Rachmaninov is best known for his Prelude in C-sharp minor, which he composed at age 19. He lost his land during the Bolshevik revolution and subsequently fled Russia for the United States, though he was consoled by an estate he managed to buy in Switzerland. He died in 1943, and his wish to be buried at his Swiss estate could never be fulfilled because of the ravages of the Second World War.

Rachmaninov on Rachmaninov, Prelude in C-sharp Minor.

Rachmaninov on Chopin, Nocturne in E-flat.

Mr. Rachmaninov's Neighborhood

“There’s no need to be divorced from the current time and place in an effort to hearken back to bygone eras when there’s still such vital art to be made in the present…Don’t call an ambulance, there’s no need for resuscitation, because this music is alive and animated.”

He was tearing into McCain like I’ve never seen anyone torn into before.  Unfortunately, this minute or so blurb doesn’t relay the full rancor of Letterman’s attacks.  It was clear this was a personal issue for him.  He deeply respects John McCain and I think that he is feeling what most independent minded Americans are feeling from McCain: total betrayal through stunning incompetence.

Finding a live feed of McCain getting ready to talk to Katie Couric when he told Letterman he has to “rush back to Washington” was just dumping kerosene all over the inferno.  Dave didn’t let him off the hook all night.

Seeing as late night was on a roll, I stayed tuned in for Craig Ferguson.  I can’t wait for Conan to take Leno’s spot so I can watch Ferguson more often.  His show is completely powered by his personality, an energy source that seems inexhaustible.  Anyway, he had his own fair share of political words for he evening, venting about the bank bail out and McCain’s ridiculous campaign suspension.

Strange times.

On a side note, I wonder if it is still acceptable to reference The Onion for everything when the Stuff White People Like blog has just written about our love of… referencing the Onion for everything.

It’s important to take lessons from the past, recognize patterns where they exist (and acknowledge where they don’t), and make educated plans for the future.  It is reckless, and a mistake oft repeated, to seize on a model and apply it wholesale to new conditions.  This is best illustrated in the arena of armed conflict.

The Atlantic points out how the apparent success, and political popularity, of the Petraeus Doctrine is reshaping the future of the army. The Petraeus Doctrine was overdue for Iraq, there is no denying that.  If civilian leaders had done any research on Iraq, or any history at all, they would have recognized the need for a counterinsurgency plan and an occupational strategy.  As it was, the army was forced to reinvent itself on the fly, and what a testament it is to the soldiers and officers that they were able to do this.  That being said, it’s in danger of going too far.

Undoubtedly, the Patraeus Doctrine will help the army avoid a similar shock in the future.  But the article points out the dangers of seeing the Doctrine as an end in itself for armed forces.  It’s most vocal opponent deserves to be listened to, fearing:

that an infatuation with stability operations will lead the Army to reinvent itself as “a constabulary,” adept perhaps at nation-building but shorn of adequate capacity for conventional war-fighting.

While it is important that the army be ready to take on all situations, and all aspects of war, it should not put slack on the most basic abilities in order to refocus the battle to hearts and minds.  It needs to be remembered that before the stage of “winning hearts and minds,” one needs to conquerer hearts and minds, armed with weapons, and shooting them at our soldiers.

I take issues with Gentile’s assertion that Abrams’ strategy wouldn’t work in Vietnam.  I think the evidence currently supports the claim that, with continued funding (and no American soldiers) victory was possible.  That being said, I understand his defense of this position.  Strategy is not always strictly about “victory,” it’s also about cutting losses.  If the army is being geared to fight long wars, it will fight long wars, even when they are best avoided altogether.

Ultimately, the goal of the army must be the protection of Americans, and that includes the soldiers who serve it.  Rigid plans to fight past wars will not accomplish this.  The army should absorb the Patraeus Doctrine like a sponge and let it soak alongside the Powell Doctrine before it decides to wring it all out. The army needs to be flexible and ready to adapt, not stiff and forced to adapt.

Better yet, their civilian bosses should remember the Washington Farewell Doctrine.

I offer a selection from Archibald MacLeish’s 1948 poem, “Brave New World” for reflection and consideration.  In addition to a poet, MacLeish was a journalist, Assisstant Secretary of State, and Librarian of Congress.  He was not an ivory tower wordsmith.

But you, Thomas Jefferson,

You could not lie so still,

You could not bear the weight of stone

On the quiet hill,

You could not keep your green grown peace

Nor hold your folded hand

If you could see your new world now,

Your new sweet land.

There was a time, Tom Jefferson,

When freedom made free men.

The new found earth and the new freed mind

Were brothers then.

There was a time when tyrants feared

The new world of the free.

Now freedom is afraid and shrieks

At tyranny.

Words have not changed their sense so soon

Nor tyranny grown new.

The truths you held, Tom Jefferson,

Will still hold true.

What’s changed is freedom in this age.

What great men dared to choose

Sall men now dare neither win

Nor lose.

Freedom, when men fear freedom’s use

But love its useful name,

Has cause and cause enough for fear

And cause for shame.

We fought a war in freedom’s name

And won it in our own.

We fought to free a world and raised

A wall of stone.

Your countrymen who could have built

The hill fires of the free

To set the dry world all ablaze

With liberty–

Your countrymen who could have hurled

Their freedom like a brand

Have cupped it to a candle spark

In a frightened hand.

Freedom that was a thing to use

They’ve made a thing to save

And staked it in and fenced it round

Like a dead man’s grave.

You, Thomas Jefferson,

You could not lie so still,

You could not bear the weight of stone

On your green hill,

You could not hold your angry tongue

If you could see how bold

The old stale bitter world plays new–

And the new world old.

“We did the Google and found out more than we needed to know about it,” [Superintendent] Klein said.

He said “the Google”!  What an old person!

***

Beware.  One day, saying, “the Google”, along with “the rap music” etc, will shift from ironic hilarity to accepted usage.

As a nation, though, I’m not so sure civil debates are possible.  In The Atlantic this month, James Fallows has watched all the debates of the campaigning season, a staggering 47, in an effort to see if there is any value in a candidates rhetoric vis-a-vis his or her campaign and potentially competency. The result is more telling about the current standard we the people hold our moderators and the press to than any true insight into candidates perceived abilities.  CNN and ABC have a considerable amount to be ashamed of.

I don’t quite know how to express my disgust at hand-raising yes or no questions.  What does that tell me about what a candidate thinks?  Or, more importantly from what a debate reveals, how a candidate thinks.  We are, after all, looking at someone to lead us and make decisions.  I want to know how he or she will make these decisions, not how he or she will raise a hand so that lazy journalists can opine with simpler efficiency.  I picture this leading to a culturally vapid future where our great leaders are sculpted in marble with their heroic hands thrust high in the air indicating yes, or, gasp, no.

As sensationalist as that is, the true show stopper is the complete lack of consistency or reasoning from (who else) Fox News analysts.  No one makes a better argument for the perils of free speech than this station.  The humor of the Daily Show presents hypocrisy with hilarity, but after the laughs are over, we should grumble at the sad feeling in the pit of our stomachs.

There is asbolutely no desire here to be consistent in reasoning. What saddens me is that the viewership of this station, instead of being insulted by its disregard for their intelligence, is sated by the constant stream of exactly what they want to hear.

The true loser in this affair are actual conservatives who hold to the republican party’s root values of limited government and individual self-reliance.  More and more, the voice of that party is verbal morphine.  Why look for yourself, why hear for yourself, why think for yourself, when someone can tell you what you want to hear?  Is it an exact contradiction of what you wanted to hear 3 months ago?  So what.

The sad irony behind this is that it is just this kind of easy-answer rhetoric that is the root of the problems its perpetrators are attacking.  It serves to disrupt the flow of news.  This is not reporting, because that would require thinking for oneself.  Everything broadcast here is intended as thinking for everyone else.  Independent ideas are a product of freedom, it’s probably about time people seize on that.  I can’t help but recall a campfire conversation from Easy Rider.

Billy: What the hell is wrong with freedom?  That’s what it’s all about

George: Oh, yeah, that’s right. That’s what’s it’s all about, all right. But talkin’ about it and bein’ it, that’s two different things. I mean, it’s real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don’t ever tell anybody that they’re not free, ’cause then they’re gonna get real busy killin’ and maimin’ to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they’re gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom.

This perfectly hits every one of my problems with the Palin selection. Regardless of questions of her experience and ability, what this reveals is how backwards McCain’s team’s thought process functions (if it functions at all).

You HAVE the republican vote. You NEED the independent vote. Who the hell is advising this man? How do you not choose Tom Ridge? Do people really think that Pro-Life republican voters are going to be so angry they’ll vote for pro-choice democrats?

Talk about getting the paradigm wrong. Karl Rove has left in his odious wake the most moronic disciples around. Kind of reminds me of the Monty Python monks chanting and smacking their faces with books.