....I figured I'd share with you a funny anecdote.
My friend Evan, a great drummer in his own right, was living in Virginia for a time. He had several drum students. One of whom he had was a 13 yr. old kid who, though he was technically proficient and diligent in his drum studies, hit the drums "like a p**ssy". (His words.) Communicating this issue to me over the phone, I asked Evan if this kid eats red meat. He said he didn't know (how would he?), but he'd ask. I told him he could probably fix this problem with his student if he got him on a red meat diet. (Better to amp up male aggression, didn't you know?) Evan mentioned to this kid's father that he should get his kid to eat more red meat, as it would help him with his drumming.
Week or two later, the kid comes in for his lesson. He's beating the crap out of the drums. The difference in attack is palpable. Evan asks the kid what he's doing differently. The kid says nothing. Evan asks him about his diet. The kid says his father is making him eat steak and hamburger every night, and he doesn't understand why.
Still the best piece of advice I ever gave someone.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Drummers
I attended a house party last night with a friend in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Featured at this party were two bands, one of whom I arrived too late to have seen (I heard they were awful). But I did catch the second band. Not terribly compelling, this second band did have some sense of melody and an ever-so-slight trace of imagination. But one thing they didn't have was a good drummer. The guy they had playing was awful. Later in the night I spoke to a fellow who was involved with the aforementioned band at one point, but no longer was. He said that he was actually a drummer himself, but was playing keyboards with them (for some reason). When their original drummer left, he wanted to switch to his natural instrument, but the band said they wanted to bring in their friend instead. Their friend, it so happens, had no training on the drums at all. As of last night, he'd only been playing for six months. Supposedly, he'd made "great progress" over the last six months. Not enough for me. He was awful in every way: behind the beat, unimaginitve, no feel. He was excrutiating to listen to.
I make no bones about the fact that I'm a music snob. I come from the school of thought that you should have some semblance of self-awareness regarding your capabilities before you go out in public and perform. I'm not condemning in totality the punk rock movement of the late 70's, but it did do something thoroughly detrimental to the musical ethos that said that you should master your instrument before venturing out into performance. The punk rock philosophy was essentially that the better you are, the more disgusting you are. The original bass player of the Sex Pistols, Glen Matlock, got himself kicked out of the band (despite being the author of all of their songs) because he was "too good....he knew all these fancy chords and he liked the Beatles". The long-term damage this attitude has done to live music is palpable, and it was on display last night at this party. I didn't need to talk to the band members in question to know that they probably had the attitude that their "art" was more important than having proficiency on their instruments. If they didn't think that, they wouldn't have brought their "friend" into the band to play drums. They would've gotten themselves a competent player instead.
A few years back it dawned on me that almost every band that I love has a highly competent, imaginitive drummer as their rhythmic lynchpin: The Who, The Police, Rush, Yes (both drummers, though I like Bruford better), ELP, Genesis, Kansas, to name a few. Even Ringo Starr of The Beatles, no Buddy Rich he, had tremendous imagination. (Listen to "Ticket to Ride" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" for examples of this; those beats are COOL, imaginitive, and highly original.) Another example of this would be the Smashing Pumpkins, who's drummer (Jimmy Chamberlain) was a steamroller of a drummer: technically proficient, energetic, strong, if not terribly innovative.
I hope I'm wrong about this, but it seems as if the day of the kick-ass drummer is over, or at least dormant. Between drum machines and this punk attitude pervading up-and-coming bands, I'm not hearing alot out there, either in the clubs or on the radio.
Where have you gone, Keith Moon? The rock and roll nation turns its lonely eyes to you....
I make no bones about the fact that I'm a music snob. I come from the school of thought that you should have some semblance of self-awareness regarding your capabilities before you go out in public and perform. I'm not condemning in totality the punk rock movement of the late 70's, but it did do something thoroughly detrimental to the musical ethos that said that you should master your instrument before venturing out into performance. The punk rock philosophy was essentially that the better you are, the more disgusting you are. The original bass player of the Sex Pistols, Glen Matlock, got himself kicked out of the band (despite being the author of all of their songs) because he was "too good....he knew all these fancy chords and he liked the Beatles". The long-term damage this attitude has done to live music is palpable, and it was on display last night at this party. I didn't need to talk to the band members in question to know that they probably had the attitude that their "art" was more important than having proficiency on their instruments. If they didn't think that, they wouldn't have brought their "friend" into the band to play drums. They would've gotten themselves a competent player instead.
A few years back it dawned on me that almost every band that I love has a highly competent, imaginitive drummer as their rhythmic lynchpin: The Who, The Police, Rush, Yes (both drummers, though I like Bruford better), ELP, Genesis, Kansas, to name a few. Even Ringo Starr of The Beatles, no Buddy Rich he, had tremendous imagination. (Listen to "Ticket to Ride" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" for examples of this; those beats are COOL, imaginitive, and highly original.) Another example of this would be the Smashing Pumpkins, who's drummer (Jimmy Chamberlain) was a steamroller of a drummer: technically proficient, energetic, strong, if not terribly innovative.
I hope I'm wrong about this, but it seems as if the day of the kick-ass drummer is over, or at least dormant. Between drum machines and this punk attitude pervading up-and-coming bands, I'm not hearing alot out there, either in the clubs or on the radio.
Where have you gone, Keith Moon? The rock and roll nation turns its lonely eyes to you....
Proof (Yet Again) That Supply-Side Economics Works
The New York Times must've caused themselves a great deal of agita going to print with this headline:
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
Ouch! You mean you can actually take in more money by having lower taxes than higher ones?!? What a novel concept! Well....not to those of us who know the hows and whys of supply-side economics (also known as "trickle down economics"). Let me explain to those of you who aren't quite clear how this works:
Businessman A owns a Subchapter S corporation (which means that all the company's profits are counted as his personal, direct income) and makes $500,000 a year. Under the Clinton tax brackets, he got taxed federally at 39.5%, not counting state and local taxes. Then, in 2001, his income tax is lowered from 39.5% to 35%, meaning he gets to keep more of his income...$22,500 more, to be exact. What is businessman A going to do with this money, you ask? Well, he could do a few things. He could a.) invest it back into his company, meaning he'd have buy some more stuff, which creates revenues for another company that he does business with, since he's buying their merchandise, b.) hire a new employee, which would create more tax revenues for the federal government, since that employee will get taxed as well, c.) invest it personally, either into a CD (which creates taxable interest), or even a mutual fund (which also creates capital gains and interest income, all of which are taxed). The only place that Businessman A could put the money where it WOULDN'T create more tax revenues for the government is in a safe-deposit box or under his mattress.
That, my friends, is supply-side economics in a nutshell. The more money you keep, the more you spend. And the more you spend, the more somebody gets taxed.
However, the geniuses at the Times (note the underlying sarcasm) seemed genuinely amazed that such a concept actually works. To wit:
"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief."
"Unexpected"? Not to this guy.
Someone should force Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller, and their resident "economist" Paul Krugman to read Milton Friedman, because obviously, they still don't have even the slightest clue as to how economics work, particularly supply-side, Laffer Curve economics.
Duh.
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
Ouch! You mean you can actually take in more money by having lower taxes than higher ones?!? What a novel concept! Well....not to those of us who know the hows and whys of supply-side economics (also known as "trickle down economics"). Let me explain to those of you who aren't quite clear how this works:
Businessman A owns a Subchapter S corporation (which means that all the company's profits are counted as his personal, direct income) and makes $500,000 a year. Under the Clinton tax brackets, he got taxed federally at 39.5%, not counting state and local taxes. Then, in 2001, his income tax is lowered from 39.5% to 35%, meaning he gets to keep more of his income...$22,500 more, to be exact. What is businessman A going to do with this money, you ask? Well, he could do a few things. He could a.) invest it back into his company, meaning he'd have buy some more stuff, which creates revenues for another company that he does business with, since he's buying their merchandise, b.) hire a new employee, which would create more tax revenues for the federal government, since that employee will get taxed as well, c.) invest it personally, either into a CD (which creates taxable interest), or even a mutual fund (which also creates capital gains and interest income, all of which are taxed). The only place that Businessman A could put the money where it WOULDN'T create more tax revenues for the government is in a safe-deposit box or under his mattress.
That, my friends, is supply-side economics in a nutshell. The more money you keep, the more you spend. And the more you spend, the more somebody gets taxed.
However, the geniuses at the Times (note the underlying sarcasm) seemed genuinely amazed that such a concept actually works. To wit:
"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief."
"Unexpected"? Not to this guy.
Someone should force Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller, and their resident "economist" Paul Krugman to read Milton Friedman, because obviously, they still don't have even the slightest clue as to how economics work, particularly supply-side, Laffer Curve economics.
Duh.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Fun Fourth of July Facts
Though the Fourth is generally regarded as the day the Declaration of Independence was ratified and signed, this is not the case. The motion for independence was ratified on July 2nd, whereas the final document was ratified on July 4th. All the necessary signatories didn't add their names to it until weeks after. John Adams, more responsible than any other colonial delegate for the ultimate vote to break away from Great Britain, wrote this in one of his letters to his wife, Abigail:
"The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more."
Thomas Jefferson's original draft was cut down and/or changed significantly by approximately 25%, according to author David McCullough. Sitting next to Benjamin Franklin on July 3 and 4 as Franklin removed or changed significant pieces of the document, Jefferson "is not known to have uttered a word in protest, or in defense of what he had written. Later he would decribe the opposition to his draft as being like 'the ceaseless action of gravity weighing upon us night and day'."
Jefferson's original draft actually blamed George III for the slave trade, which was promptly extricated for any number of reasons, among them that a.) Jefferson himself owned a plethora of slaves, b.) a large amount of the Continental Congress owned slaves, and c.) George IIII didn't start slavery, and it was silly to say that he did, particularly in so important a document. That said, the slavery issue hung over the revolutionary delegates' heads. In the end, they punted on the issue. The roots of the abolition movement can be traced to before the Declaration of Independence, but the time for abolition had not come. Eighty years later, it would.
John Adams was also intimately involved in the editorial process of the Declaration. Gone from the document, vis-a-vis Adams, were Jeffersonian flights of bathos, such as: "These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren...we must endeavor to forget our former love for them. We might've been a free and great people together". But the one phrase, mostly Jeffersonian, but with small touches from Adams, was this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Happy Independence Day.
"The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more."
Thomas Jefferson's original draft was cut down and/or changed significantly by approximately 25%, according to author David McCullough. Sitting next to Benjamin Franklin on July 3 and 4 as Franklin removed or changed significant pieces of the document, Jefferson "is not known to have uttered a word in protest, or in defense of what he had written. Later he would decribe the opposition to his draft as being like 'the ceaseless action of gravity weighing upon us night and day'."
Jefferson's original draft actually blamed George III for the slave trade, which was promptly extricated for any number of reasons, among them that a.) Jefferson himself owned a plethora of slaves, b.) a large amount of the Continental Congress owned slaves, and c.) George IIII didn't start slavery, and it was silly to say that he did, particularly in so important a document. That said, the slavery issue hung over the revolutionary delegates' heads. In the end, they punted on the issue. The roots of the abolition movement can be traced to before the Declaration of Independence, but the time for abolition had not come. Eighty years later, it would.
John Adams was also intimately involved in the editorial process of the Declaration. Gone from the document, vis-a-vis Adams, were Jeffersonian flights of bathos, such as: "These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren...we must endeavor to forget our former love for them. We might've been a free and great people together". But the one phrase, mostly Jeffersonian, but with small touches from Adams, was this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Happy Independence Day.
World Cup
I made an effort, perhaps for the first time in my life, to watch a World Cup match end-to-end. I've never been much of a soccer fan, but I figured, as I've been compelled to do by various pro-soccer advocates, to give it a chance. I did....and the same gripes that I've had about the game since I was a kid (too slow, not enough scoring chances, etc.) all came back to me. But I also came another conclusion about soccer: the utter lack of sportsmanship exhibited amongst the players. Let me explain....
Having grown up watching mostly baseball and hockey, there is a certain etiquette that goes along with winning. There's also a certain behavior that should be observed when it comes to injuries, both minor and major. Soccer has none of them. For example, whilst watching the Portugal/England match, I noticed that almost every player that went down due to a legal or illegal trip writhed in agony as if having been shot. I consequently found myself screaming at the television, "Get the f**k up, you f**king p**y!!!" after a while. (My latent crudities come to the surface whilst watching sports; I otherwise attempt to keep them in check.) In hockey, this is called "diving", and it is looked down upon with contempt. Before the wave of Europeans invaded North American hockey, this type of behavior was rare, and a "diver" was an object of derision throughout the league, even on his own team. European players, perhaps schooled in the soccer ethos predicated on making the most minor of collisions appear as abject acts of evil (with excrutiating physical agony the end result), brought this ethos into the sport. Thirty years after Swedish defenseman Borje Salming entered into the NHL as the first European player in North American professional hockey, the NHL has instituted a two-minute minor penalty for diving. This would've never had to have been implemented during the Rocket Richard/Gordie Howe era, but there you go. I can't say that all European players are guilty of this type of behavior, as there are some genuinely tough ones that follow the North American hockey ethos of playing 'til you need to go to the hospital, but unfortunately there are too many Europeans that cry over minimal contact. In soccer, that's not only not penalized, it's rewarded. Ugh.
Having grown up watching mostly baseball and hockey, there is a certain etiquette that goes along with winning. There's also a certain behavior that should be observed when it comes to injuries, both minor and major. Soccer has none of them. For example, whilst watching the Portugal/England match, I noticed that almost every player that went down due to a legal or illegal trip writhed in agony as if having been shot. I consequently found myself screaming at the television, "Get the f**k up, you f**king p**y!!!" after a while. (My latent crudities come to the surface whilst watching sports; I otherwise attempt to keep them in check.) In hockey, this is called "diving", and it is looked down upon with contempt. Before the wave of Europeans invaded North American hockey, this type of behavior was rare, and a "diver" was an object of derision throughout the league, even on his own team. European players, perhaps schooled in the soccer ethos predicated on making the most minor of collisions appear as abject acts of evil (with excrutiating physical agony the end result), brought this ethos into the sport. Thirty years after Swedish defenseman Borje Salming entered into the NHL as the first European player in North American professional hockey, the NHL has instituted a two-minute minor penalty for diving. This would've never had to have been implemented during the Rocket Richard/Gordie Howe era, but there you go. I can't say that all European players are guilty of this type of behavior, as there are some genuinely tough ones that follow the North American hockey ethos of playing 'til you need to go to the hospital, but unfortunately there are too many Europeans that cry over minimal contact. In soccer, that's not only not penalized, it's rewarded. Ugh.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Churchill On Secrecy During Wartime
"The truth is to be protected by a bodyguard of lies."
[How far we strayed, eh?]
[How far we strayed, eh?]
An Excerpt From Stephen Ambrose's "D-Day"
Ike had these leak problems, too. Difference then was that the Stateside press didn't paste it on the front page. (Think this would be the case today?):
In April [1944], Maj. Gen. Henry Miller, chief supply officer of the U.S. Ninth Air Force and a West Point classmate of Eisenhower's, went to a cocktail party at the Claridge Hotel [London, England]. He began talking freely, complaining about his difficulties in getting supplies but adding that his problems would end after D-Day, which he declared would be before June 15. When challenged on the date, he offered to take bets. General Eisenhower learned of the indiscretion the next morning and acted immediately. He ordered Miller reduced to his permanent rank of colonel and sent him back to the States-the untimate disgrace for a career soldier. Miller protested. Eisenhower insisted, and back he went.
There was another flap in May ['44] when a U.S. Navy officer got drunk at a party and revealed details of impending operations, including areas, lift, strenght, and dates....that officer too was sent back to the States.
In April [1944], Maj. Gen. Henry Miller, chief supply officer of the U.S. Ninth Air Force and a West Point classmate of Eisenhower's, went to a cocktail party at the Claridge Hotel [London, England]. He began talking freely, complaining about his difficulties in getting supplies but adding that his problems would end after D-Day, which he declared would be before June 15. When challenged on the date, he offered to take bets. General Eisenhower learned of the indiscretion the next morning and acted immediately. He ordered Miller reduced to his permanent rank of colonel and sent him back to the States-the untimate disgrace for a career soldier. Miller protested. Eisenhower insisted, and back he went.
There was another flap in May ['44] when a U.S. Navy officer got drunk at a party and revealed details of impending operations, including areas, lift, strenght, and dates....that officer too was sent back to the States.
More On The Seditious Ol' Gray Lady
I pulled this excerpt from Pajamasmedia.com. I think it speaks volumes about the utter arrogance of the mainstream media and their blithe ignorance of the damage and death they facilitate:
KATHARINE GRAHAM, the publisher of The Washington Post who died in 2001, backed her editors through tense battles during the Watergate era. But in a 1986 speech, she warned that the media sometimes made “tragic” mistakes.
Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans.
“This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities,” Ms. Graham said.
But such cooperation can prove problematic, as her newspaper’s former editor, Benjamin C. Bradlee, has recounted.
In 1986, after holding for weeks at government request a scoop about an N.S.A. tap on a Soviet undersea communications cable, The Post learned that the Russians knew all about it already from an N.S.A. turncoat named Ronald Pelton. NBC beat The Post on its own report.
Michelle Malkin boils down this attitude better than I could possibly. To wit:
"Nothing lays out their priorities better. The risk of them going ahead is our lives, and the risk to them for not going ahead is they may get scooped. The article clearly shows why the media should not be allowed to decide what classified programs to expose. It is an attempt to show how seriously they take their job. But what is shows me is how deadly their arrogant mistakes can be to others. The media now has a self documented history of getting people killed by exposing details they did not understand, or appreciate the implications surrounding these details. Their ignorance and arrogance is a deadly combination, as they have now reported in the NY Times."
KATHARINE GRAHAM, the publisher of The Washington Post who died in 2001, backed her editors through tense battles during the Watergate era. But in a 1986 speech, she warned that the media sometimes made “tragic” mistakes.
Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans.
“This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities,” Ms. Graham said.
But such cooperation can prove problematic, as her newspaper’s former editor, Benjamin C. Bradlee, has recounted.
In 1986, after holding for weeks at government request a scoop about an N.S.A. tap on a Soviet undersea communications cable, The Post learned that the Russians knew all about it already from an N.S.A. turncoat named Ronald Pelton. NBC beat The Post on its own report.
Michelle Malkin boils down this attitude better than I could possibly. To wit:
"Nothing lays out their priorities better. The risk of them going ahead is our lives, and the risk to them for not going ahead is they may get scooped. The article clearly shows why the media should not be allowed to decide what classified programs to expose. It is an attempt to show how seriously they take their job. But what is shows me is how deadly their arrogant mistakes can be to others. The media now has a self documented history of getting people killed by exposing details they did not understand, or appreciate the implications surrounding these details. Their ignorance and arrogance is a deadly combination, as they have now reported in the NY Times."
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The Battle of the Somme, 1916
Yesterday marked the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of the Somme, which was a five-month bloody slog during the First World War that ended with no clear victor. Not a big deal in the States (we hadn't entered WWI yet), it is one of the most solemn occasions in Great Britain, where on the first day alone (July 1, 1916), the British took 60,000 casualties, with 20,000 killed-in-action. By the end of the five month battle, the British, encompassing Aussies, New Zealanders, Canadians, Newfoundlanders, South Africans, as well as English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish, lost a total of 400,000 men, 100,000 of which were KIA. The French lost 200,000, with 50,000 KIA. The Germans lost anywhere from 450,ooo to 600,000, with 160,000 KIA.
It is a source of lasting annoyance to me that the Europeans remain soft in their views regarding the impending takeover of the Islamists on their continent. But when one puts it into context, any time the Europeans used war as an instrument of change in the 20th century, it has had disasterous consequences. Sadly, the one time when they're needed to stand up for Western Civilization, they can't muster the courage anymore. If one needs to have some idea why, look up the story of the Somme.
It is a source of lasting annoyance to me that the Europeans remain soft in their views regarding the impending takeover of the Islamists on their continent. But when one puts it into context, any time the Europeans used war as an instrument of change in the 20th century, it has had disasterous consequences. Sadly, the one time when they're needed to stand up for Western Civilization, they can't muster the courage anymore. If one needs to have some idea why, look up the story of the Somme.
Miscellany 7/2/06
Work has been the source of much fatigue, thus the paucity of entries. That said, I've had my eyes fixated on the prevalent stories of the day, none of which make me particularly amused. So....here's my take on all, or at least, most of 'em.
- So the liberals on the Supreme Court think that al Qaeda is now a signatory on the Geneva Conventions, even though they're not a sovereign nation, have no uniform/rank/serial number, and adhere to none of the statutes....yet the United States has to treat them as such. Mark Steyn delves into this ridiculousness here. About the only saving grace regarding this ruling is that it leaves open the prospect that the president can force through legislation giving himself the already existing right to put these rabid animals through the military tribunal process. Make no mistake, folks. The left want this country to lose in every way, on every level.
- The New York Times once again can't stop their preternatural tendency towards treason, this time revealing that terrorist international bank transactions are being monitored by a central hub in Belgium called SWIFT. Despite the fact that the Times itself has said that the program is legal, editor Bill Keller wrote that the secrecy of the program was outweighed by the public's "right to know". Keller's default position since this outrage has been that, "...hundreds, if not thousands, of people know about this," and thus publishing what was already widely known was no big deal. Well, if that's the case, why did James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, the authors of the SWIFT story, say the "[SWIFT program] was a closely held secret"? Sounds like they haven't gotten their stories straight. Look....I work in finance. I know that transactions are closely monitored, and were monitored even before 9/11. I clearly remember attending a lecture by a federal district attorney where she said flat out that she would prosecute any one of us if it was proven that we had facilited an act of money laundering, even if unknowingly. The problem with the Times piece, then, is that it gave away the particulars of the SWIFT system and how it is used. Everyone might've known that banking transactions were monitored....they just didn't know HOW. In 1944, everyone knew that there would be an invasion of the Western Europe by the Allies, they just didn't know where or when. Giving up those particulars wouldn't be defensible by claiming that everyone knew it was coming. Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose were convicted for less than what the Times is clearly guilty of.
- Boy, the Finnish sure make awful music. But their choreography is tops. See here.
- There's a new documentary out called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Of course, the guilty parties are big oil, Republicans, and various other greedy, unethical capitalists. One problem that the electric car had that the documentarians didn't get into was that it takes four hours to recharge the battery per 100 miles driven. That's problematic, no? Read all about the real reason the electric car got "killed" here.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
The Traitorous New York Times
I'm not sure if this is news to anyone, but I'm going to write about it all the same. In the last year, the New York Times as exposed the fact that the NSA is tapping international phone calls originating from the United States going to terrorist hotbeds like Pakistan and Afghanistan (all of which is legal), gathers and analyzes phone numbers (also legal), monitors international banking transactions (which even the Times has acknowleged is legal), and now, on top of all of their other transgressions, has revealed a top-secret memo written by General Casey that there will be significant troop draw-downs in Iraq by the end of 2007. Way to go, New York Times! With publications like this, al Qaeda can make up for their lack of a spy network!
I can't think of any way to stop this crap, which clearly jeopardizes national security in a huge way, other than to begin prosecuting the New York Times ownership and staff, starting with Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller, under the Espionage Act. Of course this will cause an uproar amongst the libs, but their blathering and complaining is small beer in comparison to the lives that could be potentially lost as a result of these latest outrages.
I fail to see the point of these stories being published. I fail to see who benefits or where the public good is being serviced. The New York Times is a rogue organization. About the best I can hope for at this point is that the shareholders of this company (NYT: NYSE) throw Sulzberger and his snotty 60's retreads out. Either that, or that the stock continues to go in the toilet. As a matter of fact, I think I'll put their symbol on my quote screen and look forward to taking delight in every point lost.
I can't think of any way to stop this crap, which clearly jeopardizes national security in a huge way, other than to begin prosecuting the New York Times ownership and staff, starting with Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Bill Keller, under the Espionage Act. Of course this will cause an uproar amongst the libs, but their blathering and complaining is small beer in comparison to the lives that could be potentially lost as a result of these latest outrages.
I fail to see the point of these stories being published. I fail to see who benefits or where the public good is being serviced. The New York Times is a rogue organization. About the best I can hope for at this point is that the shareholders of this company (NYT: NYSE) throw Sulzberger and his snotty 60's retreads out. Either that, or that the stock continues to go in the toilet. As a matter of fact, I think I'll put their symbol on my quote screen and look forward to taking delight in every point lost.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
One of History’s Great Failures--Marking the 50th Annniversary of the '56 Hungarian Uprising
By The Editors/National Review
Visiting Budapest at the moment, President Bush is in a position to celebrate a little ahead of time the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution of 1956. And there is much to celebrate. That revolution was a classic national uprising in which the people of a small nation took up arms for the sake of independence. They had little or no chance of success, because their oppressor was the Soviet Union. Motivated by the ideology of Communism, the Soviet Union had long proved itself the killer and jailer of small nations.
The Red Army at the end of the world war had driven the Germans out of the country, but they could not bring freedom because, as the Hungarian writer Sandor Marai lamented, they had no freedom for themselves. Soviet occupation meant a large garrison, and instructions from the Kremlin. Thanks to the notorious “salami tactics,” the Soviets replaced local democratic parties with Communists carefully chosen for their obedience. Industry, finance, agriculture, everything, was taken into the hands of the party. Former aristocrats, landowners, intellectuals, journalists, artists, priests, were rounded up for mock trials, and many a memoir unforgettably evokes their experiences in concentration camps like Vac. Two days after celebrating mass on Christmas 1948, Cardinal Mindszenty, the Hungarian prelate, was arrested. President Bush can rejoice that Mindszenty eventually found sanctuary in the American embassy.
In a sinister development, Stalin was soon to purge all the Communist parties of the new Soviet bloc. In Hungary, the foreign minister, Laszlo Rajk, a picture-book Communist, was accused of treason and hanged, and so was the general who had set up the secret police. Once Stalin was safely dead, these horrors prompted his successor Nikita Khrushchev to admit some degree of criminality at the Party Conference in Moscow in 1956. An unintentional consequence of this speech was the replacement of Stalinist stooges in Hungary by Imre Nagy, a party man but willing to follow Khrushchev and admit the need for reforms.
A student demonstration was then enough to spark an uprising. President Bush might like to recall how the crowd pulled down the gigantic bronze statue of Stalin, just as another crowd was to pull down a similar statue of Saddam Hussein. The camps and prisons opened, and here and there in the country, secret policemen were killed. Yuri Andropov, then a Soviet official in Budapest but later general secretary in Moscow, organized the suppression of the revolution with a combination of deceit and force. By the time the Soviet tanks had finished, between two and three thousand freedom fighters were dead. Twenty thousand people were then arrested, and at least 200,000 more fled the country, many of them to have successful careers abroad. Imre Nagy and his closest collaborators were hanged.
At his execution, Nagy declared that one day he would be rehabilitated. So it proved. In 1989, Nagy was reburied in the cemetery where the nation’s great men lie. Almost immediately afterwards, the Hungarian authorities lifted the country’s iron curtain, and the consequent freedom of movement signified the ending of the Cold War. The revolution of 1956 may have been a costly failure, but Hungarian national pride, and today’s delight in freedom, stem from its heroism.
Visiting Budapest at the moment, President Bush is in a position to celebrate a little ahead of time the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian revolution of 1956. And there is much to celebrate. That revolution was a classic national uprising in which the people of a small nation took up arms for the sake of independence. They had little or no chance of success, because their oppressor was the Soviet Union. Motivated by the ideology of Communism, the Soviet Union had long proved itself the killer and jailer of small nations.
The Red Army at the end of the world war had driven the Germans out of the country, but they could not bring freedom because, as the Hungarian writer Sandor Marai lamented, they had no freedom for themselves. Soviet occupation meant a large garrison, and instructions from the Kremlin. Thanks to the notorious “salami tactics,” the Soviets replaced local democratic parties with Communists carefully chosen for their obedience. Industry, finance, agriculture, everything, was taken into the hands of the party. Former aristocrats, landowners, intellectuals, journalists, artists, priests, were rounded up for mock trials, and many a memoir unforgettably evokes their experiences in concentration camps like Vac. Two days after celebrating mass on Christmas 1948, Cardinal Mindszenty, the Hungarian prelate, was arrested. President Bush can rejoice that Mindszenty eventually found sanctuary in the American embassy.
In a sinister development, Stalin was soon to purge all the Communist parties of the new Soviet bloc. In Hungary, the foreign minister, Laszlo Rajk, a picture-book Communist, was accused of treason and hanged, and so was the general who had set up the secret police. Once Stalin was safely dead, these horrors prompted his successor Nikita Khrushchev to admit some degree of criminality at the Party Conference in Moscow in 1956. An unintentional consequence of this speech was the replacement of Stalinist stooges in Hungary by Imre Nagy, a party man but willing to follow Khrushchev and admit the need for reforms.
A student demonstration was then enough to spark an uprising. President Bush might like to recall how the crowd pulled down the gigantic bronze statue of Stalin, just as another crowd was to pull down a similar statue of Saddam Hussein. The camps and prisons opened, and here and there in the country, secret policemen were killed. Yuri Andropov, then a Soviet official in Budapest but later general secretary in Moscow, organized the suppression of the revolution with a combination of deceit and force. By the time the Soviet tanks had finished, between two and three thousand freedom fighters were dead. Twenty thousand people were then arrested, and at least 200,000 more fled the country, many of them to have successful careers abroad. Imre Nagy and his closest collaborators were hanged.
At his execution, Nagy declared that one day he would be rehabilitated. So it proved. In 1989, Nagy was reburied in the cemetery where the nation’s great men lie. Almost immediately afterwards, the Hungarian authorities lifted the country’s iron curtain, and the consequent freedom of movement signified the ending of the Cold War. The revolution of 1956 may have been a costly failure, but Hungarian national pride, and today’s delight in freedom, stem from its heroism.
Back Soon!
Sorry 'bout the lack of postings, folks. Defective modem means no posts for a time, but now it's fixed and all is well. Lots to talked about, comment about, and observe. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
"What Liberal Media?"
"Aided by surging tax receipts, President Bush may make good on his pledge to cut the deficit in half in 2006 — three years early."
The New York Times headline: "Bush deficit reduction plan falls off-schedule."
Hat-tip: Glenn Reynolds
The New York Times headline: "Bush deficit reduction plan falls off-schedule."
Hat-tip: Glenn Reynolds
Friday, June 09, 2006
VDH's Observation On Suicide Tactics
In Victor Davis Hanson's book, "Ripples of Battle", Hanson writes about how three battles in Western History have affected our modern day outlook on war and how we fight it. Below is VDH's theory on the use of suicide bomber tactics and the subsquent American military response to them, which I think it dead-on. It might've done a world of good for the muslim jihadists of this world to have studied the history of American warfare, for they might've saved the lives of tens of thousands of their fellow muslims. Alas, for all their sabre rattling and theatrical decapitations on video, one thing they'll never have is the technology to deliver a 500-lbs. bomb on top of someone's head from an F-16 going at Mach 2. Delightful as it is for them to bathe in their ability to inflict heartless cruelty, it will always pale in comparison to the mechanical wrath of the United States. Zarqawi obviously didn't get the memo...
In the battle of Okinawa, played out in May and June of 1945, the Japanese threw 200 suicide bombers at the American Navy per attack. Whereas the casualty ratio of U.S. Army/Marines on the ground to Japanese infantry was about 1 GI for 100 Japanese, the ratio for the U.S. Navy per Japanese suicide bomber was 5:2 (five sailor killed or wounded for every two suicide attacks by the Japanese). That the decision to drop the A-Bomb on Japan was hastened by the kamikaze tactics employed by the Japanese in the latter stages of the war is an understatement.
Victor Davis Hanson:
Much of the collapse of the kamikazes, then, had to do with the American counter-response. The terror of suicide brought out the greater terror of the Western way of war. Americans not merely devised immediate countermeasures to the kamikazes and suicide banzai charges-everything from picket destroyers to flame-shooting tanks-but also left the island with a changed mentality about the nature of war itself: from now on fanaticism of the human will would be repaid in kind with the fanaticism of industrial and technological power. Okinawa taught the world that the chief horror of war is not the random use of suicide bombers, but thhe response that they incur from Western powers whose self-imposed restraint upon their ingenuity for killing usually rests only with their own sense of moral reluctance--a brake thhat suicidal attack seems to strip away.
In the battle of Okinawa, played out in May and June of 1945, the Japanese threw 200 suicide bombers at the American Navy per attack. Whereas the casualty ratio of U.S. Army/Marines on the ground to Japanese infantry was about 1 GI for 100 Japanese, the ratio for the U.S. Navy per Japanese suicide bomber was 5:2 (five sailor killed or wounded for every two suicide attacks by the Japanese). That the decision to drop the A-Bomb on Japan was hastened by the kamikaze tactics employed by the Japanese in the latter stages of the war is an understatement.
Victor Davis Hanson:
Much of the collapse of the kamikazes, then, had to do with the American counter-response. The terror of suicide brought out the greater terror of the Western way of war. Americans not merely devised immediate countermeasures to the kamikazes and suicide banzai charges-everything from picket destroyers to flame-shooting tanks-but also left the island with a changed mentality about the nature of war itself: from now on fanaticism of the human will would be repaid in kind with the fanaticism of industrial and technological power. Okinawa taught the world that the chief horror of war is not the random use of suicide bombers, but thhe response that they incur from Western powers whose self-imposed restraint upon their ingenuity for killing usually rests only with their own sense of moral reluctance--a brake thhat suicidal attack seems to strip away.
Brit Hume and Fred Barnes on Zarqawi's Termination
BARNES: I think -- I agree with Mort on that 100 percent, they do need to do that. Really -- a mount a real counterinsurgency it might cause more American casualty, but it's the thing to do.
Now, what was Zarqawi's main goal in Iraq? It was to get the U.S. out. So now we have people saying, oh, Zarqawi's dead, let's start bringing our troops home. I mean, that's what he was for, that's because he knew with the American troops gone, or as John Murtha says, you know, immediate withdrawal, which Nancy Pelosi also endorsed, that that would allow the insurgency to be permanent. Now, also -- I forget which democrat, Brit, maybe you can tell me, said, well, we didn't need our troops there to do this attack, we could have...
HUME: Barbara Boxer.
BARNES: Well, she must not have seen what General Caldwell said. He said it was a painstaking mission. It took weeks for us to find out exactly where he was, and to make sure it was correct and everything, dealing with all kinds of Iraqis, getting a tip, and doing all this. You couldn't do that if you were in Kuwait.
(CROSSTALK)
HUME: Well, they also probably couldn't have carried out these 17 other operations.
BARNES: Well of course you couldn't. These people are just plain wrong and they're stupid in saying these things. I mean, I mean, don't they stop and think? Don't they think through what's going on? It's a war. You know, you wonder where these ideas come from. Maybe it's just their anti-Bush feelings, but they're -- I mean, you jump to the conclusion that Zarqawi's dead, now let's do what he wanted us to do? That's crazy.
Now, what was Zarqawi's main goal in Iraq? It was to get the U.S. out. So now we have people saying, oh, Zarqawi's dead, let's start bringing our troops home. I mean, that's what he was for, that's because he knew with the American troops gone, or as John Murtha says, you know, immediate withdrawal, which Nancy Pelosi also endorsed, that that would allow the insurgency to be permanent. Now, also -- I forget which democrat, Brit, maybe you can tell me, said, well, we didn't need our troops there to do this attack, we could have...
HUME: Barbara Boxer.
BARNES: Well, she must not have seen what General Caldwell said. He said it was a painstaking mission. It took weeks for us to find out exactly where he was, and to make sure it was correct and everything, dealing with all kinds of Iraqis, getting a tip, and doing all this. You couldn't do that if you were in Kuwait.
(CROSSTALK)
HUME: Well, they also probably couldn't have carried out these 17 other operations.
BARNES: Well of course you couldn't. These people are just plain wrong and they're stupid in saying these things. I mean, I mean, don't they stop and think? Don't they think through what's going on? It's a war. You know, you wonder where these ideas come from. Maybe it's just their anti-Bush feelings, but they're -- I mean, you jump to the conclusion that Zarqawi's dead, now let's do what he wanted us to do? That's crazy.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Ike's D-Day Message
June 6, 1944 was D-Day, the likes of which you will doubtlessly not be reminded of, save this blog. Perhaps the most important day in the 20th Century, the invasion of Normandy hastened the end of WWII in Europe AND saved Western Europe from Stalin's post-war communist domination. Airborne drops started around midnight the night before the landings; the beaches were stormed starting around 6 am. By August of 1944, Paris had been liberated.
Below is Eisenhower's message, delivered to every soldier, sailor, and airman on June 5th:
Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have
striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The
hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on
other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war
machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of
Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well
equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of
1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats,
in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their
strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home
Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions
of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.
The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to
Victory!
I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in
battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!
Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great
and noble undertaking.
SIGNED: Dwight D. Eisenhower
Below is Eisenhower's message, delivered to every soldier, sailor, and airman on June 5th:
Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have
striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The
hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on
other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war
machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of
Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well
equipped and battle hardened. He will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of
1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats,
in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their
strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home
Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions
of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men.
The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to
Victory!
I have full confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in
battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!
Good luck! And let us beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great
and noble undertaking.
SIGNED: Dwight D. Eisenhower
Chill out over global warming
By David Harsanyi
Denver Post Staff Columnist
DenverPost.com
You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.
Why not give it a whirl?
Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.
I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?
"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."
Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.
"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."
So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.
Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.
Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.
David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Denver Post Staff Columnist
DenverPost.com
You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.
Why not give it a whirl?
Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.
Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."
Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.
"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."
Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?
Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.
Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.
I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?
"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."
Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard - and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."
Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."
Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.
"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."
So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.
Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.
Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.
David Harsanyi's column appears Monday and Thursday. He can be reached at 303-820-1255 or dharsanyi@denverpost.com.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
No....This Isn't A Joke....
England afraid to fly its own flag
Following threats by extremist Islamic group, several corporations, chain of pubs ban England flag
Modi Kreitman
Following warnings by extremist Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, in which the group said that the red cross in the England flag symbolizes the 'blood thirsty crusaders' and the occupation of Muslims, some of the largest companies in England have ordered their workers not to wave the flags.
The flag has recently appeared in England on everything from bikinis to cars, and sold in endless versions in stores.
But the Islamic protest forced some corporations, such as cable companies NTL, Heathrow airport in London, and even the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency to ban the flag in every form due to fears from reactions of Muslims.
The Sun tabloid newspaper has in recent days launched a campaign to bring back the flag, and has published a blacklist of companies preventing their workers from expressing their patriotism at work.
The Sun said that a large pub network has banned drinkers from entering with symbols of the national team.
The hero of the day is a two year-old toddler, who was thrown out with his parents from Leicester, because he wore the England team's uniform.
Following threats by extremist Islamic group, several corporations, chain of pubs ban England flag
Modi Kreitman
Following warnings by extremist Islamic group al-Muhajiroun, in which the group said that the red cross in the England flag symbolizes the 'blood thirsty crusaders' and the occupation of Muslims, some of the largest companies in England have ordered their workers not to wave the flags.
The flag has recently appeared in England on everything from bikinis to cars, and sold in endless versions in stores.
But the Islamic protest forced some corporations, such as cable companies NTL, Heathrow airport in London, and even the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency to ban the flag in every form due to fears from reactions of Muslims.
The Sun tabloid newspaper has in recent days launched a campaign to bring back the flag, and has published a blacklist of companies preventing their workers from expressing their patriotism at work.
The Sun said that a large pub network has banned drinkers from entering with symbols of the national team.
The hero of the day is a two year-old toddler, who was thrown out with his parents from Leicester, because he wore the England team's uniform.
Thoughts and Thangs....6/4/06
Reading the New York Post a week or two back, I was struck by the utter cantankerousness of the paper. The headline? "Bad Lay", in referring to the conviction of Enron CEO/scam-artist Ken Lay. A few days later, the Post referred to Paris Hilton as a "celebutard". They've consistently referred to Britney Spears' husband Kevin Federline as "trash-tastic".
Ahhh....I love the Post. And it's easy to read on a subway, to boot.
___________________________________________________________________
Celebrities might want to become more aware of how they act in public, what with the Smoking Gun and other websites about. Here's one I recently discovered: a website dedicated to "outing" crappy celebrity tippers. Enjoy.
___________________________________________________________________
Recently, John J. Miller of the National Review posted his top 50 most conservative rock songs. I wouldn't say that the list necessarily points out bands that are conservative in their personal convictions, but rather it points out songs that rail against big government, overt and abusive governmental authority, the clear understanding and recognition of good and evil, lack of personal responsibility, the insidiousness of collective thought, and, of course, high taxes. Pete Townshend, bless him, posted his response here. Far from slagging the inclusion of "Won't Get Fooled Again" on it, he merely points out that he's been rather energetic in never having his name (or that of The Who) connected to any political cause for any reason. (A conservative, individualistic sentiment in and of itself!) Clearly Pete distrusts the so-called "do-gooders" of the world, and the useful idiots who back people like Castro (though without naming Castro or the useful idiots who flock to kiss his ring...though he does wail on the African National Congress and their gun-running schemes, of which he was duped into supporting in the 80's).
Have fun reading 'em, as well as the encore here. (Thankfully, Rush gets two nods on the list, with "Red Barchetta" and "The Trees" making the cut. I could come up with about ten or more to add to the list, but I'm happy anytime anyone acknowledges this very underrated, stellar band.)
___________________________________________________________________
I came across this quote by Pete Townshend on Woodstock in Neil Peart's book, Traveling Music. I think it emphatically encapsulates Pete's worldview. While everyone in the 60's generation thought that Woodstock was the high-water mark of the 60's, Pete said this of it:
"If rolling around in the mud and smoking bad weed is the American Dream, you can have it. I'm taking my money and going back to Shepard's Bush* where people are people."
He also said this of Woodstock:
"I hated it."
How cool is Pete!?!
*Shepard's Bush is the neighborhood in London where the members of The Who grew up.
Ahhh....I love the Post. And it's easy to read on a subway, to boot.
___________________________________________________________________
Celebrities might want to become more aware of how they act in public, what with the Smoking Gun and other websites about. Here's one I recently discovered: a website dedicated to "outing" crappy celebrity tippers. Enjoy.
___________________________________________________________________
Recently, John J. Miller of the National Review posted his top 50 most conservative rock songs. I wouldn't say that the list necessarily points out bands that are conservative in their personal convictions, but rather it points out songs that rail against big government, overt and abusive governmental authority, the clear understanding and recognition of good and evil, lack of personal responsibility, the insidiousness of collective thought, and, of course, high taxes. Pete Townshend, bless him, posted his response here. Far from slagging the inclusion of "Won't Get Fooled Again" on it, he merely points out that he's been rather energetic in never having his name (or that of The Who) connected to any political cause for any reason. (A conservative, individualistic sentiment in and of itself!) Clearly Pete distrusts the so-called "do-gooders" of the world, and the useful idiots who back people like Castro (though without naming Castro or the useful idiots who flock to kiss his ring...though he does wail on the African National Congress and their gun-running schemes, of which he was duped into supporting in the 80's).
Have fun reading 'em, as well as the encore here. (Thankfully, Rush gets two nods on the list, with "Red Barchetta" and "The Trees" making the cut. I could come up with about ten or more to add to the list, but I'm happy anytime anyone acknowledges this very underrated, stellar band.)
___________________________________________________________________
I came across this quote by Pete Townshend on Woodstock in Neil Peart's book, Traveling Music. I think it emphatically encapsulates Pete's worldview. While everyone in the 60's generation thought that Woodstock was the high-water mark of the 60's, Pete said this of it:
"If rolling around in the mud and smoking bad weed is the American Dream, you can have it. I'm taking my money and going back to Shepard's Bush* where people are people."
He also said this of Woodstock:
"I hated it."
How cool is Pete!?!
*Shepard's Bush is the neighborhood in London where the members of The Who grew up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)