|
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!
----
|
February 01, 2003
Good deaths
A lot of people died today. Some old folks just wore out. Some people overdosed on drugs. Some died in the dungeons of Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro. A few went out in a literal blaze of glory.
The deaths of the seven astronauts on the Columbia space shuttle is a damned shame, but I don't feel that bad about it. Please do not take this as callousness, but as perspective.
They went out in a glorious manner. They got to be astronauts, and they went out in a blaze of glory. If you have to die- and we all do, eventually- how better to go? They spent their last days in space, and then poof, they were gone. It would be difficult to imagine a better way to go.
Their families have the worse part. They don't have their husbands or daddies. Even that, however, is mitigated by the circumstances. Daddy died a hero. These kids will get respect in the schoolyard. They have a proud legacy.
Warren Zevon shows another kind of brave death. He suffers from terminal cancer; his days are strictly numbered. [CLICK HERE for an outstanding New York Times feature.] I'd like to think that under similar circumstances I'd have the cheek for a gesture such as this photo from his official website of Warren being tended by his "personal physician," the good "Dr" Hunter S Thompson.
I probably don't want to argue that Zevon is more heroic than our astronauts, but what he's doing does show more obvious heroism. The astronauts lived well, but they weren't thinking about dying, they just went. They probably didn't feel a thing, and certainly didn't have to think about it or live with the idea of an imminent passing. They didn't really do anything death related.
Warren, on the other hand, has had decisions to make. He could have used this as an excuse for despair and indulgence of many kinds. Anybody would listen to his melodrama sympathetically at this point, and give him all the sympathy he could want. Instead, he tells Letterman that the lesson he has learned is simply to "enjoy every sandwich." He's spending time with his family- and writing and recording new music at a fevered pace.
Beyond whatever music he creates in these twilight days, Mr. Zevon is adding a worthy concluding chapter to his story. A good ending makes a good movie. His dignity and refinement and focus and calm manner add up to a state of grace worthy of a man.
posted by Al at 2/01/2003 08:07:00 PM
January 29, 2003
Hanania watch
Following the theme of childish Arab petulance brings us again to Ray Hanania. To review, Mr. Hanania is an American of Palestenian descent living in Chicago. Since he has already designated me personally as "a great voodoo doll representing hatred and bigotry" I might as well earn my title by using him as a further example of this analysis.
His claim to fame is that last August he got bumped from an opening slot for Jackie Mason's appearance at a local comedy club. Mr. Hanania (with only a couple of appearances as a stand-up to his credit) had a huge hissy fit over this everyday event, and went on a media blitz of indignance, charging Mason with racism.
Well, ok, you can understand Hanania being disappointed, and maybe even overreacting. However, he just will not let it go. Half a year later, he's still got attacks on Mason on the front page of his website. Nearly every entry in his blog to this day manages to shoehorn in a swipe at Mason.
For example, take his most recent entry. He's got actually a fairly funny bit about some geese apparently attempting to mate with his new SUV, and then a brief account of an appearance at U of Michigan. Then finally out of the blue, "Hey Jackie. You schlemeil! :)" Presumably putting a smiley face after the insult means it doesn't count.
The word seems precisely misapplied here, though. According to dictionary.com, a schlemiel is "a person who is gullible and easy to take advantage of." Jackie Mason is exactly NOT that. He wouldn't let himself be intimidated or co-erced into booking a guy he didn't want. That's the problem. That, and that Jackie is Jewish, of course.Labels: ray_hanania
posted by Al at 1/29/2003 10:35:00 PM
That's MY toy. Gimme!
Ben Shapiro has a fine column out with a nice succint history of the Temple Mount, and the modern point of controversy. Here is a point that caught my attention:
Any site of any value to anyone who is not Muslim will eventually become a "holy site," targeted for mosque construction. Muslims claim as holy sites the Church of the Nativity, Hindu shrines in India, the sites of statues in Afghanistan, the Tomb of Joseph, and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, among others.
Allow me to extrapolate and offend by noticing the truth: Many modern Arabs, and particularly Palestenians insist on acting like petulant children.
Children frequently show no interest in some particular toy- until another kid picks it up. Then it belongs to them, and they want it. They want it now, and they'll have fits about it if they can't take it away from the other child.
Muslims wouldn't care a thing about the tomb of Joseph if it weren't a holy site to the Jews. Indeed, nobody in the region really gave a rat's ass about what is now the modern nation of Israel until the Jews moved back. Now it's all super special sacred holy grounds of great significance.
The difference between Arabs having childish fits versus other children having childish fits comes in how they express their frustration. A child who can't have a toy will pout and cry, maybe have a little shoving match or fist fight with their opposition. Whereas on the other hand, if an Arab decides that it's THEIR toy, they're liable to... Well, you know, intifada and jihad and such.
posted by Al at 1/29/2003 09:58:00 PM
The president's SOTU case against Saddam
President Bush didn't particularly say anything new about Iraq, but he presented the basic case quite nicely. The main issue is that Hussein almost certainly has weapons of mass destruction. Hard telling where he stands on his nuclear program, but he most definitely has a lot of other nasty stuff.
The 108 UN weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons � lay those weapons out for the world to see � and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax � enough doses to kill several million people. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin � enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
Beyond any of the other offenses and obfuscations Bush detailed, this right here is pretty bad. Unless you want to claim that the defectors are lying, that Bush is lying with his claims about US intelligence, AND that the UN is flatly lying in its claims, then this looks pretty critical. That is a LOT of extremely dangerous weaponry.
But is this enough reason to go to war?
Before September 11, 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans � this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Exactly correct. I can only too easily imagine lots of scenarios where Hussein slips WMD materials to Al Qaeda or Hamas to use on the US, with no way for us to ever know where they came from. Hussein and Al Qaeda may not like one another, but they have a common enemy. And of course, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Of course he would never come at us face forward, for we would surely destroy him. He might very well slip some nasty crap to Al Qaeda to use on us, though. He might do it just for fun, cause he definitely runs that way. More practically, he might just want us hit anonymously to cause chaos and keep us pre-occupied while he's doing some wickedness back in the Middle East. That's just running interference.
How likely is such a scenario? Think what havoc was caused with an OUNCE or two of anthrax in three or four letters, and then about him slipping a few POUNDS of such stuff to Al Qaeda. How difficult would that be, and how difficult would it be to slip the stuff into the US? Not very, so far as I can see.
How likely would you have to judge such a scenario to be before you take pre-emptive action? See, we're not just talking about a couple of people killed with a bomb, or even a building being blown up. We're talking quite plausibly tens of thousands of people slaughtered horribly all at once. We don't have much room for error, or benefits of the doubt. As has been noted, there won't be any smoking gun until it has been fired. We can't afford to wait for him to fire.
Even thinking that there was one chance in ten of such an event would make it imperative to knock him down NOW. The odds seem worse even than that to me. Consider that he's already killed a million people, including the gassing of the Kurds.
I opposed the first Gulf War. It looked to me like something between Iraq and Kuwait, and not anything to do with the US. "No blood for oil" made sense. As a staunch libertarian, I don't like throwing our military all around the world, getting involved in other people's problems.
9/11 gave us a sudden shift in paradigm, however. Suddenly, we have a bunch of people who want nothing more than to kill Americans at home, and by the bunches. It's now a very different situation. Anybody who gives us cause to think that they even MIGHT be involved in such things is asking to getting whacked. Did I mention the direct awards to Palestenian suicide bombers that Hussein was openly offering a few months ago?
By my lights, this already constitutes a necessity for decisive military action. It will doubtless cost some lives both for us and the Iraqi people, but how many lives will be lost if we don't take it to him and end the problem? The risks are far too great for him to be allowed to remain in power.
In addition though, Bush has promised more details in the next few days showing co-operation between Hussein and Al Qaeda. That would be convenient, as it would be the absolute end of any legitimate objections to the war that we're going to have to wage. That's just gravy to the making of the case, though. The meat is already on the table.
posted by Al at 1/29/2003 09:16:00 PM
Hey, Paul- Can we get a DVD up in here?
Five years ago today, January 29 1998 Paul Simon's ill fated musical Capeman opened at Marquis Theater in New York City.
I can't speak to the quality of the play, because I never had an opportunity to see it- nor did much of anyone else. It played for a couple of weeks, and closed down. Kaput. No national tour, no video, not even a cast album.
Frankly, I'm still kind of pissy about this. OK, so it didn't go over. At least put out a simple video recording of the stage production so long time money spending Paul Simon fans such as myself can see what this big project looked like.
The only thing available to the general public is the Paul Simon album with half or less of the songs. This was an outstanding set of songs, a unique product in Simon's prestigious career. It was odd hearing him sing "I was born in Puerto Rico." It was also interesting to hear his careful enunciation of the curse words and racial epitaphs coming from the mouths of these teenage gangsters.
It would STILL be nice to have a cast album with ALL the songs, and/or a video of the play. C'mon, buddy, throw us fans a bone here.
posted by Al at 1/29/2003 02:11:00 AM
He made his own information age
Founding American patriot Thomas Paine was born this day in history, January 29, 1737. He published tracts arguing for American independence from Britain, notably "Common Sense."
"Thomas Paine was one of the first journalists to use media as a weapon againstthe entrenched power structure. He should be resurrected as the moral father of the Internet." Read Jon Katz's explanation.
posted by Al at 1/29/2003 01:54:00 AM
January 28, 2003
Barry Goldwater was a big ol' Heb!
Democrats made such a big thing in Y2K about how historic Joe Lieberman's nomination for vice president was, marking the first time a Jew was on the national ticket of a major party. If nothing else, the Gore campaign smashed down a barrier. Of course this claim just isn't true.
Uh, does the name "Goldwater" ring any bells? From the Washington Post obituary,
Barry Morris Goldwater was born in Phoenix on New Year's Day, 1909, three years before Arizona was admitted to the Union. He was the eldest son of Baron and Josephine Williams Goldwater, and the grandson of "Big Mike" Goldwasser, a Jewish immigrant from an area of Poland that was then ruled by the Russian czars. Although Jewish on his father's side, Mr. Goldwater was raised in the Episcopalian tradition of his mother.
It goes under the radar largely because the man himself was so profoundly individualistic in his outlook. He just wasn't about race, his own or others. He would have been absolutely the last man on the planet to ever play the race card. Indeed, he got a lot of grief for not being racially conscious enough.
Again, from the Washington Post obituary,
To many, Mr. Goldwater was a man of contradictions. He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard. But he also voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, contending that it was unconstitutional, and he backed restrictive amendments to earlier civil rights legislation. Blacks voted overwhelmingly against him in 1964.
Where was there a contradiction? He didn't believe in judging people by their race, and it was wrong for government to do so. Moreover, he truly didn't think it was the most important thing, and thus would not elevate racial issues as having overriding priority over any and all others. He was more concerned with maintaining the proper constitutional separation of powers and avoiding the improper usurpation of power by the federal government. The federal government was designed to have carefully described areas of authority, with other areas under the purview of states and individual citizens. It was not necessarily the place for the federal government to usurp power from the states, even if they sometimes did bad things.
In 1964, the Republican party nominated a Jew as their candidate for president. Most people didn't even notice. That was the truly historic element of the event.
posted by Al at 1/28/2003 01:20:00 AM
January 27, 2003
A guy's gotta eat
Last week my favorite Goat Girl was at a fisheries conference in DC. She was paying attention to details of how these elite professionals acted, including bigwigs like Gale Norton - looking for social cues and behavioral norms.
She noticed a bigwig who arrived late at a big banquet. Knowing that he hadn't had dinner, they got him a plate of food, but he couldn't really eat. He wouldn't want to look like a pig. He wasn't really there to eat. The honcho was there on business, and had lots of people watching him and talking to him. He manage to nibble a few discreet bites between conversations. He could always call down later for some room service so he could properly eat.
A day after this conversation, I found Al Sharpton on C-Span. [He had been in the same hotel at the time of the fisheries conference, as it happens, for NARAL's Roe anniversary activities.] C-Span cameras were following presidential candidate Sharpton around New Hampshire.
He stopped at a college for lunch with some students. They all sat around a table in the cafeteria asking him these serious policy questions. They all seemed to be pretty impressed with the opportunity to ask important questions of this nationally known presidential candidate.
Meanwhile, there sat Sharpton stuffing his face, talking with his mouth full. He had him a big old sandwich, and he was wolfing down every bite of it as if he hadn't eaten this week. It was like the classic Phil Hartman parody of candidate Clinton jogging into a McDonald's on SNL. You really have to see it to believe it.
Allow me to paraphrase. "Rev. Sharpton, what can be done to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestenians?" Reply: "First thing (chew, chew) is...snort, snort... the Israelis have to...[indecipherable chewing sounds]." Then he gobbled down all the potato chips. Fortunately he refrained from eating any of the students.
Now, Rand knows I'm in no position to criticize anyone for gluttony. It's not like I don't know how to strap on the feed bag. He's got appetites.
But he's also got a C-Span camera right there recording every moment for national broadcast, to say nothing of the eager young voters sitting right there hanging on his every word. Yet there he sat giving legitimacy to every crappy thing every detractor has ever said about him being a big fat pig. After all these years in the media spotlight, does the guy not have any clue what this looks like? Hit the drive thru at Burger King an hour from now if you're really needing to get your grub on, but at least pretend to have a little bit of dignity in front of the cameras.
Sharpton doesn't have enough sense not to talk with his mouth (very) full in front of tv cameras and voters, but he wants to be president of the United States. Even if you were a cheese eating commie who agreed with his general views, how could you possibly take him seriously?
posted by Al at 1/27/2003 05:09:00 PM
Libertarian Party futility?
Peter Bagge has a cartoon mocking the Libertarian Party on the Reason website that deserves a response. Writing for Reason, he presumably comes from a sympathetic philosophical standpoint to the party. It's not ideology that's his issue. Instead, he depicts us as a bunch of flaky losers, happy if we manage to occasionally play spoiler.
First as to flaky, this doesn't describe our Indiana party accurately at all. I haven't heard any of our members mention helmet laws as their big issue. The biggest policy issue in our local party recently has probably been the court-ordered overhaul of the whole state property tax system. That's a pretty big deal. Also, our state chair has been with the party for a good many years now, as have most of our officers and candidates.
Bagge's main attack is that we only get 2 or 3% of votes. For one thing, I don't pick out which party to support based on which one I think will get the most votes. It's not just a horse race. Libertarians represent the things I believe in whether or not they win elections.
In fairness, however, we do win SOME elections. We've got most of a thousand officeholders nationally. They are mostly in local offices, but that's often where the action is.
Moreover, we wish to effect public policy much more than we care about specifically being elected, otherwise most of us would be Republicans. Getting elected is one way to accomplish things, but not the only one. Since our Massachusetts party got 40 odd percent vote for a ballot initiative to completely repeal the state income tax, the Republicans and Democrats have got a clue that tax increases are not going to be a viable option. We've definitely done some good there.
Bagge specifically criticizes us for being "spoilers" who at most accomplish the feat of getting a Republican beat. However, spoiling some hack's election is not just a spiteful gesture [though that's a nice bonus]. It is a legitimate way of leveraging our support, and keeping Republicans at least halfway honest. Mostly we spoil elections for "moderate" ie liberal puke RINO type Republicans. Some Republican idiot looking for "moderate" or "mainstream" positions who starts getting squishy about gun control laws, say, might find a Libertarian opponent getting 5 or 6% instead of 1 or 2%. Can't afford that. Better watch your right flank.
The Libertarian Party has effects on public policy debates in many different ways. It's taken a quarter century of effort, but we're starting to substantially re-frame and reform drug policy, if only by baby steps. In the opposite direction from our spoiler effects, we tend to give decent Republicans and Democrats alike some room to maneuver. If we're standing there in a debate calling for repeal of the income tax, a Republican proposal for a Steve Forbes flat tax becomes a much more moderate and reasonable alternative. We ask for legalization of all drugs, and now support for medical marijuana has become a respectable position even for conservative mainstream politicians.
Truthfully, most Americans do not support libertarian ideas, at least not in the pure form the party espouses. That cannot reasonably be denied. We strive, however, to make the best of what we've got to work with. The public will support us on SOME issues. We have to figure out how to get them to support our ideas more, and leverage that support. Whether that support comes from voting for a Libertarian Party candidate or a better than average Republican matters little.
posted by Al at 1/27/2003 05:09:00 PM
January 26, 2003
Our most mockable president ever
Five years ago today, January 26, 1998 President Clinton says "I want to say one thing to the American people, I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Except for how it reflects on our nation to the world, Bill Clinton set the record for funniest president ever. By funniest, I mean the most ripe and rewarding object of ridicule and contempt. Amazon will offer you a package deal on buying video of the Clinton grand jury testimony packaged with Saturday Night Live - The Best of the Clinton Scandal.
This one classic finger waving moment of public performance largely already has come to stand as the epitome and the essence of his presidency: lack of any kind of integrity, petty lying to any and all, unbelievably tawdry self-indulgence with no regard to the consequences for anyone else above all other values. Beyond the content of his policies, the man was a disgrace to the office. You have to laugh at his total disgrace.
Yet the American public elected him. Twice.
So who should I laugh at the hardest?
posted by Al at 1/26/2003 05:19:00 PM
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
|
|
