Good stuff here courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's blog:
JUST A REMINDER:
Here are a few choice quotes from Democrats in the period leading up to the war to disarm and depose Saddam. They are all almost identical to the Bush administration's statements. None claim an "imminent" threat. All suggest a real and growing danger. Some of the intelligence may well turn out to be wrong. But their concerns were real; and their judgment correct. Again, the imminent meme has to be challenged before the anti-war media make this untruth truth:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." --Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." --Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." --Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction... [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." --Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Great post from Udolpho.com
Seven Questions for Michael Moore…
Michael Moore has recently asked seven inane questions, addressed to President Bush, under the arrogant presumption that he is doing so "on behalf of" the victims of the World Trade Center attack. If he is even aware of what his words mean, this fat pig can only mean that he regards himself as the moral or political spokesman of the victims; a disgraceful and disrespectful act of corpse-robbing since none of those people gave him permission to speak for them.
Well Michael, I myself have a few questions for you, seven in fact. I ask them, with similar egomaniacal immodesty, on behalf of everyone who is not a complete fucking idiot.
1. Why have you refused to issue corrections for books like Stupid White Men that have been savaged in the press for the unusually high rate of errors and misrepresentations they contain?
You know the savaging I'm talking about. Liberals alone account for an astonishing number of the critical beatings you've received, as you can find here and here and here. And since they're your natural allies, that's not good.
Good God he's a fat pig
Unfortunately, it's not just your books that appear to have been written in a haze of euphoria after doubling up on your meds. People keep finding numerous errors of fact in your documentaries and television programs too, some of which you've quietly corrected in re-issue without accepting responsibility for the original distortion. Yet a film, even moreso than a book, must be painstakingly edited and undergo review by many people over a lengthy post-production schedule. Only you could have had the veto power to keep a lie in. How is it that your falsehoods survived this vetting process?
Hey, maybe this is one of the reasons Mother Jones fired you for incompetence.
2. Why do you keep circulating urban myths long after they've been shot down?
This ties in with number one; you seem to have a long-standing habit of telling a slighly better version of the truth, one unencumbered by nuance or complexity. While you can claim that your research is sloppy or that you've corrected the printed record by backpedaling on a talk show, there's no excuse for your retailing fictions after you've already been corrected. And you do it a lot.
Frequently these myths don't even make sense. For example, you've darkly hinted that relatives of Osama bin Laden were allowed to leave the United States following the World Trade Center destruction due to the existence of some nefarious conspiracy involving George W. Bush. (You mistakenly assert that bin Laden's relatives left during the ban on plane travel without the cooperation of the FBI.)
Of course if such a conspiracy really existed one wonders why these relatives were still in the United States the day of the attack. I mean presumably the whole point of a conspiracy is so the conspirators can plan ahead. You can't possibly mean to indicate that relatives of bin Laden are guilty of terrorism by virtue of blood relation. If your absurd anecdote has any meaning it must be that a cover-up was underway even as the dust of the World Trade Center was still settling.
3. How did you manage to make an entire movie about gun violence without exploring the violent crime in lower class minority neighborhoods?
This is especially curious because you waste little time getting to your point that gun violence is a product of white fear of minorities. Presumably then the violent crime that afflicts minorities is caused by paranoid whites who buy up K-Mart's rifle stockpile and drive through the ghetto shooting darkies. Or something.
No, wait, that can't be it because most of the violence there is intra-ethnic and closely related to a maladaptive ganster ethos and turf wars. Hey maybe you can devote some time to that in your next book or movie, that is if your moaning about disadvantaged minorities is for more than just show.
4. What was it like getting booed while giving your Oscar acceptance speech?
You looked like one of the victims of your own documentaries, rambling idiotically about "fictition" and then hustling your ass backstage to intimidate reporters who might actually have noticed both your inarticulate flailing and the crowd's hostility. In fact you later claimed that the audience was booing your enemies. Hey, nice try.
5. Why aren't you allowing advance review copies of your latest book to go out before you start on your promotional speaking tour?
A wag might suggest that after past experiences you're trying to avoid getting asked about any of the embarrassing factual innovations that pepper your writing.
If so, I have to warn you it's a foolhardly gambit which could magnify the book's negative critical reception. Hollywood does this kind of thing with movies it knows are stinkers: bottle them up and hope for a good opening weekend before the reviews hit the papers. Critics have been known to treat such movies with especial unkindness.
6. How does someone who complains relentlessly about corporations and wealthy executives who prefer profits over people justify his exorbitant lifestyle including a $1.3 million home on the Upper West Side?
You do claim to give money to "charity and political causes", but you know, given your veracity on other matters I'd like to see receipts and tax returns. At any rate, what about all those guys you are supposed to be in solidarity with? Surely the many little people who've helped you build up your career could use some extra cash.
Why do I ask? Because if you're bringing in millions of dollars while paying your crew and other lackeys whatever the market will bear, that would be just a tad hypocritical. Maybe it's some alpha male thing, where you need to show them all who's boss by the size of your paycheck. Yet when I hear liberals whine about executive salaries they invariably declaim on the evils of corporate suits making 100 times more than the janitor. I think they're daft but I'm wondering what you think.
This is more than just idle spit-balling. Writers on "TV Nation" claim you tried to prevent them from joining the Writer's Guild. They also claim they relied on the Guild to keep you from screwing them out of royalties and other payments. What an odd thing to do for someone who champions unions.
7. Why is it unfair to draw conclusions about you based on your fat, slovenly appearance?
Some people reasonably associate sloppiness and obesity with poor impulse control, an emotional, reactive temperament, egocentric personal habits, and a lifelong inability to make intelligent choices. Comments? 10/6/2003 5:21 PM
Seven Questions for Michael Moore…
Michael Moore has recently asked seven inane questions, addressed to President Bush, under the arrogant presumption that he is doing so "on behalf of" the victims of the World Trade Center attack. If he is even aware of what his words mean, this fat pig can only mean that he regards himself as the moral or political spokesman of the victims; a disgraceful and disrespectful act of corpse-robbing since none of those people gave him permission to speak for them.
Well Michael, I myself have a few questions for you, seven in fact. I ask them, with similar egomaniacal immodesty, on behalf of everyone who is not a complete fucking idiot.
1. Why have you refused to issue corrections for books like Stupid White Men that have been savaged in the press for the unusually high rate of errors and misrepresentations they contain?
You know the savaging I'm talking about. Liberals alone account for an astonishing number of the critical beatings you've received, as you can find here and here and here. And since they're your natural allies, that's not good.
Good God he's a fat pig
Unfortunately, it's not just your books that appear to have been written in a haze of euphoria after doubling up on your meds. People keep finding numerous errors of fact in your documentaries and television programs too, some of which you've quietly corrected in re-issue without accepting responsibility for the original distortion. Yet a film, even moreso than a book, must be painstakingly edited and undergo review by many people over a lengthy post-production schedule. Only you could have had the veto power to keep a lie in. How is it that your falsehoods survived this vetting process?
Hey, maybe this is one of the reasons Mother Jones fired you for incompetence.
2. Why do you keep circulating urban myths long after they've been shot down?
This ties in with number one; you seem to have a long-standing habit of telling a slighly better version of the truth, one unencumbered by nuance or complexity. While you can claim that your research is sloppy or that you've corrected the printed record by backpedaling on a talk show, there's no excuse for your retailing fictions after you've already been corrected. And you do it a lot.
Frequently these myths don't even make sense. For example, you've darkly hinted that relatives of Osama bin Laden were allowed to leave the United States following the World Trade Center destruction due to the existence of some nefarious conspiracy involving George W. Bush. (You mistakenly assert that bin Laden's relatives left during the ban on plane travel without the cooperation of the FBI.)
Of course if such a conspiracy really existed one wonders why these relatives were still in the United States the day of the attack. I mean presumably the whole point of a conspiracy is so the conspirators can plan ahead. You can't possibly mean to indicate that relatives of bin Laden are guilty of terrorism by virtue of blood relation. If your absurd anecdote has any meaning it must be that a cover-up was underway even as the dust of the World Trade Center was still settling.
3. How did you manage to make an entire movie about gun violence without exploring the violent crime in lower class minority neighborhoods?
This is especially curious because you waste little time getting to your point that gun violence is a product of white fear of minorities. Presumably then the violent crime that afflicts minorities is caused by paranoid whites who buy up K-Mart's rifle stockpile and drive through the ghetto shooting darkies. Or something.
No, wait, that can't be it because most of the violence there is intra-ethnic and closely related to a maladaptive ganster ethos and turf wars. Hey maybe you can devote some time to that in your next book or movie, that is if your moaning about disadvantaged minorities is for more than just show.
4. What was it like getting booed while giving your Oscar acceptance speech?
You looked like one of the victims of your own documentaries, rambling idiotically about "fictition" and then hustling your ass backstage to intimidate reporters who might actually have noticed both your inarticulate flailing and the crowd's hostility. In fact you later claimed that the audience was booing your enemies. Hey, nice try.
5. Why aren't you allowing advance review copies of your latest book to go out before you start on your promotional speaking tour?
A wag might suggest that after past experiences you're trying to avoid getting asked about any of the embarrassing factual innovations that pepper your writing.
If so, I have to warn you it's a foolhardly gambit which could magnify the book's negative critical reception. Hollywood does this kind of thing with movies it knows are stinkers: bottle them up and hope for a good opening weekend before the reviews hit the papers. Critics have been known to treat such movies with especial unkindness.
6. How does someone who complains relentlessly about corporations and wealthy executives who prefer profits over people justify his exorbitant lifestyle including a $1.3 million home on the Upper West Side?
You do claim to give money to "charity and political causes", but you know, given your veracity on other matters I'd like to see receipts and tax returns. At any rate, what about all those guys you are supposed to be in solidarity with? Surely the many little people who've helped you build up your career could use some extra cash.
Why do I ask? Because if you're bringing in millions of dollars while paying your crew and other lackeys whatever the market will bear, that would be just a tad hypocritical. Maybe it's some alpha male thing, where you need to show them all who's boss by the size of your paycheck. Yet when I hear liberals whine about executive salaries they invariably declaim on the evils of corporate suits making 100 times more than the janitor. I think they're daft but I'm wondering what you think.
This is more than just idle spit-balling. Writers on "TV Nation" claim you tried to prevent them from joining the Writer's Guild. They also claim they relied on the Guild to keep you from screwing them out of royalties and other payments. What an odd thing to do for someone who champions unions.
7. Why is it unfair to draw conclusions about you based on your fat, slovenly appearance?
Some people reasonably associate sloppiness and obesity with poor impulse control, an emotional, reactive temperament, egocentric personal habits, and a lifelong inability to make intelligent choices. Comments? 10/6/2003 5:21 PM
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Springsteen Ends Tour With Shows at Shea
By DAVID BAUDER
The Associated Press
Sunday, October 5, 2003; 4:36 PM
NEW YORK - Bruce Springsteen ended a 14-month concert tour near where he began geographically - a quick pink Cadillac ride from his New Jersey home - but in a markedly different climate.
Springsteen and his E Street Band, with Bob Dylan as a one-song guest, wrapped it up Saturday on a Shea Stadium stage, across the Hudson River from where their tour began in August 2002 in northern New Jersey. In the intervening months, they performed for more than 2 million people around the world.
"Welcome to the last dance," Springsteen said to nearly 50,000 fans. "I'm getting a little misty right about now."
For the New York region, the epicenter of the Boss' popularity, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were a fresher wound when the tour started. Half of Springsteen's set that first night came from "The Rising," his album inspired by the event, then approaching its first anniversary.
At the tour's end, it was the war in Iraq that fed a steely resolve in Springsteen.
He opened with an infrequently performed song, "Code of Silence," featuring the angry lyrics: "We keep pretending that there's nothing wrong. It's a code of silence and it can't go on."
Later, Springsteen criticized leaders "playing with the truth during wartime." Although in recent concerts he's flashed a video clip of President Bush talking about weapons of mass destruction, Springsteen mentioned no names Saturday, and carefully noted that such things had happened in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
"It's a good time to be good, vigilant citizens, demanding accountability from our leaders," he said. "Taking time to search out for the truth is the American way. I learned that from Bob Dylan."
Dylan was a surprise guest during Springsteen's first encore, drawing a huge roar from the crowd. He performed "Highway 61 Revisited" with the E Street Band before disappearing offstage.
Springsteen seemed more at home with material from "The Rising" than he had 14 months earlier. The album provided eight of the night's 30 songs. Particularly effective were "My City of Ruins," which Springsteen began alone on the piano, and "Waitin' on a Sunny Day," which has become an audience singalong favorite.
Upon reuniting a few years ago, the E Street Band stuck mostly with material at least 20 years old. Now they're digging deeper into Springsteen's songbook. Relatively rare cuts that made the setlist on the tour's last night were "I Wish I Were Blind" and "Tunnel of Love."
Springsteen's tour is likely to fall just short of being the most lucrative concert tour of all time in North America - a $121.2 million record set by the Rolling Stones in 1994, according to Pollstar magazine.
It included a stunning 13 stadium dates this summer and fall in the New York area alone - 10 at Giants Stadium and the final three at Shea Stadium. The schedule was designed to ensure that anybody who wanted to see the show could find a ticket.
The crisp autumn air added to Saturday's feeling of finality. A cold rain ended just as Springsteen and the band took the stage.
The three-hour, 15-minute show ended with Springsteen's attempt to make a stadium feel like a roadside bar. The stands shook during an old favorite, "Rosalita," and singer Gary U.S. Bonds joined Springsteen for "Quarter to Three" and "Twist and Shout." The latter was a nod to the Beatles, for whom Shea Stadium was a memorable venue four decades ago.
The night ended a few minutes before midnight with band members lined up onstage, holding hands, singing, "Blood Brothers."
"Til we meet again," Springsteen said, and left with a wave.
© 2003 The Associated Press
By DAVID BAUDER
The Associated Press
Sunday, October 5, 2003; 4:36 PM
NEW YORK - Bruce Springsteen ended a 14-month concert tour near where he began geographically - a quick pink Cadillac ride from his New Jersey home - but in a markedly different climate.
Springsteen and his E Street Band, with Bob Dylan as a one-song guest, wrapped it up Saturday on a Shea Stadium stage, across the Hudson River from where their tour began in August 2002 in northern New Jersey. In the intervening months, they performed for more than 2 million people around the world.
"Welcome to the last dance," Springsteen said to nearly 50,000 fans. "I'm getting a little misty right about now."
For the New York region, the epicenter of the Boss' popularity, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were a fresher wound when the tour started. Half of Springsteen's set that first night came from "The Rising," his album inspired by the event, then approaching its first anniversary.
At the tour's end, it was the war in Iraq that fed a steely resolve in Springsteen.
He opened with an infrequently performed song, "Code of Silence," featuring the angry lyrics: "We keep pretending that there's nothing wrong. It's a code of silence and it can't go on."
Later, Springsteen criticized leaders "playing with the truth during wartime." Although in recent concerts he's flashed a video clip of President Bush talking about weapons of mass destruction, Springsteen mentioned no names Saturday, and carefully noted that such things had happened in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
"It's a good time to be good, vigilant citizens, demanding accountability from our leaders," he said. "Taking time to search out for the truth is the American way. I learned that from Bob Dylan."
Dylan was a surprise guest during Springsteen's first encore, drawing a huge roar from the crowd. He performed "Highway 61 Revisited" with the E Street Band before disappearing offstage.
Springsteen seemed more at home with material from "The Rising" than he had 14 months earlier. The album provided eight of the night's 30 songs. Particularly effective were "My City of Ruins," which Springsteen began alone on the piano, and "Waitin' on a Sunny Day," which has become an audience singalong favorite.
Upon reuniting a few years ago, the E Street Band stuck mostly with material at least 20 years old. Now they're digging deeper into Springsteen's songbook. Relatively rare cuts that made the setlist on the tour's last night were "I Wish I Were Blind" and "Tunnel of Love."
Springsteen's tour is likely to fall just short of being the most lucrative concert tour of all time in North America - a $121.2 million record set by the Rolling Stones in 1994, according to Pollstar magazine.
It included a stunning 13 stadium dates this summer and fall in the New York area alone - 10 at Giants Stadium and the final three at Shea Stadium. The schedule was designed to ensure that anybody who wanted to see the show could find a ticket.
The crisp autumn air added to Saturday's feeling of finality. A cold rain ended just as Springsteen and the band took the stage.
The three-hour, 15-minute show ended with Springsteen's attempt to make a stadium feel like a roadside bar. The stands shook during an old favorite, "Rosalita," and singer Gary U.S. Bonds joined Springsteen for "Quarter to Three" and "Twist and Shout." The latter was a nod to the Beatles, for whom Shea Stadium was a memorable venue four decades ago.
The night ended a few minutes before midnight with band members lined up onstage, holding hands, singing, "Blood Brothers."
"Til we meet again," Springsteen said, and left with a wave.
© 2003 The Associated Press
Bob Dylan's Statement on Johnny Cash
I was asked to give a statement on Johnny's passing and thought about writing a piece instead called "Cash Is King," because that is the way I really feel. In plain terms, Johnny was and is the North Star; you could guide your ship by him -- the greatest of the greats then and now. I first met him in '62 or '63 and saw him a lot in those years. Not so much recently, but in some kind of way he was with me more than people I see every day.
There wasn't much music media in the early Sixties, and Sing Out! was the magazine covering all things folk in character. The editors had published a letter chastising me for the direction my music was going. Johnny wrote the magazine back an open letter telling the editors to shut up and let me sing, that I knew what I was doing. This was before I had ever met him, and the letter meant the world to me. I've kept the magazine to this day.
Of course, I knew of him before he ever heard of me. In '55 or '56, "I Walk the Line" played all summer on the radio, and it was different than anything else you had ever heard. The record sounded like a voice from the middle of the earth. It was so powerful and moving. It was profound, and so was the tone of it, every line; deep and rich, awesome and mysterious all at once. "I Walk the Line" had a monumental presence and a certain type of majesty that was humbling. Even a simple line like "I find it very, very easy to be true" can take your measure. We can remember that and see how far we fall short of it.
Johnny wrote thousands of lines like that. Truly he is what the land and country is all about, the heart and soul of it personified and what it means to be here; and he said it all in plain English. I think we can have recollections of him, but we can't define him any more than we can define a fountain of truth, light and beauty. If we want to know what it means to be mortal, we need look no further than the Man in Black. Blessed with a profound imagination, he used the gift to express all the various lost causes of the human soul. This is a miraculous and humbling thing. Listen to him, and he always brings you to your senses. He rises high above all, and he'll never die or be forgotten, even by persons not born yet -- especially those persons -- and that is forever.
I was asked to give a statement on Johnny's passing and thought about writing a piece instead called "Cash Is King," because that is the way I really feel. In plain terms, Johnny was and is the North Star; you could guide your ship by him -- the greatest of the greats then and now. I first met him in '62 or '63 and saw him a lot in those years. Not so much recently, but in some kind of way he was with me more than people I see every day.
There wasn't much music media in the early Sixties, and Sing Out! was the magazine covering all things folk in character. The editors had published a letter chastising me for the direction my music was going. Johnny wrote the magazine back an open letter telling the editors to shut up and let me sing, that I knew what I was doing. This was before I had ever met him, and the letter meant the world to me. I've kept the magazine to this day.
Of course, I knew of him before he ever heard of me. In '55 or '56, "I Walk the Line" played all summer on the radio, and it was different than anything else you had ever heard. The record sounded like a voice from the middle of the earth. It was so powerful and moving. It was profound, and so was the tone of it, every line; deep and rich, awesome and mysterious all at once. "I Walk the Line" had a monumental presence and a certain type of majesty that was humbling. Even a simple line like "I find it very, very easy to be true" can take your measure. We can remember that and see how far we fall short of it.
Johnny wrote thousands of lines like that. Truly he is what the land and country is all about, the heart and soul of it personified and what it means to be here; and he said it all in plain English. I think we can have recollections of him, but we can't define him any more than we can define a fountain of truth, light and beauty. If we want to know what it means to be mortal, we need look no further than the Man in Black. Blessed with a profound imagination, he used the gift to express all the various lost causes of the human soul. This is a miraculous and humbling thing. Listen to him, and he always brings you to your senses. He rises high above all, and he'll never die or be forgotten, even by persons not born yet -- especially those persons -- and that is forever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
