The Passenger

It's The Unexpected Tracks That'll Get You....

I have never been a huge fan of Dion, the late 50s/early 60s singer of "Runaround Sue" and "The Wanderer." His stuff just always seemed too lightweight and repetitive for my tastes, and it was in such heavy rotation when I grew up listening to the local oldies station that I was already Dion'd out by the time I was 12. 

So with that in mind, it was a total surprise a few weeks ago when I stumbled upon a song of his from the mid-70s, "Only You Know," from the album "Born To Be With You."  I'd been reading about some of the work Phil Specter produced after he sort of dropped off the map in the early '70s. He'd reached his zenith with Ike and Tina Turner's "River Deep, Mountain High" in the mid-60s, he worked on the Beatles' "Let It Be" and some early solo discs by John Lennon and George Harrison, and then - disappeared.  For whatever reason, I'd been on a Specter kick lately, and I turned to the internet to see if he had any other work that I might want to check out.  Sure enough, I learned that he got together with Dion in '75, when both men's careers had fallen considerably under the radar. 

And on a very decent album, "Only You Know" stands head and shoulders above the other cuts. It has the hallmarks of all great Phil Spector recordings - the huge Wall of Sound, the excellent hooks that grab your ear and wind their way into your subconsciousness, and the stately, slow-building momentum.  "Only You Know" is a slow-ish ballad, and Dion sings to an ex-lover about his longing to go back to the way things were ("I wanna see something that used to be, in your eyes again/I'm waiting to see it, you know it's only a question of when"), but also recognizing that his ex has undergone a breadth of experiences since they split that he can only guess at.  The aching of his delivery, the melancholia of the lyrics, and the full-on Spector production rightly made this one a sleeper hit in '75.  And it also reminded me that sometimes it's worth looking for lost treasures:

05 Only You Know

Why The Lull In Posting?

I know, I know - it has been an intense roller-coaster ride with this blog - we're here, we're gone, we're back, we're gone again - and it's only natural to wonder what gives.  The latest lull began in October, when I was sucked into the Black Hole of Campaigning (for the Massachusetts governor's re-election).  Which was followed by a new job in New York as communications director for a state senator. While assuming the new job, I thought it best to lay low on the extra-curricular writing until I was firmly established, so as to not risk putting anything out there that might be off-message for the new team. 

BUT things have changed.  The job gods giveth, and the job gods taketh away(eth).  The new job is wrapping up in January, which means that I'm now free to devote a little love to the Passenger.  And I'm starting by posting a killer track from the British group known as Kula Shaker.  The band, led by provocateur Crispian Mills, first gained a following in the mid-90s, hot on the heels of fellow Brits Oasis.  Kula Shaker had one brilliant album, "K," followed by a couple of disappointments.  Much like this blog, they were going strong, then suddenly disappeared, and then quietly reappeared a few years later. 

In 2010, the band returned with Pilgrim's Progress, and though it initially washed right over me, I've recently come back to it, and now it's in heavy rotation.  Kula Shaker has never been about reinventing the wheel or creating something completely original; rather, they've just been very good at writing catchy, energetic pop-rock with an Eastern influence.  The songs are clean, crisp, and exciting, and what more can one really ask for from a rock band?  One standout track from this disc, which is emblematic of all that is good about KS, is "Only Love," an acoustic ballad that starts with a swagger and just builds to a great climax over the next three minutes.  Have a listen.

04-kula_shaker-only_love

A Toast To Lennon

There's been a fair amount of media coverage over the coming 70th birthday of John Lennon, even though he sadly isn't here to celebrate it.  Yoko and the record companies have banded together to remaster and re-release the major works from his solo catalogue, which is the umpteenth time they've tried to repackage and re-sell the goods.  Not that much different from what most musicians from the 60s have done, though, so I suppose we can't really blame them.

The happy piece of news here is that Yoko decided to release a stripped down version of "Double Fantasy," Lennon's last album to be released in his lifetime.  When it first came out in 1980, the album received generally lukewarm reviews, with some praising its craftsmanship, and others lamenting the absence of Lennon's more acerbic, more outspoken qualities.  I've always been on the fence about it; I could certainly do without the Yoko tracks altogether, and even though I like "(Just Like) Starting Over," "I'm Losing You," and "Cleanup Time," I've never liked the glossy production that accompanied them.  So the stripped-down presentation is definitely welcome to these ears.

The bare-bones version of "(Just Like) Starting Over," in particular, works much better than the original, 30 year old version.  Gone are the backing singers, the annoying vocal effects, and the slightly soulless sheen. Now Lennon's voice is front and center, the guitars are clean and crisp, and the track has a new bite and immediacy that it previously lacked. Now, if McCartney would only do the same for "Flowers In The Dirt"....

John Lennon & Yoko Ono - Double Fantasy Stripped Down (Disc 1) - 01 - (Just Like) Starting Over (2010 Remix)

Mavis Delivers

I haven't been able to post much lately, because I've been interviewing for a few different jobs, all of which required a little homework.  But as always, I've had the iPod on in the background to power me through the work, and one of the discs in heavy rotation has been the new Mavis Staples album, "You Are Not Alone."  I was waiting for this one since finding out about it a few months back, and it did not disappoint.

Produced by Wilco's Jeff Tweedy, the collection is a stripped down affair, with Staples' husky voice front and center.  Staples and Tweedy don't try to update her sound, don't go for studio tricks, and avoid the tedious duet route that so many later-career musicians use as a last-grasp for chart success.  Because the disc is warm and honest, it works. 

I'm embedding the title track, penned by Tweedy (and a soulful companion to a song off Wilco's most recent album, "Wilco (The Song)," which Tweedy has stated was his notion that at its best, music can bring comfort and a sense of camraderie to even to the most lonely listeners).  It's a slow, shuffling tune, and it demonstrates that age hasn't dulled Staples' voice of its emotional heft.  A win for lovers of soul music everywhere....

02 - You Are Not Alone

Winning's The Easy Part....

While discussing politics the other day, a family friend joked with me and said "I want you to know: I'm writing your name in for governor when we head to the polls in November!"  He said it partially out of sympathy for my continued job hunt, and partially due to his unhappiness with the choices available to him.  I responded by saying that Governor Patrick could keep the job - I certainly wouldn't want to have to make all the tough choices he's facing (that, and I happen to like Governor Patrick). 

Although it was a just a light, off-hand moment between us, it did set me thinking.  We're now a few weeks past Labor Day, and political conversations are making their way to peoples' kitchen tables again.  People are tuning in, paying more attention, and starting to focus on the choices ahead.  Some people are working to educate themselves on the issues and the candidates; others are putting signs that say "Vote Out Incumbents in Nov." on their front lawns.  There is, unquestionably, a great deal of frustration out there. 

Yet I roll my eyes every time I drive by one of the "throw all the bums out" signs.  Having worked in municipal government, I've been privileged to work alongside some very decent folks who have devoted themselves to public service, and who have given it their best effort.  Nevertheless, if they're part of the government, they're often painted as lazy, corrupt, uncaring, or incompetent by many of the people they represent.  This charactarization is sometimes born out of political disagreements or unhappiness over the status quo - both of which can be legitimate - or over an ignorance of how the system truly works.  There were certainly days when those of us at city hall might privately gripe (amongst ourselves) that it's so much easier to criticize from the outside, as opposed to trying to govern from the inside.  "Just wait until you walk a mile in my shoes," as the old saying goes....

From that perspective, I find the whole Tea Party phenomenon interesting.  This isn't just people getting together to moan and complain about the state of affairs - they are also actively working to promote candidates that they think will do a better job of it.  I don't happen to agree with the politics behind the Tea Partiers at all, but enough people do that several Tea Party candidates appear to have a shot at winning office this fall.  Should these candidates - who hail from the extreme right-wing fringes of the political spectrum - actually win, though, I wonder how they will behave once they are in office.  Ezra Klein, over at the Washington Post, touched upon this in a recent column, and he summed up the situation/dilemma facing the Tea Party candidates very nicely: "Amid the poetry of campaigning, you can have everything. Faced with the prose of governing, you have to make choices."  So will these ideologically extreme candidates be able to "purify" government and revamp their offices to the satisfaction of their base?  Or will the realistic, everyday demands of governing force them to compromise, once they realize that it's a whole different ballgame from the inside....?

A Question About Polling and Political Coverage

Like any good political news junkie, I've been devouring the coverage in the lead-up to the November midterms, checking as many sources as are willing to update: the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, LA Times, Talking Points Memo, Time, Newsweek...et cetera, et cetera. The message conveyed in the aggregate coverage is that the American public is either turned off to, or confused by, the Democratic policies, and the Republicans could possibly take both chambers of congress. 

And how do we know all this?  Because the polls tell us so. 

Of course, there are plenty of personal stories cropping up in the coverage: the Independent voter who tells a reporter that she's disappointed in President Obama's performance and is voting Republican, or the unemployed father who is so frustrated by the bleak job market and wants to give Congress a wake-up call, or the Tea Party rallies.  These stories are all valid indicators of the political climate, and they certainly could be used to support the notion that things look bad for the Democrats.

Yet, I can't help but wonder what impact weeks and months of "Democratic support collapses, Republicans poised for historic November wave" stories have on the psyche of the voters.  If the majority of the coverage in news reports and articles include the latest polling that says the Republicans are leading by X points in a generic ballot, or point out that the public is rushing away from the Democrats and towards the Republicans, does that potentially influence how people will vote come election day?  [To be equal opportunity here, I'll add that I wondered the same thing in 2008, when the coverage in the closing weeks suggested that McCain had an exceptionally steep hill to climb if he was going to squeak out a win].

Pollsters and journalists alike are often quick to add a caveat that polls are only a snapshot in time, and are not infallible in their predictive power.  Fair enough, but if the majority of the coverage of a particular race or election cycle essentially sends the message that a candidate is way ahead/struggling in the polls, does the coverage itself unduly influence how people perceive that candidate?

I started thinking about this after coming across an old Boston Globe article from January 10, nine days before the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat. The article centered on Martha Coakley's strong 15 point lead in the latest polling, her strong support across the state, and then went on to suggest that, while a Scott Brown victory wasn't impossible, it would be very surprising at that point.  Yet in the final week of the campaign, as her lead unquestionably began to shrink, the tone of the coverage changed from "Coakley appears headed to victory" to "Coakley's support is collapsing, Brown is surging." 

I wonder: did the fact that people were almost exclusively reading "Coakley's lead collapsing" articles in that final week help create a self-fulfilling prophecy?  And as we head into the closing weeks of the national midterms, with constant reminders of the likely Republican "wave," could this be happening again?

It's something to ponder, and I don't know what the alternatives would be.  I certainly wouldn't suggest that journalists ignore polls, but I do wonder how we can report/digest the news, without being subtly influenced in our decision-making....?

Thank You, Time Newsfeed

This is one of those "It's 110 in the shade" kind of days, full of scorching sun, bleak job prospects, and a travel hangover from the umpteenth trip back to Massachusetts from Brooklyn this month.  By all rights, I should be bummed. 

BUT, thanks to Time Newsfeed, I have come across this footage of a dog dancing the merengue.  And just like that, all is right with the world. 

God bless found viral videos....!

New Music Discovery: The Pepper Pots

I am a huge, huge fan of Sharon Jones and the Daptone label.  All the musicians involved in the Daptone family are clearly music fans - fanatics, really - who have lived, breathed, loved, and cried classic soul, r & b, and funk tracks from the past 50 years. These are folks who have worshiped at the altar of Sam Cooke, James Brown, Ike & Tina, Otis Redding - and who were determined to pay homage to these greats by keeping the spirit of that music going. Just as it's daunting for any contemporary rock band to dare try to measure up to the Beatles or the Stones, it's equally daunting for contemporary funk/soul acts to write and record authentic, gritty music that can measure up to the likes of Sam Cooke or Wilson Pickett.  That the Daptone crew has consistently pulled it off is no faint praise (for a terrific overview of Jones, Daptone, and musical director Gabriel Roth, check out this great 2008 piece from the New York Times).

Today's musical discovery, the Pepper Pots, has a touch of the Daptone magic, even though the band is not on the label.  The 11 piece ensemble, which hails from just north of Catalonia, Spain, has recently released their third disc, "The Pepper Pots - Now!" The disc was produced by Binky Griptite, a member of Jones' touring band and an ingrained personality in the Daptone roster, and he has helped focus the band's energy, songwriting, and presentation in what amounts to a quantum leap beyond their previous efforts. With Griptite at the helm, the Pots have essentially put together a modern-day Motown record circa 1965, with a vintage girl group sound, a relentless dance floor aesthetic, and an attention to detail that has all the hallmarks of a Daptone release.

"The Pepper Pots - Now!" has been lurking below the radar since its 2009 release, and the disc deserves far more attention than it has received. Below is one of my favorites on the record, and one listen should be enough to convince folks to head to Amazon and check this band out.... 

Highway

 

Thoughts On The Democrats, Conventional Wisdom, and the Midterms

Joe Klein published an interesting piece over at Time yesterday (Dems Depressed and Disheartened) in which he points out all the positive things Obama has done since taking office, how many campaign promises he's either fulfilled or is on track towards fulfilling, and how he is doing many things that Democrats have long dreamed off - and how in spite of that, there's a hardening public perception that the bloom is off the rose.  Given that Obama has helped overhaul healthcare, has responsibly wound down the war in Iraq, and has named two Supreme Court justices, Klein wants to know: why the heck do Dems have the blues??

It's definitely a question worth asking.  Ultimately, I think it boils down to sky-high, unrealistic expectations about what Obama and the Democrats could accomplish in their first two years.  And I don't believe that Obama necessarily brought this on himself, either.  The Bush years, after all, were dispiriting for the Democrats.  The national strategy, from the Democrats' standpoint, became less about doing the most good for the most people, and more about trying to minimize harm to as many as possible.  It was the necessary defensive strategy of a minority party (and, I'd argue, it was not the scorched-earth approach that the Republicans have adopted these past two years). 

From Obama's very first appearance on the national stage, during the 2004 Democratic Convention, he sounded all the right notes.  He spoke of unity, of common purpose, of pragmatic politics and principled compromise for the greater good.  And like many others, I thought that once he was elected president, there was a chance that maybe we actually would turn the page and the two parties would try to work together to tackle the significant problems the country was facing. 

In retrospect, I can see that I was naive in thinking the Republicans would work with President Obama.  Why would they give him bipartisan support and hand him victory after victory?  If a health care overhaul successfully covered millions more Americans and brought costs under control, who would ultimately get the credit?  If unemployment dropped and Wall Street was reigned in, who would be able to trumpet that to the nation?  From the Republican point of view, it has made more sense to block as much of Obama's agenda as possible, and then run against him and the Democrats as all sizzle, no steak. Politically, that may well be a winning formula, but it certainly makes for unconscionable governance.

Klein argues that, in spite of Republican opposition, Obama has still accomplished a great deal. But one thing he hasn't been able to accomplish was to change the tone in Washington. I believe that Democrats across the country have been disappointed that his election didn't herald a new way of doing business, and a more civilized national conversation.  Maybe the two-party, adversarial system of government that we have makes that an impossibility.  All the same, the American voters would do well to think about Obama's accomplishments so far, and to contemplate how much better off the country would be if the Republicans were truly willing to work in a cooperative, bipartisan fashion. 

WTF

Can someone PLEASE explain how this guy won a primary....?

The Alvin Greene saga has got to be one of the strangest political stories this country has seen in a long, long time.  Period. 

It's The Distraction, Stupid...

We are currently just under three months from the mid-term elections.  The unemployment level (which I am painfully aware of) hovers around 9.5 percent.  States across the nation are dealing with budget crises and a lack of adequate funding for such necessities as emergency rooms, teachers, police officers, youth centers, elderly services, mental health services, etc.  In short: there is a plethora of very serious issues to discuss and debate in this election season. 

Instead of the debates we need, however, we once again find ourselves in a time where folks are getting, as President Obama once put it, "wee wee'd up."  Rather than focusing on plans for economic survival and revival, rather than discussing whether the Democrats should be allowed another two years to turn this ship around, rather than debating over whether it was Republican policies that have led us to this low point in the first place, we are arguing about an Islamic mosque in New York.  

Or, as I see it, we are arguing about this year's gay marriage. 

It seems to me that whenever the Republican forces are short on ideas for policy, there is always some hot-button cultural issue that they can create a buzz around and exploit for electoral gain.  Yes, there are plenty of decent, non-xenophobic New Yorkers who still have pause at the thought of a mosque being built near Ground Zero; I do not agree with their sentiment, bu I was not living in New York in 2001, and I mercifully did not lose anyone.  I will recognize that those who were there, who did lose loved ones, may have a very different, more visceral response to this issue. 

Yet, when politicians like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee - all potential candidates for the GOP presidential ticket in 2012 - start stoking the fires by proclaiming that building a mosque near Ground Zero is tantamount to the victorious terrorists planting their flag at the heart of their American carnage, it seems that we're losing the plot.  Even though we're nearly a decade removed from the 9/11 attacks, the memories are still fresh, and anything that brings those memories back to the surface is certainly going to dominate the conversation.

Which is exactly what the Republicans want.  Beyond platitudes of restoring the economy or wanting to repeal the health care legislation of earlier this year, the GOP has not given any specific prescriptions of how they would govern more effectively than the Democrats.  The GOP has not conceded that their legislation during the Bush Administration may have contributed to the economic meltdown we've been dealing with, and they certainly are not suggesting that they would do anything different to prevent that sort of calamity from repeating itself.   

Of course, that doesn't really matter.  What matters is that the GOP whips up enough of its base, and enough independent voters, into thinking that the Democrats are weak on national defense, and that President Obama will roll over and let terrorist sympathizers march in and own a piece of lower Manhattan. This is what will drive voters to the polls.  And by working the hot-button, emotional issue, the Republican party once again distracts from the substantive issues, and the nation is once again deprived of the debates we could truly benefit from having.    

CORI Reform Comes To Massachusetts - But The Jury's Still Out

Last week, Governor Deval Patrick signed the long-sought CORI [Criminal Offender Record Information] reform legislation into law. Supporters of CORI reform have been pushing for this overhaul for years, arguing that the law as it stood was untenable for those seeking to re-integrate into society upon their release from prison.  Governor Patrick himself summed it up succinctly by stating: “Sentencing in the commonwealth has become about warehousing people. Once released, the misuse of the CORI system makes it nearly impossible for some people to get work, a place to live and back on their feet.”

During my years as a mayoral aide in the Greater Boston area, I saw the negative impact of the flawed CORI laws up close and personal.  I had a number of grown men coming into the office, breaking down in tears due to their inability to get work, to put food on their table, to provide for their families, and to make something of themselves. These were people who had run into trouble earlier in their lives, had done their time, and now simply wanted a shot to get on the straight and narrow.  Yet the economy was already sluggish and inhospitable towards job hunters without a criminal record;  for those with a criminal background, the challenge became that much more daunting. For the vast majority of the folks that came to us literally begging for assistance, there was very little we could do, and it was heartbreaking. 

It was also frustrating. I saw the pain, the frustration - in some cases, the humiliation - in the faces of these people, and I wondered what they might resort to if they couldn't eventually find work. Would they fall back into old, bad habits? Would they take work that wasn't entirely legal?  Would they start looking for something to dull the pain?  Would they eventually lash out at a society that seemed to place them in an un-winnable situation? And did this really mean that someone should essentially face a lifetime of punishment, no matter the size or severity of the crime?

The hope is that the CORI reform will address at least some of this.  I haven't had the opportunity to read the fine print yet, but I've noticed that one key component of the reform is that job applications will no longer ask applicants whether they have been convicted of a felony. One imagines that answering "yes" to that question would immediately disqualify an individual from further consideration, whereas now an applicant will at least have an opportunity to explain any past legal issues in the context of a face-to-face interview.  The information will still be available to prospective employers, and serious crimes such as murder will be a permanent, prominent fixture on a person's record.  This all seems like a step in the right direction, though.  Once the economy starts coming back to life and the hiring process perks up, we shall see....

Waiting For Mavis

Next month, music legend Mavis Staples is releasing her next studio album, which is being produced by Wilco frontman Jeff Tweedy.  It promises to be an event for Wilco fans and soul enthusiasts, and I'm definitely looking forward to it. 

As part of of the anticipation for this, I've been going back and listening to some of the singer's earlier work, and I don't think it gets much better than the Staple Singers' "Top Of the Mountain."

03 Top Of The Mountain

This track is taken from 1968's "Soul Folk In Action," when the Staple Singers were moving further away from their gospel roots and getting a little bit more gritty in their song arrangements.  The song is from the standpoint of someone who is working her way up from a rough upbringing, and is confident that hard work and persistence will ultimately lead her to a better life.  Or maybe it's about struggling to be a good person despite the tough times, looking out for one another, and making it to heaven as the ultimate reward. The lyrics are purposely ambiguous, and in a time full of civil rights headiness and "Say It Loud - I'm Black and I'm Proud" type anthems, the Staple Singers were marching in lockstep with the times. 

On the other hand, you can leave the lyrical analysis aside, listen to Mavis storming through the vocals, get lost in the solid back beat, and let the whole cut completely draw you in.  It's what those soulful pipes are best at, and it's why next month's disc should be a winner....

 

My Ears Are Bleeding

One of the stories making the rounds on the Google News aggregate today is that the Beach Boys are suing Katy Perry over her atrocious "California Gurls" single.  The coverage notes the fact that the Beach Boys had a hit with "California Girls" over 40 years ago, and beyond the titles and the subject matter, the two songs are quite different lyrically and melodically. 

The stories have also noted that Mike Love and Brian Wilson are distancing themselves, as individuals, from the lawsuit, and both have praised Perry's music. The article I've linked to quotes Brian Wilson's statement, released through his manager, that reads: "I love her vocal. She sounds very clear and energetic."

As a Brian Wilson fan, I should be disgusted by this sentiment.  But as a Brian Wilson fan, I am also taking comfort in recognizing that Brian Wilson has probably never actually heard of Katy Perry or her God-awful single.

"Institutional Breakdown" v. "Nah, It Was Just Designed That Way." You Be The Judge!

Over at the New Yorker, George Packer has written a lengthy think-piece on everyone's favorite dysfunctional deliberative body, the United States Senate.  Entitled "The Empty Chamber (Just How Broken Is The Senate?)" Packer's article seeks to address precisely how this prestigious congressional body has gone from world-wide renown to being the equivalent of legislative quicksand. 

While the ghost of Senator Charles Sumner might take issue with Packer's argument that the Senate has steadily declined in function and civility since its peak in the 1800s, Packer does make a compelling argument that there has been an erosion in the upper chamber over the past several decades.  Among the many points he makes:

• The rules governing the Senate are arcane remnants from a time when the life of a United States Senator was much slower and more deliberative. The same rules and procedures that served to accommodate legislators 200-plus years ago are now being misused (and abused) to stifle debate in the new millennium.  
• The slower pace of the Senate was originally envisioned as an antidote to the faster-paced, more partisan atmosphere of the House of Representatives; it was hoped that the hot-button issues would be given a chance to be properly deliberated and considered in this environment. However, Republicans like Lamar Alexander have contorted this to suggest that the Senate "....was created to be inefficient.”
• The hyper-partisanship in the upper chamber has gained alarming momentum in the past three decades, and has made it all-but-impossible for senators to reach across the aisle and find common ground.
• The need to fundraise has - surprise! - robbed senators of the time needed to educate themselves on the bills they're voting on, to forge social and working relationships with each other, and to engage in meaningful exchanges with each other.  Furthermore, senators are encouraged to engage in hyper-partisanship in order to appeal to potential donors.

Some of the points Packer raises in his article aren't surprising; it stands to reason that a senator who has to spend ever-greater amounts of time chasing re-election money will therefore have less time to engage in the business of being a senator.  It stands to reason that the less time senators and their families spend in DC with one another, and the less they socialize with one another, the less likely they are to find common ground and be willing to work together. It stands to reason that the more senators are forced to play to the extremes of their parties bases, the more difficult it becomes for compromise to be forged.  

Some of the points are less obvious, though.  For example, Packer notes that the Founders designed it so that each new session of Congress is allowed to set its own rules.  The arcane rules and parliamentary procedures that made sense in 1800, but that are now used to grind all legislative business to a halt?  They could be revamped and revised to allow for greater productivity and real debate - if only a majority of the senators would actively support such revisions.  

The public accountability afforded by the C-Span cameras, which first arrived in 1979, has allowed people across the country to view the World's Greatest Deliberative Body in action - but televising the Senate has also increased heated partisan rhetoric and playing to the cameras, and has helped undermine meaningful give-and-take on the floor. 

The Republicans have abused many of those old parliamentary rules and procedures to gum up the system in order to shut down debate on (or kill) legislation they disapprove of - but many long-serving Democrats are hesitant to support doing away with these parliamentary rules, lest the Democrats one day be in the minority again (and in need of those same tools). 

Taken in all, Packer paints a frustrating portrait of a chamber that is being held hostage by its own members and a sense of institutional inertia, and there truly seems to be no easy fixes.  The losers in all this, of course, are those idealistic lawmakers and their aides who have come to Washington to do the People's Work. And the biggest losers are the People, themselves....

The Perfect Was The Enemy Of The Good

Earlier this year, the music world was buzzing over the re-issue of the Rolling Stones' classic 1972 disc, "Exile on Main Street," because of the inclusion of several "new" tracks.  With a couple of exceptions, these tracks were slightly (and not-so-slightly) doctored and worked upon so that they'd be suitable for public consumption.  While some of the hardest of the hardcore Stones fans were a little wary of a 66-year-old Mick Jagger adding vocals to tracks that a 27-year-old Jagger started, this Stones fan was quite satisfied with the results.

But it got me thinking: how often is it that musicians several decades beyond their peak productivity suddenly look through the treasure chests and release something that proves to be worth the wait?  The Stones have now done it, the Beatles very successfully did it with their Anthology series in the '90s, but is anyone else really sitting on anything worth salivating over? 

No sooner had I started pondering this than I stumbled across my answer.  It just so happens that John Fogerty, the songwriting powerhouse (and the unmistakable voice) behind 60s roots-rockers Creedence Clearwater Revival, has been sitting on a vintage release for decades. After splitting from CCR circa 1973, Fogerty put out a couple of excellent solo discs ("The Blue Ridge Rangers" in '73, and "John Fogerty" in '75)...and then seemingly went quiet for the rest of the decade.

However, it turns out that he recorded a follow-up to "John Fogerty" in 1976, although "Hoodoo" was never officially released.  Fogerty, who has earned a reputation as being a perfectionist in the studio, is said to have decided at the last minute that this disc wasn't up to his standards, and the record was indefinitely shelved.  It's a pity, because the record is actually quite enjoyable, and it stems from a time when he still had the vocal chops of his CCR days. Not necessarily a classic, but definitely worthy of release.

The only bootlegged copies floating around are multiple generations removed from the clean studio sound that one might hope for, but I'm attaching an mp3 of the kick-off track, which still sounds pretty cool. Here's hoping Fogerty eventually relaxes his perfectionism enough to release a crisp, clean version of this music....

Download You Got Magic

 

On Newsweeks, McCains, and Mavericks

I like Newsweek, I honestly do.  The writing is often insightful, the magazine gives ample space for serious topics to be covered intelligently, and the writers often strive to find a fresh perspective to approach their stories from.  You go, Newsweek. 

Of course, even Newsweek is prone to having a dud article now and again, and that's the case with this week's "McCain’s Awkward Gamble Could Pay Off in Next Month's Primary" by Daniel Stone.  In this brief sketch, Stone discusses Sen. McCain's re-election strategy of transparently swinging to the right to stave off a challenge by J. D. Hayworth.  McCain has been earning downright scornful press from the likes of the New York Times , Politico, and the Washington Post in recent weeks, and for good reason; sensing vulnerability from his right, and desperate not to lose a presidential election and a senate re-election inside of two years, McCain The Survivor has thrown McCain The Scrupulous overboard.  Gone, the storyline goes, is the amiable, freewheelin' McCain that seemed like the perfect anti-politician in 2000, replaced by an angry, cut throat, Tea Party lovin' clone, out to win re-election at all costs.  Why, this new McCain even denies ever having embraced the maverick label!

McCain has been earning criticism for seemingly jettisoning those qualities that made him stand out to begin with, yet Stone notes that his sharp right-ward turn appears to be salvaging his candidacy, and may even lead to a lopsided victory against Hayworth.  That assessment seems fair enough, yet Stone carries it a bit too far by arguing that by making his naked pitch to the Republican base and fashioning himself as the kind of fire-breathing partisan he used to rally against, McCain is simply being his own man - just as he's always done.  By taking a zig where we all thought he'd zag - by being "....a lone thinker, someone who keeps everyone guessing" writes Stone - McCain the Maverick lives!

I'll buy the argument that being a maverick means one marches to the beat of his own drummer.  But the John McCain who is working overtime to remain in the senate is a far, far different creature than the John McCain who challenged the Republican status quo earlier in the decade.  He may be able to salvage his career, but this once-honorable politician seems to have done so at the expense of his good name.  Nice try, Newsweek.       

Once More - With Feeling

With the job search being what it is (unproductive, tedious, and dispiriting), it just may help to have an outlet for something beyond staring at job board after job board.  So, out of necessity, we now have a terribly quiet relaunch of The Passenger.  All for an audience of....just 1, so far.  But maybe it'll grow?

And to celebrate our return, I'm including a musical nugget that most people this side of 40 probably have never heard. 

01 Feelin' Lost

"Feelin' Lost," by Michigan's The Rationals, is a classic mid-60s, swaggering garage number.  With the avalanche of excellent rock coming out during that time, this band somehow got lost in the mix.  I'm loathe to credit Rolling Stone with anything, but I actually discovered this group from a Dave Fricke column.  From this song on, I was hooked, and I'm hoping to share the wealth. 

Time For That (Almost) Yearly Update We've Been Talking About.....

....Huge overhaul of the nation's healthcare system?  Check.

Congress debating a financial overhaul to protect against another meltdown?  Check.

Looking for a way to comment on the goings on without leaving the comfort of our couches?  Check. 

Could the Passenger finally be up and running for the joys of 2010....?

Check back....!

Yes, We're Still Alive

......but we've been so disgusted by recent polls that it was hard to get our thoughts organized.  But seriously, we've gotta hop back into this game.  The world needs The Passenger!!!!

(Tongue planted firmly in cheek.....)