This is BIG. The entire Lebanese government resigned today. The grip of the Syrians on Lebanon is inexorably getting more and more difficult to maintain. This, coupled with the announcement in Egypt that Mubarak will open up elections to allow opposition candidates to run against him is also huge.
It is entirely too early to see where this will all lead, but in the minds of all of those who opposed Bush's revolutionary endeavor to democratize the Middle East region, there has got to be some doubt. A German newspaper last week published an op-ed that opined, "What If Bush Was Right"? Clearly this prospect has got to be going through the minds of the Left (and the Buchanan Right).
Suicide Bombing In Israel
On Friday, another suicide bomber attacked in Israel. I subsequently caught an interview with Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian Authority official. Normally when PA officials would do interviews, they'd always deflect responsibility for the atrocity and bring up the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces. This time around, Erekat seemed downright desultory and offered no defense. He said that the PA had nothing to do with it, and frankly (perhaps naively), I believed him. With the death of arch-murderer Arafat, I'm of the mind that the PA and the Palestinian people are done with the intifada. It has brought nothing but misery and bloodshed to them, and a chance for a real nation of their own, before the latest suicide bombing, seemed to be feasable.
And Behind The Door Is....
Syria, of course. Let's keep track of what the Syrians have been up to in the few weeks. They planted a 650 lbs. bomb under a street to blow up once and future Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Harari. According to Israeli intelligence, they were responsible for the latest suicide bombing in Israel. And to take some of the heat off, they forked over Saddam Hussein's half-brother, who was wanted in Iraq. All of which brings us to some prospective questions and conclusions:
a.) If Syria had Saddam Hussein's brother, who else to do they have? Additionally, is it so unbelievable that the missing WMDs actually did exist and were spirited away to Syria? Since a high level Ba'ath official like Saddam's brother took refuge in Syria, it proves that there was an operational relationship between the two Ba'ath governments. Why is it so unbelievable that they would hide WMDs as well as officials?
b.) Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part, but the PA is truly interested in ending the intifada and getting a real agreement with Israel. Syria is not. They're interested in perpetual war with Israel, and they'll do anything in their power to destroy any real peace agreement, much less the establishment of a Palestinian state.
c.) Events are spiralling out of control in Lebanon for the Syrians. I'm hoping that things don't get any more violent than they have, but they could. In the meantime, 25,000 people have taken to the streets. Much as the Syrians would like to pull a "Hama" (a rebellious town they levelled in 1982, killing 30,000 people), there are 150,000 US troops next door, and the eyes of the world are watching them.
Let's see how it all unfolds. But this is certainly getting interesting.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Che
Carlos Santana is either too ignorant or completely without sympathy for the victims of Che Guevara and his killing squads that terrorized South and Central America throughout the 50's and 60's. Why else would this otherwise good man wear such a shirt to the Oscars?
Some people you just can't reach.
Some people you just can't reach.
"Stunned"? Maybe The Porters Were...
Legend in his own mind, and barely relevant at this point, Michael Moore posted this amusing observation on his website:
Last night, at the People's Choice Awards, "Fahrenheit 9/11" was named the Best Movie of the Year. It was a stunning moment for us. And, somewhere inside the Bush White House, someone there must have been stunned, too.
Er, sorry Mike. A People's Choice Award isn't an Oscar, and considering there have been more than a few murmurs of dissatisfaction regarding your cinematic slander having had a boomerang effect on this past election, I don't think anyone was particularly "stunned" anywhere in the White House. I don't anyone even noticed that you'd won your award in the White House. I guess one can always fantasize.
Fellows like Michael Moore come and go in American political consciousness. A few people remember Abby Hoffman, but not many. No one remembers Jerry Rubin or Mario Savio. Granted, through the use of cinema and agit-prop documentary, Moore has gained more notoriety and money than any of the aforementioned. But since the election went against those of his ilk, his polemics in both word and film are no longer relevant. Moore is steadily degenerating into an anachronism. Additionally, if things keep going in the right direction in the Middle East and in the wrong direction in Europe (specifically with the EU), Moore is finished as a figure of mass public appeal. He'll always have the radical lefties at his side. But they, like he, are looking increasingly irrelevant as well.
Last night, at the People's Choice Awards, "Fahrenheit 9/11" was named the Best Movie of the Year. It was a stunning moment for us. And, somewhere inside the Bush White House, someone there must have been stunned, too.
Er, sorry Mike. A People's Choice Award isn't an Oscar, and considering there have been more than a few murmurs of dissatisfaction regarding your cinematic slander having had a boomerang effect on this past election, I don't think anyone was particularly "stunned" anywhere in the White House. I don't anyone even noticed that you'd won your award in the White House. I guess one can always fantasize.
Fellows like Michael Moore come and go in American political consciousness. A few people remember Abby Hoffman, but not many. No one remembers Jerry Rubin or Mario Savio. Granted, through the use of cinema and agit-prop documentary, Moore has gained more notoriety and money than any of the aforementioned. But since the election went against those of his ilk, his polemics in both word and film are no longer relevant. Moore is steadily degenerating into an anachronism. Additionally, if things keep going in the right direction in the Middle East and in the wrong direction in Europe (specifically with the EU), Moore is finished as a figure of mass public appeal. He'll always have the radical lefties at his side. But they, like he, are looking increasingly irrelevant as well.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Vegas Anecdote
Howard Hughes moved into the Desert Inn hotel in Las Vegas in 1966. Because of Hughes' erratic behavior, the management of the establishment attempted to evict him. Hughes reacted to this attempt by buying the hotel. He never left.
Hmmmm....
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.......The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen.We can see it." Walid Jumblatt - Druze Leader
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Howard Stern
I'm not really sure when it was that Howard Stern became un-funny. Many people who were former listeners that I speak to claim it was round about the time he got divorced. That might or might not be the case, however. What might actually be the case is that he really wasn't that funny to begin with, but since he was shocking and I was younger (I've been listening to him since approximately 1985 when he was the afternoon guy at WNBC ), he seemed funnier than he actually was. That said, he has become extraordinarily trite to me. I still find his celebrity interviews mildly amusing, but that's pretty much where it begins and ends. The only comedic bit that I can think of that was drop-dead funny in recent memory was "The World's Meanest Listener" contest, where listeners sent in tapes of themselves ripping into whatever member of Stern's staff they so chose. Stern himself was not excluded from the contest, and some of the most brutal insults came his direction from some of the tapes that were sent in. But that was the last time. Recently Stern has been hoisting himself as a free speech advocate and a quasi-martyr for the cause. Jeff Koyen of the New York Press does a pretty conclusive deconstruction of Stern in his latest column. It's worth reading, and to my mind, all true. You can read it here.
The Porno Boy Chronicles Continue (..After This Short Word From Our Sponsor)
Jogging through my memory of notable Porno Boy stories, I recalled this gem. I was not a witness to this episode, but it certainly doesn't sound out of character:
Porno Boy was out getting sloshed (natch) with a friend from work. Whilst still in his suit from the finished work-day, Porno Boy took off from whatever bar he was soon to get kicked out of anyway with his work buddy and went to a Korean deli to get some more beer to take back to his apartment. (A fair assumption is that back in his apartment cocaine would be ingested. This is merely speculation on my part.) Drunk and stumbling, Porno managed to drop a few beer bottles on the floor, pissing off the Korean guy behind the counter. No doubt an argument ensued, with Porno Boy voicing his standard racial invective towards the poor Korean guy on the graveyard shift. Fortunately for the Korean guy, a few cops happened to be in the vicinity and came in to the deli to try to calm things down. Told to pay the clerk, go home, and sleep off whatever intoxicants were currently swirling around in brain by the two cops, Porno Boy used his standard "hey man, I was just kidding around with the guy" excuse. A few minutes later, a female cop came in as back-up. Seeing this female police officer, Porno Boy exclaimed, "Uh oh. They called in Butch!" The female officer was not impressed. While the two male cops chuckled at the whole scenario, the female cop proceeded to whip Porno Boy around like a rag doll and give him a mild beat-down. I don't recall whether he was cuffed, but it matters not. He still got roughed up by a broad.
Porno Boy was out getting sloshed (natch) with a friend from work. Whilst still in his suit from the finished work-day, Porno Boy took off from whatever bar he was soon to get kicked out of anyway with his work buddy and went to a Korean deli to get some more beer to take back to his apartment. (A fair assumption is that back in his apartment cocaine would be ingested. This is merely speculation on my part.) Drunk and stumbling, Porno managed to drop a few beer bottles on the floor, pissing off the Korean guy behind the counter. No doubt an argument ensued, with Porno Boy voicing his standard racial invective towards the poor Korean guy on the graveyard shift. Fortunately for the Korean guy, a few cops happened to be in the vicinity and came in to the deli to try to calm things down. Told to pay the clerk, go home, and sleep off whatever intoxicants were currently swirling around in brain by the two cops, Porno Boy used his standard "hey man, I was just kidding around with the guy" excuse. A few minutes later, a female cop came in as back-up. Seeing this female police officer, Porno Boy exclaimed, "Uh oh. They called in Butch!" The female officer was not impressed. While the two male cops chuckled at the whole scenario, the female cop proceeded to whip Porno Boy around like a rag doll and give him a mild beat-down. I don't recall whether he was cuffed, but it matters not. He still got roughed up by a broad.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Gotta Get Up Pretty Early In The Day...
...to take on Rummy, that is. This hilarious exchange between Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Ca.) and Rumsfeld shows that Rumsfeld clearly is quite an adversary when it comes to verbal jousting. Conversely, it shows what an amateur Sanchez is. This exchange comes courtesy of James Taranto's Best of the Web:
Sanchez: Unfortunately, as I said, this committee has had a hard time assessing where we really stand with the Iraqi army as an effective fighting force. Over the past year, we've received incredibly widely fluctuating estimates of that. And I think you have a real credibility problem on this issue.
Rumsfeld: Fluctuations of what?
Sanchez: The fluctuations of--the numbers that you bandy around about how many troops we really have out there that are Iraqi police, et cetera, et cetera. . . .
Rusmfeld: Now, you say we bandy around numbers. They're not my numbers. I don't invent them. They come from Gen. Petraeus. . . .
Sanchez: I have Petraeus's numbers. They're different than your numbers, by the way.
Rumsfeld: Well, what's the date? They aren't different because these came from Petraeus. He may have two sets of numbers, but they are not different if the date's the same. The date on my paper here is Feb. 14. What's yours?
Sanchez: Dec. 20.
Rumsfeld: Not surprising there's a difference.
Sanchez: Unfortunately, as I said, this committee has had a hard time assessing where we really stand with the Iraqi army as an effective fighting force. Over the past year, we've received incredibly widely fluctuating estimates of that. And I think you have a real credibility problem on this issue.
Rumsfeld: Fluctuations of what?
Sanchez: The fluctuations of--the numbers that you bandy around about how many troops we really have out there that are Iraqi police, et cetera, et cetera. . . .
Rusmfeld: Now, you say we bandy around numbers. They're not my numbers. I don't invent them. They come from Gen. Petraeus. . . .
Sanchez: I have Petraeus's numbers. They're different than your numbers, by the way.
Rumsfeld: Well, what's the date? They aren't different because these came from Petraeus. He may have two sets of numbers, but they are not different if the date's the same. The date on my paper here is Feb. 14. What's yours?
Sanchez: Dec. 20.
Rumsfeld: Not surprising there's a difference.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Hockey Lockout
I'm not really sure what was going through Gary Bettman's mind when he insisted on a hard salary cap and refused to budge one scintilla off of it. In Bettman's mind, the profitability of lower-tiered, small market teams was/is more important than those in large markets. Essentially, Bettman thinks the financial viability of, say, Carolina is more important than the financial viability of Boston. This amounts to socialism, plain and simple, which would be fine provided all the thirty franchises in the NHL pool all their assets, divvy them out equally, then asked for players to accept a salary cap based on this equal asset allocation. Of course, this would never happen. I've always maintained that markets that are too small to support professional franchises should make do with a minor league franchise, no matter the sport. For the last fifteen years, hockey has added nine teams in such markets as Carolina (originally Hartford), Phoenix, San Jose, Anaheim, and Columbus. Needless to say, all these clubs are having financial problems. Is it the players' fault that the NHL were too greedy and too lacking in foresight to see that these markets couldn't support professional hockey? I think not. But that is what the NHL is doing, making the players pay for the league's poor management by insisting on a drastic salary reduction across the board and for the forseeable future. (Or until the next Collective Bargaining Agreement.) Dispicable.
Another thing Bettman has failed to understand (in my opinion) is that hockey isn't baseball, it isn't basketball, it certainly isn't football...and it probably doesn't even rival NASCAR at this point in terms of fan base and revenue generation. Hockey is a cult sport in the US, and while it may be religion in Canada, it really matters very little to the bottom line, because the bulk of the NHL revenues derive from the States, not Canada. I'm not sure that the casual hockey fan will come back to the sport in any meaningful way. The long-term ramifications of this lock-out could conceivably result in the demise of the league itself. If there are any pirate leagues out there looking to capitalize on this (a la World Hockey League in the 70's), now would certainly be the time for them to step up to the plate.
The last time the Stanley Cup finals were canceled was in 1919. They had a pretty good excuse for that one...there was a flu epidemic raging. (It eventually claimed the life of Montreal Canadien and Hall of Famer Joe Hall.) This cancellation is inexcusable. But that's what you get when you put an American lawyer from Queens who never played the game in charge of running it.
Another thing Bettman has failed to understand (in my opinion) is that hockey isn't baseball, it isn't basketball, it certainly isn't football...and it probably doesn't even rival NASCAR at this point in terms of fan base and revenue generation. Hockey is a cult sport in the US, and while it may be religion in Canada, it really matters very little to the bottom line, because the bulk of the NHL revenues derive from the States, not Canada. I'm not sure that the casual hockey fan will come back to the sport in any meaningful way. The long-term ramifications of this lock-out could conceivably result in the demise of the league itself. If there are any pirate leagues out there looking to capitalize on this (a la World Hockey League in the 70's), now would certainly be the time for them to step up to the plate.
The last time the Stanley Cup finals were canceled was in 1919. They had a pretty good excuse for that one...there was a flu epidemic raging. (It eventually claimed the life of Montreal Canadien and Hall of Famer Joe Hall.) This cancellation is inexcusable. But that's what you get when you put an American lawyer from Queens who never played the game in charge of running it.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Friedman on Hariri Assassination
Tom Friedman is probably the only columnist worth reading in the New York Times, now that William Safire has departed from the op-ed page. Maureen Dowd essentially is a one-trick pony whose sole specialty is to recycle the same old belittling jokes about Bush. Krugman is a garden-variety hysteric of little note. Herbert is trite. Brooks, while being the sole conservative of the lot, isn't particularly interesting either. But Friedman is always intriguing, even when he is frustratingly utopian. (I seem to recall him writing a column about the feasibility of the Saudis joining NATO, or some such foolish idea.) Both Moses and I have come to the conclusion that when Friedman is right, he's capable of tremendous insight; but when he's wrong, he seems slightly barmy (at best). Mind you, columns that Moses thinks are insightful I think are ridiculous (and vice-versa), however there are times when we both agree that Friedman has nailed a particular concept or story. To my mind at least, I think Friedman is dead on with his column today. It is columns like this that draw the best out of Friedman, tapping his reservoir of experiences he accrued whilst reporting on the Lebanese civil war of the 70's and 80's that ripped apart that country and essentially levelled Beirut. (Once considered "the Paris of the Middle East".)
Spitfire
Spitfire
Born Rich
I finally saw it this past week. The documentary, that is. Pretty interesting, too. Whereas some of the kids profiled in this movie seemed pretty down to earth (Ivanka Trump, in addition to being quite a nice looking gal, seemed pretty grounded), others were downright contemptible. One kid named Luke Weil, heir to the Autotote gaming empire (never heard of it, truth be told), came off like such an arrogant asshole (and in his more sober moments probably realized it) that he tried to get his interview pulled from the documentary. Failing that, he sued producer/director Jamie Johnson (heir to the Johnson and Johnson empire). Many of the subjects interviewed were filled with a palpable self-loathing. One could only imagine that that self-loathing was the direct by-product of knowing that all the accolades, all the hype, all the educational opportunities, and all of the material possessions were attained through no self-generated effort. (I'm not a psychiatrist, mind. I'm merely surmising.) One kid that came off with some genuine humility was Josiah Hornblower, heir to the Vanderbilt/Whitney fortune. Having dabbled in drugs and booze (he subsequently failed out of university), Hornblower went down to Texas to work on oil rigs for two years. He later said that those were the best two years of his life. Having met people of different (no doubt lower) social positions, as well as different ethnicities, Hornblower came to the conclusion that the only thing that made him feel good about himself was hard work. That's something, eh?
Most (all?) of us strive to attain the American Dream, complete with material possessions, big houses/apartments, and copious liquidity. I'm no exception, and I certainly make no apology for it. Where the damage can be done is when one has tremendous amounts of money that one did nothing to earn. Having watched this documentary, I'd rather make a million on my own than inherit hundred million that I had nothing to do with earning. On second thought...maybe not.
Most (all?) of us strive to attain the American Dream, complete with material possessions, big houses/apartments, and copious liquidity. I'm no exception, and I certainly make no apology for it. Where the damage can be done is when one has tremendous amounts of money that one did nothing to earn. Having watched this documentary, I'd rather make a million on my own than inherit hundred million that I had nothing to do with earning. On second thought...maybe not.
Dean
Somewhat tardy in arriving at this post, as Howard (Scream Dream) Dean got elected to the Democratic National Committee chairmanship. I, for one, am elated. In a bid for complete self-immolation, the far-left wing of the Democratic Party might've just put the final nail in the coffin of a once great, but now largely irrelevant, party. Dean will be making the political talk show circuit for the next four years. One can only imagine the treasure-trove of rhetorical idiocies this man will utter in the future. Clearly his election doesn't bode well for the future of the party, and while I'm not wholly convinced that Hillary can be defeated in '08, Howard Dean won't be doing her any favors. Just to review some of the madcap things Dean has said:
-When Saddam Hussein fell from power: "I suppose that's a good thing."
-On the guilt of bin Laden: "I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
-He later said he could win over those who supported the war "by going after (President Bush) on terrorism, where he's really weak." [?!?]
-On the GOP: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." [This may work for the likes of Michael Moore (maybe not), but it certainly is unbecoming of a man in his position as DNC chair to say such a thing, no? Even if he does, it's not something that should be said.]
-On Bush's social stances: "The truth is the president of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia."
-On appealing to red state voters: "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."
-Self explanatory (or is it?): "I've waffled before. I'll waffle again."
-Two years after 9/11/01, Dean had this to say on the campaign trail: "We won't always have the strongest military."
And there's plenty more where that came from. Dean is probably the worst pick the DNC could've made for its leader. Not only is he a poor choice to be the face of the Democrats, but he's also a terrible politico. No wonder Joe Trippi, who's work with Dean was nothing short of outstanding, eventually quit in frustration.
Loose lips sink ships....or political parties.
-When Saddam Hussein fell from power: "I suppose that's a good thing."
-On the guilt of bin Laden: "I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."
-He later said he could win over those who supported the war "by going after (President Bush) on terrorism, where he's really weak." [?!?]
-On the GOP: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." [This may work for the likes of Michael Moore (maybe not), but it certainly is unbecoming of a man in his position as DNC chair to say such a thing, no? Even if he does, it's not something that should be said.]
-On Bush's social stances: "The truth is the president of the United States used the same device that Slobodan Milosevic used in Serbia."
-On appealing to red state voters: "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."
-Self explanatory (or is it?): "I've waffled before. I'll waffle again."
-Two years after 9/11/01, Dean had this to say on the campaign trail: "We won't always have the strongest military."
And there's plenty more where that came from. Dean is probably the worst pick the DNC could've made for its leader. Not only is he a poor choice to be the face of the Democrats, but he's also a terrible politico. No wonder Joe Trippi, who's work with Dean was nothing short of outstanding, eventually quit in frustration.
Loose lips sink ships....or political parties.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Childhood
I just got back from helping my friend Stan move out of his condo in central New York. It was a long drive up and an even longer drive back down. But the conversations were pretty fun and certainly dredged more than a few childhood memories. Since I'm in a state of semi-exhaustion, I'll boil my conclusive thoughts:
a.) I got in alot of fights when I was a kid, right through high school...more than I had realized previously.
b.) I was treated pretty cruelly at times by some of my schoolmates. Conversely, I was pretty cruel to alot of my schoolmates, too.
c.) Being a smaller guy and having a sharp tongue has a tendency of pissing off more than a few people, particularly some of the rougher kids. (And there were quite a few.) I once said to some tough-guy classmate that he "had a face that could stop a clock". He spent the rest of the semester trying to change his lunch period so he could catch me outside and beat the shit out of me. Fortunately he never did. (Fortunately for him.)
d.) I had a really fun time in high school; not so much junior high school.
e.) I'm glad I stayed away from the kids who's fathers were in the mob....and there were more than a few of 'em.
f.) I wish I could fight better. I was good at throwing haymakers using tried and true hockey techniques (grab shirt with left hand, wildly throw punches at head with right, try to pull opponent's shirt over his head using "lights out" manoeuvre). Fortunately, even in the fights I that I lost, no one actually ever hit me square in the face. (That didn't happen 'til after college in Manhattan...and a few times during that era.)
g.) Little League was great. Two of my best friends from home I met when we were eight or nine in Little League. I still talk to those friends. How great is that?
a.) I got in alot of fights when I was a kid, right through high school...more than I had realized previously.
b.) I was treated pretty cruelly at times by some of my schoolmates. Conversely, I was pretty cruel to alot of my schoolmates, too.
c.) Being a smaller guy and having a sharp tongue has a tendency of pissing off more than a few people, particularly some of the rougher kids. (And there were quite a few.) I once said to some tough-guy classmate that he "had a face that could stop a clock". He spent the rest of the semester trying to change his lunch period so he could catch me outside and beat the shit out of me. Fortunately he never did. (Fortunately for him.)
d.) I had a really fun time in high school; not so much junior high school.
e.) I'm glad I stayed away from the kids who's fathers were in the mob....and there were more than a few of 'em.
f.) I wish I could fight better. I was good at throwing haymakers using tried and true hockey techniques (grab shirt with left hand, wildly throw punches at head with right, try to pull opponent's shirt over his head using "lights out" manoeuvre). Fortunately, even in the fights I that I lost, no one actually ever hit me square in the face. (That didn't happen 'til after college in Manhattan...and a few times during that era.)
g.) Little League was great. Two of my best friends from home I met when we were eight or nine in Little League. I still talk to those friends. How great is that?
Lebanon
The illegal occupation continues. The assassination of Rafiq Hariri hopefully will awaken all of those so opposed to ALL occupations to take up the banner and expell the occupational forces of Syria from Lebanon. Additionally, here' s to hoping Hezbollah is expelled as well.
Monday, February 14, 2005
His Excellency
Just finished the Joseph J. Ellis autobiography on George Washington, His Excellency. A couple of observations about this book and the subject:
a.) Washington was a realist whose experiences were forged in the French and Indian War. Unlike Jefferson or Adams, who came from genteel upbringings and had university educations, Washington's education was derived in warfare. As president, he was unencumbered by intellectual idealism and governed according to that which was in the best interests of the nascent republic.
b.) He was, above and beyond anything, a federalist. Knowing full well that the republic could not survive under the Jeffersonian philosophy of states' interests taking precedence over the federal government, he threw his lot in with the Hamiltonian philosophy of centralized government. He thought the Articles of Confederation were a flawed framework for the United States, and he presided over the Constitutional Convention, though he took care not to interject his opinions on matters too frequently.
c.) He knew, from the beginning of the Revolutionary War onward that slavery was wrong. Washington was no philosopher or great intellect, but he was a pragmatist. He knew the ideals that were the kernel of the Revolutionary War were wholly incompatible with the institution of slavery. After his presidency, he spent his remaining years trying to secure his own financial matters in the hopes that he could use that financial security to free his slaves. (With a fairly large amount of them he had no legal right to do so, as they were part of his wife's estate and not his own.) There were 300 slaves at Mount Vernon; only 100 of them were actually working the estate. The rest were either too old or too young to be of any practical use. Washington refused to sell any of them, for to do so would be to break up families. On his death, he freed all of them as per his will. He knew history was watching, and he would be judged harshly for his participation in the institution. All of this hardly exonerates him from his involvement, but it does go a long way towards showing that he was far from oblivious on the issue towards the end of his life, though he was completely without shame regarding it in his younger, pre-Revolutionary War years.
d.) He instructed his wife Martha to burn all correspondence between the two of them on his death. She did so. Once again, Washington knew history would attempt to get a glimpse of the real George Washington. He didn't want to give history that opportunity.
e.) He never said, "entangling alliances with none". Pat Buchanan throws this quote around, and it is apocryphal. What Washington did say in his Farewell Address was, "'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world". This is different than saying the US should have no alliances externally, as Buchanan asserts. What the quote really means is what one 19th century British parliamentarian said, which was "we have no perpetual enemies and no permanent friends; we only have perpetual and permanent interests".
f.) He is the only man in history to command a victorious army and not assume the mantle of state leadership by gunpoint. Mao Tze-Dong led the Chinese Red Army to victory in 1949 against Chaing Kai-Shek's Nationalist Army only to turn around and become supreme leader, with an army at his back. Ditto Napoleon, Oliver Cromwell, Julius Caesar, Fidel Castro, and virtually every other leader that commanded an army in history. Washington won the Revolutionary War, then willingly abdicated his prospective position as the first monarch of the United States. This was, and still remains, a truly radical act of history. George III of Great Britain was heard to proclaim that if Washington actually did this, he would be remembered as the greatest man in history. With this act alone, one could make a serious argument that he was.
e.) Politics was as nasty in the late 18th century as it is today, and even Washington was not immune to it. Washington's first term went relatively smooth, and everyone was civil and loving, at least on the surface. Washington's second term, however, was as tempestuous and divisive as anything in modern times. Jefferson and Madison plotted against Washington's back, started rumors that Washington was not in his right mind, was senile, and was being controlled by the conniving Alexander Hamilton. (Washington was aware of their duplicity and essentially excommunicated Jefferson from his inner-circle.) Tom Paine wrote an open letter to Washington that actually wished for Washington's death. Paine wrote, "...whether the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an imposter, whether you have abondoned good principles, or whether you ever had any". On some level, this made me feel better about the current state of American politics. I guess it never was meant to be civil after all.
Spitfire
a.) Washington was a realist whose experiences were forged in the French and Indian War. Unlike Jefferson or Adams, who came from genteel upbringings and had university educations, Washington's education was derived in warfare. As president, he was unencumbered by intellectual idealism and governed according to that which was in the best interests of the nascent republic.
b.) He was, above and beyond anything, a federalist. Knowing full well that the republic could not survive under the Jeffersonian philosophy of states' interests taking precedence over the federal government, he threw his lot in with the Hamiltonian philosophy of centralized government. He thought the Articles of Confederation were a flawed framework for the United States, and he presided over the Constitutional Convention, though he took care not to interject his opinions on matters too frequently.
c.) He knew, from the beginning of the Revolutionary War onward that slavery was wrong. Washington was no philosopher or great intellect, but he was a pragmatist. He knew the ideals that were the kernel of the Revolutionary War were wholly incompatible with the institution of slavery. After his presidency, he spent his remaining years trying to secure his own financial matters in the hopes that he could use that financial security to free his slaves. (With a fairly large amount of them he had no legal right to do so, as they were part of his wife's estate and not his own.) There were 300 slaves at Mount Vernon; only 100 of them were actually working the estate. The rest were either too old or too young to be of any practical use. Washington refused to sell any of them, for to do so would be to break up families. On his death, he freed all of them as per his will. He knew history was watching, and he would be judged harshly for his participation in the institution. All of this hardly exonerates him from his involvement, but it does go a long way towards showing that he was far from oblivious on the issue towards the end of his life, though he was completely without shame regarding it in his younger, pre-Revolutionary War years.
d.) He instructed his wife Martha to burn all correspondence between the two of them on his death. She did so. Once again, Washington knew history would attempt to get a glimpse of the real George Washington. He didn't want to give history that opportunity.
e.) He never said, "entangling alliances with none". Pat Buchanan throws this quote around, and it is apocryphal. What Washington did say in his Farewell Address was, "'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances, with any portion of the foreign world". This is different than saying the US should have no alliances externally, as Buchanan asserts. What the quote really means is what one 19th century British parliamentarian said, which was "we have no perpetual enemies and no permanent friends; we only have perpetual and permanent interests".
f.) He is the only man in history to command a victorious army and not assume the mantle of state leadership by gunpoint. Mao Tze-Dong led the Chinese Red Army to victory in 1949 against Chaing Kai-Shek's Nationalist Army only to turn around and become supreme leader, with an army at his back. Ditto Napoleon, Oliver Cromwell, Julius Caesar, Fidel Castro, and virtually every other leader that commanded an army in history. Washington won the Revolutionary War, then willingly abdicated his prospective position as the first monarch of the United States. This was, and still remains, a truly radical act of history. George III of Great Britain was heard to proclaim that if Washington actually did this, he would be remembered as the greatest man in history. With this act alone, one could make a serious argument that he was.
e.) Politics was as nasty in the late 18th century as it is today, and even Washington was not immune to it. Washington's first term went relatively smooth, and everyone was civil and loving, at least on the surface. Washington's second term, however, was as tempestuous and divisive as anything in modern times. Jefferson and Madison plotted against Washington's back, started rumors that Washington was not in his right mind, was senile, and was being controlled by the conniving Alexander Hamilton. (Washington was aware of their duplicity and essentially excommunicated Jefferson from his inner-circle.) Tom Paine wrote an open letter to Washington that actually wished for Washington's death. Paine wrote, "...whether the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an imposter, whether you have abondoned good principles, or whether you ever had any". On some level, this made me feel better about the current state of American politics. I guess it never was meant to be civil after all.
Spitfire
A Few More Grammy Reflections
I neglected to comment on a few other things I witnessed at the Grammys. I blogged whilst under the influence of four glasses of cabernet, so I neglected a few performance reviews, though I think I got most of 'em. Here we go:
1.) U2, from what I can hear/see (I was in a bar), put on a nice performance of a song that I'm not familiar with. Starting off slow and understated, it turned into a whirlwind of sound and intensity. I'm pretty happy that U2 is still around and making good music. U2 is one of those very few bands who's influences are virtually impossible to trace. My initial exposure to them was in 1983-84 when War came out. "New Year's Day", "Two Hearts Beat As One", and "Sunday Bloody Sunday" (utterly misused by the NFL on Superbowl Sunday, might I add) were all on heavy rotation on MTV at that point, and I was struck then (as I am now) by their complete originality of sound. Bono screen presence and voice were unlike any I'd ever seen before, and The Edge (what a great stage name) was one of the more unorthodox guitar players I'd ever heard. Twenty-two years later, I still feel the same way about them. Wholly compelling and original, both in image and sound.
2.) Hoobastank. Any band that has any kind of fecal or flatulence reference in their name gets crossed off my list. (Why call yourselves Hoobastank when you can directly call yourselves shit? Hey, if they won't, I will. They're shit.)
3.) Maroon 5. These guys strike me as Matchbox 20 knock-offs. And Matchbox 20 suck. As a matter of fact, I flatly refuse to listen to any band that has such difficulty coming up with a band name that they have to insert a number at the end of their name. Bland is back!
4.) Franz Ferdinand. I found nothing motivational about them, save that they were Scottish or that they named themselves after the assassinated heir to the Austro-Hungarian empirical throne. Wonder if these guys will ever get around to playing Sarajevo, and whether Bosnians will be into them.
5.) Hey...I saw Cyndi Lauper in the audience! Several times!
6.) Quincy Jones is still kicking around. Good for him. Tremendous composer and musician. Conducted Count Basie's band with Frank Sinatra on Live at the Sands. Also produced and arranged Thriller. Monstrous talent.
7.) Rush was nominated for Best Rock Instrumental for Neil Peart's drum solo, "O Baterista". Brian Wilson won for his instrumental, "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" instead. Far be it for me to diminish the credit Brian Wilson isn't now getting (long overdue), but I'd like Rush to win one of these things, if just once. A thirty year career comprising of more gold records than any single band save the Beatles and the Stones is deserving of a hell of alot more.
I think that covers everything.
Spitfire
1.) U2, from what I can hear/see (I was in a bar), put on a nice performance of a song that I'm not familiar with. Starting off slow and understated, it turned into a whirlwind of sound and intensity. I'm pretty happy that U2 is still around and making good music. U2 is one of those very few bands who's influences are virtually impossible to trace. My initial exposure to them was in 1983-84 when War came out. "New Year's Day", "Two Hearts Beat As One", and "Sunday Bloody Sunday" (utterly misused by the NFL on Superbowl Sunday, might I add) were all on heavy rotation on MTV at that point, and I was struck then (as I am now) by their complete originality of sound. Bono screen presence and voice were unlike any I'd ever seen before, and The Edge (what a great stage name) was one of the more unorthodox guitar players I'd ever heard. Twenty-two years later, I still feel the same way about them. Wholly compelling and original, both in image and sound.
2.) Hoobastank. Any band that has any kind of fecal or flatulence reference in their name gets crossed off my list. (Why call yourselves Hoobastank when you can directly call yourselves shit? Hey, if they won't, I will. They're shit.)
3.) Maroon 5. These guys strike me as Matchbox 20 knock-offs. And Matchbox 20 suck. As a matter of fact, I flatly refuse to listen to any band that has such difficulty coming up with a band name that they have to insert a number at the end of their name. Bland is back!
4.) Franz Ferdinand. I found nothing motivational about them, save that they were Scottish or that they named themselves after the assassinated heir to the Austro-Hungarian empirical throne. Wonder if these guys will ever get around to playing Sarajevo, and whether Bosnians will be into them.
5.) Hey...I saw Cyndi Lauper in the audience! Several times!
6.) Quincy Jones is still kicking around. Good for him. Tremendous composer and musician. Conducted Count Basie's band with Frank Sinatra on Live at the Sands. Also produced and arranged Thriller. Monstrous talent.
7.) Rush was nominated for Best Rock Instrumental for Neil Peart's drum solo, "O Baterista". Brian Wilson won for his instrumental, "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" instead. Far be it for me to diminish the credit Brian Wilson isn't now getting (long overdue), but I'd like Rush to win one of these things, if just once. A thirty year career comprising of more gold records than any single band save the Beatles and the Stones is deserving of a hell of alot more.
I think that covers everything.
Spitfire
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Reflections on the Grammys
I only caught perhaps 45 minutes of it, but I wanted to share with my adoring public and the dedicated readers of this illustrious blog (all one or two of you) my thoughts on the Grammys:
1.) Queen Latifah has a pretty good voice. I think it's great that she's proven that she's a bonafide vocal talent by staking out a niche in jazz singing. She came off pretty well as MC too.
2.) Alicia Keys is a monstrous talent. I'm not too into her music, mind. But I thought her performance showed a great deal of confidence as a performer and as a singer. I wasn't overly impressed with Jamie Foxx's turn singing, but I think he's a pretty good actor. (Haven't seen 'Ray' yet, but saw him in 'Collateral', which he was okay in.)
3.) Black Eyed Peas suck, unless of course you're into four people jumping up and down on stage and saying things like "Put your hands up in the air, and swing 'em like you just don't care". I kind of get the feeling they're trying model themselves on Sly and Family Stone, but they just lack the originality and talent to pull it off.
4.) Green Day rocked, as usual. I'm not terribly blown away by their songwriting abilities, as they basically regurgitate the same chord sequences (all three of 'em) time and again. But they're compelling and energetic performers.
5.) Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony were definitively boring, not the least of which was because they chose to sing in spanish. No offense, but if you're going to sing in another language, it better be a stellar piece of music, like say the 4th movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Needless to say, their song was not. It wasn't even on par with Falco's "Der Kommisar" or "Rock Me Amadeus".
6.) Los Lonely Boys...enjoy it while it lasts, kids. Enough said.
7.) Dickie Betts and Lynyrd Skynyrd with assorted country singers piping in....hmmm. Hate to say it, but southern rock still kind of creeps me out in a 'Deliverance' kind of way. Skynyrd played a few bars of "Free Bird", which was enough for me to cringe. But it didn't even compare to the cringe-worthiness of "Sweet Home Alabama", a song which is a blatant celebration of all that disgusts me. Sorry folks, complimentary songs about George Wallace just don't float my boat. The best I can say about it is that Wallace was a Democrat, and as a conservative, I take no responsibility for Lynyrd Skynyrd or George Wallace. I did like Dickie Betts' version of "Ramblin' Man", which is a good tune and has no awful, redneck, "South shall rise again" overtones.
8.) Led Zeppelin got a lifetime achievement award. One of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time doesn't need the validation of the Grammy people.
9.) Prince won an award and didn't bother to show, much less even videotape a "thank you" to the academy. How cool is that? (Pretty cool, I think.)
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Ars longa, vita brevis.
Spitfire
1.) Queen Latifah has a pretty good voice. I think it's great that she's proven that she's a bonafide vocal talent by staking out a niche in jazz singing. She came off pretty well as MC too.
2.) Alicia Keys is a monstrous talent. I'm not too into her music, mind. But I thought her performance showed a great deal of confidence as a performer and as a singer. I wasn't overly impressed with Jamie Foxx's turn singing, but I think he's a pretty good actor. (Haven't seen 'Ray' yet, but saw him in 'Collateral', which he was okay in.)
3.) Black Eyed Peas suck, unless of course you're into four people jumping up and down on stage and saying things like "Put your hands up in the air, and swing 'em like you just don't care". I kind of get the feeling they're trying model themselves on Sly and Family Stone, but they just lack the originality and talent to pull it off.
4.) Green Day rocked, as usual. I'm not terribly blown away by their songwriting abilities, as they basically regurgitate the same chord sequences (all three of 'em) time and again. But they're compelling and energetic performers.
5.) Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony were definitively boring, not the least of which was because they chose to sing in spanish. No offense, but if you're going to sing in another language, it better be a stellar piece of music, like say the 4th movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Needless to say, their song was not. It wasn't even on par with Falco's "Der Kommisar" or "Rock Me Amadeus".
6.) Los Lonely Boys...enjoy it while it lasts, kids. Enough said.
7.) Dickie Betts and Lynyrd Skynyrd with assorted country singers piping in....hmmm. Hate to say it, but southern rock still kind of creeps me out in a 'Deliverance' kind of way. Skynyrd played a few bars of "Free Bird", which was enough for me to cringe. But it didn't even compare to the cringe-worthiness of "Sweet Home Alabama", a song which is a blatant celebration of all that disgusts me. Sorry folks, complimentary songs about George Wallace just don't float my boat. The best I can say about it is that Wallace was a Democrat, and as a conservative, I take no responsibility for Lynyrd Skynyrd or George Wallace. I did like Dickie Betts' version of "Ramblin' Man", which is a good tune and has no awful, redneck, "South shall rise again" overtones.
8.) Led Zeppelin got a lifetime achievement award. One of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time doesn't need the validation of the Grammy people.
9.) Prince won an award and didn't bother to show, much less even videotape a "thank you" to the academy. How cool is that? (Pretty cool, I think.)
Anyway, that's my two cents.
Ars longa, vita brevis.
Spitfire
Saturday, February 12, 2005
The Fourth Estate Is In Trouble
"You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing."
--Jonathan Klein, former CBS News executive and current head of CNN News
Now that Eason Jordan's head has been stuffed and mounted on a wall right next to Dan Rather's, it's time to take account of this phenomenon known as the blogosphere. Just to recap, Two weeks ago in front of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, Eason Jordan stood up in front of an international audience and pronounced that he knew of twelve, count 'em, twelve journalists that had been deliberated targeted by the United States military. The inference was that the military, and by extension the Bush Administration, were so disgusted by the truth telling of these journalists regarding the conduct and progress of the war that they had them assassinated. He subsequently enjoyed the congratulatory comments of a number of anti-American members of BBC, Agence-Presse, and a number of Arab journalists for his "truth telling". One problem: he couldn't prove it....at all.
Last night, Jordan was forced to resign for his comments. In fairness, partial credit must go to two liberal members of Congress, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, who were in the audience when Jordan made these comments and were clearly distressed at the assertions, and made their distress known. But the bigger credit must go to the denizens of the blogosphere, who kept this story alive and brought the pressure down on CNN. To date, WEF has released nary a transcript, much less an audio or video recording of Jordan's turn at the lectern in Davos. Jordan's resignation proves that he made the comments (he initially denied that he had made the assertion and watered down his initial statements) and that he had no proof to back them up. It's one thing to slime the men and women of the United States military. It's quite another to do it without any proof.
In conclusion, the blogosphere is here to stay, and there's nothing the mainstream media establishment can do about it. Gone are the days when a battle like the Tet Offensive, clearly debacle for the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, can be turned into a resounding victory for the opposition by the likes of Walter Cronkite and CBS News. This is the new journalistic landscape, and the Fourth Estate would be wise to take note. Far from "sitting in pajamas writing", the blogosphere is made up of very sharp, very astute, and ominipresent people.
After Klein made his snotty comment, some bloggers took to calling themselves the "pajamahedeen". Indeed, the journalistic resistance has arrived. More trophies will be mounted on the wall if they don't toe the line of honest and fair journalism.
--Jonathan Klein, former CBS News executive and current head of CNN News
Now that Eason Jordan's head has been stuffed and mounted on a wall right next to Dan Rather's, it's time to take account of this phenomenon known as the blogosphere. Just to recap, Two weeks ago in front of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, Eason Jordan stood up in front of an international audience and pronounced that he knew of twelve, count 'em, twelve journalists that had been deliberated targeted by the United States military. The inference was that the military, and by extension the Bush Administration, were so disgusted by the truth telling of these journalists regarding the conduct and progress of the war that they had them assassinated. He subsequently enjoyed the congratulatory comments of a number of anti-American members of BBC, Agence-Presse, and a number of Arab journalists for his "truth telling". One problem: he couldn't prove it....at all.
Last night, Jordan was forced to resign for his comments. In fairness, partial credit must go to two liberal members of Congress, Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, who were in the audience when Jordan made these comments and were clearly distressed at the assertions, and made their distress known. But the bigger credit must go to the denizens of the blogosphere, who kept this story alive and brought the pressure down on CNN. To date, WEF has released nary a transcript, much less an audio or video recording of Jordan's turn at the lectern in Davos. Jordan's resignation proves that he made the comments (he initially denied that he had made the assertion and watered down his initial statements) and that he had no proof to back them up. It's one thing to slime the men and women of the United States military. It's quite another to do it without any proof.
In conclusion, the blogosphere is here to stay, and there's nothing the mainstream media establishment can do about it. Gone are the days when a battle like the Tet Offensive, clearly debacle for the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, can be turned into a resounding victory for the opposition by the likes of Walter Cronkite and CBS News. This is the new journalistic landscape, and the Fourth Estate would be wise to take note. Far from "sitting in pajamas writing", the blogosphere is made up of very sharp, very astute, and ominipresent people.
After Klein made his snotty comment, some bloggers took to calling themselves the "pajamahedeen". Indeed, the journalistic resistance has arrived. More trophies will be mounted on the wall if they don't toe the line of honest and fair journalism.
Friday, February 11, 2005
CNN's Jordan Resigns
Guess Eason Jordan didn't want to go down the Dan Rather route and resigned before he completely destroyed both himself and his network. Maybe he'll get around to personally apologizing to every member of the American Expeditionary Force in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Fat chance.)
Eason Jordan at the World Economic Forum
CNN's top international executive, Eason Jordan, asserted a week and a half ago that the United States military had deliberately murdered twelve journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said this at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in front of few hundred people representing several nations. He also said this in front of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma.) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Ct.). To date, Jordan has yet to give concrete proof to back up this accusation, and has managed to suppress all audio, video, and written transcripts of his remarks. Both Frank and Dodd were clearly upset by Jordan's remarks and demanded some proof. None has been forthcoming. I've been following this story since it was reported by Jay Nordlinger in the National Review, as well as Glenn Reynolds on MSNBC.com. Larry Kudlow at NRO wrote about it again this week. What it all boils down to is this. If it is true what Jordan has asserted, he should:
a.) Release all tapes, videotapes, and transcripts of his remarks in Davos.
b.) Provide concrete evidence, including either verbal testimony or written orders from the US Army and/or Marines which stated that journalists were to be targeted.
c.) Admit that he lied, he slimed the US military, and resign in shame.
As Dan Rather learned, albeit the hard way, the blogosphere is here to stay, and bullshit cannot fly without this new "check" on the system. So Jordan had better get his house in order and back up his claim, because if he doesn't, the denizens of the internet will keep this story alive until the mainstream media picks it up. Already some right-leaning papers such as the New York Post, the New York Sun, and the Washington Times have picked up the story. It is only a matter of time before CNN's competitors start running with the story. You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Time for Jordan to put up, or resign. It's also time for CNN to salvage what's left of its reputation and conduct a thorough investigation into the charge.
a.) Release all tapes, videotapes, and transcripts of his remarks in Davos.
b.) Provide concrete evidence, including either verbal testimony or written orders from the US Army and/or Marines which stated that journalists were to be targeted.
c.) Admit that he lied, he slimed the US military, and resign in shame.
As Dan Rather learned, albeit the hard way, the blogosphere is here to stay, and bullshit cannot fly without this new "check" on the system. So Jordan had better get his house in order and back up his claim, because if he doesn't, the denizens of the internet will keep this story alive until the mainstream media picks it up. Already some right-leaning papers such as the New York Post, the New York Sun, and the Washington Times have picked up the story. It is only a matter of time before CNN's competitors start running with the story. You can blow out a candle, but you can't blow out a fire. Time for Jordan to put up, or resign. It's also time for CNN to salvage what's left of its reputation and conduct a thorough investigation into the charge.
Churchill Was Right....Yet Again
The following article was published this week in National Review Online about the disasterous Yalta Conference, and how it still affects us today. I have little to add to the article, save the fact that the Chinese and North Korean regimes that are major threats at this moment gained their power as a direct result of the concessions that Roosevelt insisted on making to Stalin at Yalta. Whilst Churchill directly advised Roosevelt NOT to insist that Stalin join the Allied effort in the Pacific, Roosevelt brushed off his counsel. Roosevelt, advised by the likes of Soviet spy Alger Hiss and Harry Hopkins (implicated by Soviet KGB agent Oleg Gordievsky as an agent spy "of major significance") and in ill health, allowed the Soviets to gain a foothold in Asia without ever firing a shot at the Japanese or aiding the Allied war effort in the Pacific. Sixty years hence, we're still dealing with the devastating decision in the f0rm of Red China and North Korea, and have paid a heavy price in trying to reverse that disasterous deal in the form of our war against communism in Vietnam and Cambodia during the 60's and 70's.
Churchill was right...yet again. Nostradamus should've had such a record of prescience. If only people had listened.
Churchill was right...yet again. Nostradamus should've had such a record of prescience. If only people had listened.
Lynn Stewart
Besides being hard to look at (in a "Throw Mamma From The Train" kind of way), Lynn Stewart is also a stone "revolutionary". (And not in a good way.) Anyone who says that communism was/is merely a "belief" might want to take a glimpse at this quote and ask whether this is a belief system that can be considered on the same plane as, say, a socialist/liberal:
"I don't have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous. Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people's revolution."
J'accuse! Vous ete une bolshevique!
Spitfire
"I don't have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous. Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people's revolution."
J'accuse! Vous ete une bolshevique!
Spitfire
The Porno Boy Chronicles
After much deliberation as to whether it would be a good idea to publish about the infamous Porno Boy, I've decided that the life story of this person must be told. One cannot fathom such a person as Porno Boy, because he is so completely beyond the scope of polite society and reasonable behavior. If a movie were to insert a character like Porno Boy into it, the character would be so over the top and unrealistic that the character, while very funny, wouldn't be believable. Rest assured, everything that I'm about to write happened. As the cliche goes, you can't make this stuff up. But first, some background.
Porno Boy was brought into my circle of friends by my former roomate (I shall refer to him as Loki going forward), who while being a bit of a sociopath in his own right, had the wherewithal to actually put on a civilized veneer from time to time when the occasion called for it. No so Porno Boy. He arrived at our apartment drunk, stumbling, cursing up a storm, and talked in a low-class Jersey patois that left no doubt as to the manner in which he conducted himself or the environment he was raised. He subsequently left rambling, drunken messages on our answering machine that professed his undying willingness to have a rough, "adult" relationship with me. My first natural inclination was to knock his teeth out, as I had only met the guy once and wasn't particularly impressed with him. (I'm all for joking around and getting my chops busted, but not by a complete stranger who was merely a friend of my roomates.) In the end, I realized that it was better to leave it well enough alone, a calculation that turned out to be more prescient than I thought. Porno thrived on upsetting people; it fueled even more insulting and irreverent behavior, which he directed toward the targets of choice. I did manage to become friendly with him, at which point the disgusting answering machine messages diminished to a reasonable, more civilized tenor. ("Hey, what's up you scumbag?" was a vast improvement, to my mind.) Porno also managed to ingratiate himself into our little clique of hell-raisers. (We were all in our mid-20s, all aspiring stockbrokers, with nary a pot to piss in. Not that stopped us from going out two or three times a week, getting liquored up and exploring the darkest corners of dirty Gotham.) Watching Porno in action, boozed up beyond all recognition ( and probably coked up, too) was a sight to behold. A few choice examples:
Porno Boy talking to a girl at Peculiar Pub:
Porno: What do you do for a living?
Girl: I'm a doctor's assissant.
Porno: Oh. Well, maybe you can help me. I'm having some problems with my prostate.
Porno Boy talking to a girl, again (I believe) at Peculiar Pub:
Porno: You know, you remind me of a friend of mine.
Girl: Is that a good thing?
Porno: I dunno...his name is Jeff.
Porno Boy turning on the charm to some girl who had no interest in him:
Porno: Kid, you're not bad looking, but you have to do something about that mustache. That may fly in Romania, but not in America.
(Girl is suitably horrified.)
These are just a few of his greatest hits. In the interest of stretching out and keeping the readers of this blog interested, I'll be posting minimally (I hope) a dozen more Porno stories.
This concludes this chapter of the Porno Boy Chronicles.
(Cue the music from Masterpiece Theatre.)
I am Spitfire. Goodnight.
Porno Boy was brought into my circle of friends by my former roomate (I shall refer to him as Loki going forward), who while being a bit of a sociopath in his own right, had the wherewithal to actually put on a civilized veneer from time to time when the occasion called for it. No so Porno Boy. He arrived at our apartment drunk, stumbling, cursing up a storm, and talked in a low-class Jersey patois that left no doubt as to the manner in which he conducted himself or the environment he was raised. He subsequently left rambling, drunken messages on our answering machine that professed his undying willingness to have a rough, "adult" relationship with me. My first natural inclination was to knock his teeth out, as I had only met the guy once and wasn't particularly impressed with him. (I'm all for joking around and getting my chops busted, but not by a complete stranger who was merely a friend of my roomates.) In the end, I realized that it was better to leave it well enough alone, a calculation that turned out to be more prescient than I thought. Porno thrived on upsetting people; it fueled even more insulting and irreverent behavior, which he directed toward the targets of choice. I did manage to become friendly with him, at which point the disgusting answering machine messages diminished to a reasonable, more civilized tenor. ("Hey, what's up you scumbag?" was a vast improvement, to my mind.) Porno also managed to ingratiate himself into our little clique of hell-raisers. (We were all in our mid-20s, all aspiring stockbrokers, with nary a pot to piss in. Not that stopped us from going out two or three times a week, getting liquored up and exploring the darkest corners of dirty Gotham.) Watching Porno in action, boozed up beyond all recognition ( and probably coked up, too) was a sight to behold. A few choice examples:
Porno Boy talking to a girl at Peculiar Pub:
Porno: What do you do for a living?
Girl: I'm a doctor's assissant.
Porno: Oh. Well, maybe you can help me. I'm having some problems with my prostate.
Porno Boy talking to a girl, again (I believe) at Peculiar Pub:
Porno: You know, you remind me of a friend of mine.
Girl: Is that a good thing?
Porno: I dunno...his name is Jeff.
Porno Boy turning on the charm to some girl who had no interest in him:
Porno: Kid, you're not bad looking, but you have to do something about that mustache. That may fly in Romania, but not in America.
(Girl is suitably horrified.)
These are just a few of his greatest hits. In the interest of stretching out and keeping the readers of this blog interested, I'll be posting minimally (I hope) a dozen more Porno stories.
This concludes this chapter of the Porno Boy Chronicles.
(Cue the music from Masterpiece Theatre.)
I am Spitfire. Goodnight.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Spam-O-Lot
Recently an advertisement for a new Broadway show by the name of Spamalot started appearing on the sides of city buses. I viewed said advertisement with some interest, as I'm a longtime Python fan. I doubt I'll go see the play, as I can't see how a bunch of American theatrical actors (or even Anglo ones) will be able to recreate the insane genius of Monsieurs Palin, Chapman, Gilliam, Idle, Cleese, and Jones. If they even come remotely close to being as funny as the aforementioned gentlemen, more power to them. I can only imagine it would be pretty tough to beat those guys for sheer insanity and madcap delivery. But more important than this play is what happened to a seven years old boy thirty years ago. The year was 1975, the movie was Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and the unwitting (and extremely reluctant) parents of this seven year old were my own. Badgered by countless requests to see The Holy Grail (spurred on by commercials about said movie that somehow managed to pique an interest in the film), my mother and father eventually relented to the wishes of this very strange seven year old boy. Off we went to the N0rth Babylon Theatre to see it. Needless to say, I enjoyed the movie immensely. But the same could not be said for my parents, who were quite unmoved by the humor of it all. I'm fairly certain that my mother was completely horrified by the scene with the Black Knight at the bridge. Seeing a man get all four limbs lopped off, with the obligatory shooting blood coming from all sockets, was just a bit too much. My father pretty much remained silent about the whole thing up until a few days ago, when he said (thirty years after the fact) that he did think it mildly amusing when the Black Knight, with all four limbs removed by King Arthur in a ridiculously lopsided sword fight, declared: "....okay....we'll call it a draw!" Thirty years hence, I think The Holy Grail is funnier now then when I saw it at the age of seven. I get the more subtle jokes now. Back then, I thought the lethal, flying rabbit was hysterical. Now I think the obnoxious French guy at the top of the ramparts (in French accent, "I burst my pimples at you and call your door opening request a silly thing!") takes the cake, followed by Dennis, the anti-establishment peasant who's behavior was strangely reminiscent of what you hear coming out of the mouths of the likes of Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, and/or their acoloytes. ("Oh king, eh, very nice. An' how'd you get that, eh? By exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an' social differences in our society! If there's ever going to be any progress...") Then there's this exchange between King Arthur and God:
GOD: Arthur! Arthur, King of the Britons...oh, don't grovel! If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people groveling.
ARTHUR: Sorry--
GOD: And don't apologize. Every time I try to talk to someone it's "sorry this" and "forgive me that" and "I'm not worthy". What are you doing now!?
ARTHUR: I'm averting my eyes, oh Lord.
GOD: Well, don't. It's like those miserable Psalms -- they're so depressing. Now knock it off!
Happy Mardis Gras.
Spitfire
GOD: Arthur! Arthur, King of the Britons...oh, don't grovel! If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people groveling.
ARTHUR: Sorry--
GOD: And don't apologize. Every time I try to talk to someone it's "sorry this" and "forgive me that" and "I'm not worthy". What are you doing now!?
ARTHUR: I'm averting my eyes, oh Lord.
GOD: Well, don't. It's like those miserable Psalms -- they're so depressing. Now knock it off!
Happy Mardis Gras.
Spitfire
Monday, February 07, 2005
McCartney Rocks the Superbowl...and the Game Was Pretty Good, Too
I'm not terribly interested in football. George Will once wrote that football "combined the worst elements of American life: violence, punctuated by frequent committee meetings". I'm a pretty big fan of baseball, though not nearly as big as some people I've met in the last ten years of my life. One person I met through a friend recently revealed such an egregious obsession with baseball (and the Mets in particular) that he monitored the Carlos Beltran negotiation in a similar manner that one would observe a Quotron during market hours, completely transfixed on the markets and certain stocks of vested interest. Except instead of a Quotron, he was tapping internet baseball sites and listening to ESPN simultaneously. Subsequently meeting this fellow out for drinks, he couldn't stop talking about the Carlos Beltran deal for minimally an hour straight, until the subject changed to Bob Dylan, at which point his fixation switched to ol' Zimmerman. Then he went an hour straight talking about Dylan, who's words and music I have a cursory knowledge of. I came to two conclusions regarding this strange specie of person:
a.) This guy is completely immersed in two things (Dylan and the Mets, specifically Carlos Beltran) that I know nothing about, and what a strange combination of things to be so knowledgeable about. And what a strange person.
b.) Anyone who could be that fixated on Bob Dylan and the Mets is too strange not be interesting. I knew very little of what this fellow was talking about. He made references to "Tangled Up In Blue", Choo Choo Coleman (the first starting catcher in Mets history), and Carlos Beltran all in one sentence. Any deviation from the Mets, Beltan, or Dylan was strictly coincidental, like to order another Budweiser. In the end, I thought this guy is great! What a suitably odd person to know. I'm very happy I made his acquaintance. F...kin' weirdo. I love that guy.
But I digress....
Anyway, I watched the Superbowl at an Italian restaurant with J., a female friend who I once had carnal relations with but no longer do. We managed to be friends still because she's the only female I can tell to shut the f...k up and she won't cry; if anything, she'll throw a haymaker in my direction, which I usually successfully parry. The dinner was great, and we caught three of the four latter quarters. The game didn't exactly go down to the wire, but it was exciting to the end. But enough about the game. How 'bout that Paul McCartney! He rocked the place. Even more amazing is that Paul is over 60. He still looks great, still can work a crowd as well as the any performer I've ever witnessed, and picked all great tunes. "Ride My Car" rocked, "Live and Let Die" had cool coordinated fireworks, "Get Back" worked well, and "Hey Jude" was, as always, a crowd pleaser. How funny was it to see 13 year old girls at the front of the stage? Paul did a great job. I hope that odious human being Yoko Ono was watching. Good guy Paul, who never left his family the way Yoko's erstwhile husband did, is still standing. And Yoko is still making bad art. Good for Paul.
a.) This guy is completely immersed in two things (Dylan and the Mets, specifically Carlos Beltran) that I know nothing about, and what a strange combination of things to be so knowledgeable about. And what a strange person.
b.) Anyone who could be that fixated on Bob Dylan and the Mets is too strange not be interesting. I knew very little of what this fellow was talking about. He made references to "Tangled Up In Blue", Choo Choo Coleman (the first starting catcher in Mets history), and Carlos Beltran all in one sentence. Any deviation from the Mets, Beltan, or Dylan was strictly coincidental, like to order another Budweiser. In the end, I thought this guy is great! What a suitably odd person to know. I'm very happy I made his acquaintance. F...kin' weirdo. I love that guy.
But I digress....
Anyway, I watched the Superbowl at an Italian restaurant with J., a female friend who I once had carnal relations with but no longer do. We managed to be friends still because she's the only female I can tell to shut the f...k up and she won't cry; if anything, she'll throw a haymaker in my direction, which I usually successfully parry. The dinner was great, and we caught three of the four latter quarters. The game didn't exactly go down to the wire, but it was exciting to the end. But enough about the game. How 'bout that Paul McCartney! He rocked the place. Even more amazing is that Paul is over 60. He still looks great, still can work a crowd as well as the any performer I've ever witnessed, and picked all great tunes. "Ride My Car" rocked, "Live and Let Die" had cool coordinated fireworks, "Get Back" worked well, and "Hey Jude" was, as always, a crowd pleaser. How funny was it to see 13 year old girls at the front of the stage? Paul did a great job. I hope that odious human being Yoko Ono was watching. Good guy Paul, who never left his family the way Yoko's erstwhile husband did, is still standing. And Yoko is still making bad art. Good for Paul.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Thought for the Day
Courtesy of Condoleeza Rice:
"There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy," she says. "Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles."
Ain't that the truth.
"There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy," she says. "Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles."
Ain't that the truth.
Friday, February 04, 2005
SOTU/Words Matter
On SOTU
The president's SOTU address the other night was extraordinarily striking on a few levels. As I observed, during the domestic policy portion of the speech, Bush was smiling from ear-to-ear a great deal. I guess he should be smiling, given the momentous event in world history that he precipitated. On top of that, he also made the entire "doubting Thomas" bloc of the American (and world) intelligentsia look positively foolish. (I must confess that I'm still very wary of where things will go in Iraq's new government, for the the prospects for ethnic and tribal strife are still great. I'm hopeful they'll be ironed out, but "cautious optimism" is the watch-phrase.) By my observations, I'm pretty sure Cheney was having a hard time containing a smirk during SOTU as well. Hell, this has been some three months, never mind week. After having everything hurled at them, the guys at the top of this administration are still standing. That's an achievement in and of itself.
The most impressive part of Bush's speech (and at this point his expression became more of a scowl than a smirk) was the foreign policy outline. BY NAME, Bush ticked off the following nations, admonishing them for their lack of democratic freedoms, or worse yet, their indulgence in terrorism: Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon (occupied by 30,000 Syrian troops; used by Hezbollah as a training and staging area), Egypt, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Mind you, he didn't lump all of the above into one excrable grouping. Iran, Syria, and North Korea had the most forceful language thrown in its direction, and rightly so, for they are by far the most odious and threatening republics in the world right now. But the lack of democratic expression in Jordan, Egypt, and particularly Saudi Arabia is also noteworthy. How long can this game of "blame America/blame Israel" cover up for the internal corruption and failed governance within these nations? How long can the state-controlled government paper over governmental shortcomings endemic to regimes where the people have no say at all? And the key question here is, how much do the citizens of these odious republics (and kingdoms) realize this? My guess is that they realized this a long time ago, and they stopped caring a long time ago, because no one cared about their plight. How long will dissidents be jailed, tortured, or executed for voicing their dissatisfaction and unhappiness? No job prospects for degreed citizenry, governments that could care less about said citizenry, and bloated autocrats getting fat off the foreign aid and oil revenues....not a recipe for long-term viability. Two nights ago, the president recognized their collective plights and singled their governments out by name. Mark my words, the effect will be seismic.
Words Matter
It is virtually impossible to correctly gauge the Bush Administration's approach to foreign policy without reading Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy. The Bush agenda of "export democracy" is clearly motivated by the key points within the book, the most salient of which is that you cannot make peace with governments that wage war on their own people. Bush, like Reagan before him with the Soviet Union, singled out by name the most repressive regimes in the Middle East and Asia. Like Reagan before him, Bush's rhetoric has been dismissed as unecessarily inflammatory and counter-productive. However, Bush...again like Reagan before him, understands that the populations within these repressive nations are willing receptors for this kind of rhetoric, and might just take his rhetoric and turn it into action. Sharansky, who was jailed for nine years as a Soviet dissident, outlines the impact of Reagan's "evil empire" speech as thus:
One day, my Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire". Tapping on the walls and talking through toilets, words of Reagan's "provocation" quickly spread through the prison. The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth-a truth that burned inside the heard of each and every one of us.
Reagan's "evil empire" speech was given in 1982. Sharansky would be released three years later, and the Berlin Wall and the entire Soviet bloc would crumble in 1989. Such things do not happen in a vacuum. Reagan's rhetoric was provocative, incendiary, and did cause tensions to rise. Why shouldn't they have? A nation that pays no attention to the basic civil rights of its citizenry could care a whit about the rights of people outside of its governmental aegis, much less live up to treaties with external governments. But it undoubtedly emboldened those repressed souls behind the Iron Curtain. In particular, the Iranian citizenry have shown time and again that they hate the mullahcracy. Time and again, the government brings in hired thugs from outside the country to break up demonstrations, as Iranian police and military are too much of a risk to join with the demonstrations. They torture and murder dissidents, and have even gone as far as jamming farsi speaking television stations that are beamed into Iran vis-a-vis satellite. (The broadcasts originate from Los Angeles; the jamming originates from none other than Cuba.) I'm hard pressed to believe that Bush's pronouncement that he stands with the Iranian dissident movement will fall on deaf ears. Time and again it has been shown that the pronouncements of solidarity with oppressed peoples by the leader of the free world have deep impact and move those repressed populations to action. If you don't think so, think back to November of 1989.
The president's SOTU address the other night was extraordinarily striking on a few levels. As I observed, during the domestic policy portion of the speech, Bush was smiling from ear-to-ear a great deal. I guess he should be smiling, given the momentous event in world history that he precipitated. On top of that, he also made the entire "doubting Thomas" bloc of the American (and world) intelligentsia look positively foolish. (I must confess that I'm still very wary of where things will go in Iraq's new government, for the the prospects for ethnic and tribal strife are still great. I'm hopeful they'll be ironed out, but "cautious optimism" is the watch-phrase.) By my observations, I'm pretty sure Cheney was having a hard time containing a smirk during SOTU as well. Hell, this has been some three months, never mind week. After having everything hurled at them, the guys at the top of this administration are still standing. That's an achievement in and of itself.
The most impressive part of Bush's speech (and at this point his expression became more of a scowl than a smirk) was the foreign policy outline. BY NAME, Bush ticked off the following nations, admonishing them for their lack of democratic freedoms, or worse yet, their indulgence in terrorism: Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon (occupied by 30,000 Syrian troops; used by Hezbollah as a training and staging area), Egypt, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Mind you, he didn't lump all of the above into one excrable grouping. Iran, Syria, and North Korea had the most forceful language thrown in its direction, and rightly so, for they are by far the most odious and threatening republics in the world right now. But the lack of democratic expression in Jordan, Egypt, and particularly Saudi Arabia is also noteworthy. How long can this game of "blame America/blame Israel" cover up for the internal corruption and failed governance within these nations? How long can the state-controlled government paper over governmental shortcomings endemic to regimes where the people have no say at all? And the key question here is, how much do the citizens of these odious republics (and kingdoms) realize this? My guess is that they realized this a long time ago, and they stopped caring a long time ago, because no one cared about their plight. How long will dissidents be jailed, tortured, or executed for voicing their dissatisfaction and unhappiness? No job prospects for degreed citizenry, governments that could care less about said citizenry, and bloated autocrats getting fat off the foreign aid and oil revenues....not a recipe for long-term viability. Two nights ago, the president recognized their collective plights and singled their governments out by name. Mark my words, the effect will be seismic.
Words Matter
It is virtually impossible to correctly gauge the Bush Administration's approach to foreign policy without reading Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy. The Bush agenda of "export democracy" is clearly motivated by the key points within the book, the most salient of which is that you cannot make peace with governments that wage war on their own people. Bush, like Reagan before him with the Soviet Union, singled out by name the most repressive regimes in the Middle East and Asia. Like Reagan before him, Bush's rhetoric has been dismissed as unecessarily inflammatory and counter-productive. However, Bush...again like Reagan before him, understands that the populations within these repressive nations are willing receptors for this kind of rhetoric, and might just take his rhetoric and turn it into action. Sharansky, who was jailed for nine years as a Soviet dissident, outlines the impact of Reagan's "evil empire" speech as thus:
One day, my Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire". Tapping on the walls and talking through toilets, words of Reagan's "provocation" quickly spread through the prison. The dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth-a truth that burned inside the heard of each and every one of us.
Reagan's "evil empire" speech was given in 1982. Sharansky would be released three years later, and the Berlin Wall and the entire Soviet bloc would crumble in 1989. Such things do not happen in a vacuum. Reagan's rhetoric was provocative, incendiary, and did cause tensions to rise. Why shouldn't they have? A nation that pays no attention to the basic civil rights of its citizenry could care a whit about the rights of people outside of its governmental aegis, much less live up to treaties with external governments. But it undoubtedly emboldened those repressed souls behind the Iron Curtain. In particular, the Iranian citizenry have shown time and again that they hate the mullahcracy. Time and again, the government brings in hired thugs from outside the country to break up demonstrations, as Iranian police and military are too much of a risk to join with the demonstrations. They torture and murder dissidents, and have even gone as far as jamming farsi speaking television stations that are beamed into Iran vis-a-vis satellite. (The broadcasts originate from Los Angeles; the jamming originates from none other than Cuba.) I'm hard pressed to believe that Bush's pronouncement that he stands with the Iranian dissident movement will fall on deaf ears. Time and again it has been shown that the pronouncements of solidarity with oppressed peoples by the leader of the free world have deep impact and move those repressed populations to action. If you don't think so, think back to November of 1989.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Churchill and SOTU
I've not the time to do a complete round-up of SOTU last night, so I'll leave you with tantalizing little quote from the indispensible Winston S. Churchill:
"Tyrants ride astride the backs of tigers they dare not dismount, for the tigers are hungry."
Assad, Ayatollah Khamenei, and Rafsanjani take note.
End the occupation....Syria out of Lebanon NOW.
More on this later. I'm off to the gym to go wail on my pecs.
Spitfire
"Tyrants ride astride the backs of tigers they dare not dismount, for the tigers are hungry."
Assad, Ayatollah Khamenei, and Rafsanjani take note.
End the occupation....Syria out of Lebanon NOW.
More on this later. I'm off to the gym to go wail on my pecs.
Spitfire
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Great Moments in Buddy Rich History
In 1966, Dusty Springfield shared a bill with drumming genius/borderline psychotic Buddy Rich at the Basin Street East club in New York City. Rich was resentful because Dusty's name made top billing on the marquee of the club. But this wasn't what set Buddy off. It was when Dusty asked Buddy if she could borrow a few musicians from Buddy's band. Buddy flipped out, supposedly saying, "you fucking broad, who do you think you fucking are, bitch?" No shrinking violet, Dusty full-fisted punched Buddy in the face.
Punk Meets Jazzsnob...Deleted
I kind of had a bit of regret about what I posted yesterday regarding Jazz-kid. He's a good kid, a talented guy, and despite the fact that I do think I'm right on the substance of my rant, I don't think posting that kind of ad-hominem vitriol in a public forum is too cool. There obviously was a tongue-in-cheek element to the post, but I realized later in the night that it came off more mean-spirited than I wanted it to.
For the record, I will state emphatically that I've had it with jazz snobs. I've been dealing with said species for close to three decades, and their condescension is both insulting and unjustified. Obviously be-bop isn't simple to play, and requires a tremendous amount of skill and knowledge to play competently. Despite this, it doesn't have any more validity artistically than any other genre, be it reggae, bossa nova, or rock. There's a big difference between saying that you don't like a particular group or a particular genre (but accepting its validity) and saying outright that "it sucks".
(I still maintain my view on rap/hip-hop however. (I still can't tell the difference between the two; is there?) If you're not playing your instruments, you're not making music. And rambling in some unintelligible patois over a drum machine and a sample isn't going to cut it.)
Spitfire
For the record, I will state emphatically that I've had it with jazz snobs. I've been dealing with said species for close to three decades, and their condescension is both insulting and unjustified. Obviously be-bop isn't simple to play, and requires a tremendous amount of skill and knowledge to play competently. Despite this, it doesn't have any more validity artistically than any other genre, be it reggae, bossa nova, or rock. There's a big difference between saying that you don't like a particular group or a particular genre (but accepting its validity) and saying outright that "it sucks".
(I still maintain my view on rap/hip-hop however. (I still can't tell the difference between the two; is there?) If you're not playing your instruments, you're not making music. And rambling in some unintelligible patois over a drum machine and a sample isn't going to cut it.)
Spitfire
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)