|
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!
----
|
December 07, 2002
US responsibility in Iraq
Responding to Salam in Baghdad (and Diana in Gotham)
Salam-
Buddy, I'm sorry but we're getting ready to have to kill people and break things in your country. Having made friends with you, I can relate to your anguish and anger. I think about you personally every day leading up to however this plays out. I can imagine how unhappy I would be if the shoe were on the other foot.
I wish that some of your own people would whack Hussein and avoid the necessity of this excursion, but this looks pretty unlikely. If I were religious, I'd pray for your personal safety. As it is, I'll be looking for a falling star on which I might wish for your safety and prosperity.
You're upset about what you see as American hypocrisy in Iraq because some of us profess concern for the plight of Iraqi civillians at the hands of Saddam, yet the US supported Saddam at one time. I can see why you might think that. US action certainly has not been without fault. However, I think your anger here is largely misplaced, and I'd like to speak in at least partial defense of my country. We may sometimes miscalculate, but we're trying to do right.
I note that you've had some Americans writing to you in rude and inappropriate tones, suggesting among other things that you should shut up and "appreciate" what the US is doing. OK, so our government was backing Hussein. Then we came in bombing hell out of you 10 years ago [which I opposed]. Then after all that bombing and killing we left the bastard there to cause you yet more misery. Now we're coming back to finish the job. Oh, in the meantime sanctions necessitate you scrounging the black market to get basic surgical supplies in order to get even basic dental care. Yeah, you should be on your knees every night thanking Allah for America. I'm sorry for this suffering put on you, and I apologize for American fools speaking to you in this disrespectful manner. As Hannibal Lector would express it, they've been unspeakably rude.
Several points need to be made here, though. Charitable concern for the Iraqi people is NOT the principle reason for our impending invasion of your country -no one here pretends otherwise. We should consider some reasons why eliminating the Hussein regime ranks top of the US "to do" list. Western support for Hussein was a bad idea, particularly in retrospect, but an honest mistake and not done with callous indifference. Finally and most importantly, Saddam is responsible for the actions of his government, not the US.
Most Americans do in fact have concern for the Iraqi people. Without leaning on it too heavily, we show great compassion for suffering people around the world in many ways- though we've admittedly bungled it badly in the case of Iraq. The Bush administration in fact speaks for a great majority of Americans in saying that we have great hope that knocking out the Hussein regime will be a HUGE benefit to your countrymen, even though there will inevitably be suffering and great risk to you in the short run.
Make no mistake though: NO ONE here says that humanitarian relief of the the Iraqi people is our primary reason for coming in. Any good we can do you constitutes gravy. We're coming in because we now perceive the continued rule of Saddam Hussein as an unacceptable risk to our country.
You asked "What makes today different than a year ago?" The answer is: 9/11. We've suddenly gotten the picture that there are a bunch of Muslim/Arab radicals killing and continuing to kill us at home and abroad. Not just the 9/11 attacks themselves, but the anthrax attacks shortly thereafter, the LAX shootings, and lots of other attacks and attempts.
This new attitude does not come from a desire for retribution, but from a desire for prevention. We shrugged off the first WTC bombing when Clinton was president, but now we've gotten the picture that it's not just a little one time thing. A bunch of people from your part of the world seriously want to destroy our society. They're actively trying to get weapons of mass destruction to take us out in bunches. This is unacceptable.
Thus the stakes have changed dramatically for us. We're not looking at an occassional bombing of an embassy or foreign military base. We're getting visions of WMD attacks on civillians at home. We're seeing some hideous stuff coming down the tracks, and we're going to do whatever is necessary to derail this.
Which is, unfortunately, where your country comes in. Hussein may not be actively attempting to attack us right this second, but he's got a unique position in the world of having nasty WMDs now, working hard on getting more and worse, and a demonstrated willingness to use the things. Our worst fear prompting action is that he might be handing some of this nasty stuff under the table to Al Qaeda or Hezbollah to use in -from his vantage point- running interference against us. He'd do it in a heartbeat. He could well hand stuff off and not leave any fingerprints. Many of us expect that to have been what happened with our anthrax letters last year.
You wondered about picking Iraq for special attention over other countries of interest. Make no mistake, there are other countries getting ready for change one way or another. The Saudis and Iranians are top concerns to me, based on my limited personal knowledge.
We can't do everything at once though, and Hussein makes sense as a second stop after Afghanistan. He seems to be about the worst immediate threat because of his WMDs, plus he seems to otherwise have no likelihood of being taken down internally. The Iranian theocrats are probably actually doing worse things right this minute, but they apparently don't have WMDs, plus it looks like the people may take this government out without the US being significantly involved. That would be much preferred.
Our government at one time supported Hussein. In retrospect, this was clearly highly ill advised. It comes from a certain idea of supposed "pragmatism" that I understand to be commonly expressed in your part of the world by the adage "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The relationships of Saddam and of Bin Laden to the US show all too starkly the shortcomings of that particular philosophy.
Now we have to clean up our mess- which unfortunately is in YOUR yard. The fact that our government had some role in supporting Hussein only makes it MORE our responsibility to deal with him. We had legitimate US security concerns that we were trying to address, but we went about badly in Iraq. Meanwhile, this has made life more difficult for you, particularly with the sanctions. I'm very sorry.
However, <.b>Saddam is your main problem, not the US. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US did NOT place Saddam in power. He got there on his own, and our government then chose to do business with him. Saddam bears responsibility for his wicked behavior, not US. Your relative was likely NOT killed by any kind of US government order or influence. The torture is Saddam's way, not ours.
With that perspective, I must take some issue with Miss Diana. I've got a lot of love for our sister, but she's considerably too willing to take the blame on us for things outside our control. Hussein was already there, and doing what he was going to do. SOME (not all) of the damage of sanctions falls on the heads of US policy makers, but the torture and murder does not.
It seems that from time to time whole societies or cultures collectively go just purely and fanatically rabbit-ass crazy to the point that the whole society has to be destroyed before people get the point that their behavior is unacceptable. Germany and Japan went there in the last century. I fear that a big chunk of Muslim society is slipping into that range now. Criminy, man, a bunch of Muslims just went on a huge killing spree and murdered HUNDREDS of people over a stupid frickin' beauty pageant.
Neither the American public at large, nor President Bush, nor I WANT to kill people. We're not trying to collect tribute or subjugate the world. However, we're goddam well not going to just lay down while people are killing us.
I'm just sorry that a lot of decent, reasonable people like you are caught in the middle of all this nonsense.
Try to stay safe.
Love and Prayers,
Al
posted by Al at 12/07/2002 03:30:00 AM
December 06, 2002
Step right this way
Canadians heading for Iraq for volunteer work as 'human shields'
Ah, brave Canadians! If they think their presence will slow the US down from taking care of business for even a few minutes- which their actions indicate they do- then they are absolute idiots. They have somehow managed to delude themselves into thinking that their self-perceived moral superiority not only should but actually DOES give them personal veto power over major US foreign policy. Looks like Darwin will have to take care of them.
I feel bad for Iraqi civillians who are in harms way. I'm concerned for our soldiers, who face the possibility of getting hit with some of these WMDs that we all know Iraq doesn't have. I'm somewhat concerned for Western journalists who are there doing an important job, but they volunteered and will hopefully have enough sense to get out of the way.
These people, though, have absolutely no call for sympathy. Other than Saddam, they deserve to be the first ones whacked. You want to volunteer as some kind of martyrs for peace? Step right this way.
CLICK HERE for somewhat more detailed and slightly less vicious ranting on the topic.
posted by Al at 12/06/2002 05:02:00 PM
December 04, 2002
Call me
Marisa Tomei was born December 4, 1964. Happy #38!
She won an Oscar for her work in My Cousin Vinny. Many people mocked this. I, for one, was well pleased to see her get this recognition. She is an outstanding and underrated actress. It was an outstanding performance in a highly underrated movie.
I found myself ragging on her Mona Lisa Vito character in my last post, so since it happens to be her birthday let me take this opportunity to say that my beef was just this one little display, and certainly not a reflection on the ACTRESS. It was a fine movie, with a beautiful and skillful actress playing a very endearing character.
posted by Al at 12/04/2002 03:23:00 AM
Bambi must die
How can YOU help me, Al Barger? Well, for starters, you could go kill some deer.
A lot of good liberal city folk who've never actually been around wildlife hate the very idea of hunting. Marisa Tomei's Oscar winning character in My Cousin Vinny gave a typical display about beautiful, perfect little Bambi taking a little drink, when BLAM he gets his brains blown out.
She's real cute, but also real damned ignorant of reality. Real deer are not like Bambi; for starters, they don't talk. Every creature on this earth has to die some way and some time. Being taken by a hunter actually constitutes one of the better ways to go. It generally is relatively quite quick, and serves some useful purpose- providing food, sport and garment. Kill them, eat them, wear their skins.
Nonetheless, Marisa Tomei gets to vote, and the votes of her ilk effect natural resource policy. Hunting seasons get shortened, bag limits on deer get reduced. Stupid PETA types show up to protest and disrupt.
Personally, I have issues with deer. I was cruising down the open highway at dusk a couple of months ago, doing a modest 60 mph. I was driving properly, eyes on the road and both hands on the wheel and WHAM! A deer jumped out from the left side of the road and placed his head in front of my driver's side headlight. The impact whipped his body around and against my door and open window.
I drove right through him and kept going. I was driving, and picking deer off my face and shirt. The car was driving fine, but my better judgment kicked in after a minute, so I stopped. First clue: I could barely open the door enough to get out of it. There was nothing left where the front headlight should be.
By the time I got back to the scene, there was no sign of the deer. The son of a bitch apparently walked away, never to be seen again. A pair of bucks will build up 20 mph ramming speed on each end, which adds up to 40ish that they do in their regular playing, so walking away from 60 mph from a Cavalier may not be that amazing. My evening plans suddenly halted, I limped it on home, and cleaned up.
An hour later I was thinking on the black hunks of deer I had on me. It wasn't blood. It wasn't fur... The goddam deer had shit on my face through the open window! By about this point I was starting to become maybe just slightly annoyed.
The bad part was that the deer did $2,500 in damage to the vehicle. There were good parts, though. One, I didn't get hurt. Two, it gave me a good story to tell on myself.
I should not have been surprised when my evil brother had my birthday cake made last month with a picture of me hitting the deer. My tale apparently made quite the hit amongst the sister in law's co-workers in the supermarket deli where the cake was baked. Their cake decorator helpfully volunteered to add some icing poop to the design. [CLICK HERE to see the results.] Naturally, at the birthday party my seven year old nephew, the Monkey Boy, called dibs on the poop. Yeah, that's my boy.
My little altercation merely ended up a nuisance to me. Insurance picked up the tab, and nobody got hurt. I got a funny story, and a birthday cake.
Make no mistake though, deer accidents are no laughing matter. Farm Bureau estimates $53 million dollars in property damage to deer accidents annually, just here in Indiana. Further, for the year 2000, Indiana State Police list 10,988 accident reports- which doesn't count the accidents where they were not called- such as mine.
Then we get to the more serious part. In Indiana during the year 2000, police report 380 human injuries from deer accidents. Four people were killed. Figure that out across the country, and you get THOUSANDS of injuries, and perhaps 200 or more fatalities.
Some of this is just inevitable. We're here, they're here, we're going to run into one another once in a while.
Some of this carnage, however, is absolutely unnecessary. If fools quit indulging their cheap sentimentality, injuries and loss of life could be reduced. More liberal hunting laws for deer would reduce human losses, and even be good for the deer. Call me crazy, but I would tend to favor whacking quite a few deer to save even a few human lives.
Deer strongly tend to overpopulate, certainly in Indiana. Besides human considerations, deer often get too numerous for the habitat. Too many deer means starvation and disease. Hungry deer will also be hunting for food further and wider, thus being much more likely to run out blindly in front of cars and kill people. Ultimately, cheap sentimentality kills.
Approached properly, hunting in itself is a spiritual experience. You can absorb yourself in your surroundings, and take your place in responsible dominion over the natural order. Become one with the deer, and then take him. This displays far deeper spirituality and appreciation for nature than some PETA fool carrying on about animals having "rights."
Also, you can double up on the practical good you do by donating fresh game to homeless shelters and food pantries. Ted Nugent has an organization for just that purpose, Hunters Against Hunger. Good old Nuge.
Killing excess deer can not only provide you with food, and the hungry with food, but can also help the deer themselves. It's a far better way to go to be taken by a hunter, than to be starving or diseased. It certainly makes life better for other deer and woodland creatures not to have the extra competition.
Most importantly though, it would make life better for me, Al Barger.
posted by Al at 12/04/2002 02:59:00 AM
A conservationist's perspective on whacking Bambi
I got an extensive response to my somewhat cheeky "Bambi Must Die" post from a correspondent more knowledgeable about natural resource issues than I am. Besides being a hunter, she is a past and perhaps future DNR employee. My point was more a general statement about political attitudes. She has more the perspective of a conservation officer. I might argue with her about the PR or the philosophy issues, but I certainly defer to her factual knowledge about resource issues. All I know is that me and Farm Bureau would like to see less damned deer darting across the road.
Her remarks:
First of all, I don't know that I'd accuse city folk for hating hunting. Fewer people hunt or farm anywhere, and so aren't connected with death. I'd be careful of calling people stupid or fools because they are different in their views. This could be the Alexander Hamilton in me coming out. But I'd never call people stupid for believing differently, even if they are stupid. It makes it less likely that anyone will listen to you -- because they'll doubt your willingness to listen or be somewhat objective. Plus it's kinda a personal attack. But do what you will. That's the public affairs stuff in me coming out.
I'm not sure what Marissa Tomei votes on directly, except her legislators. Legislators may affect many things, and they often are a thorn in the side of resource managers, but rarely would Marissa's vote effect deer management in Indiana. Or anywhere else. Not for a long time, if ever.
Now she could affect a lot of things -- hunting bear with dogs was eliminated in Colorado because it was unfair and inhumane. (If it's inhumane to anyone, it's the dogs, but that wasn't their position.) Mountain lion hunting was eliminated in California -- but now people are getting killed out there (lack of habitat and more lions that aren't afraid), so eventually it will be reinstituted. Black bear hunting in NJ is a big issue, and the director there told me, "They may succeed in eliminating black bear hunting. But it'll come back when a bear kills someone's 3-year-old, and we find it's half-eaten body buried in the underbrush. That's what it will take. Unfortunately."
But eliminate deer hunting? A tough thing to do. There are too many deer. A few are fine, but it eventually becomes a nimby issue. The more devastating they are (on crops, roads, yards), the more they lose their appeal.
It's a complicated issue. PETA et al probably advocate deer sterilization, which is largely ineffective. Because deer already are over-populated; it may stop deer from reproducing but doesn't control the over-population that already exists.. Sterilization is incredibly cost prohibitive and difficult to administer and keep track of. The drug only lasts a year, so must be readministered. Try sterilizing a deer herd. See what I mean? It's been done in urban areas where hunting is opposed, but ... it's largely not feasable for rural areas.
And nobody really wants to eat deer that are full of sterilization drug.
Overpopulation -- That's why you now have controlled hunts on state parks. Previously there was no hunting and the deer destroyed the park vegetation. Deer were getting thin and unhealthy. Now there is hunting, and the parks are returning to some of their natural growth. Deer are more healthy. Some PETA-types advocate replacing hunters with trained marksmen, as if that makes a true difference. PETA not only opposes killing animals, but hunters getting any pleasure from the experience. A marksman isn't going to be emotionally involved, see what I mean?
I don't know that I'd call PETA types stupid. It creates antagonism right away. They make their decisions based on a lot of emotion. Rather than reason. And sometimes, they have been right. Leg hold traps now don't have teeth. That's probably due to humane associations, and was a good idea. So they have their place in the checks and balances. I don't agree with them, but I'm prone to listen. Because sometimes they are right.
Deer hunting is pretty secure in Indiana. And other places. Reason -- deer are incredibly overpopulated in urban states like Indiana. Nonhunters like the idea of deer until their gardens are devastated, they kill them on the roads, their farm crops are depleted, etc. Somebody has to take them out, and in many counties, it's almost impossible to do so in the numbers needed. There just aren't enough hunters in certain regions -- like Switzerland County, for instance.
If PETA types have success at any point, it will be regarding the methods used to kill deer. They'll attack archery as cruel methods, or baiting (not allowed in Indiana, but in some other states) as unethical and unsportsmanlike. An unfair advantage. They'll attack methods, and try to get a foothold that way. But it's still unlikely to do much good regarding eliminating deer hunting. There are too many powerful lobbies that support it: farmers, insurance companies, sportsmen.
Just so you know -- The reason that deer are overpopulated (at least in Indiana) is that wildlife agencies brought them back from the brink of extirpation (zero population in one state, but populated elsewhere. Extinct in that state). It's a constant fight between agencies and sportsmen to agree on the number of deer that should be out there. Efforts constantly are underway in Indiana to increase season limits, sexes taken, and methods to take them. Deer populations have decreased in recent years, but still are too high for insurance agencies, Farm Bureau and the like.
Another reason that deer get overpopulated -- depending on the area -- is increased habitat loss. People like their Walmarts and suburban housing editions. That is FAR more critical reason that wildlife are depleted (and deer overpopulated) than ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE.
Also, just so you know... PETA types don't buy hunting licenses. Only sportsmen do. And fish and wildlife are managed mainly using money provided through hunting and fishing license sales. Other funds would come from sales of DNR stuff (T-shirts, calendars, etc.), or donations. So PETA or other anti-hunters or the general population contributes NOTHING to wildlife management in Indiana. No taxes go to fish and wildlife mangement. It's set up that way legislatively. So hunters and fisherman keep fish and wildlife management going. It is hunters who contribute, who improve habitats, who volunteer with agencies -- all for their own self-interest as hunters.
That gets into a whole other issue. Fish and wildlife popululations are managed to provide maximum populations and habitat for hunting and fishing purposes. So I tell non-hunters to put their money where their mouths are.
I don't know that deer are likely to starve in many places. They'll find food -- in a farmer's field, in your garden, in urban areas. They'll go where the food is. I'm not sure that disease and starvation is a good argument. What is more likely is that deer will increase their depredation and nuisance factors -- car accidents, farm crops, yard damage, etc. (See above about state parks for the opposite of this. Deer grew smaller and did a lot of damage in state parks where hunting wasn't allowed and their numbers went haywire.)
However, you want to state hunting's spiritual experience is fine. I don't quite get into Ayn Rand on her views of man's dominion. In fact I disagree with her on much of it. I don't know if anyone will buy the "becoming one with the deer thing." For one thing, I don't know that I become one with the squirrel -- but maybe I'm just not deep enough. I become part of the environment. I don't feel like I'm OVER it. Higher than anything else there. In fact, it's more a humbling experience. Ayn Rand obviously never spent much time in the Rockies or Alaska. Know what I mean?
It sounds like emotional new age gobbledygook, so I don't often talk about it, unless its with people who understand. I think maybe you felt it, when you went hunting with me. But I don't know.
Antis will tell you that hunters get their recreation from killing things, which is true. They won't understand the deeper issues or spirituality. How can you get spiritual from killing something. It's hard to make sense of, so I don't even try when making arguments. But you certainly can try.
Nor can you approach it from any American tradition angle. Like "hunting preserves an American tradition." Lynching was a tradition is some parts, but that doesn't make it right. That's what PETA types will say.
I would probably look at hunting as becoming part of the environment, period, minus dominion. But that's just me. Because when you're hunting in the national forest and Virginia, and get hypothermia 3 hours from the truck and no fire possible in a steady 40-degree downpour (as I did), or run face-to-face with a black bear sow with her cub in a tree not 5 feet away at 5:30 a.m. (again as I did), or you could break your freakin' leg and never get out... well your dominion and natural order doesn't seem so dominating or orderly. I don't know of any hunter who feels that Ayn Rand dominion out there. Usually, it's the opposite.
If I would focus on anything, it is the sportsman's emphasis on ethics afield. This has partly been inspired, I think, from animal rightist types. And they had a point.
It doesn't really matter to the deer how it gets dead. It does matter to the sportsman, and especially to non/anti-hunters. It doesn't matter whether you're spiritual when you do it. A lot of people aren't -- the old ego thing. What does matter is that the established (human) rules of fairplay and ethics are understood and put into practice. These rules are incredibly subjective. But it means at least -- 1) Following ALL state and federal laws for hunting and gun handling and safety,
2)making sure that all shots are carefully selected to ensure the animal's quick demise;
3) use the meat, at least,
4) treat landowners/property with respect,
5) treat non-hunters with respect in how you display or treat the carcass when transporting it,
6) represent yourself and other hunters in a way that furthers the sport and image.
posted by Al at 12/04/2002 02:19:00 AM
December 03, 2002
We demand justice!
Drug czar John Walters openly campaigned against the Nevada marijuana legalization initiative during the 2002 elections. Now the sponsoring group for that initiative, the Marijuana Policy Project, is filing formal complaints against Walters for violating the Hatch Act, and for unreported in-kind political contributions.
Oh, hell yeah! Blatantly commandeering tax money to pay for political campaigning violates any idea of democracy. Walters job is enforcing the law, not making it. The voters decide, then he abides by their decision. The feds seem to think that they should be able to pass "campaign finance reforms" to stop the NRA from using their own money in campaigns, while they throw their authority and OUR money around with impunity.
Maybe I'm missing something, but on the face of it Walters appears to have arguably committed crimes on both the state and federal level. The laws don't really apply to the government most of the time in practice, but it looks like he should be sent to prison. Oh, and he should lose his job, too. His active undermining of the democratic process seems much more damaging than most of the drug users he persecutes.
What was he smoking to think he could get away with this?
posted by Al at 12/03/2002 07:42:00 PM
December 02, 2002
A true abolitionist
Abe Lincoln gets credit for freeing the slaves when it fact he did no such thing. The famous Emancipation Proclamation was in fact a mere piece of political posturing. He carefully engineered it in such manner as to avoid actually freeing any slaves over which he had any control, ie the Union states. He stated publicly that he would willingly accept the continuance of slavery if it would preserve the union.
One man, however, famously dedicated his life, and that of his family to the cause of abolition: John Brown. He organized a violent revolt against the United States government to the intended end of leading a slave revolt. He was a crazed religious fanatic, but arguably on the side of the angels.
He was hanged for a traitor in Charleston, West Virginia on this day in history, December 2, 1859. He was 59 years old.
John Brown's body lies a-mold'ring in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mold'ring in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-mold'ring in the grave
His soul goes marching on
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory, Glory! Hallelujah!
His soul is marching on
He captured Harper's Ferry with his nineteen men so true
He frightened old Virginia till she trembled through and through
They hung him for a traitor, themselves the traitor crew
His soul is marching on
John Brown died that the slave might be free,
John Brown died that the slave might be free,
John Brown died that the slave might be free,
But his soul is marching on!
The stars above in Heaven are looking kindly down
The stars above in Heaven are looking kindly down
The stars above in Heaven are looking kindly down
On the grave of old John Brown
posted by Al at 12/02/2002 02:20:00 AM
NEXT!
Britney Jean Spears was born December 2, 1981. This makes her 21 years old today. Therefore, she officially no longer qualifies for her job as an object of kiddie porn fantasies. It was a good career while it lasted.
posted by Al at 12/02/2002 02:12:00 AM
Uh oh Dubya, he's onto you!
Man, talk about delusional fantasies. Mark Crispin Miller is a professor of "culture and communication at New York University." His claim to fame is putting together some stale little hack book of President Bush's minor rhetorical gaffes. In the ranks of literary achievement, this rates somewhere a couple of creative steps below writing the screenplay for a porno movie.
He discovered something in the course of his research, though: George W Bush is really an evil sociopath! See, he has no trouble with words when he's saying something mean, talking about killing and punishment and retribution. He only has trouble with the language when it comes to saying something nice.
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as saying.
"That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put food on your family's table' � it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.
That rates as perhaps his best, most well founded piece of analysis. I'd say the guy's a retard, but I'd feel bad about slandering folks with Down's Syndrome by comparing them to someone this goddam willfully dumb. More than anything against him though, how could any sentient being feel anything but contempt for anyone who would treat him as a respectable intellectual?
The thing that catches me is that something this foolish, this self-indulgent gets treated as insightful thinking- indeed that it is considered to constitute "thinking" at all. Yet lots of stuff this slanderous and worse, utterly unfounded and at odds with all empirical data routinely gets presented as respectable opinion by big parts of the left-wing intelligentsia, particularly college professors. I am continually astonished by the lack of self-awareness that allows people with advanced degrees to indulge in such childish posturing.
posted by Al at 12/02/2002 01:33:00 AM
December 01, 2002
How'd this crazy African-American live this long?
Richard Pryor was born December 1, 1940. Happy #62!
Growing up in rural southern Indiana, I was not raised around many black folks- mostly just your basic Kentuckians. That being the case, I got a lot of my ideas about them from the media. A big portion of my early exposure consisted of black folks on television holding up banks and Village Pantries- or worse yet, obvious demagogues like Jesse Jackson.
Somehow a copy of Is It Something I Said? landed in my lap somewhere around junior high. A few years ago, it occured to me that listening to that album a couple of times a week for five years or so played a critical role in my ideas about black people and black culture before I eventually got more personal exposure. Mudbone's story of how he came to move to Peoria, Illinois made an especially big impact on my psyche.
Funny thing, I didn't particularly think of the record as a black thing. The universality of his human experience came right across. Hey, I'd have been right there sawing the seat in the outhouse myself. Go Mudbone!
posted by Al at 12/01/2002 10:08:00 PM
They can't take that away from him
It was twenty years ago today, December 1, 1982, that Michael Jackson released the Thriller album. As a young Elvis Costello fan, I ignored the record at the time. The intense overexposure over the next several years worked against my proper appreciation of his artistic achievement.
On top of that, the guy has gradually lost his mind. I mean this not to be snide or hateful, but the guy's obviously gone far off the rails somewhere. It's difficult to even look at the guy's face at this point. He's clearly lost his way.
Nonetheless, Thriller stands as a monumental achievement in popular music [bracketed by the classic Off the Wall and Bad albums]. This album was the biggest hit album ever, with good reason. From the slamming rock of "Beat It" to the perfect paranoid pulse of "Billie Jean" to the much maligned but perfectly plotted pleasantry of "The Girl Is Mine," this record stands as a state of the union statement on popular culture. Even the cheesy title tune (and video) exactly capture a certain trait of little boy joy in being frightened. [Yeah, yeah, save the stupid jokes for a minute.]
It comforts me now to hear Thriller. As further sad tales of corruption and despair emerge from the corpse's shell that is MJ 2002, his classic work stands perfect and immortal. Just as no amount of junk food or pills could undo the fact that Elvis recorded "Heartbreak Hotel," no horror stories emerging from Neverland can ever unrecord "Bad" or "Human Nature."
Michael Jackson's classic records stand forever, and they can't take that away from him.
posted by Al at 12/01/2002 04:36:00 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
|
|
