|
|
In an article titled “Born to Strum,” the Sunday NYT is one of what will undoubtedly be numerous publications interviewing Bruce Springsteen about his forthcoming release, We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions. I had an opportunity to hear an advance copy this weekend. While I am a huge Springsteen fan, it probably won’t make it into my permanent collection.
As the NYT notes, some Springsteen fans are put out because this is a collection of covers of Pete Seeger’s songs and comes on the heels of the solo acoustic release, Devils & Dust. Where, they ask, is the E Street Band? While I’d love another E Street release, this isn’t what undercuts The Seeger Sessions in my mind. In fact, the album is well done, although I found it a bit overproduced at times. My “problem,” so to speak, is that I’m not a huge fan of the genre.
This is straightforward traditional folk, although layered with a variety of influences you likely would not hear from Seeger (who turns 86 next month) alone. This isn’t a “cause” or political release. It simply pays tribute to a man who had a huge influence on American music. And anyone familiar with Springsteen’s work shouldn’t find this release shocking. He’s always loved to explore Americana and roots music. There’s not only Devils & Dust but also Nebraska and The Ghost of Tom Joad.
From my standpoint, more power to him. I won’t complain about a popular artist who is willing to go beyond what’s made them famous and explore or interpret other genres, particularly when that exploration is a display of and a tribute to musical influences. At the same time, just because I’m a fan of the artist doesn’t mean I have to like every release or exploration. Nor is this is an issue I have with Springsteen or Seeger; it is simply a matter of musical taste. For example, as I look at Bob Dylan, the music of his that attracts me most is what could be called his “post-folkie” period, not his earliest releases.
So, no rave review here. If you like Seeger or American folk, you will likely enjoy The Seeger Sessions. Given the fact I have never been much of a folk music fan, I will await Springsteen’s next release, regardless of whether it is with the E Street Band.
I resent very much and very deeply the implication of being called before this Committee that in some way because my opinions may be different from yours, or yours, Mr. Willis, or yours, Mr. Scherer, that I am any less of an American than anybody else. I love my country very deeply, sir.
Pete Seeger, testimony before the House
Committee on Un-American Activities, Aug. 18, 1955
Books, the children of the brain.
Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub
Maybe the Associated Press has provided some inkling of why Bill Stegmeier became the local leader of the movement to get the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.) on the South Dakota ballot.
Seems Stegmeier “still owes nearly $7,000 in interest from a tax collection case that is nearly 20 years old.” According to the article, the state sued Stegmeier in 1995 to recover sales and excise taxes he evidently didn’t pay when he ran a contracting business in Brookings in the 1980s.
Taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
You may recall that this blog and South Dakota War College are accused of not discussing “the actual issue” when it comes to South Dakota’s Judicial Accountability Initiative Law (J.A.I.L.). And while it’s interesting to see the new attacks launched on us, I find it more fascinating to see how the local J.A.I.L.’s website is actually the one straying farther and farther from the real issue.
In its FAQ advising readers that J.A.I.L. is “South Dakota all the way,” the website tells us “for the most part, and a few troubling exceptions aside, we are proud of our judges.” The main page says J.A.I.L. will mean “the end to the small number of judges who operate outside the law and in the interests of certain groups.” Certainly, J.A.I.L. would make the public aware of those judges “who operate outside the law” so know how desperately we need the amendment to get rid of those “troubling exceptions.” Don’t hold your breath.
When it comes to talking about why South Dakota needs J.A.I.L., that website tells us that the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct censured one New York judge and called for the removal of another. It then provides a “Newsflash” that a state appellate court in New York reinstated six felony counts against another judge in that state. It also reports that the Ohio Supreme Court is investigating one of the lower court judges in that state and it appears a South Carolina magistrate was arrested for accepting drugs from and doing favors for a relative.
Despite the fact these aren’t South Dakota judges and J.A.I.L. isn’t on the ballot in any of these states, these cases do have a couple things in common with South Dakota. First, we would all have to admit that South Dakota and South Carolina share a first name. The other is all these actions came from the very type of existing systems J.A.I.L. claims are inadequate to deal with judicial misconduct.
After mentioning the specific cases in New York, Ohio and South Carolina, the J.A.I.L. website reports there are problems in “a host of other states.” The link for that phrase takes you to a website run by none other than Bonnie Russell, J.A.I.L.’s “publicist.” Guess what? South Dakota is never mentioned in the page to which the link takes you. Instead, as the page says, it “concentrates on California judges.”
Also, the inaugural post at a new pro-Amendment E blog states, “Anyone whom [sic] has had dealings with [the judicial] branch of government knows the problems.” A nice broad sweeping statement that, like virtually everything else with J.A.I.L., is without a single example or documentation. The next post then makes reference to a federal judge in Detroit who retaliated against a guy who allegedly lied to him when called as a prospective grand juror. This has the same problems as above. Detroit is, to my knowledge, not in South Dakota. Even if the judge were in South Dakota, he is a federal judge and J.A.I.L. would not apply to him.
Perhaps J.A.I.L.’s old website indicates why J.A.I.L. talks about anything but South Dakota judges. Last year, J.A.I.L. asked South Dakotans to submit their “Courtroom Horror Stories.” On November 6, 2005, the South Dakota J.A.I.L.ers were going to select and award cash prizes to “the three most horrendous accounts of courtroom abuse experienced here in South Dakota.” After announcing the winners that day, South Dakota J.A.I.L.ers were going to post the horror stories on the website. More than five months later, we’re still waiting for the winners to be announced. And in what is undoubtedly nothing more than a freak coincidence, the national J.A.I.L. organization’s “Black Collar Crime LogBook” also doesn’t list a single case or incidence in South Dakota.
As demonstrated by the recent J.A.I.L. Lies series, opponents aren’t afraid to talk about the real issue, which is the idiocy, misrepresentation and potential impact of the J.A.I.L. amendment. It seems the “actual issue” J.A.I.L. proponents have is trying to explain why South Dakota needs J.A.I.L. and why they keep moving shells around to avoid the fact they have yet to identify abuse in the South Dakota judicial system.
When lying, be emphatic and indignant, thus behaving like your children.
William Feather
Via Coat Hangers at Dawn, I see one of the “pro-life” members of South Dakota’s Abortion Task Force is speaking out about what happened in the preparation of the Task Force’s report. (PDF file). You may recall that “pro-choice” members were so offended by it they walked out of the final meeting and submitted a minority report. (Word document).
Here’s just some of what Dr. Marty Allison, a Pierre pediatrician and chairwoman of the task force, told the Pierre Capital Journal Monday:
- “It [the report] should have been scientifically-based and objective. Instead it was very subjective and biased. In reality, it was the personal opinion of a select few of the members, and it included false information not reflective, in my opinion, of the testimony we heard.”
- “Rape and incest victims’ testimony was not included in the report. It didn’t correlate with the views of the authors, so they didn’t include it.”
- “There was a lot of information omitted. And there was a footnote that said exceptions–like with rape and incest victims–were not considered. That’s false. We heard testimony and it was discussed.”
- “The people who wanted the law wanted to use the task force findings to validate the legislation.”
None of this is really that surprising. While do not know if Dr. Allison mentioned or testified to any of this during the legislative session, she at least deserves credit for being forthright when asked by the media. I’ll go out on a limb and say that interview makes it quite unlikely she will be asked to appear in any ads supporters of the legislation purchase in the event the effort to refer it to a public vote is successful.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
|
Disclaimer 
Additionally, some links on this blog go to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. There is no additional cost to you. Contact me You can e-mail me at prairieprogressive at gmaildotcom.
|
