VirusHead

I am a serious fan of Joe Frank. He is the radio noir guru of my soul. I have been listening to him since the eighties. He was the joy of my Friday nights, and did much to get me through a difficult graduate program in philosophical theology and ethics. From 1986 until 2002, Joe produced four Series: “Work in Progress,” “In the Dark,” “Somewhere Out There,” and “The Other Side.”

Late Friday night, “Work in Progress” (from KCRW Santa Monica) played on the local NPR station in Iowa City, and almost every Friday night, I was listening. It became something very like a religious ritual for me. Candles, comfortable surroundings… provocative thoughts, brilliant rants, hypnotic bits of music, and his voice. He’s witty and absurd and satirical and dark and deep and funny, and the rhythms of the rants get me every time.

Here’s a little example of the kind of thing he does:

When endowed with profound religious feeling, your skin becomes transparent and your blood begins to turn a thin watery hue until the light of the sun streaming in the window passes entirely through you. At last, having evolved into pure spiritual energy, nothing remains of your existence but a small pile of dirty underwear, damp socks, rumpled garments, a driver’s license, credit cards and perhaps a small nail clipper.

This is what happens when you achieve oneness with the air, with the sky, with the whole world and everything in it. No longer tormented by nagging questions such as the conundrum of imploding ethical systems as expressed in post-war German soup recipes, you feel a sense of ecstatic exhilaration. It is this condition of bliss that Joe Frank: Somewhere Out There will attempt to elicit in its listeners.

Ahh, but with Joe, it’s all in the delivery.

The trains of thought that his work set off for me were better intellectual stimulation than almost anything else I had encountered. There was a sensual, even vaguely erotic, aspect to whole thing as well, so that it was (for me) a perfect melding of mind, spirit, body. I’m not saying that I’m sexually attracted to Joe – I love this man’s soul. I *deeply* respond to his ideas, his delivery, his voice, but it’s in some other sort of space and place, almost otherworldly. I can’t fully express the sense of kinship and gratefulness that I have felt for this.

Back in 1989 or 90 or so, I wrote him a long fan letter, raving about one of the shows. In a wonderful bit of synchronicity, he called me on my birthday (and was surprised that I was so young! Evidently, my letter sounded like it was written by a women some ten or twenty years my senior). After that, I was actually in a short bit of “The Loved One,” from the In the Dark series – which I think I flubbed, pretty much (sigh).

John and I lived in Los Angeles for a summer (Ben was about 2 years old), and I finally got to meet Joe in person. At his house. However, as is my unfortunate tendency when I am socially anxious, I babbled – while he made himself some pea soup to comfort his ulcer, and looked somewhat askance at the aloe vera juice I had brought along as a gift. I couldn’t center myself. I admire him so much that I still feel kind of starstruck when I interact with him. I have no idea what I’m saying or why. It’s the opposite of how I am when I’m listening to his work – centered, serene, silent, clear, my mind dancing, my spirit wild and free.

Still, he hasn’t written me off completely (grin). I think he’s probably used to that kind of thing. We talked recently about a range of things, and while I was still disappointed in myself, it was a very fun conversation nonetheless. Mostly I was just pleased that he was doing better. (Joe – if you ever read this – know that you have only seen the aspect of me that I like the least, the “I don’t know what I’m saying, I just want to be here” where I’m actually standing outside myself, a reflexive ghost just watching and shaking my head morosely, wondering what inauthentic flotsam of self is operating the mouth. I would like to get to a more engaging level of conversational exchange with you someday. Thank you for your kindness toward this awkward flailing confusionbot as we create the terrain between.)

Anyway…. ahhhhh… I am extremely pleased that Joe is still with us. He had a kidney transplant last year, and his recovery seems to be going very well.

It’s been one of my frustrations with living in Georgia that this NPR station could not be convinced to carry any of his work. Sheesh. What is wrong with this place?

Anyway, new things are brewing!

You can listen to some choice bits of Joe’s work on his MySpace “music” page. JoeFrank.com has whole shows. You can listen to a couple of them for free, and there is a paid membership option for more.

There are podcasts available! Now playing: Pilgrim.
Here’s the feed for your podcast software.
If you’re on a PC, download Juice “for fresh content”.

You can also hear him on Sonic Theater, XM radio channel 163 (if I understand it correctly).

If you go to the MySpace page, be sure to check out “Ode to War,” which is in my short list of favorites. See if it doesn’t make you think.

Now there is even a brand-spankin’ new forum for us Frankophiles (.com!).

At MySpace, join the Frankolyte group.

If you’re on MyTribe, join the JoeFrankophiles group.

If I am ever in a position to do so, I would love to buy the whole library of his work. He gave me copies of “Rent-a-Family” and “The Dictator” – both are special multi-part shows. Even all these years later, when I’ve gotten rid of almost all my cassette-tapes, I have held onto the shows I recorded off the radio. I still listen to them, despite the rotten sound quality.

There are no medals to peace, no honors, no marching bands, no great monuments to peace, no hymns sung, no great odes, no martial melodies, no parades to peace. There are no gigantic fireworks displays, no champagne corks popped to peace, no last cigarette smoked in its honor. There is no night before peace, no declaration of peace. The very absurdity of a nation declaring peace on another shocks the imagination. And who among us can say that he has heard of the spoils of peace? Is there such a thing as a peace hero? Who among us have gathered with his old cronies late at night, hoisted a glass and told peace stories? What valiant young man has been welcomed back from peace? What young boy has gazed longingly at his father, saying that he would willingly go to peace to save his country?

My near-worshipfulness is not really objectively critical, but at least I’m not alone:

“Joe Frank is by far the most brilliant comic in America… [He] has created a series of dead-pan radio monologues so sharp and intelligent that during the quiet bits you can almost hear God taking notes.” — The Guardian (UK)

“[Joe Frank] travels in the emotional landscape of Bergman and Fellini; there’s a tension and sense of mystery halfway between Kafka and Chandler, plot twists worthy of Rod Serling, and a satiric edge worthy of Firesign Theatre and Woody Allen.” — The Washington Post

“The world of Joe Frank is a wildly entertaining surrealistic universe…hilarious, unsettling, zany, powerful, moving and perhaps the most unique, inventive and effective use of radio since Orson Welles convinced much of America that there was a “War of the Worlds.” — The L.A. Weekly

“[Joe Frank is] the most imaginative, literate monologist in radio today… If a microphone could capture the nether recesses of the modern psyche, it would sound like Frank’s absurd comical excursions: Radio Vertigo.” –The Village Voice

“A combination monologist-philosopher-black comic-shrink, Frank strips away radio’s genteel veneer of good vibes and exposes the private fears that plague us all.” — The Los Angeles Times

“RADIO’S PRINCE OF DARKNESS RULES THE FREEWAYS” [Frank is] alternately dark, bizarre and very funny – but always hard to turn off.” — The Wall Street Journal

“…Joe Frank is an invaluable warrior who stands in defense of our fears, our vanities and our forever-eroding sense of ourselves. He transforms the everyday banality of the human comedy into an inspired weirdness that feeds on pathos and irony, and feels a lot like revelation. Sartre would have called it nausea; Frank makes it art.”
- Spin Magazine

“I came upon Joe Frank’s work by accident a number of years ago while driving to my home in the Napa Valley late at night. I couldn’t believe the originality and sheer brilliance of what I was hearing. From that moment on I became a dedicated Joe Frank fan.” — Francis Ford Coppola

“Joe Frank is a singular voice in radio. What he has done that is so amazing and impressive to me is to take this singular voice out of my radio and put it inside my head. As I listen, Frank’s show invades me and becomes my own thought process. It’s hypnotic, psychotic, neurotic, sad, terrifying, and some of the funniest stuff I have ever heard anywhere. I can’t think of another radio performer who has come close to achieving this kind of alchemy.” — Charlie Kaufman

“Joe Frank is an original whose work has helped form some of the most eccentric, dark and interesting parts of public radio’s personality.” –Terry Gross

“He’s one of the great, original radio performers. He’s created a sound and style for himself – a complete aesthetic that’s entirely his own. I first heard him when I was 19 and it changed everything for me. His work demonstrated the intensity and emotion that the medium is capable of; ingenious…fantastic.” — Ira Glass

“To me, he’s what radio is really for … his show makes me think he’s getting to some great truth … so completely captivating and just unlike anything else.” — David Sedaris

Which words do you associate with me?

My Interactive Johari Window

The Johari Window was invented by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham in the 1950s as a model for mapping personality awareness. By describing yourself from a fixed list of adjectives, then asking your friends and colleagues to describe you from the same list, a grid of overlap and difference can be built up.

Ongoing tabulated results will be here. I’m about to add a link on the sidebar. The Interactive Johari Window was installed and grouted by kavan.org.

(thanks to Mysticalgrrl and Andrena)

This morning, I read a great article at Salon by Lindsay Beyerstein (Majikthise) on why she refused the Edwards campaign blogging job the others accepted. I think her analysis of the issues was dead-on, and she figured it out in advance. I also thought she was perceptive about the issue of off-the-campaign surrogates:

Unfortunately, as the Edwards campaign learned the hard way, the right wing has a large network of surrogates, like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Donohue, who can propel virtually any story into the mainstream media. These professional blowhards are supported by a lavish infrastructure of publishers, partisan media outlets, think tanks, grants, lecture circuits and more.

Republican benefactors lavish funds on the conservative message machine because they recognize the value of a good surrogate. Candidates don’t pay their surrogates or give them orders. Instead, they rely on them to say all the outrageous things they can’t say themselves.

So far, the left doesn’t have much in the way of institutionally supported partisan counterweights. We’ve got Bill Moyers, they’ve got Bill Donohue. Explains a lot, doesn’t it?

Progressive blogs have the potential to become the left wing’s open-source counterpart to the right-wing noise machine. But that doesn’t necessarily mean using money and a title to yoke an established blogger to a specific candidate.

…

The Edwards campaign wants decentralized people-powered politics. Ironically, by hiring well-known bloggers to manage a destination Web site, it was actually centralizing and micromanaging. Every campaign needs a blog, but the most important part of a candidate’s netroots operation is the disciplined political operatives who can quietly build relationships with bloggers outside the campaign. And the bomb-throwing surrogates need to be outside, where they can make full use of their gifts without saddling a campaign with their personal political baggage.

So while I’m here, already thinking about it because of this fascinating article, here’s my take on the thing.

I thought that there would be no problem for a progressive blogger to put on the “professional hat” and work for a campaign. The Edwards campaign picked two great bloggers: Melissa McEwan (Shakespeare’s Sister) and Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon). Both women are solid workers for progressive causes. Although the genre of biting wit (and occasional vulgarity) may put off plenty of Americans, it is possible to change genres – and people do it all the time.

The objections, smears and attacks were to be expected, especially considering that both bloggers were involved with projects like the Big Brass Alliance. The “swift-boating” smear technique seems to work, and the right-wing likes it (they think it’s a good thing).

Well, Edwards fired, then rehired the bloggers. Ultimately, both bloggers resigned. Victory to the machine.

What surprised me was the first accusation, and its source. The leader of this “politically correct” (!) attack was President of the Catholic League Bill Donohue, known for such statements as “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity,” “Hollywood likes anal sex,” and Catholics “cooperate in evil” by voting for Kerry.

This paragon of virtue (note to the rusty: that’s “irony,” “sarcasm,” and “ridicule”) accused the two feminist bloggers of being “anti-Catholic bigots.”

I have no problem with tagging certain pseudo-christians as “Christofascists” – that’s exactly what they are. I don’t see how that is anti-Catholic per se, nor is it even anti-Christian. I myself don’t find the attitudes or behaviors of dominionists and supremacists very Christian at all. Those who seek power and control in the name of God and Christ are missing the message (that is the most benevolent interpretation). If the Spirit is characterized by love and caritas and forgiveness and goodness, then… you finish the sentence for yourself.

There are many groups who rally for religious preference, discrimination, and control over other American citizens.
As feminist progressives, these two bloggers (and many others) criticize policies that oppose women, homosexuality, abortion, contraception – and so on. They each use their own kind of wit to do so. For them to criticize these things does not make them anti-Catholic, just as to criticize the political actions of a government does not necessarily mean that you hate that country or its people.

Most Catholics (even many evangelicals) are not fascistic theocratic supremacists or dominionists. Some recognize that freedom of religion is exactly what allowed them to thrive in America. There are many progressive religious people – who care about the stewardship of the earth, for example, or issues about poverty and helping others and compassion. Some even take peace seriously, like the Quakers. There are feminists who have serious issues with abortion. There are even right-wing homosexuals (something I’ve always found difficult to understand).

The point is, the possible religious and political viewpoints are many in the “land of the free.”

Well, I suppose the smear machine couldn’t really go after their support of AfterDowningStreet.org, could they? They didn’t really want to attack feminism straight off. So they went for the bigotry charge. The media swallowed it.

The smear tactics are basically just operant conditioning (your basic Pavlov, Skinner) applied to language: Create the association between “Edwards,” “bloggers,” and “anti-Catholic” and “bigots.” Spin. Disseminate. Repeat.

There is no “debate” about word association memes. Kerry… Swiftboat. You try one… how about Columbine?

It’s all about making a noise, a viral repetition that sticks. Ultimately, if it is successful, then it becomes a meme existing simply to replicate itself. Contagion. Spread. Mutation. If you want to debate, it’s best to reframe the terms or you’ll simply spread the meme even further. These days, memes can travel faster than the cold virus.

Somehow, I thought that some of the right-wing bloggers might want to preserve some blogging leeway, if only to be hired themselves in a similar capacity for one of their candidates. Nah – they’ll just do it anyway. As Beyerstein points out elsewhere, right-wing bloggers can do such things as calling for murder without damaging their credentials much. There is so much hypocrisy here that it can start to wear you out just contemplating the many examples. And that’s the point.

The strength of the right-wing machine’s method (including the blogosphere) is the collective and coordinated aspect of viral smear campaigns. In line with that, there is little feel for irony, nor is there much regard for honest debate. It is strategic.

For some, off-on/right-wrong/us-them thinking is very compelling and comforting. If nothing else, it relieves them of the burden of self-determination and complex reasoning. It also blocks insights and compassion, though, especially in a context of meme-association conditioning. It results in severely limited focus, if not always outright misrepresentation.

However, you can only roll hate and smear for so long. It’s wearing thin. Attentive Americans across the spectrum are really getting tired of it. I believe that Americans long for something more positive and energizing than that, despite our tendencies toward scapegoating.

There’s nothing wrong with a campaign hiring a blogger – not at all. They should get someone witty, and someone who already agrees with most of the policies and goals of the politicians. It’s a PR job, basically, and there are some good people who can craft messaging, frame the terms of presentation, and all that. Still – that’s PR delivered in blog format. There are other, probably better, roles for journalistic and activist bloggers.

Although I was disappointed that the bloggers decided not to stay on, I also feel that it is probably better for most political bloggers (if not all!) to be independent. Bloggers are providing the kind of debate and discussion that is conspicuously lacking in other forms of media. The blogosphere is a democratic development comparable to the printing press and the copy machine. Freedom of speech – and debate and argument – produce better citizens and a better democracy.

Yes, there are hateful, horrible diatribes. Yes, there are also simple repetitions of talking points.

What I personally enjoy, though, is seeing a whole range of people trying to think things through and figure out where they stand. They get a better feel for language. Some are more compelling than others, some are better writers. The ones who write often, and think, get better and better at untwisting the spin and mutating the memes.

This is the kind of skill that can raise our collective levels of thinking toward something that can respect debate, honor a variety of perspectives, and start finding and implementing more credible and effective solutions to our problems.

Arcade Fire was the musical guest on Saturday Night Live last night. I hadn’t heard any of their music before. I really enjoyed both songs. It’s a Canadian band, but they had a kind of politically-astute blue-collar New England feel to me. Maybe it was just a subterranean Bruce Springsteen echo, or even just a projection of my homesick longings.

Intervention

Keep the Car Running

It was a pretty good SNL all around. The host was Rainn Wilson – I may actually have to watch “The Office.” He is talented, and the segment on the show was pretty funny, even for someone who hasn’t seen the original.

The opening parody of Blitzer’s Situation Room played on news “preferences” with great performative ironies. Nice to see the play with structure and mirroring.

Second-best was the huddle of old friends at a bar, singing a song that I’m sure I’ll now avoid for some time. The sketch was well done, with only a couple of awkward timing spots (contrast with Lorne Michael’s “timing” moment – which was perfect). The buddies, drinking cheap beer “for old times’ sake,” each share a memory that they associate with the very recognizable song. They sing along with varying degrees of skill depending on how well they recovered from each revelation. Despite their disturbing and intentionally repulsive/horrifying/unbelievable anecdotes, I found this bit (strangely) a little hopeful. It was also sad and horrible because it had just that grain too much of truth. The ending wrapped it with a bow.

I also enjoyed the “Peeping Tom” segment – especially the policewomen (I laughed out loud several times).

The Oscar Reviews by Amy’s “aunt” were delivered perfectly, but I thought the writing needed one more go-over. The “new age band” had a couple of moments, but was only so-so overall.

At the bottom of the scale, the “Noonie” sketch has (really!) reached the end.

The racially-charged movie ad was a bit too edgy for me – but hey, I’m the one who can’t watch a whole episode of 24 anymore, despite my fondness for Naked Lunch and Requiem for a Dream.

I’m looking forward to another segment of Really!?! with Amy Poehler and Seth Myers. Let’s see more of that.

There was a little quiz on the SNL site asking people who was their favorite male cast member of all time. I thought the selection was limited so I didn’t vote. Does anyone else miss Phil Hartman?