Companies Should Sponsor a Plain Uniform

I was extremely saddened to learn that the Boston Celtics have struck a sponsorship deal with General Electric.  Starting next season, the Celtics time honoured jerseys will now include a circular GE symbol.  And so it begins.  True, maybe the NBA itself is to blame for allowing this.  And yes, the Celtics were not the first team to grab at the cash.  That distinction hangs on the shoulders of the Philadelphia 76ers and the Sacremento Kings.  But with the exception of Dr. J’s tenure with the 76ers, neither of those teams signifies much in the way of NBA history.  The Celtics, on the other hand, are the team of Bill Russel, Bob Cousey, Red Auerbach, Dave Cowens and Larry Bird.  They are the Montreal Candiens of basketball.  For them to sully their shamrock jerseys for some cash cheapens the great history and aura of the team.  Within a year or two, this will be standard procedure in the NBA.  And don’t kid yourself that the sponsors will for long tolerate their logo on a tiny space or obscure part of the jersey.  Before long, basketball and hockey teams could have the team’s logo supplanted by their sponsors, as is the norm in soccer.  If greed leads to more greed, look for hockey and basketball uniforms to look more like the walking billboard that race car drivers wear.  Yes, professional sports are a business and yes money talks, but couldn’t they just allow fans the illusion that certain things are sacred?  And yes, I know athletes are paid to wear and prominently display everything from shoes to hats to wristbands, but the jersey is something else isn’t it?

Here’s what I suggest.  If a company really wants to impress fans, they should pay a team to keep their jersey pure.  They can serve notice of this in the arena and on billboards as such.  Imagine the post-modern triumph of walking into a bus shelter and being greeted by “Brought to you by Costco:  the Toronto Maple Leafs jersey, advertising free.”  That’s a sponsorship I could respect!

Moral Erosion One Lie at at Time

 

Events in the news the last couple of days have made me consider what is funny and what is not.  For example, I think Monty Python is hilarious, but I’m sure there are as many people who abhor the classic British comedy troupe as adore them.  And still others that ‘just don’t get what the fuss is about’.  Purely physical comedy like early Chaplin and Mr. Bean has a universal appeal for many.  But words seem to complicate things.  I find gross out humour to be juvenile and offensive, but it makes a boatload of money at movie theatres.  Some love dark comedy, but there are probably many more that are outraged by it.  One of the most dangerous things you can do socially is laugh at something that involves death or the suffering of others.  Keep in mind, though, that laughter is not simply a reaction to humourous stimuli; at times, it is a product of nervousness or insecurity.

Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to what transpired after Donald Trump’s inauguration with Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer.  It started with Spicer making absurd claims about the size of the crowd at Trump’s inauguration.  This was significant not simply because the claims contradicted very good evidence, but also because this was Spicer’s first official press conference, so all eyes were on him.  Shortly after, Conway was interviewed, supposedly in damage control mode, which is a bit like carting kerosene to an inferno.  Her now infamous defence of Spicer in which she denied that he lied, but claimed he stated “alternative facts” was a gold mine for late night comedy.  It is easy to mock Spicer and Conway, and I suppose it might be therapeutic too.  After all, in grim times, we all need something to laugh at.  But let’s not lose sight of what is at stake here while we’re chuckling.  When the truth is no longer a claim that the best evidence seems to support, but rather whatever those in power want it to be, a nation is on the precipice.  Politically, America is very close to the point where those who support Trump are probably incapable of changing their mind regardless of events and where those who condemn Trump are equally incapable of changing their mind.  Trump knows this.  So, when he hammers away at his theme that the media is dishonest, he is hoping to further entrench this division.  If you constantly lie, distort and deceive, then you need to try and discredit those who call you on it.  The media and the fact checkers have been calling Trump out and so Trump provides his followers with an explanation.  “The media is out to get me.”  This plays well with the crowd that keeps trumpeting the line that they ‘are tired of the media telling them what to think’.  By the way, lumping the media together and classifying them as dishonest is as illogical as making any universal claim about any large group, whether it be religious, cultural, national, economic or the like.   When Trump condemns the media, a dangerous dance continues:  namely, the media fires back, giving Trump more fuel to say:  “See, they are out to get me.”  The result is desensitization.  That plays right into Trump’s hands.  Some people eventually get tired of hearing about lies.  So they tune out.  And then the lying on more important matters than which inauguration was better attended will take place.

This is how erosion takes place.  One lie at a time.  And what is being eroded is the willingness and interest in seeing that the truth doesn’t just become a tool of the powerful.

 

Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes’ Speech Almost Perfect

streep

I don’t regularly watch award shows.  I will make an exception for the Oscars or if a musical act I admire is performing on the Grammys.  But I’m pretty sure I’ve never watched the Golden Globe Awards prior to last night.  Not that I saw the whole show; I did get to see the fantastic Meryl Streep’s wonderful speech.  She hit almost all of the right notes.  Yes, I loved that she called out Donald Trump for his callous mocking of a disabled reporter at one of his rallies.  I couldn’t agree more with what she said about the modelling of disrespect and the legitimization of hatred that comes when notable figures behave that way.  I also loved what she had to say about acting opening up the world for others.  As a drama teacher, I am first and foremost in love with the subject because of what it can teach actors and audience about empathy for others.  Streep’s recognition of the diverse roots of many of the nominated actors and the value of a community that draws on talent from around the world was also effective.

My initial reaction to the speech was that if Meryl Streep represents the “media elites” that populist politicians have been railing against, then call me an elitist.

On further reflection, there was just one thing Streep said that I disagree with even though it got a huge hand from the crowd.  In defending foreign born actors, Streep said that if we keep all the “foreigners” out, then the only thing that will be left to watch will be football and mixed martial arts, which, she reminded us, is not art.  Streep couldn’t resist inserting a light hearted moment to an otherwise serious speech; she knew the crowd would eat that line up and they did.  On reflection though, I think it tarnished some of the excellent points she made.  Do we really believe that there are only two types of viewers, those who watch art and those who watch football?  Isn’t it possible to enjoy both?  Aren’t there enough divisions in her country already rawly visible?  Is empathy only to be extended to people who follow what we approve of and, therefore, denied to those who enjoy mixed martial arts?  Art is vital to our lives and doesn’t need to justify itself by perpetuating a mythical rift between the cultured and the philistines.  Empathy is necessary not just to try to understand the downtrodden and the “other”, but to humanize all people.  Which is why I was saddened to see Streep include what at first blush might have seemed a relatively harmless stereotype into her speech.

Surely there’s room for symphony orchestras and monster truck rallies in this world, and we can enjoy our preferences while resisting the temptation to add to the notion of the two as completely separate worlds.

Why the Maple Leafs might be closer to a championship than the Raptors

raptorsleafs

For all the disparity in development between the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Toronto Raptors, the cruel reality is that when they get there, the Leafs will have a better chance of winning a championship than the Raptors.  The Raptors are a more mature team, have proven all stars, a sound supporting cast, playoff experience and a record that has put them up near the top of their conference for a few years.  They also play in the NBA, a league that features a gigantic gulf between good teams and great teams.  The Raptors are a good team.  But good teams do not win NBA championships.  Only elite teams do.  When was the last time that a total upstart won the NBA crown?  It just doesn’t happen.  Last year, Cleveland surprised Golden State in the final, but they were both elite teams.  It was just a matter of which elite team would win.  By elite, I refer to a team that has at least three superstar players and a very competent supporting cast that gravitates to the superstars in the hopes of winning a crown.  I also call elite a team that is so well coached and disciplined that it too attracts phenomenal talent, but decries the concept of superstars (yes that’s you San Antonio).  You have to go back to 1995 to find a sixth seeded team, the Houston Rockets of that year, that won a final.  In the twenty-one championships since then, only once did a bottom four seed even make the final (the 1999 Knicks, an eighth seed that lost to the Spurs that year).  So dominant are elite teams, that the 2007 Spurs and the 2011 Mavericks are the only three seeds to win championships in the aforementioned span; the rest were either first or second seeds in their conference.  A playoff upset in the NBA is a rarity; an elite team being upset is almost an impossibility.  So unless the Raptors can somehow find a way to attract and afford another superstar, they will have to content themselves to being the practice playoff squad the eventual finalists roll over.  Yes, had Kevin Durant signed with Toronto in the off season, things would have been more interesting.  But clusters of superstars attract other superstars and so the Warriors who could not beat Cleveland three superstars apiece, added another.

Now let’s compare this to the NHL.  Teams that can make the playoffs often have a legitimate chance of not only appearing in the Stanley Cup final, but of winning it.  In the same span since 1995 while the NBA saw only three bottom four seeds make the finals and only one win it, there were twelve occasions when bottom four seeds made the finals and three times they won it all (the L.A. Kings in 2012 and 2014 and the 1995 New Jersey Devils).  Just last year, the San Jose Sharks, who were sixth best in their conference, made the final.  In addition, the NHL seems to provide teams with a better opportunity to rebuild and compete.  Even the Chicago Black Hawks, as close to a modern dynasty as the NHL has, were pretty awful within recent memory.  For what happens in the NBA, take a look at Oklahoma City, that had an elite team in the making with superstars Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and James Harden, but quickly felt they couldn’t hold on to all of them, so traded Harden and then lost Durant to free agency.  Raptors’ fans are also well aware of the tendency of NBA players to group together in mercenary fashion to try and win a championship.  Chris Bosh may have been the junior partner in the James, Wade and Bosh firm that set up shop in Miami, but the partnership temporarily derailed franchises in Cleveland and Toronto.  LeBron then engineered another triumvirate back in Cleveland with Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love. With a larger roster, an NHL team cannot suddenly become championship material with three players.  Whereas the NHL and the NFL for that matter are leagues that have seen increased parity in the last decade, the same cannot be said of the NBA.  Take a look at the gap between the first place team and the last in the NBA and compare it to the NHL.  Last year, even in the Metropolitan Division which had the biggest gap between first and last place teams, the first place Washington Capitals only had twenty-two more wins than the last place Columbus Blue Jackets.  Compare that to last year’s NBA.  The Golden State Warriors won fifty-six more wins than the Los Angeles Lakers.  Yeah, you might say, but the Warriors had a season for the ages.  Ok, how about the Raptors who  won forty-six more times than the Philidelphia 76ers.  Yes, but they are a miserable tank job.  But even the Spurs won thirty-seven more games than the New Orleans Pelicans who have a superstar of their own in Anthony Davis.  The reality is that the gap between the best and worst NBA teams is significantly bigger than the same gap in the NHL.

So, while excitement over the young talent on the Maple Leafs is both genuine and justified, it might be fuelled in part by the understanding that the championship mountain that the Leafs need to climb isn’t nearly as steep as the precipice the Raptors are scaling.

And having said all that, 1967 is still a long time ago!

Amos Oz and the Limits of Power

oz2judas

I am part way through Amos Oz’s latest novel Judas and I am reminded of why Oz is such a courageous and rewarding writer.  He is willing to look at situations from multiple perspectives and to try to understand where the “other” or “others” are coming from.  I have been a fan of Oz since my cousin encouraged me to read In the Land of Israel, which is more a collection of interviews than a novel.

In his latest work, which is set in Jerusalem in 1959, Oz quickly demonstrates his mastery of characterization and tone.  As rewarding as this is, it is the religious, political and philosophical thinking in his books that I adore above all.  Consider these passages from chapter 25.  The main character, Shmuel Ash, first considers what some Jews might be thinking upon establishing the modern state of Israel:

“’Up to a certain point it’s possible to understand a people that for thousands of years has known well the power of books, the power of prayers, the power of the commandments, the power of scholarship, the power of religious devotion, the power of trade, and the power of being an intermediary, but that only knew the power of power itself in the form of blows on its back.  And now it finds itself holding a heavy cudgel.  Tanks, cannons, jet planes.  It’s only natural that such a people gets drunk on power and tends to believe that it can do whatever it likes by the power of power.’”

But, Ash carries on a little later:

“’The fact is that all the power in the world cannot transform someone who hates you into someone who likes you.  It can turn a foe into a slave, but not into a friend.  All the power in the world cannot transform someone thirsting for vengeance into a lover.  And yet these are precisely the real existential challenges facing the State of Israel:  how to turn a hater into a lover, a fanatic into a moderate, an avenger into a friend.  Am I saying that we do not need military might?  Heaven forbid!  Such a foolish thought would never enter my head.  I know as well as you that it is power, military power, that stands, at any given moment, even at this very moment while you and I are arguing here, between us and extinction.  Power has the power to prevent our annihilation for the time being.  On condition that we always remember, at every moment, that in a situation like ours power can only prevent.  It can’t settle anything and it can’t solve anything.  It can only stave off disaster for a while.’”

The novel may be set in 1959, but the words above still resonate and give us pause to consider not only Israel’s dilemma or other political scenarios, but the use of power in social relationships as well.

“If Your Memory Serves You Well: Levon Helm, Robbie Robertson and the Story of The Band

levon-helm robertson-2

Robbie Robertson’s recently released biography, Testimony, has more at stake than most rock n’ roll memoirs.  That’s because Robertson was painted as the villain in his ‘Bandmate’ Levon Helm’s 1993 biography This Wheel’s on Fire.  In an afterword to the book added in 2000, Helm was particularly bitter when recalling bassist Rick Danko’s death the previous December which he attributed largely to overwork caused by the need for money in the wake of Robertson’s ripping other members of the Band off.  So how do the two bios compare and which is nearer to the truth (if such a concept can claim to even exist)?

Both memoirs cover much of the same ground:  early life and formative musical influences, life on the road with Ronnie Hawkins and the ever evolving Hawks, touring with Bob Dylan, life at Big Pink in Woodstock, record deals and the final concert in San Francisco entitled The Last Waltz.  They differ in significant ways too.  Helm does not end the story in 1976 as Robertson does, but goes on to include subsequent tours, albums, triumphs and tragedies into the 1990’s.  Here lies “The Great Divide” (lame pun recognized by The Band fans) between the two former best friends.  For Robertson, The Band really terminates at the musicians’ waves so long from the Winterland stage in San Francisco; for Helm, Robertson’s departure was just one of many personnel changes, though one fraught with particular betrayal.  It’s not just the years covered that differ; Helm includes lengthy quotes from a myriad of people closely connected to the group while Robertson seems to rely solely on his memory.  A formidable memory is something Robertson seems to have inherited from his birth father, David Klegerman, and Klegerman’s mother.   Testimony astounds with the sheer volume of anecdotes Robertson includes; many focus on his brushes with huge names in the music business and the wider artistic world over the sixteen years he was a touring musician.  And while both of the bios’ titles are taken from the names of songs, Helm chooses a tune written by Bob Dylan and bassist Danko, which became a concert favourite of The Band, while Robertson alludes to a song off his eponomous debut solo album from 1987.  Look further and there is a bit of sub-text too.  A prominent line in “This Wheel’s on Fire” is “If your memory serves you well” and perhaps Helm is suggesting his recounting of The Band’s history is a correction to the version that Robertson and director Martin Scorsese mythologized in The Last Waltz.  Apparently, Robertson also feels the need to promote the veracity of his work; ‘testimony’, after all, is something given under oath with significant consequences hinging on the words delivered.  Helm’s book provides an index, something that Testimony sorely lacks.  And while Helm authored with the assistance of writer Stephen Davis, Robertson presumably went it alone.  Again.

The tone of both works is fairly jovial when discussing the early years interning with the Hawks.  Robertson was only sixteen when he started, and his biggest concern was whether or not they would let an under aged kid like him into the bar to play.  He was also driven to improve as a guitarist and he absorbed as much as he could from everyone he met, somewhat like Bob Dylan in that regard.  Life on the road created a real bond between bandmates, and none seemed to share a deeper one than Robertson and Helm.  This is made particularly clear in Testimony.  Though only three years older than Robbie, Levon became a kind of second mentor to Robertson, and the two opened up to each other about their families and upbringing while sharing those long drives between Arkansas and Ontario.  Helm’s work deals with these years more economically, but occasionally the added depth of Testimony is helpful, as in the context Robertson provides when explaining why the Hawks ultimately left Hawkins.  The immediate cause appears to be Hawkins’ unreasonable punishment of Rick Danko for having his girlfriend show up at a gig after Rompin’ Ronnie had warned him that mixing with the crowd during breaks was part of a gig’s expectations.  Ronnie was upset that Danko was spending breaks with his girlfriend rather than mingling with the punters.  Hawkins’ heavy handed punishments and increasing absenteeism rankled the Hawks whose musical prowess had evolved to the point where they probably felt they could go it alone without the Hawk.  After all, he didn’t even play an instrument.  He was an electric showman, a tested rockabilly singer and had a great many club contacts in Ontario and the southern States, but by 1964, the Hawks were beginning to feel that they could do without his rules and what was beginning to feel like an exploitative financial arrangement.

The books start to diverge in the post-Hawkins era.  Robertson exhaustively documents the musicians, artists and famous people that he had a chance to hang out with in the drug-fuelled mid-sixties. He also takes pains to demonstrate his loyalty to Helm in his refusal to initially tour with Dylan unless Bob included Levon in the backing band.  Soon  after, the other members of the Band joined Dylan on an extended American tour with plans to go to Europe.  Helm left in late 1965, to head back to Arkansas and then work for a time on an oil rig off the coast of Louisiana.  The booing from fans who wanted ‘folk Bob’ was getting to him, but so was something else.  In an instructive passage from This Wheel’s on Fire, Helm recalls a conversation before he left the tour where he said to Robbie:  “’You know, I’ve always had the same ambition:  to be our own band.  You had that same ambition too; that was the plan’” to which Helm remembers Robbie replying:  “’I know that, but Bobby’s opening a lot of doors for us, man.  We’re meeting important people, learning how to travel, making contacts that we’d never make otherwise.  We’re playing three nights a week against six…’”  Maybe that sums up why things were destined to go south eventually.  Robbie was ambitious and didn’t mind playing second fiddle again if it opened up doors for later whereas Levon wanted to be making the music that the Band loved and didn’t want to get caught in the crossfire of spurned folk music lovers.

The sections of the books that chronicle living in Saugerties, New York and the late night sessions that would eventually comprise The Basement Tapes and Music from Big Pink are fascinating.  Helm’s well publicized resentment of Robertson is that he unfairly profited off the Band’s catalogue of original songs.  In fairness to Robertson, he wrote the lion’s share of the tunes and was rewarded accordingly.  Legally, he is on solid ground.  But I think Helm’s objection is more in the spirit of the law than the letter of the law.  To him, the Band was one unit and there is no doubt that they worked together to improve the original songs that Robertson or Danko or Richard Manuel penned.  In fact, this sense of solidarity was something that set the Band apart in their music too.  Often in their songs, the main vocalist would shift from verse to verse.  They avoided publicity (itself a kind of strategy of manager Albert Grossman), steered clear of trends, refused to be pigeon holed into a band with a front man and rejected dense electric rock and record company entreaties in an effort to stay true to their eclectic interest in traditional genres.  So for Helm, it didn’t matter so much that Robbie wrote a lot of the songs, because their eventual existence as musical pieces was due to the basement give and take, musical versatility, and ingenuity of the classically trained Garth Hudson, the introvert of the group.  From Robbie’s point of view, as time went on, and some members of the Band came to experiment with hard drugs like heroin, their behavior became more reckless and they were less reliable as professionals.  Undoubtedly, Robbie became tired of having to round them up when they didn’t show for a rehearsal or a recording session, or wait while they recovered from the latest car accident or a range of other self-inflicted injuries.  He was also deeply in love, having met his future wife Dominique, a Quebec journalist, in Paris in 1966.  They were married in March, 1968, but even before then Robbie had been living separately with Dominique, apart from the other members of The Band.  By contrast, Helm had earlier married his long time Canadian friend Connie to avoid having to fight in Vietnam, a marriage which presumably did not alter Helm’s living arrangements in the least.  As Robbie grew closer to manager Albert Grossman, record executives and producers, Levon grew warier of these very elements.  Some have tried to pass this off as drug induced paranoia, and there may be a measure of truth to that.

Both books pay particular attention to the process leading up to The Last Waltz, and the concert itself, but the accounts differ so widely, you could be forgiven for thinking the two musicians were at different shows.  Robertson emphasizes how the concert grew thanks to guest artists not only accepting invitations but actively seeking a spot on the roster.  Testimony marvels at the scale of the evening, a product of Bill Graham’s determination to make the night unique with a massive traditional Thanksgiving dinner and pre-concert waltzing and Martin Scorsese’s ambitious plans to make the film of the concert the most technologically advanced concert film ever.  Helm goes into detail on the problems that almost sunk the concert before it happened:  not only were Graham and Scorsese at each other’s throats, but there was insufficient rehearsal time, Robertson enraged Helm by inviting Neil Diamond who had nothing whatsoever to do with The Band aside from the fact that Robertson had recently produced a record of his, Robertson tried unsuccessfully to get Helm to bump Muddy Waters from the show at the last minute, some of the best moments went unfilmed and the final film virtually ignored Richard Manuel and fixated on Robertson as if he was a solo act.  One can forgive Robbie for being tired of touring after sixteen years and being a little frightened that continued touring could lead to serious injury or worse.  But Helm documents a conversation around the time of The Last Waltz where after Robertson suggests that future touring as The Band without Robertson might contravene certain contracts, Helm furiously replied:  “I know big business is running this thing now, but if you think you have control over my life and you want to prove it, I’ll meet you in the morning with my lawyer…You may think you’re running the damn show, but I’ll prove to you at ten o’clock in the morning that you ain’t.  I’ll show you, you son of a bitch!”  Now whether or not this conversation actually happened as Helm has written it (Robertson makes no mention of it in his book), is probably less important than what it reveals about how Helm felt about Robertson’s decision to not only leave The Band, but to try and make it die with his departure.  Robertson decides to emphasize his disappointment at all four members of The Band being no shows a couple days after The Last Waltz concert when they had agreed to record “The Last Waltz Theme” among other songs.  What Robertson took for a lack of interest in The Band might have been more accurately a general disdain for “Robertson’s movie”.

One advantage of Helm’s book is that he quotes other people who were closely associated with The Band.  It is Bill Avis, The Band’s long time road manager who confirms it was Helm who insisted that if they were going to continue to tour with Bob Dylan, that Rick Danko, Richard Manuel and Garth Hudson would have to be involved:  “’Back in New Jersey, we all had a meeting about what was going to happen.  Robbie was quiet.  Levon was inisisting that no one was going to get left behind on this one.  There was a pact among these men, who had already been through so much together…And Levon told Albert and this is a quote:  “’Take us all, or don’t take anybody.’”’”  Helm’s suspicions of Robertson’s financial arrangements are largely corroborated by longtime Band collaborator and music producer John Simon.  Robertson asked Simon to be the musical director for The Last Waltz.  Simon was excited about it, but justifiably asked Robertson about the fact that he was never paid any royalties for producing the first two Band albums.  “A couple of weeks later, a check arrives for sixty-two thousand dollars. Then Robbie called with some cockamamie story asking if, just for bookkeeping purposes, we could make this the last check for the two albums.  Besides, he assured me, The Last Waltz album would be so huge, there wouldn’t be any more financial problems after its release.  Being the credulous type, I signed away all future royalties from the first two Band albums—and of course never saw a penny from The Last Waltz.  I don’t think many people have, because Warners eventually charged the cost of the film against the album.  A lot of people got conned and you let yourself be conned because they were so attractive.’”

So is Testimony an attractive con?  Is Robertson, a self-proclaimed storyteller, really spinning yarns and ignoring the less attractive aspects of his past?  Well, one could certainly ask why he waited until Manuel, Danko and Helm passed away before writing his memoirs. Yes, Garth Hudson is still alive, but there is probably as much likelihood of the introverted and private Hudson releasing a memoir as there is of Robertson hitting the road to tour again.  Another question to ask is why Robertson chose to end his book in the year 1976, omitting the last forty years of his very active involvement in the world of film and music.  Is it perhaps that he doesn’t have an answer to Helm’s accusations that he was a no show at Richard Manuel’s funeral, that he cared more about self-enrichment than the well being of his long time friends in The Band, and that he turned his back on the post ’76 Band lineups?  Or is it perhaps that all bands eventually break apart and there will invariably be different takes on why and how.  Perhaps if this group had not produced such wonderful art and inspired such awe in a devoted legion of fans who continue to lovingly listen to the music, perhaps if the group had not lived within such close proximity of each other and demonstrated such respect for each other’s musical talent, then the question of whether Robertson betrayed the others would have faded away long ago.

When we look for the truth, maybe the best we can hope for is to continually inch a little closer to it, a higher degree of verisimilitude if you will.  Testimony adds to our understanding of The Band’s history, as much by what it doesn’t discuss as what it does.

Are Castro’s Critics Telling the Whole Story?

fidel-castro

Fidel Castro’s death has produced a political controversy in Canada.  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke warmly of Castro after his death and refrained from specifically mentioning human rights’ abuses under the Cuban dictator.  The only qualifier Trudeau used in summing up Castro’s legacy was the word “controversial”.  A backlash ensued in which Trudeau was called everything from naïve to idiotic, and some critics went as far as to dream up theoretical Trudeau tributes to other historical baddies such as Genghis Khan.  It seemed to force Trudeau’s hand, and instead of personally attending Castro’s funeral ceremony, he sent Governor General David Johnston.  Seems like a clear case of admission of defeat by Trudeau and vindication for Castro’s critics.  Or is there something more to the story?

That Castro was guilty of serious human rights’ violations is well documented.  His enemies were routinely imprisoned, executed or forced to migrate.  Labour unions lost the right to strike and independent newspapers and religious institutions were shut down under his rule.  Elections were terminated.  Cubans also had to endure horrible food shortages and a lack of basic goods in the bleak economic period following the Soviet Union’s collapse.  I witnessed first hand, on two separate trips to Cuba, the contrast between the all-inclusive resorts and neighbouring villages that had to regularly undergo power outages to keep the tourists dancing (a contrast by the way that is not unique to Cuba).   But violence, corruption, censorship and exploitation are also the hallmarks of many dictators put in place by the United States or tolerated by them because of shared economic interests.  Why was Castro the particular demon as opposed to Shah of Iran, Marcos in the Phillipines, Deby of Chad, Pinochet of Chile or a succession of dictators in Guatemala?  .  The answer it would seem is that those other dictators did not nationalize industries in an attempt to put an end to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. For all his faults, let’s not forget that Castro certainly expanded education and health care on the island.  How many dictators can count among their achievements a literacy rate of 98% and an infant mortality rate reduced to 1%?  But those Cuban exiles, many in Miami, kept up the constant drumbeat of Castro’s horrible deeds.  They became an influential lobby group in their own right, producing a number of American politicians of national caliber.  Some of them, no doubt, have legitimate reasons to loathe Castro, whether they were a victim of his policies or the relative of someone victimized by Castro’s rule.  My feeling though is that a good number of them are motivated primarily as economic refugees.  In other words, Castro did not allow them to continue to profit from the exploitation of the Cuban people.  Of course, protesting that your plantation or factory was nationalized does not play as well as complaining about human rights’ violations.  When people ordinarily concerned about economics, complain loudly about human rights’ violations, take a closer look to see if there is an economic underpinning they are trying to cloak.  It’s been almost sixty years since Castro overthrew Batista, but losing your family’s great wealth can embitter people for generations.

And here’s another factor to consider.  While trying to revolutionize Cuba, Castro endured decades of official and semi-official attempts to assassinate him, to sabotage the Cuba experiment and to bring the island down economically through embargo.  All this was emanating from the most powerful country in the world, which was a mere ninety miles away.  Faced with an almost ongoing attack against the revolutionary government, Castro suspended or did away with human rights in many specific cases.  But what do we do in emergency situations?  Umm, oh yeah, the Patriot Act and the War Measure Act.  That’s what we do.

I do think Cuba’s survival as a Communist state just off the U.S. coast was taken by pre-Obama American politicos as an ongoing snub (of course, the snub was preferable to nuclear Armageddon that seemed to be a real possibility during the Cold War’s Cuban Missile Crisis).  Castro and Cuba confounded power politics, the Monroe Doctrine and logical prognostication.  Castro’s legacy is complicated—he did some very helpful things and he did some truly awful things too.

I would have liked to see Justin Trudeau attend Castro’s funeral in person in light of the long friendship that Canada and Cuba have shared.  I would have liked to see him speak honestly about Castro’s triumphs and equally honestly about the suffering that he caused a lot of Cubans.  But that’s a tough high wire act when you’re a politician in a country that votes and that also listens to the loudest voices, bereft of context or not.

Forty Years After The Last Waltz: The Enduring Appeal of The Band

the_band-2

This November 25th will mark the 40th anniversary of one of the most celebrated rock concerts of all time.  It was on that date in 1976 that The Band played a fantastic show at San Francisco’s Winterland Ballroom that was immortalized in Martin Scorsese’s rock documentary The Last Waltz.  Conceived as a farewell to touring by Band member Robbie Robertson, the show featured a slew of the group’s best songs, plus a hall of fame slate of guests each of whom were invited to perform one of their well known numbers (Bob Dylan actually got two songs).  Though later generations would get accustomed to the gathering of all star musicians for benefit songs like USA for Africa’s “We Are the World” and Band Aid’s “Do they Know it’s Christmas?”, an argument can be made that there had never been a more star studded collection of rock and roll musicians in one place prior to the Winterland show.  The list is legendary and included Muddy Waters, Neil Young, Eric Clapton, Joni Mitchell, Dr. John, Van Morrison and Dylan, among others.

I was lucky enough to attend a replication of the film part of the concert last Thursday by Classic Albums Live.  If you’ve never heard of Classic Albums Live, you are missing out.  The concept started in Toronto in 2003 and saw a core group of very talented musicians perform a classic rock album, note for note.  The success of the venture has seen them play in numerous cities across North America.  They often perform classic albums by rock legends with adoring fans such as Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd, but have also performed iconic albums that could hardly be characterized as rock ‘n roll such as Michael Jackson’s Thriller and the soundtrack to Saturday Night Fever.  Choosing The Last Waltz was daring, as not only do the members of the band play a huge number of instruments, but the addition of all the guest artists demands a wide range of vocal and instrumental replication.  The concert was spectacular and reminded me of how gifted The Band was.  Back in 1976, I was a thirteen year old junior high student who was probably unaware The Band was even playing this momentous show.  Forty years later, I am so thankful I was able to attend the Classic Albums Live version which was both a splendid tribute and a celebration of fantastic contemporary musicianship.

Of course The Band’s story is not as well known as many of the super groups of the 1960’s and 70’s.  In fact, mention of them to many people today elicits the bewildered response of ‘what band?’  Though many middle aged radio listeners would recognize iconic tunes such as “The Weight”, “The Night they Drove Old Dixie Down” and “Up on Cripple Creek”, it would be a select few who could name the five key members of the group that wrote and recorded those songs:  Rick Danko, Levon Helm, Richard Manuel, Garth Hudson, and Robbie Robertson (in order of their left to right position in the photo above).  All were born in Ontario with the exception of Helm, the group’s lone American, who was born in Arkansas.  They are the furthest thing from an overnight success I can think of; but their hard work and decade long internship eventually resulted in something both unique and remarkable.  They honed their craft in the early 1960’s under the demanding Ronnie Hawkins, a native Akansan who found Rockabilly success in the Toronto area music scene.  Hawkins had an eye for talent and would frequently coerce talented musicians in other bands to join his band “The Hawks”.  But though he could teach them about honing their craft, he couldn’t hang onto them forever.  Still, the fledgling band members learned a lot from Hawkins about a musician’s life on the road, moving from bar to bar and adapting to the specific tastes of the audience.  They learned too from Hudson, the classically trained musician who would only consent to be in the Hawks, if in addition to the money he earned playing rock n’ roll, the band members each paid him ten dollars per week so he could teach them music; thus, he could tell his parents he was earning his living as a music teacher and not be entirely fibbing.  They left Hawkins in 1963 and would eventually catch the eye of another demanding musician by the name of Bob Dylan.  After Dylan went electric, he was looking for a backup band and so the Hawks eventually found themselves as the house band for the most gifted songwriter of their generation.  For some, that might have been success enough, but after touring and recording extensively with Dylan, the Band (the name they eventually settled on because it was the moniker people knew them as in relation to Dylan) started writing more and more of their own music and set off on their own.  Rather than conform to the psychedelic experimentation so in vogue at the time, The Band embraced a combination of roots, blues, country and early rock n’ roll, incorporated the traditions of the midnight ramble (Helm’s familiarity with Southern medicine shows), and included an eclectic mix of instruments like full horn sections, accordions, organs and mandolins.  They were adored by music critics, particularly Rolling Stone’s Greil Marcus and earned a legion of enthusiastic fans.

The music has aged well.  At the concert on Thursday, it wasn’t the well known tunes of the guest artists like Neil Young’s “Helpless”, Joni Mitchell’s “Coyote” or even Van Morrison’s “Caravan” that I was humming after the show, as fine as they are.  And it wasn’t the well known Band tunes like “The Shape I’m In” or “The Weight” that I went back to either.  Rather, it was songs like the achingly beautiful “It Makes No Difference”, and “Stage Fright” (both sung with such vulnerability by Rick Danko), the fun and horn filled “Ophelia” which the band onstage Thursday admitted was their favourite number in the show, and the haunting “Evangeline”, loosely based on Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s epic poem of the same name.  Another feature of the concert that made it so enjoyable was how much fun the musicians seemed to be having.  Perhaps they were just in role, but it sure seemed to me that they were having a ball.  As Neil Young says in the film without a trace of irony, it is one of the highlights of his life to be on the stage getting to play with these people.  Sometimes, art is so powerful that even thrice removed (a tribute concert based on a film documentary of a concert of songs), it still provides you with the utter joy and wonder of the creative act.  Do yourself a favour and listen to songs like “The Unfaithful Servant”, “Where Do We Go From Here” and “Acadian Driftwood” and you’ll be amazed at the unique vocals, the masterful musicianship and the relevant human story on display.  I’m so glad that I’ve rediscovered these fantastic artists.

Barbarians at the Gate: why Paul Ryan makes me cringe.

paul-ryan

I thought I had seen it all.  Over the course of one of the nastiest election campaigns in memory, I thought that nothing could make me cringe as much as the corrosive and hateful drivel that issued from the mouth of Donald J. Trump day after day.  But I was wrong.

Today, I had the misfortune to watch Speaker of the House Paul Ryan deliver a post-election news conference in his home state of Wisconsin.  Yes, this is the same Paul Ryan who just months ago distanced himself from Trump and refused to share the same stage with him.  But today, Ryan could hardly contain his kid in a Lego store enthusiasm as he lauded Trump for helping the Republicans maintain their advantage in the House of Representatives and solidify their edge in the Senate.  At least whoever wrote Trump’s victory speech had the sense to stick to vagueness and patriotic ‘we’re all in this together’ clichés.  But Ryan could not wait.  He was practically salivating at the prospect of overturning progressive legislation the moment Trump ‘lifts his hand off the Bible’ at the inauguration.  Ryan gushed that it’s “not just the health care bill we can replace”, but there are “so many things I’m excited about”.  ‘What kind of things?’ a reporter inquired.  Well, said Ryan, barely able to contain his glee, we will stop the “farmers of Wisconisn being harassed by the E.P.A. and the Waters of the U.S.A.”, we will stop the “oppression of the Interior Dept.”  There you have it, a Republican’s wet dream:  stop the work of the Environmental Protection Agency and let jobs and profit rule.  Ryan’s crowning remark:  we will “lift the oppressive weight of the regulatory state.”  Great.  So people will have jobs but live on a poisoned planet that will not sustain their children.  Free from the oppression of the regulatory state, they will be able to get sick and not have any health insurance.  Relieved of the shackles of regulation, they can again look forward to grand celebrations like the 2008 Stock Market crash.  Let the good times roll!

This perhaps is why Americans are sick and tired of politicians.  It’s a sad world when we have to hope that Trump sticks to his guns and shuts these ideological parasites out.  Imagine, being reduced to relying on the good sense of Trump!  What a difference a day makes!

How The Big Short Got Me Thinking About Dangerous Assumptions

the-big-short assumptions.jpeg

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”  This is the quote that begins the popular 2015 film The Big Short.  Ironically, researchers have discovered the film mistakenly attributed the quote to Mark Twain although no evidence ties him to the aphorism.  Regardless, the quote succinctly sums up the problem with not investigating assumptions, especially core assumptions which guide major life decisions.  Of course in the aforementioned movie, the quote alludes to the assumption of most Americans that the housing market cannot possibly fail.  The film refers to other assumptions too such as the belief that huge organizations tasked with serious responsibilities could not possibly be fraudulently ignoring them.  There are several great moments in the film when “the good guys” are shocked at the moral bankruptcy of the credit rating agencies, the banks, landlords and brokers.  Even the cynics like Mark Baum (played by Steve Carell) are flabbergasted at the irresponsibility of formidable organizations like Standard and Poor’s credit rating agency.  One of my favourite scenes in the movie features Baum and a colleague grilling a Standard and Poor’s employee about the credit agency’s lack of action in downgrading loans despite the failure of several mortgage brokerage firms.  After the employee admits that the agency just rates loans at whatever the bank wants for fear of losing business to the rating agency down the block, she counter-attacks Baum asking him about the self-interest that he is obviously pursuing in interrogating her.  This leads to another assumption that is certainly held by investors Jared Vanett (played by Ryan Gosling), and Michael Burry (Christian Bale), namely that there is nothing wrong with anticipating and making money off a monumental economic collapse.  Burry is purely analytical in his approach, while Vanett is disdainful of the greedy groupthink that prevented most in the industry from even imagining a breakdown.  It takes Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt) to remind his proteges and the audience that making piles of money off the misery of many is no cause for dancing.  It explains later in the film why Baum hesitates before putting in the sell call that will make him and his colleagues filthy rich; there is no elation in profiting off a broken system.  Sometimes, there is no joy in being right.

The movie and the quote encourage us to examine beliefs that are so ingrained that most people wouldn’t even dream of questioning them.  For example, is democracy necessarily the best political system for all countries?  People who ask this question aloud are often given a wide berth by most of us who have been trained to believe that democracy is a more mature and ethical political form than oligarchy, monarchy or dictatorship for example.  But in our world of information overload and massive media manipulation, is it really crazy to consider that allowing everyone to vote is not only ineffective, but perhaps downright dangerous?  I don’t really know what would be a superior system, but the fact that such inquiry is discouraged and sometimes considered a sign of mental imbalance, means democracy becomes a non-thinking default.  How many times have we heard a just defeated politician mouth the cliché “The people have spoken and I respect that”?  What if allowing all the people to speak continually gets us into bigger and bigger trouble?  We wouldn’t let “the people” perform heart surgery on us or build a bridge, yet we are content to let them decide who will determine questions of war and peace, finances, health, culture, identity and education.  What if the people are not qualified to make that call?  A related question is whether human rights are worth pursuing at every cost.  Again, it sounds awful.  ‘Can you believe that guy is  questioning human rights?  What’s wrong with him?’  But it is easier to publicly support human rights than it is to answer some of the tricky questions that flow from that support.  Some of these questions include:  ‘what is it exactly that all humans have a right to and should this list evolve over time?’, ‘who determines if these rights are being violated and who enforces them and how’?, ‘what is our individual responsibility if we know that human rights are being violated somewhere?’, and ‘what if these human rights collide?’  Maybe the idea of human rights is just not tenable in an inter-connected world.  What if it just leads to half measures, hypocrisy and loopholes?  Before I am pilloried by humanists, let me assure you that this line of thought does not stem from a lack of concern for my fellow humans.  What I am wondering is whether the assumption that human rights are inviolable ties us in knots and prevents other kind of thinking that might actually result in more practical gains in quality of life for humans living in difficult situations.  One more example sure to enrage anyone reading this concerns our assumption that living in family units is the best organizing principle.  Again, I assure you, I love my family, enjoy living with them and feel a strong connection to my extended family.  But as Plato explored in The Republic, perhaps the allegiance that comes out of family grouping is actually counter-productive to society as a whole.  It goes without saying that we favour our family members over strangers; what if that destroys meritocracy, fuels a sense of injustice and holds us back from progressing as a society?  To those quick to respond that animal mothers raise their young and that it is natural, I stand with David Hume and his critique of the naturalistic fallacy that states that you can derive an ought from an is.  In addition, non-human animals do not use the internet, do not participate in a globalized economy and do not build weapons capable of incinerating the planet, so perhaps we should stop comparing our situation to “the natural world”.  My point remains that there is just a basic assumption that children should be brought up by their parents, and this is an assumption that could be hindering our progress as a species.

The pace and preoccupations of our world do not encourage questioning such fundamental facets.  We are immersed in work or a break from work, in distractions and trends, in short term goals and private vindications.  Who has the time and energy in such a society to seriously consider whether our assumptions are right?  And who will listen to such inquiry?  Many great works of literature have suggested that when a populace is too busy to think, it is too busy to rebel and is, therefore, easily oppressed.  We are so busy surviving or consuming or enjoying or hating or maintaining or one upping that we never stop to ask if there is another way.

Again, it’s not our ignorance that is dangerous, so much as our confidence that our knowledge is infallible.  If, as Socrates posited so long ago, that “the unexamined life is not worth living”, we may very well be a species adding numbers but not value to life on this planet.