My loss of trust began with the assassination of JFK In Dallas. The theologian Marcus Borg would say that I was in a state of pre-critical naivete until then. I was raised as a patriot and believed that America was great and good (still do), and the people were too (still do). My significant adults has told me so and I believed it with my whole heart. Before JFK was elected, many voices were raised against him for a variety of reasons including that he was Catholic. But as President, he won me over on civil rights (however reluctantly he supported it), the Cuban Missile Crisis and his contagious optimism about my country, the USA. His murder shook my belief in this country to its foundation. How could anyone take it upon themselves to just shoot the President because they disagreed with him?
All the talk about this or that conspiracy just made it worse. The worst part was how some folks thought that was right. One kid told me that afternoon, "It's good that he was shot. He was an N... lover anyway." Another said, "He got what was coming to him." I never forgot those kids or their words. Some even called it a national loss of trust and innocence. The great historian Arthur Schlesinger asks how a nation built by running native peoples from their homes and enslaving others can be innocent. I don't know about a national loss of trust or innocence. What I experienced was intensely personal.
Next we endured Johnson administration and the RFK and MLK assassinations. I have to concede that it took a rascal like LBJ to pass Civil rights legislation and that is to his credit. His downfall was Viet Nam. When he came into office, there were something like 25,000 US troops in Viet Nam. At the end there were 500,000. When he decided not to run, I said "good", but I was soon to regret that sentiment.
Then came Richard Nixon. There was something about him that I didn't like from the start. As it turned out, he was about as twisted as any man who ever held the office of president. He came in at a time when confidence could have been restored, but he was not up to the task. Watergate was just the culmination of his secretive and paranoid leadership in the White House. It's bad enough that they broke the law, but they did it in an election that was not close at any time. Worst of all, they tried to cover it up and lie out of it. His resignation and all the revelations about his role in Watergate really took a toll on public trust in Presidency.
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were both good men and tried hard. President Ford came into a crisis and tried to heal the wounds of the nation, but they were just too deep. Many faulted him for pardoning Nixon, including myself, but I now believe it was the right thing to do. President Carter may be the finest human being ever to occupy the Oval Office. I thought we could get a good Christian man in there and everything would improve. Alas, he was in over his head, proving that being a good Christian does not necessarily make one a good president.
We got a good dose of confidence and trust with Ronald Reagan. He helped the nation believe in the greatness of the USA and he had the foresight to initiate events which eventually brought down the USSR. For that I give him credit. Iran Contra scandal hurt his reputation some, but he left office in good shape. Bush 41 tried to follow in Reagan's steps, but his "read my lips" broken promise did him in. He gets credit for properly executing the first Gulf War, although many blame him for not finishing the job and increasing the probability of having to return.
Bill Clinton squandered a great opportunity to forge a new path with his manifold personal problems. For that indiscretion, he was impeached. He gets credit for a good economy but could not overcome the loss of confidence brought on by his personal failures. He left office with high approval ratings and still enjoys them today, but he disappointed many, including me, who believe his selfishness kept him from a good, if not great, Presidency.
Bush 43 struggled after the disputed election in 2000. That election disabused us of the notion that our votes don't count. Right now, his administration looks incompetent to me, but well leave that to history to judge. Like Reagan, he might turn out to be right about some things we now think he was wrong about. He gets credit for his response immediately after 9/11. Let's just say he didn't increase my trust and confidence in the Presidency after that.
Now we have President Obama. It's too early to know how this one will work out, but there is no disputing that he does not have the trust and confidence of at least some of the citizens of this great country. What he does from now will either change that perception or not. As with all of them, there are some minds who are so fixed on the negative, that they will never accept him as President. But we must, because he is in office and will be there for four years. Furthermore, we need him to succeed because we need the country to succeed, more now that in my memory.
I just don't get this pulling for the elected President to fail. How does that help us or our standing in the world?
I freely admit that I have deep reservations about the deficits we've been running now for nine years and will for years to come. At some point those bills have to come due. I am not convinced that now is the right time for big health care reform, but I know and love people who can't get coverage from their employer, or afford it for themselves. Are those people less deserving of health care than rich and poor Americans? I don't think so. I'm not saying anyone should capitulate and keep silent about reservations and concerns they have. I am saying that we need leaders who will tone down the rhetoric and get to work solving these difficult and complex problems for the American people.
That brings me to my point. All of the above men were elected President by the people of the country according to the Constitution. They were all legitimately elected, although you can still get into an argument about 2000. When I grew up I was taught in school about the concept of loyal opposition. When your guy loses, you move on and get ready for the next election. You keep speaking your truth but you do not make personal attacks in public on Presidents, especially on foreign soil. I didn't like it when the Dixie Chicks did it, and I didn't like it when Sarah Palin did it recently in Japan. When that happens both he and the nation are undermined both here and abroad. That my friends makes a dangerous world even more dangerous. Does the first amendment protect that speech? Absolutely! It just is not helpful. Lord knows I love political debate and satire from both sides more than most people, but the heat and viciousness of some of the current rhetoric from both ends of the spectrum are profoundly disturbing.
Is the job of the President too big? Are the divisions within the country so great that they cannot be bridged with thoughtful compromise? Are international problems so complex that they cannot be solved? Can anyone restore confidence in the Presidency? I sure hope so, because as Lincoln once said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand."
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
A Long Time Coming
A movie that means something. Not too long ago, I told Carolyn that I wanted a movie that means something. I don't know whether we were leaving Inglourious Basterds, District 9, or Extract.
To recap, Inglourious Basterds as about bashing Nazis, literally. Brad Pitt leads a group of Jewish soldiers in WW II that went around capturing and killing Nazis, sometimes by beating them with a Louisville Slugger. It could have had a deeper meaning but it didn't. District 9 was sci-fi and was about, I kid you not, shrimp. An alien spacecraft lands in South Africa and gets stranded. The aliens are put into a ghetto and ten years pass. They looked like shrimp and were called, "Prawns." Sci-fi is not my cup of tea, but this movie ruined me for seafood for a while. Extract was about, well, extract; you know,vanilla, almond, strawberry extract. In it, the character played by Justin Bateman, owns an extract factory and pays a pool boy to sleep with his wife so he can get with an employee without guilt. Again, about as stupid as you can get. Don't get me wrong, I love dumb, clever movies like Dumb and Dumber. These were just plain dumb.
This weekend my wish came true when we went to see Tyler Perry's I Can Be Bad All By Myself. First of all, it is hysterically funny. Madea is her usual self and her mutilation of the language and comical threats cause many LOL moments. This movie contains absolutely wonderful and transcendent musical moments. The story takes place in a church and a blues club in a downtown neighborhood. Performing in the movie are Gladys Knight, Mary J. Blige, and a gospel choir led by Clarence Wynans. You even get a brief sermon in the movie, and if you are not careful, you will leave the theater feeling a little Pentecostal. I'm just sayin'. The best aspect of the movie is the story itself. Of course, Tyler Perry plays Madea when three children break into her house and she catches them. Taraji P. Henson plays Aunt April, who is thrust into taking care of three children when the grandmother dies. Her life is a mess, but a good man and the Good Lord bring her around. I promise you that you'll have several good belly laughs, and that you will cry at some points in this terrific movie. I guess that's why it's classified as a comedy/drama. If you haven't yet, go see this one.
To recap, Inglourious Basterds as about bashing Nazis, literally. Brad Pitt leads a group of Jewish soldiers in WW II that went around capturing and killing Nazis, sometimes by beating them with a Louisville Slugger. It could have had a deeper meaning but it didn't. District 9 was sci-fi and was about, I kid you not, shrimp. An alien spacecraft lands in South Africa and gets stranded. The aliens are put into a ghetto and ten years pass. They looked like shrimp and were called, "Prawns." Sci-fi is not my cup of tea, but this movie ruined me for seafood for a while. Extract was about, well, extract; you know,vanilla, almond, strawberry extract. In it, the character played by Justin Bateman, owns an extract factory and pays a pool boy to sleep with his wife so he can get with an employee without guilt. Again, about as stupid as you can get. Don't get me wrong, I love dumb, clever movies like Dumb and Dumber. These were just plain dumb.
This weekend my wish came true when we went to see Tyler Perry's I Can Be Bad All By Myself. First of all, it is hysterically funny. Madea is her usual self and her mutilation of the language and comical threats cause many LOL moments. This movie contains absolutely wonderful and transcendent musical moments. The story takes place in a church and a blues club in a downtown neighborhood. Performing in the movie are Gladys Knight, Mary J. Blige, and a gospel choir led by Clarence Wynans. You even get a brief sermon in the movie, and if you are not careful, you will leave the theater feeling a little Pentecostal. I'm just sayin'. The best aspect of the movie is the story itself. Of course, Tyler Perry plays Madea when three children break into her house and she catches them. Taraji P. Henson plays Aunt April, who is thrust into taking care of three children when the grandmother dies. Her life is a mess, but a good man and the Good Lord bring her around. I promise you that you'll have several good belly laughs, and that you will cry at some points in this terrific movie. I guess that's why it's classified as a comedy/drama. If you haven't yet, go see this one.
The Loss of Trust
When I was a kid I paid no attention to politics in general and presidents in particular. I was too busy digging in dirt and climbing trees. My family was very vocal about presidential politics, so I learned about FDR, Harry Truman, and Ike from my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles.
In Pop Hayes' house a picture of FDR hung in the bedroom. He lived through the Great Depression and World War II with FDR and idolized him, not unlike many of your family members. He was a yellow dog Democrat in the truest sense of the term. The story is told that stayed up all night agonizing about voting for Kennedy because he was Catholic and was convinced, like most of the adults in my life, that JFK would run the country as directed by the Pope. On the other hand, voting Republican would mean disrespecting the legacy of FDR. That was the irrational fear of the time, but it was palpable in my world. I still don't know what he decided to do, but I suspect he swallowed hard and voted for Kennedy. Near the end of his life, while visiting him in the hospital, he told me, "Never vote Republican. Lincoln was he last good one and it's been downhill ever since." Opinions vary as to whether it was dementia or a moment of clarity. He'd be disappointed to know that I have ignored his advice on numerous occasions, but affirmed that I have regretted it at least some of the time.
They all loved Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Truman was honest as the day is long, and he brought a swift and decisive conclusion to World War II. They knew then what we know now - without Truman's use of the A Bomb, countless more American lives would be lost invading Japan. They didn't like that he dismissed General McArthur when he got too big for his britches, and they disapproved of his cussing. At the end of the day, they trusted his judgement and his motives.
The same for Eisenhower. Being a war hero didn't hurt, and he brought a sense of stability to a nation weary of war. He was the perfect man for the Cold War at that time. He built roads and kept us out of war with Russia. Like many of his WWII counterparts, he simply came home, built a life, and built a nation. It's been said that Ike would have made a great Democrat and that Kennedy would have made a great Republican. I think our current loss of trust and confidence in the Presidency began to some degree after Eisenhower, came to full bloom with Nixon, and has evolved to the point that we don't trust anyone. More about that in the next blog.
In Pop Hayes' house a picture of FDR hung in the bedroom. He lived through the Great Depression and World War II with FDR and idolized him, not unlike many of your family members. He was a yellow dog Democrat in the truest sense of the term. The story is told that stayed up all night agonizing about voting for Kennedy because he was Catholic and was convinced, like most of the adults in my life, that JFK would run the country as directed by the Pope. On the other hand, voting Republican would mean disrespecting the legacy of FDR. That was the irrational fear of the time, but it was palpable in my world. I still don't know what he decided to do, but I suspect he swallowed hard and voted for Kennedy. Near the end of his life, while visiting him in the hospital, he told me, "Never vote Republican. Lincoln was he last good one and it's been downhill ever since." Opinions vary as to whether it was dementia or a moment of clarity. He'd be disappointed to know that I have ignored his advice on numerous occasions, but affirmed that I have regretted it at least some of the time.
They all loved Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Truman was honest as the day is long, and he brought a swift and decisive conclusion to World War II. They knew then what we know now - without Truman's use of the A Bomb, countless more American lives would be lost invading Japan. They didn't like that he dismissed General McArthur when he got too big for his britches, and they disapproved of his cussing. At the end of the day, they trusted his judgement and his motives.
The same for Eisenhower. Being a war hero didn't hurt, and he brought a sense of stability to a nation weary of war. He was the perfect man for the Cold War at that time. He built roads and kept us out of war with Russia. Like many of his WWII counterparts, he simply came home, built a life, and built a nation. It's been said that Ike would have made a great Democrat and that Kennedy would have made a great Republican. I think our current loss of trust and confidence in the Presidency began to some degree after Eisenhower, came to full bloom with Nixon, and has evolved to the point that we don't trust anyone. More about that in the next blog.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
One More Thing..
to say about Senator Ted Kennedy. I've never been a big fan of Ted Kennedy. His brothers John and Robert, absolutely. Next to them, he always looked like a lightweight in every respect, but the real reason is that the incident at Chappaquiddick left a bad taste that never went away. I concede that part of that may be the way he has been demonized for decades by political opponents. It's been said that Ted Kennedy raised more money that any senate candidate in history, about half for himself and about half for Republicans.
Nevertheless, the coverage of his death last week reinforced something I already knew to an extent, but had minimized. Senator Kennedy was eulogized by political opponents who were his friends. Senators McCain and Hatch spoke glowingly of their late friend in very personal terms. In this age of daily harangues about this or that political figure on some issue, the late senator had made friends across the aisle with people with whom he differed on almost all issues. As far as I could tell, he did it in three ways. First, he befriended everyone in the Senate where he worked for all those years. Story after story was told of personal involvement by Senator Kennedy in the lives of other Senators when they needed him. Too few people in any profession make the effort to be friendly and supportive of those with whom they work. Here lately, it seems that almost no one in public life makes the effort. Second, he worked with many political opponents such as President Bush on NCLB, McCain, and Hatch on the Children's Health Program. In other words, he was willing to compromise to get legislation passed to benefit the country. I wish more leaders were willing to be like Ted Kennedy in that respect. Third, he did the work necessary to get his personal life straightened out, mainly by marrying a good woman to get him on track, not unlike many of the rest of us.
If we can have one legacy from Ted Kennedy, let it be that we can disagree with respect, then befriend and work with those with whom we differ.
Nevertheless, the coverage of his death last week reinforced something I already knew to an extent, but had minimized. Senator Kennedy was eulogized by political opponents who were his friends. Senators McCain and Hatch spoke glowingly of their late friend in very personal terms. In this age of daily harangues about this or that political figure on some issue, the late senator had made friends across the aisle with people with whom he differed on almost all issues. As far as I could tell, he did it in three ways. First, he befriended everyone in the Senate where he worked for all those years. Story after story was told of personal involvement by Senator Kennedy in the lives of other Senators when they needed him. Too few people in any profession make the effort to be friendly and supportive of those with whom they work. Here lately, it seems that almost no one in public life makes the effort. Second, he worked with many political opponents such as President Bush on NCLB, McCain, and Hatch on the Children's Health Program. In other words, he was willing to compromise to get legislation passed to benefit the country. I wish more leaders were willing to be like Ted Kennedy in that respect. Third, he did the work necessary to get his personal life straightened out, mainly by marrying a good woman to get him on track, not unlike many of the rest of us.
If we can have one legacy from Ted Kennedy, let it be that we can disagree with respect, then befriend and work with those with whom we differ.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Usain Bolt! WOW!
First view the videos of Usain Bolt at the World Games in Berlin this week. The first one is in German, but the audio of the race is not important. If you listen to anything, listen to the reaction of the crowds. As Jerry Lee Lewis once said, "Sometimes it's just God-given ability."
http://www.casttv.com/video/6gyxmd1/100m-lauf-mnner-2009-berlin-video
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/20082009/58/lightning-bolt-takes-gold-berlin.html
What a performance in Berlin this week by Usain Bolt! The Jamaican sprinter torched the best sprinters in the world and broke two world records in the process in the Olympic Stadium where Jesse Owens humiliated Adolph Hitler in the 1936 Olympic games. How dominant is Usain Bolt? Well, the second place sprinter in the 100 meter race, the USA's Tyson Gay, broke the US record, running the fastest time EVER, other than those run by Usain Bolt. The third place sprinter was only .01 seconds behind him and is a former world record holder. Like his performances in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, he seemed to coast at the end of world record performances. Sprints are events that have separations between competitors of hundredths of seconds. They are over in a flash. Watching these videos, especially in the 200 Meter, no one is in the picture with Bolt. He crosses the finish line with ease, usually looking at the clock. How does he do it? Good question. Surely, there is a rigorous training regimen for an athlete like this. I don't know what his is, but an athlete does not do the things he does without some good, old fashioned hard work. Id like to believe that, but maybe it's jsut like Jerry Lee said, "God-given ability."
Looking at him, you can see that he is taller than his competitors by a significant margin. My friend and colleague Greg Bibb would call him an anomaly. Sprinters are short and compact and generate an enormous amount of power in their lower bodies. Bolt is 6'5" and looks more like a college basketball small forward than a sprinter. He generates plenty of power in his lower body all right, but it is effortless and graceful compared to the other sprinters. His long stride uses that power to eat up yardage much faster than his shorter, more compact competition. Is he unbeatable? Right now, I have to say yes. He may break his own records for a while.
But his records are meant to be broken like most are. Athletes of all kinds are bigger, stronger, faster than ever, and I do not believe that trend will end soon. The next phenom will emerge. Prenatal and neo-natal care are improving by leaps and bounds. Nutrition and training, not mention quality coaching at an early age all make the breaking of these records inevitable - someday.
If you want to talk dominance in sports, you have Tiger, Lance Armstrong before the cancer, Roger Federer, and others, but no one dominates their sport like Usain Bolt. Now view the videos again and marvel at the power and grace of this extraordinary athlete.
http://www.casttv.com/video/6gyxmd1/100m-lauf-mnner-2009-berlin-video
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/20082009/58/lightning-bolt-takes-gold-berlin.html
What a performance in Berlin this week by Usain Bolt! The Jamaican sprinter torched the best sprinters in the world and broke two world records in the process in the Olympic Stadium where Jesse Owens humiliated Adolph Hitler in the 1936 Olympic games. How dominant is Usain Bolt? Well, the second place sprinter in the 100 meter race, the USA's Tyson Gay, broke the US record, running the fastest time EVER, other than those run by Usain Bolt. The third place sprinter was only .01 seconds behind him and is a former world record holder. Like his performances in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, he seemed to coast at the end of world record performances. Sprints are events that have separations between competitors of hundredths of seconds. They are over in a flash. Watching these videos, especially in the 200 Meter, no one is in the picture with Bolt. He crosses the finish line with ease, usually looking at the clock. How does he do it? Good question. Surely, there is a rigorous training regimen for an athlete like this. I don't know what his is, but an athlete does not do the things he does without some good, old fashioned hard work. Id like to believe that, but maybe it's jsut like Jerry Lee said, "God-given ability."
Looking at him, you can see that he is taller than his competitors by a significant margin. My friend and colleague Greg Bibb would call him an anomaly. Sprinters are short and compact and generate an enormous amount of power in their lower bodies. Bolt is 6'5" and looks more like a college basketball small forward than a sprinter. He generates plenty of power in his lower body all right, but it is effortless and graceful compared to the other sprinters. His long stride uses that power to eat up yardage much faster than his shorter, more compact competition. Is he unbeatable? Right now, I have to say yes. He may break his own records for a while.
But his records are meant to be broken like most are. Athletes of all kinds are bigger, stronger, faster than ever, and I do not believe that trend will end soon. The next phenom will emerge. Prenatal and neo-natal care are improving by leaps and bounds. Nutrition and training, not mention quality coaching at an early age all make the breaking of these records inevitable - someday.
If you want to talk dominance in sports, you have Tiger, Lance Armstrong before the cancer, Roger Federer, and others, but no one dominates their sport like Usain Bolt. Now view the videos again and marvel at the power and grace of this extraordinary athlete.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Peace, Love, and Rock & Roll
Settling in to my reality as daytime house husband and nighttime childcare provider has left me with a little time for more trivial pursuits. Lately, one of the chief trivial pursuits is taking in all the stuff about the 40th anniversary of Woodstock. To be clear, I was not at Woodstock, nor would I have been had I had the opportunity. First, it was in Upstate New York, but it might as well have been in Tibet. My little world in August of 1969 consisted of Pickens and Oconee Counties in South Carolina, and was soon to include Tampa, Fl. I knew about civil rights, the assassinations of King and Kennedy the year before, and Viet Nam through television. I had an acute sense of the turbulence of the times, but I had not yet begun to travel. Besides, Upstate New York is off the beaten path even today. Ever been to Cooperstown for the Baseball Hall of Fame? Cooperstown is "far out" there and you drive by the Woodstock site on the way. By the way, we didn't even stop. Cooperstown was my destination that day. Secondly, while I had my rebellious side, I was never a hippie. I knew hippies, but I wasn't one. Finally, convincing my parents that it was a good idea for me to go to Woodstock, had I even known about it in advance, would have been akin to convincing my grandfather Pop Hayes later that men had actually walked on the moon. He firmly believed that the "walk" had taken place in Arizona or New Mexico. As far as I know he believed that until the day he died.
My viewing has included a Dateline Special on NBC, a documentary on the History Channel, and a concert film in the Palladia TV network in glorious 1080p HD and Surround Sound. I have to say that was my favorite so far. More about that later. I plan to see the movie about Woodstock with Eugene Levy. First, think about it - A Dateline special and a History Channel documentary. For all of the mythology and hype about Woodstock and its effect on the youth of the nation, the idealized notion that everything was peace, love and rock & roll is ludicrous. Sure, the music was great, but the logistical mess was difficult to miss. Food, facilities, medical care, shelter were all in short supply. Drugs of all kinds were not. No doubt that many lives were changed for the worse at Woodstock. It was a financial disaster until now. It was, however, a unique event in American history, and it did have a fromative effect on youth in the midst of the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements. It is also true that some were changed for the better. Two of the stories from Dateline and the History Channel involved couples who met and fell in love at Woodstock. Then they were married and remain married to this day. The social impact was a mixed bag; some profound, some mundane, some good, some bad. Most attendees went on to lead normal lives, while others did not. But it was not the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Some stayed there figuratively, and at least two literally stayed there and live there today. Don't ask me why. There are a lot of things I don't know, and I don't understand all I know. For me, the musical legacy of Woodstock interests me far more than in the social legacy.
If you love rock & roll, you gotta love the music from Woodstock. The established groups of the 60's were all there and performed (minus the Beatles). John Sebastian, Jefferson Airplane, the Grateful Dead, the Who, Jimi Hendrix and Janice Joplin were the headliners. Hendrix was as awesome a talent as rock has ever seen, and his rendition of the national anthem is legendary - whether you love it or hate it. Arlo Guthrie (who sang "Amazing Grace"), Richie Havens, and the crystal clear voice of Joan Baez performed from the folk and protest music genre. And think about the breakout performances that happened there. Crosby, Stills, and Nash (no Young yet) performed for the second time ever at Woodstock. Graham Nash once quipped that the Earth would have tilted on its axis if everyone who says they were at Woodstock had actually been there. Sha Na Na, Sly and the Family Stone, the Allman Brothers all electrified the audience and went on to long careers. Far and away, my favorite breakout performance was Santana and "Soul Survivor." That performance lit the festival-goers on fire and left them burning. As great as the music was, its legacy is mixed as well. Many of the artists died young from drug overdose and other risky behaviors, never reaching their full potential. Indeed, both Hendrix and Joplin were dead within a year. Many more battled, and some defeated, addiction as well.
For all of the attention to the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, it remains like other events in American history, subject to interpretation. Some believe it was the height of the protest movement, full of peace, love and beauty. There's an element of thuth to that view. Others believe it was the height of debauchery, ruining lives with drugs and promiscuity. That's true, too. Probably, the reality is somewhere in between.
My viewing has included a Dateline Special on NBC, a documentary on the History Channel, and a concert film in the Palladia TV network in glorious 1080p HD and Surround Sound. I have to say that was my favorite so far. More about that later. I plan to see the movie about Woodstock with Eugene Levy. First, think about it - A Dateline special and a History Channel documentary. For all of the mythology and hype about Woodstock and its effect on the youth of the nation, the idealized notion that everything was peace, love and rock & roll is ludicrous. Sure, the music was great, but the logistical mess was difficult to miss. Food, facilities, medical care, shelter were all in short supply. Drugs of all kinds were not. No doubt that many lives were changed for the worse at Woodstock. It was a financial disaster until now. It was, however, a unique event in American history, and it did have a fromative effect on youth in the midst of the Civil Rights and Anti-War movements. It is also true that some were changed for the better. Two of the stories from Dateline and the History Channel involved couples who met and fell in love at Woodstock. Then they were married and remain married to this day. The social impact was a mixed bag; some profound, some mundane, some good, some bad. Most attendees went on to lead normal lives, while others did not. But it was not the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Some stayed there figuratively, and at least two literally stayed there and live there today. Don't ask me why. There are a lot of things I don't know, and I don't understand all I know. For me, the musical legacy of Woodstock interests me far more than in the social legacy.
If you love rock & roll, you gotta love the music from Woodstock. The established groups of the 60's were all there and performed (minus the Beatles). John Sebastian, Jefferson Airplane, the Grateful Dead, the Who, Jimi Hendrix and Janice Joplin were the headliners. Hendrix was as awesome a talent as rock has ever seen, and his rendition of the national anthem is legendary - whether you love it or hate it. Arlo Guthrie (who sang "Amazing Grace"), Richie Havens, and the crystal clear voice of Joan Baez performed from the folk and protest music genre. And think about the breakout performances that happened there. Crosby, Stills, and Nash (no Young yet) performed for the second time ever at Woodstock. Graham Nash once quipped that the Earth would have tilted on its axis if everyone who says they were at Woodstock had actually been there. Sha Na Na, Sly and the Family Stone, the Allman Brothers all electrified the audience and went on to long careers. Far and away, my favorite breakout performance was Santana and "Soul Survivor." That performance lit the festival-goers on fire and left them burning. As great as the music was, its legacy is mixed as well. Many of the artists died young from drug overdose and other risky behaviors, never reaching their full potential. Indeed, both Hendrix and Joplin were dead within a year. Many more battled, and some defeated, addiction as well.
For all of the attention to the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, it remains like other events in American history, subject to interpretation. Some believe it was the height of the protest movement, full of peace, love and beauty. There's an element of thuth to that view. Others believe it was the height of debauchery, ruining lives with drugs and promiscuity. That's true, too. Probably, the reality is somewhere in between.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Just Back From Charleston
As many of you know, Charleston, SC is one of the best cities to visit anywhere. Full of history and charm, it bustles like a larger city and feels like a smaller one because it is so compact. We did no buggy ride, no harbor cruise, and no plantation visits. We did visit the market and we did eat. One of the best things about Charleston is the cuisine. You cannot throw a rock in Charleston without hitting a great restaurant. The Blossom, the Magnolia, Hyman's Seafood, the Wreck, Poogan's Porch, and Sullivan's all come to mind. On our laid-back weekend there, I rediscovered an old favorite and enjoyed a Charleston landmark restaurant for the first time.
The old favorite is the Sweetwater Cafe on Market Street, a half block west of the Meeting Street. Despite its location in the heart of tourist Charleston, Sweetwater is a favorite of local people for breakfast and lunch. I found out about it several years back while on a business trip. It is always full but the waiting is limited most of the time. I've never been for lunch, but I have enjoyed breakfast there on many occasions. The breakfast menu is varied and reasonably priced. While a traditional menu, it offers such delicacies as a shrimp omelet and that Low Country classic shrimp and grits. The shrimp and grits are the finest anywhere, perfectly spiced with a great pepper gravy and succulent shrimp.
The new found landmark would be Jestine's Kitchen on Meeting Street. I have driven or walked by this restaurant probably two dozen times when in Charleston and always said I'd try it sometime. It never worked out because I'm always looking for seafood when there. Jestine's Kitchen is all about Low Country Southern home cooking. If you want something fried, Jestine's is the place to go. It will make you think of you grandma's house, because the food is wonderful and the portions are generous. Carolyn had fried chicken, which she shared, and I had fried shrimp. Both were outstanding, and vegetables menu (including mac and cheese) was excellent too. All of us Oconee folks know the finest fried chicken anywhere can be found at the Walhalla Steakhouse. But let me tell you, Jestine's is not far behind, tender and juicy and full of flavor. When it came time for dessert, the choices were varied and the food was killer good. I recommend the lemon custard pie or the coconut cream pie.
Needless to say, don't think you are going to Jestine's and cut back on calories. It ain't happening. Be prepared to stand in line about anytime you go. It's small, and recent exposure in Southern Living and on Rachel Ray's 40 Dollars a Day television show have raised the national profile of an establishment familiar to native Charlestonians for years. Next time you have the good fortune to visit this jewel of a city, try these two fine culinary establishments. I am confident that you will not be disappointed.
The old favorite is the Sweetwater Cafe on Market Street, a half block west of the Meeting Street. Despite its location in the heart of tourist Charleston, Sweetwater is a favorite of local people for breakfast and lunch. I found out about it several years back while on a business trip. It is always full but the waiting is limited most of the time. I've never been for lunch, but I have enjoyed breakfast there on many occasions. The breakfast menu is varied and reasonably priced. While a traditional menu, it offers such delicacies as a shrimp omelet and that Low Country classic shrimp and grits. The shrimp and grits are the finest anywhere, perfectly spiced with a great pepper gravy and succulent shrimp.
The new found landmark would be Jestine's Kitchen on Meeting Street. I have driven or walked by this restaurant probably two dozen times when in Charleston and always said I'd try it sometime. It never worked out because I'm always looking for seafood when there. Jestine's Kitchen is all about Low Country Southern home cooking. If you want something fried, Jestine's is the place to go. It will make you think of you grandma's house, because the food is wonderful and the portions are generous. Carolyn had fried chicken, which she shared, and I had fried shrimp. Both were outstanding, and vegetables menu (including mac and cheese) was excellent too. All of us Oconee folks know the finest fried chicken anywhere can be found at the Walhalla Steakhouse. But let me tell you, Jestine's is not far behind, tender and juicy and full of flavor. When it came time for dessert, the choices were varied and the food was killer good. I recommend the lemon custard pie or the coconut cream pie.
Needless to say, don't think you are going to Jestine's and cut back on calories. It ain't happening. Be prepared to stand in line about anytime you go. It's small, and recent exposure in Southern Living and on Rachel Ray's 40 Dollars a Day television show have raised the national profile of an establishment familiar to native Charlestonians for years. Next time you have the good fortune to visit this jewel of a city, try these two fine culinary establishments. I am confident that you will not be disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)