|
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
----
|
October 25, 2002
Dubya as Solomon?
Is the US "de-stabilizing" the Middle East? Oh, hell yeah we are. Here's a thoughtful analysis from a British paper by a former Bush speechwriter. He details some of the subtle ways in which the Bush administration strokes the puppy, so to speak, while simultaneously gradually making it more and more difficult for the Arab governments to continue playing both sides of the fence.
America does not want to destabilise the Middle East. But Islamic extremism, anti-American incitement, and willing and unwilling support for terrorist organisations have fastened themselves deep into the societies and cultures of the Middle East. Osama bin Laden's terrorism is not the work only of a few sociopathic killers: it is the product of a wide and deep complicity throughout the Arab world. Finding, uprooting, discrediting and destroying terror will have equally wide and deep - and unpredictable - consequences.
And that is why so many Europeans with an interest in the Arab world and its oil have urged America to learn to live with terror: to be realistic, to adjust, to accommodate - as they have had to do. And it is America's refusal to be realistic in this way that, more than anything else, has puzzled, vexed and even enraged so many in Europe and in Britain.
Good. This article makes me feel maybe just slightly better. The Middle East must be "de-stabilized" to some extent. A new and better day cannot emerge until the old order has been broken down. Certainly this entails risk, but "stability" that involves accepting terrorism as an unfortunate by unavoidable norm is simply unacceptable. For the French, maybe, but not for Americans.
It's a hell of a job knowing what to do when dealing with so many disparate, horribly dysfunctional, violent and irrational forces -some with WMDs- as we face in that part of the world. It requires the wisdom of Solomon. Does George W Bush have the wisdom of Solomon? Ayn Rand help us.
And praise Her name that at least it's plain old Dubya we're relying on now rather than some European appeasers or some double and triple talking emotional basket case like Al Gore.
posted by Al at 10/25/2002 04:29:00 PM
October 24, 2002
Doug Forrester, master of his own domain
New Jersey Republican senate candidate Doug Forrester went on a supposed radio debate against an empty chair representing the absent Democrat candidate Frank Lautenberg, supposedly highlighting that Forrester was willing to debate but that Lautenberg wasn't.
Forrester wasn't about to let Lautenberg off the hook, so he took matters into his own hands. Yup, Forrester was holding the sausage hostage. Slammin' the salmon, slappin' the salami LIVE for radio listeners! Dougie was slappin' high fives with Yul Brynner, yes indeed.
Forrester didn't really want to have a debate, he wanted a stunt. If he wanted to debate issues rather than jack off in public, there are multiple other candidates. He could have had them on. Lautenberg has agreed to two other debates, he just wasn't interested in doing so with this radio station, considering them heavily biased against him. Their willingness to stage this little gimmick for Forrester gives significant creedence to his claim.
Forrester wants to debate Lautenberg, and only Lautenberg. Lautenberg prefers to include the other candidates. No doubt the preferences come from self-interested motivations on both sides. Nonetheless, Lautenberg holds the more tenable position on this count. Forrester certainly has no legitimate cause for whining about not getting to debate Lautenberg as much as he wants whenever and wherever he wants while he attempts to exclude all the other candidates.
One of the debates that Lautenberg has agreed to will feature an interesting compromise setup. They plan to have all six candidates on the ballot on for an hour, then a half hour with just the Republican and Democrat. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise. All qualified candidates for office should get some decent chance to confront their opponents and say their piece. On the other hand, six people debating at once does start to get unwieldy. This way, all the candidates get some shot, but then the two likely candidates get to go head to head. Fair enough even to me as a third party advocate and candidate.
posted by Al at 10/24/2002 03:43:00 PM
October 22, 2002
Damn, I'm going to miss Jesse Helms
Hopefully the US will not get any resolution of support from the UN for whatever exactly we do in Iraq.
In practice, we don't need their support. As Ann Coulter put it, "In the corporeal world, international law is whatever the United States and Great Britain say it is." Saddam badly needs to be deposed or just plain killed, and most likely that means the US and a couple of faithful allies will have to take care of business.
However, many presumptuous people here and abroad have created and continue pushing the unargued premise that the US must have approval from the United Nations in order to have legitimate authority to take military action. This assumption has largely been presented as a given, rather than put forward as a thesis for public debate.
There are at least several obvious reasons for this idea. Much of this comes from the simple Machiavellian grasping for power of lesser countries wanting to put a leash on their better. Some of it is the self-hatred of American liberals. Also, it just seems natural to some people that the UN trumps the US just as the federal government trumps the states or counties.
Much of the presumption of UN superiority comes from the practice that the US government has been going to the UN for validation for most major military actions of the last few decades. This strikes me as a mistake. Because we have gone seeking their approval in the past, it is now the presumption that we need their blessing to make our activities legitimate in the future.
We do not. Let me address this both from the point of legal military authority, and moral authority.
When the US takes military action, US taxpayers pay for it. It's our money. It will be mostly our sons and daughters in harm's way. The French, Chinese, and Oompah Loompahs can bitch all they want, but they are not the people directly involved.
We have elections to select a president and a congress authorized to stake our blood and money. I'm not real thrilled with the sausage factory of our republic, but it does broadly represent the will of the people whose money and children do the fighting. The US military answers to the president as commander in chief, and to the congress which controls the purse strings and has the authority to declare war.
Where from comes the moral authority of the United Nations? They do NOT represent the democratic will of the world. Most of the member nations are despotic or at least not very democratic regimes. The Saudi royal family has no legitimate claim whatever to representing the will of the people of Mecca. Who voted for them anyway?
Moreover, the US by its actions has proven itself to be about the most moral country on earth, with due respect to Britain, Israel and a few others. This does not mean that the US government has never screwed the pooch, but we have a far better track record on any objective basis than almost any other country. We have some misguided efforts, such as the Vietnam war. We have the occasional reprehensible action such as Bill Clinton's dog wagging bombing of the aspirin factory.
However, we just are NOT engaged in empire building. We are not grasping for power, subjugating poor people for tribute, or commiting genocide. Our constitution and democratic institutions work to restrain such things, but mostly just the innate decency and generosity of our people.
Whereas on the other hand, the UN largely constitutes of a rogues gallery of wicked dictators and self-interested bureaucrats with little or no respect for human rights. We're supposed to accept the supposed moral authority of a United Nations Human Rights Committe made of representatives of China, Sudan and Syria? Why in the name of anything decent would ANYONE do that?
The US does not have any right to impose our will on the rest of the world just because we can. Might doesn't make right.
We do, however, have every right to defend ourselves. We may reasonably debate as to whether action against the Iraqi regime constitutes legitimate self defense. Saddam is evil and dangerous, but our justification may be ambiguous lacking immediate and direct provocation.
Having had a year long debate on the topic though, using their constitutionally delegated power on behalf of their constituents, the congress has agreed to give President Bush the authority to use force if and as he deems necessary to disarm or dislodge the Iraqi regime. He now has clear and unambiguous authority under American law. He needs no other.
He need not buy the acquiescence of various countries by promising them money. He need not buy the acquiescence of other countries by agreeing to turn a blind eye to their various abuses. [China, we're looking at you.] Neither of these things would make our position more legal. They certainly wouldn't make it more moral.
Bush does, however, need to let these countries know that the US does not require their approval or co-operation.
Therefore, it would be best if we do NOT have the sanction of the UN in dealing with Iraq. In practice, it would make the immediate task only marginally more difficult, but it would have the major benefit of making the pecking order clear, and it would be more morally clean to act on our own authority rather than hiding behind the skirts of third world dictators.
Damn, but I'm going to miss Jesse Helms.
posted by Al at 10/22/2002 10:32:00 PM
October 21, 2002
Mr. Tallyman, just how bananas are these Democrats?
Mark Steyn has a particularly amusing take, Let Slip the Babs of War, on American celebrity politics, particularly Barbra Streisand and Harry Belafonte.
what's perplexing is the sight of a has-been pop singer who seems to think American cabinet secretaries have no right to deviate from his line. You'd be hard put to find a tally man to tally exactly how bananas Harry is these days.
On a similar note, if you didn't see the October 19 broadcast of Saturday Night Live hosted by John McCain, you really missed out. Particularly, he did a riotous McCain sings Streisand sketch, on the logic that he could do as good at her job as she has at his. His singing was only barely as good as her political thinking. Ouch!
posted by Al at 10/21/2002 05:02:00 PM
My rock and roll day of the Pentacost
On October 13, 2002 I had the experience of seeing Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis Costello live on the same day. Wow! As Elvis told me when I talked to him at midnight about how excited I was to see Jerry Lee and Elvis on the same day, "Looks like you got half of the Million Dollar Quartet."
Gather round chillen, for I have a ghost story to tell you. Or perhaps it's a Holy Ghost story.
It was a rock and roll day of the Pentacost. If there was not a literal tongue of fire over my head signifying the presence of the Holy Spirit, I could nonetheless feel the Spirit in waves...
My write up on this runs to near 3,000 words, so I have placed it separately in my music section. CLICK HERE to read the whole thing.Labels: country_music
posted by Al at 10/21/2002 02:32:00 AM
A modest proposal for stopping the Beltway sniper
Perhaps a little spot of humor on the topic of the Beltway sniper might help calm the nerves. Kathleen Parker has written a funny column in the voice of Bullwinkle J Moose taking apart the silly police advice that people should "zigzag" as they walk to avoid making themselves easy targets for the sniper. I mean, jeez, what kind of silly fear mongering advice is this?
How about instead, we suggest that everybody should start carrying f'ing GUNS? That might make a difference, like maybe by somebody blowing this schmucks brains out, perhaps.
posted by Al at 10/21/2002 02:23:00 AM
October 20, 2002
Can't you see what I'm trying to say? I love you.
Margaret Dumont was born October 20, 1889.
She gave priceless performances as the precisely perfect foil for Groucho Marx. The wife of a millionare, she basically was the haughty, aristocratic society woman that she played in seven Marx brothers movies, and numerous others, including WC Fields' Never Give a Sucker an Even Break. As such, she supposedly never did quite get the jokes, which only contributed to the effect.
Her top moment of immortality came as Mrs. Gloria Teasdale, the foolish rich widow so smitten by Groucho's Rufus T Firefly despite his constant insults that she insists on having him made dictator of Freedonia. Thus she set up the greatest political comedy in movie history [well, maybe second to Dr. Strangelove].
Her reactions carried more weight than her dialogue. You could spend a fair amount of time studying the stew of loving gazes, puzzlement and vain attempts at maintaining her haughty matronly bearing as Groucho poured out long streams of insults mixed with patently phony declarations of love.
Rufus T. Firefly: Not that I care, but where is your husband?
Mrs. Teasdale: Why, he's dead.
Rufus T. Firefly: I bet he's just using that as an excuse.
Mrs. Teasdale: I was with him to the very end.
Rufus T. Firefly: No wonder he passed away.
Mrs. Teasdale: I held him in my arms and kissed him. [Her dramatic reading of this line was particularly hysterical.]
Rufus T. Firefly: Oh, I see, then it was murder. Will you marry me? Did he leave you any money? Answer the second question first.
-------------
PS A reader responds: In Simon Louvish's marvelous book Monkey Business, he writes that Margaret Dumont's performance as a straight lady was better than we suspected. She worked for years in burlesque and vaudeville before marrying the millionaire so the likelihood that she didn't get the jokes was small. She hid her vaudeville origins because when she returned to stage in 1920, she wanted to appear to be a more bookable 31 (she was actually born on October 20, 1882). So she pretended to be born higher class origin rather than just married into it. The fact that Groucho appeared to believe that she didn't get the jokes says that the ultimate joke was on Groucho.
Al again: I'm no expert on Dumont. All I can say is that she was some kind of piece of work. If she was capable of fooling even GROUCHO MARX, then she was really good.
posted by Al at 10/20/2002 09:52:00 PM
Grandpa Jones, vaudevillian folk music professor
Louis Marshall Jones was born October 20, 1913 in Niagra, Kentucky. He came from a strain of thinking of country music as something of a vaudeville show. He billed himself as "Grandpa Jones" as young as 22 years old, drawing lines on his face to look old, and affecting a "grandpa" look with the wire rim glasses and knee high boots.
He never sold a lot of records. His only top 10 country hit was a 1963 cover of Jimmie Rodger's "T for Texas"- and a fine cover it was. [Jimmie Rodgers also recorded his classic "Blue Yodel #4 (California Blues)" this day in 1928.]
Nonetheless he was well known as a live act, on radio shows, and of course many years on the Grand Ole Opry and Hee Haw, one of the most underappreciated shows in television history. It gave him a perfect forum for his style of picking and joking.
Besides being a fine banjo picker and showman, Jones took an unassuming but near academic interest in folk music. He played the folk circuit all his life, and spent many years learning scads of ancient songs from the hills and the old countries. He would never have wanted to be a "professor" but he could have taught classes on folk music traditions.
He was a member of the Grand Ole Opry for over 50 years, from 1947 till his death in 1998.
Grandpa Jones scored two of his best performances with Scotty Wiseman songs. "Mountain Dew" is probably one of his two or three best known recordings. Another lesser known Wiseman song is well worth digging up, a wide ranging political broadside that was perhaps even better: his early 1950's recording "I'm No Communist."
Congress has appointed a committee so they said
To find out who's American and who's a low down red
They called them up to Washington to speak for Uncle Sam
But when they asked them what they are they shut up like a clam
I wish they'd take and put me on the witness stand today
I'd shout so loud old Stalin could hear me all the way:
I'm no communist, I'll tell you that right now
I believe a man should own his home and house and car and cow
I like this private ownership
I want to be left alone
Let the government run their business, and let me run my own
Grandpa Jones on MoreThings
 Labels: country_music
posted by Al at 10/20/2002 01:09:00 AM
Link Soup
morethings master
photo gallery index
MP3
new album
releases
lyrics
sammy davis
little richard photos
buddy holly pictures
fats domino images
chuck berry pictures 01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
01/02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12
01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/01/
02/
03/
04/
05/
06/
07/
08/
09/
10/
11/
12/08/
09/
10/
11/
12/
la
24
lucille ball images james
blunt photos
clint eastwood pictures lena
horne images team
america pictures
robert mitchum photos
bruce springsteen pictures
mariah carey pictures
ann coulter photos
george clooney images
loretta lynn pictures
beatles pictures
white stripes pictures
andy griffith pictures
kill bill pictures
beverly hillbillies pictures
robin williams
frank zappa pictures
jerry lee lewis pictures
richard pryor photos
june carter johnny cash pictures
vic mackey shield pictures u2 photos
four seasons images
james cagney images
elvis presley pictures
country music
blog
dolly parton pictures
olsen twins photos
tom petty photos
tori amos pictures
joaquin phoenix images David
Bowie photos
Quills movie images
reese witherspoon pictures rolling
stones photos
fiona apple images kim
novak images ray charles photos marx
brothers pictures
prince rogers nelson pictures blazing
saddles images
sinead o'connor images
eddie murphy photos aretha
franklin photos
south park pictures homer
simpson images
bob dylan pictures elizabeth
taylor photos madonna
images
saturday night live pictures willie
nelson images hee
haw pictures james
brown images pete
townshend photos
tina turner pictures
dixie chicks photos
margaret thatcher photos
guns
n roses pictures
paula abdul pictures
jodie foster photos
amy winehouse
eminem
frank sinatra photos
van
halen images
satan
blondie photos
joni
mitchell pictures
merle haggard
images
rocky horror pictures
monty
python
|
|
