the desert gadabout

Frank Briggs’ China Ranch

[BUY IT HERE]

I first learned of Frank Briggs through his Mel Bay instructional book, and was puzzled how this virtuoso drummer wasn’t included among the pantheon of great American set players. He is every bit as skilled and versed as legends such as Vinnie Colaiuta and Dave Weckl. What he has lacked is a high-profile venue to showcase his art.

His new CD, China Ranch, may very well be that launching pad to notoriety.

The list of drummers who successfully lead jazz projects is a short one, but it’s rare to find such a skilled composer and arranger such as Frank. This effort is reminscent of a different era of jazz fusion, when players played music and there was more concern for the art than the commercial viability of the project. Fans of ground-breaking acts such as Weather Report and Allan Holdsworth will find a kindred spirit here, and there is no shortage of players among the guest list; Steve Weingart, Ric Fierabracci, Frank Gambale, Jimmy Earl, and Jeff Babko are just a few of the “who’s who” of elite players gathered for China Ranch.

You would expect a drummer to give himself room on his own CD — and there is no doubt a wealth of stretching here to linger over — but the pleasant surprise is the strong quality of composition. The freedom the musicians have never overwhelms the music.

Tracks such as China Ranch and Desert Flower stand out as excellent cross-over material with a nod towards the past, where ballads such as Melonie and Riverwalk are welcome retreats to thoughtful melodies.

Like his hero Tony Williams, Briggs leans strongly towards the original jazz-rock idea, and avoids old fusion pitfalls such as out-dated synth sounds and crass funk jams. This is an earnest musician playing earnest fusion. Clearly, Briggs had a broader vision here than to merely blow his own horn — or bang his own drum — and is able to communicate it in an age when jazz fusion sorely needs a return to its roots.

You really want a GOP media?

This is why the media fails when it picks sides, but especially the moralizing GOP which constantly sets itself up as an organization of hypocrites:

Gadabout Steve Gadd

This should make your Wednesday more enjoyable … the great Steve Gadd with the late Richard Tee …

Libertarians for Obama?

Libertarians often find it difficult to exist in the American political discussion, an irony only understood by historians who know so many of our Founding Fathers would likely be card-carrying members of the Libertarian Party today. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin are practically the Holy Trinity of modern libertarianism, with Ayn Rand playing the role of John the Baptist I suppose.

The problem exists that the two major American parties, Republicans and Democrats, virtually split libertarianism in half. On one hand you have the vigilant social liberals — especially when it comes to First Amendment rights — among the Democrats. On the other you have the most zealous property rights advocates and government deregulators among the GOP.

The third option is to actually support the proper Libertarian Party, but it was long ago overtaken by disenfranchised Republicans like Ron Paul and Bob Barr who still hold on to various Republican ideals. There’s also a bit of frustration at the grass-roots level where whacko milita types and loony tunes anarchists seem to rule their tiny little fifedoms.

So voting with an impact in the presidential election is the worst kind of ‘pick your poison’ for libertarians (little ‘L’).

I supported John McCain in 2000 because I felt he represented the best hope for certain libertarian ideals. The current version of McCain bears almost no resemblance to the old McCain when it comes to platform issues. He’s adopted so many of the GOP planks he fought against for most of his congressional career.

Still, McCain probably remains the best mainstream candidate for independent libertarians because of the GOP’s (vague) commitment to open markets. At least, they support them when the biggest dollar contributors support them.

Contrast that to Barack Obama and an economic platform that reads like a post-modern “New Deal,” and you might draw the conclusion that libertarians would support McCain without much further thought, in spite of McCain’s aggressive support for continued foreign military operations and his many other quirky pro-Federalist stances.

Not so fast, says Terry Michaels.

Michaels doesn’t really break new ground. Mostly he higlights Obama’s support of the traditional social freedoms found at the core of libertarian dogma, all of which McCain has moved to the right since going on his GOP primary steam roll tour.

I wouldn’t say it’s persuasive. It is insightful to see the lengths a libertarian will go to justify their support of a major candidate.

Invisible Hand hits sprawl pause button

Coming soon to a city park near you: Vista de Nada, a randomly-planned community in the heart of sprawling Phoenix.

With the news of Valley schools losing students — Mesa Public Schools lost 2,100 from the previous year — it’s time we put the myth of perpetual growth in Phoenix to bed. The federally-insured spigot has dried up all the lending dollars for our growth-reliant economy, and more people appear to be moving out than moving in.

We can also ponder the sobering reality of former sprawl-meister home builder executives joining the growing crowds at CASS. Perhaps they can help master plan the new centrally-located shanty town (Walking distance to soup lines and public transportation!).

As a moderate, semi-pro-capitalist, libertarian-lite progressive populist, I’m not here to gloat about the downfall of the Phoenix economic engine. Quite the contrary. My entire family is in real estate, and Christmas looking pretty gloomy for us.

But it does drive home the point that “all sprawl, all the time” is a horrible economic doctrine for an economy of any scale. If you can’t get on board with an environmental concern about sprawl, just go back down the traditional path of old-school Republican capitalism and you should arrive at the same conclusions:

• Never put all your eggs (or your jobs) in one basket
• 300 “knowledge-based” jobs in health care or medical research trumps 3,000 “skill-based” jobs in construction
• Unfettered captialism + unchecked government spending = a nasty bill at the end of the day

It is ironic that so many of those who were accused of being anti-capitalism (and even anti-American) for opposing endless sprawl no offer the best economic policies to get Phoenix (if not this country) out of our financial morass: dense, urban living; centralized job centers; higher education spending; public transportation emphasis.

What do these things do (besides reduce our carbon footprint)? Encourage balanced, stable economies that can sustain large populations without succoming to bubbles or bursting bubbles.

Many men know my pain

It’s impossible to truly gauge what goes on inside an athlete’s head when defeat comes at the hand of an undersized, lesser-talented opponent.

I can tell you what goes on inside a fan’s head:

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

That panic you’re hearing is coming from my misplaced emotional investment in ASU football. Pardon me while I regain my composure before No. 3 Georgia comes to town.

Goodbye Phoenix, hello ‘Central Arizona Region’

Arizona One, a regional planning organization, got 270 “stakeholders” in the future of Phoenix growth and pitted them in groups to measure their values.

The problem? They’re projecting 10 million people in our metropolis by 2050, which would, you know, tax resources and stuff. Instead of thinking of ways to curb growth to more sustainable numbers, the group is simply trying to figure out where to put all those people.

It must’ve been novel to see SunCor’s Steven Betts and DMB’s Drew Brown defend sprawl of any kind as issues like water availability and commuter options came up. If only I could have been a fly on the wall as MAG transportation director Eric Anderson explained the depleting options to build new freeways because we’re broke, the Feds are broke, and eminent domain laws are changing.

There was lots of discussion about changing the mentality among current residents. This is wonk-speak for, “The days of everyone having their own three-car garage and swimming pool are coming to an end.” Much of the day was spent convincing these people — many of whom have made millions from our current catastrophic sprawl experience — that high-density, low-water, urban-centered housing is the only real option.

I’m sure that sentiment is the butt of some great jokes when these guys get together.

Because it never stops being funny

Barak bringing home the Klingon vote

‘You’re not accountable, Jack’

While I’m not certain the ramifications of this morning’s Washington Post piece on the inner workings of our military and how it led to “The Surge” policy in Iraq, it makes for a fascinating read.

It definitely makes it apparent the executive branch and the military complex are at odds over policy. Our highest-ranking military leaders apparently have wanted out of Iraq for some time. Our president and vice-president have been consulting with a retired general and channeling their support through back-door channels, a literal end-around the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In the middle? Gen. David H. Petraeus, whom the Post paints as under great duress being pulled in two different directions.

Most revealing was Army CoS Gen. George Casey Jr.’s comments to retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, the White House’s closest confidante and mentor to Petraeus, about Keane’s unusual continued involvement with U.S. foreign policy:

“Because we feel — the chiefs feel — that you are way too out in front advocating a policy for which you’re not accountable. We’re accountable. You’re not accountable, Jack. And that’s a problem.”

Keane said he had taken action as a member of the secretary of defense’s policy board, whose members were supposed to offer their independent advice. All he was trying to do was help Petraeus, he said. “I supported this strategy for three years when a lot of other guys didn’t,” Keane said, referring to Casey’s strategy to build up the Iraqi security forces in hopes of a speedier withdrawal of U.S. troops. “And at some point, I no longer could support it. I’m not operating as some kind of Lone Ranger.”

“It’s not appropriate for a retired general to be so far forward advocating a policy that he is not responsible or accountable for,” Casey said again.

Tags: bush, Iraq, policy, war, whtie house

Was Palin’s ‘gaffe’ really a gaffe?

A little buzz growing for Sarah Palin’s latest political misspeak:

McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking in Colorado Springs, Colo., said Fannie and Freddie had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.” The companies, however, aren’t taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization.

That was pithy for the reporter to point that out, but Palin wasn’t so far off. The Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation are (or were, until yesterday) privately owned and managed corporations. But they were also government-sponsored enterprises, which meant oversight from the massive Department of Treasury bureacracy.

So if you’re looking for blame in the embarrassing fraudulent accounting practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you have to ask why the Treasury bean counters didn’t find these shadowy practices that would have stock holders of a TRUE private corporation calling for investigations and filing lawsuits.

Ironically, another former GSE, Sallie Mae, continues on as a true private corp without government sponsorship. It has had a massive infusion of private funding from BofA and other banking companies who wish to share in the risk in spite of the cash and credit crunch on the American dollar.

No doubt, the government had to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because allowing them to flounder any longer could seriously undermine the dollar, if not rip out the rug from underneath us outright. We are indebted to countries — China, Saudia Arabia, etc. — who have little political aspiration to continue to prop us up. Their investment is strictly financial, and would have no qualms sticking it to us if they thought they wouldn’t be repaid.

But that is the problem with GSE’s — the government is a poor caretaker of private enterprise.

So Palin’s observations are technically correct, even if she failed to fully understand how they operated.