Well, the idea that, for some reason, was compelling enough to prevent me from sleeping in until a reasonable hour was as follows: Nighthawks, but with country hicks instead of disaffected city dwellers. It would be called Nighthicks.

Good morning, everyone.

-Shark

One time nine years ago someone removed a
Card from my bank account it was really
I don’t know it was dumb the next morning
I ate cold coffee for breakfast and dinner

“We’re on to Steve Destruction”

Absent-mindedly Steve pretended like
Well he pretended like he was going to download that album but then he just
Turned in an essay on Egyptian pottery
It
Was all buried with him his spoons his aftermath his
Notebooks

We’re on to him

“Delicate Sobriquet, Tongue-Filled Night”

Stop hassling your aftermath she said
I’m all but empty under this
Hasty moon

“Steelheads”

My path to lunch is
Well
It’s filed with sidewalks I’ve
Lost my own vision of what a meat-filled sandwich
Should taste like I feel like it should taste like
Me pretending to fish in a river

“Your … Um … Your Acid’s on the Sidewalk”

This is like your mom it’s really important it’s
About your acid that’s on the sidewalk:
See the whole world just wants to walk home
The whole world doesn’t want to be your
Um
Image of yourself in tights

Wake up tomorrow morning
Rinse off the aftermath and turn your living room into
A turnstile den:
Only then will you eat noodles alone.

-Shark

-Shark

So 200 miles south on the 101, I still didn’t know where we were going. When we arrived, my first impression was of a quirky Disneyland for yuppies. Patsy was reminded of the Enchanted Forest Motel as described in Nabokov’s Lolita, except that instead of a police convention, replete with Clare Quilty, there was a girl scout convention, replete with gaggles of junior high girls and their priggish overseers. Our room on the first night– well, I’m not sure I would call it a “room”, it more like “rooms”, since Patsy accidentally booked a double room– had a French theme, which consisted mostly of a few picture of idyllic Paris scenes, one of which featured pictorial lanterns that lit up when you turned on the lights. If you laid back on the bed and let your imagination run, you really felt like you were … um … in a room with a picture of France that had little lights on it. It didn’t change my life or anything. Now the toilet, which was a two-in-one toilet/bidet? That changed my life. And let’s face in, on a trip during which Patsy admonished me multiple times that I was not to inquire about the price of anything, I needed that bidet.

Soon after arriving we hit the pool, with bar beers in hand. The “bartender” looked like he was about a day over 18 and, according, to Patsy, did not know how to make a “vodka soda” and, once told how, did not know that it was actually “not okay” to use blueberry vodka when the regular vodka ran out when making one. After about 30 minutes at the pool, the girl scouts arrived. Many descriptors come to mind but I’ll go with ’surreal.’ Soon, the troop made its way to the hot tub, where they created a catty swirl of jets and giggling. I feinted that I was going into the hot tub, so Patsy jumped up and stepped in. I then sat back down and watched as the group of girl scouts proceeded to go dead silent and stare at Patsy as she entered the hot tub. Perhaps it was her tattoos or maybe the fact that she was probably the only somewhat cool looking young person by the pool. Whatever it was, they were transfixed, and huddled on the opposite side of the pool until Patsy left. Later I went with her back to the hot tub, which, I found out was “heated” to approximately “cooling bath” temperature. We hung out with a few adult couples in there, including a beefcake Australian and his fake-breasted girlfriend and a nerdy business type that thought expensive sunglasses were all he needed to look cool.

That night we went back to our room and banged and then got ready to go to dinner. The restaurant was ornate to a garish fault and contained a well-behaved band playing Big Band music. The dinner was fun. I had a Manhattan, which is my new fancy drink of choice because it is more exciting than a vodka soda and not really sweet at all. We returned to our room, where Patsy indulged in a poop followed by an engagement of the bidet, whose commencement was met with a surprise scream. As we were both falling asleep, I gently turned on the loving strains of the last two minutes of the Lakers/Suns game followed by extensive TNT recap. Patsy was so excited about the Lakers’ victory that she fell immediately to sleep

The next day we went to Hearst Castle. On the bus rid up the hill, I thought about all the soul-searching that the State of California probably had to go through before accepting the I guess generous donation from the Hearst family. I mean, it definitely came with a bunch of strings attached like: “can’t talk shit about our dad” and “Orson Welles is not allowed to visit ever ever”, and likely took away California’s right to openly criticize Hearst’s tendentious and fleeting catering to the middle class, fabrication of the Spanish/American for his own profit, and whole-sale purchase of the then-fledgling actress Marion Davis (for further information regarding the foregoing, please see Kane, Citizen). But on the other hand, the place is cool and California’s making bones on it so whatever. Anyway, the best part about Hearst Castle is the indoor pool, which they smartly leave for the end of the tour. Basically it’s a tile room designed so that the floor and pool bottom are the starry night sky and the roof is the sea. One can almost lose themselves imagining the Hollywood stars of the day frolicking there late into night. Apparently Cary Grant once commented on the utility of the pool by saying it was a great way to “get to know someone a little better,” which is basically codeword for “bang starlets”

On the second night, instead of the French riviera, our room was a cave. When we came back to our cave, we watched Rear Window, which I believe to be Hitchcock’s best film, although who really cares, there’s a bunch of great ones. Just do me a favor and don’t miss out on The 39 Steps, which is, in my opinion, the best of his British films. I mean, there’s a scene in The 39 Steps where they have herring as a late night snack. Herring! [FN1]

And then that evening, as I was brushing my teeth in my rock sink, I got an idea for a short film. But due to Patsy’s being asleep I wasn’t able to film it until the next morning. Here it is:

We decided to drive up Highway 1 on the way home. That drive is inspirationally pretty; it makes Hearst Castle look like a Long John Silvers drive-through. [FN2] I used the inspiration upon returning home to drink two whiskey sodas and complete my adaptation of Twelfth Night. We will perform it in September.

-Shark
_____________________

FN1: http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/herring.wav
FN2: All along the way I was forcing Patsy to admire the view. If I spied her out of the corner of my eye and she was not “enjoying the view” I would admonish her. She started to deploy canned responses, touting her breathless appreciation for the landscapes and views. “That’s more like it!” I thought.

germany is good so far. the germans are super nice! they’ve given me and some others our own nice area where we can all live together, and they even gave us awesome new jackets with this cool yellow design on the sleeve. we’re not allowed out sometimes, but i’m sure it’s just because they want to keep us safe from the dangerous german streets. i’ve heard we’ll be moving somewhere even better soon, and that the move will be on a train. i’m excited to see some more of the german countryside and to experience their famous rail system.

-Shark

The case of the Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve is an intriguing one. Personally, I do not like the cross as a symbol. To me, Jesus was a human man and one of the many self-proclaimed messiahs during his time who played on the Jewish people’s desperation for someone to “deliver” them from the Romans. His death on the cross was evidence that the Jewish people did not take kindly to blasphemers. This does not mean that Jesus’ teachings, as described in the New Testament, are necessarily bad teachings. [FN1] Take Jesus’ teaching to “do unto others as they will do unto you.” (Matthew, 4:17.) This is essentially a simple anticipation of Kant’s theory of the categorical imperative (which is itself buried deep within the abstruse innards of his Critical of Practical Reason). Only Kant grafted onto this the incorrect idea that all humans are innately wired with the categorical imperative. Jesus, however, never taught that humans were born perfect. In fact, Christian dogma says that we are born with original sin, which, regardless of its specious theological origins, is a correct idea. Of course, this is inextricably inter-twined with superfluous God-stuff, but, then again, so were Kant’s “teachings,” just more abstractly. Regardless, just because Jesus’s teachings are better than Kant’s in some regards, does not change the fact that Kant’s ideas ultimately led to Schopenhauer and the beginning of modern philosophy. Jesus’s ideas are, ultimately, too platitudinous at this point to justify their deleterious religious baggage. To me, the Latin cross embodies these philosophical problems. And when there is a lawsuit that seeks to take down a religious icon on public land, I can’t help but root– prior to any thought about the prescriptions of the law– for that icon to be taken down.

However, in this post, I would like to clarify the legal aspects of the challenge to the cross, because way too often the media simplifies these legal news stories (I am looking at you, NPR’s Nina Totenberg) and, in the interest of ratings or whatever, skirt the complex legal issues in favor or moralistic and sensationalist reporting.

The background of the Latin cross at Sunrise Rock is described excellently in this post. I recommend that you read that summary before continuing on. But, if not, here are the basics:

Background to Salazar v. Buono

The cross is currently located on federal land within the Mojave National Preserve, which was dedicated as such in 1988. Before that, it was open land. In 1938, an unknown member of a not-explicitly-but-pretty-much-uniformly-religious veterans group called the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) erected a Latin cross (i.e. not symmetrical, but shaped like a crucifix) on top of a prominent rock outcropping. The cross was replaced several times during its history, most recently in the early 80’s. Prior to the lawsuits, it was a cross made out of white pipe that stood slightly over five feet tall. Here’s another picture:

Before we go any further, let me be just briefly comment: That’s a national memorial? It honestly defies logic that Congress would go to such lengths to preserve such a sorry war memorial if not for the fact that it was shaped like a cross. I mean, fuckin’ thing sucks!

Anyway, a guy named Frank Buono, who used to work for the Mojave Preserve, sued the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service (NPS) after they denied some Buddhist dude’s request to erect up a stupa in the area around the Latin cross. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Congress started to pass a series of laws aimed to protected the cross. They designated the cross a war memorial, then said no federal funds could be used to destroy a national memorial, then they allocated certain funds to permit upkeep of the cross. Prior to all these pieces of legislation, the NPS had actually decided to take the cross down.

Buono prevailed at the federal district court level. The District Court held that even though the NPS did not erect the cross, its implied endorsement of the cross by permitting it to remain on federal land violated the Established Clause. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After briefing, but before the oral argument, Congress passed an appropriations bills, in which was buried a land transfer rider provision that required the NPS to transfer a one-acre donut of land beneath the cross to the VFW, who, as you recall, originally erected the cross and still maintains it. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court, holding that the cross, as located on public land, violated the Establishment Clause. This appeal to the Ninth is referred to as Buono II. At the time of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Buono II, the land transfer had not been consummated yet; the bill was passed, but the land had not actually been transferred yet. Ultimately, the government did not appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Buono II. This is an incredibly important piece of the puzzle that never gets any mention. The government seemed to instead rely on the land transfer as a changed circumstances that would allow them to circumvent the injunction. As such, Buono sought relief from the district court to prevent the land transfer. Specifically, Buono asked the District Court for an order confirming that the land transfer would violate the injunction in Buono I. The District Court granted this relief in Buono III: This Time It’s Personal. The government then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the land transfer cured the violation and, therefore, was not in violation of initial injunction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court in what became known, to me, as Buono IV: Get Off My Rock Outcropping. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted cert in the recent case Salazar v. Buono.

Salazar v. Buono

The scope of the Supreme Court review was actually much more narrow than the media portrayed. In the media, this case was all about a cross in the desert. But the actual case was not about whether a five-foot cross on federal land violated the Establishment Clause: the Ninth Circuit said that it did, and that ruling was not appealed. The question for the Supreme Court was, instead, did the land transfer violate the Buono I injunction. The Buono I injunction is legally valid because it was not appealed. So regardless of what the Court thought about that initial injunction, they were constitutionally barred by the Cases and Controversies Clause of the Construction from ruling based thereon. As Justice Stevens accurately described it in his dissent:

As the history recounted by the plurality indicates, this case comes to us in a procedural posture that significantly narrows the question presented to the Court. In the first stage of this litigation, the District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that the Government violated the Establishment Clause by permitting the display of a single white Latin cross at Sunrise Rock. Those courts further ruled that the appropriate remedy was an injunction prohibiting the Government from “permitting the display of the Latin cross in the area of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve.” App. 39. The Government declined to seek a writ of certiorari following those rulings. Accordingly, for the purpose of this case, it is settled that “the Sunrise Rock cross will project a message of government endorsement [of religion] to a reasonable observer,” Buono II, 371 F. 3d 543, 549, and that the District Court’s remedy for that endorsement was proper. …

Instead, the question we confront is whether the District Court properly enforced its 2002 judgment by enjoining the transfer.

For the most part, the Court remains true to this procedural posture. [FN2] For that reason, Justice Kennedy’s plurality is essentially a holding on the standards for issuance of an affirmative injunction, as opposed to anything related directly to the Establishment Clause. So it becomes absolutely crucial to any discussion of this case to cite and understand the language of the initial injunction. Of course, you won’t be able to find this via any media report, so it bears repeating: “The Respondents are hereby enjoined from permitting the display of the Latin cross in the area of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve.”

The implication of the injunction is unambiguous: the NPS cannot “permit” the cross to stand. It then becomes very simple, and I will cede the floor to the venerable Justice Stevens [FN3], who presence on the Court will be sorely missed:

The 2002 injunction barred the Government from “permitting the display of the Latin cross in the area of Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve.” App. 39. The land-transfer statute mandated transfer of the land to an organization that has announced its intention to maintain the cross on Sunrise Rock. That action surely “permit[s]” the display of the cross. See 11 Oxford English Dictionary 578 (2d ed. 1989) (defining “permit” as “[t]o admit or allow the doing or occurrence of; to give leave or opportunity for”). True, the Government would no longer exert direct control over the cross. But the transfer itself would be an act permitting its display. Moreover, §8121 was designed specifically to foster the display of the cross. Regardless of why the Government wanted to “accommodat[e]” the interests associated with its display . . . , it was not only foreseeable but also intended that the cross would remain standing. Indeed, so far as the record indicates, the Government had no other purpose for turning over this land to private hands. It was therefore proper for the District Court to find that the transfer would violate its 2002 injunction and to enforce that injunction against the transfer.

I certainly agree that the Nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message.

Of course, Stevens was in the dissenting minority, along with Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. The majority’s main argument is that:

Even assuming that the land transfer was an attempt to prevent removal of the cross, it does not follow that an injunction against its implementation was appropriate…. it was incumbent upon the District Court to consider less drastic relief than complete invalidation of the land-transfer statute. [FN4]

There are two fatal problems with this position. First, it wishfully thinks that the injunction (whose merits are, again, not appealable) was not as broadly worded as it is. Second, it ignores the eminently reasonable possibility of erecting a new WWI memorial, in the same location, that is not in the shape of the cross. As Justice Stevens observed, this Latin cross is current the only United States WWI memorial. That this nation’s sole designated memorial to the great contribution of its citizens to that war is in the form of the quintessence Christian symbol, makes the cross’s permitted presence on federal land even more odious. Nonetheless, the quandary of a proposed remedy comes off as the biggest weakness in Buono’s argument, thanks in part to some admirably incisive questioning from Justice Roberts, which he cites in his devastating and concise concurrence, quoted below in full:

At oral argument, respondent’s counsel stated that it “likely would be consistent with the injunction” for the Government to tear down the cross, sell the land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and return the cross to them, with the VFW immediately raising the cross again. Tr. of Oral Arg. 44. I do not see how it can make a difference for the Government to skip that empty ritual and do what Congress told it to do—sell the land with the cross on it. “The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867).

Ultimately, it is somewhat of a close call, but I believe the ACLU attorney had the wrong answer to that. The only solutions are (1) a religiously neutral War Memorial or (2) no memorial at all. However, it is apparently too much to ask of our religion-obsessed culture to erect a WWI memorial that does not offend throngs of atheists, Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians. Query whether Congress would have passed five laws to protect a Star of David WWI memorial…

Closing Remarks: Wherein I Get Waxy

The lesson from this entire matter is that the conservative core of the court is willing to contort into twisted pretzels of legal logic in order to add grist to the mills of those that yearn for the good old days of past history when the nation was fundamentally religious because the world was religious. But, luckily, those same religious Founding Fathers included language in the Constitution that allowed the document take into account changing mores and beliefs so as to provide protections for future citizens parallel to those that it provided to the Founders and their countrymen. The tortured logic of the Supreme Court’s Salazar v. Buono opinion reveals that, for the white, religious political center of the national, this remains a regrettable reality to be circumvented at all costs.

-Shark

____________________________

FN1: Although Nietzsche, for instance, does argue compellingly that the Christian morality is a slave morality, developed by those seeking power through the only means available to them: meekness. It is this meekness that, as Europe abandoned their belief in God, Nietzsche thought should be “transvalued” into an appreciation for superiority.

FN2: However, there are exceptions. In what can only be considered dicta (non-binding pronouncements not made in furtherance of the holding), Justice Kennedy states:

[T]he following disucussion should not be read to suggest this Court’s agreement with th[e Buono I injunction], some aspects of which may be questionable. The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support of religion.

Of course, this inquiry is irrelevant to the holding and, as such, and in the interest of focusing the post, I will refrain from such counters as “roadside memorials are for a specific person and if that person was religious then a cross-shaped memorial does not violate the Establishment Clause and indeed its removal may violate the Free Exercise Clause, but the situation is different when a Christian memorial on public land purports to honor the dead of atheists and other veterans of non-Christian religions” will be reserved for a different context.

FN3: p.s. Justice Stevens is the only war veteran on the Court.

FN4: Justice Alito, in his concurrence, adds some flowery language about the “disturbing symbolism associated with destruction of the historic monument.” To which I respond: what about the disturbing symbolism of flouting an order of the federal judiciary?

Read the entire opinion, here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-472.pdf

Will to truth you call it …? A will to the thinkability of all being: this I call your will. All being you to make thinkable: for you doubt, with well-founded suspicion, whether it is thinkable. Yet it shall yield and bend for you. … Smooth it shall become and serve the spirit as its mirror and reflection That is your entire will … a will to power– also when you speak of good and evil and valuation. A table of virtues hands over every people. Behold it is the table of its overcomings; behold it is the voice of its will to power. (Thus Spoke Zarathusa, Book II, p. 12.)

But listening to that music on the BART, hearing Berrigan’s depressed baritone sound triumphant and invigorating, made me realize the power of imposing art on others. It is the ultimate form of what the Italians call amor fati– literally “love of fate”, but loosely “not sweating the bad stuff”. Nietzsche was a big amor fati guy. It was a sign of healthy power to him to appreciate all aspects of life, as part of the process of sublimation.

The tragic man affirms even the harshest suffering: he is sufficiently strong, rich, and deifying for this; the Christian negates even the happiest life on earth: he is sufficiently weak, poor, and disinherited to suffer from life in any form. (Notes, 1887.)

For somber bands like The National to be able to take sadness and convert it into conquering, vigor-imparting art, is the ultimate sublimation. From arena-rock champions like 1985 Metallica– turning alcoholic misanthropy into aggressive release– to ambient masters like Stars of the Lid– lording over your sleep with monochromatic drones– all types of art necessarily implies dominance over the emotions of others. There is power in that. The thirst for this power is the reason people create art; there is no other reason.

-Shark

You know what I’m talking about. Those ceramic coffee mugs that are made to look like paper to-go cups with a lid. Why don’t I like these? Because they’re dumb.

-Shark

2. The live video of “Terrible Love” is bad. First off, Pitchfork produced the video; so yet more financial symbioses between Pitchfork and the bands they hype. (I’m just saying: you didn’t go to MTv for music criticism.) Second, either just show them live or have the video be about naturalistic symbolism. One or the other. When it’s mostly the band playing live except when we cut to show a spider when he’s singing about spiders: that’s not the right balance. And regarding the live footage: whatever happen to interesting live music directing? I couldn’t be more serious about this. Remember the Woodstock movie? Remember how when Richie Havens was playing “Freedom” and the camera just focused the whole time on Richie’s trance-like expression as he absolutely slayed the performance? Remember that Pink Floyd movie where the director focuses almost exclusively on Nick Mason (the drummer) during the extended psychedelic freak-out version of “Set the Control for the Heart of the Sun”? Remember how that made you think: “Hm, I wonder why they’re focusing on the drummer the whole time but, now that I think of it, he really is the rhythmic center of that song!” Why do modern music videos scrupulously avoid any such type of auteur tactics? It’s like: “Okay, since Berringer is the lead singer we need 65% of the footage to be of him, and then we need 25% on the drummer, 30% on the rhythm guitarist because he writes the songs, 5% on the horn guy that you can barely hear.” It all extremely formulaic and uninteresting. The camera guy (or the after-the-fact editor) should be actively thinking: how can I focus on an interesting aspect of this performance? How can I make the most out of this opportunity to edit and display a live performance on film? This does not happen anymore. Third, the whole trend of Indie Rock bands wearing suits needs to stop. I was talking with Blaire about this a few days ago: Brit Daniel, okay he doesn’t wear suits but he dresses really, really nice. Here’s the thing: one of the best parts about being a rock star is that you can totally dress down because, well, you’re a rock star: people pay you money to rock out, you’re not filing anyone’s taxed or operating on their kidneys. See, leave the suits to us working class stiffs. It’s really all we got. But not only do you get to be a rock star but, no!, you also get to wear suits. Look, it’s not that I’m jealous really (okay I sort of am), but I kind of like to think that the reason that I’m not a rock star is that I’m not weird enough to be interesting like you rock stars. So when I see you, guitarists for the National, dressing up in a DOUBLE-BREASTED suit to play live, it makes me think: maybe these guys aren’t that much weirder than me, maybe they just did want they truly wanted to do and were successful. And that makes me mad.

-Shark

It was way funnier than the time you put a wine bottle full of urine on top of my dresser with a flower sticking out of it.

Love,
PETE

(originally posted on 9/7/06)

WAYNE: “I mean, there are two Darrin Stevens [FN1], right? Dick York and Dick Sargent [FN2]. Yeah, right, as if we wouldn’t notice! Oh hold on: Dick York, Dick Sargent, Sergeant York [FN3] … Wow, that’s weird!”

FN1: In the 1950’s comedy Bewitched, a young-looking witch named Samantha meets and marries a mortal named Darrin Stephens. While Samantha pledges to forsake her powers and become a typical suburban housewife, her magical family disapproves of the mixed marriage and frequently interferes in the couple’s lives.

FN2: The series is noted for having a number of major cast changes, often due to illness or death of the actors. Most notably, the actor playing Darrin was quietly replaced mid-series. Dick York was unable to continue his role as Darrin due to a severe back condition (the result of an accident during the filming of They Came To Cordura in 1959). York’s disability caused ongoing shooting delays and script rewrites. After collapsing on the set and being rushed to the hospital in January 1969, York left the show and the role went to Dick Sargent that same month.

FN3: Alvin Cullum York was an American soldier who is renowned as a World War I hero. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading an attack on a German machine gun nest, taking 32 machine guns, killing 28 German soldiers and capturing 132 others. This action took place during the U.S.-led portion of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive in France, which was part of a broader Allied offensive masterminded by Marshal Ferdinand Foch to breach the Hindenburg line and ultimately force the opposing German forces to capitulate.

The Besnard Lakes Are the Roaring Night (Deluxe Edition):

1. Like the Ocean, Like the Innocent, Pt. 1: The Ocean
2. Like the Ocean, Like the Innocent, Pt. 2: The Innocent
3. Chicago Train
4. Albatross
5. Glass Printer
6. Land of Living Skies, Pt. 1: The Land
7. Land of Living Skies, Pt. 2: The Living Skies
8. And This Is What We Call Progress
9. Light Up the Night
10. The Lonely Moan
11. Albatross (alternate version)

- Shark