I saw the Cars at the US Festival 1982. Not exactly an intimate venue, but I knew every lyric and was experiencing a pretty significant contact high so it was great I have a photo somewhere, beautiful Southern California afternoon sky, fluffy clouds, Ric Ocasek on the jumbotron and the Blue Angels doing a flyover that looks like it's coming out of the screen. 19-year-old me might have cried just then.
On Touch & Go, the quirky-rhythm single that, when I was in charge of music in the car, I'd say "here's a country song" and when it got to that point in the song all my friends would throw stuff at me and shout, "that's not country!" but anyway I got them to listen. Years later, a friend who's a good drummer decided his band should take on "Touch & Go" but after a few months of trying to nail it, they just gave up. It's a lot tougher than it sounds, apparently.
That is a challenging song to play; it's a polyrhythm. In the verses the rhythm section is playing in 5/4, the vocals and other instruments are in 4/4 time.
I saw the Cars at the US Festival 1982. Not exactly an intimate venue, but I knew every lyric and was experiencing a pretty significant contact high so it was great I have a photo somewhere, beautiful Southern California afternoon sky, fluffy clouds, Ric Ocasek on the jumbotron and the Blue Angels doing a flyover that looks like it's coming out of the screen. 19-year-old me might have cried just then.
On Touch & Go, the quirky-rhythm single that, when I was in charge of music in the car, I'd say "here's a country song" and when it got to that point in the song all my friends would throw stuff at me and shout, "that's not country!" but anyway I got them to listen. Years later, a friend who's a good drummer decided his band should take on "Touch & Go" but after a few months of trying to nail it, they just gave up. It's a lot tougher than it sounds, apparently.
That is a challenging song to play; it's a polyrhythm. In the verses the rhythm section is playing in 5/4, the vocals and other instruments are in 4/4 time.
I saw the Cars at the US Festival 1982. Not exactly an intimate venue, but I knew every lyric and was experiencing a pretty significant contact high so it was great I have a photo somewhere, beautiful Southern California afternoon sky, fluffy clouds, Ric Ocasek on the jumbotron and the Blue Angels doing a flyover that looks like it's coming out of the screen. 19-year-old me might have cried just then.
On Touch & Go, the quirky-rhythm single that, when I was in charge of music in the car, I'd say "here's a country song" and when it got to that point in the song all my friends would throw stuff at me and shout, "that's not country!" but anyway I got them to listen. Years later, a friend who's a good drummer decided his band should take on "Touch & Go" but after a few months of trying to nail it, they just gave up. It's a lot tougher than it sounds, apparently.
NEW YORKâ Ric Ocasek, famed frontman for The Cars rock band, has been found dead in a Manhattan apartment.
The New York City Police Department said officers responding to a 911 call found the 75-year-old Mr. Ocasek at about 4 p.m. on Sunday. They said there was no sign of foul play and that the medical examiner was to determine a cause of death.
The Carsâ chart-topping hits in the late 1970s and 1980s included âJust What I Needed,â ââShake It Upâ and âDrive.â The band was inducted last year into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
In May of 2018, model and actress Paulina Porizkova announced on social media that she and Mr. Ocasek had separated after 28 years of marriage. The pair first met while filming the music video for âDrive.â
NEW YORKâ Ric Ocasek, famed frontman for The Cars rock band, has been found dead in a Manhattan apartment.
The New York City Police Department said officers responding to a 911 call found the 75-year-old Mr. Ocasek at about 4 p.m. on Sunday. They said there was no sign of foul play and that the medical examiner was to determine a cause of death.
The Carsâ chart-topping hits in the late 1970s and 1980s included âJust What I Needed,â ââShake It Upâ and âDrive.â The band was inducted last year into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
In May of 2018, model and actress Paulina Porizkova announced on social media that she and Mr. Ocasek had separated after 28 years of marriage. The pair first met while filming the music video for âDrive.â
Back in the day, hearing this Eddie Money song on the radio I misheard "You've waited so long" thinking it was "Great is the Lord". Of course, "two tickets to Paradise" didn't help.
Aw. I used to see him around town when I lived/worked in San Francisco, seemed like a nice guy. Always expected to bump into him when I was out in Lafayette where people said he was always at Blockbuster. I studiously avoided his actual shows tho
This is so sad. A good friend of mine is the artistic director at the Newberry Opera House and he used to host Eddie every year. Said he was a real standup guy and is really just as genuine as he appears on TV. RIP Mr. Money.
I actually do know one. And I think I've met at least two others. I also know a handfull of people who's wealth is pretty astounding by any normal standard. I've also worked at a place that was funded by a russian oligarch and have seen how much differently those decisions are made. And while I wouldn't count them in my inner circle I have interacted with them enough to glean a bit of what it takes to get there. Some of my personal fortunes, both good and bad, have been heavily influenced by them (and my opinions skewed as a result). And yes - even though they can be generous and genuinely interested in helping others, there is always a slant or at least an avenue open to 'their angle' on the whatever is transpiring. This is certainly not the only reason they are where they are, and I wouldn't even be able to identify if it is cause or effect, but it is there.
Note also I've said this is how I see them. This is purely my view, but it's based on my experience. It may be unmoored from your reality, but it's well attached to mine. Also note that I'm not demonizing them for this. I'm making a statement that is based on what I've seen (repeatedly, and across several individuals), that explains some of their actions. We're all a bit self interested. The kochs simply have more resources to assist their self interest. They used a lot of it to further things like anti union legislation, roll backs of regulation that affected their businesses, and taxes on their vast incomes. I wouldn't even say this is particularly wrong, but it is a lot more complex (and self serving) than just saying "they were genuine libertarians".
BTW, I see George Soros and Bill Gates also as self serving.
If you had George Soros' money, or Bill Gates', or David Koch's, what would you do with it?
There are only so many bottles of champagne you can drink and really bathing in it is a sticky mess. After your third or fourth mistress/Slovenian-model-trophy wife another just doesn't ad the value that the first did. Once you've got enough to be comfortable and you've secured a comfortable life for your grand kids what's left? By the time you've accumulated significant wealth a significant fraction of the years you have on the planet are gone and it's time to think of how you'll be remembered.
You could build monuments to yourself. Lots of stadiums and libraries get named after the donors that paid for them, but after you're gone the school can rename it after a new sponsor or knock it down to build the next gaudy mausoleum. And nobody looks at statues but pigeons.
You could seek political power I suppose, there is ample precedent. But that almost never works and if you've spent a life building a business or twelve that doesn't generally develop the chops to be a great political leader. Life is short, and if your goal is to leave the world better than you found it you'll want to leverage your strengths to do the most good in the time you have.
People like Soros and the Kochs and lesser-known advocacy philanthropists, like Annie E. Casey and Robert Wood Johnson have funded efforts not just to sway elections but to change minds. The groups they funded advocate and educate. They fund think tanks and policy groups (like Heritage, Cato, Brookings, and the Center for American Progress) that work toward not just winning fights but changing the debate.
People with this kind of wealth can afford the luxury of aligning their professional lives with philosophical/ethical outlooks. If you think organic food is the key to good health then you could, in good conscience, lobby for organic school lunches. If you start a company to sell organic school lunches that's not just self-interest, you're running your business in accordance with your conscience. Yes, the lobbying favors your business—and it's fair to point that out—but would it be more hypocritical to lobby for organic school lunches and sell vending machine food to make a living? If you actually believe that global warming isn't the crisis it's cracked up to be (or that the world just needs oil while it comes up with alternatives) why wouldn't you run an oil company? Why would it be wrong to try to convince people of your point of view?
Philanthropists aren't public servants. They don't need to avoid the appearance of conflict of interests. They are, in general, spending their own money. They should be judged on the validity of the ideas they are pushing, not the fact that they are paying to push them.
My complaint with this worldview goes beyond the demonizing of billionaires. If the only lens you have to look at the world is self-interest then the political arena becomes an auction house, with hucksters offering packages of goodies and promising to make someone else pay for them. But I digress.
And I've only known one actual-billion-dollar-net-worth billionaire personally, worked for a couple. One could afford his own jet (and a fleet of exotic cars), the other could afford to fund a large scale hydroponic weed grow out of pocket. All of them are intensely interesting people, and none of them were anything like one-dimensional.
Right. Anyone with a bleeding heart or do-good attitude has a limit. Absolute selflessness is probably impossible.
Not only that, but it is a measure of sanity. Absolute selflessness is a sign of insanity. Learned that in Joanne Woodward's Three Faces of Eve.
I was going to add something like that but even then, there has to be some underlying motivation. "I wouldn't have been able to live with myself" sort of thing.
