Read It

David wrote an article about Radio Happy Hour at MNartists.

Oh yeah, I'm Reading Tonight

Oh yeah, I forgot to put anything about this up.

I'm reading tonight! With great writers! Yay!

It's for Minnesota Monthly Happy Hour at (Le) Poisson Rouge. The event starts at 6pm, and I think the reading starts at 6:30pm.

Sam Osterhout, Paul Dickinson, and David Doody will also be reading. StarDweller (ex Winter Blanket) will also be playing. It's like a little Minnesota in the Village. I think there are drink specials and tatter tot hot dish too. So, at the very least, if you've never had tatter tot hot dish you should come eat Minnesota.

A Thoroughly Self-Interested Post About What People I Know, or People I Like, Are Doing

David wrote a piece that made me go straight to Alibris and purchase two books by Bill Holms. Holm's passed away earlier this week. David wrote about him for Guernica.

> > > > >

Crack in Damn just joined MySpace and posted some new songs. You should be their friend, I like them. These new tracks are really great. Stand by for east coast touring.

> > > > >

Bob Boilen, on All Songs Considered, is claiming that 2009 is already a better year in music that 2008. His number one album of 2009? The Antlers' Hospice Nice. I would have to agree. It's great.
The Antlers have a CD release show at Union Hall (Brooklyn) on Thursday. I am going to go to this. It's going to be great.
There is a listening party on Tuesday, at (Le) Poisson Rouge, for their new album. Open bar from 9-10. It's true. I'm not a liar. At least right now I'm not.

> > > > >

Brad has a great new poem on The Daily Poem Factory Machine called "I Don't Even Know How Whitney Houston Got My Number." It's a marvelous thing. Really.

> > > > >

Marlon James had a review of his new novel, The Book of Night Women, published in the New York Times Sunday Book Review. They liked it. You might as well. I'm not sure, maybe you should read the review.
Marlon is reading at Common Good Books in St. Paul at the end of the month. You could do this instead of reading the NYT review.

> > > > >

Kendra Grant Malone has a new flash fiction piece posted at NanoFiction. Which I site I am just discovering and I think it has some really great stuff.

> > > > >

The Music Slut is giving away free tickets to the Cut Copy DJ Set at LPR.

> > > > >

Haley Bonar just did a Daytrotter session. It's pretty good.

> > > > >

The New Yorker just published an excerpt from the IRS novel David Foster Wallace was finishing when he died. It will be released...at some point

> > > > >

Cursive is giving away their new album Mama, I'm Swollen for $1 today. It goes up $1 every day until it comes out on 03.10. It's ok. Worth the $1 I paid.

> > > > >

Oh, and, I've said this, but there is new InDigest up. It has Mackenzie Epping, Kate Casanova, Charles Greene, Ashleigh Lambert, and Mandy Herrick.

> > > > >

I wrote stuff recently at Rift, Tiny Mix Tapes, and f10.

I've Been Writing

I’ve been writing again in some places, and those places are listed below. I also have a new film screening on December 12th and 13th in Minneapolis. I don’t really know where or when, but I’ll probably put something up about it when I know, I did the film with choreographer Mandy Herrick and her crew, she’s awesome, you should go see one of her performances sometime (they are in very odd locations and a lot of fun, again, maybe I’ll put something up about her next one when I know where it is…I should do more research before I start doing posts like this…)

Translating the Polls into Electoral Votes (Guernica Mag)
A Year of Smears or Barack Obama is a Muslim and Al Franken Laughs at the Disabled (BlogsAreAboutEgo)
Draw Fire Rocks Manhattan (TC Daily Planet)
W. Reviewed (Tiny Mix Tapes)
Review of Aidan Baker and Tim Hecker’s Fantasma Parastasie (Favorite 10)
Are You Being Sold the Warm Fuzzies? (Intentionally Urban)


David has been writing too, and these are good so I’m including them:
Minnesota 6th Graders Get Out the Vote (Huffington Post)
Michelle Bachmann “Represents” Minnesota on Hardball (This is How I Love You)


LPR had a lot of good stuff this week too:
JACK Quartet, then Corey Dargel CD Release party, and then a Crookers late party (New York Times)
Apes & Androids on Halloween (Gothamist)
200

Point, Counterpoint, Point

In case you haven't read a frustrated post on here called Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything, David Luke Doody (responses are posted at his blog This Is How I Love You) and I are having a battle in which we agree, but somehow disagree in some abstract way that no one really understands. Here is what has happened some far, followed by the latest counterpoint:

Point (Question):
Why Do the Candidates Continue to Refuse to Talk About Anything

It seems like the election has been a constant contest to seem who can say the least. I'm really amazed that we are only five weeks away from this being over. It feels like they are just getting started. Obama and Biden have really receded from the headlines and McCain is either stealing the headlines with Palin's idiocy (I believe my recent favorite was that she can't name a supreme court case outside of Roe v. Wade), or he's in the news aimlessly attacking Obama. What about what's actually happening, particularly the erosion of American civil liberties. Neither candidate would touch that topic with a ten foot pole. In their defense, it's lethal. What can you say on the topic that wouldn't piss someone off? But isn't that what we really want? I leader who isn't scared of opinion polls or talking about a something that people might get sensitive about? It's a real issue. The Bush administration has slowly but surely given the executive branch increased control of torture, spying, and all intelligence routes through the government. This is a flagrant violation of our constitution, of our rights. Yet, no one really seems to want to prod the candidates into speaking on the subject.

Obama is scared of looking left wing. And McCain has voted with Bush through the entire erosion. (and Obama is not innocent here) Why doesn't someone try to make them talk about it in a debate, or why aren't reporters hitting them with these questions. Katie Couric made Palin look dumb, but Palin has nothing to do with this, she is not a national politician, in my mind she's not much of a politician at all, but that's besides the point. Why can't we actually have an open discussion about these kind of issues in an election year? I think I know the answer, and maybe I'm being naive and idealistic in hoping that this could be possible, but dammit I don't care, I want to hear them speak about this. This may be a great plan for McCain in fact. It seems as though the debate would go to Obama, because McCain has always followed Bush through this erosion of our rights, and anyone that cares would have to side with Obama. But what if Obama can't defend a somewhat patchy track record here? What if he can't speak about it as eloquently as you would imagine? It might be a good chance for McCain to win over some of the liberal vote...try it, see what happens. It won't happen, but it's fun to imagine what kind of democracy you would wish for.
-Dustin Luke Nelson


Counterpoint:
There's a book by Dana Nelson called "Bad for Democracy" that shows how over decades and decades--not just through the W years--the presidency has sought and received more and more power, throwing the balance of government completely out of whack. The position becomes more and more like that of a king, and all the while the American people have accepted this piracy of the balance originally sought after by our founding fathers. Think of the language we use: "The leader of the free world," "The most powerful position in the land," et al. This is not what the presidency was supposed to be. It was supposed to be just one branch with no more and no less power than the others, or at least it was supposed to be able to be checked and put in line when it stepped out of that line.

But, more specifically in response to this post, you're right, they won't talk about incendiary issues because they cannot afford to piss anyone off who may be on the fence about those issues. It's like when they say "middle class" but never utter the word "poverty." It's spinning what they say to get votes...a watered down version of tackling the tough topics in order to get votes.

The point is, the position of president carries too much power and importance in the average American's mind. Yes, it is important that our representatives actually discuss important issues. But it's even more important that we not rely on them as much as we do to do anything about those important issues.

The fight does not end on November 5th, even if Obama is elected. Yes, we can all breath a sigh of relief if that is the outcome, because we will have taken a step in the right direction. But, and be sure of this, he is not a savior. He cannot undo all that has been done. He will not be able to retroactively give back all the civil liberties lost over the years. And you can be sure that there will be those fighting tooth and nail to keep the powers and tactics they have become accustomed to. The president is not our king and we cannot simply rely on him to answer all of our questions.
-David Luke Doody


Point:
I would not argue that this (straightforward dialogue on the issues) will ever happen, because that's election year politicking, this is not a new revelation for anyone. But what happens in a presidential race is mimicked extensively in congressional elections. The presidential race sets the tone for the rest of the contests. If we had candidates that weren't concerned that speaking about the issues that could irritate the “on the fence” voters the congressional races would follow suit.

I think there is something to be said for that, because while the president should not be the "king" of America, there is a collective mentality that it is so (to a certain extent). So, whether or not it's true, it is made true by the actions of the constituents.

This is easily exemplified by the debates last night when the moderator asked Palin and Biden how they would act as vice president and if they would use Cheney's interpretation of the vice president’s duties as outlined by the constitution. I don't have the exact quote from the moderator, but she spoke about the constitution being vague on the exact location of power for the vice president. Palin immediately responded that she agreed with Cheney (red flag anyone? The first time anyone besides Bush and Lucifer have publicly agreed with Cheney). The specific branch where the powers of the vice president lie are not vaguely stated in the constitution, he (or potentially she) is a part of the executive branch, he is not a roving force that hovers over all branches of the government. But because someone argues for such powers, and convinces people of them, that can make it reality, whether or not it should be. The mere fact that this was phrased in this fashion and that Palin, without hesitation, responded she subscribes to this doctrine legitimizes this view. The president, especially now, as the executive branch continually expands it's power, the position functions beyond it's equal power doctrine between the branches. The checks and balances are broken.

From Article One of the Constitution:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

That said, I agree with you. Any time radical change has come from within the government (it's hard to believe sometimes, but it's happened) it is not a result of a president taking more power into the executive branch, it is a result of a sweeping majority in one party through both houses of Congress. Obama is not the savior, and he isn't going to save the country by becoming president. I certainly believe that it's a step in the right direction, but to see radical change in government it's going to take a whole lot more than a president who is willing to stand up for their policies. (unless they want to tear the constitution to shreds and kind of have a free for all - as has happened recently, but even then, the Republicans had a solid majority when Bush first took office).
- Dustin Luke Nelson

David has a story to tell

David Doody has a great piece of flash fiction up on MNartists.org miniStories that you should read. It's call On Telling Her about the Short Story “On Wanting to Get Three Walls Up Before She Gets Home”

More Business

Here is some cool stuff:

Guernica Mag has some new stuff up.
This is a little behind but there is a great live recording of Nico Muhly up on the WNYC website.
Brandon Scott Gorrell has a good story up on InDigest (Did I already post that?)
Michael Azerrad wrote a beautiful, glowing review of the Signal Performs Steve Reich at LPR this weekend. It was awesome, I was there, I've fallen in love with Music for 18 Musicians.
Brad Liening wrote a poem that I like.
Meggie Elder also wrote a poem that I like.
Meakin Armstrong thinks Esquire sucks now. I do too.

El Diablo

David Doody did a great short piece on the phenomenon of Diablo Cody, and her win last night at the Oscars. go look at it on his blog.

Are you happy now? (David)

I'll put a comment here then. I'll comment wherever I damn well please. (because I have nothing better to do...oh, god, I miss you so much)