Tagged: gaza Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • dtoub 11:51 pm on Sunday, March 8, 2009, 11:51 pm Permalink | Reply
    Tags: brian kauth, gaza,   

    zichron (2009)—for saxophone quartet 


    picture-221

    I just spent the last hour writing a slightly lengthy blog post about my new piece for saxophone quartet called zichron, which means “in memory of” or “in remembrance of” in Hebrew and, I believe, Yiddish as well. For reasons I don’t understand, since WordPress saves incremental drafts every few minutes onto a Web server, once I hit Publish, the post disappeared. It’s almost 12:40 AM on the East Coast and I’m pretty tired, so I’m not going to attempt to recreate the entire post. So here is a quick synopsis:

    • The piece was requested by the saxophonist Brian Kauth
    • Disclaimer: I find it difficult to write for wind or brass instruments, since I feel constrained by having to worry about leaving space for performers to breathe, or else hope that they are capable of circular breathing (NB: I have yet to encounter anyone in person who can do circular breathing, although many musicians can do it). That’s why I write a lot of music for keyboards, strings, or else keep it indeterminate (as with my pieces written for open instrumentation). But since Brian was really nice enough to ask me for the piece, and is committed to getting it performed, how could I say no?
    • The work was essentially without a title for most of its composition until I heard about the tragic death of Bisan, Maye, Aya and Nur Abu al-Aish, the three daughters and niece of Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, who died as a result of IDF fire in Gaza shortly before a ceasefire agreement. Dr. Abu al-Aish is an Israeli-trained Palestinian gynecologist who has worked to foster understanding between Israelis and Palestinians. The tragedy  had an unexpectedly personal impact on me, both as a parent and as a fellow gynecologist.  I wanted to do something to reach out and react to Dr. al-Aish’s loss, and soon realized that this work was an appropriate response.
    • I really tried to keep it playable, although there are a few spots where it requires really good breath control on the part of the performers, due to some long sustained tones. I think it’s doable, though. Then again, I also thought my earlier works for brass sextet and alto flute were doable too, so all bets are off.
    • The first three-and-a-half minutes consist of a single tone. But it’s a nice tone.

    The mp3 is here. The untransposed score (in C) is here. The transposed score is here.

    I’m going to bed…

     
    • Chris Becker 1:20 pm on Monday, March 9, 2009, 1:20 pm Permalink

      David,

      Not that you asked, but a couple things strike me after looking at the pdf and listening to portions of the mp3…

      It seems there are several places in the score where instead of one of the saxes playing and holding a single note for such long periods of time, you could pass the note between two or three of the saxes – dovetailing the note in the register wher you want it – and not only give your players time to breathe (and keep your tones nice and full) but also create some subtle shifts of timbral color.

      You have these phrases of 4/4 measures ending in measures where you ask that 5 or 7 beats be evenly spaced across 4 beats. I’m not sure if this compositional decision is coming from Morton Feldman or the possibilities of MIDI playback with your notational software. If the effect you want is to be that precise, you might have the quartet treat these sections that repeat as “vamps” that they can practice with separately in order to establish as a quartet a steady pulse and articulate the surprises at the end of these phrases to they come across to the listener. I wonder if some simple articlation indications instead would give you the effect you want without the math?

      The addition of and attention to dynamics throughout this piece would be welcome. Unless you want the entire piece at one dynamic (?) which isn’t truly possible unless you have a computer playing the music. But if you want the performers to bring their own ideas to phrasing this music, I think you might want to make that clear in some notes on the score. Right now you have one dynamic for every register of each instrument, and it seems that more direction would only help shape the journey you have outlined for the players and listener.

      It’d be nice to post on your blog suggestions and issues Brian brings up after reviewing your score. Others writing for woodwinds might find it helpful to find out when imagining such extemes what the challenges are for the player (and what’s totally impossible!)

      CB

    • J.C. Combs 1:36 pm on Monday, March 9, 2009, 1:36 pm Permalink

      Chris,

      I think that post minimalism is one of the harder genres to”realize” for w/ notation due to the length of time to play back the work. It seems obvious to me David is composing with notation in mind, whereas many composers create their own performed work which has no notation. Its simple really. If you play the work as you compose (why not?), then you don’t have a properly notated score.

      A workaround for any of us could be to compose on two computers. One as you punch it in notation program and the other to play it into your sequencer. Then you can have your cake and eat it to.

    • Chris Becker 2:33 pm on Monday, March 9, 2009, 2:33 pm Permalink

      “I think that post minimalism is one of the harder genres to”realize” for w/ notation due to the length of time to play back the work.”

      But why is hearing a computer play back your work for whatever length crucial to composing a “post minimalist” piece? I don’t want to sound like an old fart bu didn’t composers compose before MIDI?

      “It seems obvious to me David is composing with notation in mind…”

      Well, he’s composing with live players in mind (and that may be what you are saying?)

      How you notate your music then becomes crucial to realizing your musical vision. But, revisions to scores are completely the norm in rehearsals with live players. I suggested that that may be the case for David (as it is for all of us) once he begins working with the quartet.

      Speaking more conceptually, there is always a disconnect between what we notate and what a player plays. That’s part of the process of realizing a work with live musicians.

      And hearing the computer play your notated music vs hearing a musician play your music vs you hearing your music in your mind’s ear are three completely different experiences. That may sound obvious, but I’ve always experienced challenges navigating the three…

    • J.C. Combs 3:25 pm on Monday, March 9, 2009, 3:25 pm Permalink

      “Well, he’s composing with live players in mind (and that may be what you are saying?) ” -quote

      Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. I may be mistaken, but I think this is more a sample to get the work performed. Re: dynamic markings, I’ll let David answer that for himself. Myself, I prefer to mark speed and jot down instructions throughout the piece, but more in a Satie-esque fashion ;)

    • dtoub 4:37 pm on Monday, March 9, 2009, 4:37 pm Permalink

      Chris and JC, thanks for weighing in.

      Re: “It seems there are several places in the score where instead of one of the saxes playing and holding a single note for such long periods of time, you could pass the note between two or three of the saxes“: I originally did just that. However, the timbrel changes between, say, the alto and soprano saxes, took away from the static nature of those sections (which was desired) and felt intrusive, at least to me. So I tried to keep it easier on the performers, but the sound, in the end, is what matters, and I just didn’t like it.

      ”I’m not sure if this compositional decision is coming from Morton Feldman or the possibilities of MIDI playback with your notational software. “

      Neither. It has nothing to do with Feldman (whose notation I love and admire, even though I suspect it makes things so difficult for performers; at least I have a hell of a time figuring it out when i’ve seen his scores). Nor does it have anything to do with notation software. Would you have similar remarks for the late Ralph Shapey, whose nested tuplets baffle me as much, if not moreso, than the most difficult Feldman scores, yet no one seems to care? Ever see a score by Carter from the 60’s, or Babbitt, for that matter? I have no expectations of, nor desire for, players to be automatons who perform rhythms with mathematical precision. But the rhythms are what they are, and probably look far worse than they are.

      ”The addition of and attention to dynamics throughout this piece would be welcome.“

      There are three dynamics in the piece: pp, mp in one section, and then pp again. That’s actually more diverse than some things I’ve written. I don’t like to add a lot of instructions, dynamics, articulations, etc. So when I actually do specify something, I really mean it. I trust the performers to interpret things, not recite back what I’ve written down. In the end, I think the music will come through. Good performers will know exactly what to do. And yes, I do mean pp until measure 106, and then pp again at measure 158.

      Chris, I absolutely agree that MIDI has nothing to do with postminimalism per se. Composition is composition. Some folks (like Kyle Gann) can do it in their head and write it all down without a musical instrument handy. I can’t do that—I’ve always composed at the piano, or since the early 90’s, a synthesizer. I only started hooking up my keyboard to my computer a few years after using a synthesizer. That’s what’s been working for me, but I was writing this stuff for many, many years before I owned any synthesizer, using whatever piano I could find.

      I am indeed composing with live performers in mind. Always. This is a decent realization (probably the best I can do with what I have) until Brian’s group performs it. I absolutely agree, Chris, that it’s tricky to navigate among live performance, MIDI and one’s own mind. They’re not equal, although they should hopefully be concordant.

      Thanks! Let’s see how it all goes. But in the end, who cares about the notation or MIDI output, or even how performable it is? Does it work for you as music?

    • dtoub 10:20 pm on Monday, March 9, 2009, 10:20 pm Permalink

      Just read a great quote from Nancarrow:

      I just write a piece of music. It just happens that a lot of them are unplayable. I don’t have any obsession of making things unplayable. A few of my pieces could be played quite easily — a few!

    • Chris Becker 12:03 pm on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 12:03 pm Permalink

      “I don’t like to add a lot of instructions, dynamics, articulations, etc. So when I actually do specify something, I really mean it. I trust the performers to interpret things, not recite back what I’ve written down. In the end, I think the music will come through. Good performers will know exactly what to do.”

      David, good performers want to know what you the composer want as well as how far they can go in interpreting your piece. And in my experience, they’re also fine if you tell them you DON’T know what you want and are open to exploring possibilities. And all of this will come out in your dialog with Brian and his quartet. Your statement “Good performers will know exactly what to do” needs a little bit of qualification, don’t you think?

      You repeatedly said “I hope (the piece) is playable…” And if you are truly concerned about that, I believe there will need to be revisions to your score. Which isn’t a criticism – and anyway, it sounds like you are anticipating this? JC pointed out that he thought the present score is a sample to sort of get the ball rolling?

      But if you’re not concerned about that (you go back and forth on this subject in this thread… just pointing this out…) great. If the score is done, finito then more power to you.

      Anyway…I’m curious to see what Brian has to say about the piece over the time it takes to review it and ultimately premier it. It would be helpful to share that on this blog if you are comfortable doing so.

    • dtoub 12:46 pm on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 12:46 pm Permalink

      Chris, I really do believe that less is more in terms of instructions to performers. In the end, I really do trust that performers will do the right thing. At least they’ll do something interpretive. Did Bach profusely annotate his music? Uh, no. Who knows what he really meant in The Musical Offering? Yet, despite all the wiggle room for performers, they seem to be pretty consistent in terms of how they perform it. Same with his solo violin music, etc. I have no interest in telling musicians what to do. At the same time, I really do mean pp until it suddenly turns mp once, and then pp when it’s marked again. Of course there will be variations based on the register of the instruments at any given time. That’s ok. In other words, I know exactly what I want, but don’t want to be pushy about it.

      When I said “I hope the piece is playable,” it was not at all out of my desire to continue changing the piece. It is what it is. If something were technically impossible, such as writing a note that is entirely out of an instrument’s range (which I didn’t, as far as I am aware), that’s one thing. But I think it’s possible to perform it. Outside of technical impossibilities, like range issues, I can’t and don’t let “ease of performability” get in the way of my writing. I could spend my time writing music that is easy to play, or at least very clearly playable by good performers, but if that’s not what I want to hear, then why do it? I also can cite countless examples of music that, based on the score, should be nearly impossible to play or else could have notated much more simply. Yet, these works are indeed played, and even played well. I just can’t get too worked up over whether or not something is viewed as performable. There are indeed very few works of music that are truly non-performable in good hands; 99% of Nancarrow’s music would fall into that (nonperformable) category.

      Cowell believed his Quartet Romantic would never be performed by humans, since its rhythms are so difficult to coordinate. He genuinely believed that. He wrote it anyway. And I’m glad he did—I was at the premiere and have a subsequent recording of the work as well. Obviously this is not something that is going to be in the repertoire of most ensembles. But it was, has been, and can be performed. And again, the composer absolutely was convinced it would never be performed because of its rhythmic difficulties. It’s an incredibly beautiful work, by the way.

      I’m confident Brian and his colleagues will do my piece justice just fine. Incidentally, I’m always open to collaborative and constructive suggestions from musicians, and indeed did show him much of the score from the beginning for just that reason. At this point, the piece is done. The emphasis should be on how best to realize it, not how to change it to make it easier. Sorry, but part of creating something is to decide when it’s done.

    • J.C. Combs 1:16 pm on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 1:16 pm Permalink

      “JC pointed out that he thought the present score is a sample to sort of get the ball rolling? ” Chris

      I’m pointing out that you seem a bit disappointed in the realization, when I know David isn’t really concerned about making it such a great realization that it would fool listeners as to whether or not a flesh and blood quartet is playing it.

      I personally think it sounds great. If whoever ends up playing it finds parts where small revisions have to be made, well that’s the life of an “autodidact.” We tend to bend the rules and sometimes go too far. Ask me about my piano works! Anyway, I give kudos to Chris for making David’s piece something to talk about right out the gate!

    • Chris Becker 1:41 pm on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 1:41 pm Permalink

      Great. Again, I am curious to hear what Brian and his quartet have to say as they dig in to this work.

    • Chris Becker 2:11 pm on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 2:11 pm Permalink

      JC I’m not disappointed in David’s score! You make it sound like I’m David’s rabbi or something :) I took it at face value and offered some observations. And honestly my first thought was “How in the hell is this ensemble going to play this?”

      But I don’t think I even disagree with anything you or David said throughout this thread…although I thought a few things needed some qualification. Especially for someone else reading who might not be as versed in contemporary composition.

      But then again…you all do enough back slapping on this site – can’t I drop a little bit of vinegar in the sugar once in awhile :) ?

    • J.C. Combs 3:17 pm on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 3:17 pm Permalink

      ?But then again…you all do enough back slapping on this site – can’t I drop a little bit of vinegar in the sugar once in awhile :) ?” Chris

      Typically, I’d say sure, but we’re talking about the master of minimalism, the mammer jammer of musicmaking, the man who puts the M in music, proceed at your own risk! ;)

    • dtoub 8:04 pm on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 8:04 pm Permalink

      “master of minimalism???” WTF??? I think that’s a bit much of an overstatement. I’m barely housebroken, JC! 8-)

      Chris, I appreciate your comments, which clearly provoked a lot of good discussion and thinking. Not sure there’s a whole lot of “back slapping” here, but I have to say I love compliments as much as the next guy. Thanks!

    • Chris Becker 10:17 am on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 10:17 am Permalink

      Hey, I come here because I enjoy reading your posts. It’s as simple as that.

      Uh…how do I make a smiley wearing shades?

    • dtoub 4:26 pm on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 4:26 pm Permalink

      Just type “8”“-”“)” (without all the quote marks). That is, type 8, then a dash then an endquote. The server converts it automatically.

    • kraig Grady 6:55 pm on Thursday, March 12, 2009, 6:55 pm Permalink

      Quite compelling and varied in mood!
      Some parts really ‘stick’ even when they have passed.
      Interesting the slight beating on the ‘unisons’. I could not tell if this was vibrato or a method to hear that two instruments were on the same note.

      not as a criticism, but i don’t think that everything needed to be repeated or a least you should not feel like they have to be. i am not saying it would be improved by less, but i wouldn’t be harmed either in just a few spots.

    • dtoub 7:40 pm on Thursday, March 12, 2009, 7:40 pm Permalink

      Thanks, kraig—much appreciated! I’m not sure that it was vibrato, but also am not sure what is causing the beating (which I like, incidentally). I suspect it might be slight frequency differences between two patches even on the same note.

      Choosing how many times to repeat something is the hardest part, perhaps, of any music with repetitive structures. Sometimes I’ve regretted not repeating some measures more, since with repeated listenings, what seems really repetitive on first listen seems much less so down the road. Sometimes I’ve regretted repeating something too many times, but that’s usually obvious during the composition process and these get scaled back before the work is considered done. Without question, however: nothing needs to be repeated. It’s more a matter of “want” rather than “need.“

      Thanks very much for taking a listen!

    • mandy 1:50 pm on Friday, March 20, 2009, 1:50 pm Permalink

      this piece is genius!!!!

      i will listen tomorrow another 2 min.I think until the end of the month i will manage to listen it all!

    • dtoub 6:16 am on Saturday, March 21, 2009, 6:16 am Permalink

      genius??? not sure about that one. More a work of compulsion than anything else. But I appreciate the comment. Thanks!

    • mandy 6:25 am on Saturday, March 21, 2009, 6:25 am Permalink

      do you have something shorter to listen??about 5 min would be great.Or else could you increase the speed of your pieces x 20?

    • dtoub 5:42 pm on Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 5:42 pm Permalink

      Mandy, check out piece #2 for electronic organ (5′) or <10′ (which is indeed less than ten minutes).

      Chris, I did get some feedback from Brian, who wants the parts to get going with this. There is no problem at all with playability. The duration is more of an issue in terms of requiring stamina, but I didn’t get any sense that this is a show-stopper. Now I can relax again! ;-)

    • J.C. Combs 8:44 pm on Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 8:44 pm Permalink

      “The duration is more of an issue in terms of requiring stamina, but I didn’t get any sense that this is a show-stopper. Now I can relax again! ;-)” David

      That’s freaking great to hear! Thank god you didn’t listen to Chris (:P) and go to all the trouble of restructuring for handing off player to player!

      When I plugged in the samples, I could definitely tell this work is going to rock (of course, I already knew from the first listen to your MIDI release, which is why I wrote about it in my blog!). In fact, I meant it when I implied you should consider converting this to full orchestra.

    • dtoub 9:41 pm on Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 9:41 pm Permalink

      Actually, I appreciate Chris’s thoughts and he raised some good points with the best intentions in mind. Our task as composers is to make choices. I chose to stay the course in this instance. Sometimes it will work out. And sometimes it won’t. A lot of this stuff is intuitive and not based on facts. One just has to gauge when to trust one’s intuition and when not to.

    • Chris Becker 1:07 pm on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 1:07 pm Permalink

      “Thank god you didn’t listen to Chris (:P) and go to all the trouble of restructuring for handing off player to player!”

      Well, if stamina is an issue, then handing the lines off player to player might be helpful, still giving you the static effect you want and probably assisting in keeping the piece in tune over the course of the hour plus.

      Rereading some of your responses over the course of this thread, I think you guys (you and JC) should be careful not to mistake a lack of knowledge with intuition. Or being stubborn with artistic integrity. Or flexibility with being wimpy. Or (finally) instrument range with what you are repeatedly calling “playability.”

    • dtoub 6:21 pm on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, 6:21 pm Permalink

      Chris, I think the duration was a bit daunting, regardless of whether I swapped notes among instruments, etc. Truth be told, some might consider zichron to be among my shorter works ;-)

      I agree with all your points. But again, I think there’s something to be said for intuition vs process in art, and for autodidactism vs academic training. I also don’t think that at any point any of us would confuse staying within an instrument’s range with playability. And as I mentioned earlier, I reached out to Brian at the beginning for feedback, so I don’t think it would be fair to accuse me of mistaking flexibility with being wimpy. Not that you accused me, of course, but there was that warning…

    • J.C. Combs 3:15 pm on Thursday, March 26, 2009, 3:15 pm Permalink

      Chris,

      I don’t get your point at all in that last thread of yours. Seems like you could have taken the ;P too personally. Nevertheless, it sounds like all this fuss was over nothing. That’s something to be excited about, that an autodidact won an argument on scoring!

    • Mandy 4:44 pm on Thursday, March 26, 2009, 4:44 pm Permalink

      why don’t you take the best parts of this piece and put them together so they will become one shorter track?
      Or you can change the repetitions and make them one in every bar instead of 5.

      what do you think??? ;)

    • J.C. Combs 9:03 pm on Thursday, March 26, 2009, 9:03 pm Permalink

      “why don’t you take the best parts of this piece and put them together so they will become one shorter track?
      Or you can change the repetitions and make them one in every bar instead of 5.

      what do you think??? ;) ” Mandy

      That is a silly question. The aim of a postminimalist composer is not to size down a work! I recommend researching the genre before you have anymore questions. ;)

    • david 10:18 pm on Thursday, March 26, 2009, 10:18 pm Permalink

      Mandy, you seem to be hung up on brevity. I’m not Webern. I love Webern’s music. But I have no interest in being a Webern clone. The duration of a piece is irrelevant; what matters is if it works or not. If it’s short, as many of my works are, and it works for me, then fine. Same with the longer works. Would you have directed the same comment towards Feldman if he were still alive?

    • mandy 4:47 am on Friday, March 27, 2009, 4:47 am Permalink

      it doesn’t mean if someone writes shorter pieces or without repetition is a Webern clone.

      By the time you put yourself in a limit and you say :i am a post-minimalist makes you automatically a clone of minimal composers of the 60s.

      The question is how a listener will manage to listen a 1 hour piece.
      Minimal music could work like a background music when someone is doing his work or yoga or training without being concentrate to the piece.

      But if you hear for example a long piece like Mozart or Ligeti,their music works because they change a little and bring always new ideas even if their pieces last 1 hour.

      I liked very much your string quartet but i have never managed to listen it all without watching the score and without small brakes.I mean in the same way like i listen a piece of an X composer because of the duration.

      Have you ever performed this piece?

    • dtoub 8:31 am on Friday, March 27, 2009, 8:31 am Permalink

      I think my longer works work fine if one listens to them without preconceptions. I also think there’s more variation than in some long works by others, but that’s just me. If you like to break it up that’s fine. I rarely get to listen to feldman’s string quartet 2 without interruptions!

      But to the question “why is my music so long?,” I think that’s a question I can only answer by saying that I write what I want and have no idea why some pieces are long and others short. It just works out that way. Why is Reich’s early music so repetitive? Why is some Stravinsky so neo-classical? Why ask why?

    • mandy 11:21 am on Friday, March 27, 2009, 11:21 am Permalink

      Stravinsky was neo-classical a certain period.His style had many changes.

      You as David Toub,what changes have you done the last years.

      Do you other pieces except minimal?

      I am very interested to hear!

    • J.C. Combs 2:01 pm on Friday, March 27, 2009, 2:01 pm Permalink

      Mandy,

      You actually raise some nice questions here, some I would like to ask of all minimalist composers, not just David Toub.

      However, it is a futile question in a sense. Sort of like asking Chopin, “hey, when you going to play some music w/o so much sugar?”

      If a composer feels comfortable with a certain style, maybe they want to focus on that style. But I understand where you’re coming from in the sense of where a lot of us are at now, incorporating many styles into our music. I’ve heard some of David’s 12 tone works which I found great as well. Its my opinion that a composer doesn’t have much limitation of genre of they wish to explore other areas.

    • dtoub 10:12 pm on Friday, March 27, 2009, 10:12 pm Permalink

      Mandy, I really appreciate your interest in my music, and you do indeed ask good questions. A lot of my early music, as JC indicates, is 12-tone. Much of it has not been digitalized, and probably won’t ever be, since at least some of it is crap. I still really like my seven songs after poetry of James Joyce, which is on my music page, as well as the last 12-tone work I wrote before going postminimalist (ineffabilities). My early postminimalist stuff, like improvisational study no. 1 tended to be long, albeit in sections, and not quite as differentiated from what else was going on in the early 80’s. The stuff I write now is equally influenced by minimalism and Feldman with a good dose of Scelsi, but if you listen to the earlier stuff, there is, I think, a common thread and a common voice. I only want to write in my own voice, of course. But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to influences, as all of us are influenced by what we hear, good and bad.

      A recent piece, bs piece is both repetitive and purely 12-tone and is a double canon to boot. That’s very different from most of my recent music, but has a lot in common with my earlier works. Incidentally, I had never heard the term “postminimalism” nor was any term applied to my music until Kyle Gann placed me under that rubric in one of his blog posts. Since he’s the expert, I stuck with it. But really, I could care less about classifications. I have no interest in writing “postminimalist” music in that I don’t feel a need to conform to any style. But it just happens that the music that I like to compose and that I think has evolved a bit in terms of my own style is “postminimalist” as such. So there you are.

      Thanks! Keep listening!

    • steven 2:08 pm on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 2:08 pm Permalink

      Hi David,
      nice composition. If you ever need a saxophonist who can circular breathe and play anything on the instrument do let me know. I am based in NYC though find myself in philly much these days.

    • dtoub 2:11 pm on Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 2:11 pm Permalink

      Awesome! I’d be delighted-perhaps, if you don’t have three other sax colleagues to fill out the quartet, it could be done with prerecording? I’ve done that for a piece for six marimbas, and given all the works by Steve Reich pitting live musicians against prerecordings of themselves, it seems to be more acceptable nowadays. Let me know-that would be great if it could finally get performed!

  • dtoub 8:31 am on Thursday, January 15, 2009, 8:31 am Permalink | Reply
    Tags: gaza, , madness   

    what gods destroy, they first make mad 


    Here’s one side.

    Here’s the other.

    Can we put all of them on an ice floe somewhere so we don’t have to listen to their hateful rhetoric? Didn’t we get our fill with those Palin rallies? Orwell was right about the two minutes of hate, except he underestimated the duration.

     
    • kraig Grady 5:37 pm on Thursday, January 15, 2009, 5:37 pm Permalink

      There really isn’t any military solution to this problem, for either side, or any side anywhere

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 469 other followers