I must admit that I really like Bernie Sanders' newest campaign ad, the one that uses the song "America" by Simon & Garfunkel (and yes, he got their permission to use it). I'm not the only one who is impressed-- even some of his political opponents agree that this ad is beautifully done, whether you support Mr. Sanders or not. If you haven't seen it, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug
When I first saw it, the ad reminded me in some ways of Ronald Reagan's classic 1984 political ad "Morning in America." It evoked some of the same emotions-- people who are going about their lives, happy to be in a country that's optimistic, unafraid, even hopeful. But sad to say, the current Republican candidates (who love to invoke Mr. Reagan's name) don't seem to share the optimism that he displayed-- their rhetoric is much more negative. It's all about hatred for immigrants, the need to drop bombs and declare another war, the need to build a wall, or place a ban on Muslims, and the constant fear of an imminent disaster. There are persistent references to what a mess the country is in, and constant criticisms of the president (as well as each other). For the current Republican candidates, there seems to be nothing to celebrate: America is not a very hopeful place at all.
With so much pessimism, it's nice to be reminded that there are still many reasons to be proud of America. Despite all the doom and gloom from certain politicians, every day, there are examples of altruism, kindness, and compassion. For example, I recently posted a newspaper article on social media, about a wonderful young woman I've been mentoring; she's a legal immigrant from Haiti who is trapped in a bureaucracy not of her making; she is struggling to get a college education while working two jobs and driving long distances to get to class. (You can read about her here: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/12/24/education-slow-motion-thanks-immigration-law/UX6E9US63eSl5D1nWCSV4L/story.html) To her surprise, some readers sent donations to pay this semester's tuition. Several even insisted on remaining anonymous. She cried when she learned that she did not owe the college any money this semester-- she could not believe strangers would want to help her. And yet, they did. (If you too would like to help, contact me and I'll tell you how.)
I understand that America has its share of problems. I understand that every four years, candidates promise change and often fail to deliver. And I understand that some voters are angry, and others are cynical. Donald Trump on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, although offering two very different visions, are both benefiting from how frustrated many Americans are feeling. But beyond the rhetoric, beyond the recitations of what's wrong, there are still people who have come to look for America-- they are hoping to find the America where there is still tolerance, the America that welcomes the stranger, the America where there is still the opportunity to get a good education and find a good job, the America where it's okay to be hopeful. And despite all the partisan rancor that I hear, I continue to believe that America is a place where liberals and conservatives can work together and solve problems, instead of calling each other names. Perhaps that's why the Bernie Sanders ad made such a strong impression on so many people-- it evoked an America where it's not all about rage and hatred, but rather, about celebrating the things we all have in common. That's the America I believe in, and I too have come to search for it, in a time when optimism seems to be sadly lacking in our politics.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Man of Words, Man of Music: Some Thoughts on the Passing of David Bowie
When I was in college at Northeastern University in Boston, I became the campus radio station's first female disc jockey in late 1968; I also became the station's music director, an incredibly fun and rewarding job which introduced me to some wonderful record promoters (a few of whom I'm still in contact with even now); but more importantly, it allowed me to hear the new music first. And so it was in 1969 that I received a copy of a single and an album by an artist I'd never heard of-- David Bowie. He was British, and his music was released on the Mercury label in the US. No offense to the fine folks at Mercury Records (for whom I ended up briefly working after they signed Rush in 1974), but back then, the label did not have a lot of hits. Still, I always tried to listen to as much new music as possible, so I put the single, "Space Oddity" on the turntable in the music library. And because our campus station was transitioning from top-40 over to a progressive rock format, I also gave the album ("Man of Words, Man of Music") a listen. To this day, I have them both in my collection, but I admit that at the time, I had no idea how influential David Bowie would become.
There was something about "Space Oddity" that I found compelling-- the American version of the single had been cut to 3:26 (in top-40 back then, a song was expected to be no more than about three minutes long), so it ended with the haunting lines "Ground control to Major Tom/your circuit's dead, there's something wrong/ Can you hear me Major Tom? Can you hear me Major Tom?" That was it-- the song faded out with ground control desperately trying to re-establish contact with Major Tom. I had never heard a top-40 single so disturbing-- clearly, Major Tom was depressed about something; clearly, he felt helpless, despite being a famous astronaut-- people admired him and wanted to know what brand of shirts he wore, yet all he could see was that "Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do." It was the Vietnam War era, and despite American optimism about putting a man on the moon, the ongoing war was casting a shadow on so many of us, especially those young men of draft age who were about to be sent to fight. But whatever Major Tom was referring to, I couldn't get the song out of my mind.
I was evidently one of the few who thought the song was amazing-- while it was a hit in England, it never even got into the Hot 100 charts in the US. Nor did the album get much airplay either (I still like "Cygnet Committee" and "Memory of a Free Festival," though neither has aged very well.) But while "Space Oddity" was soon forgotten, it would find a new audience a few years later: as sometimes happened in top-40, a song that had gone absolutely nowhere in its initial release (check out the history of "Dream On" by Aerosmith or "Nights in White Satin" by the Moody Blues) was championed by a particular radio station, and the re-release became a huge hit. And so it was in 1973 that US audiences rediscovered David Bowie's "Space Oddity" and it ended up a top-15 hit, plus becoming a staple at album rock stations, which played the longer version (the one that had an extra verse).
While many people assume that David Bowie's best known (and most widely played) song "Changes" was a number one song, it never even reached the top twenty (it was first released in 1972 and only got to #66; the re-release did slightly better, getting to #41 in 1975). But its introspective lyrics, and its commentary on the generation gap ("And these children that you spit on/ As they try to change their worlds/ Are immune to your consultations/ They're quite aware of what they're going through...") resonated with many of us. In fact, throughout the 1970s, no matter what kind of radio station I was working at, I could just about always find a David Bowie song that was thought-provoking ("Life on Mars" and "Starman" were favorites of mine), or a song that was fun and radio-friendly ("Suffragette City" always got a lot of requests).
David Bowie was the master of reinvention. There was his blue-eyed soul period in the mid-1970s, with songs like "Fame," "Young Americans," and "Golden Years." There was his interesting collaboration with Queen in 1981, "Under Pressure," and his equally interesting (and surprising) collaboration with big band-era crooner Bing Crosby, "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy," recorded in 1977 and still played during the Christmas season by numerous radio stations. (And yes, he also collaborated with Mick Jagger for the 1985 hit version of "Dancing in the Streets.") And speaking of dancing, Bowie had his share of 1980s dance hits, with songs like "Modern Love" and "Let's Dance." And I must mention one other 1980s song: "Absolute Beginners." Recorded in 1985, it never really became a hit; but it has always been a favorite of mine, because it makes me think of my then-boyfriend (who became my husband a year and a half later): "... As long as you're still smiling/ There's nothing more I need/ I absolutely love you/ But we're absolute beginners/ But if my love is your love/ We're certain to succeed." Fads changed, fashions changed, Bowie himself changed. But he always remained relevant, and his music remained important.
As many of you know, I am a cancer survivor (so far); so, I must admit that whenever someone I respect, especially someone who is around my age, succumbs to the disease, it worries me. But in the case of David Bowie, there's an important lesson to be learned from how he lived with cancer. Here was a man who knew he had this disease, but he didn't let it stop him. He continued to live his life; he continued to do what he loved. He was turning out new music right up until the end... because what better way to fight your disease than to live each day to the fullest, doing what you most enjoy... And that is exactly what he did. It seems amazing to recall that I first heard his music nearly five decades ago, but throughout his career, David Bowie proved repeatedly that he was someone worth listening to and someone worth remembering. May he rest in peace, and may we find the cure for cancer speedily, soon, and in our lifetime.
There was something about "Space Oddity" that I found compelling-- the American version of the single had been cut to 3:26 (in top-40 back then, a song was expected to be no more than about three minutes long), so it ended with the haunting lines "Ground control to Major Tom/your circuit's dead, there's something wrong/ Can you hear me Major Tom? Can you hear me Major Tom?" That was it-- the song faded out with ground control desperately trying to re-establish contact with Major Tom. I had never heard a top-40 single so disturbing-- clearly, Major Tom was depressed about something; clearly, he felt helpless, despite being a famous astronaut-- people admired him and wanted to know what brand of shirts he wore, yet all he could see was that "Planet Earth is blue, and there's nothing I can do." It was the Vietnam War era, and despite American optimism about putting a man on the moon, the ongoing war was casting a shadow on so many of us, especially those young men of draft age who were about to be sent to fight. But whatever Major Tom was referring to, I couldn't get the song out of my mind.
I was evidently one of the few who thought the song was amazing-- while it was a hit in England, it never even got into the Hot 100 charts in the US. Nor did the album get much airplay either (I still like "Cygnet Committee" and "Memory of a Free Festival," though neither has aged very well.) But while "Space Oddity" was soon forgotten, it would find a new audience a few years later: as sometimes happened in top-40, a song that had gone absolutely nowhere in its initial release (check out the history of "Dream On" by Aerosmith or "Nights in White Satin" by the Moody Blues) was championed by a particular radio station, and the re-release became a huge hit. And so it was in 1973 that US audiences rediscovered David Bowie's "Space Oddity" and it ended up a top-15 hit, plus becoming a staple at album rock stations, which played the longer version (the one that had an extra verse).
While many people assume that David Bowie's best known (and most widely played) song "Changes" was a number one song, it never even reached the top twenty (it was first released in 1972 and only got to #66; the re-release did slightly better, getting to #41 in 1975). But its introspective lyrics, and its commentary on the generation gap ("And these children that you spit on/ As they try to change their worlds/ Are immune to your consultations/ They're quite aware of what they're going through...") resonated with many of us. In fact, throughout the 1970s, no matter what kind of radio station I was working at, I could just about always find a David Bowie song that was thought-provoking ("Life on Mars" and "Starman" were favorites of mine), or a song that was fun and radio-friendly ("Suffragette City" always got a lot of requests).
David Bowie was the master of reinvention. There was his blue-eyed soul period in the mid-1970s, with songs like "Fame," "Young Americans," and "Golden Years." There was his interesting collaboration with Queen in 1981, "Under Pressure," and his equally interesting (and surprising) collaboration with big band-era crooner Bing Crosby, "Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy," recorded in 1977 and still played during the Christmas season by numerous radio stations. (And yes, he also collaborated with Mick Jagger for the 1985 hit version of "Dancing in the Streets.") And speaking of dancing, Bowie had his share of 1980s dance hits, with songs like "Modern Love" and "Let's Dance." And I must mention one other 1980s song: "Absolute Beginners." Recorded in 1985, it never really became a hit; but it has always been a favorite of mine, because it makes me think of my then-boyfriend (who became my husband a year and a half later): "... As long as you're still smiling/ There's nothing more I need/ I absolutely love you/ But we're absolute beginners/ But if my love is your love/ We're certain to succeed." Fads changed, fashions changed, Bowie himself changed. But he always remained relevant, and his music remained important.
As many of you know, I am a cancer survivor (so far); so, I must admit that whenever someone I respect, especially someone who is around my age, succumbs to the disease, it worries me. But in the case of David Bowie, there's an important lesson to be learned from how he lived with cancer. Here was a man who knew he had this disease, but he didn't let it stop him. He continued to live his life; he continued to do what he loved. He was turning out new music right up until the end... because what better way to fight your disease than to live each day to the fullest, doing what you most enjoy... And that is exactly what he did. It seems amazing to recall that I first heard his music nearly five decades ago, but throughout his career, David Bowie proved repeatedly that he was someone worth listening to and someone worth remembering. May he rest in peace, and may we find the cure for cancer speedily, soon, and in our lifetime.
Friday, January 8, 2016
A World of Misinformation-- Life in a Post-Factual Society
I know I've mentioned this before, but if there's one thing I continue to be disappointed about, it's how little the facts seem to matter in our modern world. There is a famous quote I've always liked; it was most recently attributed to the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, circa 1988, but as it turns out, versions of the quote go back to 1946, when American financier Bernard M. Baruch first said it. The point of the various versions is basically this: we all have the right to our own opinion, but none of us have the right to our own facts.
When I was growing up (and no, it wasn't that long ago), honesty and trustworthiness still mattered. A politician or a celebrity or a high-profile business executive who lied or distorting the facts was harshly criticized, both by the media and by the general public. A newspaper that didn't get its facts right, or one that confused publicity with accurate information, was also criticized. And contrary to what a number of my friends insist, this has never been partisan-- there are Democrats who have lied, Republicans who have lied, celebrities who have lied, and corporate executives who have lied. (And then there's Donald Trump, who is in a classification all his own, having at various times in his life been a Democrat, a Republican, a celebrity, and a corporate executive, and who has created his own reality everywhere he went.)
When Bill Clinton lied about not having sex with "that woman" (Monica Lewinsky), GOP partisans in congress were gleeful because they thought they saw an opening for removing him from the presidency. But most Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, weren't gleeful at all; in fact, a majority of us did not agree that he deserved to be impeached, and surveys showed that repeatedly. It cannot be denied, however, that many Americans were bitterly disappointed that the president had lied, as well as that he had cheated on his wife. Sad to say, other presidents from both parties had lied about sex before; but a less nosy media from a more innocent time did not ask about presidential mistresses. And then it changed.
Beginning in the 1990s, attitudes about what should or should not be discussed in public were suddenly in flux. Serious newspapers and news magazines that had never before trafficked in gossip or scandal, and always tried to verify the facts, suddenly found themselves in the internet era, competing with online sources that could instantly spread rumors with the click of a mouse. There was also the launching of partisan media sources, such as Fox News in 1996, as well as various left-wing and right-wing websites, and later, in the 2000s, MSNBC, social media like Facebook and Twitter, and plenty of blogs. And what got lost was verifiable facts that we could all agree upon. Now, everyone could seek out their own facts, and many people did. Those who disliked the Democrats could listen to Fox commentators telling them that they were absolutely correct; and those who disliked the Republicans, could go over to the commentators on MSNBC and have their beliefs reinforced. And along the way, we not only stopped talking to each other but we started mistrusting any media sources whose version of the facts didn't conform with ours.
And that is why when Donald Trump says he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after 9/11 (even though not one mayor or governor from either party could verify what he claimed), his fans insisted he must be right. When Ted Cruz ran an attack ad asserting that President Obama is "coming for your guns" (even though the president has NEVER said he wanted all guns banned), his fans insisted he must be right. When Hillary Clinton has made claims that fact-checkers showed to be false or exaggerated, her fans insist she must be right. And it's not just candidates: Consider Josh Duggar, allegedly a fine example of living a pious Christian life. When he finally admitted he had cheated on his wife, many of his fans said they forgave him because we are all sinners. (Well, yes, but we don't all hold ourselves up as paragons of marital fidelity while frequenting the Ashley Madison "dating" site.)
The point is that these days, it seems that telling a clever and entertaining story (one that reinforces the beliefs of your audience) is more important than having the facts on your side. Time magazine has a fascinating analysis this week of how and why Donald Trump is winning, despite having earned the "Lie of the Year" award from the fact-checking site Politifact. Even being caught making statements that are 100% factually inaccurate only makes his fans love him more, since Trump partisans are convinced the media can't be trusted (a talking point frequently asserted by a number of Republican candidates). The Time article, written by David Von Drehe (and available here: http://time.com/4170772/the-art-of-the-steal/), notes that Trump has done away with the "middle man"-- he no longer needs Republican party leaders to promote him-- he can do it himself, and do it well. People already feel as if they know him, having seen him host several highly-rated TV reality shows, and make numerous appearances on late night talk shows. And they trust him because he seems to be so confident, so rich, and so successful. And even when a Republican pundit like Karl Rove, or a fellow candidate like Jeb Bush, or even Fox News commentator Megyn Kelly criticizes him, he can just swat them aside, and his fans admire how he doesn't feel the need to answer to anyone. I've been following politics for years, and I have never seen a candidate who is rewarded with more media attention, more free publicity, and more popularity the more he distorts the truth.
But here we are, in a post-factual society, where well-known people can say one thing and do entirely another and suffer few if any consequences: Bristol Palin promotes abstinence, yet has two (!) children out of wedlock. She remains popular, and her fans defend her, rather than holding her accountable for not practicing what she preached. Former congressman Anthony Weiner presented himself as a happily married man while sending lewd photos of himself to other women; yes, he is no longer in congress, but he is still a guest on talk shows and some sources say he is thinking of running for office again. I won't be shocked if he is able to reinvent himself. These days, even a major scandal won't necessarily doom your career.
Don't get me wrong-- I absolutely do believe in second chances, and I'm willing to forgive; lord knows I've made my share of mistakes over the years. But I just wish that as a culture, we would place more value on honesty. When I was growing up, I was taught that a great leader was one who was unafraid to tell the truth and willing to admit a mistake. These days, I see very few great leaders. I see a world where politicians and celebrities rarely own up to what they did wrong-- they offer a convenient excuse or they change the subject. I find it frustrating, but maybe I'm the only one who does. So, let me ask you this, my friendly readers: Can you name me a current political figure or a current cultural leader you admire, someone who sets a good example for being honest? Or has our post-factual society lowered our expectations? I eagerly await your comments!
When I was growing up (and no, it wasn't that long ago), honesty and trustworthiness still mattered. A politician or a celebrity or a high-profile business executive who lied or distorting the facts was harshly criticized, both by the media and by the general public. A newspaper that didn't get its facts right, or one that confused publicity with accurate information, was also criticized. And contrary to what a number of my friends insist, this has never been partisan-- there are Democrats who have lied, Republicans who have lied, celebrities who have lied, and corporate executives who have lied. (And then there's Donald Trump, who is in a classification all his own, having at various times in his life been a Democrat, a Republican, a celebrity, and a corporate executive, and who has created his own reality everywhere he went.)
When Bill Clinton lied about not having sex with "that woman" (Monica Lewinsky), GOP partisans in congress were gleeful because they thought they saw an opening for removing him from the presidency. But most Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, weren't gleeful at all; in fact, a majority of us did not agree that he deserved to be impeached, and surveys showed that repeatedly. It cannot be denied, however, that many Americans were bitterly disappointed that the president had lied, as well as that he had cheated on his wife. Sad to say, other presidents from both parties had lied about sex before; but a less nosy media from a more innocent time did not ask about presidential mistresses. And then it changed.
Beginning in the 1990s, attitudes about what should or should not be discussed in public were suddenly in flux. Serious newspapers and news magazines that had never before trafficked in gossip or scandal, and always tried to verify the facts, suddenly found themselves in the internet era, competing with online sources that could instantly spread rumors with the click of a mouse. There was also the launching of partisan media sources, such as Fox News in 1996, as well as various left-wing and right-wing websites, and later, in the 2000s, MSNBC, social media like Facebook and Twitter, and plenty of blogs. And what got lost was verifiable facts that we could all agree upon. Now, everyone could seek out their own facts, and many people did. Those who disliked the Democrats could listen to Fox commentators telling them that they were absolutely correct; and those who disliked the Republicans, could go over to the commentators on MSNBC and have their beliefs reinforced. And along the way, we not only stopped talking to each other but we started mistrusting any media sources whose version of the facts didn't conform with ours.
And that is why when Donald Trump says he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after 9/11 (even though not one mayor or governor from either party could verify what he claimed), his fans insisted he must be right. When Ted Cruz ran an attack ad asserting that President Obama is "coming for your guns" (even though the president has NEVER said he wanted all guns banned), his fans insisted he must be right. When Hillary Clinton has made claims that fact-checkers showed to be false or exaggerated, her fans insist she must be right. And it's not just candidates: Consider Josh Duggar, allegedly a fine example of living a pious Christian life. When he finally admitted he had cheated on his wife, many of his fans said they forgave him because we are all sinners. (Well, yes, but we don't all hold ourselves up as paragons of marital fidelity while frequenting the Ashley Madison "dating" site.)
The point is that these days, it seems that telling a clever and entertaining story (one that reinforces the beliefs of your audience) is more important than having the facts on your side. Time magazine has a fascinating analysis this week of how and why Donald Trump is winning, despite having earned the "Lie of the Year" award from the fact-checking site Politifact. Even being caught making statements that are 100% factually inaccurate only makes his fans love him more, since Trump partisans are convinced the media can't be trusted (a talking point frequently asserted by a number of Republican candidates). The Time article, written by David Von Drehe (and available here: http://time.com/4170772/the-art-of-the-steal/), notes that Trump has done away with the "middle man"-- he no longer needs Republican party leaders to promote him-- he can do it himself, and do it well. People already feel as if they know him, having seen him host several highly-rated TV reality shows, and make numerous appearances on late night talk shows. And they trust him because he seems to be so confident, so rich, and so successful. And even when a Republican pundit like Karl Rove, or a fellow candidate like Jeb Bush, or even Fox News commentator Megyn Kelly criticizes him, he can just swat them aside, and his fans admire how he doesn't feel the need to answer to anyone. I've been following politics for years, and I have never seen a candidate who is rewarded with more media attention, more free publicity, and more popularity the more he distorts the truth.
But here we are, in a post-factual society, where well-known people can say one thing and do entirely another and suffer few if any consequences: Bristol Palin promotes abstinence, yet has two (!) children out of wedlock. She remains popular, and her fans defend her, rather than holding her accountable for not practicing what she preached. Former congressman Anthony Weiner presented himself as a happily married man while sending lewd photos of himself to other women; yes, he is no longer in congress, but he is still a guest on talk shows and some sources say he is thinking of running for office again. I won't be shocked if he is able to reinvent himself. These days, even a major scandal won't necessarily doom your career.
Don't get me wrong-- I absolutely do believe in second chances, and I'm willing to forgive; lord knows I've made my share of mistakes over the years. But I just wish that as a culture, we would place more value on honesty. When I was growing up, I was taught that a great leader was one who was unafraid to tell the truth and willing to admit a mistake. These days, I see very few great leaders. I see a world where politicians and celebrities rarely own up to what they did wrong-- they offer a convenient excuse or they change the subject. I find it frustrating, but maybe I'm the only one who does. So, let me ask you this, my friendly readers: Can you name me a current political figure or a current cultural leader you admire, someone who sets a good example for being honest? Or has our post-factual society lowered our expectations? I eagerly await your comments!
Friday, January 1, 2016
What I Learned in 2015
Since this is my first post of the new year, I thought I'd look back on 2015 and offer a few thoughts about the year that just ended. 2015 was certainly a year with plenty of newsworthy events-- beginning with mega snowstorms in Massachusetts-- a record 108.6 inches, and ending with the unexpected (and to some of us, dismaying) rise of Donald Trump. In between, there was my trip out to Phoenix to attend a baseball conference and give a talk about one of the first female baseball writers, Ina Eloise Young; the final leg of the Rush R-40 tour (of all the blog posts I wrote in 2015, http://dlhalperblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/just-another-mad-mad-day-on-road-some.html was my most-read post of the year); a visit to Toronto to meet some of the cast of my favorite TV show, "Murdoch Mysteries" (which broadcasts in the US as "The Artful Detective"); and the multitude of worried online posts following the (false) rumor that Neil Peart was retiring from Rush.
At the university where I teach, I began my seventh year. In February, I celebrated my 68th birthday, and in March, my husband and I celebrated our 28th wedding anniversary. (And in addition to running his computer repair company, my husband took up baking as a new hobby; he proved to be quite successful-- I wish you could all sample his homemade peach or apple pies!) But throughout the year, I had a number of health issues to contend with, including my ongoing recovery from cancer. And while my battle with cancer was going well, several friends of mine lost theirs, including super-Rush fan Cheryl Collins Arndts. In the celebrity world, I was saddened by the passing of folksinger/actor Theodore Bikel, comedienne Anne Meara of Stiller & Meara, baseball great Yogi Berra, actor Leonard Nimoy, and pro wrestler Dusty Rhodes (when I was growing up, I loved to watch professional wrestling, and years later, thanks to my broadcasting career, I got to meet some of the wrestlers, including Chief Jay Strongbow, Bob Backlund, Superstar Billy Graham, and André the Giant; I met Dusty too, and he was a lot of fun to talk to).
Much has been written about politics, including some commentary of my own, but suffice it to say that 2015 had a number of surprises that even confounded so-called "experts." While most of the media coverage was focused on Republican Donald Trump, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders mobilized the left wing of the Democratic party, including many young people; Sanders' improbable campaign, fueled largely by online donations, attracted far less media attention than Trump's, but it consistently attracted huge crowds and passionate supporters. And Jeb Bush, bolstered by a Super-Pac that spent millions of dollars on his behalf, got no traction at all with conservative voters.
For Boston sports fans, there was the joy of the Patriots winning another Super Bowl, followed by the ongoing drama about "Deflategate," with accusations that Tom Brady had been guilty of cheating, by using under-inflated footballs. While nationally, the media and fans in other cities were certain Brady was guilty, in Boston, the quarterback maintained his status as a local hero who could do no wrong; the more the national media criticized him, the more his local popularity grew (similar in some ways to what happened each time the media criticized Donald Trump and his supporters rallied around him even more strongly than before). Meanwhile, American fans were excited about the U.S. Women's soccer team, which won the World Cup, dominating Japan in the final match and winning 5-2. (But professional soccer remained far less important in the U.S. than in other countries, where it continued to be a national obsession. In the US, other than following the Olympic teams, most fans preferred American football.)
In pop culture, former Olympian Bruce Jenner announced his transition to becoming a woman, and re-appeared in June on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, using her new identity as Caitlin Jenner. Late night TV experienced several major changes, when David Letterman retired from hosting the Late Show (replaced by Stephen Colbert), and John Stewart retired from hosting the Daily Show (replaced by Trevor Noah). And in music, there were top-40 hits I hoped I'd never hear again (really tired of "Shut Up and Dance," thank you very much), while I admit to being glad that Adele returned to the charts. Meanwhile, Rush fans worried that they might never see their favorite band perform live ever again, but that still remains to be seen-- something we'll know more about in 2016, I'm sure.
I've never been one to make New Year's Resolutions-- most people just break them, and I'm sure I'd be no exception. So instead of a resolution, I'll close with some wishes: I wish for a new year of less name-calling and more civility, both in politics and online. I wish for a new year of more tolerance and less blaming of "them"-- whichever person or group is supposedly the cause of all our problems. And finally, a special wish for all of you who have read my blog this past year: may you enjoy good health, good friends, and good fortune throughout 2015. And may all your new year wishes and dreams come true.
At the university where I teach, I began my seventh year. In February, I celebrated my 68th birthday, and in March, my husband and I celebrated our 28th wedding anniversary. (And in addition to running his computer repair company, my husband took up baking as a new hobby; he proved to be quite successful-- I wish you could all sample his homemade peach or apple pies!) But throughout the year, I had a number of health issues to contend with, including my ongoing recovery from cancer. And while my battle with cancer was going well, several friends of mine lost theirs, including super-Rush fan Cheryl Collins Arndts. In the celebrity world, I was saddened by the passing of folksinger/actor Theodore Bikel, comedienne Anne Meara of Stiller & Meara, baseball great Yogi Berra, actor Leonard Nimoy, and pro wrestler Dusty Rhodes (when I was growing up, I loved to watch professional wrestling, and years later, thanks to my broadcasting career, I got to meet some of the wrestlers, including Chief Jay Strongbow, Bob Backlund, Superstar Billy Graham, and André the Giant; I met Dusty too, and he was a lot of fun to talk to).
Much has been written about politics, including some commentary of my own, but suffice it to say that 2015 had a number of surprises that even confounded so-called "experts." While most of the media coverage was focused on Republican Donald Trump, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders mobilized the left wing of the Democratic party, including many young people; Sanders' improbable campaign, fueled largely by online donations, attracted far less media attention than Trump's, but it consistently attracted huge crowds and passionate supporters. And Jeb Bush, bolstered by a Super-Pac that spent millions of dollars on his behalf, got no traction at all with conservative voters.
For Boston sports fans, there was the joy of the Patriots winning another Super Bowl, followed by the ongoing drama about "Deflategate," with accusations that Tom Brady had been guilty of cheating, by using under-inflated footballs. While nationally, the media and fans in other cities were certain Brady was guilty, in Boston, the quarterback maintained his status as a local hero who could do no wrong; the more the national media criticized him, the more his local popularity grew (similar in some ways to what happened each time the media criticized Donald Trump and his supporters rallied around him even more strongly than before). Meanwhile, American fans were excited about the U.S. Women's soccer team, which won the World Cup, dominating Japan in the final match and winning 5-2. (But professional soccer remained far less important in the U.S. than in other countries, where it continued to be a national obsession. In the US, other than following the Olympic teams, most fans preferred American football.)
In pop culture, former Olympian Bruce Jenner announced his transition to becoming a woman, and re-appeared in June on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, using her new identity as Caitlin Jenner. Late night TV experienced several major changes, when David Letterman retired from hosting the Late Show (replaced by Stephen Colbert), and John Stewart retired from hosting the Daily Show (replaced by Trevor Noah). And in music, there were top-40 hits I hoped I'd never hear again (really tired of "Shut Up and Dance," thank you very much), while I admit to being glad that Adele returned to the charts. Meanwhile, Rush fans worried that they might never see their favorite band perform live ever again, but that still remains to be seen-- something we'll know more about in 2016, I'm sure.
I've never been one to make New Year's Resolutions-- most people just break them, and I'm sure I'd be no exception. So instead of a resolution, I'll close with some wishes: I wish for a new year of less name-calling and more civility, both in politics and online. I wish for a new year of more tolerance and less blaming of "them"-- whichever person or group is supposedly the cause of all our problems. And finally, a special wish for all of you who have read my blog this past year: may you enjoy good health, good friends, and good fortune throughout 2015. And may all your new year wishes and dreams come true.
Thursday, December 24, 2015
A World Without Boundaries?
Is it my imagination or are people less polite than they used to be? I'm asking because several recent incidents got me thinking about manners (again). I encountered some holiday shoppers who had parked in handicapped spots, even though they had no right to be there. I admit this is a pet peeve of mine, and I was disappointed to note they got upset when anyone asked them to move. I also observed a number of folks who were cutting each other off in traffic or honking their horns at each other (or giving each other the middle finger) as they raced to the mall to do their last minute Christmas shopping. There's a certain irony about folks who are supposedly shopping for gifts to make others happy, yet they are so angry themselves.
And then, there was an incident from the campaign trail: a much-discussed comment that Donald Trump made the other night, when he used a slang Yiddish word for the penis (I honestly never expected to be writing about male genitalia when I first began blogging). He said that Barack Obama had "shlonged" Hillary Clinton. Okay fine, contrary to his insistence that using it like that refers to "defeating someone overwhelmingly," I do not think this word means what he thinks it means. I grew up in a Yiddish-speaking home, and I'm well aware of every vulgar Yiddish expression (Yiddish is a great language for profanity and sarcasm, by the way). There's no getting around the fact that "shlong" is a crude term; and yet this man who wants to be president was using it on national TV.
I know, that's just Donald being Donald. But it still puzzled me. When I was growing up, NO candidate from either party would have used that kind of language in a public venue. Richard Nixon, as we now know from the White House tapes that were released to the public, frequently used vulgarities when he was with his advisers. But in public, never. Ditto for Lyndon Johnson, another fan of using profanities with friends and colleagues. In public, however, he was always courteous, even when talking about his political enemies.
Dave Weigel of the Washington Post recently wrote a very insightful piece about what has happened to our political discourse. He equated Mr. Trump's way of speaking with how radio shock jocks speak. It's a very apt comparison. (You can read his entire column here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/before-donald-trump-there-were-the-shock-jocks/2015/12/23/af28d9be-a8d2-11e5-9b92-dea7cd4b1a4d_story.html) In fact, I notice that in much of our public discourse, courtesy takes a back seat to blurting out whatever emotion comes to the forefront at that moment.
I'm not sure what to make of it all. We seem to be in an era where people feel they can be rude and then say they are just "striking a blow against political correctness." There certainly seem to be a lot of angry, overwhelmed, frustrated folks out there, all seeking someone they can blame, or someone they can lash out at. But whatever happened to boundaries? Is everything permissible now, even if it make life difficult for someone else? Whatever happened to the idea of thinking before you speak, or trying to show courtesy, or speaking with civility rather than vulgarity? Maybe politicians today do think of themselves as the heirs to shock jocks and bloviating talk show hosts. Maybe online commenters think it's now okay to call people Nazis or make slanderous accusations against anyone they disagree with. Maybe good manners are now just a relic of the past. At times, it certainly seems that way... or is it just my imagination?
And then, there was an incident from the campaign trail: a much-discussed comment that Donald Trump made the other night, when he used a slang Yiddish word for the penis (I honestly never expected to be writing about male genitalia when I first began blogging). He said that Barack Obama had "shlonged" Hillary Clinton. Okay fine, contrary to his insistence that using it like that refers to "defeating someone overwhelmingly," I do not think this word means what he thinks it means. I grew up in a Yiddish-speaking home, and I'm well aware of every vulgar Yiddish expression (Yiddish is a great language for profanity and sarcasm, by the way). There's no getting around the fact that "shlong" is a crude term; and yet this man who wants to be president was using it on national TV.
I know, that's just Donald being Donald. But it still puzzled me. When I was growing up, NO candidate from either party would have used that kind of language in a public venue. Richard Nixon, as we now know from the White House tapes that were released to the public, frequently used vulgarities when he was with his advisers. But in public, never. Ditto for Lyndon Johnson, another fan of using profanities with friends and colleagues. In public, however, he was always courteous, even when talking about his political enemies.
Dave Weigel of the Washington Post recently wrote a very insightful piece about what has happened to our political discourse. He equated Mr. Trump's way of speaking with how radio shock jocks speak. It's a very apt comparison. (You can read his entire column here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/before-donald-trump-there-were-the-shock-jocks/2015/12/23/af28d9be-a8d2-11e5-9b92-dea7cd4b1a4d_story.html) In fact, I notice that in much of our public discourse, courtesy takes a back seat to blurting out whatever emotion comes to the forefront at that moment.
I'm not sure what to make of it all. We seem to be in an era where people feel they can be rude and then say they are just "striking a blow against political correctness." There certainly seem to be a lot of angry, overwhelmed, frustrated folks out there, all seeking someone they can blame, or someone they can lash out at. But whatever happened to boundaries? Is everything permissible now, even if it make life difficult for someone else? Whatever happened to the idea of thinking before you speak, or trying to show courtesy, or speaking with civility rather than vulgarity? Maybe politicians today do think of themselves as the heirs to shock jocks and bloviating talk show hosts. Maybe online commenters think it's now okay to call people Nazis or make slanderous accusations against anyone they disagree with. Maybe good manners are now just a relic of the past. At times, it certainly seems that way... or is it just my imagination?
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
There Really IS a War on Christmas (and on Hanukkah Too)
Hanukkah has just concluded (for those who aren't Jewish, it comes at a different time each year because we use a lunar calendar to calculate the date), and I noticed with some disappointment that it's not like it used to be. When I was growing up, Hanukkah was a minor holiday in the Jewish year, celebrated with potato pancakes (latkes), "Hanukkah gelt" (coins made from milk chocolate) and big jelly donuts (sufganiyot). It took place in the home, where we all lit the menorah, and we played various children's games, often with a little top called a dreidel; but Hanukkah was not the Jewish version of Christmas, nor was it supposed to be. In fact, our big holidays were (and still are) Passover and Jewish New Year.
But these days, Hanukkah seems to have risen in importance: I even saw one recent study that said Hanukkah is now the most widely observed Jewish holiday. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Don't get me wrong-- I love Hanukkah and I'm glad more people are observing it; but I get this uncomfortable feeling that it has nothing to do with the religious meaning of the holiday. Rather, it's about competing with Christmas, so Jewish kids don't feel bad that their Christian friends are getting a ton of expensive presents while they're just getting little tops and packages of chocolate coins.
Interestingly, my Christian friends often lament what has happened to their holiday too. I was very friendly with a Catholic nun for many years, and she frequently expressed her sadness that Christmas was no longer about the birth of the Christian savior-- it was about having the most beautifully decorated tree, putting up the most lights, and making sure the kids all got the toys they wanted from Santa. Okay fine, the lights are certainly pretty, and we can all debate whether Jesus was actually born in December (most scholars say he was not). But I cannot help but think that if Jesus were here, he wouldn't want his Christian followers going into debt to keep up with the wish-lists of their kids. Nor would he be pleased by equating love with how much money one spends.
Yet all the ads on TV stress that message-- if you really love your [pick one: spouse, kids, significant other, best friend], you will spare no expense to find the right gift. It all makes me wonder: where would Jesus shop? And where did he even say that his birthday should be celebrated with wreathes, and trees, and reindeer, and Santa and hundreds of dollars worth of gifts? Unless I'm reading the wrong parts of the Bible, the New Testament says what matters most is feeding the poor and helping those who are less fortunate. And the Hebrew Scriptures say pretty much the same thing.
And that brings me to the real "War on Christmas." No, it's not some fake war dreamed up by Fox News and Christian conservatives, who sincerely believe that Christianity is "under attack" by so-called "secular progressives." I promise you, my dear Christian friends, Christianity is doing just fine, and secular progressives are the least of your problems. Nor should you be worried about whether stores say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas," or whether Starbucks does or does not have "Christmas messages" on their coffee cups. The real issue is whether we are going to allow the true meaning of Christmas to slip away forever. Originally, both Christmas and Hanukkah were times for family and friends to gather in the home, share a nice meal, and exchange simple gifts-- often gifts they made by hand. Today, both festivals have turned into odes to rampant consumerism, as adults try to out-spend each other, and stores worry about keeping the latest popular toys in stock (or these days, they worry that online shopping is making brick-and-mortar stores irrelevant).
While Christmas is not my holiday, I understand that some of my Christian friends want to see public and visible symbols. I, on the other hand, wish this season were not a contest-- whether or not there's a huge manger in front of City Hall is less important to me than whether we treat each other's holidays with respect. Some cities may have a public menorah lighting at Hanukkah, but most do not. In fact, there are a number of important holidays observed by American Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus, and none of those holidays gets much attention at all. They should. Kids need to learn from a young age that there are many religions in America, and all should be treated with courtesy.
Sometimes, I wonder if the war on Christmas (and Hanukkah) has been lost. Too many kids growing up in our modern world don't associate a religious meaning with either holiday-- rather, they just expect that they'll get more stuff this year than they got last year. That may be good for the corporations, but is it good for our ethics and morals? I salute every parent who takes their kids to do volunteer work on Christmas, and each parent who teaches about the joy of giving rather than receiving. It's an important lesson, but it may not be the lesson most kids are getting, given how ostentatious many of the holiday observances have become.
One of my favorite Hanukkah memories occurred in the mid 1980s, in Rapid City, South Dakota. There were few Jews in town, but one family made it a point to preserve Jewish tradition and teach about the holidays. I was in Rapid City on business, and I was invited to their Hanukkah celebration. It was a cold winter night, and we stood on a hill, where the family had put up a big menorah; it was visible for miles. And there we were-- the family, their friends, and I; and we lit the lights, and we sang the prayers, and we expressed our gratitude for the holiday season. The local media covered the event-- they rarely saw Jewish observances-- and it was one of those beautiful, magical, yet very simple celebrations. I have never forgotten it.
So, whether you have the most lights in the neighborhood or none at all, whether you celebrate Christmas in a religious way or a secular way or not at all, let this season be one of kindness, of compassion, and of giving-- not just giving presents, but giving warmth and welcome to those who need it most. If you really want to fight the mythical war on Christmas, go ahead; but a better strategy is to remember what Christmas is really supposed to be about-- it's a time to say thank you, a time to be joyful, and above all, a time to let the light of wisdom pierce the darkness of ignorance. May you have a wondrous holiday season, and may you have many reasons for celebration.
But these days, Hanukkah seems to have risen in importance: I even saw one recent study that said Hanukkah is now the most widely observed Jewish holiday. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Don't get me wrong-- I love Hanukkah and I'm glad more people are observing it; but I get this uncomfortable feeling that it has nothing to do with the religious meaning of the holiday. Rather, it's about competing with Christmas, so Jewish kids don't feel bad that their Christian friends are getting a ton of expensive presents while they're just getting little tops and packages of chocolate coins.
Interestingly, my Christian friends often lament what has happened to their holiday too. I was very friendly with a Catholic nun for many years, and she frequently expressed her sadness that Christmas was no longer about the birth of the Christian savior-- it was about having the most beautifully decorated tree, putting up the most lights, and making sure the kids all got the toys they wanted from Santa. Okay fine, the lights are certainly pretty, and we can all debate whether Jesus was actually born in December (most scholars say he was not). But I cannot help but think that if Jesus were here, he wouldn't want his Christian followers going into debt to keep up with the wish-lists of their kids. Nor would he be pleased by equating love with how much money one spends.
Yet all the ads on TV stress that message-- if you really love your [pick one: spouse, kids, significant other, best friend], you will spare no expense to find the right gift. It all makes me wonder: where would Jesus shop? And where did he even say that his birthday should be celebrated with wreathes, and trees, and reindeer, and Santa and hundreds of dollars worth of gifts? Unless I'm reading the wrong parts of the Bible, the New Testament says what matters most is feeding the poor and helping those who are less fortunate. And the Hebrew Scriptures say pretty much the same thing.
And that brings me to the real "War on Christmas." No, it's not some fake war dreamed up by Fox News and Christian conservatives, who sincerely believe that Christianity is "under attack" by so-called "secular progressives." I promise you, my dear Christian friends, Christianity is doing just fine, and secular progressives are the least of your problems. Nor should you be worried about whether stores say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas," or whether Starbucks does or does not have "Christmas messages" on their coffee cups. The real issue is whether we are going to allow the true meaning of Christmas to slip away forever. Originally, both Christmas and Hanukkah were times for family and friends to gather in the home, share a nice meal, and exchange simple gifts-- often gifts they made by hand. Today, both festivals have turned into odes to rampant consumerism, as adults try to out-spend each other, and stores worry about keeping the latest popular toys in stock (or these days, they worry that online shopping is making brick-and-mortar stores irrelevant).
While Christmas is not my holiday, I understand that some of my Christian friends want to see public and visible symbols. I, on the other hand, wish this season were not a contest-- whether or not there's a huge manger in front of City Hall is less important to me than whether we treat each other's holidays with respect. Some cities may have a public menorah lighting at Hanukkah, but most do not. In fact, there are a number of important holidays observed by American Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus, and none of those holidays gets much attention at all. They should. Kids need to learn from a young age that there are many religions in America, and all should be treated with courtesy.
Sometimes, I wonder if the war on Christmas (and Hanukkah) has been lost. Too many kids growing up in our modern world don't associate a religious meaning with either holiday-- rather, they just expect that they'll get more stuff this year than they got last year. That may be good for the corporations, but is it good for our ethics and morals? I salute every parent who takes their kids to do volunteer work on Christmas, and each parent who teaches about the joy of giving rather than receiving. It's an important lesson, but it may not be the lesson most kids are getting, given how ostentatious many of the holiday observances have become.
One of my favorite Hanukkah memories occurred in the mid 1980s, in Rapid City, South Dakota. There were few Jews in town, but one family made it a point to preserve Jewish tradition and teach about the holidays. I was in Rapid City on business, and I was invited to their Hanukkah celebration. It was a cold winter night, and we stood on a hill, where the family had put up a big menorah; it was visible for miles. And there we were-- the family, their friends, and I; and we lit the lights, and we sang the prayers, and we expressed our gratitude for the holiday season. The local media covered the event-- they rarely saw Jewish observances-- and it was one of those beautiful, magical, yet very simple celebrations. I have never forgotten it.
So, whether you have the most lights in the neighborhood or none at all, whether you celebrate Christmas in a religious way or a secular way or not at all, let this season be one of kindness, of compassion, and of giving-- not just giving presents, but giving warmth and welcome to those who need it most. If you really want to fight the mythical war on Christmas, go ahead; but a better strategy is to remember what Christmas is really supposed to be about-- it's a time to say thank you, a time to be joyful, and above all, a time to let the light of wisdom pierce the darkness of ignorance. May you have a wondrous holiday season, and may you have many reasons for celebration.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
A Few Thoughts on Neil's Alleged Retirement
If you're a Rush fan, the past several days have been a roller coaster ride. It all started when some fan sites posted a couple of quotes from a magazine interview with the king of all drummers, Neil Peart, in which he said (or seemed to say) he was now retired. Social media exploded. Was this the end? Would there be no more Rush? Wild speculation took over, as it often does online, and many fans were inconsolable.
To be fair, Rush's loyal fan base had been worrying about this since the most recent tour; it was very brief, and during it, hints had been dropped that this tour might be the last one. But after the tour ended and the guys went home to rest and spend time with their families, Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson gave subsequent radio and print interviews in which they said they'd be willing to perform again at some point. But there was someone whose voice was missing-- Neil. And then, out of nowhere, the interview with Neil appeared, in which he seemed to state that he would no longer be part of whatever plans Geddy and Alex might make.
Or not. As it turned out when I did some fact-checking, this was not a new interview (I was told it had been done several months ago, and was just being published now); and more importantly, it was not in response to what Geddy and Alex had just said in their mid-November radio appearance on Q104.3 in New York. Rather, it was just Neil saying basically what he had said before-- that he did not want to do any more touring. As it turned out, it was not exactly a "stop the presses!" moment.
But once again, here was an example of how deep the love and admiration the fans have for this band: even a couple of quotes that may or may not have been taken out of context could cause thousands of tweets, emails, and Facebook posts. Since I didn't yet know the whole story, I simply commented that whatever Neil's decision, I respected it: he had given so many years of outstanding music to fans all over the world. Few drummers put as much energy and dedication into their craft as Neil did. In addition to writing excellent lyrics, and being a legendary drummer, he always gave a dynamic performance, a true complement to the equally dynamic performances of Alex and Geddy. Like them, Neil was always a professional. He threw himself into his playing, no matter how he might be feeling health-wise (I still remember spending some time with him one night in 2012 and he had a bad sinus infection; yet he still gave 150% during the show, and I doubt anyone in attendance realized how miserable he felt). So, if this was now the right time for him to stop, I could only wish him well.
Eventually, the story of Neil's alleged retirement was given some context. So, perhaps he would no longer tour, but he had not closed off the possibility of getting together with Alex and Geddy to create some new music. When this might occur was uncertain-- Neil is loving every minute of watching his daughter grow up, and hanging out with his wife and his closest friends. And while fans are probably disappointed that there might not be another Rush tour (no, Geddy and Alex would not replace him-- they have said previously if there's no Neil, there's no Rush), at least there might still be a new album. Or perhaps a live performance somewhere. Only time will tell.
Of course, if there's a lesson to be learned from the past few days, it's that quotes online are often not what they seem. But realistically, the idea that he does not want to tour makes perfect sense. Neil is no longer the young guy who could go from city to city performing for more than 300 days a year. He's in his 60s now, and doing all that drumming can be physically painful-- he's had tendinitis, and let's also keep in mind that many drummers of his age can suffer from some hearing loss. It's understandable that he might want to quit touring while he is still at the top of his game, and let the fans remember him at his best.
I'd be lying if I said I know what Neil's plans are. While I have several good friends at Rush's management company, it's Alex that I talk to the most often (I've also become friendly with Geddy's sister). But my interactions with Neil have been very few over the years. That's fine with me. He's a very private person, and I respect that. If I want to know how he is doing, I do keep in touch with one of his close friends, and I can get a message to him that way. But Neil has every right to live his life in the way that best ensures his health and happiness. Maybe he'll get tired of retirement and want to perform again. Maybe he won't. But we do know he has NOT definitively stated that he is done; he simply hasn't made any specific future plans. I fully expect Geddy, Alex and Neil to get together at some point, to discuss what the next thing is. Whatever it is, I will say what I've always said: for forty-one years, I've had the privilege of knowing the guys in the band, seeing them perform, and enjoying so many of their songs. I don't know if we'll get to hear any new music, but somehow, I get the impression that we will. Till then, I'm grateful for what the guys have given us. And there's nothing else I can say other than "thank you."
To be fair, Rush's loyal fan base had been worrying about this since the most recent tour; it was very brief, and during it, hints had been dropped that this tour might be the last one. But after the tour ended and the guys went home to rest and spend time with their families, Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson gave subsequent radio and print interviews in which they said they'd be willing to perform again at some point. But there was someone whose voice was missing-- Neil. And then, out of nowhere, the interview with Neil appeared, in which he seemed to state that he would no longer be part of whatever plans Geddy and Alex might make.
Or not. As it turned out when I did some fact-checking, this was not a new interview (I was told it had been done several months ago, and was just being published now); and more importantly, it was not in response to what Geddy and Alex had just said in their mid-November radio appearance on Q104.3 in New York. Rather, it was just Neil saying basically what he had said before-- that he did not want to do any more touring. As it turned out, it was not exactly a "stop the presses!" moment.
But once again, here was an example of how deep the love and admiration the fans have for this band: even a couple of quotes that may or may not have been taken out of context could cause thousands of tweets, emails, and Facebook posts. Since I didn't yet know the whole story, I simply commented that whatever Neil's decision, I respected it: he had given so many years of outstanding music to fans all over the world. Few drummers put as much energy and dedication into their craft as Neil did. In addition to writing excellent lyrics, and being a legendary drummer, he always gave a dynamic performance, a true complement to the equally dynamic performances of Alex and Geddy. Like them, Neil was always a professional. He threw himself into his playing, no matter how he might be feeling health-wise (I still remember spending some time with him one night in 2012 and he had a bad sinus infection; yet he still gave 150% during the show, and I doubt anyone in attendance realized how miserable he felt). So, if this was now the right time for him to stop, I could only wish him well.
Eventually, the story of Neil's alleged retirement was given some context. So, perhaps he would no longer tour, but he had not closed off the possibility of getting together with Alex and Geddy to create some new music. When this might occur was uncertain-- Neil is loving every minute of watching his daughter grow up, and hanging out with his wife and his closest friends. And while fans are probably disappointed that there might not be another Rush tour (no, Geddy and Alex would not replace him-- they have said previously if there's no Neil, there's no Rush), at least there might still be a new album. Or perhaps a live performance somewhere. Only time will tell.
Of course, if there's a lesson to be learned from the past few days, it's that quotes online are often not what they seem. But realistically, the idea that he does not want to tour makes perfect sense. Neil is no longer the young guy who could go from city to city performing for more than 300 days a year. He's in his 60s now, and doing all that drumming can be physically painful-- he's had tendinitis, and let's also keep in mind that many drummers of his age can suffer from some hearing loss. It's understandable that he might want to quit touring while he is still at the top of his game, and let the fans remember him at his best.
I'd be lying if I said I know what Neil's plans are. While I have several good friends at Rush's management company, it's Alex that I talk to the most often (I've also become friendly with Geddy's sister). But my interactions with Neil have been very few over the years. That's fine with me. He's a very private person, and I respect that. If I want to know how he is doing, I do keep in touch with one of his close friends, and I can get a message to him that way. But Neil has every right to live his life in the way that best ensures his health and happiness. Maybe he'll get tired of retirement and want to perform again. Maybe he won't. But we do know he has NOT definitively stated that he is done; he simply hasn't made any specific future plans. I fully expect Geddy, Alex and Neil to get together at some point, to discuss what the next thing is. Whatever it is, I will say what I've always said: for forty-one years, I've had the privilege of knowing the guys in the band, seeing them perform, and enjoying so many of their songs. I don't know if we'll get to hear any new music, but somehow, I get the impression that we will. Till then, I'm grateful for what the guys have given us. And there's nothing else I can say other than "thank you."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)