TV News,
San Diego Radio,
Politics and News,
Sewing--The Sewing Herald Tribune....we need contributors, Travel....
Agree or Disagree....Please feel free to comment.....all comments appreciated and thank you for your time.....
and
food,dogs and cats......
let's sit down at this cafe, have a cup of coffee and talk about politics.
Laughing forever...Burns and Allen and Cozi TV, ME TV and Antenna TV...... There is nothing on television in the night......I've discovered cozi tv. It's impossible to turn off, it's so interesting...seeing all of those old shows...I barely remember watching Burns and Allen in real time...I do remember it was funny, though, and now I can't stop laughing out loud. copied from Vanity Fair.....March 2011
Once Upon a Time in Beverly Hills
When Freddie de Cordova, Johnny Carson’s longtime producer, died in 2001, his wife knew her big-caviar days were over. Their mansion would have to go. Then Janet de Cordova did something that shocked le tout Beverly Hills.
STYLISH TO THE END Janet in Mexico in 2009, the year she died, in the home of Gracie Covarrubias, her faithful housekeeper. Portrait by Jonathan Becker.
On March 20, 1990, in the middle of the night, paramedics were called to the de Cordova home at 1875 Carla Ridge Road, in the Trousdale section of Beverly Hills. Freddie de Cordova, the executive producer of Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show, and his wife, Janet, a leading local socialite sometimes referred to as the Duchess of Trousdale, were asleep in their separate bedrooms. The problem was downstairs, in the servants’ quarters, where Gracie Covarrubias, the longtime housekeeper, was trying to revive her husband, Javier, who was dying of a heart attack. When the paramedics arrived, they muted their sirens. Javier was removed on a gurney and driven to Cedars-Sinai hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Early in the morning, Gracie Covarrubias returned to the house, and at eight o’clock Freddie de Cordova appeared at the breakfast table. He began to go through a pile of newspapers and the Hollywood trades, in preparation for his ritual midmorning phone call with Carson, in which they discussed the headlines that might make fodder for Carson’s monologue that night. Gracie fixed de Cordova’s breakfast, then, according to a close friend of the de Cordovas’, “waited until after he ate to approach him, saying, ‘Mr. De, I have something to tell you.’ Freddie asked, ‘What’s that, Gracie?’ She said, ‘Javier is dead.’ Freddie was stunned. He said, ‘Why didn’t you call us?’ Gracie said, ‘I didn’t want to wake you up. I called the police, and I told them not to use their sirens.’ She added, ‘I didn’t want them to wake up my lady.’” Janet de Cordova, a late riser and a heavy user of sleeping pills, was still in bed. Gracie, as usual, took her her breakfast tray at precisely nine o’clock.
“Of course, Janet was very disturbed when she heard Javier had died,” the late Dominick Dunne, a friend of Janet’s, told me. “It got to the point where Gracie, after all those years working for Janet, was very well known to the Beverly Hills set. This is one of those stories where the servants become more than just the help.”
Michelle Phillips, the former Mamas & the Papas singer, who was a protégée of Janet’s, recalls, “Janet kind of freaked out. She kept screaming, ‘Where is he?’ But that was Gracie. She always kept the messy things away from Janet. She wanted everything to be like a flowery sweet bouquet for her. She took on the problems herself and kept Janet’s world running smoothly.”
According to Dunne, “In Trousdale, there is a kind of urban legend. If you say ‘Javier is dead,’ it’s like a code for a certain generation. They know exactly whom you are quoting, what you mean. It’s like something out of Trollope or Edith Wharton—a lady and her maid. Janet could be a very demanding and difficult lady, but there was something special about her bond with Gracie.”
“Attached at the hip” is how Nancy Reagan, another of Janet’s friends, characterizes it.
When Johnny Carson retired from The Tonight Show, on May 22, 1992, an era also ended for the de Cordovas. Freddie had produced the show for almost 25 years. Although he stayed on for a brief period as a consultant to Jay Leno, Carson’s successor, his importance in the Hollywood hierarchy—chief gatekeeper to the most revered man in the entertainment industry and executive producer of NBC’s most profitable late-night hour—was over. It was a tremendous blow to his ego. “Leno paid Freddie a pittance, maybe $500 a week,” Janet told me in 2009, shortly before her death, with bitterness in her voice. (An informed source says the network paid him more than three times that amount.) “Freddie started to dress in the worst way,” she continued, “ordering clothes from these horrible catalogues, wearing white shoes and black socks, even though he had closets full of Carroll & Co. suits. He was worrying about me—letting me spend on my clothes, and he would dress cheaply. It was getting pathetic.”
Carla Ridge, as they called their pavilion-like modern house, had been a glittering hub of L.A.’s social scene, and the thought of giving all that up was hard to take. “We were living high off the hog,” said Janet, whose spending was legendary.
“Everything with Janet had to be big and the best,” says her friend Betsy Bloomingdale. “If it was caviar, it had to be big caviar. She always had wonderful things—Lalique, Baccarat—anddid wonderful things, always with Gracie behind the scenes, making sure it was the way Janet wanted it.”
“Janet was an absolute perfectionist,” says Joanna Carson, the third wife (1972–83) of Johnny Carson. “Everything in its place. If an ice bucket on the bar was one centimeter out of place, she would veer over, pass by, touch it back into place, and say something to Gracie or one of the other girls who worked there—I think there were always three girls, Gracie and two under her.” Anne Douglas, the wife of Kirk Douglas, recalls, “The dinners at that house were things of beauty. Janet did not slave in the kitchen, but she made sure everything was either brought in from Chasen’s or was the caviar pasta from Le Dome—her favorite because it had lots of vodka and lots of caviar.” Producer and director George Schlatter (The Dinah Shore Chevy Show, Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In) tells me, “I think she single-handedly introduced Château d’Yquem to this town.”
For years, whenever Carson threatened to quit, Janet would make a play behind the scenes. “Every time,” Joanna Carson recalls. “If Johnny’s contract was coming up, which was every two years, he would say, ‘I’ll give up this show.’ He didn’t want any more money; he just wanted more time off. Then the phone would ring. Janet: ‘Jo-aann-ah! What are we going to do?’ I knew it wasn’t going to happen—Johnny loved that show too much—but she always went behind Fred’s back to me to try to make sure it wasn’t going to end when it didn’t need to.”
“The de Cordovas’ raison d’être,” said Dominick Dunne, “was to live an A-list life. The A-crowd in Los Angeles was a mix of Hollywood and society, with the Reagans very much at the center of things.” The de Cordovas were among the very few TV couples allowed into that rarefied group. “They were untouchables,” in the words of George Schlatter, “in a group of all above-the-title people—the Gary Coopers, the Jack Bennys, the Frank Sinatras, the Billy Wilders, the Dean Martins, the Jimmy Stewarts, the Armand Deutsches, the Lew Wassermans, the Ray Starks, the Earle Jorgensens, the Gregory Pecks, the Jules Steins.”
Freddie’s Demise
What Janet did not know as the curtain finally rang down on Freddie’s career was that her husband had, in effect, already confronted the end of the road with Carson. According to several friends of Janet’s, Freddie was too ashamed to tell her that he and Carson had had a very ugly break at the studio a year previously. Author Bill Zehme, who is at work on a book titled Carson the Magnificent, says, “It was when Johnny returned to the air after his son Ricky died. I’ve studied that tape like the Zapruder film, where Carson did this tribute at the end of the show, talking about his son, a nature photographer, who had died when he was shooting on a mountain and his car rolled over him and took him down the mountain. So Carson goes through a normal show with no mention until the very end. He’s clearly going a little bit long with the tribute, but there are all these majestic nature shots, and Carson is talking about his son—heart-wrenching. Carson was never so naked on the air. And then his eyes start darting over to where Freddie is, and you can see a little register of annoyance. I learned later that Fred was over there actually giving him the ‘Wrap it up’ sign [to indicate that the show was running over]. That was July 1991, so what happened next was Johnny exploded in the after-show meeting in his office. He took Freddie off the floor, and he was never allowed back on. That was the deathblow.”
.......about 5 more pages in VF.....................
here is a link to this very interesting information about old Hollywood from Vanity Fair. You will notice Freddie deCordova in the credits of Burns and Allen but, of course I know him best from Johnny Carson and the Tonight Show.
Really, Johnny was amazing...when I was a kid I felt like I knew him, as if he was my friend. I'm still in shock from the American Experience Show on PBS about Johnny Carson, after seeing it three times, and some of the info I already knew, I was speechless. Just wondering what othew people thought about that show, too.
Women In The Politics, What Women Want and Ariana Huffington's Cash Cow
Right, that would be Bill Maher......
There was a real good show on C-Span this past weekend about women in politics and how women are viewed and treated by the media.
As I have written many times before I really have a problem with Bill Maher and his treatment of Sarah Palin.
While I definitely do not agree with Sarah Palin politically and I do find some of her statements about people very offensive, as well, I am particularly offended by the statements of Bill Maher during the run up to our recent presidential election.
Bill Maher donated a cool one mill to the dems giving him the self-proclaimed right to become a spokesman for the democratic party......a big mistake as far a I am concerned.
I would like every democrat and republican to know that Bill Maher does not speak for me as a democrat or represent my views of the democratic party.
Let's start at the top.......Many dems are very religious people and Bill's statements about religion are offensive. We all know there are problems with organized religion but many people find great strength from Jesus, who I consider my friend. I admire any one in any religion for just trying to live right in this world today.
Bill, I love Jesus, I don't have any proof........
But here is what bothers me even more........
Ariana Huffington runs Bill as if he is the Mark Twain of our time. He went to a very ugly and horrible level with his comments about Sarah Palin which takes women in politics and the media back to the dark ages. He tried to cover it up by saying, it's funny, I'm a comedian, I said it in a comedy club....whatever. But, nevertheless, it was all over the media and it represented democrats and many people laughed with him
What will women think if they choose to speak out about politics and risk a career as a public figure? Bill's comments are the same as a bunch of teenagers laughing in a huddle at an easy victim passing by.
Dr Drew and Ariana Huffington are drinking the Kool-Aide....
Right, Bill is popular and everyone is having a good laugh not only at the expense of Sarah Palin but at the expense of women everywhere and women in politics. He went on Dr. Drew and further defended himself and Dr. Drew did not once mention the ill effects of his statements against women. Really, sometimes it seems like Dr. Drew has been affected by popularity in recent stands, as well. Bill Maher humiliated women speaking out politically everywhere but Dr. Drew welcomed him on his show and enjoyed the attention.
The person that is also very detrimental to the advancement of women in politics is Ariana Huffington. Well, it's her newspaper isn't it? Can you really call it that. If you own the newspaper and your name is the name of the newspaper, or perhaps, publication, would be a more accurate term...then I guess you can run anything you want. I am sure Bill Maher makes a lot of money for Ariana Huffington and many people read her paper to hear what clever things he has to say. I imagine Ariana Huffington loves to be on his show and promote herself and her newspaper. Again, she is already successful...I would ask her to think two times before she bashed all women just to make money by letting maher's mouth run wild and unchecked. Apparently Ariana Huffington's platform is that of Bill Maher, humiliating and a step backwards for women or not.
Mr. Maher may want to use President Obama as an example to follow...particulary since he gave his big money to support him...or did he give his big money just to have a platform to support himself and his egomania? President Obama actually spoke out against the ridiculous satements of Rush Limbaugh in a dignified manner. Rush actually had to stop and I also heard it said in local conservative talk radio--we really have to be careful what we say now after Rush. President Obama stood up for women and did not tolerate women being used negatively to further a media persons show. Mr. Maher and his friend Ariana may take a tip from our President about being dignifed and furthering the cause of women in their publications and statements
What was Sarah Palin suppose to do after that horrible comment heard around the world. It was embarrassing..it was embarrasing for all women. Its embarrassing for me to hear and then write a blog. There is no reasonable response or answer. Bill insulted all women and we are just left to take it.
God gave Bill the talent of being truly humorous but he may want to use his talents more carefully--he is already very famous and successful.
Unleashed and out of control..............
I prefer Maher not to represent me as a dem. Both bill and rush trashed women for self-promotion and attention...........they are making a show. They are both making a show and using women as a joke.
I do not like it and I enjoy taking the opportunity to write against it.
Women In The Politics, What Women Want and Ariana Huffington's Cash Cow
Right, that would be Bill Maher......
There was a real good show on C-Span this past weekend about women in politics and how women are viewed and treated by the media.
As I have written many times before I really have a problem with Bill Maher and his treatment of Sarah Palin.
While I definitely do not agree with Sarah Palin politically and I do find some of her statements about people very offensive, as well, I am particularly offended by the statements of Bill Maher during the run up to our recent presidential election.
Bill Maher donated a cool one mill to the dems giving him the self-proclaimed right to become a spokesman for the democratic party......a big mistake as far a I am concerned.
I would like every democrat and republican to know that Bill Maher does not speak for me as a democrat or represent my views of the democratic party.
Let's start at the top.......Many dems are very religious people and Bill's statements about religion are offensive. We all know there are problems with organized religion but many people find great strength from Jesus, who I consider my friend. I admire any one in any religion for just trying to live right in this world today.
Bill, I love Jesus, I don't have any proof........
But here is what bothers me even more........
Ariana Huffington runs Bill as if he is the Mark Twain of our time. He went to a very ugly and horrible level with his comments about Sarah Palin which takes women in politics and the media back to the dark ages. He tried to cover it up by saying, it's funny, I'm a comedian, I said it in a comedy club....whatever. But, nevertheless, it was all over the media and it represented democrats and many people laughed with him
What will women think if they choose to speak out about politics and risk a career as a public figure? Bill's comments are the same as a bunch of teenagers laughing in a huddle at an easy victim passing by.
Dr Drew and Ariana Huffington are drinking the Kool-Aide....
Right, Bill is popular and everyone is having a good laugh not only at the expense of Sarah Palin but at the expense of women everywhere and women in politics. He went on Dr. Drew and further defended himself and Dr. Drew did not once mention the ill effects of his statements against women. Really, sometimes it seems like Dr. Drew has been affected by popularity in recent stands, as well. Bill Maher humiliated women speaking out politically everywhere but Dr. Drew welcomed him on his show and enjoyed the attention.
The person that is also very detrimental to the advancement of women in politics is Ariana Huffington. Well, it's her newspaper isn't it? Can you really call it that. If you own the newspaper and your name is the name of the newspaper, or perhaps, publication, would be a more accurate term...then I guess you can run anything you want. I am sure Bill Maher makes a lot of money for Ariana Huffington and many people read her paper to hear what clever things he has to say. I imagine Ariana Huffington loves to be on his show and promote herself and her newspaper. Again, she is already successful...I would ask her to think two times before she bashed all women just to make money by letting maher's mouth run wild and unchecked. Apparently Ariana Huffington's platform is that of Bill Maher, humiliating and a step backwards for women or not.
Mr. Maher may want to use President Obama as an example to follow...particulary since he gave his big money to support him...or did he give his big money just to have a platform to support himself and his egomania? President Obama actually spoke out against the ridiculous satements of Rush Limbaugh in a dignified manner. Rush actually had to stop and I also heard it said in local conservative talk radio--we really have to be careful what we say now after Rush. President Obama stood up for women and did not tolerate women being used negatively to further a media persons show. Mr. Maher and his friend Ariana may take a tip from our President about being dignifed and furthering the cause of women in their publications and statements
What was Sarah Palin suppose to do after that horrible comment heard around the world. It was embarrassing..it was embarrasing for all women. Its embarrassing for me to hear and then write a blog. There is no reasonable response or answer. Bill insulted all women and we are just left to take it.
God gave Bill the talent of being truly humorous but he may want to use his talents more carefully--he is already very famous and successful.
Unleashed and out of control..............
I prefer Maher not to represent me as a dem. Both bill and rush trashed women for self-promotion and attention...........they are making a show. They are both making a show and using women as a joke.
I do not like it and I enjoy taking the opportunity to write against it.
I was raised in a religious Jewish environment, and though we were not strongly Zionist, I always took it to be self-evident that “Israel has a right to exist.” Now anyone who has debated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have encountered this phrase often. Defenders of Israeli policies routinely accuse Israel’s critics of denying her right to exist, while the critics (outside of a small group on the left, where I now find myself) bend over backward to insist that, despite their criticisms, of course they affirm it. The general mainstream consensus seems to be that to deny Israel’s right to exist is a clear indication of anti-Semitism (a charge Jews like myself are not immune to), and therefore not an option for people of conscience.
What does it mean for a people to have a state “of their own”?
Over the years I came to question this consensus and to see that the general fealty to it has seriously constrained open debate on the issue, one of vital importance not just to the people directly involved — Israelis and Palestinians — but to the conduct of our own foreign policy and, more important, to the safety of the world at large. My view is that one really ought to question Israel’s right to exist and that doing so does not manifest anti-Semitism. The first step in questioning the principle, however, is to figure out what it means.
Leif Parsons
One problem with talking about this question calmly and rationally is that the phrase “right to exist” sounds awfully close to “right to life,” so denying Israel its right to exist sounds awfully close to permitting the extermination of its people. In light of the history of Jewish persecution, and the fact that Israel was created immediately after and largely as a consequence of the Holocaust, it isn’t surprising that the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” should have this emotional impact. But as even those who insist on the principle will admit, they aren’t claiming merely the impermissibility of exterminating Israelis. So what is this “right” that many uphold as so basic that to question it reflects anti-Semitism and yet is one that I claim ought to be questioned?
The key to the interpretation is found in the crucial four words that are often tacked on to the phrase “Israel’s right to exist” — namely, “… as a Jewish state.” As I understand it, the principle that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state has three parts: first, that Jews, as a collective, constitute a people in the sense that they possess a right to self-determination; second, that a people’s right to self-determination entails the right to erect a state of their own, a state that is their particular people’s state; and finally, that for the Jewish people the geographical area of the former Mandatory Palestine, their ancestral homeland, is the proper place for them to exercise this right to self-determination.
The claim then is that anyone who denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is guilty of anti-Semitism because they are refusing to grant Jews the same rights as other peoples possess. If indeed this were true, if Jews were being singled out in the way many allege, I would agree that it manifests anti-Jewish bias. But the charge that denying Jews a right to a Jewish state amounts to treating the Jewish people differently from other peoples cannot be sustained.
Leif Parsons
To begin, since the principle has three parts, it follows that it can be challenged in (at least) three different ways: either deny that Jews constitute “a people” in the relevant sense, deny that the right to self-determination really involves what advocates of the principle claim it does, or deny that Jews have the requisite claim on the geographical area in question.
In fact, I think there is a basis to challenge all three, but for present purposes I will focus on the question of whether a people’s right to self-determination entails their right to a state of their own, and set aside whether Jews count as a people and whether Jews have a claim on that particular land. I do so partly for reasons of space, but mainly because these questions have largely (though not completely) lost their importance.
The fact is that today millions of Jews live in Israel and, ancestral homeland or not, this is their home now. As for whether Jews constitute a people, this is a vexed question given the lack of consensus in general about what it takes for any particular group of people to count as “a people.” The notion of “a people” can be interpreted in different ways, with different consequences for the rights that they possess. My point is that even if we grant Jews their peoplehood and their right to live in that land, there is still no consequent right to a Jewish state.
However, I do think that it’s worth noting the historical irony in insisting that it is anti-Semitic to deny that Jews constitute a people. The 18th and 19th centuries were the period of Jewish “emancipation” in Western Europe, when the ghetto walls were torn down and Jews were granted the full rights of citizenship in the states within which they resided. The anti-Semitic forces in those days, those opposing emancipation, were associated not with denying Jewish peoplehood but with emphatically insisting on it! The idea was that since Jews constituted a nation of their own, they could not be loyal citizens of any European state. The liberals who strongly opposed anti-Semitism insisted that Jews could both practice their religion and uphold their cultural traditions while maintaining full citizenship in the various nation-states in which they resided.
But, as I said, let’s grant that Jews are a people. Well, if they are, and if with the status of a people comes the right to self-determination, why wouldn’t they have a right to live under a Jewish state in their homeland? The simple answer is because many non-Jews (rightfully) live there too. But this needs unpacking.
Leif Parsons
First, it’s important to note, as mentioned above, that the term “a people” can be used in different ways, and sometimes they get confused. In particular, there is a distinction to be made between a people in the ethnic sense and a people in the civic sense. Though there is no general consensus on this, a group counts as a people in the ethnic sense by virtue of common language, common culture, common history and attachment to a common territory. One can easily see why Jews, scattered across the globe, speaking many different languages and defined largely by religion, present a difficult case. But, as I said above, for my purposes it doesn’t really matter, and I will just assume the Jewish people qualify.
The other sense is the civic one, which applies to a people by virtue of their common citizenship in a nation-state or, alternatively, by virtue of their common residence within relatively defined geographic borders. So whereas there is both an ethnic and a civic sense to be made of the term “French people,” the term “Jewish people” has only an ethnic sense. This can easily be seen by noting that the Jewish people is not the same group as the Israeli people. About 20 percent of Israeli citizens are non-Jewish Palestinians, while the vast majority of the Jewish people are not citizens of Israel and do not live within any particular geographic area. “Israeli people,” on the other hand, has only a civic sense. (Of course often the term “Israelis” is used as if it applies only to Jewish Israelis, but this is part of the problem. More on this below.)
So, when we consider whether or not a people has a right to a state of their own, are we speaking of a people in the ethnic sense or the civic one? I contend that insofar as the principle that all peoples have the right to self-determination entails the right to a state of their own, it can apply to peoples only in the civic sense.
After all, what is it for a people to have a state “of their own”? Here’s a rough characterization: the formal institutions and legal framework of the state serves to express, encourage and favor that people’s identity. The distinctive position of that people would be manifested in a number of ways, from the largely symbolic to the more substantive: for example, it would be reflected in the name of the state, the nature of its flag and other symbols, its national holidays, its education system, its immigration rules, the extent to which membership in the people in question is a factor in official planning, how resources are distributed, etc. If the people being favored in this way are just the state’s citizens, it is not a problem. (Of course those who are supercosmopolitan, denying any legitimacy to the borders of nation-states, will disagree. But they aren’t a party to this debate.)
But if the people who “own” the state in question are an ethnic sub-group of the citizenry, even if the vast majority, it constitutes a serious problem indeed, and this is precisely the situation of Israel as the Jewish state. Far from being a natural expression of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, it is in fact a violation of the right to self-determination of its non-Jewish (mainly Palestinian) citizens. It is a violation of a people’s right to self-determination to exclude them — whether by virtue of their ethnic membership, or for any other reason — from full political participation in the state under whose sovereignty they fall. Of course Jews have a right to self-determination in this sense as well — this is what emancipation was all about. But so do non-Jewish peoples living in the same state.
Any state that “belongs” to one ethnic group within it violates the core democratic principle of equality, and the self-determination rights of the non-members of that group.
If the institutions of a state favor one ethnic group among its citizenry in this way, then only the members of that group will feel themselves fully a part of the life of the state. True equality, therefore, is only realizable in a state that is based on civic peoplehood. As formulated by both Jewish- and Palestinian-Israeli activists on this issue, a truly democratic state that fully respects the self-determination rights of everyone under its sovereignty must be a “state of all its citizens.”
This fundamental point exposes the fallacy behind the common analogy, drawn by defenders of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, between Israel’s right to be Jewish and France’s right to be French. The appropriate analogy would instead be between France’s right to be French (in the civic sense) and Israel’s right to be Israeli.
Leif Parsons
I conclude, then, that the very idea of a Jewish state is undemocratic, a violation of the self-determination rights of its non-Jewish citizens, and therefore morally problematic. But the harm doesn’t stop with the inherently undemocratic character of the state. For if an ethnic national state is established in a territory that contains a significant number of non-members of that ethnic group, it will inevitably face resistance from the land’s other inhabitants. This will force the ethnic nation controlling the state to resort to further undemocratic means to maintain their hegemony. Three strategies to deal with resistance are common: expulsion, occupation and institutional marginalization. Interestingly, all three strategies have been employed by the Zionist movement: expulsion in 1948 (and, to a lesser extent, in 1967), occupation of the territories conquered in 1967 and institution of a complex web of laws that prevent Israel’s Palestinian citizens from mounting an internal challenge to the Jewish character of the state. (The recent outrage in Israel over a proposed exclusion of ultra-Orthodox parties from the governing coalition, for example, failed to note that no Arab political party has ever been invited to join the government.) In other words, the wrong of ethnic hegemony within the state leads to the further wrong of repression against the Other within its midst.
There is an unavoidable conflict between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. I want to emphasize that there’s nothing anti-Semitic in pointing this out, and it’s time the question was discussed openly on its merits, without the charge of anti-Semitism hovering in the background.
Joseph Levine is a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where he teaches and writes on philosophy of mind, metaphysics and political philosophy. He is the author of “Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness.”
Alvin Lee, whose fire-fingered guitar playing drove the British blues-rock band Ten Years After to stardom in the 1960s and early ’70s, died on Wednesday in Spain. He was 68.
He died “after unforeseen complications following a routine surgical procedure,” according to a brief post by family members on his Web site. His manager, Ron Rainey, said that Mr. Lee had been living in southern Spain for some time.
Mr. Lee was not as well known as other emerging British guitar stars of the era, including Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck and perhaps even Albert Lee, with whom he was occasionally confused (and with whom he once recorded alongside Jerry Lee Lewis). But he was among the nimblest when it came to musicianship.
On his Gibson ES-335 Mr. Lee could shift instantly from speedy single-string leads to rhythmic riffs while doing his best to sing like his American blues heroes. He grew up listening to his father’s Big Bill Broonzy and Lonnie Johnson records in Nottingham, England.
Ten Years After attracted a following during its first tour of the United States, in 1968, and the band would tour the country many more times through the early ’70s, known less for hit songs than for extended jams.
“The strange thing was we had gone to what I considered to be the home of the blues, but they’d never heard of most of them, and I couldn’t believe it — ‘Big Bill who?’ ” Mr. Lee recalled in a 2003 interview with Classic Rock magazine. “We were recycling American music and they were calling it the English sound.”
The live album “Undead,” released in 1968, captured the tight sound and feel of the band’s shows in smaller performance spaces, and its success helped put the band on bigger stages. Ten Years After played at the Woodstock festival in August 1969, and its climactic song, a version of the band’s signature blues vamp, “I’m Going Home,” was included in both the movie “Woodstock” and the accompanying album.
More successful tours and albums followed, including “Cricklewood Green” and “Watt.” Then, during a break in 1971 intended to provide time for musical exploration, Mr. Lee wrote the band’s only Top 40 hit, “I’d Love to Change the World.” The song’s more commercial sound was a departure, and Mr. Lee later said he was not sure it had been a wise one.
“I hated it because it was a hit,” he said in 2003. “By then I was rebelling, and I never played it live. To me it was a pop song.”
By the mid-’70s Ten Years After had disbanded and Mr. Lee was pursuing other genres. He even recorded an album, “On the Road to Freedom,” with a gospel singer, Mylon LeFevre, accompanied by George Harrison, Ron Wood, Steve Winwood and other big names. By the end of the decade he was touring as a solo act and at one point put together a band he called Ten Years Later.
Ten Years After regrouped in 1983 and Mr. Lee played with the band off and on until 2003. After that, it continued to tour and record with a new guitarist, Joe Gooch.
Alvin Lee was born on Dec. 19, 1944, in Nottingham, and began playing guitar at age 13. Two years later he was performing with the bassist Leo Lyons, and by the 1960s they were playing in a band called the Jaybirds in small clubs in England and Germany. The band changed its name to Ten Years After in 1967.
The name was a homage to the emergence of Elvis Presley about a decade earlier. In 2004 Mr. Lee recorded a solo album, “In Tennessee,” with the guitarist Scotty Moore and the drummer D. J. Fontana, who had both worked with Presley in his early years. Mr. Lee’s most recent album, “Still on the Road to Freedom,” came out in the fall.
Survivors include his wife, Evi, and his daughter, Jasmin.
A version of this article appeared in print on March 7, 2013, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Alvin Lee, 68, British Blues-Rock Guitarist.
On the news, here in San Diego, we only hear about a war-torn Palestine.......
Being of a curious nature, call me Larry King, I had to find out more.....
My thing...bringing the world together with food and fabric; getting the kids ready for school in the morning--the focus is not really politics--moms and dads, just trying to get through the activities of daily living.
How to get there and see it for myself.....
Finding a tour.......
I can't resist this one--its seems friendly and like an awful lot of fun.
BIKE PALESTINE PALESTINE CYCLE TOURS...
please click on the link below to see more of this beautiful website:
Hello- my name is George Snow. I'm a filmmaker working in London but living in Italy. I am responsible for organising the Bike Palestine tour in concert with the Siraj Centre in Bethlehem, Palestine.
On the following pages I'd like to give you an idea of what to expect on a Bike Palestine tour- but most especially I want to tell you why I love this country, its people and why I have spent a great deal of my time there- away from my desk and daily responsibilities and revelling in a land steeped in history, endowed with divine scenery and blessed by the kindest and most generous people on this planet.
Get 50% Off The New York Times & Free All Digital Access.
