I think I have an interesting perspective on all this. I'm not part of the "Facebook generation," but I did just graduate college after spending ten years in the military (I'm a member of gen X who's too cool for school, detached ironic apathy gave us the Gingritch revolution and TWO terms of Pres. Bush). So I think I have an interesting perspective on all this.

For all you cynics out there, I have seen young people get engaged over the past three years. Most of the major issues these days (health care, the war, climate change, energy issues, terrorism, etc) directly affect these young people, and unlike most people my age, these kids really have opinions and insight. Remember, the young people who are 18 to 20 and voting in their first presidential election were 10 or 12 when 9/11 happened, and have lived with WAR for their entire teen years. Many have seen friends and loved ones go off to war. Heck most laugh when I tell them that just ten years ago gas was under a dollar a gallon. The bottom line is that young people in university are engaged. They are worried about their future as well as their country.

I honestly see 18-30 year olds voting in huge numbers this year. I suspect most will vote for a progressive (Sen Obama, Clinton, or Nader), but lets not deride young conservatives. Sure, I disagree with that ideology as I'm sure most of us here do, but I also think it's important that people are simply ENGAGED with the political process whatever their political persuasion. The young folks I've seen at collage, and in high school (I'm a newly minted English teacher) are concerned and aware. The best thing about the Bush presidency might very well be the (unintended) political and civic engagement of an entire generation of young people. God, I still do love irony!

Oh, and to "elephantman," I'm sure it makes you feel so goddamn superior being so smug and dismissive to those of us here. I honestly don't understand the twisted psychology of trolls. I do know that they'd never say any of their BS to anyone's face.

Correction:

whose

let's

it's late:)

"Jazz can become an endless set of footnotes; rock can dissolve into a scream. But when they get it right, the genre distinctions vanish, the math and the mere gesture disappear, and what's left is that old black magic: the unfolding of human passions in time that we call music."

I offer a few choice cuts to further keep this conversation going. These are only a few of the hundreds of tunes that (I believe) articulate the meaningful and "dramatic" dialog between rock and jazz. Search out and enjoy. keep the conversation going and add your own gems.

Freddie Hubbard--"Red Clay"

The Grateful Dead W/Branford Marsalis "Bird Song" (12/31/90)

Grant Green-- "Let the Music Take Your Mind" (from the album Alive)

Soulive--"Get Down!"

Jimmy Smith--"Root Down"

The Beastie Boys--"Root Down"

A Tribe Called Quest-- "Jazz"

The Quintet--"Live at Massey Hall" (Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Charles Mingus, Bud Powell, Max Roach)--The first recorded supergroup, one of the greatest albums (of any genre)of all time, and it effing rocks!

Santana--"Incident At Neshabur" from "Lotus"--awesome "Love Supreme"quote at about 3:13 min

The Jazz Crusaders--"Live At the Lighthouse"

Allman Bros. "Memory oof Elizabeth Reed" From "At the Fillmore East" --Duane Allman's guitar solo encompasses almost every form of American music

Cannonball Adderly Sextet--"Work Song"

So Anne Lamott "hated" Atonement, and only offers her disgust at Kira Knightly's lips as the reason for hating it? Sure, I thought Atonement was overrated and overcooked, but it is a well crafted and thoughtful film. Lamott's "opinion" isn't even a real opinion. It's the uninformed rambling of a dull bore. Yes, there are valid reasons to dislike Atonement, but an actress' lips are not one of them.

Anyway, I thought The Darjeeling Limited was a fantastic film, and was surprised it was not nominated for anything. Okay, maybe Anderson is sometimes a bit to precious for his own good and maybe he is beginning to repeat himself, this is still a well executed film.

No Country for Old Men is the best film of the year. The cinematography is brilliant, perfectly conveying the lonley and isolated nature of the film. The Cohen's are masterful in creating scenes that you want to just continue. The film (and the novel) plays with the idea of who is actually at the center and what the focus is on. It's Moss's film when we view him as the stoic and mythic hero. It's Bell's film when we view him as the "good" guy and existential hero. And it's Chigurh's film when he ultimately "triumphs" in the end. What is being posited in the end? What is McCarthy saying about our world?

I also really liked 3:10 to Yuma. What has happened to the western as a genre? along with Sci-Fi, the western has traditionally been the place where we have explored American Mythology and wrestled with ideas and realities about ourselves. In keeping with the ideas presented in No Country For Old Men, what does it mean when we are made to side and identify with the "bad guy." Despite 3:10 To Yuma's lame ending, it was brilliantly acted and shot. The themes were very similar to NCFOM. Certainly better than Atonement, but then again Russell Crowe's lips are easier to behold and still carry on living. :)

Well, I do think it would be an interesting article for Andrew or Stephanie (or whomever) to write about the state of the western as a genre in American film as well as locating it historically as a place where we often grappled with our good and bad selves.