We have learned nothing from the 1970s oil shocks

In the last two weeks, I have said on FB and to friends we have learned nothing from 1914, as we refuse to recognize the complex history of Ukraine with Russia, the arrogance of the United States government in going against what George Kennan and Chalmers Johnson, among so many Cold War era advisers who survived long enough after the Soviet Union's 1991 collapse to scream from high heavens--"Don't extend NATO into Eastern Europe or worse, Ukraine because you will build up Russian nationalism that will create more war!"  Nope.  Our leaders didn't listen. Chris Hedges, who was a foreign affairs reporter in the Balkans in the 1990s, remembers very clearly how the US was orally and sometimes in cables saying it would never extend NATO into Eastern Europe, the Baltics, or Ukraine at the border of Russia post-1991. Here is a CATO Institute (yeah, CATO and I have long agreed about how the US empire is constantly seeking wars and pushing the sale of military weaponry around the world) doing a nice linked-filled summary of US leaders in the 1990s and beyond admitting Russian nationalism is stoked with such NATO expansion moves.

Now, as I see everyone panicking and making the wrong political responses, I can now say we have learned nothing from the 1970s, and particularly the oil shocks.

First, the oil companies never made more profits than this past year. The big oil companies spent billions this past year using their profits to buy back their own stock, and enrich its executives and big stockholders.

Second, the rise in pricing is in the futures markets, so the current price at the pumps is for oil purchased at far lower per barrel rates. In other words, this is a price gouge. Oh, and the per barrel prices of about $140 a barrel now are roughly what they were in 2008, so maybe we can also say, "Wow, we had a great run of lower oil prices for fourteen years."  That is of course no reason to give the oil companies a break, but it is one for perspective. 

Third, 3% of crude oil comes here from Russia (for some reason, 8% of overall oil came from Russia last year). Related to this, our nation has the ability to get more oil from other sources such as Venezuela or Iran, with whom we have had ridiculous sanctions against for the past several years--and could easily make up the loss of 3% or 8%.  I agree with Ilan Omar (D-MN) that going to the oil wells with Saudi Arabia, when it is still involved in a horrific invasion-war against Yemen, is the wrong solution to what should be a relatively short term strategic issue.

Fourth, Biden approved MORE oil leases in his first year than Trump in Trump's first year. There is absolutely no basis to think we have to open up even further. 

Fifth, why this is not a wake up call for a Manhattan Project for renewables is all you need to know about capitalist domination of our media discourse and our overall society. It is not that we really have a system based upon capitalism as much as we have a discourse that continually idealizes capitalism and demonizes any government action to protect regular people. If you want to attack Biden, it can only legitimately be from the left for not saying what I am saying. Any of our right wing friends attacking Biden for inflation or the oil price rise that will surely fuel further inflation is just cynical propaganda. 

To remind us of the history from the 1970s, here is a brilliant deep dive from the late Robert Sherrill, who somehow got this into the NY Times (he was not a regular reporter for them) in real time--October 1979!--- as our nation was in the middle of the second of the big 1970s oil shocks then occurring.  What happened from the spring of 1979 through the end of 1980 was another example of manipulation from oil companies where Saudi Arabia--and I distinctly recall this--had increased its oil production to cover the loss of Iranian oil, and then Sheik Zaki Yamani expressly said sometime in 1980 he did not understand why the oil companies were complaining about shortages when the Saudis had so increased its oil production.

I guess I was not so ridiculous in my alternative history ending after all....:)

 See here at the Daily Kos from January 7, 2021.  Someone watching footage of the January 6th 2021 insurrection had second thoughts about my novel's anti-historiography ending (that is what the late historian, Kevin Starr, once said to me about the ending, which he loved and saw it very clearly for what it was at the multiple levels including the inevitable right wing backlash to anything progressive in American politics).  It is nice to have found this article from a person identified as "David B." 

I love the title: "Alternative History as prediction: Mitchell Freedman's 2003 book on RFK Predicted our Civil War".  I admit I was not trying to do that in toto, but wrote that out as a warning that could happen based upon patterns in our nation's politics.

Confusions of a cultural conservative

When one reads this missive entitled What is the Great Reset? by Michael Rectenwald, one is struck by the question: What is animating this fella's conflation of the "left" with corporate cultural liberals in the corporate elite, and what is behind his language about "freedom" and "liberty"? Well, the answer is pretty simple: This guy lives in abject fear of cultural liberalism and secularism. Therefore, when Apple, Google, Nike, or some other corporation embraces a form of cultural liberalism in its advertising--for the same reason, in the 1920s, American Tobacco Corporation pushed cigarettes on women as "torches of freedom"--he finds himself having to defend capitalism without its inherent cultural contradictions--particularly the cultural contradiction of where unchecked markets ultimately overpower traditional moral or cultural values. 

Rectenwald can't see that a good Marxist would be against how China has operated these past forty years. A good Marxist also sees through the so-called "woke" cultural cues Nike, Apple, Google, and even Raytheon continue to articulate. See here and here for the evidence a good Marxist would cite (and when corporations donate to Dems, it is mostly corporate Democrats, not economically populist ones). A good Marxist opposes the way in which the new global corporate dominated economic order--through the various trade deals--has been beggaring workers in First World nations and, in what we used to call the Third World, is exploiting when not continuing to ecologically, morally, and economically harm peasants. Rectenwald doesn't want anyone to notice how the trade deals are merely a continuation of capitalists' imperialist and colonialists' desires that have gone on well before the capitalists decided they needed new markets among people normally shunned in society--and how corporate based power goes back to a time when capitalists were fine and dandy with chattel slavery, and later promoting race-based scientific theories. That the capitalists decided, as early as the late 1980s, to make peace with the Chinese Communist government is merely the latest wrinkle in a neater, more simplistic, Marxian theory, but the types of trade treaties created between Coca-Cola Etc. and China is much better explained as power politics and ironies of history.*  Corporations are mostly structured as political dictatorships, so they obviously felt comfortable dealing with the corporatized executives of the Chinese Communist Party.

Ultimately, the good professor Rectenwald is only showing us how afraid--and I mean A-FRAID-- he is of the queers and trans folks. And speaking of ironies, I found this all quite funny because, when one looks on his Wiki entity, one finds Rectenwald did a graduate apprenticeship with none other than the ultimate cultural radical (but who was not an economic leftist in any coherent way) Allen Ginsberg! Here is the source Wiki provides, which is wild to read, considering where Rectenwald has ended up. 

Professor Rectenwald, needs a course in Daniel Bell's writings, particularly Bell's Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976), so as to understand how the capitalist drive for expanded markets also includes undermining of so-called traditional values. In the same book Bell discusses his "Three Realms" formulation of political philosophy, which, as my few readers know, provides a far more accurate assessment of an individual's political philosophies than simply calling one "liberal" or "radical" or "conservative" or "reactionary." Bell's formulation says there are three realms--political, economic, and cultural--and the spectrum of radical, liberal, moderate, conservative, and reactionary are better qualified within each of those realms when analyzing one's own values and evaluating others' values. When we use the realms analysis, and look at the whole person, we are able to find out why a person believes what that person believes, and what that person prioritizes. 

Assuming Professor Rectenwald's good faith, and that he believes himself driven by so-called "moral" Christian theological values, I believe Professor Rectenwald could have an epiphany if he read and ingested Bell's formulaic analyses in that book. And who knows? Maybe he'll become a fan of Vijay Prashad, or dare I say it, Karl Marx. I mean it. Just read what Marx's and Engel's The Communist Manifesto says about capitalists. It sounds almost theological: 

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

Now go back and peruse Rectenwald's writing style, his assumptions, and his outrage at corporate capitalists.  There is a rhythm in not only style, but even some of the substance, that is much like Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in the 1840s, as they faced multiple workers' strikes that were turning into a potential revolution against capitalists and monarchs in Western Europe at the time. Yeah, that was the context for the manifesto, as we should recall from high school World History class.

What makes Rectenwald pathetic, to me at least, is he should already know all of this. However, it appears Rectenwald has decided he must find a way to promote his cultural conservatism in a manner that would get him gainfully employed among right wing organizations (such as his current employer, the right-wing "Christian" oriented, Hillsdale College in Michigan), which tend to be funded by big corporate capitalist class donors connected with the fossil fuel and related industries (the remaining Koch brother, and other right wing culture warriors among the corporate executive and ownership elite, such as Scaife, Mellon, etc.).  I think it is why Rectenwald's analysis almost sounds Marxian in his attacks against corporate global power, including his view about how corporate executives are working hand in glove with the Chinese government--all while these same corporate executives exercise control over our nation's political discourse--and buying up politicians and political parties. However, to obscure any economic-oriented analysis that may sound anti-corporate or economically leftist, Rectenwald must conflate actual "leftist" people, such as, say, Vijay Prashad or Adolph Reed, Jr., with modern capitalists such as Phil Knight (Nike), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook/Meta) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon). That is Rectenwald's first principles-style of argument, which then allows him to be less specific and frankly confusing the rest of the way. As I say, if Rectenwald is writing and acting in good faith, he may find much to agree with listening to Marxist-oriented intellectuals such as Prashad or Reed, for example. But, no. Those people scare him even more, so he must not even mention them except as an amorphous "left" that is somehow telling Zuckerberg and Bezos what to do.  Maybe there's a Jew somewhere, you know, George Soros....Sigh.

_________________________________

* What most good Marxists won't see, though, is the conspiracy theory over COVID. As any good Marxist is a historicist, they would know, whenever humans have lots of global trade, as in the late Middle Ages, there is a major increase in deadly bacteria or viruses. They would know the previous SARS scare of the late aughts in this century scared the bejeebus--that's a Marxist term of art, ya know--out of the immunology and medical communities, and there was active research begun with multi-governmental backing. And finally it would not be surprising Bill Gates, who remains a neo-liberal in so many bad ways, did have a good side of sorts in using some of his ridiculous amounts of money to limit or stop malaria in Africa, and was therefore "up" on infectious diseases. But, somehow, a right-winger to whom Rectenwald is appealing, needs that conspiracy style theory, and darkly hint the elites created COVD.

High Tide for progressive rock and other classic rock: 1972

 This high tide of amazing recorded music would continue into 1973, 1974, and 1975. From there, the tide subsided. But, let's look at the 1972 releases with all the awe we can muster. 

First, on a personal note, I attended my first true rock concert in February 1972: Yes at the Academy of Music in NYC. It was a weeknight, and I had to literally beg The Parents to let me go. It was amazing. I would go on to attend nearly 75 concerts during the 1970s. As I tell young folks, the concerts were, on average, $5, which, with minimum wage jobs of about $2.50 an hour, was still a great deal. The reason concert tickets were so much cheaper is people bought albums, which were $5 a pop, and the concert tours became "loss leaders," meaning the concerts were promoting people to buy albums. When that flips, with the advent of digital downloads, concerts became the vehicles for moneymaking. Also, concerts became much more complicated affairs, as most bands back then merely showed up with their amps and instruments, and relied on venues for lighting. An exception was Pink Floyd, but even then, nothing compared to a Katy Perry show in this century.  

Second, in creating this list, I am mostly relying on good ol' Wikipedia. However, I also had to rely on my own memory of various albums not listed in its 1972 album releases entry. I had become a major music "phreak" at that point in my life. :), and I wished to write down these bands and their albums while my memory remains strong. It is still an eclectic list, and definitely subjective, as I leave out James Brown, Elvis, Supremes, and other recording artists who released albums that year, but which I did not find all that memorable from those artists.  I did not put in live albums, unless they were truly special (I left off "Grateful Dead's" "Europe '72" live album, and "Deep Purple's" live in Japan album, for example).  

I typed in asterisks for the albums I loved and still love to this day.

January 1972:

Premiata Forneia Marconi, "Storia di un minuto"** (Damn!  A great first album that would have won in many other years outside of this amazing period. And their second album, "Per un Amico" is released later in this year, in November.  That is at least as great, if not better, and more organized as an album.)

Paul Simon's first solo album, just entitled "Paul Simon"* (an amazing album that has so many iconic songs, showing he was truly the brains behind the music, though Art Garfunkel was a major part of the S&G sound.).

Flash's first self-titled album* (Yes band refugees Peter Banks and Tony Kaye. An amazing opening album with outstanding tracks throughout.)

Jackson Browne first solo album, just entitled "Jackson Browne"

February 1972:

Todd Rundgren, "Something/Anything"*

Neil Young, "Harvest"*

Allman Brothers, "Eat a Peach"*

Fanny, "Fanny Hill" (an all female rock band which put out some great covers, and decent psychedelic/hard rock)

Strawbs, "Grave New World"*

March 1972:

Jethro Tull, "Thick as a Brick"** (the best album of the year, in my not-humble view)

Kinks, "The Kink Kronikles"*

Deep Purple, "Machine Head"*

Frank Zappa, "Just Another Band from L.A." (not a favorite, I must admit)

Chase, "Ennea"

Pure Prairie League, self-titled debut album

Banco Del Muto Soccorso, self-titled first album** (A great one I missed at the time, and did not learn about until the early 2000s)

April 1972:

Archie Sheep, "Attica Blues"* (I became a Shepp fan in high school, and this album was radical politically and artistically in the Jazz genre)

Graham Nash David Crosby, "Crosby & Nash" ("Immigration Man" song is worth listening to at least)

Gentle Giant, "Three Friends"** (one of the top five albums in my not-humble view)

Lou Reed, first solo album, just entitled "Lou Reed"

Al Kooper, "A Possible Projection of the Future/Childhood's End" (intriguing album, but not memorable for me)

Procol Harum, "Procol Harum Live: In Concert with the Edmonton (Canada) Symphony Orchestra"* (a live album that turns previous songs new again, and a Side 2 concerto "In Held T'was In I" that is still great to hear: "Oh, my Son, Life is like a beanstalk/Isn't it?")

Jim Croce, "You Don't Mess Around with Jim"* (might as well be a greatest hits album)

May 1972:

Jeff Beck, "Jeff Beck Group"

Roberta Flack & Donny Hathaway, self-titled

Rolling Stones, "Exile on Main Street" (My vote for the most overrated album of that year, or most years in the era of 1965-1975)

Uriah Heep, "Demons & Wizards"*

Caravan, "Waterloo Lily"*

Funkadelic, "America Eats its Young"*

Weather Report, "I Sing the Body Electric"*

Randy Newman, "Sail Away"*

Bill Withers, "Still Bill"* (just for "Lean on Me")

June 1972:

Aretha Franklin, "Amazing Grace"

Pink Floyd, "Obscured by Clouds"** (the most underrated album of 1972; nobody talks about it, but it is magnificent, and would have been a top three or better album in nearly any other previous year)

David Bowie, "The Rise & Fall of Ziggy Stardust"**

John Lennon & Yoko Ono, "Some Time in NYC"

Jethro Tull, "Living in the Past"** (the record company released the album a month after "Thick As a Brick" because it contained a bunch of singles not previously released, with the intent of giving Tull airtime. "TAAB" was one 40 minute song/concerto and most radio stations would only play a snippet. Bastards. Anderson was pissed with the release of LITP, but we fans loved the double album.)

Aphrodite's Child, "666"* (an underrated album I frankly missed at the time of its release)

Free, "Free at Last"

Big Star, "Number 1 Record"* (worth a listen; Boxtops leader's more album oriented rock album)

Alice Cooper Band, "School's Out"* (an iconic release which has some outstanding music for most of the album)

July 1972:

Renaissance, "Prologue"** (The Annie Haslam era begins!  This is a top five album, though I will run out of numbers for a top five this year of 1972. It is so extraordinary the number of amazing albums that still remain vital listening.)

Argent, "All Together Now"** ("Hold Your Head Up"--nothing more needs to be said)

Doobie Brothers, "Toulouse Street" (major Doobie Bros. hits appeared on this album release)

Frank Zappa, "Waka/Jawaka"* (Zappa moves into his jazz period, with this and "The Grand Wazoo" released in this year, 1972. This is inferior to "The Grand Wazoo," but is still outstanding.)

Emerson, Lake, & Palmer, "Trilogy"** (An amazing album. Full stop. Did you hear what I said? Full stop.)

Chicago, "Chicago V"* (Chicago's most prog album)

Harry Nilsson, "Son of Schmilsson"

Doors, "Full Circle"* (a post-Morrison album, their last studio album. I am thinking I must re-listen to this one, which I don't own, through YouTube)

Rod Stewart, "Never a Dull Moment"

T-Rex,"The Slider"

Captain Beyond, "Captain Beyond"* (last of the psychedelic-hard rock bands, as psychedelia had morphed into Progressive rock and Heavy Metal. This remains a solid and worth listening to album.)

Nazareth, "Exercises"

Foghat, self-titled first album

Curtis Mayfield, "Superfly"* (not my taste, but a masterful soundtrack album of original songs)

August 1972:

Michael Jackson, "Ben" (yes, the title song for the thriller--pun intended--film, "Willard")

Kinks, "Everybody's in Show-Biz"** (Yeah, this album. Outstanding in a year of amazing records that simply push this one aside, unfortunately.)

Gil Scott-Heron, "Free Will"* (worth a listen to now more than then)

Seals & Crofts, "Summer Breeze"* (progressive oriented folk)

September 1972:

Return to Forever, self-titled first album* (A good and solid album, but my asterisk is more for historical purposes. This is the first of the two incarnations of the band, with a much more jazz sound, with the late Flora Purim with her sensual and compelling vocals, and her hubby Airto Moreia on drums. It was the second album, "Light as a Feather," in 1973, which remains the knockout punch of an album, and so compelling to hear today.)

Mott the Hoople, "All the Young Dudes"** (other than the title track, not so great. But the title track!)

Yes, "Close to the Edge"** (the greatest album of the year except for "Thick as a Brick". This is so ridiculously brilliant I can't even believe it was even made by then young people. Yeah, so damn great!)

John Denver, "Rocky Mountain High"* (This was some year in music, wasn't it?)

Black Sabbath, "Vol. 4"* (Pure heavy metal being casted from the iconic Black Sabbath)

Cat Stevens, "Catch Bull at Four"* (Great album!)

Family, "Bandstand" (for me, only famous for having John Wetton in the band)

Steeleye Span, "Below the Salt"* (one of my favorite albums from this band; so worth the listen!)

Osmonds, "Crazy Horses"* (worth the listen if only to be shocked by it being a good hard rock album from an unlikely source)

Bonnie Raitt, "Give it Up"

Waylon Jennings, "Ladies Love Outlaws"

Brinsley Schwarz, "Nervous on the Road" (a second release in one year, the protopunk band with Nick Lowe)

Sandy Denny, "Sandy"* (a much neglected album from an artist who died of cancer before the decade was out)

Pentangle, "Solomon's seal"* (a band much like, and earlier, than Steeleye Span)

October 1972:

Genesis, "Foxtrot"** (Damn!  If I had to rank the top five albums, this is within that top 5, and in any other year, higher than that)

Santana, "Caravanserai"

Pure Prairie League, "Bustin' Out"

Tim Buckley, "Greetings from L.A."* (a much neglected album, too)

Loggins & Messina, first album, self-titled

Atomic Rooster, "Made in England" (another of the last of the purer psychedelic bands)

Carole King, "Rhymes & Reasons"

Ten Years After, "Rock & Roll Music to the World"

Harry Chapin, ""Sniper & Other Love Songs"

Bee Gees, "To Whom It May Concern"

November 1972:

Premiata Forneria Marconi, "Per un Amico"** (So fantastic! As I keep saying, What. A. Year.!)

James Taylor, "One Man Dog"

Hollies, "Romany"

Slade, "Slayed?"* (this is a classic that may properly be called psych-pop-metal. Yeah, listen to this one.)

Bette Midler, "The Divine Ms. M"* (Not my personal taste, but I so respect Midler's talent)

Neil Young, "Journey through the Past" (a soundtrack album)

Lou Reed, "Transformer"* (yeah, that's the album to listen to for Lou Reed)

Barclay James Harvest, self-titled*

America, "Homecoming"* (for "Ventura Highway" alone, but a solid album nonetheless)

Moody Blues, "Seventh Soljourn"* (Great album!  There are at least ten iconic albums released by bands in this single year, and this is one of those iconic albums)

Poco, "A Good Feelin' To Know"* (Their best, in my not-humble view)

Ricky Nelson, "Garden Party" (a comeback on the top 40 charts for the title track)

Ry Cooder, "Boomer's Story"

Steely Dan, "Can't Buy a Thrill"

Don McLean, self-titled* (Yes, "American Pie" and "Vincent" are on this one. Yeah, it is still great. I think, when the last Baby Boomer dies, the rest who came after can play "American Pie" in ironic tribute. We were the superpower when the album was released, and when the last Boomer dies, we will realize as a nation how bad Boomers really were.)

Can, "Ege Bamyasi"

Joni Mitchell, "For the Roses"

Kool & The Gang, "Good Times" (no, "Celebration" is not on this album.  This one is listed more historically to place what would become disco style music)

Kris Kristofferson, "Jesus was a Capricorn"

Uriah Heep, "The Magician's Birthday"* (Their best album. Full stop. And a great one to this day).

Bloodrock, "Passage" (Damn, the third of the psych bands that released albums when their style was being eclipsed by prog and metal)

Edgar Winter Group, "They Only Come Out at Night"* (The greatest Winter album in the not-humble opinion.  "Frankenstein," which Winter clearly created after hearing Gentle Giant's "Alucard" (Dracula spelled backwards), but which stands on its own as a great monster--literally--rock track.)

Joan Armatrading, "Whatever's For Us" (a combination of folk and funk that lots of people I knew loved)

War, "The World is a Ghetto" (more a historical piece than one I enjoy hearing)

West, Bruce & Laing, "Why Doncha" (a supergroup of hard rock, psych band members, which I am less sure holds up to hear)

Nektar, "A Tab in the Ocean" (a prop pop band that was more prog than pop on this one, and so held my interest)

Hawkwind, "Doremi Fasol Latido"* (another band that was prog-oriented, though I am not sure is fully prog, but this album is a wild one to hear)

December 1972:

Gentle Giant, "Octopus"* (released in England, but not the US till March 1973. I don't count it because 1972 is just too great to let this be obscured, but I note it here.  And yeah, 1973 is gonna be a killer year, too, to list in 2023.)

Marvin Gaye, "Trouble Man"* (this is an iconic Gaye release that is under most radars. I don't claim it's to my taste, but I respect it very deeply.)

Status Quo, "Piledriver"

Frank Zappa, "The Grand Wazoo"** (here it is!  A spectacular album in that top five of an amazing year)

New Riders of the Purple Sage, "Gypsy Cowboy"

Ohio Players, "Pleasure" (another album letting the world know disco is coming)

REO Speedwagon, "REO/T.W.O." (not my taste, but this band's big time begins here)

Other albums I had to find elsewhere besides Wiki:

Tranquility, self-titled first album* (Worth it for a few songs, particularly "Oyster Catcher." It was the the second and final album, "Sliver" in 1973 is the key album from this band.)

Amon Duul II, "Carnival in Babylon"* (Prog Kraut Electronic rock)

Amon Duul II, "Wolf City"* (yeah, two solid albums in one year)

Kraftwerk, "Kraftwerk II" (here comes the Kraut electronic Rockers)

Roger Ruskin-Spear, "Electric Shocks"* (Bonzo Dog Band member solo album, so worth the listen for its British humor and cleverness)

Bonzo Dog Band, "Let's Make Up and Be Friendly"** released after the breakup, but showing they were amazing to the end. Don't know them? Think Monty Python with music. And they show up in the Beatles' short film, "Magical Mystery Tour," as a by-the-way. The Beatles admired the Bonzos, and it was George Harrison who tapped main writer Neil Innes to pen "The Rutles'" music in the late 1970s. Yeah, that band.)

Focus, "Focus III"* (Not a favorite, but "Sylvia" is on this one)

Gnidrolog, "...In Spite of Harry's Toenail"* (Canterbury Rock arising as a sub-genre of Prog)

Matching Mole, self-titled first album* (Yeah, this Canterbury Rock album, too!)

Matching Mole, "Little Red Record"* (Yeah, two albums in one year, and the sound is getting more organized. The reference is to Mao's "Little Red Book," but Matching Mole was an art-for-arts-sake band, not political.  This was merely mischievous in the title.)

Groundhogs, "Who Will Save the World?"* (This is a favorite Groundhogs album for me. Groundhogs, Captain Beyond, Atomic Rooster, and Bloodrock all had albums released in this year, yet hardly any of them go the airplay on radio stations, outside of some obscure college stations. A pity, as they were really great and could have hit hard)

Mandrill, "Mandrill Is..." (I am not a fan of this prog oriented band, but others certainly are--and who am I to say No?  Not me on this, but, well, not my cuppa tea.)

Curved Air, "Phantasmagoria"* (high water mark for this band, from which Darryl Way would leave and form "Darryl Way's Wolf" the next year)

Le Orme, "Uomo de Pezza"** (one of the many prog rock bands to emerge from Italy)

Arthur Brown's Kingdom Come, "Kingdom Come"* (a good, but not iconic album in between the truly iconic "Galactic Zoo Dossier" in 1971 and "Journey" in 1974. If you don't know "Galactic Zoo Dossier," just find it, buy it, and listen.)

AND IT IS TRUE: THERE IS MORE. However, I listed what I recall this morning as I type, and what I found at Wiki or elsewhere.  1972 was a stellar year in the history of recorded music. So many iconic, classic, and outstanding recordings.  As I like to say, Baby Boomers era did produce great music, at least. :)

Right wing US Supreme Court Justices toss another bomb

Want to know why I call the five and maybe six (depending upon the day, Chief Justice Roberts) bomb throwers? First, read Mark Joseph Stern's summary of the two US Supreme Court opinions, one vitiating the Biden administration large business vaccine or weekly testing mandate, and one upholding the mandate for health care workers. Stern did the heavy lifting so I don't have to write too much.

After you read the decision, we should at least review the decision from Chief Justice John Marshall, in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where the US Supreme Court held the Constitution is a flexible document designed to meet contingencies we cannot imagine. The reason this is relevant is the Court majority voiding the mandate went beyond the plain language of the OSHA statute, which reasonably authorized the executive branch to enact the type of rule the Court threw out. As Stern says in his essay review of the decisions, the Court majority held the Constitution cannot be interpreted to allow for such a mandate without an express delegation of this precise type of situation. However, here is Marshall in McCulloch:

To have prescribed the means by which Government should, in all future time, execute its powers would have been to change entirely the character of the instrument and give it the properties of a legal code. It would have been an unwise attempt to provide by immutable rules for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they occur. To have declared that the best means shall not be used, but those alone without which the power given would be nugatory, would have been to deprive the legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to circumstances.

And here is Marshall again, in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), where the US Supreme Court expressly rejected a strict construction of the Constitution:

This instrument contains an enumeration of powers expressly granted by the people to their government. It has been said that these powers ought to be construed strictly. But why ought they to be so construed? Is there one sentence in the Constitution which gives countenance to this rule? In the last of the enumerated powers, that which grants expressly the means for carrying all others into execution, Congress is authorized "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for the purpose. But this limitation on the means which may be used is not extended to the powers which are conferred, nor is there one sentence in the Constitution which has been pointed out by the gentlemen of the bar or which we have been able to discern that prescribes this rule. We do not, therefore, think ourselves justified in adopting it. What do gentlemen mean by a "strict construction?" If they contend only against that enlarged construction, which would extend words beyond their natural and obvious import, we might question the application of the term, but should not controvert the principle. If they contend for that narrow construction which, in support or some theory not to be found in the Constitution, would deny to the government those powers which the words of the grant, as usually understood, import, and which are consistent with the general views and objects of the instrument; for that narrow construction which would cripple the government and render it unequal to the object for which it is declared to be instituted, and to which the powers given, as fairly understood, render it competent; then we cannot perceive the propriety of this strict construction, nor adopt it as the rule by which the Constitution is to be expounded. 

What do these decisions mean? The two decisions mean the US Constitution is a flexible document which may be broadly interpreted to meet exigencies which may arise. The right wing justices' conceit is they believe the US Constitution is far more limited and must be strictly construed. That is simply historically inaccurate. 

In this context, now read what Justice Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion voiding the mandate, says about McCulloch v. Maryland:

I start with this Court’s precedents. There is no question that state and local authorities possess considerable power to regulate public health. They enjoy the 'general power of governing,' including all sovereign powers envisioned by the Constitution and not specifically vested in the federal government. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. 519, 536 (2012) (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.); U. S. Const., Amdt. 10. And in fact, States have pursued a variety of measures in response to the current pandemic. E.g., Cal. Dept. of Public Health, All Facilities Let- ter 21–28.1 (Dec. 27, 2021); see also N. Y. Pub. Health Law Ann. § 2164 (West 2021).

The federal government’s powers, however, are not general but limited and divided. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819). Not only must the federal government properly invoke a constitutionally enumerated source of authority to regulate in this area or any other. It must also act consistently with the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Catch that? McCulloch stands for limited and divided federal governmental power.  Huh? Yet, that is the only mention any justice, including Gorsuch, made regarding McCulloch v. Maryland. 

One may ask, is there a strategy this five to six justice majority is following in their voiding the Biden administration vaccine or weekly testing mandate for major corporations?  Yes. The strategy is to continue to question the legitimacy of what Gorsuch and others call "the administrative state." They consider the administrative state, where Congress delegates powers to the executive branch to promulgate rules and enforce regulations based upon statutory authority, unconstitutional. As I said in a post from September 5, 2018:

(Political science professor) Kate Elizabeth Brown has written a very dense, but brilliant book which provides in detail the way in which Alexander Hamilton, while running the Treasury Department, formulated what became known as administrative law from the start of the U.S. government following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. She also finds early Supreme Court and other lower court case law in the 1790s proving, as a practical matter, even the earliest Congressional legislation on excise taxes and other related economic legislation needed interpretation, and the creation of regulatory rules, in the administration of those earliest laws. What also came across to me was Hamilton's sense of posterity, in making sure not only his view but competing views, were aired before courts and the administrative tribunals in port-master contexts, and in navigating the concurrent and overlapping jurisdiction of federal and state authority, both judicially as well as in executive authority. I was deeply fascinated by the manner in which Hamilton, oblivious to modern proprieties and ethics, simply contacted judges to discuss potential matters that may come before the courts, set up test cases, and the like, but did so in a way that was transparent (most of the time) to all parties who had an interest in the dispute. It is extraordinary reading, if again very dense, due to the technical nature of the topic. But in the end, there is a powerful public policy lesson Professor Brown provides, which is to answer definitely and fully, the charge that the Administrative State only began because of those Commie New Dealers packing the Courts with Frankfurter and Jackson types who undermined the "real" Constitution.

The next big swing at the administrative state may be an environmental law case.  See this New Yorker article about a major environmental case the Justices should have rejected as moot, but which the six person majority are excited to decide--and likely further limit Congress' delegation authority to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As I sit here this morning, I believe we should add the current Supreme Court justice majority to the list of existential crises facing the United States of America. The bomb throwing justices aim to undermine the ability of the federal government to do well by its citizens, and to reject any expertise from the federal government agencies in matters of health, safety, the environment, and workplace regulation.  

And if anyone believes the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to economically regulate in these areas, here is James Madison, in Federalist Paper no. 10:

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. (Emphasis added)

Oh well. It was a decent Republic while we had it, with apologies to Native Americans and African-Americans for starters. 

Robert Paper of U of Chicago study updated to now reviewing over 700 of the January 6, 2021 insurrectionists

Here is the latest from U of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape, and his study of the now over 700 people arrested for participating in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol. Here is an excerpt from an interview Pape did with Slate magazine this week, with the question from the Slate interviewer and Pape's answer:

Your initial study looked at about 200 people who had been arrested. Since then, that number has swelled to about 730. What has emerged as the profile of the average rioter, a year later? What are some of the stories you’ve uncovered, and what do they tell us about what led to this?

We’ve now studied nearly 700 who have been arrested, and we’ve brought the study up to date as of early December. What we see is, over half of those who have been arrested are business owners, CEOs from white-collar occupations, doctors, lawyers, and architects. If you look at extremist group membership, again, 13 percent of those nearly 700 arrested as of early December are members of militia groups like the Oath Keepers or extremist groups like the Proud Boys. As I said, this is very different than about half that we normally find.

If you look at their ages, two-thirds of those arrested for Jan. 6 are over the age of 34. They’re concentrated in their 40s and 50s. Normally for right-wing extremists, it’s two-thirds under the age of 34. Typically, only 10 percent have a college degree. Here, the Jan. 6 arrestees, 25 percent have a college degree, which is close to the national average of the U.S. electorate at 30 percent. About 15 percent of those on Jan. 6 had prior U.S. military service, but that compares with what we usually see in right-wing extremists at 40 percent. About 10 percent of the U.S. electorate has prior military service, so it’s a little higher than that, but much closer to the U.S. mainstream than to the usual right-wing extremists. What if we look at criminal history? Well, 30 percent of those arrested on Jan. 6 had prior criminal history, mostly for misdemeanors like marijuana charges, but with other right-wing extremists, it’s 64 percent have prior criminal history. The U.S. electorate overall has 20 percent with criminal history.

Here is Pape's initial article last year in The Atlantic. And here is an interview Pape did with CNN International later in May 202, when it was up to nearly 400 arrested. What is striking to me is how his initial hypothesis has held from the initial review of about 170 arrestees to now over 700 arrestees. 

A final note: Here is Tooning Out the News interviewing five people, of whom four hit the profile Pape identified as the type of people who ended up at the January 6th insurrection. I don't have any evidence the show's show runners followed Pape's studies to find these people. 

Blogger at PMC oriented blog, Lawyers, Guns & Money, says, defensively, "Don't Look Up" is actually a powerful film

While corporate media reviewers continue to trash Don't Look Up, saying, "Don't see this film!" (Nathan Robinson has a nice rundown of the corporate media trashings in his journal Current Affairs, though he remains on my shit list for his anti-labor position with respect to that journal he owns), we now have a review from Lawyers, Guns & Money blog, which I consider best of the Professional-Managerial Class (PMC) bloggers.

For the first 40% of the long review, Abigail Nussbaum (background here) has to shine up her PMC credentials, lest too many of her ultimately Team Democratic! (TM) audience would not read the piece she wrote at all. For the first 40% of her review, she wrote in a manner that would lead the LGM readers--and me, too--to believe she was going to trash the film. Early on, she trashed JoJo Rabbit, saying it was "a film that bravely satirizes that Nazis by… making the same jokes about them that people were making in 1942." Yet, her point at the end of her ultimately defensive review is that maybe satire doesn't work without direct action, as if that is some amazing insight. To which I say to Nussbaum, No shit, Sherlock. Nussbaum obviously herself missed the Tom Lehrer song from 1964, Folk Song Army, where Lehrer sings at one point, "though (Franco) had won all the battles, we had all the good songs!"* 

Nonetheless, Nussbaum made me feel much better about her comprehension abilities a bit later in her review, with her praise for Ianucci's brilliant The Death of the Stalin. It is only then Nussbaum is finally ready to admit to her largely anti-Bernie, pro-PMC Democratic LGM audience that Don't Look Up is actually a pretty powerful film.

Late in the piece, in an entire paragraph parenthesis (!)--which proves her overall defensiveness with the main LGM proprietors (excepting Erik Loomis)--Nussbaum noted how the Don't Look Up's narrative doesn't even bother with liberals or moderate Democratic Party officials or pundits. She astutely recognized McKay already knows how inept and feckless those particular officials and pundits are. Still, she had to be gentle in making that point, or else LGM proprietors, Scott Limieux and Paul Campos, would get upset, as they are prime interference runners for the Democratic Patty. Nussbaum knows, too, the LGM proprietors hate David Sirota, so she gently said in that parenthesis paragraph how there is a "prurient fascination" for the film because of Sirota's backing. I sense Nussbaum knew that, if she had revealed Sirota is the one who came up with the idea for the film with his friend, and fellow Bernie backer, Adam McKay, the LGM "base" would not see the film at all.  If my speculation is correct, great for Nussbaum!  She really knew her main audience. :)

For me, I am with Nathan Robinson that the corporate media reviews trashing the film are proving the main point the film makes regarding corporate owned media. Nussbaum sees this as well, as I read her overall review.

As I final note, I just wish some of the relatively few people who see the greatness in this film will go back and watch Anchorman 2, the McKay film with Will Farrell, as that film is a devastating take down of cable "news" in general. Most people, including those who should know better, missed that film completely. Corporate media reviewers consciously miss McKay's consistent combination of lowbrow/highbrow humor, and McKay did that as well in Talladega Nights, or the Legend of Ricky Bobby. That film has to be one of the most brilliant films regarding white southern American culture ever created, right up there with O Brother, Where Art Thou? and the most underrated film of the past half century, Life.

_________________________

*Those of us who love Phil Ochs have known that point since, well, 1970. The same for any of us who has ever heard a religious person (usually a white woman) tell us how much that religious person swoons over John Lennon's Imagine. To me, it is what Lehrer says in his intro to Folk Song Army, folk songs--and I would add satire--make those of us who already know feel good that someone with more power than we have is at least noticing, too. It is what I would tell people at the dawn of the 21st Century about why I revered Jon Stewart's The Daily Show. I would say, "Finally! Someone on television is saying what I think and believe!"

UPDATE: Jan 1, 2022. Here is Forbes' magazine (!) noting the dichotomy between sneering reviews in corporate owned media and climate oriented scientists who loved the film. It shows what I say, which, sadly, satire is often only appreciated by those who know already.  But, the sneering corporate media critics is important to note because they are trying to literally say, "Don't Look Up!" and don't want you to know how complicit they are.  I wrote an email last evening to the African-American woman (!) corporate media critic for The Daily Beast who tore into the film, used a right trope against McKay that was used against Al Gore at the time of An Inconvenient Truth (as in how much fossil fuels were spent in making the film?), and then ignorantly said at the end of her review, maybe McKay should make a film about media in "late-stage capitalism." Yeah, she used that phrase to show us her education and awareness of what happens around her, which she is now telling us to keep our ears and eyes closed to avoid facing reality. I emailed her to say he already did make that film, and it was called Anchorman 2.