From "Missy" to "Ma'am"

Talk about race is everywhere these days. Or, more precisely, talk about racism is everywhere these days. From Barack Obama's run for the presidency and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, to the 40th anniversary of the death of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Americans are trying to engage in a conversation about race and racism. It hasn't been easy. If there is one topic that freaks most of white America, it's race. Many insist race doesn't matter, and that Blacks are obsessed with the topic. Others acknowledge the effects of race and racism, but feel no responsibility or culpability for the situation and want to move on. The final group acknowledges race and racism, are color-blind to the best extent any of us can be in America, and try the best they can not to discriminate against people of color, or take advantage of the inherent advantages whites enjoy in America. This is really a small group of whites, but they do exist.

I believe the primary reason many white Americans freak out about racism is denial. Their legacy must be extremely difficult to reconcile. This country was built upon the backs and blood of a group of people through their free labor, brutally against their will. Those same people were then systemically marginalized, brutalized, de-humanized, disenfranchised, and discriminated against. This was all done by, and to the advantage of, white people. The vestiges of slavery and its aftermath continue to this day to the detriment of Black people, without question. No sane person could deny it, and that's a hard pill to swallow for whites.

The good news for whites is, "we ain't mad at you." Black Americans have to be the most forgiving people on the face of the earth, ever. While at times we may seem angry or bitter, the overwhelming majority of Blacks are just trying to make it in this society. We're not currently enslaved, and we realize that you, personally, are not responsible for this shameless history. We want the same things as you: good schools, good jobs, and good housing. To dwell upon race, racism, and discrimination is inefficient, emotionally draining, and probably counter-productive. All we want is our chance(s), and a level playing field. We can forget the past, if White America will stop repeating it and perpetuating its effects. That's a tall order for whites, and not nearly as simple as it sounds. And that is why the struggle and the discussion continues, to this day.

Mind you, just because we don't trip over race doesn't mean that we won't go off on, slap the shit out of, or even pop a cap in, a current practitioner of racism. Our anger and resentment, though suppressed, isn't that far from the surface, and it doesn't take much to set it off. Our memories are not short. Do you feel me?

It is against this backdrop and all of the "playing the race card" nonsense attendant to the presidential nominating contests that I was surprised, and encouraged, to see the recent remarks of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding race in America. Secretary Rice's remarks were part of a more comprehensive interview with Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times editorial board, and her comments were based in part on her reaction to Barack Obama's speech about race in the aftermath of the flare-up over his former pastor and spiritual advisor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Before I get to Ms. Rice, an interesting side note to the Reverend Wright controversy is how quickly certain media and other certain segments of white society wanted to jump on Reverend Wright's comments as evidence of racist and/or un-patriotic aspects of Black America. A similar rush to judgment was seen in the phony reactions to Michelle Obama's remarks about being proud of her country for the first time in her adult life, speaking of the country's acceptance of her husband's candidacy for the President of the United States, and their hunger for change.

This is an interesting paradox, and additionally a tired political trick on a gullible American public. A variant on the old divide and conquer stratagem, this ruse attempts to paint blacks as undeserving of a chance or for favor because they exhibit some of the same qualities that they condemn us for, or that they're really subversive and disloyal to the country. Please.

Back to Condi. I haven't though much of Ms. Rice, and I still probably don't. A discomforting fact for Blacks is our history of sell-outs, from African tribal complicity in the European slave trade, to the Uncle Toms of the slavery era and thereafter, to the modern-day phenomena, which I'll call the Black Republican Role Model (BRRM). The Black Republican Role Model is a painful (for Blacks) device used by Republicans to remind us of our history. They find a twisted or opportunistic Black person willing, for whatever reasons, to play ball with their agenda, and they then promote and maneuver them into a position of prominence - usually political - to show Blacks how they need to act to sit at the table in their society. The BRRM is also used to demonstrate how hard work, self-reliance, and a willingness to carry water for the Republican party, is rewarded. For Blacks, it is a reminder that we can sometimes be our own worst enemy.

The earliest example of a BRRM I can remember was J.C. Watts, a former congressman from Oklahoma, who also played college football as quarterback for the University of Oklahoma. Perhaps the most recent example would be former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson. Other notable BRRMs include former Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Because I'm extreme, I would also include in this group Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell (West Indian, incidentally) and his son, Michael, former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The senior Powell has recently exhibited signs of redemption, in his willigness to acknowledge the mistakes in going to war against Iraq.

I'd long considered Rice to be a BRRM, primarily because of her relationship and allegiance to the Bush family. When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez once called her "Missy, " I found his remark funny and appropriate, in view of her fraudulent peddling of the Bush foreign policy agenda, and her silly clothing affectation. As such, I've been particularly dismissive of her and have found her to be distressingly, albeit brilliantly, enigmatic. However, she earned a lot of props with me with her comments about America's "birth defect" and how she spoke with clarity about the subject. Now I know Rice has often spoke about her own and her family's personal struggles with race and racism, growing up in Birmingham's Titusville's neighborhood that also produced notable black educator Freeman Hrabowski, III, a chilhood friend of Rice's, who is working wonders at nearby University of Maryland, Baltimore County. But I also know that Rice has used those same stories to publicly trumpet Republican themes of self-reliance and godliness. I just couldn't, and still can't, take her seriously. She was, in my view, merely a shill for the Bush clan, and not to be trusted.

I encourage you to read her remarks. Yes, she tows the line and was careful not to offend. She also bent over backward not to give Barack any props politically, but you can feel her passion. And you think; underneath all her bullshit, she's might just be real and feel the same conflict and pain we all do.

I'll be glad when Rice either returns to academia, or business, or whatever, after the end of this disgraceful administration. Hopefully, she's just lost her way and needs to re-discover herself. I guess what would be most disappointing would be if she entered politics, running for office and promoting some conservative agenda. But for the meantime, I'll stop calling her Missy. I'll now call her something which is a sign of respect in the Black community. I'll now call her "Ma'am.

No Diggity

What Makes A Great City?

It happened to me again yesterday. I was meeting with a woman from the Connecticut/New York City area, and we were discussing how much we liked, or didn't like, D.C. Anybody that knows me knows that I'm from great city of Chicago. In the 12 years that I've been living and working in the D.C. metro area I've come a long way, from intensely disliking Washington, D.C., to passively tolerating the existence of the city. There was a time I was the President of the D.C. haters fan club; now, I'm more like a disinterested observer.

In any event, the woman I was meeting with didn't like this place either, and she looked forward to the time she would be able to get out. Fortunately for her, she had only been out here about two years, and she thought she'd be able to get away in a year or two, max. When I found out that she was from the NYC area, I would have bet money that she wouldn't like D.C. You see, there are basically two types of people in this area, despite its diversity and multinational population. The first group are those who came here from someplace of a lesser profile than D.C. This group includes most of the people who live in the area, including members of Congress and the massive federal government workforce, and nearly all of the people who came here from foreign locales.

The second group are those who, for whatever bizarre reason, have relocated here from places with a greater profile than D.C. This group is admittedly a distinct minority. I include myself in this group. In my opinion and on a totally arbitrary and non-scientific rating scale from 1 to 100, Chicago rates about an 85, whereas DC checks in at about a 72.


Why did I come to D.C.? Simple, for a job, and it turned out to be a pretty good one at that. Didn't know at the time I'd be downsized out of my position nine years later. Additionally, I had the good fortune of the opportunity to visit D.C. for an extended period three years before I moved out here. This trip was entirely on someone else's dime, was predominately recreational, and I had big, big, fun. In the vernacular, I was young, dumb, and full of ,well, you know. I visited museums by day, and partied by night. I saw only the best of D.C., and left with a entirely distorted view of the real nature of the town. I thought, "Wow, what a great town." I was misinformed. Didn't get a real taste of what it would be like to live and work with the people of this region.

Why do I stay? Good question. First, I got married out here, and Mrs. Diggity's family and work are here. Secondly, and most importantly, where am I going? Although this area will never be home, no place else is, either. I've been gone away for enough time that Chicago at times seems distant and foreign, even though on average I get back there three to four times a year. Unless a killer job or opportunity presents itself somewhere else, I'll probably be here.

The conversation with the woman reminded me of a question that I have tossed around in my head for at least as long as I have lived here: "What Makes A Great City?" I've decided to post on the question, fully aware that my criteria are entirely subjective. As usual, you're free to agree or disagree, or even call me a bigoted, uninformed snob. The discussion herein applies only to United States cities. Sorry, Paris, London, or Baghdad doesn't qualify.

I really believe that a catalyst or enabling factor of a great city is its close proximity to a substantial body of water. Chicago, of course, is anchored by Lake Michigan. Although I'm not particularly a water lover, I can't help but appreciate the Lake's beauty, its vastness, its impact on land and real estate values, and its recreational opportunities. New York has the Hudson and the Atlantic. San Francisco has the bay and the Pacific. Austin, Texas (trust me) has the Colorado River and three man-made lakes wholly within its city limits. D.C has, well........the Potomac. I'm so sorry D.C., but that would be a no.

A great city must also have an active and viable downtown business/shopping district, which doesn't roll up its streets after 10:00 PM. If D.C. has this, please let me know. I don't know where it's located.



Although I'm not a huge fan of food, I'm sure a general consensus would be that a great city has to have great restaurants and a variety of dining choices and options. When I first came out here, I thought the food of the city was vastly overrated. From what I know and hear now, the situation has improved tremendously, where D.C. is now a first-rate city for dining. Mind you, I do find the 10% restaurant tax repulsive and a disincentive to dining in D.C., but I really can't talk here. Chicago has one of the most byzantine tax structures imaginable, having the highest sales tax of all major U.S. cities, 10.25% on non-perishable goods, although it is considerably lower on food and drugs (2%). Car rentals in the city are taxed at 30%, hotel rooms at 15.4%, and soft drinks at 13.4%. Boy, am I glad I don't live there anymore.

I feel that in a great city, the occupants have a fashion consciousness and a sense of style, and the shopping choices available to those occupants reflect that sense of consciousness and style. D.C. is woefully lacking in this regard. First, the people seem relatively unconcerned about such matters. Admittedly, D.C.'s steambath-like climate is a factor. I mean, I've never seen so many jacketless professional men in short-sleeved shirts, and if it's April 1st, the women must be wearing their white or bone-colored shoes. Another factor is that it seems that D.C. is predominated by young people, i.e., those under 30 years of age. Perhaps I feel that way because I'm old (relatively), but my point is that really young (15 - 20) people's sense of fashion, if that is what you would call it, doesn't matter. And in this town, the folks older than that just have a clue.

The problem with living in a fashion-challenged environment is that eventually, you become lax in your habits. "When in Rome...."

Except for the last five years, my professional career has been spent exclusively in white-collar professional environments. There was a time in my kife where I was more comfortable in a suit than a pair of jeans. In Chicago,you developed a sense of pride in your appearance because others exhibited that same sense of pride. Hell, even the receptionists had it going on. And people didn't dress to "front" or to compete, it was just a manifestation of their professionalism. Here, nobody seems to care. After a while you may say, "If they don't care, I don't care." If I can get away with it professionally and it has no effect on my career, why bother?" I can save some money and some time. I've vertainly fallen into this type of thinking. However, I do have my limits. Minimum standards must be maintained. It's just that its all so easy here.

Even if I needed to be "clean" on a regular basis, it would be hard to find anything within D.C. to maintain. Although I won't speak to women's shopping options in the city, I can say there is nothing for men in this town that would approach the caliber of a Wilkes-Bashford in San Francisco, or a Syd Jerome in Chicago, or any other quality men's store. Hell, there isn't even a Barney's in the area, to my knowledge. Now don't get me wrong, I didn't always shop at men's stores of such quality in my previous environment. I can and do do Nordstrom's, Bloomingdale's, or Neiman's, and I look for sales. But when you're used to dressing well, periodically you went the extra mile when you had the cash. Here, having the cash wouldn't matter, there's nothing in the city. But wait, I did see an Allen Edmonds store on Connecticut recently (woo-hoo!). Maybe the lack of city options is why the damn suburban malls are always so crowded. I wonder where the boys who work on "K" Street get their goods? Possibly bespoke?


A great city must also have a viable public transportation system. It must move massive quantifies of people to work and play in a relatively safe and efficient manner. On this count, D.C., does well. Upon moving here, I often remarked that the Metro (train) system was the best thing about this place. I still feel that way. The Metro is clean, safe, and for now, affordable, and will get you to most of the places you need to get to in this town. Now, it does have its problems. It seems to suffer from the usual mismanagement big city transit systems experience. Inexplicably, it doesn't operate on a 24-hour basis. And the ridership has some of the quirkiest transportation behavior I've ever experienced - moving from destination-to-destination in an efficient and comfortable manner doesn't seem to be a priority. But all in all, the Metro works and I can work with it.



As for the town's bus system, I'm almost entirely unfamiliar with its operation. I've seen buses and have been on a handful of "downtown" buses, but I'm not knowledgeable about the services to the neighborhoods. Feel free to comment and inform the discussion. As for the feeder commuter trains into the city, the MARC trains, with which I'm very familiar, are a painful joke. The less said about them, the better. Have never taken VRE. Again, I welcome your comments.

Any great city should also have all the major sports teams - baseball, basketball, football, and hockey - and should have attractive sports venues that can suck up consumer surplus from the residents. Here again, D.C. is spot on. Although I have entirely no interest in its sporting teams, you have the Nationals, Wizards, Redskins, and Capitals, with the attractively new Nationals Park, Verizon Center, FedEx Field, and Verizon, respectively. No problem here.




When I made the decision to relocate to D.C., I thought the move would be lateral in terms of arts, culture, and nightlife. I mean, this was the nation's capital, wasn't it? I couldn't have been more misinformed. For all it offers to the nation in terms of museums and galleries, it lacks in other areas. First, the city has no resident symphony orchestra. Although I'm not a huge classical music or opera patron, I do appreciate the music and managed to attend two to five performances per year in Chicago. The Kennedy Center and its offerings are overrated. The jazz scene is also lacking, although Twins Lounge does try. There are no jazz festivals in the city and the area festivals are more R&B oriented than jazz. Blues Alley, which has a wholly undeserved national reputation, would have to pay me to set foot in their venue for most of their sorry lineups.



As for major popular entertainment, in can be curiously inexplicable why many performers choose to totally bypass D.C., when they make stops only hours away in New York or Philadelphia. Maybe it's because of the tastes of the resident D.C. crowd, which can lend itself to Peaches and Herb retrospectives at Constitution Hall.

The theatre scene is similarly disappointing, but perhaps this is my issue. I basically want available to me good quality local theatre, coupled with a venue that offers major plays that tour from Broadway. I'm fairly certain that the economics of Broadway have limited the number of plays that go out on the road these days, but you hardly ever see a major work coming down to D.C. from New York. I've recently learned that the D.C./MD/NOVA region is second only to New York in the number of community theatres, which was surprising. The collective quality of all those theatres, however, is another matter. About a year ago, I was able to catch a good production of an August Wilson work, "Jitney," at Ford's Theatre.

Although I love movies, I usually don't attend film festivals (too lazy), but I do appreciate them. I hear the D.C. Independent Film Festival and Filmfest D.C. (International) are pretty good. Kudos to the town.

To its credit, D.C. does seem to have more than its share of clubs for young people to get their dance on, and even an old fuddy like myself has caught an act or two at the seemingly excellent 9:30 Club. I'm sure their are many others like it for the young'uns.

The nightlife is a mixed bag. Being over 50, I've lost my old desire to party like I did when was age twenty to forty. However, I still like to occasionally move among the shadows, if you know what I mean. However, there are no shadows in D.C. - the town is so small and provincial that if you're on the scene, the whole town will eventually know your business. While D.C. seems to be a great party town for college students and younger people under forty, it seems to lack similar scene, venues, or niches for more mature people. Your choice: either party with the kids or stay at home. I'll stay at home, thank you, for the most part. I don't want to be the old guy in the club.

A great city should also have first-class institutions of higher education, and again, D.C. hits the mark with Georgetown and American Universities and, to a lesser degree, the vastly overpriced George Washington University.

Washington is woefully lacking in its absence as a center for headquarters of major business(es), or the presence of a financial sector (the Fed doesn't count). Its local politics are uninteresting, and the local politicians are comically amateurish. This isn't surprising for a city which has only had a local government since 1974. Many D.C. residents don't know it, but their current mayor isn't particularly bright (I used to work with him when he was an aide to a Councilmember, albeit on opposite sides of the fence). Fortunately, brains aren't a prerequisite to becoming a great mayor. The jury is definitely still out on Adrian.

Is D.C. a great city? In a word, No. Is it close? Maybe. For young people and those fascinated by the machinations of politics, and government, it's great. D.C. represents one of the better playgrounds in the nation for young people - it's a great place to be in your 20s and 30s, and D.C. has per capita more attractive women than any city in the country (my personal opinion). But is it held back from greatness by a variety of factors - lack of style, lack of shopping, its parochialism, it's lack of sophistication, its lack of neighborhoods of identity, and so on.

To my credit, I've not used the words or phrases "country," or "southern" or "unjustified pretentiousness" in my narrative. I've come a long way.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've never lived in D.C. But I have worked there for over 12 years, and I have lived close enough to D.C. (Arlington) to walk across its border. For this particular post, I'd like comments from those who may disagree with my views. I'd like for D.C. to be great. As any "born and raised D.C. native," a vastly overrated badge of honor here, will tell you, "it's the Nation's Capital." It should be great. It just isn't.

No Diggity

Ten Jazz Names Even You Should Know

I had one of those moments with my daughter recently. I was driving her to the airport - she was returning to her Alma mater, The University of Michigan, for Founder's Day activities for her sorority. She had the radio was on as I drove. As usual, there wasn't much to my liking on regular old radio, but I was being patient with her. At some point, the latest version of some trashy, non-musical, "dirty south" style mindless nonsense came on the air, and she began to bounce and sing-song along with the inane lyrics. It struck an old nerve with me. I asked, "Why do you listen to this shit?" and she came back at me with the usual arguments - that she listened to all types of music, that this music was popular with her set, that it was the beats and not the lyrics, that it was fun, that they played it in the clubs, and so on, blah, blah, blah.

I went way overboard. I told her that endorseing and accepting this kind of misogynist, putrid crap was retarding her development, and that as long as she was a blind follower of popular tastes, she would never lead. I went on further to say that at some point in your life, you have to decide not to go along with the crowd, and make choices that may not be popular or in vogue at the moment. I explained that I had made such a decision and choice in my twenties, when I became a fan of jazz, probably the most unpopular choice of music in America today.

She grew quiet. I could tell she was tired of this discussion, which I have been periodically revisiting with her since she was a teenager (she'll soon be 24). I let it die, realizing that I'll probably never persuade her to abandon the more base of her musical tastes; that if this moment were to ever occur, it would have to come naturally and of her own accord. My daughter has given me a world of reasons to be proud of her, notwithstanding this very limited defect. If she never outgrows that type of music, and i do think she will, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Count your blessings, as they say.

Why is jazz so ignored, and possibly even reviled in the United States? It shouldn't be. It is the only music genre that is truly and entirely American in its origin. We invented it, and there ain't nobody who can play it like us. Talk about beats, jazz has beats. It's brilliant, diverse, timeless, and more than capable of sustaining a lifelong love affair. Most Americans don't know what jazz is, and what it is not. Ignorantly, many think all jazz sounds alike. Not true. They think Kenny G is a jazz musician - he is not. They believe that "smooth jazz" is jazz. Wrong again. The sad fact is that most Americans have a fundamental misunderstanding of jazz that is fatal to them ever acquiring an appreciation for the music. Yes, like any other music, it has its clunkers and charlatans, but true admission to the fraternity requires musicianship, dedication, intelligence, and most importantly, a passion for the music itself.

I have my own opinions as to why most Americans either ignore or do not like jazz. First and foremost, it is music for a thinking person. I have never, ever, met a jazz aficionado who was not bright. Admit it, you do have to cringe at the state of the American intellect today. Additionally, jazz requires a commitment. A commitment of time, scholarship, and intellectual curiosity that is probably lacking and beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of music fans. Jazz is an acquired taste. Further, it's primarily music that should be listened to - there's very little dancing to jazz, although much of it is eminently danceable. Sadly, but predictably, there's also a racial component. Jazz was invented by, developed by, and is excelled in primarily by the Black Man in America and, as such, it was/is subject to the usual simpleminded prejudices of Americans - to the point where Europeans and Asians are far more devoted and enthusiastic connoisseurs of jazz than most Americans.

That being said and getting down from my soapbox, I offer for your edification a primer of sorts for jazz - a list of ten jazz artists of which every serious music fan should be aware. The Golden Age of Jazz was basically from the 1930s to the 1970s, with a sharp decline in popularity and marketability thereafter. Although there is still plenty of good stuff out there, you've got to hunt to find it nowadays. New York City was once the jazz Mecca of the universe during the 1940s and 50s and probably still is the best city in the world to catch jazz today, but at nowhere near the quantity and extent of years past. Many will argue that jazz is dying, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue alternatively. Jazz clubs, once the staple of live jazz performance and the lifeblood of the genre, are virtually non-existent in major American cities these days. Most cities also had one or more 12 to 24-hour jazz radio stations on the mainstream radio spectrum. Today, your only hope for such is the Internet or satellite radio. Commercially, the jazz industry is difficult in many aspects. Jazz record sales, always a relatively minor component of the music industry, have declined further. It is extremely difficult for a jazz musician to make a living playing jazz exclusively today. It is truly a sad state of affairs for this great American art form.

Without further ado, here is the list, not necessarily in order of influence, importance, or badassedness:

1. Louis Armstrong - Considered by many to be the founding father of jazz, I realize that having Louis at the head of the list could be a non-starter for many people, whose only knowledge of Mr. Armstrong relates to the "Satchmo" images. I myself admit that Armstrong isn't somebody that I turn to for the best of jazz, but the fact of the matter is that Armstrong was a musical genius, and both an excellent trumpet player and vocalist. He deserves his props.

2. Edward "Duke" Ellington - The most important composer in the history of jazz, Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington was a bandleader for over 50 years. Forever linked with the brilliant arranger Billy Strayhorn, Ellington is responsible for some of the most memorable and popular American compositions of all time, such as, "Take the "A" Train;" "Satin Doll;" "It Don't Mean A Thing (If It Ain't Got That Swing);" "Sophisticated Lady;" "Caravan;" "In A Sentimental Mood," and "Do Nothing Til You Hear From Me," just to name a few of his many great songs. A native Washingtonian.

3. Miles Davis - Perhaps the greatest trumpet player of all time, many consider the enigmatic Davis to be the most important figure in the history of jazz. Although not a personal favorite of mine, it's hard to argue against the point. Davis was extraordinarily creative and innovative, and constantly pushed his craft and the music to refreshingly new and different levels. Skilled both and a musician and a bandleader, Miles was a difficult person, as many geniuses are. An excellent biography of Davis and the history of jazz can be found in Miles: The Autobiography, by Miles Davis and Quincy Troupe.

4. John Coltrane - Fiery, euphoric, serene, brilliant, eclectic, cerebral, introspective, expressive - all of these adjectives could be used to describe the works of the man - J.C., - John Coltrane. Though his career in jazz was a brief 11 years (he died at age 40 in 1967 from liver cancer), John Coltrane influence the music perhaps unlike any other musician. Plagued early in his career by heroin addiction that made him difficult to employ, the alto, tenor, and soprano saxophonist "Trane" had periodic affiliations with other great men of jazz - Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, and Thelonius Monk, being the most notable. Arguably, his greatest work came as the leader of, in my opinion, the baddest jazz bands ever, with Trane fronting such personnel at various times which consisted of Trane on saxophones, Red Garland or McCoy Tyner on piano, Paul Chambers or Jimmy Garrison on bass, Elvin Jones or "Philly" Joe Jones on drums, Lee Morgan on trumpet, and trombonist Curtis Fuller. His seminal album, A Love Supreme, is considered one of the most important jazz albums ever. My personal favorite jazz recording is Coltrane's rendition of the Rodgers and Hammerstein classic, My Favorite Things. Ladies and Gentlemen, this man was the shit.

5. Wynton Marsalis - Considered by many to be the finest musician of his generation, this trumpet savant saved and rejuvenated jazz, albeit temporarily, during the 1980s and 1990s. The premiere talent of an extremely talented musical family [pianist father Ellis, who taught Harry Connick, Jr.; brothers Branford (saxophone); Delfeayo (trombone), and Jason (percussion)], Marsalis is currently Artistic Director of Jazz at Lincoln Center. He is also an accomplished and Grammy-winning composer. Marsalis is a strident and persistent defender of straight jazz and has criticized the attention other popular music forms receive from young Americans. His strongly-held views have caused him a fair share of criticism, even from fellow jazz musicians. Even though his harping can wear on you, he is a brilliant musician and has been a steady champion for the cause of jazz for years.

6. Art Blakey - My favorite jazz artist, not for his drumming ability, but for what he meant to jazz and how he preserved the hard-bop art form of jazz for a span of over thirty years. Founder of the quintessential jazz group, The Jazz Messengers, Blakey began as a not-very-good piano player who switched to the drums. It was there he found his niche, and his calling as a leader and nurturer of young talent. While he was a force in the jazz world in his own right as a drummer from the thirties to fifties, it was as the hard-driving percussive leader of the Messengers that he became a giant. Never a static jazz group, the Messengers more closely resembled the ensemble talent of a theatre company, serving as an incubator for young talent, who would rotate through the group and later became important players in the jazz world in their own right. Almost every major talent in the jazz world from the fifties to the nineties played at one time or another with Blakey's Messengers, including the membership of the "Young Turks" movement in jazz spearheaded by Wynton Marsalis in the 1980s. Only five-foot three, but yet an aggressive and powerful drummer, Blakey was a strict taskmaster of the these young men, pushing them to stretch the limits of their talents. The roster of the members of the Messengers, as well as the personnel with which Blakey has played as a sideman, reads like a Who's Who of jazz. I enjoyed his music so immensely that I nearly cried when he died in 1990 from lung cancer. Blakey, also known as Abdullah Ibn Buhaina, or simply "Bu," was still playing and leading a band shortly before he passed away in his 70s.

7. Thelonius Monk - Eccentric, laconic, and sometimes uncommunicative, many people of his time thought pianist Thelonius Monk was a nut. But beneath the sometimes impenetrable exterior lay a compositional genius. Responsible for some of the great jazz standards - Round Midnight, Straight No Chaser, 52nd Street Theme, Blue Monk, Well You Needn't, In Walked Bud, and others, Monk was ahead of his time, both in his playing and his compositional skills. After being misunderstood both personally and professionally for a number of years, his greatness was recognized by Alfred Lion of the Blue Note label, and he was a fixture on the jazz scene until he suddenly retired in 1973, suffering from mental illness. He died in 1982.

8. Charlie Parker - "Bird," the brilliant yet self-destructive saxophonist, probably had as much an influence on jazz and horn players than any other musician in the jazz pantheon. Addicted to heroin as early as his teen years, Bird was a saxophone virtuoso admired and copied by his peers and by ensuing generations. In unison with his frequent collaborator Dizzy Gillespie, Bird and "Diz" provided the definitive saxophone and trumpet solos, and pioneered and mastered the jazz genre known as bebop. Abusive of both heroin and alcohol for years, Charlie Parker died in 1955 at the age of 34. According to reports, the medical examiner who presided over his body reasoned that he was a man twice that age.

9. Dizzy Gillespie - The aforementioned collaborator with Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie is considered by some jazz aficionados as the finest trumpeter ever (Not, that would be Wynton). In addition to being a first-rate trumpeter, Gillespie was known for his management and organizational skills in putting together successful large bands which earned a living in jazz, always a challenging proposition. During his time, while so many jazz musicians were unpredictable and irresponsible, primarily due to drug use and addictions, Diz was a steadying hand. He also a key proponent and introducer of Afro-Cuban elements to jazz music.

10. Herbie Hancock - Perhaps no other musician in the history of jazz has been more experimental and spanned more genres of music than the pianist Herbie Hancock. A mentee of Miles Davis, Hancock exhibited his virtuosity at the tender age of eleven when he performed his first public solo of a Mozart piano concerto with the Chicago Symphony. His jazz career took off thereafter, and he joined Davis' band at 23, where he was a major influence on Davis' evolving musical directions. also quickly established himself as a leader and composer - his Maiden Voyage is still considered one of the finest jazz recordings in history. Trained in engineering and a lover of gadgetry, Hancock was an early adopter of electronic music in jazz through his experimentation with the Rhodes electric piano. Moving through various idioms and later blending funk into his music, Hancock later recorded the top-selling jazz recording of that time, Head Hunters. Throughout the balance of his career, Hancock continued to experiment with the limits of electronic, popular, and jazz music, and to this day is still a force in the recording industry.

Well, there you have it, ten names in jazz every American who loves music of any kind should know. Some jazz purists may disagree with a choice or two of mine, but I hazard to guess that most would agree that I got the majority of them right. Jazz is the soundtrack of life. You can sing to it, dance to it, clean your home to it, make love to it, exercise to it, or just plain listen to it and love it. To prove that jazz is a truly great music, I guarantee that if I were given five, non-consecutive hours with anyone who likes and loves music of any kind, I could turn them on to jazz to an extent that they would gain an interest and appreciation of the music, and perhaps they would come to love it, as I do.

No Diggity

Stand By Your Man?

One of the more intriguing aspects of the Eliot Spitzer sex scandal was the sight of his wife, Silda, at his side during his press conference before the media. As I saw her my initial reaction was, predictably, "Wow, how could she subject herself to such public humiliation when she obviously is going through such pain?" Wearing a dazed looked reminiscent of a boxer who had just been sucker punched to the stomach, Mrs. Spitzer patiently stood by as Mr. Spitzer vaguely alluded to his indiscretions before the media. Your heart had to go out to her.

I also thought, "There's no way I'd dare ask my wife to perform similar marital duties had I been caught in such a similar situation." She would have my flat ass, on a silver platter.

Upon nearly twenty-four hours reflection, my thinking has changed, somewhat. First, we've been here before. Who couldn't have thought about the Hillary and Bill Clinton dog and pony show during the sordid and eerily similar Monica Lewinsky affair? Second, being neither rich or powerful, I can't place myself in the shoes of the Spitzers or the Clintons, or any of the others. The rich (and the powerful) are different from you or I, in more ways than we can imagine.

My previous theory about these situations remains basically unchanged - these wives at some point in their marriages have made a deal with the devil, literally. In for a penny in for a pound. Additionally, most of the theater of politics is about what is presented to the public and not what transpires behind closed doors. Politicians wives eventually must become politicians themselves, if the political marital entity is to survive and prosper.

I won't judge Eliot Spitzer's behavior, but I do question his judgment as the Governor of New York. I mean come on, engaging the service of prostitutes? Even though he was snared due to his financial dealings, what would make him think that such behavior wouldn't eventually be disclosed? Now he faces certain disbarment, loss of his political office, and potentially, jail time. More importantly, his familial relationships with his wife and children have been damaged, and possibly destroyed.

CNN's television coverage of the situation has raised, in my mind, further thoughts on this type of mess. Alan Dershowitz, who taught Spitzer at Harvard Law and who has come to Spitzer's defense, engaged in a suprisingly (even for Dershowitz) nasty exchange with a female commentator (sorry, but I didn't catch her name or title) about the message that Silda Spitzer's and others "stand by their man" stance sends to young women/adolescent girls. The commentator argued that such a stance by these wives sends the wrong message to women that it's okay to engage in such sordid behavior. She argued that because of the high-profile public nature of their husbands careers, the wives, being the sacrificial lambs, have no real choice but to publicly support their husbands.

Dershowitz angrily defended Mrs. Spitzer and others like her, arguing that these women indeed had a choice in the matter and they made that choice. He vehemently told the commentator, in no uncertain terms, to mind her own business.

The exchange begs the question, "What did Mrs. Spitzer know about her husband's indiscretions?" Does it strain credulity, in these modern times, to speculate that she may have known about his behavior, and possibly even accepted it? I also have to reluctantly agree with both of the combatants on this issue. First, I hope that parents are at least censoring this type of news story from children under the age of thirteen. Further, public support of spouses in these types of affairs does send a confusing message to adolescents and young adults - it's okay to cheat, you can be forgiven. Perhaps the spouses in these matters should simply refrain from public appearance or comments.

Alternatively, the family relationship and associated dynamic in these situations is none of our business. Who hasn't been in a situation in our relationships where a mistake was made, where we hoped that in spite of the violation of the spirit of the relationship, that the greater good of love and/or survival of the family relationship would prevail? The Spitzer's family relationship is a private matter and their business. Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Another interesting aspect of the coverage of the story was the analysis of a sexual addiction counselor (again, I must apologize because I didn't catch his name) of why it seems that powerful and highly intelligent men so often engage in this clearly foolish behavior. Although his analysis was painfully obvious, it bears repeating.

He explained, in these cases, the intellectual thought process and the emotional drive operate on separate, and clearly non-parallel planes. An emotional and intellectual cross-wiring and disconnect, so to speak.

Personally, the Spitzer scandal is irritating and disappointing. The so-called "Sheriff of Wall Street," Eliot Spitzer was a minor hero to me - I thought he was an impressive guy and he seemed to be an aggressive and spirited champion of the public interest, regardless of his motivation. Later, as he entered politics, disturbing aspects about him began to surface, but I had hoped that those issues were aberrations. Apparently not. What a shame.

On a brighter note, I've stumbled across a really cool music blog, "floodwatchmusic.com, Punching the Sky Since 2006." This guy really loves music of all types: jazz, rock, indie, pop, etc., and is my idea of what a blog should be all about. A bonus is that he provides downloadable MP3's on the site. Once I get the time to figure out how to do it, I'll provide a link to his site on my blog. Check it out.

N.B. CNN News is reporting that Governor Spitzer is expected to resign today, Wednesday, March 12, 2008.

No Diggity

For Ball Fans Only!

Okay, this is my second post in a row about sports, but it is my first about the NBA. As of 3:00 PM EST today, the trade deadline has come and gone. For the teams who were able to make a move, the trades are having the effect of turning an already interesting and entertaining season into a puzzle that should provide an equally interesting and entertaining denouement.

However, this post makes no attempt to analyze the impact of those trades. I'll leave that to the "authorities". With eight weeks left to the season, I have taken the time to go through the remaining schedule and select what I will call "impact" games, which I will define as a game between teams of such quality which, on its face, would seem to be an exciting game to watch. These games should also have some measure of playoff implication, by providing a look at a team's relative strength when facing a quality opponent.

Of the remaining games in the NBA season there are, by my estimate, forty-eight (48) impact games. My task, performed for your benefit, was to narrow those forty-eight games down to the "ten must-see games" left in the NBA season.

A few qualifying facts are in order. First, the initial forty-eight impact games involve only nine teams: Boston, Detroit, New Orleans, Los Angeles (Lakers), Phoenix, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, and Golden State. I have neither the time for, patience with, or interest in any of the remaining teams in the league. As such, the initial list, as well as the ten must-see games, reflect my subjective biases and prejudices as to what is and what is not good ball. I invite you to peruse the schedule and make your own choices.

And thus, with much fanfare and without further ado, the choices, listed in order of their occurence in time. Home teams are listed in bold, national network telecasts in parentheses. And if you don't have some kind of NBA package with your cable or satellite, what's up with that?

1. February 22 - Houston vs. New Orleans - New Orleans is currently tied for the best record in the Western Conference and many are questioning whether they truly belong among the league's elite. Houston is making their annual late push for the playoffs, having won ten in a row.

2. February 27 - Cleveland vs. Boston - Cleveland, having acquired Ben Wallace and Wally Szczerbiak, must demonstrate that it can compete with Eastern Conference stalwarts Detroit and Boston. This away game against the Celts gives them the opportunity.

3. March 2 - Dallas vs. Los Angeles (ABC) - Another team with plenty to prove is Dallas, who acquired veteran point guard Jason Kidd shortly before the trading deadline. By the time of this game, Kidd and the Mavericks should have had time to fully acclimate themselves to each other, and perhaps Kidd will have solved his shooting and turnover issues, and his tendency to take nights off from time to time.

4. March 5 - Detroit vs. Boston - The rubber and potential tie-breaking game between the titans of the East, with each team having previously won on the other's home court. Both teams have struggled lately, and both are currently in the middle of the tougher parts of their schedules. Additionally, home-court advantage throughout the playoffs is still in play between these two teams.

5. March 9 - San Antonio vs. Phoenix (ABC) - A reprise of last year's Western Conference semifinal. Phoenix has acquired the Diesel, while the Spurs have picked up Kurt Thomas. This one should be interesting to watch, especially if the Spurs have started their perennial second half surge.

6. March 14 - Los Angeles vs. New Orleans - Many are touting the Lakers as the team to beat, bar none. I'm skeptical. Going into New Orleans and beating the Hornets in their gym would offer some proof.

7. March 24 - Los Angeles vs. Golden State - Funny how the Lakers keep popping up, isn't it? This one should be flat-out fun, with Kobe, Baron, Stephen Jackson, and others. Look for the Warriors to issue a mild upset.

8. March 29 - Cleveland vs. Detroit (NBA) - Just when 'Sheed and the Pistons thought Ben Wallace had been rendered meaningless in Chicago, here he comes back to do battle with them for the Cavs. Look for a gritty, tough Central Division battle.

9. April 9 - Phoenix vs. San Antonio (ESPN) - This one will still have staying power.

10. April 13 - San Antonio vs. Los Angeles (ABC) - This game could portend the changing of the guard in the league - out with the old, in with the new. Are the Lakers really ready for a championship run? Stay tuned.

There you have it. Ten must-see games. And the beauty of it is that there are many other games which just as easily could fit in this category. I invite you to take a look and make your own choices. But most importantly, watch the games.

The NBA, it's fan-tastic.

No Diggity

Good Trumps Evil

Well, it's finally over. The drama, suspense, agony, and ecstasy of the professional football season is over. And guess what? The New England Patriots lost the Super Bowl, 17-14. That's right. Perhaps the 'greatest team of all time' with perhaps the 'greatest quarterback of all time' and the 'greatest coach of all time,' lost. And I couldn't be happier.

It's not so much that the good guys won. I mean, other than a New Yorker, who gives a rat's ass about the New York Giants? Other than Eli Manning, a rather bland fellow, and Michael Strahan, who can be marginally annoying, this group of champions are a mostly nondescript bunch. You don't hate them, but you don't love them either. At least, not until last Sunday night. We gotta whole lotta love for the G-Men now.

The Patriots, on the other hand, have provided a fair amount of drama all season. First, the cast of characters. At the helm, you have Tom Brady, the rather goofy-looking poster boy quarterback of the team, equally known off-the-field for dating the supermodel Giselle Bundchen and impregnating actress Bridget Moynahan. At wide receiver, you have the brilliant but previously troubled Randy Moss, who seemed to find himself again with this team, but who will be a free agent after the season. On defense, there is my homey (he hails from the suburbs of Chicago) Rodney Harrison, who was twice voted the NFL's dirtiest player by his peers, and was suspended four games this season for use of human growth hormone. There's also Junior Seau, who announced his "retirement" from the San Diego Chargers in August of 2006, only to "un-retire" 4 days later to sign with the Patriots. This is also the same guy who once jokingly uttered a racial slur against former teammate LaDainian Tomlinson ('the way to stop L.T. is to keep feeding him chicken and watermelon'). Finally, there's Richard Seymour, who was called "a dirty, cheap little pompous bitch" by San Diego Chargers center Nick Hardwick after the Pats beat the Chargers in the AFC Championship game earlier this year.

The Patriots started the year off with a cloud of shame, after it was revealed that they had been filming their opponents defensive signals from across the field, ostensibly to gain a competitive advantage. Further allegations have surfaced that the Patriots may have been employing this tactic for quite some time, and may have even filmed a practice of the St. Louis Rams prior to the Pats upset victory over the Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI.

Caught red-handed, the Pats took much umbrage at the notion that they were cheaters (true), or needed to cheat to win (debatable). Their extremely dour and ungracious coach, Bill Belichick, used the allegations as a rallying point for his team, with the Pats being determined to show the world that this was a great team - so much better than the rest of the league that cheating was at best, a superflous activity. The Patriots then proceeded on an impressive and unprecedented winning streak, finishing the season at a perfect 16-0.

It wasn't just that the Patriots won, it was how they won. Simply put, they ran up the score against their opponents. Scores of 38-7, 48-27, 49-28, 52-7, and 56-10 provided ample evidence to the league that the Patriots were indeed, a superior team. Long after games had been decided, the Patriots played their starters, scoring meaningless touchdowns, going for it on fourth downs, eschewing relatively easy field goal attempts. Belichick argued, unconvincingly, that his team needed to play a full 60 minutes of every game to prepare itself for their ultimate goal, the NFL championship.

And there's the rub. Anybody who has played competitive sports on any level at any time, either amateur or professional - or even video games for christ's sake - knows and respects that maxim that you do not rub your opponents face in crap. Now, there are exceptions for excessive trash talkers or to retaliate for a well-documented diss, but as a rule you do show some respect for a vanquished opponent. Once you've conclusively settled the outcome, you ease up and play your second or third units. Come to think of it, this doesn't just apply in sports, this is how civilized people behave generally.

And that's how the Patriots, a previously respected franchise on the verge of acheiving dynasty status, became symbolic of evil and all that can be wrong in the world. They became extremely....irritating. People all over the country suddenly became very interested in Patriot games, and not to see if they would run the table and finish the season undefeated. They wanted the evil guys to lose.

And for one of the few times in recent memory, judgment came swiftly and with finality. The Giants bitch-slapped and smacked the pretty boy QB in the mouth and showed that he too, is human. The Pats defense that was just good enough during the eighteen previous wins showed its age and vulnerability. The Giants played with guts, determination, and the gods were on their side when it mattered. And David Tyree made one hell of a catch.

Even more satisfying, it was a really good game, perhaps the greatest Super Bowl ever. After it was all over, as I watched the post-game stupefied looks of Brady, Belichick, Seau, and other Pats, one of my favorite lyrics from the 70's soul group The Stylistics came to mind:

"Payback is a Dog"

No Diggity

Politics, politics.

Well, here we go. The election season has officially kicked off with the Iowa Caucus, where Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee were the winners. What's in a name? Apparently, nothing. Conceivably, we could wind up with either a President Obama, or a President Huckabee, or even a President Rudy or Hillary. (Sorry, no President Joe or Chris). We've come a long way, to our credit.

So far, I've nothing to be irritated about, other than that politicians and politics are global irritants to begin with. What has been funny is Hillary Clinton's behavior since Barack Obama gave her a beatdown in Iowa. It is so interesting that after only eight years as a roommate in the White House and a few years as a United States Senator, she seems to think that she is the most experienced and capable candidate and is somehow entitled to the Democratic presidential nomination. Where do they get this stuff?

In a classic player hater's move, Ms. Clinton admonished voters not to get "false hope" in Mr. Obama, insinuating that she was the only candidate prepared to deal with a grueling general election and the vitriol and enmity of the Republican party.

Huh? How about a little personal responsibility for your loss instead taking yet another negative swipe at Obama? He kicked your ass, your campaign organization failed in Iowa, end of story. Iowans liked him (and Edwards) better than you - move on.

Polls now show Obama with a 10-point lead over Clinton heading into Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, with things getting very interesting.

As we move into the season, I have a host of considerations before I can make up my mind about these candidates. Do I have to prefer Barack Obama because I am Black? While I have an enormous amount of respect for him, he hasn't moved me personally. I read his book "The Audacity of Hope," and while his message may have been heartfelt and sincere, I found it at times obvious and cliched. If George W. Bush was ultimately elected because he was the candidate that you would most like to go out with and have a beer, I guess Obama would be the candidate I would most like to go to the club with or perhaps shoot some hoops. Not necessarily the criteria I'd use in selecting a presidential nominee.

And just who the hell is Hillary Clinton? Is she our best hope for a brighter future, or is she just plain scary, willing to do anything to be elected President? Who knows what direction she will take us President? Her specious argument that she is more experienced and qualified than anybody in the Democratic field for the job is both troubling and off-putting. Can you even trust somebody that wants the job that badly?

Finally, am I naive in the fact that John Edwards' message, with his stated intention to help those less fortunate in this country and his promise to take on the corrupt and powerful interests than currently control our government and our society, resonates so deeply within me? That I see him as the best hope for this country during this divided, ineffectual period in our history? Or is he just another pretty boy in a suit, full of promises and low on delivery? Time will only tell. In the meantime, I'm going to sit back, take it all in, and try to make an informed decision. More on this campaign stuff later.

To alleviate my winter doldrums, I'm really amped about the premier episode of (regrettably) the final season of The Wire, the best show on television. The fact that this show has never been recognized for its brilliance with any awards is both a badge of honor and a disgrace.

May the writer's strike last forever.

No Diggity