Top ten (or twenty) lists 2019

            So, I started writing some political posts but got bogged down. Too much to say, I think, and not enough time. Oh, well. It's been a long time since I did top ten lists.

           Top 20 best solo female vocal recordings by the original songstress or sometimes the best version.

1.               I will always love you by Whitney Houston.

2.               Somewhere over the Rainbow by Judy Garland.

3.               Der Hölle Rache by Diana Damrau (maybe Mozart’s sister-in-law did it better. I doubt it)

4.               The Star Spangled Banner by Whitney Houston. (Been covered a zillion times but this is not only a great version of the national anthem, it’s one of the greatest performances ever recorded).

5.               Ave Maria by Barbara Bonney (obviously, many covers, but this is the best in probably most people’s opinion).

6.               La Vie en Rose by Édith Piaf.

7.               The Rose by Bette Midler (first recording, but first written and sung by Amanda McBroom; like many great songs, took McBroom almost no time to write).

8.               At Last by Etta James.

9.               Danny Boy by Kate Smith (again, obviously, many recordings, but hers still does it for me).

10.            MacArthur Park by Donna Summers.

11.            I am Woman by Helen Reddy.

12.            Memories by Barbra Streisand (best version, the original was from Cats).

13.            Beauty and the Beast by Angela Lansbury.

14.            Because You Loved Me by Celine Dion.

15.            Into the West by Annie Lennox  (from the Return of the King; sung during credits and too unknown).

16.            Defying Gravity (from Wicked, most famously by Idina Menzel, but I prefer Kerry Ellis’s rock.version - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ_9kun4OQo.

17.            Desperado by Linda Ronstadt (obviously, a cover of the Eagle’s song).

18.            Ain’t No Mountain High Enough by Diana Ross.

19.            Angel of the Morning by Juice Newton (who was kind of famous once).

20.            All I Want from Christmas is You by Mariah Carey. (She has to be on the list and this is actually her best song, even if so played to death, it is no longer my favorite Xmas tune).

I have to say, I have a beautiful tune in my head for months now by a woman, very uplifting, but I can’t place it or make out the words. I want to say it is a Celine song, but I really don’t know. Oh, well. Someday I’ll hear it on the radio and amend my list.

Top ten best NFL players as the 2019-2020 season starts

1.               Patrick Mahomes (because he deserves it; even if he lost the 2 biggest games of the season; not his fault).

2.               Darius Leonard (still not renowned enough – unreal rookie season).

3.               Aaron Donald (not the best, but right there).

4.               Khalil Mack (as good as Donald; but Donald had more help).

5.               Michael Thomas (come on; what a season).

6.               Drew Brees (about time he gets his due).

7.               Saquon Barkley (what he did behind the Giants’s lack of a line was remarkable; all the other top backs had great lines).

8.               Christian McCaffrey (also, phenomenal).

9.               Todd Gurley (Imagine if he wasn’t so often hurt, but . . . it’s the NFL, injuries have to be factored in).

10.            J.J. Watt (I still think he could be with Taylor as the best ever, but needs to fully recover to top form and might never).

Top ten British fiction writers 20^th century

1.               J. R. R. Tolkien. (Not only the best seller, but the best; don’t make me do another post on him).

2.               Arthur Conan Doyle. (I know, you are thinking 19^th century, but a lot of them were written in the 20^th century).

3.               John Fowles. (If you haven’t read him, you should. My favorites – The Magus, The Collector and Maggot).  

4.               George MacDonald Frasier. (I can’t say enough about the remarkable Flashman series; among other great works by him).

5.               George Orwell. (Obviously).

6.               J.M. Barrie. (Although wrote in the 19^th too, the Pan books/plays were all 20^th century).

7.               John Mortimer. (For the hysterical Rumpole series).

8.               Ian Fleming. (Bond is one of the most influential characters ever).

9.               Agatha Christie. (Although I preferred Poirot to her other creations, she deserves it for the oeuvre.

10.            PG Wodehouse. (You know, Jeeves and Bertie Wooster; read some if you haven’t).

Runner up: Helen MacInnes. (I’m sure some would scream – you left off Wolff, Byatt, Lessing, Mantel, C.S. Lewis, Murdoch, Hornby and others for her? Yeah, I did. Love her spy novels and don’t love their books).

Top ten composers of serious music

1.               Bach

2.               Beethoven

3.               Wagner

4.               Tchaikovsky

5.               Mozart

6.               Rimsky-Korsakov

7.               Vivaldi

8.               Mendelssohn

9.               Paganini

10.            Borodin

Runner up: Ravel, Mussorgsky.

Notes: Look, you numbskulls, these lists are very subjective, but people still get upset over them. I do. I would here if someone put on, say, Vaughn Williams (who wasn’t bad, either) and left off Bach. People will deal with Bach being first and Beethoven second, but, putting Mozart fifth will drive some people crazy (you know, the millions reading this). But, as brilliant as he was (some put him first), I feel so much of his music sounds too similar, that I put him a few places lower. Hate me. I love Wagner. I know some just don’t like him because he wrote about his anti-Semitism (others composers were also anti-Semitic) and inspired Hitler, who he never knew. Mendelssohn has, along with Wagner’s Forest Murmurs, my favorite piece – Violin Concerto in E Minor. I love almost everything Tchaikovsky wrote, except some of his opera music, but I hate almost all Russian opera music except for the best overtures or suites they later come up with. Tchaikovsky’s contemporaries Rimsky-Korsakov and Borodin also wrote some tremendous music. If Borodin had made composing his life work like RK and Mussorgsky did, it is hard to imagine how good he’d have been. RK’s Christmas Eve and Borodin’s In the Steppes of Central Asia are two of my favorites. Paganini, well, I admire his virtuosity, if not his melodies. And Vivaldi, I don’t think I need to press on anyone who likes this type of music.

Though I like some of their works, I’m just not a huge Handel, Brahms, Schumann, Schubert, Liszt, Chopin, Debussy, Stravinsky, etc., fan. Sorry.

  Top ten super heroes

1.               Superman (The classic hero; although, I hate all efforts to make him edgier or even evil).

2.               Batman (Believe it or not, despite all the movies, Adam West is still Batman to me).

3.               Spider-Man (I find I’ve quoted bits from Spider-Man way too often for a grown-up).

4.               Dr. Fate (And older and I thought wonderful super hero).

5.               Thor (I liked the comic book version, before they started messing with him).

6.               Wonder Woman (The only woman to make my list, I did not like much the recent movie; it could easily have been so much better). My second favorite female super-hero was Black Canary.

7.               Daredevil (In the ‘60s he was a big favorite of mine).

8.               Black Panther (I also liked the old comic book version of him, not really the movie version).

9.               Martian Manhunter (There was a time I liked this Superman-plus character more than the Kryptonian - he could turn invisible, see-through lead and change shapes, but was as strong and as fast as Superman; I was not real happy with what the tv show, Supergirl, did with him).

10.            Mon-El (Another Superman clone. I just liked his version. I think I liked his suit and the color of his hair. Sue me. The tv Supergirl version of him also does nothing for me).

Talk about subjective.

Top ten Eastwood movies (have I done this one before? I’m sure I’ve changed over the years)

1.               The Outlaw Josey Wales. (One of the greatest movies ever made, IMHO).

2.               The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. (Also. . . ).

3.               Where Eagle’s Dare. (Loved his supporting role as an OSS assassin).

4.               Pale Rider. (A later Western, based on High Plains Drifter, I preferred it – and yes, Eastwood said he was a ghost [although, apparently, one who could have sex]).

5.               Every Which Way but Loose. (A really fun comedy co-starring some Eastwood regulars and an orangutan).

6.               Tight Rope. (New Orleans based serial killer/cop drama. Edgy, suspenseful).

7.               A Perfect World. (Starring Kevin Costner as a violent psychopath you have trouble not liking and Clint as the hero).

8.               In the Line of Fire. (Clint’s take on a secret service old-timer. Brilliant performance by John Malkovich and very good ones by Clint and Rene Russo).

9.               Absolute Power. (Clint, a jewel thief, witnesses the president abuse a woman who stabs him and then gets shot by the Secret Service agents who rush in to save him. Gene Hackman and other great performances).

10.            High Plains Drifter. (Okay, so I thought Pale Rider superior. I still loved this one).

I was not as big a fan of the Dirty Harry movies, though I like almost everything he’s done as an actor, producer or director. He deserves a lifetime achievement award. Then again, as the Oscars becomes more political and has less credibility than ever, who cares?

Top ten painters

1.               Caravaggio (What great realism. I felt he was a great step forward. And what a short but fantastic life; I look for him in every city I go to that I think I might find a painting; but there are a few in New York).

2.               Peter Bruegel the Elder (I love so many of his paintings; but Hunters in the Snow is easily my favorite).

3.               El Greco (His eerie elongated figures are astonishing and grab me; I’ve seen many of them in Toledo, Spain, not to mention some in New York).

4.               Hieronymus Bosch. (Nowadays, it is the name of the lead character in a detective series in print and on tv. But, he was a great early painter, with a wicked and religious imagination.

5.               Michelangelo (better known as a sculptor; his David is in many people’s view, the greatest piece of art ever created by a known person. But, his Sacred Family, in the Ufizzi Gallery, the only oil painting we know of by him, remains one of my favorite paintings).

6.               Tintoretto. (I have been an admirer for decades after reading an old essay about him by Sartre; only recently, the art world got on board with him and they are sending his work on tour now. Also known as Jacopo Robusti, after his father’s nickname, his actual last name appears to be Cuman, similar to the seasoning – just recently discovered). I like his Last Supper and Last Judgment better than the more famous versions by other artists.

7.               Van Gogh (I never got him; then, one day, I got him, like a bolt of lightning. I’ve looked at every painting he ever painted, I think).

8.               Franz Hals (Look, I like him better than Rembrandt. What can I tell you? The character in the faces his subjects are amazing). Joann Vermeer was arguably greater than either and would easily make my top 15.

9.               Andrea Mantegna (Not well known in modern times, I thought he had incredible technique, was related to marriage to the Bellini family, one of whom, Jacopo, also makes my top ten.

10.            Jacopo Bellini (And here he is).

Top ten best vice presidential names

1.               Alben Barkley (under Truman; just sounds like he would be a veep; in fact, “veep” originated with him)

2.               Schuyler Colfax (under Grant; he didn’t work out so good)

3.               Willard Fillmore (under Zack Taylor; became president when Taylor died. Sounds like a 19^th century porn star’s pseudonym).

4.               Richard Johnson aka Dick Johnson. (under Van Buren; sounds like a 20^th century porn star’s pseudonym).

5.               Daniel D. Tompkins (under Monroe; his name was featured in my favorite movie, Miracle on 34th Street, but the writers screwed up who he was vp for – it was under Monroe, not John Q. Adams).

6.               William A. Wheeler (under Hayes; I just like the flow of Wheeler’s name).

7.               Thomas Hendricks (under Benj. Harrison; I just like it because it is the same as an old-time ball-player.

8.               Teddy Roosevelt (under McKinley; you might have heard of him; but a great old Dutch name almost rendered common sounding by his and his younger relative’s fame).

9.               Hubert Horatio Humphrey (under LBJ; now there’s a silly Dr. Seuss-like name).

10.            Spiro Agnew (under Nixon; resigned in disgrace before Nixon resigned in disgrace. Good Greek name, but weird for an American pol at the time).

The curse of group guilt

Recently I wrote a comment in response to a NYTimes online article. I write a lot of these. Often one or more a morning, before dawn usually, just like these posts. It’s one of the benefits of the curse of not sleeping. Sometimes, I get 1-5 “recommends” on my comments (sometimes none), which is laughable as some get hundreds or even thousands, and whoever bashes me in reply often gets far more. I often hope I have time to reply when I get bashed – as after a while they turn the reply functions off – because sometimes I feel the commenter, in bashing me, has proved my point. Of course, on my blog, where no one comments because it no longer allows them to be anonymous for some reason or other, I am a king with no subjects, and no one sasses me. Actually, that’s a shame because in the past I rather enjoyed the comments, and I’m pretty sure the few readers I had enjoyed them more than my post. 

In any event, with respect to the article I'm writing about, within a few minutes of posting my comment on The Times, I got 40 some-odd recommends, which interested me, not because - oh, boy, I’m popular – but because it lets me know that even in a fairly ideologically fixed group - and I don’t think anyone doubts that the “typical” NY Times reader is on the liberal side – a larger than usual group of people seemed to agree. And, I guess that’s just rare. 

The article I commented on was about nuns, who belonged to an order that had decided to atone for the deeds of those in the same order long before them, indeed, who lived before any of them were even born. The misdeeds were slavery. My comment was (correcting only two spelling errors because I write them before dawn, but forget to edit before I post):

“This insistence that people today (even if they themselves buy it), are somehow responsible for slavery b/c they have the same profession, institution or were descended from those responsible, makes no sense. We don't do this with anything else. We don't, e.g., expect atonement by the descendants or members of the same club, of a murderer 200 years ago. Members of all branches of government in the past had slaves and helped perpetuate slavery. Should, say, Elijah Cummings, George Bush and John Roberts therefore atone for it?

This idea of guilt or responsibility carried through genes or membership in institutions, is no different in its core than the idea that groups of people were natural slaves because of their skin color or religion, etc. That was something people believed when slavery was the norm for peoples all over the world for most of human history.

Obviously, I am not justifying slavery or arguing that it cannot have lasting effects. I'm saying that it is not rational in the slightest for women who decided to dedicate their lives to a peaceful ideology to think they have anything to atone for b/c of what people who joined that group did 150 or more years ago, and that, generally, the idea of guilt or responsibility flowing across generations in the genes or through membership in an institution is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense - and at the very core of the idea of slavery itself.”

This idea of atonement for the deeds or even beliefs of others who are not us because of a sharing of some superficial quality that has nothing to do with the actual offense, is, as I wrote, dangerous. It is based on the falsest of ideas, that we are not morally individual, but share guilt or responsibility with those who have some highly intangible quality in common to us.

The New York Times itself is a company that has, in the past, engaged in blatant and unapologetic racism. Last year, it published an article which recognized, with respect to Jack Johnson, the first black recognized heavyweight champion, its own racist coverage. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/sports/jack-johnson-racism.html. The article actually went rather easy on the Times, which had a long history of being much more racist than I have space to write about here. The author did not atone or apologize in the article. And, they should not have because neither the author nor the employees at The Times today, have the same beliefs. But, the non-apology surprised me, as The Times and its employees sometimes make rather lame apologies for what is not racism, but what appears to mimic it by coincidence. For example, its crossword puzzle editor recently apologized for using a word “beaner,” even though the “beaner” it meant had nothing to do with any racism nor did the editor realize that it could be used as a slur against Hispanics. I think he was giving a clue or answer to a puzzle about coffee. Whatever it was, it wasn’t racist. Also recently, the Times apologized for a cartoon featuring Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu which it “admitted” had anti-Semitic tropes. What were these tropes? Apparently, it included Netanyahu wearing a dog collar with the Star of David. Obviously, they meant that Israel’s leader was Trump’s lapdog, which has been a common way of disparaging different leaders for a long time, and certainly not just Jewish ones. Tony Blair, Britain’s former PM, was taunted for being Bush’s lapdog. The Star of David actually is Israel’s symbol and its use doesn’t imply prejudice any more than a hammer and sickle used to portray a Soviet would have been in the past. I saw the cartoon. It never occurred to me that it might be anti-Semitic, but, for many it did. I seriously doubt the drawer of the cartoon meant it that way.

Right now, the issue of reparations is on the forefront again, brought back when the Ds took over the House of Representatives in the last election. They mean it to atone for racism, if you give it its best face (and not that they are trying to drum up support among their base). I believe it perpetuates racism. I’m not delving into the impossibility of actuality fairly implementing reparations (who’s black, who’s white, who is responsible – did your family have to live here during slavery to participate in atonement, etc.?), as those arguments are well known and I do not think can be successfully rebutted. Even some leaders of the movement for reparations acknowledge you can’t do it fairly.

But there is another false premise supporting reparations I’d like to address. That is the notion that it is not guilt or culpability that is being assigned in order to have reparations, but the recognition that there have been some economic benefits which some institutions and families have carried forward to this day which were, as they say, built on the backs of slavery. I have no doubt that it is true to some extent that slaves were forced to build things that we still benefit from today. It is still a false notion. We cannot leap from this belief in economic advantage for some Americans who had nothing to do with slavery, even if they are descended from George Washington or a slave trader, to the belief that they and others superficially like them, should pay reparations to other Americans who did not suffer slavery – even if some descendants do have advantages. Forget that we cannot accurately parse where the present-day advantages came from (it might have little or nothing to do with slavery). There is no reason that some Americans who were disadvantaged because of the economic shadow of slavery, should receive present-day advantages, but not someone who is disadvantaged because his parents(s) was wrongly convicted, or suffered the consequences of anti-Semitism, anti-Asian sentiment, etc. Nor reason that those who do suffer from those non-slavery related disadvantages (perhaps everyone), should have to pay towards reparations for others. We shouldn’t give in to this torture of reason that tries to rectify past injustices by blaming innocent people for them now, even if it makes others feel good.

Nor can I accept the argument that slavery is different than everything else in American history and should be treated specially. American Indians, for one group, could easily differ. Nor could it explain away the fact that for a while, blacks had a higher rate of marriage and actually a greater labor participation than whites – and that has been, at one time, since slavery.

Last, but not least, consider the powerful testimony of Coleman Hughes, a journalist, who was a witness before a congressional hearing on reparations in congress, should not be quickly forgotten: “Reparations by definition are only given to victims, so the moment you give me reparations, you’ve made me into a victim without my consent. Not just that, you’ve made 1/3 of black Americans who poll against reparations into victims without their consent, and black Americans have fought too long for the right to define themselves to be spoken for in such a condescending manner.”

Yes, he can insist he is an individual with his own opinion (even if he sees himself as a member of an oppressed group), however much someone might want to label him in order to support their political opinion. He doesn’t want to be a victim, whatever his supposed saviors think. But, it is not just him. Reparations rips the individuality away from everyone who participates on either side – the givers or the receivers.

There is an unspoken sentiment held not just by some American blacks, perhaps a majority, but by many whites and others who buy into it too, that it’s just fine if white people, even innocent ones, are stripped of their individuality and treated as a group, because non-white men were oppressed for so long (and many still feel oppressed despite the change in laws and public sentiment). They base their conclusion on the same unfair practices of judging people as a group, not as individuals. So, if whites are now – evil – and “white men” now considered dangerous, because there are some crazed white nationals in our country, that’s okay with them. If a white officer or sometimes ordinary person gets presumed guilty of murder because a black person was killed, even if it isn’t true, we should pretend it’s true. The more ridiculous the label of murder is, the better, because that highlights their point - group identity is what really matters. George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson (Ferguson – the shooting of Michael Brown) come quickly to mind.  

You can say my opinion is that of a privileged white man (trust me, the privileges did not include a lot of money), but it is the opinion of many people, some of whom, like Coleman Hughes, would benefit from this carnage of justice where once again in our country, skin color again becomes the primary qualification and qualities like character and merit, ability and decency, and so on, are no longer the lessons that matter. Maybe that has already occurred.

I couldn’t be more against guilt by association, for the sake of everyone’s individuality. Group guilt is a curse, and it should be abandoned.