February 2024 - Page 5 of 6 - Ramblin' with Roger

The Beatles in ’64

4 Apr was record-breaking

In honor of their first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show 60 years ago, here are some links to The Beatles in ’64. Particularly in the first half of the year, they dominated the charts like no artist had before. The dates below reflect the top ten of the Billboard charts. All of the songs were on Capitol Records unless otherwise indicated.

25 Jan: I Want To Hold Your Hand, #3, up from #45 the previous week

1 Feb: I Want To Hold Your Hand, #1: it would top the Billboard (BB) charts for 7 weeks, Cash Box (CB: 1950-1996) for 8 weeks, and Music Vendor (MV: 1954-1964) for 9 weeks. The book The Billboard Book of Number One Hits by Fred Bronson reads: “It is the most significant single in the rock era.” The group wouldn’t perform in America until they appeared at the top of the US charts.

8 Feb: I Want To Hold Your Hand, #1. She Loves You, on the Swan label, #7, up from #21.

15 Feb: I Want To Hold Your Hand, #1. She Loves You, #3.

22 Feb: I Want To Hold Your Hand, #1. She Loves You, #2.

29 Feb: I Want To Hold Your Hand, #1. She Loves You, #2. Please Please Me, #6, up from #29, on the Vee-Jay label.

The week I turned 11

7 Mar: I Want To Hold Your Hand, #1. She Loves You, #2. Please Please Me #4.

14 Mar: I Want To Hold Your Hand, #1. She Loves You #2. Please Please Me #3, where it peaked on the CB and MV charts as well.

21 Mar: She Loves You, #1. I Want To Hold Your Hand, #2. Please Please Me #3. Twist And Shout, #7, up from #55, on the Tollie label affiliated with Vee-Jay. This week was the first time an artist had consective chart toppers since Elvis in 1956. The song was #1 on CB for two weeks and MV for 1.

28 Mar: She Loves You, #1. I Want To Hold Your Hand, #2. Twist and Shout, #3. Please Please Me, #4.

The top five

4 Apr: Can’t Buy Me Love, #1, from #27, at the time, the biggest leap to the top of the charts in Billboard history. Besides being #1 for five weeks on BB, it was #1 on CB for five weeks and #1 on MV for four weeks. Twist and Shout, #2, where it peaked on BB, but it got to #1 on both CB and MV. She Loves You, #3. I Want To Hold Your Hand, #4. Please Please Me #5.

11 Apr: Can’t Buy Me Love, #1. Twist and Shout, #2. She Loves You, #4. I Want To Hold Your Hand, #7. Please Please Me #9. The Beatles had 14 songs on the BB Top 100. Do You Want To Know A Secret, #14. I Saw Her Standing There, #38. You Can’t Do That, #48. All My Loving, #50. From Me To You, #52. Thank You Girl, #61. There’s A Place, #74. Roll Over Beethoven, #78. Love Me Do, #81.

18 Apr: Can’t Buy Me Love, #1. Twist and Shout, #2, Do You Want To Know A Secret, #5 on Vee-Jay. She Loves You, #8.

25 Apr: Can’t Buy Me Love, #1. Twist and Shout, #2. Do You Want To Know A Secret, #3.

2 May: Can’t Buy Me Love, #1, Do You Want To Know A Secret, #3, Twist and Shout, #7

9 May: Do You Want To Know A Secret, #2, also went #3 on BB and MV for three and two weeks, respectively. Can’t Buy Me Love, #5. The Beatles were finally supplanted from the #1 slot by Hello, Dolly by Louis Armstrong.

16 May: Love Me Do, #3 from #12 on Tollie. Do You Want To Know A Secret, #5

Jane Asher’s brother

23 May: Love Me Do, #2. Also, A World Without Love by Peter and Gordon, #10, up from #30, a song attributed to Lennon/McCartney.

30 May: Love Me Do, #1, also #1 on CB and MW, A World Without Love, #7.

6 June: Love Me Do, #2, A World Without Love, #6.

13 June: A World Without Love, #2 Love Me Do, #4.

20 June: A World Without Love, #2 Love Me Do, #7.

27 June: A World Without Love, #1, also #1 on CB, and #2 for two weeks on RW. Bad To Me by Billy J. Kramer with the Dakotas, #9 from #16, also #10 on CB. Brian Epstein managed Kramer, and the song was attributed to Lennon/McCartney.

4 July 4: A World Without Love, #6. Bad To Me, #9.

11 July: A World Without Love, #8.

18 July: nothing in the Top 10

25 July: A Hard Day’s Night, #2, up from #21

1 Aug: A Hard Day’s Night, #1. It was also #1 for three weeks on both CB and RW.

8, 15, 22, 29 of Aug; 5, 12 of Sept, A Hard Day’s Night, #1, #3, #3, #4, #8, #8.

Inside the violent threat against the Beatles’ only Colorado concert: Beatlemania took over Red Rocks on Aug. 26, 1964, during the band’s first North American tour

12 Dec: I Feel Fine, #5, up from #22.

19 Dec: I Feel Fine, #2

26 Dec: I Feel Fine #1; also #1 for four weeks CB, #1 for three weeks RW. In Jan 1965 (2, 9, 16, 23), it went #1, #1, #2. #4 before it fell out of the Top Ten.

Rooting interest for Super Bowl LVIII

At Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas

I’m gauging my rooting interest for Super Bowl LVIII. Now that the Buffalo Bills and Detroit Lions are not in contention, I have to recalibrate.

For the NFC, there’s the San Francisco 49ers. The team has won five Super Bowls. But they’ve won none since the end of the 1994 season, losing after 2012 and 2019, the latter to the Kansas City Chiefs, 31-20. If the 49ers win, they’ll tie the Pittsburgh Steelers and the New England Patriots with six. I liked the team in the Joe Montana and Steve Young years.

My parents visited San Francisco in the late 1960s for my father’s business trip, which they enjoyed, in no small part because of this incident. My sister Leslie and I went there in the late 1980s and enjoyed the place. And my favorite baseball player was stationed in centerfield there for several years.

For the AFC, the Kansas City Chiefs have been in the Super Bowl for four of the last five years, winning two after 2019 and 2022, so they are the reigning champions after beating the Philadelphia Eagles, 38-35.

TS & TC

My singular pull toward the Chiefs involves the guano-crazy theories about a billionaire singer dating a Chiefs player.

“Theories about Ms. Swift are prevalent online, but suggestions about what her political motivations are, in terms of her relationship with the N.F.L., were promoted last month by the Fox News political commentator Jesse Watters.

“‘Have you ever wondered why or how she blew up like this?’ Mr. Watters said during a broadcast. ‘Well, around four years ago, the Pentagon psychological operations unit floated turning Taylor Swift into an asset during a NATO meeting.'”

From Newsnation: “On Newsmax, a conservative news network, one host took the Taylor Swift chatter to the level of obsession, decrying what he termed the ‘idolatry’ surrounding her and claiming it is sinful. Meanwhile, on One America News Network, host Alison Steinberg labeled Swift’s relationship with [Travis] Kelce a psychological operation (psyop), characterizing the entire spectacle as ‘bread and circuses on steroids.'”

The Hill notes: “Vivek Ramaswamy, a former presidential candidate who has thrown his support behind Trump, is perhaps the most high-profile Republican to go after the singer so far, stoking theories that the NFL is rigging football games for Swift’s Kansas City beau as Democrats look for her endorsement.” Former Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus called such talk “a powder keg of stupidity.”

Yes, there are TS experts.

On Politico, Swift expert Brian Donovan explains in detail why the political right is targeting a rich, heteronormative pop star. “I think there is a cyclical reaction happening where we saw with the Barbie movie and with the Eras Tour, a kind of woman-centered cultural aesthetic take hold of the American imagination. And I think there’s a ton of backlash to that driven by real basic sexism and misogyny…

“I think what irritates conservatives the most is that this attractive, talented, wholesome, white, successful, Christian, self-made billionaire woman is somehow not on their side. I guess that’s because she is also intelligent.”

Oh, and she just made Grammy history with her fourth Album of the Year win. Maybe George Soros arranged that.

So my loyalties are split. Root for the team that hasn’t won the Super Bowl in three decades, or hope the other team wins and watch a certain segment of the population go insane.

Color blindness as “the best form of antiracism”?

Wendell Phillips

On the first day of Black History Month, the Boston Globe posted a piece entitled “Color blindness remains the best form of antiracism.” It may be behind a paywall.

“Coleman Hughes is an author and podcaster. This essay is adapted from his book ‘The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America,’ to be published on [February 6] Tuesday by Thesis, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House.”

The subtitle of Hughes’ article was, “Of course we all see race. But it’s a bad basis for determining how to treat people or craft public policy.”

Part of his argument points out an earlier definition of color blindness, which is better enuciated in a TED talk called The Case for color blindness.

He notes that the adverse “reaction to color blindness is actually a fault of its advocates. People will say things like, ‘I don’t see color’ as a way of expressing support for color blindness. But this phrase is guaranteed to produce confusion because you do see color, right? “

An observation here. Small children likely see race and pick up cultural values about it much earlier than we might have believed. This is why I believe discussing race is essential, just at the point that there are forces in the United States that want to ban books dealing with race, gender identity, and the like.

19th-century roots

Hughes is correct when he says we should eliminate the phrase “I don’t see color.” Instead, we should “replace it with what we really mean to say, which is, ‘I try to treat people without regard to race.'”

He makes an interesting historical observation. “The philosophy of color blindness… actually comes from the radical wing of the antislavery movement in the 19th century. The earliest mentions of color blindness come from Wendell Phillips, who was the president of the American Anti-Slavery Society and a man whose nickname was ‘abolition’s golden trumpet.’

“He believed in immediate full equality for Black Americans.

And in 1865, he called for the creation of a ‘government colorblind,’

by which he meant the permanent end of all laws that mention race.”

Of course, we know that did not happen. Jim Crow, sunset laws, Plessy v. Ferguson, restrictive housing covenants, etc., etc. And actions that didn’t have to mention race, such as lynchings.

Sidebar

Speaking of Plessy, I’ve discovered that John Marshall Harlan’s dissent in that case was rather narrow. From this journal article: “The consensus
regarding the then-extant legal understandings of ‘rights’ in post-Civil
War America are on display in Justice Harlan’s opinion.” In other decisions, “Justice Harlan recognized and accepted the legal distinction between civil rights and social rights, a distinction ‘mark[ing] a sphere of associational freedom in which law would allow practices of racial discrimination to flourish.'”

And “in a passage containing his well-known metaphor of a
colorblind Constitution, he stated:

“[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this
country no superior, dominant ruling class of citizens. There is no
caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor
tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all
citizens are equal before the law.

“This call for civil-rights colorblindness was immediately preceded by this
passage:

“‘The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country.
And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth,
and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it
remains true to its great heritage, and holds fast to the principles of
constitutional liberty.” Thus, the definition of the term color-blind was not universally understood.

I think Hughes’ point that having policies meant to reduce inequality be executed based on class instead of race has merit. But maybe it is more of a “both-and” thing. How do we address the loss of generational wealth resulting from previous discrimination? The risk to pregnant black women’s health when dealing with the medical establishment appears to be irrespective of the prospective mother’s socio-economic status.

Coleman Hughes has added to the discussion. I haven’t fully embraced his POV, but that’s okay.

Movie review: Anatomy Of A Fall

French Alps

Sigh. I asked the folks at Spectrum 8 in Albany whether the film Anatomy Of A Fall was coming to the cinema. Evidently, I missed its brief appearance, and I didn’t even remember seeing the trailer. So I watched it on Amazon Prime, a suboptimal choice, at home during the last week in January, but so it goes.

As one can discern from the graphic, someone, in this case, Samuel (Samuel Theis), a writer, has taken a fatal fall from a secluded dwelling in the French Alps. But, to paraphrase Richard and Linda Thompson, Did he jump, or was he pushed?

If he were pushed, it would almost have been by his wife, Sandra (Sandra Hüller). There was a witness, perhaps, their eleven-year-old son Daniel (Milo Machado Graner), but he may not be a reliable witness.

As the authorities pull at the onion that was Sandra and Samuel’s complicated and conflicted relationship, they accuse her of his death.

This is NOT Law and Order

At this point, it becomes a procedural thriller. If you’re used to the American trial system, this is a different thing, interesting in its own right. Sandra is defended by an old friend, Vincent (Swann Arlaud), who gives her sage advice, which she sometimes disregards. L’avocat général (Antoine Reinartz) is a relentless prosecutor.

As we learn more about the tensions that Sandra and Samuel experience through flashbacks, we remain unsure of her guilt. As sometimes happens in the US, the press is busy dissecting Sandra’s foibles. The ambiguity is deliberate and makes the 150-minute film seem shorter.

Sandra Hüller, who I was unfamiliar with until I saw her in The Zone Of Interest the week before, is deserving of her Oscar nomination for Best Actress. The screenplay, by Arthur Harari and the film director Justine Triet, worked well for me. It received 96% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and the negative comments – “predictable”? – I was not feeling.

How do we not get djt 47?

a movement

I need your help. Please explain to me how we do not get djt 47. I do not see how this doesn’t happen on January 20, 2025. I’m certainly not happy about it.

Despite some successes (the infrastructure bill et al.), Joe Biden does not engender the necessary enthusiasm. The expected recession of 2023 did not take place. The inflation rate is down, but especially without those stimulus checks, it “feels” worse. (Frank S. Robinson explains “the big misunderstanding.”)

In 2011/2012, even when he seemed to be trailing in the polls, Obama could share his Spotify playlist and show how relatable he was. Joe is… Joe, grandfatherly, a policy wonk without the requisite swagger despite the aviator glasses.

October 7, the start of the Israel-Hamas war, has been a losing issue for Biden. Those who support Palestine feel betrayed by him. Specifically, Arabs and Muslims in places like Michigan have openly indicated that they will not vote for him in 2024 as they did in 2020. The Biden administration is navigating both support for Israel and the desire that the Israelis work to minimize Palestinian casualties. As someone said at a recent book talk, Joe is schmoozing. The problem is that neither position is palatable to a wide swath of voters.

Likewise, Foreign Policy magazine indicates that Biden has no good options in Yemen. “The decision to bomb the Houthis was likely the administration’s least bad path.”

The border crisis affects not just the border states but those cities where the migrants have been shipped to. Yet djt wants to scuttle bipartisan legislation to address the issue, and House Republicans might just fall in line to do just that.

Demographic slump

According to the polls, Biden’s job approval rating is down among black voters, especially the younger ones, even more than he’s losing Hispanic and non-Hispanic white voters.

It’s not that he’s too old to do the job, but he’s an old-generation public service guy who has been prone to malaprops for a very long time. An editorial in The Hill suggests that perhaps the President is a superager, “someone generally older than 80 who has cognitive and physical function higher than their peers, more akin to people decades younger — and argued that framing Biden in particular as “too old” is both ageist and politically motivated.

Meanwhile

Nothing that happens with djt seems to affect his core supporters. His presidency has been “defined by corruption, self-dealing, and abuse of power.” He fomented violent insurrection against democracy and called the criminals convicted for their actions on January 6, 2021, “hostages.”

His legal difficulties are part of his campaign. He uses the cases as “proof” that Joe and his allies are engaging in “election interference.” He’s practically begging judges to find him in contempt – see, “they’re denying me my right to participate in my defense.” A convicted sexual predator, also guilty of defamation of character, can win a caucus and a primary.

Maybe he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in NYC, and it wouldn’t affect his voters, as he said eight years ago.

So, in some bizarre way, it seems consistent that his attorney would speak before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding djt’s claims of absolute immunity. He posited that “a President could order the assassination of his political rival and not ever face prosecution unless the House successfully impeached him and the Senate convicted him for that crime.”

As Major Garrett of CBS News noted, djt can and does run simultaneously as an incumbent, an outsider, and a victim. djt support is a movement. If he is elected again, he’ll abuse the office of the presidency and has promised to use the government to punish his enemies.

Hope?

Joe’s only positives are negatives: djt is an existential threat to democracy. djt put those three SCOTUS justices on the court to gut abortion rights and women’s health. Is that enough? I see 2000/2016 again.

If djt isn’t convicted of something criminal by November 5, I fear the outcome of January 6, 2025. If djt didn’t think he should have had to leave office on January 20, 2021, his supporters would think he should be reinstated four years later.

So tell me, how don’t we get the return of the Orange? Please tell me how I’m wrong. I’d LOVE to be wrong.

Not entirely unrelated, here’s the trailer for a new movie called Civil War. i have no plans to watch the film.