can you dance to it?

I don't particularly like this country either.

We are stuck in this never ending jingoist meme, where even the most innocuous self-examination is considered treason. Our President is clearly a bully and a moron - and no one seems to notice.

I truly hate my fellow Americans - we are lazy, greedy self-indulgent warmongers.

I'm quite certain 3/4 of the world shares this sentiment. If we want to be adventurists abroad we can't couple it with a deadly insularity from how're we're perceived. Never mind the fact Wainright is delivering it from a character's pov that, given the scale of the production, is but one of a multitude of voices.

I guest this stands as a death knell for the tradition of protest music that has serenaded power from some very uncomfortable trenches for the past half century. And perhaps at time we've needed it most.

I mean, really, come on. It's nothing at all, is it?

This article is a weird anthem to Wainright. Where's the context? Where's the discussion of Wainright's roots? Where are the criticisms of the guy? Where's the detail?

For example: he's not an American; he's a Canadian, which makes his wanker "we" in the article creepy and misleading.

Never liked him after his creepy stalking of Bea Arthur.

With Rufus (a.k.a. the Tit-man) garnering all these critical accolades of late, I can't help but feel a little resentful on behalf of his sire.

Rufus's father Loudon was, from the outset of his career, a brilliant song writer and satirist whose bittersweet sensibilities and unflinchingly honest lyrics were never given the acclaim and wider audience they deserved.

Rufus by contrast is by turns overly-earnest and glib, and his lyrics are often stilted and overwrought. He is certainly no slouch, but in the oedipal race I fear he is ultimately destined to finish in second place.

Rufus IS american, he was born here.

He grew up in Canada and maintains residences in both countries.

And I love the new album.

I don't think I quite understand the first sentence. Read it aloud, pausing after each chunk:

"At 33, Rufus Wainwright

is the man

who became

of the young Orpheus

who stunned and amazed

with his 1998 eponymous debut

and 2001 masterwork,

'Poses.'"

It's that "who became of" in the middle. What is that supposed to mean? Unclear.

For some reason I don't like the way this article is written. I agree with the earlier poster, and can't understand that opening sentence.

Is this article an album review? I have never heard of this guy, and I don't feel this piece of journalism ties this guys different facets into an interesting and cohesive portrait. Perhaps there is too much going on here, to encapsulate engagingly into an article of this size. For example Vachon covers to varying degrees of success, gayness, the lyrical controversy, the Geffen eavesdropping, an album release, the new love, the drugs, the Berlin escape, the dark vision, etc.

I don't quite get a sense of where this album fits into the wider world of music, nor whether this man is likeable or a poser. Basically, I am left with a below par album review, a fleeting glimpse of an interview and a tatty sense of a man.

… as The Clash, but didn't they once upon a time have a great little number called … "I'm So Bored With The USA"?'member that?

So … it's not like Wainwright is breaking new ground here.

And, if you're looking for Canadian predecessors how 'bout "American Woman" by … well, guess who?

Yep. And things a lot more tepid than that.

Welcome to an America more paranoid and easily offended than even the McCarthyist fifties. Curious that so very few seem to recognize it. I guess it must be the ole forest-for-the-trees thing.

I hope this hasn't offended anybody!

... was not a review. It was not a critique. It didn't tell me anything meaningful about Rufus Wainwright, or even his music. It was kind of a pointless fanboy (-girl?) slobberfest over their Idolized Celebrity of Choice.

Yawn.

I get it. The indigenous folks didn't pack up and run ... they are still here, like me .... trying to stick it out as the pendulum swings. It always does. I'm 17th generation from the Southern and Western US. As much as it sucks ... I'm staying. I appreciate the ex-pat sentiment ... it just ain't for me.

Hey, Germany's pendulum made the big swing ... so did Ireland's ... to name a few places where things shifted big time.

I'm taking the long view ... even if I don't live to see the other side of that shift.

Bambi

If this pablum is considered dangerous, no wonder Dubya hasn't been impeached yet.

And if this kind of lousy criticism is considered worth publishing, no wonder Camille Paglia hasn't been canned from Salon yet.

The best have lost all conviction and the worst are center stage.

It practically begs right-wingers to come in with a "love it or leave it" response. I think it's no big deal really if he's running away from the country (I always think of Berlin when I think about political freedom). But it's no great sign of political commitment or cultural analysis. I suspect his attitudes are shared all over Hollywood (remember all those stars who claimed they were leaving the country if Bush won a second term?). If the album's good, it's good, but his "daring" stance is not much of a big deal.

As a European, I must say it's completely astonishing – and to be honest, frightening – that a sentence like "I'm so tired of America" can be considered "offending" or "wrong" or "unsuitable" or even worth a disscussion what so ever. Bizarre.

The notion that "we've lost some of our soul" is quaint, romantic, and fashionable among lefties and artist-types these days. Maybe it's even true in a limited sense, but not so much when you consider the broader context of our history.

America's boastful rhetoric about its status as "shining city on a hill" has always been self-serving and hypocritical. It's clear by a rudimentary study of our history that we at no time were willing to extend our exalted democratic traditions to people in other parts the world if that meant going against our economic interests. No, in those cases (Iran, Chile, etc.) it was all about buying despots who protected "our interests" (really, those of the elite like the Bush clan) and human rights be damned.

That Americans appear to have turned on themselves since 9/11 is indeed regrettable, but the developing world is well-acquainted with just how vicious, petty, and selfish we can be.

It was easier for the U.S. to appear virtuous in the Cold War years, when our adversary was so obviously a totalitarian state that did not even indulge in human rights rhetoric. It's a new, messier world these days, and that post-WWII image of the U.S. was bound to fall.