Apparently a terrorist visited the embarrassing part of Portage County on Saturday, and said embarrassingly stupid things to the hippies. Apparently Sheriff Doak couldn’t find probable cause to arrest him. I didn’t know about it, which was a good thing, as I don’t have time to do what needs done this week anyway.
In reply to his comments:
1. Two wrongs don’t make a right. “what I did was some destruction of property to issue a scream and cry against an illegal war in which 6,000 people a week are being killed.”
2. You only committed property damage through incompetence. Your buds blew themselves up making a nail bomb (not an anti-property weapon) to use at a soldier’s dance (how, to blow up the venue before anyone arrived?) The difference between your girlfriend and the Blew Brothers was that the Tsarnaevs got better training.
3. All indications are that there was nothing nihilistic about the Tsarnaevs; they believed passionately in a cause. Indeed, the label fits the Weathermen better.
4. “How different is the shooting in Connecticut from shooting at a hunting range?” Ayers said. “Just because they use the same thing, there’s no relationship at all.” Better analogy: Boston is to your bomb as Sandy Hook is to the Peter B. Lewis shooting, which was not a mass murder only because Biswanath Halder bought cheap guns.
Mr. Ayers, I hope you find Jesus and repent of your youthful sins. Otherwise, you can (and will) go straight to Hell. In the meantime, shut up.
I was dismayed when a friend posted a video of my cher maitre William Bolcom on Facebook.
Then in the ensuing conversation, I was alerted to this:
which is apparently only half (!) of a longer ditty available on itunes, where, oddly, it gets rave reviews.
I’m going to dispatch the Rindfleisch first.If I were going to write a parody of a professor of composition writing a pop-ish song against conservatives, it would sound exactly like this. It’s self-parodying. It follows in the footsteps of another liberal academic singer-pianist, Tom Lehrer. But Lehrer had true wit, a deftness with language, and specific sacred cows to slay (as opposed to writing a song against, oh, half the country). Since he was a mathematician first instead of a composer, he knew that facts were facts, that reality was not a matter of whim. And the purely musical values of Lehrer’s products far outclass this work; it’s as if Rindfleisch isn’t even trying. He’s relying on his audience to consider their moral preening as fit recompense for the time spent listening, and that’s thin gruel artistically. It might work at a party, where everyone is drunk on Belgian Tripels and are your friends anyway; notsomuch on the iPod in your car.
As for the text, judging by the YouTube version (What? You want me to pay a buck to be insulted for 8 minutes?), it’s basically a list of alleged hates and loves of conservatives. It’s as if Rindfleisch lined up row upon row of strawmen in front of a trench and mechanically mowed them down with a machine gun, Nazi-style. To refute his generalizations would be a waste of time; the song is not about policy, but about how our guys are cool and your guys are not. It doesn’t even function as Alinskyan ridicule; to do so, it would have to say something unexpected, accurate, and funny about conservatives, and it fails at all three.
Bolcom’s song is dedicated to Woody Guthrie, and more-or-less written in his style. Unlike the Rindfleisch, it is dedicated to a particular specific policy position: victim disarmament. I say “dedicated to” rather than “argues for”, because it’s not an argument; it’s an imprecation against the Senators who chose not to vote for cloture, for “giving up this way / to the bullies of the NRA”. “The country screams and sobs / all you can think of is your jobs” . “how can we vote for you conscienceless men / when you’ve sold us out yet again”. If the Senators who voted no were indeed thinking of their jobs, it was because they were representing the people in their states, who didn’t “scream and sob” for the same things that Bolcom did. Or do the “bullies of the NRA” (i.e., the organization I won’t join because they are the pusillanimous self-serving compromising Vichy regime of gun control) spend their magical money, which somehow seeps into Diebold machines and turns the votes all red, while the money of Bloomberg and Soros is perfectly inert? In any case, it’s not a cogent position; it’s the yawp of a cranky old man. Now, I understand cranky old men, being one, and Bill has better cranky old man cred than I do (he’s just old enough to be my father, if he’d knocked up my mother in high school, which wouldn’t have happened because she was a senior when he was a freshman). But to see a revered master (well, revered by me, anyway) stoop so low as to bang out tonics and dominants beneath 4th-rate poetry, well, that just hurts. OK, it’s not contemporary music; as we said at the University of Michigan, it’s temporary music, as played by the Temporary Directions Ensemble. It’s a jeu d’esprit… but jeux d’esprit are best left to the young.
It might make sense though to situate these works in the tradition of political music. Looking at the classics of the repertoire, the IWW Little Red Book, The Internationale, Woody Guthrie, the union organizing songs of the 30s, one can draw some generalizations. One is that they are by-and-large positive in tone. They advocate for a specific condition or course of action. They are not personal in tone; if the oppressor is described or addressed, it is in terms of oppressive actions, not as a target of character assassination. Even the most biting and memorable lines are more about actions than people. For example, in Joe Hill’s Preacher and the Slave, the Salvation Army are not bad people, they just have an inconsistent sense of social justice, and offer “pie in the sky” instead of pie here on earth. In his Casey Jones, if anyone is abused, it’s Casey, for putting up with too much, refusing to strike and valuing his “wooden medal”. In Guthrie’s 1913 Massacre, the villainy of the “copper boss thug men” takes a back seat to the unfolding of the tragedy. The pattern begins to unravel somewhat in the ’60s. Tom Paxton’s Lyndon Johnson Told the Nation is personal, but still in a focused way: LBJ is a liar who sends us into an unwinnable war in spite of what he said in the campaign.The other element of the best protest music was poetry, the telling image. I’ve given a few examples already. In Guthrie’s Pretty Boy Floyd, “Some will rob you with a six-gun/ And some with a fountain pen.” After the Punk revolution, vulgarity became acceptable in the protest song. One example is Mojo Nixon’s I ain’t gonna piss in no jar: “I ain’t gonna piss into no cup/unless Nancy Reagan’s gonna lap it up.” Agtain, a striking image, but more for its shock value… and intensely personal.
Setting the two works under discussion into this context, the differences can be seen to be generational (1938 vs. 1963 birth dates). Bolcom is working consciously in the Guthrie tradition, without the same solid practical grounding in the Anglo-Saxon ballad tradition. (One wonders what sort of agitprop music would have been written by Ross Lee Finney, Bolcom’s predecessor at the University of Michigan, who was a professional folksinger.) He IS very well grounded in the American Songbook tradition, as was Lehrer, and one wonders what an artisticly serious attempt by Bolcom would sound like. Rindfleisch’s poetic voice sounds like somebody who had grown up listening to the Feederz’ Jesus entering from the rear. I don’t know if he was ever guilty of playing punk rock. The music affects the surface of urbanity without the content, so not punkish at all. That raw energy would have improved it, I think.
Like these gentlemen, I am no good at keeping my mouth shut. I suppose I will get no more performances of my music by the Cleveland Contemporary Players; on the other hand, I’ll get no fewer either. I can’t think of a classical composer writing agitprop song whose work in that genre has become canonical. Since some of them worked with Berthold Brecht, this is not simply a matter of poetic skill. This leads me to believe that music would be better served if we all found a different outlet for our political agitations, and made art for art’s sake. I’ll admit that I have a hard time taking my own advice here; there is certainly at least generalized political (or more accurately, anti-political) content in my Assault March of the Assistant Deputy County Environmental Safety Director. And I’ve written a libretto for an opera about the hen who bakes bread, updated for modern conditions. But neither of those works are in the agitprop/mass song tradition. So Bill, how about that next symphony for band? Andy, how about some more choruses or brass pieces?
Vanderbeogh takes down Hoover Tactical Firearms for “unnecessary nanny state ass-kissery”, in this case, demanding an ID to buy ammo (not required by Alabama law.)
Guys, shut up and do business. And while you’re at it, just to reduce the humor factor, can we stop with the word “tactical” already? I mean, which firearms DON’T involve tactics of some sort or another?
I don’t usually care about what media hacks say about religion, but every once in awhile one finds a case that’s so egregious that it demands comment. I heard the audio here on Al Kresta’s program yesterday, and as far as I can see with a web search, Kresta is the only guy who has picked up on this. Lawrence O’Donnell, on his program The Last Word analyzed the question put to Ohio voters, “How much does it matter to you that a candidate share your religious beliefs?” (1. A great deal; 2. Somewhat; 3 Not much 4. Not at all) He claimed first that in Afghanistan, 100% of the population would have chosen “A great deal”, thus equating those who gave that answer with Islamism. He claimed that in a country which valued the separation of church and state, 100% would choose “not at all”, but in fact only 18% “got it right…THAT’s the American ideal…over 80% of Ohio Republicans registered varying degrees of agreement with the Taliban on this one.” Then he demonstrated that those who answered “not much” “weren’t good enough”, by changing the question to “voting on racial identity.” Then he piled on the media for not understanding that the results were “utterly scandalous”, that the media ignored the “religious bigotry” of Ohio voters, and criticized the religious pandering of candidates, implying through a clip from “The West Wing” that it’s “the easiest lie to tell.”
The thing that most shocked me was the utter contempt O’Donnell expressed for something like 40% of the electorate. Granted, virtually none of those people were watching his show; why should they, given that they would be insulted and belittled? MSNBC has become a boutique station for progressives, a bigger slicker Current TV, and they wonder why Fox gets the ratings. Do the media pander to viewers by asking candidates questions about their religion? Sure, if by “pander” you mean “tell viewers what they’re interested in”. TV is a business, not a government educational establishment.
I would have put myself in the “somewhat” category. It’s important to me that a politician fear God. because most don’t fear men too much, and somebody has to keep them in line. Beyond that, I’m not too persnickety. All things being equal, I’d vote for one of the Catholic candidates…but all things are never equal. Both of those guys are way too eager to use the power of government. In addition, Mr. Gingrich has a history of generating ideas without the foresight to see where they will go (e.g., the individual mandate for healthcare). As for his love life, the only thing I have over Newt is that I never left somebody for somebody else, and I don’t think that cuts much ice with God. He has presumably repented and been forgiven, and if God can do it, so can I. Mr. Paul received my vote, because I agree with his political philosophy, and he is a man of demonstrated (if imperfect) character, and his Protestantism is sufficient. Mr. Romney is of course a Damned Heretic, but his faith is also sufficient for me, and it’s probably a good thing for religious liberty to have a President whose spiritual ancestors were martyred for their beliefs. As for Mr. Obama, while he has done a minimal Christian public confession, I am not convinced that Jeremiah Wright’s church meets my criteria for religion, and his non-attendence as President leads me to wonder whether God is a factor in his life.
The race thing is even more of a hoot. I will freely admit that, all things being equal, I am “somewhat” more likely to vote for the white guy. But there’s that “all things” caveat again. I’d vote in a heartbeat for Walter Williams over Barack Obama, even though genetically the mulatto Obama “looks like me” more. I would have considered a vote for Herman Cain. The problem here is that O’Donnell thinks it’s a problem. Last time out, all things were not equal; many black people and not a few whites voted for Obama because he was black…yet somehow, that’s not racist. And people vote for candidates for all kinds of stupid reasons, conscious and unconscious: physical looks, the sound of the voice, their spouse. But mostly, people do a pretty good job overall of prioritizing their responses to various aspects of the candidate. If I base .01% of a decision on a candidate on whether he looks like me, am I a racist? Apparently the hicks in Ohio think this is American Idol or something, that they’re going to vote based on what Jayzuss tells them while they’re handling snakes. That doesn’t describe any Republican I know, but then I doubt O’Donnell knows any Republicans. And after this, I doubt there are many Republicans who would want to know him.
It’s been an interesting weekend of courtship. No, make that stalking. If I called a strange woman as many times as two of these candidates called me, I’d be looking at a restraining order, if not arrest. And they aren’t really courting either. Courtship is about revealing how wonderful you are while telling her how wonderful she is, so that she will conclude that we are even more wonderful. But these guys don’t talk about me. They barely talk about themselves. It’s Ricky and Willy fighting over the same girl. Only it’s not that either; it’s 2 cheerleaders stabbing each other in the back over the high school quarterback. “Muffy’s a stuck-up prep-school bitch!” “Yeah, well, that Catholic girl Ricki doesn’t put out, and if she did, she’d get an abortion.”
I note that my guy has not robocalled me ONCE (though all the girls are wearing his ring) nor has the captain of the high school debate team. My wife made it into a running joke. “Oh, I don’t know WHO to vote for! Won’t somebody please tell me!”, notwithstanding that she’s wearing Catholic Girl’s ring in the front yard. I guess robocalling is too pricey for lower offices, as we haven’t gotten any others. We have, however, gotten enough Andrew Manning for State Central Committee mailings to wallpaper the bathroom.
And speaking of rings: Is Willard too good for yard signs, or are all his supporters ashamed? I haven’t seen one. And it’s not like he can’t afford them. Not sure I’ve seen more than one Newt sign either. Ron Paul is definitely the winner of the yard sign war; too bad that doesn’t translate into votes.
Well, in 36 hours it will all be over except for the punditry, and we’ll be undisturbed except for the occasional inquiry about various stepchildrens’ debts.
We have Obama’s Infamous Halloween Party, which the dextrosphere is so outraged about that they’ve suddenly discovered class warfare. And when called on that, they backtrack and say, “It’s not the party, it’s the cover-up”, even though their previous statements made the cover-up perfectly understandable. Look, the White House throws parties; always has, always will, and they are always lavish by 99%-er standards. We don’t know how much or if Johnny Depp et al charged to be there, but most of the rest is penny-ante stuff. (Punch in blood vials…what a cool idea, and not that spendy.) When they start throwing parties that involve showering in the blood of virgins, I’ll get excited. (Not that that would ever happen; if a Democrat ever actually found a virgin, she’d be deflowered before she got to the White House.) Yes, the cover-up was a bad idea, but this is the President that considers his school records to be a state secret; it’s not exactly new behavior. The only people to really look bad in all this are the White House press corps, who are revealed to be total lapdogs and should resign en masse.
In the sinistrosphere, we have Pat Cunningham of the Rockford Register Star claiming that Kansas House speaker Mike O’Neal “prays for Obama’s death”. Well, not that, exactly. There’s this email that’s been going around for awhile, I received it several months ago. Here’s the text as I received it:
—– Psalm 109:8
My wife and I were in slow-moving traffic the other day and
we were stopped behind a car that had an unusual Obama bumper sticker on it.
It read: “Pray for Obama. Psalm 109:8″.
When we got home my wife got out the Bible and opened it up to the scripture.
She started laughing & laughing. Then she read it to me.
I couldn’t believe what it said. I had a good laugh, too.
Psalm 109:8 ~ “Let his days be few and brief; and let others step forward
to replace him.”
At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president!
Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray.
Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN?
Here’s the version which was passed on by Speaker O’Neal, per Cunningham:
In another of O’Neal’s emails, he referenced Psalm 109 from the Old Testament, which reads in part:
May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.
May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes.
May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.
May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children.
O’Neal wrote: “At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!”
Now, I suspect “referenced” mean about what my version says. And you’ll notice that “O’Neal wrote”, miraculously, exactly the text which I received…which he probably received too. Now, “O’Neal wrote” this in the sense that he forwarded it to others, which DOES make him responsible for the content. But his crime here is stupidly and thoughtlessly forwarding emails…a crime that I suspect Pat Cunningham is not immune from. And if forwarding an email is “praying” for anything, well, I’m going to start saying the e-rosary: email the Hail Mary to 10 of my friends, the Our Father to another, and the Fatima tag to another. Of course, soon I’ll be blacklisted by all my friends, but that doesn’t matter; I can still “pray” electronically, even if it bounced back.
Now, why are we worried about trivia like parties and an itchy trigger finger on the “send” button when the nation is collapsing?
In the wake of the revelations about that miserable little twink Jamie Kirchick’s hatchet job against Ron Paul, I found myself reading blog posts from the last Presidential election cycle, in search of links from back then. I remember being pissed at cur-CHICK at the time, but there wasn’t a lot on the blog, unless it was all slightly earlier and on the Case blog. The WordPress search functions are virtually nonexistent. During the worst of it all, I was abandoning the anti-Paul blogs and reading a lot more at lewrockwell.com. I don’t so much now; Lew’s crew can get into a sort of kneejerk libertarian negativity. But that concentration of Catholic libertarians were certainly instrumental in my own conversion. And in reading back, the current froth-at-the -mouth about Ron Paul seems very old hat. I have to wonder if Ace of Spades might actually be James Kirchick’s beard. All those busty cheerleaders and talk of hobo-hunting…the man doth protest too much, methinks.
“I don’t agree with Pauls extreme position on libertarianism either.” (comment here)
Effin’ ay, you think that a sitting US representative who earmarks has an ‘extreme position on libertarianism’?? Sir, you don’t know what the term means (as is proven by the rest of your comment.)
“That makes two excellent reasons to kill 53 billionaires and seize their assets.”
Mr. Feingold, that sort of thing has been tried before…picking a group, killing them, and seizing their assets. They were an ethnicity stereotyped as being rich. You might have spotted one of them this morning, while brushing your teeth.
OK, I don’t much care if he sent a babe a crotch shot. I do care about the coverup, and the fact that he’s accusing somebody of a crime without getting law enforcement involved. He’s moved pretty solidly into the “clown” category. I’ll bet Huma is having second thoughts about their wedding having been officiated by a serial philanderer (Bill Clinton). At AoSHQ, Ben says of the notorious Dana Bash interview, “Honestly, this is the second worst press conference I’ve ever seen. Only the Bud [sic] Dwyer press conference was worse. ” Though the Dwyer press conference had a happy ending (not for Dwyer).
Gotta wonder how long we’ll be eating the popcorn on this one.
RT @iowahawkblog: "When did Obama first learn about political targeting at IRS?" = "When did Sandusky first learn about child targeting at … 5 days ago
Posted by jeffreyquick 
