On the eve of the inauguration:
Many of you may have been bemused by the president’s “legacy tour” of the past couple of months. Can we re-write history as it’s unfolding? Is this man capable of thinking?
I watched a fascinating movie last night called, The Other Boleyn Girl. It explores the Anne Boleyn story through the eyes of her sister, Mary.
I watched Anne of the Thousand Days decades ago and found it a riveting story, as well as Anne a compelling and tragic character. But “Girl” conveyed a completely different image of the aspiring queen. In this movie Anne and her sister are used as assets by their conniving family to pursue power and status. Mary is the innocent, but Anne is anything but. Anne trumps the family, using the arrangement to achieve ultimate power, the throne. Initially she is swept along with the fantasy, but the king is lured by Mary’s innocence. Anne’s wiles land her in the French court, where she learns the skills to parlay her charms into a power play.
Finally, the king is smitten by Anne and she holds him on a string, using his affair with her sister as pretense.
Much of the portrayal strains at the “official” biography and omits the political backwash that undermined her status. But clearly Henry lost interest in Anne after a couple of years of marriage and failed attempts to bear a male child.
The connection with our current political state is interesting. Anne used feminine wiles to further her political ambition. She brought the king to the status of a supplicant---to herself---the king, who was omnipotent. Was she so naïve as to think that in success she wouldn’t find disaster? When the king’s infatuation was sated, she would ultimately find herself in an untenable position. Though well educated and highly sophisticated, she was a little girl playing with fire; and she got burned.
In the end (of the movie), in desperation, Anne realizes that her only salvation lies in birthing a son and resorts to adultery, bringing ruin to all.
Our president’s desperate overtures of the past few months are the culmination of his dalliance with power. Like Anne, the president has power without privilege. Though emasculated by successive empirical presidencies and appearing to be no more than courtiers, Congress retains the power, if not the will, to bring a president to heel. This president used every source of power he could wrest from Congress and the Constitution to force his vision upon the nation and the world. He flagrantly violated any Constitutional constraint, waged illegal war, violated national as well as international law using torture to subjugate anyone he cared to, and brought the nation to its knees with misbegotten environmental and economic policies. But at this stage of his presidency, he is left with no more power than to summons reporters to a press conference. They come much as looky-loos to witness a pathetic spectacle. He’s long past the point where he can “undo” his transgressions, and is left only to try to whitewash the results of his policies.
Mr. Bush and his advisors believed they could indefinitely use the Republican technique of artfully “framing the argument” to define their way to their ambitious goals. Torture is ok if you call it “enhanced interrogation technique”. If the pretense for war has been rebuked, validate the adventure in other terms, and declare it a success.
In the heady glow of power, with an indefinite future and ambitious program in mind, the end of the tunnel looks far away. But now as these men squirm out of office, their perspective has reversed to the rear-view mirror. They see the prospect of prosecution from international justice, if not our own constitutional mandates. We can only hope that our new government will have the courage to restore the rule of law. We can move a long way toward restoring international prestige, as well as self-respect, by handling this matter ourselves.
It’s difficult to feel sorry for Mr. Bush, but I do. W has never succeeded at anything on his own, but has been used as a pawn for his name by ambitious nabobs. But our nation needs to heel its wounds and purge the infestation that allows politicians to who think that they rule by privilege to go unchecked. Sarah Palin tells us that we hold Republicans to harsher scrutiny. Yet Gray Davis was recalled because he didn’t balance the budget, and Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied about a personal indiscretion. They are Democrats. The real imbalance in our political system places Democrats under this degree of scrutiny yet allows Arnold Schwarzenegger to triple the deficit that unseated Davis and allowed our Republican president to bring the nation to its knees in disgrace through eight years of crime, lies and arrogance.
Though their constituencies vary dramatically, the Democratic Party operates the same as the GOP. This has been sadly revealed in the last two years. Even after the “mandate” went out, this congress failed to stop the wars and looked on as Harry Reid first tried to block budget reform, then emasculated it. We need first a man of courage, integrity and vision at the helm, secondly a body politic that cares enough about its country to throw its fucking flag pins in the trash and then do the same to its disgusting representatives. We don’t need term limits; we need engaged citizens. Good luck, America.
Post Script: In response to a couple of comments that my point is unclear,
Both Anne and Mr. Bush exercised power as though it came from privilege instead of from the king, in Anne's case, or from the people and our Constitution in Mr. Bush's case. Anne played her hand recklessly, at first with Henry. She used feminine wiles to reverse roles with the king (a very dangerous ploy). Then, rather than sitting quietly on the throne, enjoying the trappings of her position, as an unpopular monarch, she strained relations with senior staff in the court bringing their enmity. When the blush wore off Henry's affection, he would naturally be left with resentment, and she was helpless in the face of court intrigue. Sitting on the throne, there was a price to pay and no place to hide. She had her moment, and was ready when her time came.
Mr. Bush was supposed to rule in the name of the people of this country, but failed to enforce not only the laws of this land, but also of the international community to which we are committed by treaty. Rather, he ruled as though his power came as privilege through “The House of Bush”. In betraying the Constitution, the source of his power, in the name of a specious war of his own contrivance, he undermined his legitimacy. He took an oath to protect the Constitution, yet failed to protect it from his own administration. Mr. Bush had his moment; we’ll see how he fares.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Reaganomics and Good Government
Taxes are always controversial. Actually, taxes are the “price of civilization”. Government, one way or another, must be paid for. Without government we have Lord of the Flies.
Modern tax politics began in 1978 when California voters approved Proposition 13. The bill was written and sponsored by Howard Jarvis, a small-town newspaperman, then political wannabe and lobbyist, co-sponsored by Paul Gann, an occasional political ally. During the run-up to the election, municipalities throughout the state sought to hedge their bets by dramatically raising the property tax rates, presumably to increase the base from which they would then be lowered. In so doing, of course, the success of the proposition was ensured.
In addition to lowering the tax rates, (in L. A. County property tax rates were cut by close to 70% from their swollen peak), the bill mandated that future tax increases would require a two thirds majority from voters. This resulted in two major, long-term consequences: 1) the state was forced to step in to help counties finance their major expenditures, putting the state, as well as the municipalities under financial stress; and 2) it placed a significant amount of inertia in the residential and commercial real estate markets because taxes, under the bill, could only increase by 2% per year. People selling and buying property would face substantial increases in taxes from new assessments.
Since it appeared that the proposal would hamstring governments all over the state, the legislature hastily passed a counter measure which stood as Proposition 6. Prop 6 had a much more balanced and workable framework to deliver relief to homeowners without the dire consequences of Prop 13. This was actually pretty good legislation; but with Jarvis, money and significant marketing forces behind it, Prop 13 ended up with a larger vote and carried the day.
Proposition 13 started what we now think of as the “tax revolt” of primarily the upper-middle class, which resents “entitlement” programs for the lower classes, but which fails to recognize the vast array of costly government services that they receive. From a demographic standpoint this group can pull off this kind of coup because their voting turnout is much greater than the lower classes.
Ronald Reagan, a former governor of California, and political ally of Jarvis began his second quest for a Presidential nomination shortly after passage of Prop 13. Recognizing the potential for populist support, he ran a campaign promising not only fiscal responsibility, but also tax cuts. Reagan’s economic plan, dubbed “Voodoo Economics” by his Republican rival, George H. W. Bush, was buoyed by Milton Friedman, leader of the “Chicago School” of economics, who broke from his Keynesian roots to advocate “Supply Side”. Supposedly, by lowering taxes, people would invest their surplus income in productive enterprise, producing jobs and prosperity. Sounds good on paper. Reagan won the election. (Ironically, as governor, Reagan had inherited a troubled state budget and quickly turned it around with substantial tax increases. One might have anticipated that he would follow his own previous pattern of leadership.) As president, Reagan delivered on his promise to substantially reduce income taxes, but fiscal responsibility was abandoned and he matched the tax cuts with large increases in spending and government programs. (Friedman advocated “smaller” government.)
Buoyed by the fiscal stimulus of huge government deficits, the economy of the eighties grew dramatically, as predicted by the Keynesian model. This was “credit card prosperity”. But deficits which had held around the $30 to 50 Billion dollar range since the Viet Nam war of 15 years earlier ballooned to $200 to 250 Billion range. With the heady appearance of prosperity, Reagan’s hypocrisy and break from Republican tradition was forgiven and ignored.
Vice President, George H. W. Bush, who initially mocked his boss’s economics, after seeing the political advantages of such “populism” adopted the formula for his own policy and was elected in 1988. When he violated doctrine with a tax increase in 1992, he was vilified, repudiated by the party and lost to Bill Clinton.
Clinton followed up on Bush’s tax increases with his own in ’93, and rode the wave of the electronics boom to prosperity and budget surplus. But lurking in the shadows was George, Son of Bush, still promising the Republican mantra of tax cuts. After his appointment to office, we have watched the collapse of the economy, as government budgets have borne the fruit of profligate spending and ballooning debt. In 1980 when Ronald Reagan took office, he inherited $950 Billion of government debt, (or), (or). [The United States was also a creditor in international accounts.] That was $950 Billion accumulated over the 192 years of our history. Twenty-eight years later, after twenty years of “Reaganomics”, we observe the ruins of our economy, $10 Trillion! of government debt, and enormous outstanding foreign holdings of our currency from trade imbalance. Yet Reagan has become venerated as the iconic father of the modern GOP. Republicans love him because he said things that made us feel good (“Morning in America”), and hit on a formula for getting elected. They don’t seem to worry about responsible leadership.
While practitioners of Reaganomics pledge not to raise taxes, "borrow and spend" leads directly to inflation. Inflation is a tax in all but name, the most regressive tax of all. Tax cuts go to the rich while inflation consumes purchasing power. Poor people spend virtually all their income on consumption goods. Poor people generally don't vote, and they don't understand what's hitting them. This is a good formula, but it's inherently dishonest.
So what can we make of this; and what can we expect from our new incoming president? There has been much made of the comparison between Mr. Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Let’s look back and see what jumps out.
The election of Lincoln, an avowed abolitionist, sparked the secession of the Southern States, which occurred by the time he assumed office. War began a month later, with General Lee defecting to the Southern cause. Lincoln countered with General George B. McClellan, as commander in chief of the “Army of the Potomac”. Certainly the state of the union in 1861 was every bit as troubled as what we face today.
McClellan was a meticulous man; his army was well manned and well trained. But war is messy business. He had a knack for over-estimating the strength of enemy forces, while under-estimating his own. Consequently in the early stages of the war, McClellan retreated under fire from inferior forces, failed to capitalize on advantage in battle, or (usually) avoided engagement altogether. As you might expect, he was very popular among his troops. He kept the vast majority of them alive, well trained and well fed. After failing to secure a decisive victory at Antietam, Lincoln, not content to wage the war on parade grounds, fired him.
McClellan’s approach to fighting war was very similar to modern Republicans’ approach to governing. In providing never-ending tax relief, from Reagan to John McCain, Republicans have offered up a safe formula for popularity, for getting elected. But it’s not a formula for leadership or to forge a prosperous future for our country, any more than McClellan's strategy would win the war. Until the last few months, our economy has muddled on, based on debt and pyramiding corruption. But now, (fortunately) at last we may find ourselves at the crossroads from which we must make the difficult choices, to start paying our bills and right our economy. There has been much talk recently of the "Bush legacy", and it's possible that the legacy will be that he made things so bad that we were finally forced to make these difficult choices.
The closing chapter in the McClellan saga is that after being fired, he opposed Lincoln as the Democratic nominee in 1864, promising to appease the South and end the war. Lincoln, of course, won the election, but was assassinated a month after inauguration, bringing Andrew Johnson to power. Until recently, Johnson was considered our worst president. We must check with history on that.
So why is our economy on the verge of collapse? How have things gotten so bad? If you travel in Poland, you're going to be using zlotys. At approximately 3 zlotys to a US dollar, it's inevitable that when you are preparing to leave the country, you'll look around for something to do with a couple hundred zlotys you still have. If you bring them home and try to buy something in a store with them, the clerk will look at you quizzically and ask for dollars. If you take your zlotys to your bank, you'll be lucky to get $25 for them, not enough to warrant the hassle. On the other hand, when a Polish visitor to The United States returns home with a pocket full of dollars, any merchant in Warsaw is delighted to grant him a fair exchange rate in accepting this as payment for merchandise.
Modern tax politics began in 1978 when California voters approved Proposition 13. The bill was written and sponsored by Howard Jarvis, a small-town newspaperman, then political wannabe and lobbyist, co-sponsored by Paul Gann, an occasional political ally. During the run-up to the election, municipalities throughout the state sought to hedge their bets by dramatically raising the property tax rates, presumably to increase the base from which they would then be lowered. In so doing, of course, the success of the proposition was ensured.
In addition to lowering the tax rates, (in L. A. County property tax rates were cut by close to 70% from their swollen peak), the bill mandated that future tax increases would require a two thirds majority from voters. This resulted in two major, long-term consequences: 1) the state was forced to step in to help counties finance their major expenditures, putting the state, as well as the municipalities under financial stress; and 2) it placed a significant amount of inertia in the residential and commercial real estate markets because taxes, under the bill, could only increase by 2% per year. People selling and buying property would face substantial increases in taxes from new assessments.
Since it appeared that the proposal would hamstring governments all over the state, the legislature hastily passed a counter measure which stood as Proposition 6. Prop 6 had a much more balanced and workable framework to deliver relief to homeowners without the dire consequences of Prop 13. This was actually pretty good legislation; but with Jarvis, money and significant marketing forces behind it, Prop 13 ended up with a larger vote and carried the day.
Proposition 13 started what we now think of as the “tax revolt” of primarily the upper-middle class, which resents “entitlement” programs for the lower classes, but which fails to recognize the vast array of costly government services that they receive. From a demographic standpoint this group can pull off this kind of coup because their voting turnout is much greater than the lower classes.
Ronald Reagan, a former governor of California, and political ally of Jarvis began his second quest for a Presidential nomination shortly after passage of Prop 13. Recognizing the potential for populist support, he ran a campaign promising not only fiscal responsibility, but also tax cuts. Reagan’s economic plan, dubbed “Voodoo Economics” by his Republican rival, George H. W. Bush, was buoyed by Milton Friedman, leader of the “Chicago School” of economics, who broke from his Keynesian roots to advocate “Supply Side”. Supposedly, by lowering taxes, people would invest their surplus income in productive enterprise, producing jobs and prosperity. Sounds good on paper. Reagan won the election. (Ironically, as governor, Reagan had inherited a troubled state budget and quickly turned it around with substantial tax increases. One might have anticipated that he would follow his own previous pattern of leadership.) As president, Reagan delivered on his promise to substantially reduce income taxes, but fiscal responsibility was abandoned and he matched the tax cuts with large increases in spending and government programs. (Friedman advocated “smaller” government.)
Buoyed by the fiscal stimulus of huge government deficits, the economy of the eighties grew dramatically, as predicted by the Keynesian model. This was “credit card prosperity”. But deficits which had held around the $30 to 50 Billion dollar range since the Viet Nam war of 15 years earlier ballooned to $200 to 250 Billion range. With the heady appearance of prosperity, Reagan’s hypocrisy and break from Republican tradition was forgiven and ignored.
Vice President, George H. W. Bush, who initially mocked his boss’s economics, after seeing the political advantages of such “populism” adopted the formula for his own policy and was elected in 1988. When he violated doctrine with a tax increase in 1992, he was vilified, repudiated by the party and lost to Bill Clinton.
Clinton followed up on Bush’s tax increases with his own in ’93, and rode the wave of the electronics boom to prosperity and budget surplus. But lurking in the shadows was George, Son of Bush, still promising the Republican mantra of tax cuts. After his appointment to office, we have watched the collapse of the economy, as government budgets have borne the fruit of profligate spending and ballooning debt. In 1980 when Ronald Reagan took office, he inherited $950 Billion of government debt, (or), (or). [The United States was also a creditor in international accounts.] That was $950 Billion accumulated over the 192 years of our history. Twenty-eight years later, after twenty years of “Reaganomics”, we observe the ruins of our economy, $10 Trillion! of government debt, and enormous outstanding foreign holdings of our currency from trade imbalance. Yet Reagan has become venerated as the iconic father of the modern GOP. Republicans love him because he said things that made us feel good (“Morning in America”), and hit on a formula for getting elected. They don’t seem to worry about responsible leadership.
While practitioners of Reaganomics pledge not to raise taxes, "borrow and spend" leads directly to inflation. Inflation is a tax in all but name, the most regressive tax of all. Tax cuts go to the rich while inflation consumes purchasing power. Poor people spend virtually all their income on consumption goods. Poor people generally don't vote, and they don't understand what's hitting them. This is a good formula, but it's inherently dishonest.
So what can we make of this; and what can we expect from our new incoming president? There has been much made of the comparison between Mr. Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Let’s look back and see what jumps out.
The election of Lincoln, an avowed abolitionist, sparked the secession of the Southern States, which occurred by the time he assumed office. War began a month later, with General Lee defecting to the Southern cause. Lincoln countered with General George B. McClellan, as commander in chief of the “Army of the Potomac”. Certainly the state of the union in 1861 was every bit as troubled as what we face today.
McClellan was a meticulous man; his army was well manned and well trained. But war is messy business. He had a knack for over-estimating the strength of enemy forces, while under-estimating his own. Consequently in the early stages of the war, McClellan retreated under fire from inferior forces, failed to capitalize on advantage in battle, or (usually) avoided engagement altogether. As you might expect, he was very popular among his troops. He kept the vast majority of them alive, well trained and well fed. After failing to secure a decisive victory at Antietam, Lincoln, not content to wage the war on parade grounds, fired him.
McClellan’s approach to fighting war was very similar to modern Republicans’ approach to governing. In providing never-ending tax relief, from Reagan to John McCain, Republicans have offered up a safe formula for popularity, for getting elected. But it’s not a formula for leadership or to forge a prosperous future for our country, any more than McClellan's strategy would win the war. Until the last few months, our economy has muddled on, based on debt and pyramiding corruption. But now, (fortunately) at last we may find ourselves at the crossroads from which we must make the difficult choices, to start paying our bills and right our economy. There has been much talk recently of the "Bush legacy", and it's possible that the legacy will be that he made things so bad that we were finally forced to make these difficult choices.
The closing chapter in the McClellan saga is that after being fired, he opposed Lincoln as the Democratic nominee in 1864, promising to appease the South and end the war. Lincoln, of course, won the election, but was assassinated a month after inauguration, bringing Andrew Johnson to power. Until recently, Johnson was considered our worst president. We must check with history on that.
So why is our economy on the verge of collapse? How have things gotten so bad? If you travel in Poland, you're going to be using zlotys. At approximately 3 zlotys to a US dollar, it's inevitable that when you are preparing to leave the country, you'll look around for something to do with a couple hundred zlotys you still have. If you bring them home and try to buy something in a store with them, the clerk will look at you quizzically and ask for dollars. If you take your zlotys to your bank, you'll be lucky to get $25 for them, not enough to warrant the hassle. On the other hand, when a Polish visitor to The United States returns home with a pocket full of dollars, any merchant in Warsaw is delighted to grant him a fair exchange rate in accepting this as payment for merchandise.
Is this good? Well, it's very handy for us. But when you consider that on the world market our currency is also accepted as an alternate exchange almost anywhere, and dollars are used for international debt resolution, and foreigners are eager to buy dollars for investments, thereby financing our debts, it presents a knotty problem.
When we see troubled economies around the world, the common advice (from our government) is a serious dose of financial restraint, accompanied by a period of belt-tightening for the people on the road to recovery. If that government prints additional currency to pay the bills, runway inflation usually consumes the economy, leading to collapse of the currency and economic disaster. But after WWII, when we were both the economic, and the manufacturing, powerhouse of the world, our products and currency became world standard. This worked out fine until Reaganomics came along and we stopped paying our bills. Since our currency was accepted everywhere, the government discovered that they could run large deficits in budget and in trade without quickly triggering the high inflation and interest rates which any other country would face. This has continued now for 25 years while the world has essentially offered us a massive credit card on which to run our economy. In the meantime, with runaway debt, runaway greed, politicians who have convinced us we don't have to pay our bills, the financial services' collapse from CDSs and CDOs (the subject of a coming piece), a president whom we have allowed to scuttle or emasculate our regulatory agencies, our disappearing manufacturing base, runaway demand for oil that we don't have, and the emergence of new economic powerhouses, the world is having second thoughts about continuing to finance our binge.
The bottom line is that for a generation now we have been spoon-fed rosy formulas for prosperity and consumption which look like they are about to come to an end. We will face "the serious dose of financial restraint, accompanied by a period of belt-tightening for the people on the road to recovery" that any other country must endure to keep our ship afloat. We can't expect miracles from President Obama or anyone.
Considering that Lincoln was the first Republican president, it’s fascinating to observe the juxtaposition of the two parties. Lincoln’s Republicans stood for leadership, solvency, civil rights; they took the road less traveled and heavily rutted. Today’s Republicans stand for “borrow and spend”; they pander to our weakness while welcoming the bigoted and intolerant that Lincoln’s Republicans eschewed. At the same time, they paint themselves into an electoral corner from which it’s almost impossible to govern responsibly. It will be interesting to watch how the party responds to the repudiation of George W. Bush and failure of McCain’s appeal to "Reaganomics" to carry him to victory in this past election.
In future elections, when a candidate focuses on promises to lower taxes and accusing his opponent of intending to raise taxes, be aware that may be accusing his opponent of being a responsible politician.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Memorable Songs Are Life Stories
by Randoid
Nearly everyone I know has an appreciation for music. And, as we travel through life, music, primarily popular music, can be a bookmark in time for us. I know it is for me. Sometimes, when I hear a song on “classic rock” radio or through a random play list on a home stereo system I am instantly transported to another time and place. I can think of many songs that are stamped with memories associated with people, places, and events of the day. It seems as though this is true for most people. In a way, music can become our life story. Here’s a story that comes to mind whenever I hear a certain song.
I had just turned 20 years old when I was assigned to an Air Force base located on the outskirts of London. It was my first trip outside the US and I absolutely loved it. I was fascinated with London and I spent a great deal of time exploring the city on my own. The extensive Underground train system allowed me to go practically anywhere in the city in a matter of minutes. In these days however, it did have its drawbacks – the trains shut down around midnight and resumed running about 5 or 6 AM.
On Friday or Saturday night, I would go pubbing and, on occasion, I’d miss the last train home to my base on purpose. I hung out at a German bierkeller located in the Bayswater area of London and I made a lot of friends there. Sometimes I would “crash” at a friend’s flat. And other times I’d prefer to simply walk the streets of London until the trains ran again in the early morning. Bayswater was a particular hangout for me but I also spent a great deal of time in the Piccadilly and Soho area. I knew some people who ran a nightclub in the Soho area, mainly through my activities in a low-level black market operation, but that’s another story. Most of the London clubs would close to the general public at closing time, around 11 PM, at which time you could join the club for a few bob and continue partying behind closed doors. As a result, I joined several clubs in Soho.
One night as I wandered in Soho I passed a dark alley, and noticed a lighted doorway. Ah, I thought, another club! At this point in my life I was totally fearless. Of course, my total lack of fear was based on the fact that I was too young and too stupid to be afraid. Here I was, comfortably drunk in a strange dark alleyway at 1 AM in a foreign city, but I was 20 years old and couldn’t imagine anything bad (or bizarre) happening to me. So, without hesitation, I went in the door.
Most of the clubs that I was familiar with were open, well-lighted places. Not this one. This club was dimly lit with heavy, dark fabric on the walls. Small tables sat next to plush loveseats scattered in nooks and crannies. An attractive looking gal wearing too much makeup greeted me at the door and soon we were snuggled closely together on one of the loveseats. I ordered a beer and, out of nowhere, a glass of champagne magically appeared for her. Her hand slid to my crotch as she ordered another glass of champagne. As we were getting real cozy the bar bill arrived and damn! It was just about all the money I had! I got up abruptly and beat a hasty retreat to the door. My girl protested but I explained that I had no more money. I guess she understood because she lost complete interest in me.
Sometime later I heard the Kinks “Lola” for the first time. As I heard Ray Davies sing about “a club in old Soho” where he met a gal “who drank champagne that taste just like cherry cola” and “her name was Lola” and that “I’m a man and so is Lola,” I couldn’t help but wonder. Was the gal who grabbed my crotch in that alleyway club in Soho a, a, a . . . . . . guy!? Who knows! Anyway, every time I hear “Lola” (and I’ve sung it a couple of times in Karaoke, too) I think of that club in the Soho alley and a naïve 20-year old.
Are there any songs that you associate with memorable moments in your life? Care to share?
Randoid is a staff writer for Robbinsense
Nearly everyone I know has an appreciation for music. And, as we travel through life, music, primarily popular music, can be a bookmark in time for us. I know it is for me. Sometimes, when I hear a song on “classic rock” radio or through a random play list on a home stereo system I am instantly transported to another time and place. I can think of many songs that are stamped with memories associated with people, places, and events of the day. It seems as though this is true for most people. In a way, music can become our life story. Here’s a story that comes to mind whenever I hear a certain song.
I had just turned 20 years old when I was assigned to an Air Force base located on the outskirts of London. It was my first trip outside the US and I absolutely loved it. I was fascinated with London and I spent a great deal of time exploring the city on my own. The extensive Underground train system allowed me to go practically anywhere in the city in a matter of minutes. In these days however, it did have its drawbacks – the trains shut down around midnight and resumed running about 5 or 6 AM.
On Friday or Saturday night, I would go pubbing and, on occasion, I’d miss the last train home to my base on purpose. I hung out at a German bierkeller located in the Bayswater area of London and I made a lot of friends there. Sometimes I would “crash” at a friend’s flat. And other times I’d prefer to simply walk the streets of London until the trains ran again in the early morning. Bayswater was a particular hangout for me but I also spent a great deal of time in the Piccadilly and Soho area. I knew some people who ran a nightclub in the Soho area, mainly through my activities in a low-level black market operation, but that’s another story. Most of the London clubs would close to the general public at closing time, around 11 PM, at which time you could join the club for a few bob and continue partying behind closed doors. As a result, I joined several clubs in Soho.
One night as I wandered in Soho I passed a dark alley, and noticed a lighted doorway. Ah, I thought, another club! At this point in my life I was totally fearless. Of course, my total lack of fear was based on the fact that I was too young and too stupid to be afraid. Here I was, comfortably drunk in a strange dark alleyway at 1 AM in a foreign city, but I was 20 years old and couldn’t imagine anything bad (or bizarre) happening to me. So, without hesitation, I went in the door.
Most of the clubs that I was familiar with were open, well-lighted places. Not this one. This club was dimly lit with heavy, dark fabric on the walls. Small tables sat next to plush loveseats scattered in nooks and crannies. An attractive looking gal wearing too much makeup greeted me at the door and soon we were snuggled closely together on one of the loveseats. I ordered a beer and, out of nowhere, a glass of champagne magically appeared for her. Her hand slid to my crotch as she ordered another glass of champagne. As we were getting real cozy the bar bill arrived and damn! It was just about all the money I had! I got up abruptly and beat a hasty retreat to the door. My girl protested but I explained that I had no more money. I guess she understood because she lost complete interest in me.
Sometime later I heard the Kinks “Lola” for the first time. As I heard Ray Davies sing about “a club in old Soho” where he met a gal “who drank champagne that taste just like cherry cola” and “her name was Lola” and that “I’m a man and so is Lola,” I couldn’t help but wonder. Was the gal who grabbed my crotch in that alleyway club in Soho a, a, a . . . . . . guy!? Who knows! Anyway, every time I hear “Lola” (and I’ve sung it a couple of times in Karaoke, too) I think of that club in the Soho alley and a naïve 20-year old.
Are there any songs that you associate with memorable moments in your life? Care to share?
Randoid is a staff writer for Robbinsense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
