|
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!
----
|
November 22, 2003
Crazy JFK assassination theories and the triumph of evil chaos
President John Kennedy got his brains blown out 40 years ago today. That was a damned shame, but these things happen. If you whack one politician, there'll always be a hundred more to take their place, much like the smaller variety of cockroaches. C'est la vie.
We'll probably never know 100% for sure, but the best indication is that it was just what it initially appeared to be: one lone gunman. Theoretically, there could have been a bunch of people or groups conspiring together, but it's unlikely that numerous collaborators could have kept their mouths shut for these many decades- besides any other evidence that would have been discovered by the fine tooth combs of government, media and authors in these passing decades.
The most interesting thing about it now is the continuing cottage industry in arcane conspiracy theories. Despite the passage of decades, this one assassination continues to haunt the collective imagination with innumerable books, tv shows, and now websites spinning incredibly arcane JFK assassination conspiracies.
Why so much widespread public emotional involvement in a relatively minor historical event (minor compared to, say, any war or the civil rights movement)? I have a theory! (Oh no, not you too.)
As much as this ground has been plowed over, I'd have to guess someone has said something similar. Forgive me then if this doesn't strike you as incredibly original. I value truth over originality anyway:
The assassination of JFK by a lone gunman represents a total triumph of evil chaos that is difficult to accept. It is understandable and acceptable emotionally that some bad powerful rich dudes might be able to muster their resources to kill even a president. It's ugly, but you can wrap your mind around it, and imagine ways to fight it.
It is much harder to accept that one petty, low level dumbass like Oswald can change the course of history with 50 cents worth of bullets and a little luck. The president has all kinds of guards, and an unlimited budget for personal security. If all those officers and millions of dollars can't protect you from just one idiot with a rifle, then there's no security for any of us ever.
This rings even more unnervingly true today than it would have in 1963. At that time, the main enemy was the USSR. They were evil, alright, but we knew who they were and where to find them. If we really had to, we could go after them.
Today, we fight an indistinct enemy. Only it's not really AN enemy, but lots of people who vaguely or more clearly wish us all harm. We can wipe out any government in the world that crosses us, but it's not mostly governments that we're dealing with. Even al Qaeda is not so much an identifiable organization at this point as just a cause, with bunches of small independent groups and- worse yet- unidentified individuals.
If all the king's horses and all the king's men can't protect him from one random crazy jackass, how can we protect ourselves from one or two guys intent on an ugly terrorist attack against US civilians? The US government has gotten pretty good at sniffing these things out, tapping phone calls between terrorists and such. But what if it's just one guy with some moderate technical expertise, and no co-conspirators to rat him out? How do you stop that?
Damned if I know. Besides, it's not like one lone guy could take out half of Manhattan. That would take a bunch of people and governments working together. I'm sure we'd get wind of it someway, and stop it.
posted by Al at 11/22/2003 12:48:00 AM
November 20, 2003
2004 Rock Hall of Fame inductees announced
The seven acts to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame on March 15, 2004 were announced today.
Prince
George Harrison
Bob Seger
Traffic
The Dells
ZZ Top
Jackson Browne
Obviously Prince was a shoe-in, this being the first year he was eligible. He should make the list just for the opening guitar solo of "When Doves Cry," let alone the rest of his work. The Elvises and the Beatles ain't got nothing on him for career artistic achievement. He is one songwriting, singing, record producing, guitar (and everything else) playing son of a bitch. I'm celebrating personally by playing "2 Nigs United 4 West Compton" for super jamming (which I note is being uploaded by a Kazaa user as we speak), and "7"- perhaps his freakiest track ever.
George Harrison being inducted as a solo act seems somewhat marginal. "My Sweet Lord" was fine, but really this seems somewhat unnecessary. His best songs were recorded with the Beatles, with whom Harrison was long ago inducted.
Bob Seger ROCKS. I'm especially pleased with his selection. He's not a particularly fashionable or charismatic guy, but he wrote "Night Moves" and "Rock and Roll Never Forgets" and, oh yeah, "Old Time Rock and Roll." Among somewhat less reknowned songs, he whipped very much ass with "Roll Me Away." There's no acceptable excuse for not having The Distance.
Traffic seems like pretty much of a waste. They made what, two or three albums? And those weren't that much to write home about. The title song "The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys" probably rates as their best song- and the Rickie Lee Jones cover WAY trumps their original.
The Dells seem like a competent but pretty generic doo wop outfit. I fail to see their significance.
ZZ Top seem like they're more noteworthy for their beards and cars than for any of their generic blues excursions. I'd probably pick Jon Bon Frickin' Jovi over them, just on the basis of music. Hell, I'd pick Black Sabbath over ZZ Top. Most of all, it is just plain STUPID that they're in and LYNYRD SKYNYRD are not.
It may be even more insulting that the whining wussiness of Jackson Browne cuts in line ahead of Skynyrd. Ah well, "Lawyers in Love" was an outstanding pop single, and in fairness I guess you can't really deny the danged Running on Empty album.
Did I mention that the voters have somehow passed over Skynyrd again? What the hell is wrong with them?
posted by Al at 11/20/2003 09:48:00 PM
November 17, 2003
Reckon how many smoking guns do you want?
The Weekly Standard has a highly important story on connections between al Qaeda and the former Iraq regime of Saddam Hussein. You really should READ IT. It is based on a 16 page memo (dated October 27, 2003) from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee. This is not publicly released information- yet.
This document summarizes hundreds or perhaps thousands of pieces of evidence tying the Hussein regime to al Qaeda over a period of over a decade, before and after 9/11- indeed up till just a few days before we went in. Even this summary of a summary creates a strong narrative of increasing levels of co-operation between them, based on the work of multiple intelligence agencies, myriad human witnesses, and various kinds of documents.
Note that lots of documents are still coming to light as the US processes millions of pieces of paper and hard drives captured in taking over Iraq. They have to be translated from Arabic, and then sifted through for the relevant details. I would imagine we'll be years in sorting through all that stuff.
Before the war, the top reason given for going into Iraq was the presence of WMDs. Even as a supporter of the war, I'll admit that not finding any significant stash of such things (so far) looks bad. It might be that they weren't there, that we simply haven't figured out the right place to look for them, or (God forbid) that they were largely moved out of country. In any case, we haven't found any, which tends to make our case for war look weak.
However, this documentation of Iraqi links to al Qaeda now looks far stronger than most supporters of the war had thought- myself included. Representatives of the Bush administration in fact tread lightly before the war on making connections between Hussein's regime and al Qaeda. They were mentioned only in passing, lacking hard evidence.
Now evidence is emerging clearly indicating extensive co-operation between them, with Iraq offering training grounds and safe haven for Bin Laden's people. This constitutes considerably stronger justification for the absolute necessity of taking down the Hussein regime than WMDs would. Hey, he might have just wanted some mustard gas for domestic use in killing his own people. However, training, funding and hiding the people who are attacking US seems like about as clearcut a justification for US destroying the regime as you could ask for.
So far, this Weekly Standard story seems to have generated only moderate attention, which seems odd to me. I would think this would be THE story for a good while, yet I haven't seen it mentioned even on the Fox News Channel- supposed Bush administration patsies. Why?
posted by Al at 11/17/2003 07:51:00 PM
Schadenfreude for Rush Limbaugh
A lot of hateful jackasses are taking great pleasure in Rush Limbaugh's drug problem.
In fact, Rush is not particularly judgmental of others, as has been offered as an excuse for his critics' joy. He has not gone on about locking up all the dopers, or any such. Those accusations are largely just made up out of the air. That kind of hatefulness looks to me more like other people projecting their own spiteful personalities onto him- as is evidenced by this Blogcritics post and the responses, for example.
Personally, I favor legalizing drugs, but Rush does not. Does the fact that he has not been able to live up to the highest standards he believes in make it somehow morally incumbent for him to advocate legalization?
Exactly that he has experience now with this weakness might reasonably give him cause to say that we need to keep up the legal barriers that make it at least a little more difficult for others to fall into the trap that he has. I might disagree with that outlook, but it is not hypocrisy.
Also, Rush has in fact taken responsibility for his actions. He has directly said that he alone is responsible for his actions. He has said that he has failed, and fell short of the his own standards- and that he needs help in getting back on the right track.
Nor is he particularly arrogant, nor setting himself up as God, as some have contended. Indeed, his classic boast is that he has "talent on loan from God." Looked at correctly, this nominal little boast might be best understood as a backwards statement of humility.
It's cool if you don't find Rush entertaining, or don't agree with much of his politics.
Nonetheless, he is not some evil monster who deserves ridicule and suffering. Those supposed compassionate liberals who are enjoying his suffering, and are anxious to rub his face in it are showing their true colors- and they are a lot more ugly and hateful than anything Rush has ever shown.
posted by Al at 11/17/2003 06:22:00 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
|
|
