Further Proof Bush's Cronies had no Idea What They Were Getting Us Into
06.29.04 (3:52 pm) [edit]
Here is a link to a most revealing news article.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=5&u=/ap/20040629/ap_ on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_reser ve_callup" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=5&u=/ap/20040629/ap_ on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_reser ve_callup" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
Not because if what it says, but what it is about and what we can learn from it.
Bush doesn't have enough troops to fight these wars he wants to fight. He needs to dig deeper into last layer of "reserves", one day after the transfer of faux sovreignty to Iraq.
If we were any closer to troop reductions in Iraq, any closer to pacifying Afganistan, recieving any kind of significant troop help from "allies", this move would either be not needed or a clear sign of poor planning and incompetance as well as of desparation.
The question arises: is a poorly planned war worse than any other war? I really think that yes it is. In terms of lose of life and the chance to get to peace with the least amount of missing limbs and war crimes, a properly planned war would be better. I'd go as far as to say the best planned war would have no casualties becuase it wouldn't come to war, but once crossing that line-- gleefully, in Bush's case with no reserve, humility, caution, or even concern for life-- one should cross it with all reasonable planning and preparation. Clearly this is not what happened and I believe that the Iraqi people and our own people suffered far more than they would have if the war wasn't orchestrated by people so very stupid and evil-- a bad combination.
If the link don't work let me know.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=5&u=/ap/20040629/ap_ on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_reser ve_callup" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=5&u=/ap/20040629/ap_ on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_reser ve_callup" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
Not because if what it says, but what it is about and what we can learn from it.
Bush doesn't have enough troops to fight these wars he wants to fight. He needs to dig deeper into last layer of "reserves", one day after the transfer of faux sovreignty to Iraq.
If we were any closer to troop reductions in Iraq, any closer to pacifying Afganistan, recieving any kind of significant troop help from "allies", this move would either be not needed or a clear sign of poor planning and incompetance as well as of desparation.
The question arises: is a poorly planned war worse than any other war? I really think that yes it is. In terms of lose of life and the chance to get to peace with the least amount of missing limbs and war crimes, a properly planned war would be better. I'd go as far as to say the best planned war would have no casualties becuase it wouldn't come to war, but once crossing that line-- gleefully, in Bush's case with no reserve, humility, caution, or even concern for life-- one should cross it with all reasonable planning and preparation. Clearly this is not what happened and I believe that the Iraqi people and our own people suffered far more than they would have if the war wasn't orchestrated by people so very stupid and evil-- a bad combination.
If the link don't work let me know.
The Abortion Blog
06.28.04 (12:09 am) [edit]
I really think most issues, even divisive issues, can be resolved to a large extent, almost by consensus. For example, a lot of the differences on the war have to do with the interpretation of events, and what may well be a web of lies and manipulations. Another issue is abortion, that seems really divisive, but I think it is because it is presented in the wrong way.
What we're presented with is: should a woman be allowed to abort a pregnancy, or must she have the baby. The factors that influence this decision get completely ignored, almost by both sides, as they argue over morality and freedom. How can anything be resolved when one side is measuring it in terms of morality, and the other side measures it in freedom. Imagine a baseball game where one side wants to count the pitcher's strikeouts, and the other side wants to count hits. Obviously we need one criteria to start with in our discussion, one we can measure and find consensus around. In baseball it is runs, but what is it in Abortion, which is not a sport and thus the criteria we must rally around can not be instantly discerned.
In an issue that Republicans and Democrats always turn to to divide up the population as they seek both to gain votes for themselves and steal votes from the other, we who are sick of division must create our own way of seeing the issue. When we do, we see the failings of our media and our politicians. What age group abort the highest percentage of their pregnancies? What income level aborts the highest percentage of their pregancies? Which of these: well-employed with good benefits vs under- or un-employed with no or limited benefits, married vs single, student (college or otherwise) vs graduate vs dropout, literate vs illiterate, or religions or not? I don't have any stats, but oddly enough I know the last one: a woman's stated dedication to her religion is not a factor that determines if she is more likely or not to get an abortion. But, I'd bet good money that the other factors all will show clear and distinct differences.
When we get past good Vs bad, we will see that an abortion is a socio-economic issue. If we choose to ignore that fact then we are being dishonest, regardless of which side we're on. It is just as unfair to say "woman should have a choice an that is all there is" as it is to say "the baby should be born and that is all there is". While I'm in no position to deny anyone any choice they want, I don't believe many women find comfort in that choice-- in spite of how they'd feel otherwise.
What does a pregnant woman face? What is running through her mind as she learns she is pregnant? If she is barely living pay check to pay check, in debt like most every other person, she faces something she may not even be able to name. I'll just call it the big lie.
The big lie is that a woman in our society can have the same kind of freedom as a man. Once pregnant a woman's reality sets in, she may have a baby. She must get a doctor and figure out where and how to deliver the baby-- that is the easy part. She's got to pay for these services, the lab work, etc. At the end of pregnancy at best she has to ready to deliver the baby and care for the baby. While being a mom she'll have no income at least early on, but at some point if she's to re-enter the work force she'll need child care.
None of this is factored into the way our society runs. Women are essentially punished for being pregnant, and at best if they are comfortable, middle class, settled then they don't feel the punishment but the reality is still there. It is just that they've got the resources to withstand the difficulty and expense.
This is not the case in pre-industrial societies. Pregnancy is absorbed into the way society functions-- but abortion as it can be defined does occur, but not in anyway akin to our industrialized modern method. Pregnancy doesn't fit into our economy-- not from the stand point of the pregnant woman.
How can she afford the baby, and how can she care for the baby are the first questions. Soon after, many women face the fact that what ever life she thought she was on track for just ended if she has a baby. But, while she sees that her career or her schooling or her life will have to be altered or put aside for the baby, she doesn't see any great door open for her that will even allow her to have the baby.
Next perhaps are the questions of what kind of education the kid will get. Here in my town a poor pregnant woman knows she'll not easily give her child the same education as the family in the next town over-- regardless of which direction that is. My town has about the worst public schools in our area, and we know it. I send my 6 year old to a Catholic school, and the 3 year old to a private day care that doesn't do the "abbott program" (an NJ thing).
Am I leaving out the man in all of this? Yes. I'd say he is almost irrealevant. If he is with a good job and good benefits I bet the stats would show that he and she are as likely as just she is to have the baby. That is because of class boundaries in our society. My point is if the man is there an a party to the decision then fine, but as we get into the populations that are most likely to abort, the man is either not present or in the same bad economic circumstances as the woman and he may end up a statistical wash.
Not a lot of options open for a young, poor, underemployed pregnant woman. I want the anti-abortion/pro-life people to acknowledge that reality and create a society that makes every pregnancy full of opportunity. If they really want to end abortion, then they must want to decrease them-- right? If they really are pro-life then won't they want a society where a new mom and baby have the chance to succeed that every baby deserves? I want every pro-choice person to re-define choice. I don't think most women that get an abortion feel like they actually had a choice, I'd bet they'd look at it as no choice at all. Let's make pro-choice pro-real-choice.
Have I offended any sensibilities yet? Not my intention at all. But, I ask: am I pro-choice or pro-life in the polarizing way of discussion the issue-- or do I see past this false dichotomy, or some mix of some or all of the above?
What we're presented with is: should a woman be allowed to abort a pregnancy, or must she have the baby. The factors that influence this decision get completely ignored, almost by both sides, as they argue over morality and freedom. How can anything be resolved when one side is measuring it in terms of morality, and the other side measures it in freedom. Imagine a baseball game where one side wants to count the pitcher's strikeouts, and the other side wants to count hits. Obviously we need one criteria to start with in our discussion, one we can measure and find consensus around. In baseball it is runs, but what is it in Abortion, which is not a sport and thus the criteria we must rally around can not be instantly discerned.
In an issue that Republicans and Democrats always turn to to divide up the population as they seek both to gain votes for themselves and steal votes from the other, we who are sick of division must create our own way of seeing the issue. When we do, we see the failings of our media and our politicians. What age group abort the highest percentage of their pregnancies? What income level aborts the highest percentage of their pregancies? Which of these: well-employed with good benefits vs under- or un-employed with no or limited benefits, married vs single, student (college or otherwise) vs graduate vs dropout, literate vs illiterate, or religions or not? I don't have any stats, but oddly enough I know the last one: a woman's stated dedication to her religion is not a factor that determines if she is more likely or not to get an abortion. But, I'd bet good money that the other factors all will show clear and distinct differences.
When we get past good Vs bad, we will see that an abortion is a socio-economic issue. If we choose to ignore that fact then we are being dishonest, regardless of which side we're on. It is just as unfair to say "woman should have a choice an that is all there is" as it is to say "the baby should be born and that is all there is". While I'm in no position to deny anyone any choice they want, I don't believe many women find comfort in that choice-- in spite of how they'd feel otherwise.
What does a pregnant woman face? What is running through her mind as she learns she is pregnant? If she is barely living pay check to pay check, in debt like most every other person, she faces something she may not even be able to name. I'll just call it the big lie.
The big lie is that a woman in our society can have the same kind of freedom as a man. Once pregnant a woman's reality sets in, she may have a baby. She must get a doctor and figure out where and how to deliver the baby-- that is the easy part. She's got to pay for these services, the lab work, etc. At the end of pregnancy at best she has to ready to deliver the baby and care for the baby. While being a mom she'll have no income at least early on, but at some point if she's to re-enter the work force she'll need child care.
None of this is factored into the way our society runs. Women are essentially punished for being pregnant, and at best if they are comfortable, middle class, settled then they don't feel the punishment but the reality is still there. It is just that they've got the resources to withstand the difficulty and expense.
This is not the case in pre-industrial societies. Pregnancy is absorbed into the way society functions-- but abortion as it can be defined does occur, but not in anyway akin to our industrialized modern method. Pregnancy doesn't fit into our economy-- not from the stand point of the pregnant woman.
How can she afford the baby, and how can she care for the baby are the first questions. Soon after, many women face the fact that what ever life she thought she was on track for just ended if she has a baby. But, while she sees that her career or her schooling or her life will have to be altered or put aside for the baby, she doesn't see any great door open for her that will even allow her to have the baby.
Next perhaps are the questions of what kind of education the kid will get. Here in my town a poor pregnant woman knows she'll not easily give her child the same education as the family in the next town over-- regardless of which direction that is. My town has about the worst public schools in our area, and we know it. I send my 6 year old to a Catholic school, and the 3 year old to a private day care that doesn't do the "abbott program" (an NJ thing).
Am I leaving out the man in all of this? Yes. I'd say he is almost irrealevant. If he is with a good job and good benefits I bet the stats would show that he and she are as likely as just she is to have the baby. That is because of class boundaries in our society. My point is if the man is there an a party to the decision then fine, but as we get into the populations that are most likely to abort, the man is either not present or in the same bad economic circumstances as the woman and he may end up a statistical wash.
Not a lot of options open for a young, poor, underemployed pregnant woman. I want the anti-abortion/pro-life people to acknowledge that reality and create a society that makes every pregnancy full of opportunity. If they really want to end abortion, then they must want to decrease them-- right? If they really are pro-life then won't they want a society where a new mom and baby have the chance to succeed that every baby deserves? I want every pro-choice person to re-define choice. I don't think most women that get an abortion feel like they actually had a choice, I'd bet they'd look at it as no choice at all. Let's make pro-choice pro-real-choice.
Have I offended any sensibilities yet? Not my intention at all. But, I ask: am I pro-choice or pro-life in the polarizing way of discussion the issue-- or do I see past this false dichotomy, or some mix of some or all of the above?
Fahrenheit 9/11, great movie, but where are all these
06.26.04 (1:37 pm) [edit]
We saw the movie last night, and it was great. I'd say for the uninformed, it was a great introduction to why some people might oppose the war and why some people don't like our current president. There is just as much that was left out of the movie that could have been used to further show the faulty thinking and flat out lies of the administration.
One thing that may not have been meant to be as topical as it is now is the public beheadings on Saudi Arabia. As someone opposed to the death penalty, I am uniquely sickened by beheadings, and see them as an example of why when looking for problems in society we must always look from "top" down. The movie focuses a lot of Saudi Arabia, as well it and every view of 9/11 and our problems in the Middle East should.
There is some funny stuff in the movie, it is well worth seeing; I'm not into spoiling scenes for people, but a scene early on with Wolfowitz and an assistant is particularly funny/gross. The movie suceeds in taking you through a full range of emotions, outrage, dissappointment, sorrow, horror, all the while leading you to perhaps seeing a better definition of patriotism.
I think a lot of work can be done picking up on facts and ideas presented in the movie. The meeting with Prince Bandar with in days of 9/11, beheadings in oppressive regimes that we support, the lack of sufficient troops or the very nature of out commitment in attacking Afganistan, the relationship between oil companies and our proped up Afgani regime, and the profitablility of war.
Everyone should see this movie, and really the movie should be PG-13. The R-rating is not reasonable at all, and shows the disgusting political dark side to even hollywood stupid of institutions. The movie rips the media-- not enough, -- for cheerleading, and it ends on a rather profound not about the nature of fear and war and poverty and stratified society.
I really think fundamentalist Christians should see this film. Unfortunately the've been so badly duped by the ruling class elite that most will likely miss out on a chance to see their president in a truer light.
Democrats should also take a long hard look at at their senators, and their failure to show any kind of unity with the Congressional Black Caucus as the senate capitulated to the republican stealing of the presidency.
One thing that may not have been meant to be as topical as it is now is the public beheadings on Saudi Arabia. As someone opposed to the death penalty, I am uniquely sickened by beheadings, and see them as an example of why when looking for problems in society we must always look from "top" down. The movie focuses a lot of Saudi Arabia, as well it and every view of 9/11 and our problems in the Middle East should.
There is some funny stuff in the movie, it is well worth seeing; I'm not into spoiling scenes for people, but a scene early on with Wolfowitz and an assistant is particularly funny/gross. The movie suceeds in taking you through a full range of emotions, outrage, dissappointment, sorrow, horror, all the while leading you to perhaps seeing a better definition of patriotism.
I think a lot of work can be done picking up on facts and ideas presented in the movie. The meeting with Prince Bandar with in days of 9/11, beheadings in oppressive regimes that we support, the lack of sufficient troops or the very nature of out commitment in attacking Afganistan, the relationship between oil companies and our proped up Afgani regime, and the profitablility of war.
Everyone should see this movie, and really the movie should be PG-13. The R-rating is not reasonable at all, and shows the disgusting political dark side to even hollywood stupid of institutions. The movie rips the media-- not enough, -- for cheerleading, and it ends on a rather profound not about the nature of fear and war and poverty and stratified society.
I really think fundamentalist Christians should see this film. Unfortunately the've been so badly duped by the ruling class elite that most will likely miss out on a chance to see their president in a truer light.
Democrats should also take a long hard look at at their senators, and their failure to show any kind of unity with the Congressional Black Caucus as the senate capitulated to the republican stealing of the presidency.
Over The Rainbow, no 1 Movie Tune; but no Mention of the Blacklisted Lyricist
06.23.04 (7:49 pm) [edit]
Over the Rainbow was voted the number one movie tune according to this link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=8&u=/ap/20040623/ap_ on_en_mu/film_best_songs_ 7" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=8&u=/ap/20040623/ap_ on_en_mu/film_best_songs_ 7" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
Over the Rainbow is one of my favorites, though to be honest, I need to work harder to "get" the changes. If I don't play it for a while-- especially comping it-- I do butcher it while I'm remembering the logic behind the changes. But, like a small handful of tunes it can work in a wide range of styles and contexts. I arranged a version of it using soft synths and various sounds attempting to evoke the lonliest feeling of looking back on the Earth from the moon, very sparse with a background noise like radio interference stitched in.
But in the article there was no mention of the composer or lyricist. The composer was Harold Arlen, a very successful composer whose songs fill up the jazz and vocalist "standard" repertoire.
The lyricist is E.Y. "Yip" Harburg, who was blacklisted during the MacCarthy Era. That might be why the article had no mention of him. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! (see the link on the side bar) interviewed his son and he discussed the impact the blacklist had on his father's career, and his father's politics. Back then any kind of class activism could lead to blacklisting, not just in hollywood but in many trades.
The sad thing is that people that lived through that time, with the fear of being exposed hanging over their heads, say that today is worse. They say the culture against free speech and political activism is far more pervasive that it was even then. It seems we've not made the gains we'd like to think we have.
It reminds me of all the times I've heard "baby boomers" talk about how they brought about civil rights and ended the war, well I don't see to many remenants of those successes, and I see a whole of things we've lost interms of rights and social progress. Perhaps the land they think they've created is "Somewhere over the Rainbow".
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=8&u=/ap/20040623/ap_ on_en_mu/film_best_songs_ 7" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=8&u=/ap/20040623/ap_ on_en_mu/film_best_songs_ 7" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
Over the Rainbow is one of my favorites, though to be honest, I need to work harder to "get" the changes. If I don't play it for a while-- especially comping it-- I do butcher it while I'm remembering the logic behind the changes. But, like a small handful of tunes it can work in a wide range of styles and contexts. I arranged a version of it using soft synths and various sounds attempting to evoke the lonliest feeling of looking back on the Earth from the moon, very sparse with a background noise like radio interference stitched in.
But in the article there was no mention of the composer or lyricist. The composer was Harold Arlen, a very successful composer whose songs fill up the jazz and vocalist "standard" repertoire.
The lyricist is E.Y. "Yip" Harburg, who was blacklisted during the MacCarthy Era. That might be why the article had no mention of him. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! (see the link on the side bar) interviewed his son and he discussed the impact the blacklist had on his father's career, and his father's politics. Back then any kind of class activism could lead to blacklisting, not just in hollywood but in many trades.
The sad thing is that people that lived through that time, with the fear of being exposed hanging over their heads, say that today is worse. They say the culture against free speech and political activism is far more pervasive that it was even then. It seems we've not made the gains we'd like to think we have.
It reminds me of all the times I've heard "baby boomers" talk about how they brought about civil rights and ended the war, well I don't see to many remenants of those successes, and I see a whole of things we've lost interms of rights and social progress. Perhaps the land they think they've created is "Somewhere over the Rainbow".
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.... Ha
06.23.04 (6:44 pm) [edit]
Ha Ha Ha, AOL Engineer charged for spam
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040623/us_nm/tech_aol_ spam_dc_6" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040623/us_nm/tech_aol_ spam_dc_6" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
Ha
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040623/us_nm/tech_aol_ spam_dc_6" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040623/us_nm/tech_aol_ spam_dc_6" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
Ha
Fundamentalism, and Their War on Reason and Peace
06.22.04 (11:37 am) [edit]
Our world is being destroyed by fundamentalists: religions fundamentalists and political fundamentalists. Fundamentalists believe they are right, don't need to learn or understand anything new to change they way they think, and if you don't agree with them you're evil and wrong. They reduce complex issues to utter stupidity, have one-line answers based not on any facts by generated by their preconceptions. They will not stop till the world is barren, and we must find a way to stop them.
What do Osama Bin Laden, George Bush, and Ann Coulter have in common? They are each fundamentalists, to be opposed to them is to be evil and traitorous. None can tolerate cultural or intelectual diversity, but as we know it is this kind of diversity that transforms our world view form intolerant to tolerant, from misunderstanding to understanding, and leads to true compassion.
Osama's big bug up his ass is foreigners in Saudi Arabia. The royal family has always lived disgusting lives of excess very publicly, no Al Qaida acted to overthrow them. They always worked the the Bush family often countering OPEC in service to their own family interest and no Al Qaida raised any organized fist to overthrow them. They've always forced poverty and oppression on the rest of Saudi society with hardly a peep. That which unified them was US troops in their country. Now, one might argue that they only saw US imperialism when that happened, but that would be naive. They were fine with US help and weapons in Afganistan where he got is money from us and his training to fight "Godless communism". When seen in this light, it makes sense that all up and down the Saudi power structure is support for Al Qaida, because they themselves see US troops as infringing on their power and "sovereignty". So, they are primarily racist and religious and cultural fundamentalists.
George Bush says "They hates because of our freedom", and he has painted this war as a war against our way of life. If this is the way to look at it then the only real way to win the war is genocide. Anyone that considers that our own policy that might have lead to these wars is "UnAmerican", "Hate America", and are treasonous in the fundamentalist view of Bush's supporters. The fundamentalism of the Bush crowd goes far beyond the wars, as they deny evolution-- which the Roman Catholic church embraces-- environmentaly crisis and the very need to conserve resources. To disagree is to be an environmental wacko, and an anti-Christian intelectual elitists.
Ann Coulter has really embraced this fundamentalism, and turned it into a hate-filled writting and speaking style. Rush, uses this same fundamentalist world view but he attempts to give it a twisted kind of logic. All these right wing nut pundits use this fundamentalism to shut out thought and discussion, mutual understanding and any genuine search for facts or truth.
This fundamentalism is frist and foremost about goals and not ideas. That is a fundation of fascism: "Our ideology, no ideology". They use ideology to serve a purpose then abandon it for a new on that serve a goal. The ends not only justify the means the end without regard for means. A conclusion is what you or I arrive at after a thought process and weighing the facts and principles, but for the fundamentalist a conclusion is drawn up from a set of preconceptions that are in service to a goal.
We're at a point where the lack of reasoning on the part of the right is useless to even look at. It is circular, void of any basis in the real world, and just plain stupid. We must instead look at their goals. Endless war, no science, no civil rights, no consumer protection, no cross-cultural understanding, no truth, no accoutability.
What do Osama Bin Laden, George Bush, and Ann Coulter have in common? They are each fundamentalists, to be opposed to them is to be evil and traitorous. None can tolerate cultural or intelectual diversity, but as we know it is this kind of diversity that transforms our world view form intolerant to tolerant, from misunderstanding to understanding, and leads to true compassion.
Osama's big bug up his ass is foreigners in Saudi Arabia. The royal family has always lived disgusting lives of excess very publicly, no Al Qaida acted to overthrow them. They always worked the the Bush family often countering OPEC in service to their own family interest and no Al Qaida raised any organized fist to overthrow them. They've always forced poverty and oppression on the rest of Saudi society with hardly a peep. That which unified them was US troops in their country. Now, one might argue that they only saw US imperialism when that happened, but that would be naive. They were fine with US help and weapons in Afganistan where he got is money from us and his training to fight "Godless communism". When seen in this light, it makes sense that all up and down the Saudi power structure is support for Al Qaida, because they themselves see US troops as infringing on their power and "sovereignty". So, they are primarily racist and religious and cultural fundamentalists.
George Bush says "They hates because of our freedom", and he has painted this war as a war against our way of life. If this is the way to look at it then the only real way to win the war is genocide. Anyone that considers that our own policy that might have lead to these wars is "UnAmerican", "Hate America", and are treasonous in the fundamentalist view of Bush's supporters. The fundamentalism of the Bush crowd goes far beyond the wars, as they deny evolution-- which the Roman Catholic church embraces-- environmentaly crisis and the very need to conserve resources. To disagree is to be an environmental wacko, and an anti-Christian intelectual elitists.
Ann Coulter has really embraced this fundamentalism, and turned it into a hate-filled writting and speaking style. Rush, uses this same fundamentalist world view but he attempts to give it a twisted kind of logic. All these right wing nut pundits use this fundamentalism to shut out thought and discussion, mutual understanding and any genuine search for facts or truth.
This fundamentalism is frist and foremost about goals and not ideas. That is a fundation of fascism: "Our ideology, no ideology". They use ideology to serve a purpose then abandon it for a new on that serve a goal. The ends not only justify the means the end without regard for means. A conclusion is what you or I arrive at after a thought process and weighing the facts and principles, but for the fundamentalist a conclusion is drawn up from a set of preconceptions that are in service to a goal.
We're at a point where the lack of reasoning on the part of the right is useless to even look at. It is circular, void of any basis in the real world, and just plain stupid. We must instead look at their goals. Endless war, no science, no civil rights, no consumer protection, no cross-cultural understanding, no truth, no accoutability.
The Fall of Constantinople, and What We Should Learn from It
06.20.04 (5:57 pm) [edit]
Everyone "knows" about the Roman Empire and many believe it fell around 500 AD. What is often overlooked is that Byzantium, the "eastern Roman" empire reconquered basically all of the western empire and stood stronger than ever for quite a while. While it had a tumultuous taking of Constantinople around 900 AD, the empire re-established itself and then slowly declined: being squeezed out of history by the emergance of western Europe, Russia and the Ottoman Empire and every other competing group.
The wealth Byzantium had at it's height remains incomprehensible, the wealth of Western Europe still to this day can count the spoils stolen from the pillage from Constantinople around 900 AD, and civic treasures in European cities are often remnants of art stolen and transported piece by piece from Constantinople. The empire was so strong that after they recaptured their capital with virtually all it's wealth stolen it stood for almost 500 more years, slowly crumbling behind walls.
These walls I refer to are not just physical. They had built up walls of smugness and pride from centuries of being the most wealthy, most cultured, most educated, most worldly, most Christian people. They felt that they were the society and empire of God on Earth, their fall could only be followed by Christ's return. After all, Constantine himself built their capital; time and hard work made it the jewel of Christianity never equalled before nor to this day. This gave them an arrogance that never faded even as the the Turks killed off all resistance and found, along side this pride, abject poverty in a society that mustered all it's resources for it's millitary protection and it's final stand.
The United States stands alone as the world's last remaining superpower, in the minds of some at least. China is still emerging and not able to compete for global dominance yet, the European Union is still sorting out it's own affairs but is very much on the radar screen of the people attempting to guide the US's empire right now. Russia, while still formidible regionally, is in no position to to assume it's former role of rival super power. Nothing can stand alone against the US's power millitarily.
The life blood of that power is oil. The US has never invested sufficient resources into alternative energy sources, even though solar water heaters, solar powered vehicles, solar cells on roofs of homes and buildings, electric vehicles, reductions of industrial waste, and better civic planning and fuel efficiency standards would greatly reduce our dependance on oil. The oil could be then saved for the millitary if they still felt the need for such an expansive empire. Those who choose to recognize the work of The Project for a New American Century, and who recognize the well documented lust to “get Iraq” from day one if the administration of Prince George II, and who recognize the dirversion of funds from the Afgan conflict to Iraq, and who recognize all the lies we've been told for what they all are: can see that the Iraq war is all about oil. This has been sufficiently documented and only the stupidest of blind faith can obscure these facts.
But weapons and resources are not the only things needed to run an empire. And no empire stands forever while the rest of the world sits compliantly by. Byzantium had no allies willing to act on it's behalf in the west, a growing rival in the north that didn't benefit from sustaining it's primary inspiration for both religion and architecture, and Islamic neighbors that in spite of periods of peace would eventually bring it down. As it's empire shrunk it got weaker, it depended on trade and all sorts of external interaction because it didn't really produce anything. As it lost territory it lost production and power. At the very end as all Constantinople wanted was peace, there was no reason left to give it peace as it stood surrounded by the growing Ottaman Empire and the jealousy to have what was behind it's walls was too great. Prior to the final assualt on the city walls the chance to evacuate without repercussion was offered-- and refused by the proud Byzantines-- by the man who only wanted to take the city. He had no issue with the people of the city, he-- like the world-- had just outgrown any use for Constantinople.
Similarly, Europe will soon not need the US like it did through the cold war. The citizens of every client state Muslim nation are growing increasingly tired of our dominance and support of oppressive regimes-- like Saudi Arabia-- and our support of Isreal as they commit a torturously slow genocide agaist the indigenous Palestinians. As China and Europe grow in global influence and as our supply of oil and our ability to even produce anything of value dwindles, the remaining “third world” will be less accomadating to the US as they can seek trade and political support from at least two other players. An increasingly independent world will not stand by an unchangingly imperialistic US.
We already are feeling the effects of the way the world is changing with respect to our empire. We are about to reinstitute the draft to secure more oil, while the Islamic population sees it as oppression and exploitation and looks for more creative ways of testing the build of our armour. Soon our only export may be soldiers if we can not ween ourselves off our middle-eastern addictions.
What if the imperialists that brought us the Project for the New American Century succeed and we do: isolate China by securing the Korean peninsula, isolate the European Union from the middle east's and south west Asia's oil, while continuing to dominate North and South America? Will we be able to sustain ourselves as the world's population grows and our's shrinks? Will we continue to ignore or waste away our own resources, continue hack off all social and infastructural spending as: our schools worsen, our roads worsen, and our health worsens? Will we be the empty starving shell standing ready for the last fight as they cross the ocean and push over the last remnant of our empire? Will we be lead by fools that believe God is standing silently by the latest global empire and will either protect it or come and set the world right if it falls? Will we adapt to the changing world and find a good and peaceful place in it, or will we topple like the arrogant Byzantines into a completely forgotten and anachronistic history?
When Constantinople fell, it's scholars and citizens spread across Europe. Books and ideas and skills spread west-- not east, due to religious differences. The end of the dark ages and the Renaissance's beginning are tied to this. The world it seems is better for the fall of Constantinople-- in spite how mush I'm intrigued by seeing what kind of world we'd have if it had stood, something i can say of no other empire. The idea that there is some land out west of the Atlantic came from books that escaped Constantinople and lead to roughly fifty years later Columbus' journey to what they called “New Spain”. There is no way they could have looked around and saw the future for this new land nor to consider that it might be better named “New Byzantium”.
In a sense we are not any kind of new Byzantium. We have no such knowledge to share with the world. Innovative ways of cooking accounting books? Off shore tax schemes? Ways of shifting tax burdens down? Weapons? We don't really have much besides money and power that the world would actually want. Oh, Britanny, we have britanny and maybe they want her.
The wealth Byzantium had at it's height remains incomprehensible, the wealth of Western Europe still to this day can count the spoils stolen from the pillage from Constantinople around 900 AD, and civic treasures in European cities are often remnants of art stolen and transported piece by piece from Constantinople. The empire was so strong that after they recaptured their capital with virtually all it's wealth stolen it stood for almost 500 more years, slowly crumbling behind walls.
These walls I refer to are not just physical. They had built up walls of smugness and pride from centuries of being the most wealthy, most cultured, most educated, most worldly, most Christian people. They felt that they were the society and empire of God on Earth, their fall could only be followed by Christ's return. After all, Constantine himself built their capital; time and hard work made it the jewel of Christianity never equalled before nor to this day. This gave them an arrogance that never faded even as the the Turks killed off all resistance and found, along side this pride, abject poverty in a society that mustered all it's resources for it's millitary protection and it's final stand.
The United States stands alone as the world's last remaining superpower, in the minds of some at least. China is still emerging and not able to compete for global dominance yet, the European Union is still sorting out it's own affairs but is very much on the radar screen of the people attempting to guide the US's empire right now. Russia, while still formidible regionally, is in no position to to assume it's former role of rival super power. Nothing can stand alone against the US's power millitarily.
The life blood of that power is oil. The US has never invested sufficient resources into alternative energy sources, even though solar water heaters, solar powered vehicles, solar cells on roofs of homes and buildings, electric vehicles, reductions of industrial waste, and better civic planning and fuel efficiency standards would greatly reduce our dependance on oil. The oil could be then saved for the millitary if they still felt the need for such an expansive empire. Those who choose to recognize the work of The Project for a New American Century, and who recognize the well documented lust to “get Iraq” from day one if the administration of Prince George II, and who recognize the dirversion of funds from the Afgan conflict to Iraq, and who recognize all the lies we've been told for what they all are: can see that the Iraq war is all about oil. This has been sufficiently documented and only the stupidest of blind faith can obscure these facts.
But weapons and resources are not the only things needed to run an empire. And no empire stands forever while the rest of the world sits compliantly by. Byzantium had no allies willing to act on it's behalf in the west, a growing rival in the north that didn't benefit from sustaining it's primary inspiration for both religion and architecture, and Islamic neighbors that in spite of periods of peace would eventually bring it down. As it's empire shrunk it got weaker, it depended on trade and all sorts of external interaction because it didn't really produce anything. As it lost territory it lost production and power. At the very end as all Constantinople wanted was peace, there was no reason left to give it peace as it stood surrounded by the growing Ottaman Empire and the jealousy to have what was behind it's walls was too great. Prior to the final assualt on the city walls the chance to evacuate without repercussion was offered-- and refused by the proud Byzantines-- by the man who only wanted to take the city. He had no issue with the people of the city, he-- like the world-- had just outgrown any use for Constantinople.
Similarly, Europe will soon not need the US like it did through the cold war. The citizens of every client state Muslim nation are growing increasingly tired of our dominance and support of oppressive regimes-- like Saudi Arabia-- and our support of Isreal as they commit a torturously slow genocide agaist the indigenous Palestinians. As China and Europe grow in global influence and as our supply of oil and our ability to even produce anything of value dwindles, the remaining “third world” will be less accomadating to the US as they can seek trade and political support from at least two other players. An increasingly independent world will not stand by an unchangingly imperialistic US.
We already are feeling the effects of the way the world is changing with respect to our empire. We are about to reinstitute the draft to secure more oil, while the Islamic population sees it as oppression and exploitation and looks for more creative ways of testing the build of our armour. Soon our only export may be soldiers if we can not ween ourselves off our middle-eastern addictions.
What if the imperialists that brought us the Project for the New American Century succeed and we do: isolate China by securing the Korean peninsula, isolate the European Union from the middle east's and south west Asia's oil, while continuing to dominate North and South America? Will we be able to sustain ourselves as the world's population grows and our's shrinks? Will we continue to ignore or waste away our own resources, continue hack off all social and infastructural spending as: our schools worsen, our roads worsen, and our health worsens? Will we be the empty starving shell standing ready for the last fight as they cross the ocean and push over the last remnant of our empire? Will we be lead by fools that believe God is standing silently by the latest global empire and will either protect it or come and set the world right if it falls? Will we adapt to the changing world and find a good and peaceful place in it, or will we topple like the arrogant Byzantines into a completely forgotten and anachronistic history?
When Constantinople fell, it's scholars and citizens spread across Europe. Books and ideas and skills spread west-- not east, due to religious differences. The end of the dark ages and the Renaissance's beginning are tied to this. The world it seems is better for the fall of Constantinople-- in spite how mush I'm intrigued by seeing what kind of world we'd have if it had stood, something i can say of no other empire. The idea that there is some land out west of the Atlantic came from books that escaped Constantinople and lead to roughly fifty years later Columbus' journey to what they called “New Spain”. There is no way they could have looked around and saw the future for this new land nor to consider that it might be better named “New Byzantium”.
In a sense we are not any kind of new Byzantium. We have no such knowledge to share with the world. Innovative ways of cooking accounting books? Off shore tax schemes? Ways of shifting tax burdens down? Weapons? We don't really have much besides money and power that the world would actually want. Oh, Britanny, we have britanny and maybe they want her.
This Blog was completed and re-published on Sunday, so see above
06.19.04 (5:22 pm) [edit]
The text of this was finished and published above.
The "Need" for a Unaminous Report from the 9/11 Commission
06.18.04 (7:40 am) [edit]
The TV pundits are at it again, telling us how important they think (or, I guess their bosses really) the 9/11 commission needs to issue a unanimous report, instead of to differing reports from say a majority and minority opinion. One would have to wonder why. Instead if issueing reports based on the commissioners findings and allowing the people to see in final written form the various points of view, the media wants one single pronouncment. Their desire for no real debate has gone too far, and we should recogize it for what it is: a failure to even want to keep the public informed.
In an imperial or fascist one party state, there is no room for debate or differences. This kind of mind set is exactly what the power brokers want, and their jockeying for a single unanimous 9/11 report is embelatic of that kind of ant-democratic tendency. Especially in a free media you'd expect them to want multiple reports, so they can cover the and discuss the differences and the similarities.
I guess they, like the president who opposed the commission's very formation, don't really want to be discussing this at all. There is ample evidence of that. We had media celebrations of an interupted Knicks-Rockets basketball Finals game from ten years ago-- otherwise known as O.J.'s White Bronco Adventure. The still can not get enough OJ. We get endless fauning over Reagan in a casket, we get meaningless debate over the timing of Bill Clinton's book. Didn't every paper have a headline featuring his lame line "because I could" as to why he took advantage of a college age kid in -- literally in-- the office. This wasn't really news when it happened and it ain't really front page news now.
So, rather than an honest couple of reports showing differences of opinion so people could discuss and make up their own minds, the media wants one report so they can put to rest any other ideas or opinions. They want a watered down agreement that ignores the points of contention. This agreement between democrats and republicans is bad for the country and for the people and for the world. They've run the country and much of the world in agreement, and the things that continue to get worse most be looked in the light of such agreement.
We need debate, differences and discussion before we can ever hope to make informed change for the better. I for one am tired of agreement from the oligarchy.
In an imperial or fascist one party state, there is no room for debate or differences. This kind of mind set is exactly what the power brokers want, and their jockeying for a single unanimous 9/11 report is embelatic of that kind of ant-democratic tendency. Especially in a free media you'd expect them to want multiple reports, so they can cover the and discuss the differences and the similarities.
I guess they, like the president who opposed the commission's very formation, don't really want to be discussing this at all. There is ample evidence of that. We had media celebrations of an interupted Knicks-Rockets basketball Finals game from ten years ago-- otherwise known as O.J.'s White Bronco Adventure. The still can not get enough OJ. We get endless fauning over Reagan in a casket, we get meaningless debate over the timing of Bill Clinton's book. Didn't every paper have a headline featuring his lame line "because I could" as to why he took advantage of a college age kid in -- literally in-- the office. This wasn't really news when it happened and it ain't really front page news now.
So, rather than an honest couple of reports showing differences of opinion so people could discuss and make up their own minds, the media wants one report so they can put to rest any other ideas or opinions. They want a watered down agreement that ignores the points of contention. This agreement between democrats and republicans is bad for the country and for the people and for the world. They've run the country and much of the world in agreement, and the things that continue to get worse most be looked in the light of such agreement.
We need debate, differences and discussion before we can ever hope to make informed change for the better. I for one am tired of agreement from the oligarchy.
Time to Fight Back, People: Defend "Fahrenheit 9/11" ; also, read "Perfectly Legal
06.16.04 (8:34 pm) [edit]
I'm Pissed, and I'm adopting Ann Cult-er speak for this blog.
All Bush Supporters Hate Free Speech and are anti American! Take a look at this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040615/en_nm/film_fahr enheit_theaters_dc_2" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040615/en_nm/film_fahr enheit_theaters_dc_2" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
These anti-American Fascists are trying to supress free speech and the free analysis of information because they want us to blindly submit to their totalitarian authority.
Rather than choosing to go to the movie or not to go isn't good enough for these thought police. They don't want you to see this movie because they don't want you to draw your own conclusions. They'd rather take the fact that a whole bunch-a-Bin-Ladens where flown out of this country to protect THEM after september 11-- instead of at least making them wait till everyone else can fly-- and trot out some administration spokes person saying "actually the bin laden people cooperated with us". That should at best be "one guy for and one guy against", but they want you to only believe the adminstration guy and not even hear the other side. It was this kind of toltalitarianism that we opposed during the cold war.
These people-- that hate everything that America stands for-- want to censor your movies, your newpapers and your radios and tvs so that every voice of reason is drowned out by a neo-con Fascist before they send their secret police to arrest you in the middle of the night. Then they want to pretend it isn't so bad, like every other sheep wrapped in the smothering blanket of totalitarianism. And when you doubt their lies, they want to pretend your dupped by a "liberal" media; when really the media is so conflicted, by the desires of their advertisers, their alligance to empire and their need to pay at least lip service to journalistic standards, that all they ever do is confuse issues for everyone.
Don't let it happen people. Check out the link in the link,and call and support the movie in your local theater. Write letters to the company (PR firm in the article) and to your local paper.
Don't let them twist the debate into whether or not Moore is 100% accurate, especially in the face of all these administration lies. The debate is only about freedom of speech and freedom of association.
----
Check out David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal
All Bush Supporters Hate Free Speech and are anti American! Take a look at this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040615/en_nm/film_fahr enheit_theaters_dc_2" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040615/en_nm/film_fahr enheit_theaters_dc_2" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
These anti-American Fascists are trying to supress free speech and the free analysis of information because they want us to blindly submit to their totalitarian authority.
Rather than choosing to go to the movie or not to go isn't good enough for these thought police. They don't want you to see this movie because they don't want you to draw your own conclusions. They'd rather take the fact that a whole bunch-a-Bin-Ladens where flown out of this country to protect THEM after september 11-- instead of at least making them wait till everyone else can fly-- and trot out some administration spokes person saying "actually the bin laden people cooperated with us". That should at best be "one guy for and one guy against", but they want you to only believe the adminstration guy and not even hear the other side. It was this kind of toltalitarianism that we opposed during the cold war.
These people-- that hate everything that America stands for-- want to censor your movies, your newpapers and your radios and tvs so that every voice of reason is drowned out by a neo-con Fascist before they send their secret police to arrest you in the middle of the night. Then they want to pretend it isn't so bad, like every other sheep wrapped in the smothering blanket of totalitarianism. And when you doubt their lies, they want to pretend your dupped by a "liberal" media; when really the media is so conflicted, by the desires of their advertisers, their alligance to empire and their need to pay at least lip service to journalistic standards, that all they ever do is confuse issues for everyone.
Don't let it happen people. Check out the link in the link,and call and support the movie in your local theater. Write letters to the company (PR firm in the article) and to your local paper.
Don't let them twist the debate into whether or not Moore is 100% accurate, especially in the face of all these administration lies. The debate is only about freedom of speech and freedom of association.
----
Check out David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal
This may become our favorite web site ....
06.13.04 (12:38 am) [edit]
Here follow this link:
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti mvotingforhimanyway.com/" title="http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti mvotingforhimanyway.com/" target="_blank"http://www.johnkerryisadouche...
A very ambitious (well maybe not but ...) and obviously heartfelt effort by a Kerry supporter.
I like the web site even though I wish Kerry had: voted against the Patriot Act, voted against Iraq, voted more like Dennis Kucinich and addressed the issues that Dennis Kucinich addresses. The democrats may as well be running Joe Leiberman.
Also, a couple of blogs back I posted a link, but either everyone is way more hip to the news than I am OR people "slept" on it. Here is a really important article to read:
HTTP://WWW.FROMTHEWILDERNESS.COM/FREE/WW3/060804_COUP_ DETAT.HTML
If the link don't work, then go to www.fromthewilderness.com and find te Coup D'Etat article.
This article puts into context the Valerie Plame Scandal, Tenet's resignation, and the business of Oil-- namely the peak in Arab Oil production which I can explain the significance of "peaks" in oil extraction if anyone wants me to-- in a really good read. If all yous guys are already hip to this info, then you have my eternal thumbs up.
While I've got the podium:
HTTP://WWW.FROMTHEWILDERNESS.COM/FREE/WW3/040504_MCKIN NEY_ANNOUNCEMENT.HTML
and
HTTP://WWW.CYNTHIAFORCONGRESS.COM/
Before I heard of Kucinich this was my favorite congress member. She got screwed by the machine, but like a true patriot she has stayed active and is gearing up for another run. If you're not hip to Cynthia McKinney, then just read up and know that she in Georgia has fought the good fight for all of us for along time. I've been hoping she becomes the first woman president, first african-american president and so on.
http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti mvotingforhimanyway.com/" title="http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbuti mvotingforhimanyway.com/" target="_blank"http://www.johnkerryisadouche...
A very ambitious (well maybe not but ...) and obviously heartfelt effort by a Kerry supporter.
I like the web site even though I wish Kerry had: voted against the Patriot Act, voted against Iraq, voted more like Dennis Kucinich and addressed the issues that Dennis Kucinich addresses. The democrats may as well be running Joe Leiberman.
Also, a couple of blogs back I posted a link, but either everyone is way more hip to the news than I am OR people "slept" on it. Here is a really important article to read:
HTTP://WWW.FROMTHEWILDERNESS.COM/FREE/WW3/060804_COUP_ DETAT.HTML
If the link don't work, then go to www.fromthewilderness.com and find te Coup D'Etat article.
This article puts into context the Valerie Plame Scandal, Tenet's resignation, and the business of Oil-- namely the peak in Arab Oil production which I can explain the significance of "peaks" in oil extraction if anyone wants me to-- in a really good read. If all yous guys are already hip to this info, then you have my eternal thumbs up.
While I've got the podium:
HTTP://WWW.FROMTHEWILDERNESS.COM/FREE/WW3/040504_MCKIN NEY_ANNOUNCEMENT.HTML
and
HTTP://WWW.CYNTHIAFORCONGRESS.COM/
Before I heard of Kucinich this was my favorite congress member. She got screwed by the machine, but like a true patriot she has stayed active and is gearing up for another run. If you're not hip to Cynthia McKinney, then just read up and know that she in Georgia has fought the good fight for all of us for along time. I've been hoping she becomes the first woman president, first african-american president and so on.
Firefox Browser displays just fine
06.12.04 (4:06 pm) [edit]
Hey gang, remember when I was all neurotic about the way my blog displayed and to all of yous guys (northeast speak) it displayed fine? Well, I'm testing out Firefox Mozilla browser and it seems to be working fine. My columns are all displayed right anyway.
Aqua Teen Hunger Force
06.12.04 (1:18 pm) [edit]
There is a character on a show that reminds me of Rush Limbaugh and as I was typing repsonse to comments in my Rush blog below I refered to it. Here is the link:
http://adultswim.toonzone.net/aqua.html" title="http://adultswim.toonzone.net/aqua.html" target="_blank"http://adultswim.toonzone.net...
The character I'm talking about is one of the moonenites, the leader. They're enemies of the aquateens and are on occassionally.
Anyway it is not political at all, and you think watching a Milk Shake torture a meat patty while a box of french fries tries to maintain order sounds funny, well sometimes it is. The first season was hillarious.
http://adultswim.toonzone.net/aqua.html" title="http://adultswim.toonzone.net/aqua.html" target="_blank"http://adultswim.toonzone.net...
The character I'm talking about is one of the moonenites, the leader. They're enemies of the aquateens and are on occassionally.
Anyway it is not political at all, and you think watching a Milk Shake torture a meat patty while a box of french fries tries to maintain order sounds funny, well sometimes it is. The first season was hillarious.
What is it with this "Iraq 9/11" connection fiction?
06.11.04 (7:40 pm) [edit]
I was talking to someone today and he is refering to some book that "proves" that Iraq was connected to 9/11. I'm left wondering: is it just outright lies built on half truths, complete fiction, or are we going to have really define "connection" to get a consensus between left and right on this one. I believe most fair minded people that have tried to listen to every possible source and weigh the info carefully has concluded the "connection" is bogus. My fear is that people that are mislead by right wing propaganda sources (lets be fair that is what Fox, Rush & co. are) might be latching on to some "fact" that is being twisted out of proportion.
Clearly there is something I need to "look in to" so can discuss what this guys is specifically talking about-- and we didn't get into specifics. He refered to a meeting between a leader of the Fedayeen Sadaam and some Al Qaida guys that also happened to met with Terry Nichols in Kuala Lumpur. I don't know or remember specifically what is up with that story-- it is really tough to keep track of the refutation of all these lies we've been told about this war so forgive me if I can't recall this one.
I remember the mistaken identity of a Sadaam Aide meeting with an Al Qaida "capo", but the aide in question was known to be in Baghdad and that intel was bogus (don't stop Cheney from still citing it though). I also know that Iraq had an Al Qaida prisoner they tried to hand over to us and we refused and then used the fact that they had an Al Qaida prisoner as proof of their inter-connection.
Anyway, if it is still these same "bogus" kinds of connections, isn't just as fair to say that Kevin Bacon was involved (not to focus attention on him but there is that game where any actor can be connected to Kevin Bacon in seven steps or something like that). It would be more fair to say the Saudi government was involved, right?
Clearly there is something I need to "look in to" so can discuss what this guys is specifically talking about-- and we didn't get into specifics. He refered to a meeting between a leader of the Fedayeen Sadaam and some Al Qaida guys that also happened to met with Terry Nichols in Kuala Lumpur. I don't know or remember specifically what is up with that story-- it is really tough to keep track of the refutation of all these lies we've been told about this war so forgive me if I can't recall this one.
I remember the mistaken identity of a Sadaam Aide meeting with an Al Qaida "capo", but the aide in question was known to be in Baghdad and that intel was bogus (don't stop Cheney from still citing it though). I also know that Iraq had an Al Qaida prisoner they tried to hand over to us and we refused and then used the fact that they had an Al Qaida prisoner as proof of their inter-connection.
Anyway, if it is still these same "bogus" kinds of connections, isn't just as fair to say that Kevin Bacon was involved (not to focus attention on him but there is that game where any actor can be connected to Kevin Bacon in seven steps or something like that). It would be more fair to say the Saudi government was involved, right?
Rush divorce, not to gloat but I hate that fat bastard
06.11.04 (7:19 pm) [edit]
Marta will take the money and run.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=8&u=/ap/20040611/ap_ on_en_ot/people_limbaugh_ divorce" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=8&u=/ap/20040611/ap_ on_en_ot/people_limbaugh_ divorce" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
Timing is everything and I wonder if he's worth more now than say after his court cases and such and thus she'd be better off finanically if she dumps the drugged up pig now than later.
I mean she could stand by her man, that is the family values conservative thing to do, right? I guess ruthless capitalism takes precedance over "morals".
Rush called Jerry Garcia a "dead druggie", which although true only differed from himself in the "dead" part, and ripped Clinton and his wife every way possible. So, when that pig shows a track record of common decency I'll return same to him.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=8&u=/ap/20040611/ap_ on_en_ot/people_limbaugh_ divorce" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 14&e=8&u=/ap/20040611/ap_ on_en_ot/people_limbaugh_ divorce" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...
Timing is everything and I wonder if he's worth more now than say after his court cases and such and thus she'd be better off finanically if she dumps the drugged up pig now than later.
I mean she could stand by her man, that is the family values conservative thing to do, right? I guess ruthless capitalism takes precedance over "morals".
Rush called Jerry Garcia a "dead druggie", which although true only differed from himself in the "dead" part, and ripped Clinton and his wife every way possible. So, when that pig shows a track record of common decency I'll return same to him.
New economic stats, but little explaination
06.10.04 (5:45 pm) [edit]
I usually listen to a radio program on WBAI on Thursdays hosted by Doug Henwood where he discusses economics both in the news and through interviews. I wish I had heard it, but maybe if I catch it next week he'll discuss the information in this link below:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040610/bs_nm/economy_f ed_debt_dc_2" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040610/bs_nm/economy_f ed_debt_dc_2" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
My questions are: 1) as I thought houseing prices would go up, but as interest rates rise will this apparent household wealth drop if the house prices drop; and 2) this increased debt is that also a reflection of the historically low interest rates and will the debt continue to grow or will it stop? I have to figure the debt is not a good thing, and with the bankruptcies at such high levels can this level of houshold debt be any less than really really bad?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040610/bs_nm/economy_f ed_debt_dc_2" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm /20040610/bs_nm/economy_f ed_debt_dc_2" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
My questions are: 1) as I thought houseing prices would go up, but as interest rates rise will this apparent household wealth drop if the house prices drop; and 2) this increased debt is that also a reflection of the historically low interest rates and will the debt continue to grow or will it stop? I have to figure the debt is not a good thing, and with the bankruptcies at such high levels can this level of houshold debt be any less than really really bad?
Good God is it hot here today. But here are some really IMPORTANT links to read up on!
06.09.04 (8:39 pm) [edit]
I'm not typing no kind of blog today. Here are the links, and you pretty much know what I'd say anyway.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5172457/" title="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5172457/" target="_blank"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5...
We should invest in solar, I might put solar panals up on my flat-- basically, it is "mansard style"-- roofed house. BP-- the people that tortured and killed Ken Sarawea in Nigeira-- does it in my area apparently. I've got some brochure from them.
Oh, and "oil ministry spokesman???" they got that puppet up on stage fast didn't they. Like the Daily Show said--- Oh and my guitars and I (separately) got sometime on the daily show last night, I was the guy in the beige shirt on the porch when they were out in front of the house-- "Dark evil Kabal was too obvious". How soon to complete privatization-- the real reason for getting Sadaam-- Like "Prince" Bandar's thugs ain't just as bad. Besides, wasn't Bandar like this elephant in kids books? Well not this guy, this guy gets to see our war plans-- welcome to the new world order.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5156236/" title="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5156236/" target="_blank"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5...
Bush sees wider role for NATO???? Flip-flop, bail me out people I'm in too deep-- that is what he's saying right.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060904J.shtml" title="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060904J.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.truthout.org/docs_...
Wow, just read it if you haven't yet. It says it all, I've got nothing to add.
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/ohwhy/Bush.html" title="http://www.angelfire.com/ky/ohwhy/Bush.html" target="_blank"http://www.angelfire.com/ky/o...
Just remember these Bush bastards go back a long way stealing our country. And I believe Prescott was involved in the fascist approach to Smeadly Butler to get him to "lead" the country for them in an overt millitary coup. That failed due to real patriotism, so they've had to take the long way but look Bush Grandchildren, Prescott might now say from his lofty pearch in Hell, we're almost there.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_ detat.html" title="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_ detat.html" target="_blank"http://www.fromthewilderness....
But, maybe for once I'm rooting for the CIA.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=181 8633&partnersite=espn" title="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=181 8633&partnersite=espn" target="_blank"http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb...
I don't know what to think of Bobby Knight, he is a bully and I hate bullies, but he coaches basketball to get it to be played the way it should be played. I wonder if he only drafts kids he knows he can beat up? Just one kid 25 years ago putting him on his ass, or a journalist that knows ju-jitsu might have changed basketball history.
I really wish I could like Bobby Knight, but he is such a jerk and a bully.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5172457/" title="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5172457/" target="_blank"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5...
We should invest in solar, I might put solar panals up on my flat-- basically, it is "mansard style"-- roofed house. BP-- the people that tortured and killed Ken Sarawea in Nigeira-- does it in my area apparently. I've got some brochure from them.
Oh, and "oil ministry spokesman???" they got that puppet up on stage fast didn't they. Like the Daily Show said--- Oh and my guitars and I (separately) got sometime on the daily show last night, I was the guy in the beige shirt on the porch when they were out in front of the house-- "Dark evil Kabal was too obvious". How soon to complete privatization-- the real reason for getting Sadaam-- Like "Prince" Bandar's thugs ain't just as bad. Besides, wasn't Bandar like this elephant in kids books? Well not this guy, this guy gets to see our war plans-- welcome to the new world order.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5156236/" title="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5156236/" target="_blank"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5...
Bush sees wider role for NATO???? Flip-flop, bail me out people I'm in too deep-- that is what he's saying right.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060904J.shtml" title="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060904J.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.truthout.org/docs_...
Wow, just read it if you haven't yet. It says it all, I've got nothing to add.
http://www.angelfire.com/ky/ohwhy/Bush.html" title="http://www.angelfire.com/ky/ohwhy/Bush.html" target="_blank"http://www.angelfire.com/ky/o...
Just remember these Bush bastards go back a long way stealing our country. And I believe Prescott was involved in the fascist approach to Smeadly Butler to get him to "lead" the country for them in an overt millitary coup. That failed due to real patriotism, so they've had to take the long way but look Bush Grandchildren, Prescott might now say from his lofty pearch in Hell, we're almost there.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_ detat.html" title="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060804_coup_ detat.html" target="_blank"http://www.fromthewilderness....
But, maybe for once I'm rooting for the CIA.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=181 8633&partnersite=espn" title="http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=181 8633&partnersite=espn" target="_blank"http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb...
I don't know what to think of Bobby Knight, he is a bully and I hate bullies, but he coaches basketball to get it to be played the way it should be played. I wonder if he only drafts kids he knows he can beat up? Just one kid 25 years ago putting him on his ass, or a journalist that knows ju-jitsu might have changed basketball history.
I really wish I could like Bobby Knight, but he is such a jerk and a bully.
Not to bash the Dead, but ....
06.08.04 (12:45 pm) [edit]
I didn't want to do this, but I guess I should have seen it coming. When ever the media of any kind gets into nostalgia or remembering history: what they say is designed to effect your views of today. There is nothing neutral about it. I'm not saying it is always calculated or devious, but the way they and their ruling class masters view history effects the way it is presented when they get into nostalgia mode. From Watergate, to David Koresh, to Nixon, to the Hollywood Blacklists, to CoInelPro, NAFTA, Tiamen Square, etc etc etc they always leave out as much as they include thus skewing the presentation of history. This is more an indictment of "news" programing than say the History channel type things, but they've got their own set of "filters" that prevent a true venting of historys noxious gases. That is why TV will never replace Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky.
Anyway, not to bash Reagan the person as much as to talk about the dark underside of his presidency, I'd like to mention some of the things that aren't being mentioned as "America Remembers Reagan". This is more an indictment of his staff-- 30 of whom served time for bribery or influence pedaling (some legacy, and we're only gettnig started)-- than him specifically, but lets face it he let himself be the charismatic toboggan the early edition of "neo-cons" road all over us.
Regan as president of the Actor's Union made some great speechs and took some great stands. Somewhere during the cold war he changed like some many in the public eye-- mostly journalists, though and studio heads who were flat out bought by CIA money. I can't speak for his tenure as Gov o' California but he was hated on Paul Kantner records (Blows Against the Empire, the first incarnation and album by Jefferson Starship) ten years before he was president.
First off, we have the potential for the October Surprise. Lunacy? Well, lets look at it through in the light of Iran-Contra scandal. Shortly after taking office we start sending arms to Iran how only recently held hostages of ours when they stormed the US embassy. Think back to how much Iran was hated by the average American. A day I'll never forget was coming home from a med-cruise in the Navy and when we first started getting TV signals from the states seeing the Iran Contra hearings. Our military was quite pissed to find that the bastards that were in charge of us were dealing with Iran. "What the fuck are we even doing this for" colored even the way we swept floors. You can not underestimate how badly that effected moral-- and may have been a major factor in my getting out after my four years.
You see, we were openly giving Sadaam Hussein arms, WMD's actually. He'd have been completely over run by Iran during their war if not for WMD's. That is a major part of the lingering hatred between Iraq and Iran, the fact that Iranian soldiers were regularly doused with chemicals. Of coarse, I didn't care about that: I hated Iran like most others and believe Iraq was on "Our" side.
But why arm both? What does that serve, it would be better and cheaper to arm neither. And, those arms sold to Iran could come back and hit us. What is the deal, and how could our own lives be worth less than whatever scheme they arranged to rationalize it.
I'm finishing this later, but Reagan was popular, but he sucked as president. That is what the new should say.
Part II Wednesday June 9.
I'm not going to rant on and on about some dead guy, like Christ said, "let the dead bury their own dead", but I want to finish this thing I started yesterday.
Anyway, my point is that the Iran Contra scandal makes precious little sense but when viewed as a possilble outcome of the "october surprise" it makes more sense. I don't think they'd have made such a deal out of thin air. I believe Bush I worked out the deal before they ever took office. A member of the highest elite ruling class doing something bad? Yes, when a Rockefellar was vice president, an assasination attempt was made on the President, and when the next top 1 % old money guy was vice president Reagan was also shot at. Some coincidence.
Reagan demonized welfare recipients with his "welfare queen" story which as it turned out was complete fiction. You know if the truth can't sell your point of view then maybe is something wrong with your point of view. He broke the Air traffic Controllers Union in one of the most reckless acts against public safety ever. He appointed Scalia and that guy would be as funny as "Dark Helmet" except with all his power now he is as scary as "Darth Vader". Wasn't the savings and loan scandal and the BCCI scandal during his watch. The S&L scandal is text book fascism in action, and BCCI was the merging of the Saudi Oil Fascist theocracy with OUR banking system. BCCI should have been one of the worst scandals in out history, instead most people don't even know what it was, or how it showed the Democrats and the Republicans working for the same masters.
To hell with Reagan the President, may Reagan the man find peace just as I hope to some day.
The freakin' end
Anyway, not to bash Reagan the person as much as to talk about the dark underside of his presidency, I'd like to mention some of the things that aren't being mentioned as "America Remembers Reagan". This is more an indictment of his staff-- 30 of whom served time for bribery or influence pedaling (some legacy, and we're only gettnig started)-- than him specifically, but lets face it he let himself be the charismatic toboggan the early edition of "neo-cons" road all over us.
Regan as president of the Actor's Union made some great speechs and took some great stands. Somewhere during the cold war he changed like some many in the public eye-- mostly journalists, though and studio heads who were flat out bought by CIA money. I can't speak for his tenure as Gov o' California but he was hated on Paul Kantner records (Blows Against the Empire, the first incarnation and album by Jefferson Starship) ten years before he was president.
First off, we have the potential for the October Surprise. Lunacy? Well, lets look at it through in the light of Iran-Contra scandal. Shortly after taking office we start sending arms to Iran how only recently held hostages of ours when they stormed the US embassy. Think back to how much Iran was hated by the average American. A day I'll never forget was coming home from a med-cruise in the Navy and when we first started getting TV signals from the states seeing the Iran Contra hearings. Our military was quite pissed to find that the bastards that were in charge of us were dealing with Iran. "What the fuck are we even doing this for" colored even the way we swept floors. You can not underestimate how badly that effected moral-- and may have been a major factor in my getting out after my four years.
You see, we were openly giving Sadaam Hussein arms, WMD's actually. He'd have been completely over run by Iran during their war if not for WMD's. That is a major part of the lingering hatred between Iraq and Iran, the fact that Iranian soldiers were regularly doused with chemicals. Of coarse, I didn't care about that: I hated Iran like most others and believe Iraq was on "Our" side.
But why arm both? What does that serve, it would be better and cheaper to arm neither. And, those arms sold to Iran could come back and hit us. What is the deal, and how could our own lives be worth less than whatever scheme they arranged to rationalize it.
I'm finishing this later, but Reagan was popular, but he sucked as president. That is what the new should say.
Part II Wednesday June 9.
I'm not going to rant on and on about some dead guy, like Christ said, "let the dead bury their own dead", but I want to finish this thing I started yesterday.
Anyway, my point is that the Iran Contra scandal makes precious little sense but when viewed as a possilble outcome of the "october surprise" it makes more sense. I don't think they'd have made such a deal out of thin air. I believe Bush I worked out the deal before they ever took office. A member of the highest elite ruling class doing something bad? Yes, when a Rockefellar was vice president, an assasination attempt was made on the President, and when the next top 1 % old money guy was vice president Reagan was also shot at. Some coincidence.
Reagan demonized welfare recipients with his "welfare queen" story which as it turned out was complete fiction. You know if the truth can't sell your point of view then maybe is something wrong with your point of view. He broke the Air traffic Controllers Union in one of the most reckless acts against public safety ever. He appointed Scalia and that guy would be as funny as "Dark Helmet" except with all his power now he is as scary as "Darth Vader". Wasn't the savings and loan scandal and the BCCI scandal during his watch. The S&L scandal is text book fascism in action, and BCCI was the merging of the Saudi Oil Fascist theocracy with OUR banking system. BCCI should have been one of the worst scandals in out history, instead most people don't even know what it was, or how it showed the Democrats and the Republicans working for the same masters.
To hell with Reagan the President, may Reagan the man find peace just as I hope to some day.
The freakin' end
We All Lose, as Bush Wins the "Mexican Truck Safety Case"
06.07.04 (2:15 pm) [edit]
Well, if this is what they call winning ....
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap /20040607/ap_on_go_su_co/ scotus_mexican_trucks" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap /20040607/ap_on_go_su_co/ scotus_mexican_trucks" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
This is wrong on all sorts of levels. First, so much for securing our borders after 9/11. And so much for highway saftey or enforcable environmental standards within our own country. And so much for workers jobs here. This is bad for jobs in this country; and if anyone is too stupid to see that, or too brainwashed by the lies they tell where we're supposed to believe that less teamster jobs is made up for by more wal mart jobs, well then I'm just that much more sickened by guilable and stupid people.
At some point, all the decent jobs that actually support and run the country from a logisitical standpoint will be gone and all the crap that breaks after two weeks of buying it won't be affordable to anyone.
We need to see "economy" for what it is.
There was a campaign a few years back featured in ADBUSTERS titled "Allan Greenspan Must Learn To Subtract". The point was that every cancer diagnosis counts as positive economic activity, every perscription, every auto accident, every bail bond, and on and on. What ever way this works out to "good for economy", it must really only be good for cutting costs for the capital class, by cutting out the American working class from the process. Allowing American capitalists to purchase more Mexican Labor, bringing them and their trucks here setting aside more local but more expensive, safer, and cleaner running American drivers and their trucks, as well as the fact the mechanics servicing American trucks will not have as much work as the Mexican trucks will be serviced in Mexico for all but some of their refueling.
Thanks Bush, you really won one for "us", you heartless, evil bastard.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap /20040607/ap_on_go_su_co/ scotus_mexican_trucks" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap /20040607/ap_on_go_su_co/ scotus_mexican_trucks" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...
This is wrong on all sorts of levels. First, so much for securing our borders after 9/11. And so much for highway saftey or enforcable environmental standards within our own country. And so much for workers jobs here. This is bad for jobs in this country; and if anyone is too stupid to see that, or too brainwashed by the lies they tell where we're supposed to believe that less teamster jobs is made up for by more wal mart jobs, well then I'm just that much more sickened by guilable and stupid people.
At some point, all the decent jobs that actually support and run the country from a logisitical standpoint will be gone and all the crap that breaks after two weeks of buying it won't be affordable to anyone.
We need to see "economy" for what it is.
There was a campaign a few years back featured in ADBUSTERS titled "Allan Greenspan Must Learn To Subtract". The point was that every cancer diagnosis counts as positive economic activity, every perscription, every auto accident, every bail bond, and on and on. What ever way this works out to "good for economy", it must really only be good for cutting costs for the capital class, by cutting out the American working class from the process. Allowing American capitalists to purchase more Mexican Labor, bringing them and their trucks here setting aside more local but more expensive, safer, and cleaner running American drivers and their trucks, as well as the fact the mechanics servicing American trucks will not have as much work as the Mexican trucks will be serviced in Mexico for all but some of their refueling.
Thanks Bush, you really won one for "us", you heartless, evil bastard.
The Highland Park Dennis Kucinich
06.05.04 (11:55 pm) [edit]
It was a very nice gathering of about 100 or so people at a home in Highland Park, NJ. Samantha B., her camera man, audio man, and producer arrived pretty early and filmed all sorts of stuff. She was carrying a plate wrapped in tin foil, which I guess was a prop as the event was a "potluck dinner". I guess that aspect of it will end up as part of the piece the air. Sharleen Leahy performed a couple of songs and I played along on a few songs with Jim Grande. Since I've been not feeling so well, actually a bit dizzy as I drove over there, I was happy at all with much of my playing. With the Daily Show filming-- and they got a lot of Jim-- Jim a very "country" sounding thing and he held a dance competition. Everyone started dancing actually and Samantha B. was standing right in front of us and the cameraman filmed her and the people dancing. I gotta think that will make it into the final cut. When Jim finished is songs I started playing "My Funny Valentine", a solo guitar type arrangement when Dennis Arrived. He mingled for a while then spoke.
He spoke quite frankly about the democratic parties failures, which to me was very reassuring. He spoke about the other democratic candidates earlier in the campaign and how they talked about health care from the perspective of "coverage". He decoded that as a give away to the insurance companies that are ruining health care. he spoke really well about trade, health care, war-- a lot about Afganistan and the trouble that is going on there, he said that may turn out to be a far bigger problem than Iraq--, civil rights, fear and hope, and much more. He answered a lot of questions after his speech which was without notes but was both detailed and full of hope. The Daily Show taped about 80 or 90 percent of it, then they came around the back of the house and filmed out front where there was a lot of light.
They interviewed the assistant campaign manager. Clearly some things were worked out in advance. Then they filmed her from behind, looking over her shoulder. The guy from the campaign was told to nod like he was listening to her speak, and to facilite that she said things like "I woke up today, I had ... for breakfast ...." and on and on until they got enough footage from that angle. The point is that then they can edit up his words and stitch it the shots from her back where they add lines from her that they'll probably write later to make it funnier. I forget the word for that kind of sound recording, but the trick is to make it sound similar to the recording made outside "on location". The space their in-- even though it is outside-- has a sound and they need to get the recording to sound right when the stitch in her voice when it is recorded in their vocal booth. You used to hear that a lot during the last season of the Soprano's, especially on Tony. You'd hear the change in the way the recording of his voice would sound when they had to go back and re-record stuff. When that happens it is usually (or always I guess) to correct things that can't be understood for whatever reason.
Anyway, they then shot over the guys shoulder at her, and they repeated some of the lines they said over all three of the camera angles.
I'm looking foward to seeing it, but I'm pensive. I played pretty poorly and I'd like to have played better, and played more tunes I know better. The do have a way of capturing the funniest and perhaps most embarrassing stuff, so I'm actually hoping in a very rational way that I'm not on it. I figure if I'm in the final cut it must be because I'm screwing up.
He spoke quite frankly about the democratic parties failures, which to me was very reassuring. He spoke about the other democratic candidates earlier in the campaign and how they talked about health care from the perspective of "coverage". He decoded that as a give away to the insurance companies that are ruining health care. he spoke really well about trade, health care, war-- a lot about Afganistan and the trouble that is going on there, he said that may turn out to be a far bigger problem than Iraq--, civil rights, fear and hope, and much more. He answered a lot of questions after his speech which was without notes but was both detailed and full of hope. The Daily Show taped about 80 or 90 percent of it, then they came around the back of the house and filmed out front where there was a lot of light.
They interviewed the assistant campaign manager. Clearly some things were worked out in advance. Then they filmed her from behind, looking over her shoulder. The guy from the campaign was told to nod like he was listening to her speak, and to facilite that she said things like "I woke up today, I had ... for breakfast ...." and on and on until they got enough footage from that angle. The point is that then they can edit up his words and stitch it the shots from her back where they add lines from her that they'll probably write later to make it funnier. I forget the word for that kind of sound recording, but the trick is to make it sound similar to the recording made outside "on location". The space their in-- even though it is outside-- has a sound and they need to get the recording to sound right when the stitch in her voice when it is recorded in their vocal booth. You used to hear that a lot during the last season of the Soprano's, especially on Tony. You'd hear the change in the way the recording of his voice would sound when they had to go back and re-record stuff. When that happens it is usually (or always I guess) to correct things that can't be understood for whatever reason.
Anyway, they then shot over the guys shoulder at her, and they repeated some of the lines they said over all three of the camera angles.
I'm looking foward to seeing it, but I'm pensive. I played pretty poorly and I'd like to have played better, and played more tunes I know better. The do have a way of capturing the funniest and perhaps most embarrassing stuff, so I'm actually hoping in a very rational way that I'm not on it. I figure if I'm in the final cut it must be because I'm screwing up.
Playing for Kucinich tonight
06.05.04 (4:05 pm) [edit]
I've been sick the last couple of days but I'm going out to play another thing for Dennis Kucinich tonight in Highland Park. He will actually be there at some point in the evening and so will the Daily Show. My head is actually dizzy because I've been with this weird "cold" or whatever it is. My playing is just not there, my head is like not in the moment as I play, I'm like in slow motion. Sometimes you just snap out and nail it but this feels different because it is a cold and not like a lack of focus or confusion from too many things to think about.
Anyway, over at the CEO-I yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ceo-i/" title="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ceo-i/" target="_blank"http://groups.yahoo.com/group...
there has been a little discussion going on about whether or not to vote for Kucinich. The discussion sort of revolves around the idea of: the Democrats have sold out progressive principles a long time ago at best only ever paying lip service to them so way participate in the meaningless game of voting, verses the idea that if we are about progressive ideas and actions then Kucinich deserves our support and should be judged as an inidivual first and a member of a party last.
If both the democractic party and republicans work for the same ruling class and only are concerned about moving foward the interests of empire then is it still pointless to support Kucinich who most certainly says everything you'd want a canidate to say?
Maybe the bogus logic of "voting is a scam cooked up by the man" is what has me dizzy. We can not deny that the bastards that are supporting Bush through all is failures and evil do believe that they got control through money and voting. Progressives will neve have the edge on money, but I still believe a majority of people can see the way to their own best interests and the interests of their own morality. I don't know, but anyway there some interesting stuff to read over at CEO-I.
Anyway, over at the CEO-I yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ceo-i/" title="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ceo-i/" target="_blank"http://groups.yahoo.com/group...
there has been a little discussion going on about whether or not to vote for Kucinich. The discussion sort of revolves around the idea of: the Democrats have sold out progressive principles a long time ago at best only ever paying lip service to them so way participate in the meaningless game of voting, verses the idea that if we are about progressive ideas and actions then Kucinich deserves our support and should be judged as an inidivual first and a member of a party last.
If both the democractic party and republicans work for the same ruling class and only are concerned about moving foward the interests of empire then is it still pointless to support Kucinich who most certainly says everything you'd want a canidate to say?
Maybe the bogus logic of "voting is a scam cooked up by the man" is what has me dizzy. We can not deny that the bastards that are supporting Bush through all is failures and evil do believe that they got control through money and voting. Progressives will neve have the edge on money, but I still believe a majority of people can see the way to their own best interests and the interests of their own morality. I don't know, but anyway there some interesting stuff to read over at CEO-I.
Benefir for the Dennis Kucinich Campaign
06.03.04 (1:10 am) [edit]
Tonight, or yesterday I guess because these blogs are dated on a calendar, I played a show to help raise money for Dennis Kucinich-- the only major party candidate that stands for peace and justice. I've liked this guy since I first heard him on C-Span before I really knew who he was. He was holding like a town hall meeting/forum with Tom Harkin acting I guess as his point guard if it were a basketball game. Anyway I'm glad I had a chance to play for a good cause, it was a lot of fun. There were a lot of good progressive people and the atmosphere was full of love and peace and all the good stuff that you'll never find at a Republican event or even a Kerry event as I later found out. Very nice evening. I'll be playing for Dennis again on Saturday in Highland Park, which is the town just north of New Brunswick along Route 27.
The musical acts were: Sharleen Leahey, Catherine Moon, Spook Handy, and Jim Grande/New Patriots or The New New Patriots or The Even Newer New Patriots as we are the second incarnation of his band apparently. Each artist or band leader are very active in progressive causes and groups in central Jersey. For me it was an honor to finally play in this situation, and I'm looking forward to many more.
Dennis is really progressive, not just a typical democrat. Here is the quote from him on the top of the flyer promoting this event we played:
"Violence is not inevitable. War is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this world a gift or peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children form fear, from harm, from destruction."
That crosses out of strictly the realm of politics and into the spiritual. This is what I expect to hear around the Green movement. Dennis is: against Nafta and gatt, for the creation of a department of peace, universal health care, pulling out of Iraq and getting the UN more involved, repealing the patriot act, and many other worthy efforts. His representatives in NJ had petitions for each of these issues there, and from reading them it seems that they a regular part of the Kucinich campaign. I really hope that Dennis is the future of the Democratic party. Not for the sake of the Democrats but for the entire world.
The place we were at was called The Sanctuary which is a coffe/tea place with deserts and light food like wraps and quesadillas. It has front part where the food and drinks are done and a back room which is very loungey with chess boards-- nice glass ones-- everywhere, books meant to be read and by the shape of the were, nice comfy couches and chairs and tables. Really a comfortable place.
The first act was Sharleen Leahey. She is a folk singer singing some older standard folk tunes as well as her own material. She wrote a song during the first gulf war and she said that she was dissappointed to see the same things she was singing about then are worse now. So, she updated the tune and played it. I wondered, as she was telling that story, how many other singersongwriters can say exactly the same thing. She was pleased to see so many children in the audience, two were mine, and she did some songs for the kids. Getting the kids involved early and thinking about big issues I think is a good thing. I've always tried to involve the kids in my life as much as possible, bringing the to arts festivals that I've played and anything I can-- no NYC nightclubs yet. It was a very nice performance, and I look forward to hearing her again. She did a song with Cathrine Moon, and another with Spook Handy. She finished her set with Univesal Soldier by Buffy St. Marie, a song Catherine Moon also sings but as an updated version, so she finished and Catherine Moon came out and played the updated version of the same song. A very interesting way of handling something that happens a lot-- a band playing a song a later band will or was going to play.
The next singer was Cathrine Moon. Wow. She knocked everybody dead. Jim told me he had seen her perform many times and this was the best he's ever seen her play. She had a great voice, great songs and really performed well. She did one song A Cappella which is tougher than you might think, the reason being that not only must you really have a level of "concentration" to remain on pitch throughout but she maintained the tempo and the feel of the tune and didn't lose the audience enve for a second-- which so often happens. The artist's focus drifts sometimes and the tune gets away from them, usually in tempo. This attention to detail and focus showed me that she had a real command of the tune and for some was the highlight of the evening. For me, though two of her originals one called "Business of War" and "Where is my Country" where not only the highlights of her set but if the evening-- for me anyway. Her handling of Universal Soldier was very groovy also.
Spook Handy had the uneviable task of following her, but he was up to the task. He is very much a vertern performer with a great stage persona/presence. He sang some John Prine songs and some originals, combining interesting guitar playing a nice singing voice and good songs. He also played a fund raiser for John Kerry and talked about the contrasts. There they raised $50,000 for Kerry, but it was a very stuffy affair he said. He definately felt more at home with this crowd of activists, artists and hippies (there I said it, Hippies-- deal with it). Another fine performance.
Then Jim, Danny and I went on: the New Patriots doing Jim's songs. This was our first actual performance. We've rehearsed twice, once electric once acoustic-- tonight was acoustic. I've rehearsed with Jim like 2 or three other times with other musicians that just didn't work out. I thought we played pretty well. When we finished, I turned off my amp-- like a habit it really is the first thing I do when ever I finish on stage. It sort of is how I finish a performance I guess, it really is like the last note I play in a night. Anyway, tonight after I did this we had "time" and Jim suggested another tune. We played it, but I forgot to turn my amp back on! I hit the nylon strings pretty hard, but I think I'd have cut through better with it on.
Anyway it was a lot of fun. We've been asked to play another fund raiser for Dennis Kucinich on Saturday in Highland Park. I'm looking forward to it.
The musical acts were: Sharleen Leahey, Catherine Moon, Spook Handy, and Jim Grande/New Patriots or The New New Patriots or The Even Newer New Patriots as we are the second incarnation of his band apparently. Each artist or band leader are very active in progressive causes and groups in central Jersey. For me it was an honor to finally play in this situation, and I'm looking forward to many more.
Dennis is really progressive, not just a typical democrat. Here is the quote from him on the top of the flyer promoting this event we played:
"Violence is not inevitable. War is not inevitable. Nonviolence and peace are inevitable. We can make of this world a gift or peace which will confirm the presence of universal spirit in our lives. We can send into the future the gift which will protect our children form fear, from harm, from destruction."
That crosses out of strictly the realm of politics and into the spiritual. This is what I expect to hear around the Green movement. Dennis is: against Nafta and gatt, for the creation of a department of peace, universal health care, pulling out of Iraq and getting the UN more involved, repealing the patriot act, and many other worthy efforts. His representatives in NJ had petitions for each of these issues there, and from reading them it seems that they a regular part of the Kucinich campaign. I really hope that Dennis is the future of the Democratic party. Not for the sake of the Democrats but for the entire world.
The place we were at was called The Sanctuary which is a coffe/tea place with deserts and light food like wraps and quesadillas. It has front part where the food and drinks are done and a back room which is very loungey with chess boards-- nice glass ones-- everywhere, books meant to be read and by the shape of the were, nice comfy couches and chairs and tables. Really a comfortable place.
The first act was Sharleen Leahey. She is a folk singer singing some older standard folk tunes as well as her own material. She wrote a song during the first gulf war and she said that she was dissappointed to see the same things she was singing about then are worse now. So, she updated the tune and played it. I wondered, as she was telling that story, how many other singersongwriters can say exactly the same thing. She was pleased to see so many children in the audience, two were mine, and she did some songs for the kids. Getting the kids involved early and thinking about big issues I think is a good thing. I've always tried to involve the kids in my life as much as possible, bringing the to arts festivals that I've played and anything I can-- no NYC nightclubs yet. It was a very nice performance, and I look forward to hearing her again. She did a song with Cathrine Moon, and another with Spook Handy. She finished her set with Univesal Soldier by Buffy St. Marie, a song Catherine Moon also sings but as an updated version, so she finished and Catherine Moon came out and played the updated version of the same song. A very interesting way of handling something that happens a lot-- a band playing a song a later band will or was going to play.
The next singer was Cathrine Moon. Wow. She knocked everybody dead. Jim told me he had seen her perform many times and this was the best he's ever seen her play. She had a great voice, great songs and really performed well. She did one song A Cappella which is tougher than you might think, the reason being that not only must you really have a level of "concentration" to remain on pitch throughout but she maintained the tempo and the feel of the tune and didn't lose the audience enve for a second-- which so often happens. The artist's focus drifts sometimes and the tune gets away from them, usually in tempo. This attention to detail and focus showed me that she had a real command of the tune and for some was the highlight of the evening. For me, though two of her originals one called "Business of War" and "Where is my Country" where not only the highlights of her set but if the evening-- for me anyway. Her handling of Universal Soldier was very groovy also.
Spook Handy had the uneviable task of following her, but he was up to the task. He is very much a vertern performer with a great stage persona/presence. He sang some John Prine songs and some originals, combining interesting guitar playing a nice singing voice and good songs. He also played a fund raiser for John Kerry and talked about the contrasts. There they raised $50,000 for Kerry, but it was a very stuffy affair he said. He definately felt more at home with this crowd of activists, artists and hippies (there I said it, Hippies-- deal with it). Another fine performance.
Then Jim, Danny and I went on: the New Patriots doing Jim's songs. This was our first actual performance. We've rehearsed twice, once electric once acoustic-- tonight was acoustic. I've rehearsed with Jim like 2 or three other times with other musicians that just didn't work out. I thought we played pretty well. When we finished, I turned off my amp-- like a habit it really is the first thing I do when ever I finish on stage. It sort of is how I finish a performance I guess, it really is like the last note I play in a night. Anyway, tonight after I did this we had "time" and Jim suggested another tune. We played it, but I forgot to turn my amp back on! I hit the nylon strings pretty hard, but I think I'd have cut through better with it on.
Anyway it was a lot of fun. We've been asked to play another fund raiser for Dennis Kucinich on Saturday in Highland Park. I'm looking forward to it.
