This Halloween
10.31.04 (10:51 am) [edit]
This will be the best Halloween for my kids. We finally live where the people do trick or treating. In Plainfield I get maybe 4 or 5 groups of kids (usually a kid or 3) over the entire day. My kids would come back (with mom of coarse) after going up and down all the streets in our area and only get 3 or 4 houses that would open up and give candy. Some people would even be home an not open the door. What the hell is that about?
Here in High Bridge the town gave out a flyer to the kids in school that Trick or Treating is done from 5-8 pm and that is it. I've got 6 bags of candy and we're getting 6 more (hopefully). In plainfield I'd give out like at least 4 candy bars per kid, because I'd always have left overs and the kids would get nothing at so many houses and I felt sorry for them. I'm afraid I'll run out this year here in High Bridge and I have to have both houses manned.
That said, I have to get going. I have to figure out how I can keep both houses ready for trick or treaters.
Here in High Bridge the town gave out a flyer to the kids in school that Trick or Treating is done from 5-8 pm and that is it. I've got 6 bags of candy and we're getting 6 more (hopefully). In plainfield I'd give out like at least 4 candy bars per kid, because I'd always have left overs and the kids would get nothing at so many houses and I felt sorry for them. I'm afraid I'll run out this year here in High Bridge and I have to have both houses manned.
That said, I have to get going. I have to figure out how I can keep both houses ready for trick or treaters.
A Little Blog About the PNAC
10.26.04 (5:47 pm) [edit]
I've not checked in for about two weeks or so. I've tried but TBlog was down whe I did. I've been too busy to really try to check in though. Thanks, everyone for checking in while I've been away-- I hope if you had time you browsed through my links to older blogs.
Anyway I want to ad some more stuff here about the PNAC, I could go on and on about my Yankees-- and I will-- but this is more important.
PNAC is my shorthand for the Project for a New American Century, the "think tank" that everyone points to as having published the syllabus (syllabi?) for our current course of wars. They called for a series of wars and geo-political moves that would be essentially brute-force exercises of our millitary power in order to secure the resources and strategic positioning around the world to remain the sole super power with a comfortable lifestyle for the next hundred years. Sounds good right? If you're in the US, then you're kinda tempted to sign on right now, right? How does it cost? Well, our grandkids will be paying it off, if we're lucky. But this plan goes back even before the PNAC, that sort of sickens me further.
See, I've always mistrusted our ruling elite ever since I saw them for what they are-- of which George W. Bush is the poster-boy for all that I dislike about them and that would even be before he was president. I think if he were just younger and female he'd be Paris Hilton, but that would be another blog-- or therapy session as I'm trying not to picture G. W. Bush as Paris Hilton, he'd not be as hot but he'd be just as: stupid, doped up, and slutty. Where was I?
Oh, OK so the Bush family has a long history in running our country. Grandaddy Prescott I've ranted about as a Hitler sypathizer (guilty of doing way too much business with the enemy and having his assests seized at one point) and how I suspect he was involved in the foolish attempt to get Smedley Butler to forment a milltary take-over of our government (My own little unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, but the Bulter story is interesting stuff). Well, let's not forget that family's have interests that extend over generations. Especially when the family's wealth extends over generations and the maintanence of that wealth and power takes multi-generational "work". I beleive the Bush family has a vested interest in what our country does and that interest supercedes patriotism.
When papa Bush was president, the Berlin Wall fell. This was supposed to be the big "Peace Dividend" and we'd work towards a more just and perfect global society. He did nothing towards this and instead just plain sucked as president. I voted for him once and left the republicans during his tenure. If all he did was suck as president we'd be much better off today. In stead, having no interest in any kind of peace dividend, he had his minions come up with a game plan to dominate the world in the absense to any global balance to our power. The task fell to Paul Wolfowitz, and the ideas he put forth were called to "Wolfowitz doctrine". Taking over Iraq, preparing for the "peak" in oil production, and "shock and awe" warfare were some of the ideas he included. These ideas all go back to Bush I's presidency.
During Clinton's years these evil bastards that wanted to take over the world fine tuned and tweaked their ideas. In their own documents they point out that it would take a Pearl Harbor type event to get the US population to go for such a blatant global war.
Everyone talks about "Pearl Harbor" in compared to 9/11. This comparison is more than fair. It is now clear that FDR wanted Japan to attack us so he could use that as justification to enter the war. I'm not going as far as saying FDR "knew" pearl harbor was happening, but every indication shows that he wanted to do everything to "provoke" Japan into attacking us. A US Naval Inteligence Officer drafted the game plan, of what actions we'd have to take to get Japan to feel such a threat from our Pacific imperialism that they'd attack. His memo is part of the historical record now and there is no doubt that FDR game planned for a Japanesse attack. At the time everyone was shocked at how so many "balls were dropped", and how many errors occured that allowed such a massive "sneak" attack.
These failures so long ago are no different than all the failures and strange coincidences that lead to 9/11 happening. I don't want to detail them now, but let's try for once to learn a lesson from history. FDR wanted WWII, a minion drafted a game plan, we got attacked in a "got caught sleeping" senario, and went to war to change the direction of the world. Bush I wanted global domination, had a minion draft a game plan, got voted out of office, the minions kept right on game-planning, the son gets elected, the game plan is resurrected to the point of all the minions taking up administration positions, and they get their "pearl harbor" and we have a global war to change things "forever". Isn't this what happened? Twice!?!?
But, what really happened? Did FDR exterminate fascism? No. Is the world a safer place without Hilter and Mussolini? Yes. Did we unleash a nastier demon with atomic weapons? Yes. Did we make a more fair and equal society or world? Decidely not. We had about ten or less years of a growing labor movement here and then we had the cold war and the cold war's pearl harbor was the Rosenbergs (I'll blog about that soon), and The Taft-Hartley Act and McCarthyism. As soon as tht "Cold War" ends we get the Wolfowitz Doctrine which we're living trough now.
Let's review: 1) FDR's minion plans WWII, we get Pearl Harbor and WWII, 2) to be blogged about later, but we get a ruling class dissatisfied with the way things were going, we get the Rosenbergs and the cold war; and 3) we get a ruling class seeing an oppurtunity at the end of the cold war, and we get Wolfowitz's doctrine which morphs into the PNAC and we get 9/11 and the global war with out end on terror.
OK, but we are re-organizing the world so we can like drive half way across the country for a weekend and my wife won't have to actually put on a sweater in winter, right? Well, can we actually do this? Just because some evil minion in washington draws up a plan, that don't mean the plan will actually work-- does it? No, and here is the scarriest thing for us in the US.
OK, yes I know. We'll incur the rath of God for all the evil imperialism we exercise, and the world will hate us. Those are really bad consequences for our ruling class' arrogance. But there is something else, even beyond the eternal debt we're incurring to pursue this imperialist wet dream. We might not succeed, and if we fail our empire folds. We might be just a big rusty waste product of a once mighty empire. Kinda like Russia or the former USSR is now. Not that I fear this, or that "fear" motivates my dislike for our global war. But, we're running this war on credit. Credit that looks good on paper but that is only because our currency is so strong in the global market place against all others. If our currency weakens our potential ability repay the debt of this war will weaken and our creditors-- the global ruling class-- will not likiely fund our enterprises.
Bush is racing against time and against our failing-- his failing-- economy versus China's "emerging" economy, Europe's economy and against a globe that will not always be without a balance to our millitary power. Let's not kid ourselves, the major miscalculations that lead to ever increasing death tolls in Iraq are just the begining. Every month we lose more soldiers and spend a spiralling amount on bullets and arms to secure oil that has yet to pay for any of these expenses. Iraq is bleeding our money and our soldiers. If we can't get this right, how can we pursue this stupid Wolfowitz doctrine? We can't afford this in lives in global karma nor in dollars. We'll be lucky if our grandkids are paying this off. The debt might get called in as our failures increase and the Bush family dream, ruining our country since Prescott's infatuation with Hilter will awaken us into an really crappy world with now means of production, no capital invested with our own country and nothing but a depleted environment.
May God have mercy on our souls.
Anyway I want to ad some more stuff here about the PNAC, I could go on and on about my Yankees-- and I will-- but this is more important.
PNAC is my shorthand for the Project for a New American Century, the "think tank" that everyone points to as having published the syllabus (syllabi?) for our current course of wars. They called for a series of wars and geo-political moves that would be essentially brute-force exercises of our millitary power in order to secure the resources and strategic positioning around the world to remain the sole super power with a comfortable lifestyle for the next hundred years. Sounds good right? If you're in the US, then you're kinda tempted to sign on right now, right? How does it cost? Well, our grandkids will be paying it off, if we're lucky. But this plan goes back even before the PNAC, that sort of sickens me further.
See, I've always mistrusted our ruling elite ever since I saw them for what they are-- of which George W. Bush is the poster-boy for all that I dislike about them and that would even be before he was president. I think if he were just younger and female he'd be Paris Hilton, but that would be another blog-- or therapy session as I'm trying not to picture G. W. Bush as Paris Hilton, he'd not be as hot but he'd be just as: stupid, doped up, and slutty. Where was I?
Oh, OK so the Bush family has a long history in running our country. Grandaddy Prescott I've ranted about as a Hitler sypathizer (guilty of doing way too much business with the enemy and having his assests seized at one point) and how I suspect he was involved in the foolish attempt to get Smedley Butler to forment a milltary take-over of our government (My own little unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, but the Bulter story is interesting stuff). Well, let's not forget that family's have interests that extend over generations. Especially when the family's wealth extends over generations and the maintanence of that wealth and power takes multi-generational "work". I beleive the Bush family has a vested interest in what our country does and that interest supercedes patriotism.
When papa Bush was president, the Berlin Wall fell. This was supposed to be the big "Peace Dividend" and we'd work towards a more just and perfect global society. He did nothing towards this and instead just plain sucked as president. I voted for him once and left the republicans during his tenure. If all he did was suck as president we'd be much better off today. In stead, having no interest in any kind of peace dividend, he had his minions come up with a game plan to dominate the world in the absense to any global balance to our power. The task fell to Paul Wolfowitz, and the ideas he put forth were called to "Wolfowitz doctrine". Taking over Iraq, preparing for the "peak" in oil production, and "shock and awe" warfare were some of the ideas he included. These ideas all go back to Bush I's presidency.
During Clinton's years these evil bastards that wanted to take over the world fine tuned and tweaked their ideas. In their own documents they point out that it would take a Pearl Harbor type event to get the US population to go for such a blatant global war.
Everyone talks about "Pearl Harbor" in compared to 9/11. This comparison is more than fair. It is now clear that FDR wanted Japan to attack us so he could use that as justification to enter the war. I'm not going as far as saying FDR "knew" pearl harbor was happening, but every indication shows that he wanted to do everything to "provoke" Japan into attacking us. A US Naval Inteligence Officer drafted the game plan, of what actions we'd have to take to get Japan to feel such a threat from our Pacific imperialism that they'd attack. His memo is part of the historical record now and there is no doubt that FDR game planned for a Japanesse attack. At the time everyone was shocked at how so many "balls were dropped", and how many errors occured that allowed such a massive "sneak" attack.
These failures so long ago are no different than all the failures and strange coincidences that lead to 9/11 happening. I don't want to detail them now, but let's try for once to learn a lesson from history. FDR wanted WWII, a minion drafted a game plan, we got attacked in a "got caught sleeping" senario, and went to war to change the direction of the world. Bush I wanted global domination, had a minion draft a game plan, got voted out of office, the minions kept right on game-planning, the son gets elected, the game plan is resurrected to the point of all the minions taking up administration positions, and they get their "pearl harbor" and we have a global war to change things "forever". Isn't this what happened? Twice!?!?
But, what really happened? Did FDR exterminate fascism? No. Is the world a safer place without Hilter and Mussolini? Yes. Did we unleash a nastier demon with atomic weapons? Yes. Did we make a more fair and equal society or world? Decidely not. We had about ten or less years of a growing labor movement here and then we had the cold war and the cold war's pearl harbor was the Rosenbergs (I'll blog about that soon), and The Taft-Hartley Act and McCarthyism. As soon as tht "Cold War" ends we get the Wolfowitz Doctrine which we're living trough now.
Let's review: 1) FDR's minion plans WWII, we get Pearl Harbor and WWII, 2) to be blogged about later, but we get a ruling class dissatisfied with the way things were going, we get the Rosenbergs and the cold war; and 3) we get a ruling class seeing an oppurtunity at the end of the cold war, and we get Wolfowitz's doctrine which morphs into the PNAC and we get 9/11 and the global war with out end on terror.
OK, but we are re-organizing the world so we can like drive half way across the country for a weekend and my wife won't have to actually put on a sweater in winter, right? Well, can we actually do this? Just because some evil minion in washington draws up a plan, that don't mean the plan will actually work-- does it? No, and here is the scarriest thing for us in the US.
OK, yes I know. We'll incur the rath of God for all the evil imperialism we exercise, and the world will hate us. Those are really bad consequences for our ruling class' arrogance. But there is something else, even beyond the eternal debt we're incurring to pursue this imperialist wet dream. We might not succeed, and if we fail our empire folds. We might be just a big rusty waste product of a once mighty empire. Kinda like Russia or the former USSR is now. Not that I fear this, or that "fear" motivates my dislike for our global war. But, we're running this war on credit. Credit that looks good on paper but that is only because our currency is so strong in the global market place against all others. If our currency weakens our potential ability repay the debt of this war will weaken and our creditors-- the global ruling class-- will not likiely fund our enterprises.
Bush is racing against time and against our failing-- his failing-- economy versus China's "emerging" economy, Europe's economy and against a globe that will not always be without a balance to our millitary power. Let's not kid ourselves, the major miscalculations that lead to ever increasing death tolls in Iraq are just the begining. Every month we lose more soldiers and spend a spiralling amount on bullets and arms to secure oil that has yet to pay for any of these expenses. Iraq is bleeding our money and our soldiers. If we can't get this right, how can we pursue this stupid Wolfowitz doctrine? We can't afford this in lives in global karma nor in dollars. We'll be lucky if our grandkids are paying this off. The debt might get called in as our failures increase and the Bush family dream, ruining our country since Prescott's infatuation with Hilter will awaken us into an really crappy world with now means of production, no capital invested with our own country and nothing but a depleted environment.
May God have mercy on our souls.
Fear in Politics
10.09.04 (3:29 pm) [edit]
There is a radio program on WBAI on Thrusdays afternoons at 5 pm, hosted by Doug Henwood called "Behind the News". Every week day at 5 is Behind the News, but Thursday is Doug Henwood's day to host it. He is a journalist that covers mostly wall st and economic type news. It is really a great program and even when he isn't talking about economics the show is very deep and detailed and I'm sure everyone can learn alot from it. Here is a link to the archives you can right click and dig through, but the latest shows aren't up as of yet: http://www.leftbusinessobserv...
He publishes a magazine called "Left Busines Observer" and the link is here: http://www.leftbusinessobserv...
This past thursday he had Corey Robbin on as his guest,the author of Fear: the Evolution of a Political Idea, published by Oxford University Press. The book shows how fear had to first be pushed into our minds, and why it was, and how it's use and the goals of those using it have changed over time. I was pretty interested, and I touch on fear in a lot of my blogs as the enemy of free thought and of peace (in one way or another), but this author really details how fear "evolved" in our general conciousness.
During the interview that I listened to, they brought up Hobbes-- author of The Leviathan-- and he apparently is the first philosopher to introduce the use of fear as a motivation to form a state. Hobbes wrote at a time where he saw puritans and religious "fanatics"-- I guess is how he'd see them in today's manner of speaking-- as the biggest threat to society as he saw it. He felt that they undermined the way a state should be organized and he attributed it to their lack of fear. At the time it was considered more worthy of one's life to die for an hororable cause than to live in service of something that was wrong (or I guess "sinful" or evil). Fear of dying wasn't an over-riding concern. Hobbes felt that people need the fear of death instilled in them so that they would then act as a stated wished them to act out of fear of death as a result of failing to comply. If I'm over-simplifying his ideas: my apologies, but I'm just going on what they were discussing and thus I'm sure If I'm describing this aspect of his ideas wrong then it is because I'm oversimplifying the discussion I heard.
Hobbes felt that fear of death would make people submit to the will of the elite above them. He felt that the cultural and educational institutions of his time, the churches and universities, needed to promote this fear in service of centralizing national will and behavior around the elite's design. He wanted an extremely authoritarian state.
The book goes on to show how other political thinkers picked up on such thinking and how the underlying assumptions about fear as a motivator is central to many political ideas. I'm going out to find the book shortly and I'll post a review if I actually finish it.
What I came away from the discussion was a feeling that I got a chance to see through the political climate we have here today, like I had x-ray specs that saw past all the smoke and mirrors and right down to the basest promotion of blind fear that terrorizes so many people around us. It is why people can't go Green or Libertarian. It is why people can't even think enough to consider if Bush and Cheney are misleading us. It is not just fear of terrorists, but fear of looking weak to the terrorists-- you know, the fear that prevents some people from defusing a volatile situation becuase they fear to look past their own machismo even if they don't really have any. It is the fear of letting grudes go or the fear of rejection and fear of failure and the fear of death for attempting peace and attempting to do the right things in life.
When the Berlin wall fell, we should have had a disappearance of that fear as a unifying force in our public life. We should have organized for each other's benefit and let it all go-- I did, but I believed papa Bush's lines about the great "Peace Dividend" we should have shared with each other and the world. But there are too many people and institutions that exist to feed of our fear. They need our collective fear to prosper, they need our poverty to enrich themselves, they need our submission to feel dominant, they need our labor to enjoy luxury, they need our mistrust to keep us divided, and our ignorance to keep us believing their lies of fear. That is why fascism is so anti-intelectual, that is why Bush last night continually dumbed down the issues, because thought and nuance and deeper understanding are something they want the goobers to be afraid of.
We all need to see fear for what it is, the primary tool the ruling class uses against us keep us in check and serving them instead of each other and ultimately God. Fear of layoffs makes us do things we'd not otherwise do, fear of ... well fear of our own vulnerablity I guess, I've never done this one I'm about to describe... what might happen if we stood and talked to the homeless stinky guy asking us for assistance makes "us" run away rather than be the good Samaritan, fear of Islam will re-elect Bush if we can't collectively see past the fear shroud of fear that covers class oppression, racial divisions, relgious intolerance and ethnic hatreds.
Love is the only true war on Terrorism, and Love is the antidote to fear.
As I listened to them discuss Hobbes I realized why I could never get into that book.
He publishes a magazine called "Left Busines Observer" and the link is here: http://www.leftbusinessobserv...
This past thursday he had Corey Robbin on as his guest,the author of Fear: the Evolution of a Political Idea, published by Oxford University Press. The book shows how fear had to first be pushed into our minds, and why it was, and how it's use and the goals of those using it have changed over time. I was pretty interested, and I touch on fear in a lot of my blogs as the enemy of free thought and of peace (in one way or another), but this author really details how fear "evolved" in our general conciousness.
During the interview that I listened to, they brought up Hobbes-- author of The Leviathan-- and he apparently is the first philosopher to introduce the use of fear as a motivation to form a state. Hobbes wrote at a time where he saw puritans and religious "fanatics"-- I guess is how he'd see them in today's manner of speaking-- as the biggest threat to society as he saw it. He felt that they undermined the way a state should be organized and he attributed it to their lack of fear. At the time it was considered more worthy of one's life to die for an hororable cause than to live in service of something that was wrong (or I guess "sinful" or evil). Fear of dying wasn't an over-riding concern. Hobbes felt that people need the fear of death instilled in them so that they would then act as a stated wished them to act out of fear of death as a result of failing to comply. If I'm over-simplifying his ideas: my apologies, but I'm just going on what they were discussing and thus I'm sure If I'm describing this aspect of his ideas wrong then it is because I'm oversimplifying the discussion I heard.
Hobbes felt that fear of death would make people submit to the will of the elite above them. He felt that the cultural and educational institutions of his time, the churches and universities, needed to promote this fear in service of centralizing national will and behavior around the elite's design. He wanted an extremely authoritarian state.
The book goes on to show how other political thinkers picked up on such thinking and how the underlying assumptions about fear as a motivator is central to many political ideas. I'm going out to find the book shortly and I'll post a review if I actually finish it.
What I came away from the discussion was a feeling that I got a chance to see through the political climate we have here today, like I had x-ray specs that saw past all the smoke and mirrors and right down to the basest promotion of blind fear that terrorizes so many people around us. It is why people can't go Green or Libertarian. It is why people can't even think enough to consider if Bush and Cheney are misleading us. It is not just fear of terrorists, but fear of looking weak to the terrorists-- you know, the fear that prevents some people from defusing a volatile situation becuase they fear to look past their own machismo even if they don't really have any. It is the fear of letting grudes go or the fear of rejection and fear of failure and the fear of death for attempting peace and attempting to do the right things in life.
When the Berlin wall fell, we should have had a disappearance of that fear as a unifying force in our public life. We should have organized for each other's benefit and let it all go-- I did, but I believed papa Bush's lines about the great "Peace Dividend" we should have shared with each other and the world. But there are too many people and institutions that exist to feed of our fear. They need our collective fear to prosper, they need our poverty to enrich themselves, they need our submission to feel dominant, they need our labor to enjoy luxury, they need our mistrust to keep us divided, and our ignorance to keep us believing their lies of fear. That is why fascism is so anti-intelectual, that is why Bush last night continually dumbed down the issues, because thought and nuance and deeper understanding are something they want the goobers to be afraid of.
We all need to see fear for what it is, the primary tool the ruling class uses against us keep us in check and serving them instead of each other and ultimately God. Fear of layoffs makes us do things we'd not otherwise do, fear of ... well fear of our own vulnerablity I guess, I've never done this one I'm about to describe... what might happen if we stood and talked to the homeless stinky guy asking us for assistance makes "us" run away rather than be the good Samaritan, fear of Islam will re-elect Bush if we can't collectively see past the fear shroud of fear that covers class oppression, racial divisions, relgious intolerance and ethnic hatreds.
Love is the only true war on Terrorism, and Love is the antidote to fear.
As I listened to them discuss Hobbes I realized why I could never get into that book.
More about Smile the Album
10.03.04 (8:15 pm) [edit]
OK, I need to stress again just how great a recording Smile! is. I just listened to the entire album and it is just amazing. It comes about as close to what it might have sounded like back almost forty years ago without IMHO sounding dated at all. By keeping to the original vision Brian has given all the Smile! fans something to point to and say "see, this is what I've been talking about" while giving music fans now something that we need: an amazingly great psychedelic progressive pop record.
Go and buy it. I don't care if you don't like the Beach Boys or pop music or rock or the 60's or anything but just dig on the record like I describe below and enjoy it. I can already tell that it will reward months and months of endless listening even more so than Pet Sounds did for so many people.
I'm predicting that Smile! will win at least one grammy if not two or three. I'll quantify which Grammys I think it will win later in the week, but go out and buy and put it up on the charts where it belonged almost 40 years ago.
Go and buy it. I don't care if you don't like the Beach Boys or pop music or rock or the 60's or anything but just dig on the record like I describe below and enjoy it. I can already tell that it will reward months and months of endless listening even more so than Pet Sounds did for so many people.
I'm predicting that Smile! will win at least one grammy if not two or three. I'll quantify which Grammys I think it will win later in the week, but go out and buy and put it up on the charts where it belonged almost 40 years ago.
Smile the Album
10.02.04 (5:25 pm) [edit]
OK, I hate doing this-- posting multiple blogs on a single day-- but you need to go to the www.smilethealbum.com site and register. You have to use IE as Opera won't get me in the site. Yes, register and all that-- just do it. Then you can listen to the MP3's but realize that mp3's suck with complicated music and that I'm hearing all kinds of "artifacts" that won't be on the CD or SACD or DVD-A (wow, Smile! on DVD-A would be nice!)
You'll be able to listen to the re-recorded and final version of "Smile!" in mp3 format (I guess they are mp3's). It has Brian's voice as it is now, but honestly that is the only "dead give-away" by which I can tell it is all new recordings (but, afterall it is MP3's through cheap computer speakers and not my monitoring system).
Brian's voice works, and in spite of my concerns about what his voice is like now as opposed to when he was in his mid-twenties he as really stepped up and done a great job.
Smile!, in my opinion if it had been finished and released and promoted and toured for, would have altered rock and roll for ever. I'd like to think I don't use hyperbole when talking about music, but when I first heard the old tracks in their various forms I was knocked out. When I heard them in their proper sequence I was left a changed man-- but I react to music pretty strongly. There are things I didn't expect on Smile! but I'm really pleased with what I'm hearing.
Buy Smile!, and get yourself in the middle of the stereo field (not to build up expectations, Brian never made use of stereo feild tricks because of his deafness in one ear) but for the proper listening position and phase and all that just get there with your best playback system in the middle of the room or by the back wall (altering bass response, but we mostly listen in our leisure time back by a wall so stereos are built to sort of work that way unlike mixing rooms for studios but I'm off on a tangent here), and set your EQ's flat (don't put no stupid curve in the graphic EQ or hype bass or trebles or anything, just trust the manufacturer of your system and the mixing engineer to know what you're supposed to hear-- it is their artistic gift to you afterall. Unplug the phone, and listen. IF your not alone, then just get it squared away up front-- NO TALKING, just listen.
Yeah man! Listen.
Good stuff! Progressive Pop at it best and at progressive psychodelic pregressive pop at it's foundation-- as it would have been out before Sgt. Peppers if Brian had any support.
As you can tell, I'm a big Brian Wilson fan. Smile! will show you why, as will Surfer Girl, Shut Down Vol II, and Pet Sounds and many others. Smile! is Brian firing on all cylanders and will put to rest the rumours about what he was creating at the time.
While he re-recorded the tracks, of the tunes I've heard I don't hear anything but the original music-- I've got to run and I can't splain this if you don't get it, but Brian appears to have kept to the original intent of the music and to his original arrangments and music and goals.
Smile! is to progressive psychodelic pop what A Love Supreme! is to modal jazz-- and I'm not indulging in hyperbole.
You'll be able to listen to the re-recorded and final version of "Smile!" in mp3 format (I guess they are mp3's). It has Brian's voice as it is now, but honestly that is the only "dead give-away" by which I can tell it is all new recordings (but, afterall it is MP3's through cheap computer speakers and not my monitoring system).
Brian's voice works, and in spite of my concerns about what his voice is like now as opposed to when he was in his mid-twenties he as really stepped up and done a great job.
Smile!, in my opinion if it had been finished and released and promoted and toured for, would have altered rock and roll for ever. I'd like to think I don't use hyperbole when talking about music, but when I first heard the old tracks in their various forms I was knocked out. When I heard them in their proper sequence I was left a changed man-- but I react to music pretty strongly. There are things I didn't expect on Smile! but I'm really pleased with what I'm hearing.
Buy Smile!, and get yourself in the middle of the stereo field (not to build up expectations, Brian never made use of stereo feild tricks because of his deafness in one ear) but for the proper listening position and phase and all that just get there with your best playback system in the middle of the room or by the back wall (altering bass response, but we mostly listen in our leisure time back by a wall so stereos are built to sort of work that way unlike mixing rooms for studios but I'm off on a tangent here), and set your EQ's flat (don't put no stupid curve in the graphic EQ or hype bass or trebles or anything, just trust the manufacturer of your system and the mixing engineer to know what you're supposed to hear-- it is their artistic gift to you afterall. Unplug the phone, and listen. IF your not alone, then just get it squared away up front-- NO TALKING, just listen.
Yeah man! Listen.
Good stuff! Progressive Pop at it best and at progressive psychodelic pregressive pop at it's foundation-- as it would have been out before Sgt. Peppers if Brian had any support.
As you can tell, I'm a big Brian Wilson fan. Smile! will show you why, as will Surfer Girl, Shut Down Vol II, and Pet Sounds and many others. Smile! is Brian firing on all cylanders and will put to rest the rumours about what he was creating at the time.
While he re-recorded the tracks, of the tunes I've heard I don't hear anything but the original music-- I've got to run and I can't splain this if you don't get it, but Brian appears to have kept to the original intent of the music and to his original arrangments and music and goals.
Smile! is to progressive psychodelic pop what A Love Supreme! is to modal jazz-- and I'm not indulging in hyperbole.
Offense or Defense
10.02.04 (4:07 pm) [edit]
Repeatedly we've heard President Bush say that the best way for America to defeat the terrorists is to remain on offense. While "ball control" offense has it's pluses in football-- or American football for our international readers-- let's not let that little phrase of his pass without scrutiny anymore.
Defense wins championships in sports: pitching in Baseball, goalies in hockey, and in football and basketball it is almost cliche how important defense is. In chess one must always balance attack and defense, as in martial arts.
I remember a boxing match between Vassiliy Jirov and James Toney. Jirov was a thin crusierweight with long arms and Toney was about an inch or half in shorter and a little stockier. Jirov fought as Bush says we must win. He threw bombs all night. Toney was a smarter boxer, with more experience and a former heavy weight. He was able to turn on angles giving Jirov almost nothing to swing at, but Jirov kept swinging. He wore himself out as Toney combined well timed-- sometimes forced on by Jirov's attacks-- offense with an amazing sense of defense. Toney knew how much he could take and how to make Jirov's attacks less taxing and as they got to the last rounds Jirov ran out of gas. He kept swinging even as he had nothing left and Toney stood toe to toe pounding each other, but at this point it was Toney punching to finish off Jirov and Jirov swinging because he knows no other way. It was maybe the most amazing boxing match I've ever seen-- and I might be the only guy on the left that enjoys watching boxing, but I try to catch as many fights as I can regardless of weight class or "star power" (not women's boxing, though)-- not because either guy was going to change the world of boxing or had great career's ahead of them full of fame, but because of the stubborn resolve of Jirov.
Jirov remained resolute to the end in fighting the only way he knows how, on offense. Even as he strength wained and his punches weren't remotely "bombs" but at best stings he kept swinging. As he got hit, he swung, as Toney blocked, he swung and as he was finally out on his feet he swung.
The commentators were glowing at the performance they saw, I was half in shock and half in amazment that a guy could stand their as beat up as Jirov was and still swinging as fast as he could. He didn't stop, but he got beat and TKO'd. As the fight wore on see, Jirov got hit more and more. His strength sapped away and Toney would space his attacks-- few at first-- apart like a heavyweight must, to conserve strength. His defensive skills have always been impressive. He was able to gauge Jirov's attacks and time his own offense to keep on the scorecard and to follow through his game plan. See, Toney had a game plan, Jirov didn't. Toney knew Jirov wanted to swing all night long, Toney knew that a boxer tires quickly when constantly on the attack. Toney knew to wait through these attacks for his openings. When Jirov tired though, he kept swinging anyway. While this may have made it appear tougher for Toney to switch on to offense, in reality it simply meant that as time wore on in the fight Toney would be able to attack right through Jirov's constant punching. It got to the point where Jirov's attacks were meaningless and Toney took command of the fight. It looked much more impressive that it was-- Jirov's punching power. In the end the complete lack of defense did him in.
When Bush sent more unarmoured Humvees that armoured, was this offense over defense? Was this his apparent disdain for defense? I hate that the guy called our "commander in cheif" don't even understand football tactics let alone millitary ones. All the "half-time" football fans loved the "air-Coryell" offense, the Bills attack, Warren Moon's Oilers. None of those won anything. How could they? They ingnored the defense's own capabilities. In war it is only more important.
When Bush speaks of a pre-9/11 mentality versus a post 9/11 mentality, we need to distinguish between a smart post 9/11 mentality and a short sighted and stupid post mentality. Before 9/11 we apparently thought we'd never get invaded here at home and we could use our security forces like FBI and the police and customs and border patrols to protect against attacks. We did suceeed on alot of occassions. After 9/11, we could have said that we need to pay more attention in protecting ourselves here-- or we could attack and "remain" on offense.
By remaining on offense Bush means invading Iraq before the job in Afgahnistan was done. If we take him at his word-- and not coorelate the descision to commit to attacking Iraq with the findings that the pipeline through Afganistan would carry no fuel-- then he values attacking without consolidation of gains. It is like getting 80 yards down field but ingoring the last couple of yards by the goal line to get the touchdown. We threw the bombs in Afganistan, we dealt the big blows and we were in the short yardage situations. Instead of consolidating our gains and permenantly squaring up the country we switched to bomb-throwing offense in Iraq. We're losing the short yardage game in Afganistan now. When the Giants were really good, back in the days of LT, we'd see a bomb thrown and the Giants would end up in short yardage defense against other teams often. As fans we always felt, "Well, now what will you do with the short field?" Meaning, it is easy to move the ball when the feild is big and wide, but with nothing but 3 yards and the 10 yard end zone, not too many tricks will work and it is all about tenacity and will and skill. Not glamorous football, and not glamorous warefare either.
Bush looked at the fall of bahgdad as the touchdown instead of the long pass that got him to the 3 yard line. He failed to send enough troops-- not to beat a third world country that has been bombed non stop since his dad was president, but to secure the victory and the country. Kerry pointed this out well in the debate. Bush's summer patriot fans, like the people that only watch the superbowl, think they understand what is going on. They look at these bogus words, like "remain on offense" as meaning those that criticize Bush are malcontents or lacking in appreciation of what Bush is doing. Kinda like the people that look at the Bills/Giants superbowl as a missed field goal away from a Bills victory, ignoring the fact that the Bills kicker had never kicked anything that long in his career and the Giant's played their game to the T-- not the glamorous high-octane offense, but grind it out down and dirty defense.
Bush's lack of service, lack of every having to do any kind of work in his life, lack of intelect and tact leads him to a stupid bar-room mentality of bombs away to victory with no appreciation of the trench work that must be down for anything in life to suceed. I could have made this about learning piano but the points are the same, the hard work and detail of any planning is what leads to victory. The Spanish Armada sank, Alexander kicked ass on much larger armies, Russia got bounced out of Afghanistan, England out of Iraq twice, and Spartacus kicked Rome's ass up and down the Italian peninsula. Superior firepower and weapons and manpower with no respect for the enemy's capability or respect for planning is no match for a strong wind let alone a determined enemy. Terrorists or insurgents, killers and criminals or Islamic extremists, they are the determined enemy.
Tommorrow I hope to write about "respecting our allies" which: wasn't important when the pussy republicans invented "freedom fries" too goof on the countries standing next to us in Afghanistan, but apparently now matters when some country sends 150 soldiers to guard a museum or hot dog stand.
If this is too rambling and If I repeat myself too much in the boxing story, I'm sorry. Maybe I'll fix it, but I've got a wedding to get to tonight. To anyone that makes it down this far, I hope all is well with you. Peace be with you.
Defense wins championships in sports: pitching in Baseball, goalies in hockey, and in football and basketball it is almost cliche how important defense is. In chess one must always balance attack and defense, as in martial arts.
I remember a boxing match between Vassiliy Jirov and James Toney. Jirov was a thin crusierweight with long arms and Toney was about an inch or half in shorter and a little stockier. Jirov fought as Bush says we must win. He threw bombs all night. Toney was a smarter boxer, with more experience and a former heavy weight. He was able to turn on angles giving Jirov almost nothing to swing at, but Jirov kept swinging. He wore himself out as Toney combined well timed-- sometimes forced on by Jirov's attacks-- offense with an amazing sense of defense. Toney knew how much he could take and how to make Jirov's attacks less taxing and as they got to the last rounds Jirov ran out of gas. He kept swinging even as he had nothing left and Toney stood toe to toe pounding each other, but at this point it was Toney punching to finish off Jirov and Jirov swinging because he knows no other way. It was maybe the most amazing boxing match I've ever seen-- and I might be the only guy on the left that enjoys watching boxing, but I try to catch as many fights as I can regardless of weight class or "star power" (not women's boxing, though)-- not because either guy was going to change the world of boxing or had great career's ahead of them full of fame, but because of the stubborn resolve of Jirov.
Jirov remained resolute to the end in fighting the only way he knows how, on offense. Even as he strength wained and his punches weren't remotely "bombs" but at best stings he kept swinging. As he got hit, he swung, as Toney blocked, he swung and as he was finally out on his feet he swung.
The commentators were glowing at the performance they saw, I was half in shock and half in amazment that a guy could stand their as beat up as Jirov was and still swinging as fast as he could. He didn't stop, but he got beat and TKO'd. As the fight wore on see, Jirov got hit more and more. His strength sapped away and Toney would space his attacks-- few at first-- apart like a heavyweight must, to conserve strength. His defensive skills have always been impressive. He was able to gauge Jirov's attacks and time his own offense to keep on the scorecard and to follow through his game plan. See, Toney had a game plan, Jirov didn't. Toney knew Jirov wanted to swing all night long, Toney knew that a boxer tires quickly when constantly on the attack. Toney knew to wait through these attacks for his openings. When Jirov tired though, he kept swinging anyway. While this may have made it appear tougher for Toney to switch on to offense, in reality it simply meant that as time wore on in the fight Toney would be able to attack right through Jirov's constant punching. It got to the point where Jirov's attacks were meaningless and Toney took command of the fight. It looked much more impressive that it was-- Jirov's punching power. In the end the complete lack of defense did him in.
When Bush sent more unarmoured Humvees that armoured, was this offense over defense? Was this his apparent disdain for defense? I hate that the guy called our "commander in cheif" don't even understand football tactics let alone millitary ones. All the "half-time" football fans loved the "air-Coryell" offense, the Bills attack, Warren Moon's Oilers. None of those won anything. How could they? They ingnored the defense's own capabilities. In war it is only more important.
When Bush speaks of a pre-9/11 mentality versus a post 9/11 mentality, we need to distinguish between a smart post 9/11 mentality and a short sighted and stupid post mentality. Before 9/11 we apparently thought we'd never get invaded here at home and we could use our security forces like FBI and the police and customs and border patrols to protect against attacks. We did suceeed on alot of occassions. After 9/11, we could have said that we need to pay more attention in protecting ourselves here-- or we could attack and "remain" on offense.
By remaining on offense Bush means invading Iraq before the job in Afgahnistan was done. If we take him at his word-- and not coorelate the descision to commit to attacking Iraq with the findings that the pipeline through Afganistan would carry no fuel-- then he values attacking without consolidation of gains. It is like getting 80 yards down field but ingoring the last couple of yards by the goal line to get the touchdown. We threw the bombs in Afganistan, we dealt the big blows and we were in the short yardage situations. Instead of consolidating our gains and permenantly squaring up the country we switched to bomb-throwing offense in Iraq. We're losing the short yardage game in Afganistan now. When the Giants were really good, back in the days of LT, we'd see a bomb thrown and the Giants would end up in short yardage defense against other teams often. As fans we always felt, "Well, now what will you do with the short field?" Meaning, it is easy to move the ball when the feild is big and wide, but with nothing but 3 yards and the 10 yard end zone, not too many tricks will work and it is all about tenacity and will and skill. Not glamorous football, and not glamorous warefare either.
Bush looked at the fall of bahgdad as the touchdown instead of the long pass that got him to the 3 yard line. He failed to send enough troops-- not to beat a third world country that has been bombed non stop since his dad was president, but to secure the victory and the country. Kerry pointed this out well in the debate. Bush's summer patriot fans, like the people that only watch the superbowl, think they understand what is going on. They look at these bogus words, like "remain on offense" as meaning those that criticize Bush are malcontents or lacking in appreciation of what Bush is doing. Kinda like the people that look at the Bills/Giants superbowl as a missed field goal away from a Bills victory, ignoring the fact that the Bills kicker had never kicked anything that long in his career and the Giant's played their game to the T-- not the glamorous high-octane offense, but grind it out down and dirty defense.
Bush's lack of service, lack of every having to do any kind of work in his life, lack of intelect and tact leads him to a stupid bar-room mentality of bombs away to victory with no appreciation of the trench work that must be down for anything in life to suceed. I could have made this about learning piano but the points are the same, the hard work and detail of any planning is what leads to victory. The Spanish Armada sank, Alexander kicked ass on much larger armies, Russia got bounced out of Afghanistan, England out of Iraq twice, and Spartacus kicked Rome's ass up and down the Italian peninsula. Superior firepower and weapons and manpower with no respect for the enemy's capability or respect for planning is no match for a strong wind let alone a determined enemy. Terrorists or insurgents, killers and criminals or Islamic extremists, they are the determined enemy.
Tommorrow I hope to write about "respecting our allies" which: wasn't important when the pussy republicans invented "freedom fries" too goof on the countries standing next to us in Afghanistan, but apparently now matters when some country sends 150 soldiers to guard a museum or hot dog stand.
If this is too rambling and If I repeat myself too much in the boxing story, I'm sorry. Maybe I'll fix it, but I've got a wedding to get to tonight. To anyone that makes it down this far, I hope all is well with you. Peace be with you.
Debates
10.01.04 (10:21 pm) [edit]
I don't think I need to go on and on here about the simple fact that Kerry trounced Bush in the debate both on substance, facts and delivery. Obviously Bush, who got every concession from Kerry in the debate format, just came with a handful of catch phrases and showed less of a command of the issues than the senator.
What I want to talk about is the Judge Henry H Kennedy's ruling against the FEC in their dismissal of a complaint filed by Ralph Nadar. The judge determined that the FEC was wrong in it's dismissal because their assumption that the CPD-- that organizes the presidential debates-- was non-partisan was contradictory to the evidence. In other words, the CPD is not non-partisan but Bi-Partisan, and serves to exclude third parties and thus the FEC must re-consider Nadar's complaint and address the issues.
I think this is significant because the FEC will have to deal with legitimate "third party" issues with access to the debates. The FEC's embrace of the CPD is based on political considerations and not the public interest. As the two parties get closer together on major policy issues, they both through the CPD agree to lamer and lamer debate formats which leave out any room for real questions on the issues. Last night's performances were just that: performances at essentially well scripted joint news conferences. That Bush couldn't do better than stammer through his handful of catch phrases is just more evidence that he has just never been qualified for such a critical job. Kerry's success in such a restrictive format is a credit to his preparation, intelect, and skills as a statesman. I think Kerry is the best candidate the democrats have offered since Kennedy-- but I don't know very much about McGovern. I think Kerry is head and shoulders above Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Johnson.
The two party system proved it's failure when both parties decided they were tired of actually answering questions posed in the League of Women Voters organized debates and instead they organized the CPD. They shut out as best they could any third party participant and have dumbed down and narrowed the questions and the format. Though last nights was informative and the two candidates did get to go back and forth abit, that is just a blip on the downward trend of narrowing debate. In Miami, Cuba didn't come up, Haiti didn't come up, Venezuela (Hey, Duvdevan), nor Columbia-- and that would be just scratching the surface. If the Green Party had been their I bet at least three of the four I listed would have been mentioned without "dissing" the topics they did cover.
The worst of this round of debates looks to be the "town forum" format where the citizens in the audience are pre-screened and their questions are all pre-approved and the moderator will cut the potential voter off if he strays from the scripted question. So much for freedom of speech or politicians and candidates accoutable to the people. Now, lets be fair, Bush is the one that insisted on this scripted format and didn't even want this debate format. Can you expect otherwise? The guy can't hardly speak and freudian slips Sadaam for Ossama constantly.
But we deserve better. As much I liked Kerry making an ass out of Bush, I'd like David Cobb, that Badernik guy, and Nadar piling on too. Would they take their shots at Kerry? Yes, but Kerry is a grown man and I think he'd make a decent accounting for himself as much as possible. And the people would hear more than two sides of an issue.
I don't expect the FEC to stand up and do anything like the right thing, but at least the shame of "bi-partisan" debates has been ruled for what it is by a judge. Why does Nadar run? This case is just one of the many reasons. Nadar is a great man and the democrats that question him and his motives are being disengenuous at best and bitter and nasty at worst.
What I want to talk about is the Judge Henry H Kennedy's ruling against the FEC in their dismissal of a complaint filed by Ralph Nadar. The judge determined that the FEC was wrong in it's dismissal because their assumption that the CPD-- that organizes the presidential debates-- was non-partisan was contradictory to the evidence. In other words, the CPD is not non-partisan but Bi-Partisan, and serves to exclude third parties and thus the FEC must re-consider Nadar's complaint and address the issues.
I think this is significant because the FEC will have to deal with legitimate "third party" issues with access to the debates. The FEC's embrace of the CPD is based on political considerations and not the public interest. As the two parties get closer together on major policy issues, they both through the CPD agree to lamer and lamer debate formats which leave out any room for real questions on the issues. Last night's performances were just that: performances at essentially well scripted joint news conferences. That Bush couldn't do better than stammer through his handful of catch phrases is just more evidence that he has just never been qualified for such a critical job. Kerry's success in such a restrictive format is a credit to his preparation, intelect, and skills as a statesman. I think Kerry is the best candidate the democrats have offered since Kennedy-- but I don't know very much about McGovern. I think Kerry is head and shoulders above Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Johnson.
The two party system proved it's failure when both parties decided they were tired of actually answering questions posed in the League of Women Voters organized debates and instead they organized the CPD. They shut out as best they could any third party participant and have dumbed down and narrowed the questions and the format. Though last nights was informative and the two candidates did get to go back and forth abit, that is just a blip on the downward trend of narrowing debate. In Miami, Cuba didn't come up, Haiti didn't come up, Venezuela (Hey, Duvdevan), nor Columbia-- and that would be just scratching the surface. If the Green Party had been their I bet at least three of the four I listed would have been mentioned without "dissing" the topics they did cover.
The worst of this round of debates looks to be the "town forum" format where the citizens in the audience are pre-screened and their questions are all pre-approved and the moderator will cut the potential voter off if he strays from the scripted question. So much for freedom of speech or politicians and candidates accoutable to the people. Now, lets be fair, Bush is the one that insisted on this scripted format and didn't even want this debate format. Can you expect otherwise? The guy can't hardly speak and freudian slips Sadaam for Ossama constantly.
But we deserve better. As much I liked Kerry making an ass out of Bush, I'd like David Cobb, that Badernik guy, and Nadar piling on too. Would they take their shots at Kerry? Yes, but Kerry is a grown man and I think he'd make a decent accounting for himself as much as possible. And the people would hear more than two sides of an issue.
I don't expect the FEC to stand up and do anything like the right thing, but at least the shame of "bi-partisan" debates has been ruled for what it is by a judge. Why does Nadar run? This case is just one of the many reasons. Nadar is a great man and the democrats that question him and his motives are being disengenuous at best and bitter and nasty at worst.
