Noontime, my cousin called asking that I go with him to Ikea to pick up some Ikea things.

"I'll be free after two," I decided.

"Pick me up at the office at two:thirty," he ended the call with.

As things turned out, I was busy past two, but made it to my cousin's Seaport area office building on time. Seatbelting himself in, he asked, "I wonder whether the New Jersey Ikea is closer."

"No," I thought; and otherwise pedaled to the metal it to Red Hook Ikea.

Easy traffic going in, and Google Maps saved us from my cousin's odd directions - if I remember correctly, something something "take the Belt," he said, which is most definitely not the way. Yet, he said it so confidently. Like above, as if New Jersey Ikea could actually possibly be closer than Red Hook Ikea

Anyway, we got there. We parked. We entered. Climbed the Ikea stairs. Then, my cousin pronounced, "Oh, I need to get some water," and turned for the dining area, asking on the way if I had lunch yet.

I replied to him no and that I didn't want anything. I looked ahead at my steps as I walked, at my new-ish kicks that were already streaked with smudge marks. I needed to do something to clean them soon, or those smudges will be impossible to remove. If ever possible. Then, my field of vision caught the bottom hem of my t-shirt, the stitching was showing. I thought my hem had bent outward which bothered me because it reminded me that my clothes may not be fitting properly, or that it required pressing of some sort. Or that my belly unduly stressed the integrity of my t-shirt. I proceeded to fold it back. Or tried.

I worried my fingertips were playing tricks on me as they glided half way round the bottom hem of my t-shirt. Nothing was mis-folded over. I quickly turned to my shoulder, the stitching showed there too. I reached behind along the outside collar. Phew, no tag. "Oh wait," as I sought along the collar inside, and found, "Oh drats, no tag!"

It was a tag-free shirt.

"I'll meet you here, have to go to the bathroom," I told my cousin as we approached the queue to the food counter. Inside the men's room. I tugged my t-shirt off, which educed no staring. Either what they say about the docks/retail bathrooms are completely false or my flab checked the curiosity of the rough traders.30 Reversing the shirt and then slipping it over my head again, I alternated between wondering, "Dang, how long was I wearing this inside out?" and, "Geez, hope no one noticed."31

--------------------------------------------------------

1. If I refer to a book or a writer or a movie or whatever, as I have done in the past, it's not because I believe my reading list or my movie watching list or my listing ability is particularly interesting.
2. Against the Day, Thomas Pynchon.
3. There might be a slight footnote issue. The way this piece was put together, I was careless in keeping track my sources, and I had to re-find them. Some times I hit Google pay dirt and got the exact url. Other times, I had to settled with a substitute where at least the information in question matched. There were also times, as with this, that I opted for the substitute regardless as it offered an one omnibus-like stop for a variety of information. And I'm okay with Wiki as a source. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama and www.barackobama.com/issues.
As well, another footnote problem is the laid back application. For example, this footnote is meant to encompasses a pretty substantial portion of Obama's other described-within positions.
4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.
5. The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama.
6. But not all the bad shit, like gang violence, which Barack finds too disproportionately hurting young black youths. Did I mention the arbitrariness of applying the death penalty?
7. Kennedy v Louisiana, 554 US __ (2008).
8. blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/25/obama-condemns-supreme-court-decision-in-child-rape-case.
9. For the record, it's been over 40 years since anyone has been executed for a crime that did not involve murder. lethal-injection-florida.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-draconian-new-death-penalty.html.
10. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dukakis#Views_on_capital_punishment.
11. Kerry, despite slight backpedaling for post 9/11 terrorists was firmly against state sponsored execution. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/mar/28/20040328-115812-7206r.
12. www.debates.org/pages/trans2000c.html. Which makes me wonder what Obama might say regarding Medellin and his execution.
13. Pretty much, and gutlessly, all three have stated some language of tolerance, supported the pseudo shame status of civil unions, viewed it to be primarily a state matter, and want the federal government out of the equation. Small consolations. Kerry: www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0506-05.htm.
14. firedoglake.com/2008/06/19/obama-supports-blue-dog-barrow-over-progressive-in-georgia-primary-why.
15. www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6969.
16. The dollar amounts are a bit roughly estimated, but the proportion is the thing.
17. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Edwards#2008_campaign.
18. www.huffingtonpost.com/howie-klein/a-progressive-herione-in-_b_22930.html.
19. tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_fisa.php. If you don't want to bother, or you aren't on top of your Googling game, write me, I can direct you to a few places for more 411 regarding FISA.
20. I hope it doesn't have to be said that not executing child rapists is not the same as not punishing him or her. And not hating child rapists is not the same as not believing that child raping should be done and that the people who do it should be caught and punished. And imprisonment, specifically life imprisonment, is punishment. And obviously, I don't mean to belittle the child victims, and apologize if it seems that way.
Also, an obvious, massive and certain difference with my casual jokey reference and the Kennedy case is that he was a stepfather. The degree of association and level of caretaking responsibility elevates the crime to a much more atrocious matter.
21. www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama.
22. www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/29/center/index.html. Congressperson Chris Murphy can be added to the list that includes Donna Edward, it seems.
23. www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi.
24. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7529015.stm.
25. This will seem awfully more shallow and trite (if possible, given what you have or may continue to read) but a driving factor for my annoyance with Obama is his appropriation of buzzwords of responsible, principled, change, etc; then act or be contrary to those words intended meaning or spirit. I don't mind flip floppery, but is there such a thing as a principled flip flopper. I imagine how poorly educated a generation of kids in social studies class will be if took their semantic/linguistic lesson from politicians/Obama. Obama also loves to use "pragmatic" which he seems to have a better handle in using, but I don't think it speaks as well of him as he (should) thinks.
26. Haha, no citing of myself. But it should be little trouble to find.
27. hotair.com/archives/2008/07/03/obama-im-willing-to-refine-my-policies-on-iraq.
28. Overall my criticism probably tracks the standard Nader narrative on what is wrong with the major parties and their candidates. At the same time, I don't intend this to be an endorsement of Nader. I should add, while Nader has worthwhile ideas, and I do support him, I'm kind of puzzled or worried on where or how he stands on the economy. And that Nader is running as an independent rather than propping up a third party group, to possibly sustain a third party alternative, that tempers my enthusiasm a bit.
Many of the links within (or material I have otherwise read) which are critical of Obama are, in fact, by Obama supporter/voters (at least as of today).
29. Loves it: www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d. Except lame-o on a policy level. No way, no offshore drilling.
30. Or is it a matter of good or bad timing again? Also, for the record, I have no position on not-quite-yet babies, as I am not gravid-able. That kind of defaults me to the pro-choice camp, which I wouldn't dispute.
31. Anyway, this was suppose to counteract/balance whatever perceived ad hominem quality, if any, in my writing about Obama. You know, something not positive reflective from my personal experiences. This doesn't quite rise to the same level, but I'm no perfectionist either. Also it is difficult/depressing/exhausting to equate my petty personal trauma/comedies with what goes on in politics.

Then

Then what? Whee, a question.

Playing at the local theater is Reprise. I want to see it.

Reprise played, earlier, in the New Director New Films series, in 2007.1 There had since been another NDNF series, for 2008. Natural conclusion is that I did not see Reprise in 2007. Also featured in NDNF 07 was Once that I did/have not seen.

Hey, I didn't see anything from the 08 series.

What else?

There is the thing that, in fact, I have not caught much from most past NDNF series. Probably not since 02, if even. So. But. Okay, there goes my bitching about my slipping cool credentials for missing out on the good movies before they even blip on Joe/Joan Pleb's radar. I was never part of the cool crowd. NDNF is certainly probably as hit or miss as the majority of other film festivals/series. But there seems always, year in and out, to be significant hits based on movies I eventually got the chance to see because they got distribution or were screened at later festivals, or based on subsequent movies from directors that NDNF gave noticed to. To drop names: Wong Kar Wai's Days of Being Wild in 91, Hou Hsiao Hsien's A Summer at Grandpa's in 86, Michael Haneke's Seventh Continent in 90 and Atom Egoyan's Family Viewing in 88.

As for Reprise, I also do not think I ever saw a Norwegian movie. Cool crowd or not, who has?2 Anyway, breaking another cherry is always exciting.

Oh, my friend, recently, when I think I was describing to him my evening with some friends, said. Or before that evening, earlier that afternoon I went with some people, including the aforementioned friend, let's call him S, to the Cai Guo Qiang exhibition at the Guggenheim.3 The exhibition was decent, in some ways too over the top and too obvious/pretentious, in other ways showcasing the vibrancy and potential in contemporary art: exploding Chevys, 99 wolves, gunpowder paintings, I dig it. Anyway, flashforwarding a bit, we eventually met with some one, let's call this just-met person T, who was pals with another person in our museum visiting crew, closer back around my downtown comfort zone. Then S left because of family commitment, and the rest of us got drinks and snacks, and so forth.

So S's questions the next days pertained to events following his exit. Maybe he didn't ask, maybe I offered to retell that past evening's adventure with those friends. So either it was S asking, in paraphrase, "how was it afterwards?" or it was me recapping, "after you left..." Regardless of the starting point, it was essentially, "dang, T was nonstop with the questions yesterday." T, like I said, was someone else's friend, let's call that someone else person L, and so I didn't really know T and T didn't really know me. To help keep track, so far me, S and L, and one more person, let's call that person P, went to the exhibit, and afterwards, we met with T, who is L's friend.

I do not really know T but had met T once, and not said much to T at that meeting, other than, probably, "hi" or some salutary derivation. Which is kind of what I'll be getting at with this bit. The thing is that I am - despite my obsession with word count in blogscape - very, very uncommunicative.4 Or antisocial. Or shy. Or obnoxious. Or disinterested. And so forth. So.

That evening, for the record, S, as previously stated, is a dude, as is P. L and T? Why, they don't bother with the y's; they gals. That evening, we were taking advantage of happy hour. My drinks were wee-eak, sake-based, but I was dead tired already, too hungover from last night to properly spend a day hiking round Guggenheim's infamous ramp. Strangers for the most part - me and P were old-ish friends, L and T were old friends, me and L were sort of okay-ish friends, P and L were brand spanking new-ish friends, and P and I with T were new friends, S is bounced from these equations because he already split; phew! - there were all that goes into getting better acquainted. Except.

Except, I had a really wacked out dream some nights ago.

Except, love is friendship caught fire.5

Except, something else.

Something else. Clearing my book shelf, you know what I have a lot of? Journals and scrapbooks and other bound blank sheets. Gifts from folks who imagine that I need spare scrap paper to capture inspiration. You know what century we are in? The paperless e-century. Moreover, do you know what white sheets of paper stir in me? Inadequacy.6

Else. Also playing locally this weekend is Joint Security Area. Back when Korean movies mattered, JSA was a suppose high mark. I am not crazy about current hype-darling director Chan Wook Park, but, I assume, this earlier movie will not be over the top with his stylized/fetishized nihilism. But I am loco about the fun cast which gots the reliable Kang Ho Song, the interesting enough Byung Hun Lee, and I can't wait to watch Yeong Ae Lee. Hopefully I will have someone to watch this movie with, which might be tough, as... I don't know, I have no one to go with.

Scheduled to run this year in Subway Cinema's annual Asian movie survey is Happiness.7 Subway Cinema throws one of the hoppingest movie party, to speak of a festival to come as oppose to one that has already concluded, like NDNF. This year's announced lineup thus far is steroid strong. Anyway, Yeong Ae Lee was crazy good in Jin Ho Hur's movie titled One Fine Spring Day. Jin Ho Hur newest, which if unclear is Happiness, should be a return to... oh, I don't know, better than average form? I rather keep expectations low and down. Supposedly, terminal illnesses are crucial elements of the melodrama plot, but hey, ain't like originality has to be squeezed out from every single corner of a movie. The Asian Film Festival normally draws a crowd of friends, or at least one or two others; relatively speaking and these days, 1 + I is a crowd. And, the festival is plenty-of-fun packed. And.

And. Send me stationary to make me horny.8

The cool part is I am pretty into this band called Los Campesinos! that forums/blogs perusing had guided me toward. They are ok, kind of like Natalie Portman's Shaved Head with less synths. Or, does that make them pretty much unlike NPSH? They both got youth, heightened playfulness and a sort of irreverence. Which seems slight foundation for a reference. Okay, maybe this helps: Los Campesinos! are from Wales, signed in America to Wichita Recordings and Arts and Crafts, and dance punk-ish.9

Or, I am as pretty into Los Campesinos! as I can be streaming off the internet, without having bought any of their albums, even though lack of on hand wifi access is the only thing keeping me from hitting iTunes Music Store for the new long play album titled Hold On Now, Youngster. NPSH do not have a proper album out just yet, reportedly July, so I'm psyched for glistening July's pleasures. You know what, I've used MySpace much more than I ever imagine I would. I've also used YouTube much more than I ever imagine I would. Does this mean I'm ready to accept the 21st century? Anyway, if you surf, the My Year in Lists video on the Los Campesinos! website, not awful.10 5!

5!

5!

5!11

The not cool part is that, see, at their MySpace page, NPSH do not have NYC down for a tour stop so I may not be watching them. Speaking of that, no, the not cool part is that the e-perusing that led me to Los Campesinos! was earlier this week, like probably on May 20th or so, which is mere days ago (2-ish) as of this sentence's composition, and then of course, once they seem okay, I wanted to see if perhaps they would be visiting my area while/if touring. Checking, it didn't look like NYC was part of their dates. Do bands hate NYC? Do bands hate my attendance? Checking more, guess what? Los Campesinos! had in fact performed locally, pretty much kicked off their new US tour at Hoboken's Maxwells, a magical place that involves bridges or tunnels, with included stops at Williamsburg's Music Hall, a magical place that involves Brooklyn, and just. May. 19th. Monday. at. Bowery Ballroom, a magical place that involves within walking distance for me. Regardless of whether the show(s) would have been sold out, I curse god/destiny/karma/luck/irony/randomness the same. And/or, perhaps, somethings cannot be forced.

What this means, by the time Los Campesinos! or NPSH come round again, you know who will be filling the crowds? Ho hum dwebs Joe/Joan Plebs. Elbow rubbing in the cool crowd party? Stalled.

So. S said my expression when people ask me questions is, apparently, one of constipation. Constipation is a word that I am uncomfortable using, writing, speaking, etc. Maybe it is the imagery or memory's vestiges, or its somewhat vividness, but "constipation" has a harsh sound which is a certain factor for why I poo poo on that word.

So. L, T, P and I were sitting at the Saint Mark Place hangout, drinking off the happy hour specials. Unfamiliarity compelled T to ask, ask, and ask questions of me, and P: how did this, when did that, how was this, repeat, and more as ways to get acquainted. I paused, then sort of answered. Constipation like? The thing is I am never persuaded that blitzkrieg quizzing equates to getting better acquainted. Instead, it is more a game to fill dead time.12 Shy. Obnoxious. Uncommunicative. Disinterested. So forth. And stubborn.

Except that is the thing. I do not like to talk about myself. And I lack all sorts of curiosity. And I do not like to talk about myself. Add in my belief that most casual conversational inquisitions are deadly and seriously inane, what choice left when asked, "so what do you do?" A pinched, strained sour expression? Oh, play along, it's not more than harm-free social vacuity ping pong. Oh but, no thanks. But constipated so?13 There is perhaps a taking oneself too seriously? Seriously, that seriously? And yet, 1720-ish words of this? This? Loosen that grip. And/or pretend better. May, be. I guess there is a difference between something that I more (or less) realize about myself versus something one of my friend, S in this case, points out about me. Guess? What exactly is the difference? Uh, okay. Well. Then. Introspection is an ongoing business. Let's on-go!

Or not. Don't think. Listen. Reply. Repeat.

... everything you think and everything you feel is alright, alright, alright, alright, alright.14

T has red, ruddy cheeks. Like, blooms from constant, severe avuncular pinching. Or she rouged herself in a too dark room. She is plenty cute. And nice enough. Her kid brother skateboards, Reprise is directed by Joachim Trier.

S has no qualms using the word constipation. Nary such expression on his genteel puss however. He skateboarded in his youth.

P has a broken nose proximately caused by me. Which, under the all's well ends well tenet, I find endlessly amusing. No trace of nasal kink.

L has sexy legs. Or, if she every wore a skirt or dress, and better yet thigh high, we would find out. Someday.

Myself? I have a ways to go and on-go; at times, a ways less too, I suppose.

----------------------

1. www.filmlinc.com/ndnf/ndnf.html, with a link to past series.
2. Tough in cheek, other Norwegian flicks have played in past NDNF and other festivals, and have enjoyed distribution.
3. NY Guggenheim. I Want to Believe.
4. 560+ words at this point.
5. Taken from The Perfect Man, a Hillary Duff vehicle directed by Mark Rosman, and quoting an unidentified someone.
6. To the gift givers: thank you, if I haven't already.
7. www.subwaycinema.com.
8. Taken from My Year in Lists, by Los Campesinos!. And you must confess that at times like these / Hopefulness is tantamount to hopelessness. 4!
9. Arts & Crafts is famed for being Broken Social Scene's label. Wichita is more diverse, starting with Bright Eyes but have landed scores of interesting bands/performers. Both labels attract a certain "sound," which, if familiar, gives a lazy shorthand to explaining the band.
10. www.loscampesinos.com; and there is always YouTube if the band site updates.
11. See 8.
12. My pet evocation from Antoine de Saint Exupery's Little Prince: When you tell them that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, "What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?" Instead, they demand: "How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?" Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him.
13. Let's include the consideration that S saying constipated could even be a nice way of putting it.
14. Taken from Deceptacon by Le Tigre. In Reprise, there is a party scene that seems de rigueur to its genre. Could have been sustained a touch longer or in greater detail, but quite well done nonetheless. Which is to say, since initiating this: I saw it. Pretty good. YouTube housed trailers here and, if you think Miramax is lame-o, there. Also, learned from the movie: Norway might not be as cold or snow-blanketed as first guessed. ... linoleum floor, linoleum floor / Your lyrics are dumb like a linoleum floor.