Neil Young, on coming to terms with the inconvenient truth that music cannot, in fact, save the world:
No word on whether Don McLean has finally discovered that music cannot, in fact, save your mortal soul.
Canadian folk rock legend Neil Young said he has lost all hope that music can change the world, as he presented a documentary about his 2006 anti-war concert tour at the Berlin film festival on Friday."I know that the time when music could change the world is past. I really doubt that a single song can make a difference. It is a reality," Young told reporters.
"I don't think the tour had any impact on voters."
Maybe someone should let Young know that the only people who would go see a Neil Young concert these days are middle-aged baby boomers, who certainly aren't going to change their voting habits because of some Neil Young tirade about Chimpy McBushitler, made right before Young launches into an extended version of Rocking in the Free World
No word on whether Don McLean has finally discovered that music cannot, in fact, save your mortal soul.
When your local paramilitary police force attacks...
0 Comments Published by Ryan on 1/10/2008 at 1:44 PM.
Another day, another gross abuse of power from a local police force.
Thanks, in large part, to the mass availability of discarded weapons and equipment from the U.S. military, local police departments have spent ridiculous amounts of money arming themselves to the teeth - to deal with a threat most departments will never face.
Of course, most of these departments aren't located in Miami, or Los Angeles, or Detroit. And that's really the heart of the problem. When you're a S.W.A.T. commander in Podunk, Nowhere who hasn't had any "action" in months, the idea of using S.W.A.T to carry out tasks previously performed by regular police officers seems more and more reasonable - especially when you have to justify the purchase of those assault rifles and that Bradley fighting vehicle during the next city commission meeting.
These "no-knock" raids are carried out in the middle of the night, usually when you're sleeping, and involve a handful of S.W.A.T. officers - who are masked and armed with assault weapons - who either tear down your door or perhaps your living-room wall, and then proceed to storm into your home like the Waffen-SS.
Police departments have become all too willing to delegate tasks that are even remotely threatening to their S.W.A.T teams. Its the widespread availability that's the problem. S.W.A.T. personnel constantly train for a worst case scenario that, in all likelihood, will never happen, especially not in Small-Town, Wherever. The result is that whenever an even remote possibility of "action" presents itself, these guys are chomping at the bit to prove their mettle. What follows is oftentimes a gross overuse of force and a significant threat to public safety.
A tactical law enforcement team broke into Tom Shiflett's home and took his 11-year-old son to hospital for court-ordered medical treatment for a minor head injury.
Garfield County's All Hazards Response Team raided the home Friday night, a day after Jon Shiflett fell after grabbing the handle of a moving car. The child was returned to the family at about 2:30 a.m. Saturday, hours after the raid.
"Inappropriate is not nearly strong enough a word. It was gross irresponsibility and stupidity," said Ross Talbott, owner of the Apple Tree Mobile Home Park south of New Castle who rents to the Shifletts and who witnessed the raid. "Is this Russia? I don't know what we're coming to when they think your kid needs medical help and they send a SWAT team."
In the end, the injury wasn't as severe as caseworkers from the Garfield County Department of Social Services thought when they went before a judge seeking a search warrant and order for medical treatment.
The doctor recommended fluids, Tylenol and ice to treat the bruises, according to a copy of Jon's patient aftercare instructions.
Thanks, in large part, to the mass availability of discarded weapons and equipment from the U.S. military, local police departments have spent ridiculous amounts of money arming themselves to the teeth - to deal with a threat most departments will never face.
Of course, most of these departments aren't located in Miami, or Los Angeles, or Detroit. And that's really the heart of the problem. When you're a S.W.A.T. commander in Podunk, Nowhere who hasn't had any "action" in months, the idea of using S.W.A.T to carry out tasks previously performed by regular police officers seems more and more reasonable - especially when you have to justify the purchase of those assault rifles and that Bradley fighting vehicle during the next city commission meeting.
These "no-knock" raids are carried out in the middle of the night, usually when you're sleeping, and involve a handful of S.W.A.T. officers - who are masked and armed with assault weapons - who either tear down your door or perhaps your living-room wall, and then proceed to storm into your home like the Waffen-SS.
Police departments have become all too willing to delegate tasks that are even remotely threatening to their S.W.A.T teams. Its the widespread availability that's the problem. S.W.A.T. personnel constantly train for a worst case scenario that, in all likelihood, will never happen, especially not in Small-Town, Wherever. The result is that whenever an even remote possibility of "action" presents itself, these guys are chomping at the bit to prove their mettle. What follows is oftentimes a gross overuse of force and a significant threat to public safety.
Law Professor Michael Froomkin joins the two-minute hate concerning Jonah Goldberg's new book - "Liberal Fascism"
"[G]hastly risible utter tripe"..... Wow! The Professor certainly goes on quite a little tirade in order to disparage a book he's never even read. Defensive much?
The hysteria from lefty blogs over this book certainly raises some eyebrows. It seems like over the past few months, “progressives” have gone out of their way to summarily dismiss the arguments Goldberg raises – without having read a single page of his book. Its almost as if Goldberg has struck some sort of nerve.
Someone please explain how I can get a job as a columnist for a major newspaper.I guarantee that no matter how badly I do I will never write the sort of ghastly risible utter tripe that appears to be in the new book by the LA Times’s latest addition to its pundit stable. See Sadly, No! for a sneek peek at Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism”.
"[G]hastly risible utter tripe"..... Wow! The Professor certainly goes on quite a little tirade in order to disparage a book he's never even read. Defensive much?
The hysteria from lefty blogs over this book certainly raises some eyebrows. It seems like over the past few months, “progressives” have gone out of their way to summarily dismiss the arguments Goldberg raises – without having read a single page of his book.
And as much as I’m sure it pains liberals to hear, comparisons between the darling of modern-day liberalism – FDR - and fascism cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. Putting aside his internment of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans, it was FDR who established the Orwellian “Office of Censorship” and it was FDR who flirted with usurping an unfriendly judiciary with his “Judiciary Reorganization Bill.” The list goes on, and on, and on.
FDR, like Hitler and Mussolini, were collectivists in the worst sense of the word. To be fair, FDR never took things as far as his German and Italian counterparts, but there are striking similarities in their ideologies. All three were vehemently opposed to individualism, free markets, and decentralized power. FDR himself called Mussolini “admirable.” Thankfully for the U.S., FDR never enjoyed the luxury of a one-party state.
UPDATE: More hysteria here.
When bitter, intellectually dishonest former military officers attack
0 Comments Published by Ryan on 11/19/2007 at 5:53 PM.
I have several family members that have either served, or are currently serving in the U.S. military. Suffice it to say I was more than a little reluctant to comment on LTC Bob Bateman's attempted assault on Victor Davis Hanson and his book, Carnage and Culture.
(Bateman's writing can be found by scrolling down here: http://mediamatters.org/altercation/index)
To his credit, the admirable Hanson took the high road throughout this "debate" and refused to debase himself by joining in the name-calling and mud slinging.
Bateman began his "critique" of Hanson's scholorship by chest-thumping about his upcoming "takedown" of Hanson's book. Bateman followed that up by referring to Hanson's work as "feces." Seriously. And it only got worse from there.
For those who may have missed out on Bateman's "takedown," here's essentially what happened:
1. Bateman reads Carnage and Culture.
2. Bateman completely misunderstands the thesis of the book.
3. Bateman misinterprets an innocent discussion - over the future of the Western military tradition - as a personal insult against his own military service.
4. Bateman writes leftist hit-piece "Altercation" seeking soap-box to air his perceived grievance, under guise of scholarly criticism.
5. Bateman writes four-part "takedown" - which instead only shows Bateman's complete lack of basic reading comprehension, logic, and critical thinking skills.
6. A very patient VDH responds point -by-point to Bateman's hit-piece, and confirms that Bateman is little more than a shrill, childish, and intellectually dishonest ideologue.
(Bateman's writing can be found by scrolling down here: http://mediamatters.org/altercation/index)
To his credit, the admirable Hanson took the high road throughout this "debate" and refused to debase himself by joining in the name-calling and mud slinging.
Bateman began his "critique" of Hanson's scholorship by chest-thumping about his upcoming "takedown" of Hanson's book. Bateman followed that up by referring to Hanson's work as "feces." Seriously. And it only got worse from there.
For those who may have missed out on Bateman's "takedown," here's essentially what happened:
1. Bateman reads Carnage and Culture.
2. Bateman completely misunderstands the thesis of the book.
3. Bateman misinterprets an innocent discussion - over the future of the Western military tradition - as a personal insult against his own military service.
4. Bateman writes leftist hit-piece "Altercation" seeking soap-box to air his perceived grievance, under guise of scholarly criticism.
5. Bateman writes four-part "takedown" - which instead only shows Bateman's complete lack of basic reading comprehension, logic, and critical thinking skills.
6. A very patient VDH responds point -by-point to Bateman's hit-piece, and confirms that Bateman is little more than a shrill, childish, and intellectually dishonest ideologue.
From the land down under:
There'll be no ho, ho, ho this Christmas. Aspiring Santas have been told not to use the term "ho" because it could be seen as derogatory to women.
Thirty trainees at a Santa course in Adelaide last month, held by recruitment company Westaff, were urged to replace the traditional festive greeting with "ha, ha, ha".
A Santa veteran of 11 years who attended the course told the Sunday Mail the trainer was very clear in spelling out no to "ho".
Two Santa hopefuls reportedly left the course after the trainer's edict.
A letter from Jimmy Carter to his sister-in-law, dated May 13, 1990.
Photo: Mat Honan
As for the letter itself - who in their right mind shoots at a cat? Even if Carter's intention was "only to sting it," there have to be literally thousands of quicker and less lethal ways to chase a cat away from bird feeder. Seriously. Carter could have just as easily thrown a rock, or a shoe for that matter. (Though honestly, who throws a shoe? Really?)
Instead, Carter presumably had to take the time to retrieve his shotgun, load it with bird shot, and then fire at his sister-in-law's cat.
The fact that this country survived the late '70s is amazing.
Photo: Mat Honan5/13/90This picture reminded me of an episode of "The Simpsons" from years ago. When the town of Springfield is unable to afford a statute of Abraham Lincoln, they're forced to settle for a statute of Jimmy Carter instead. When it's unveiled, someone shouts, "Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!" and a riot ensues.
To Sybil,
Lamentably, I killed your cat while trying just to sting it. It was crouched, as usual, under one of our bird feeders & I fired from some distance with bird shot. It may ease your grief somewhat to know that the cat was buried properly with a prayer & that I’ll be glad to get you another of your choice.
I called & came by your house several times. We will be in the Dominican Republic until Thursday. I’ll see you then.
Love, Jimmy
As for the letter itself - who in their right mind shoots at a cat? Even if Carter's intention was "only to sting it," there have to be literally thousands of quicker and less lethal ways to chase a cat away from bird feeder. Seriously. Carter could have just as easily thrown a rock, or a shoe for that matter. (Though honestly, who throws a shoe? Really?)
Instead, Carter presumably had to take the time to retrieve his shotgun, load it with bird shot, and then fire at his sister-in-law's cat.
The fact that this country survived the late '70s is amazing.
It should be entertaining to watch "progressives" circle the wagons and collectively express their faux-outrage over Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence. I am particularly looking forward to watching these disingenuous ass-clowns attempt to equivocate and distinguish Bush's actions from those of his predecessors, most notably Slick Willie.
Apparently, Hillary Clinton has absolutely no shame.
That's especially rich - considering Bill & Hillary's involvement in "Pardongate" - when Slick Willie commuted Carlos Vignali's sentence for cocaine trafficking after he served 6 of 15 years in federal prison. Or when Clinton pardoned Almon Glenn Braswell of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.
As if this wasn't bad enough - both Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency.
Then there's the pardon of Bill's half-brother, Roger, on drug charges. And let's not forget how Clinton commuted the sentences of those 16 members of FALN, the Puerto Rican terrorist group that set off over 100 bombs in the United States, which were responsible for 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials.
The fact of the matter is that Libby was sentenced to a ridiculously long prison sentence for making a phone call to Tim Russert - the substance of which Russert has a different recollection of.
As Christopher Hitchens recently pointed out:
Apparently, Hillary Clinton has absolutely no shame.
"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
That's especially rich - considering Bill & Hillary's involvement in "Pardongate" - when Slick Willie commuted Carlos Vignali's sentence for cocaine trafficking after he served 6 of 15 years in federal prison. Or when Clinton pardoned Almon Glenn Braswell of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.
As if this wasn't bad enough - both Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency.
Then there's the pardon of Bill's half-brother, Roger, on drug charges. And let's not forget how Clinton commuted the sentences of those 16 members of FALN, the Puerto Rican terrorist group that set off over 100 bombs in the United States, which were responsible for 6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials.
The fact of the matter is that Libby was sentenced to a ridiculously long prison sentence for making a phone call to Tim Russert - the substance of which Russert has a different recollection of.
As Christopher Hitchens recently pointed out:
Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?
I've been perusing book reviews of Christopher Hitchens' latest book, God is not Great, in which Hitchens basically argues:
Of course, atheists have historically been too preoccupied with slaughter of a home-grown variety to be bothered waging war against neighboring states.
This "absence of religion" that Hitchens seems so fond of certainly didn't stop Mao Zedong from killing 40 million of his own people during China's "Great Leap Forward." Nor did it stop Stalin from racking up a 20 million body count, or Pol Pot from slaughtering one-third of Cambodia's population.
In a astounding display of intellectual dishonesty, Hitchens casually dismisses communism's 100 million death toll by stating that those instances were merely types of "secularised religion," and as such - do not count.
Well isn't that convenient.
Pure atheism, or the societal rejection of any formalized belief system, has never existed.
What Hitchens, like most atheists, fails to realize is that the void left by the absence of religion does not remain empty. It is always filled with a quasi-religious belief in someone or something - which, historically speaking, is oftentimes worse than its predecessor religion.
Make no mistake, while atheists may not worship at the alter of formalized religion, they instead substitute a blind faith in the divine with a new faith in the infallibility of their elitist brethren.
Atheists reek of the same level of elitism and superiority as the fervently religious, the only difference is the source of their moral authority. One comes from a presumably omniscient diety, the other from some guy in apartment 2-D.
For many, like those of the DailyKos variety, the advancement of far-left liberalism has become their de facto religion. For others, it takes the form of radical environmentalism (see Al Gore a/k/a The Goracle).
Religion, for better or for worse, hangs its hat on the belief that God - as the architect of the astonishingly complex design and authority found in our universe - is the father of the instrinsic concepts of good and evil. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the athiest is inclined to leave the formulation of these concepts in the hands of man.
. . that the world would be better off without religion altogether. Stupid religious people would stop fighting stupid religious wars and a new enlightenment would ensue. Nobody ever went to war for atheism.
Of course, atheists have historically been too preoccupied with slaughter of a home-grown variety to be bothered waging war against neighboring states.
This "absence of religion" that Hitchens seems so fond of certainly didn't stop Mao Zedong from killing 40 million of his own people during China's "Great Leap Forward." Nor did it stop Stalin from racking up a 20 million body count, or Pol Pot from slaughtering one-third of Cambodia's population.
In a astounding display of intellectual dishonesty, Hitchens casually dismisses communism's 100 million death toll by stating that those instances were merely types of "secularised religion," and as such - do not count.
Well isn't that convenient.
Pure atheism, or the societal rejection of any formalized belief system, has never existed.
What Hitchens, like most atheists, fails to realize is that the void left by the absence of religion does not remain empty. It is always filled with a quasi-religious belief in someone or something - which, historically speaking, is oftentimes worse than its predecessor religion.
Make no mistake, while atheists may not worship at the alter of formalized religion, they instead substitute a blind faith in the divine with a new faith in the infallibility of their elitist brethren.
Atheists reek of the same level of elitism and superiority as the fervently religious, the only difference is the source of their moral authority. One comes from a presumably omniscient diety, the other from some guy in apartment 2-D.
For many, like those of the DailyKos variety, the advancement of far-left liberalism has become their de facto religion. For others, it takes the form of radical environmentalism (see Al Gore a/k/a The Goracle).
Religion, for better or for worse, hangs its hat on the belief that God - as the architect of the astonishingly complex design and authority found in our universe - is the father of the instrinsic concepts of good and evil. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the athiest is inclined to leave the formulation of these concepts in the hands of man.
Its been awhile since my last post. For the four or five people who regularly read this blog - I apologize - things have been hectic around here.
On Saturday I got my first tattoo. Its a custom-designed "tribal" on my left arm. I can't stand using the word "tribal" - because its basically become synonymous with barbed wire and other ridiculous frat-boy armbands. The whole "tribal" tattoo concept, most notably the tribal armband, has become so completely played-out at this point that I hesitated getting mine done.
The fact that I drew the design myself - and the fact that it wasn't an armband - ultimately saved the day, and I went ahead and got inked.
Everyone in the shop was professional and nice. I spent about 2.5 hours in the chair, and the first two hours were completely uneventful and boring. My patience quickly wore out after the two hour mark, and by the time it was finished, I was dying to get the hell out of that chair.
I absolutely love the end result though, and I'll definitely be back for #2.
And #3.
And #4.
I think I'm hooked.
On Saturday I got my first tattoo. Its a custom-designed "tribal" on my left arm. I can't stand using the word "tribal" - because its basically become synonymous with barbed wire and other ridiculous frat-boy armbands. The whole "tribal" tattoo concept, most notably the tribal armband, has become so completely played-out at this point that I hesitated getting mine done.
The fact that I drew the design myself - and the fact that it wasn't an armband - ultimately saved the day, and I went ahead and got inked.
Everyone in the shop was professional and nice. I spent about 2.5 hours in the chair, and the first two hours were completely uneventful and boring. My patience quickly wore out after the two hour mark, and by the time it was finished, I was dying to get the hell out of that chair.
I absolutely love the end result though, and I'll definitely be back for #2.
And #3.
And #4.
I think I'm hooked.
The online magazine Slate recently posted an article on a subject near and dear to my heart .
Beer.
It seems that:
From this, the author, Field Maloney, deduces:
Not so fast, my pantywaisted Slate magazine friends. Let me see if I have this straight. The author, Field Maloney, views what was undoubtedly some stupid wine advertisement during a football game, and then, combined with evidence of wine's increasing popularity, somehow extrapolates that wine has become a manly drink?
Sorry, but no.
There is nothing "manly" about drinking wine. Nothing. I don't have the figures, but I'm guessing the ratio of beer-to-wine sales at sporting events, concerts, or wherever else men gather in large numbers (like Nascar and strip clubs), is grossly in beer's favor. I'm willing to bet this isn't even close.
Real men drink beer. Wine is permitted during special meals, anniversaries, celebrations, and holidays. But it is not the standard alcoholic beverage of choice. Walk into a sports bar, or any bar for that matter, and order a chardonnay or a merlot. Its the easiest way I know to pronounce that you are, in fact, a effeminate and pretentious asshole.
Wine consumption among American males could very well be rising, and it could be doing so at a considerable rate. I do not care. Any increase in American male wine consumption is because, thanks to feminism and nanny-state liberalism, men are becoming pussies, and are becoming so at an alarming rate.
Wine is not "manly." Never has been, never will be.
The majority of men may one day prefer wine to beer. All this will mean is that this majority of men are not really "men" at all.
Beer.
It seems that:
. . . wine consumption in this country has nearly doubled in the last decade, while beer sales have been pretty much stagnant, growing less than 1 percent since 2000. Even more galling, in 2005 a Gallup poll revealed that, for the first time ever, Americans preferred wine to beer.
From this, the author, Field Maloney, deduces:
Of course, the rise of the American fine-wine industry has spurred the broader acceptance of wine here. But who'd have guessed wine would join beer at the football game? Watching last winter's Giants-Eagles NFL playoff, I saw an ad for a cell-phone plan featuring a graying, rugged-looking man strolling through his vineyard and examining dusty bottles of older vintages in his cellar. Winning over football fans with wine! It was as if the "But of course!" Grey Poupon man of the '80s TV ads had become an unironic icon for the WWE. Somehow, wine had become manly.
Not so fast, my pantywaisted Slate magazine friends. Let me see if I have this straight. The author, Field Maloney, views what was undoubtedly some stupid wine advertisement during a football game, and then, combined with evidence of wine's increasing popularity, somehow extrapolates that wine has become a manly drink?
Sorry, but no.
There is nothing "manly" about drinking wine. Nothing. I don't have the figures, but I'm guessing the ratio of beer-to-wine sales at sporting events, concerts, or wherever else men gather in large numbers (like Nascar and strip clubs), is grossly in beer's favor. I'm willing to bet this isn't even close.
Real men drink beer. Wine is permitted during special meals, anniversaries, celebrations, and holidays. But it is not the standard alcoholic beverage of choice. Walk into a sports bar, or any bar for that matter, and order a chardonnay or a merlot. Its the easiest way I know to pronounce that you are, in fact, a effeminate and pretentious asshole.
Wine consumption among American males could very well be rising, and it could be doing so at a considerable rate. I do not care. Any increase in American male wine consumption is because, thanks to feminism and nanny-state liberalism, men are becoming pussies, and are becoming so at an alarming rate.
Wine is not "manly." Never has been, never will be.
The majority of men may one day prefer wine to beer. All this will mean is that this majority of men are not really "men" at all.
