Great American Musicians : A Spur of the Moment List
Sometimes it's fun to see what kind of lists you can come up with off the top of your head. I just read a great Duke Ellington quote at Sheila O'Malley's blog: "I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues." It made me think of what a phenomenal artist Ellington was, and where he stands in the pantheon of great American popular musicians of the 20th century. So here, off the top of my head (more or less), and with some in rough chronological order, the greatest American popular musicians of the 20th century.
1) Louis Armstrong
2) Bing Crosby
3) Duke Ellington
4) Frank Sinatra
5) Billie Holiday
6) Ella Fitzgerald
7) Chuck Berry
8) Little Richard
9) Buddy Holly
10) Elvis Presley
11) Johnny Cash
12) Bob Dylan
13) Barbra Streisand
14) Bruce Springsteen
15) B.B. King
16) Hank Williams
17) Benny Goodman
18) Glenn Miller
19) Stevie Wonder
20) Marvin Gaye
Saturday, May 01, 2004
What better way to commemorate a Commie holiday than with a column by the goddess of insensitivity, Ann Coulter?
Arab Hijackers Now Eligible For Pre-Boarding
By Ann Coulter
In June 2001, as Mohamed Atta completed his final "to do" list before the 9-11 attacks ("... amend will to ban women from my funeral ... leave extra little Friskies out for Mr. Buttons ... set TiVo for Streisand on 'Inside the Actors' Studio' ..."), Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was conducting a major study on whether airport security was improperly screening passengers based on ethnicity. As Mineta explained: "We must protect the civil rights of airline passengers." Protecting airline passengers from sudden death has never made it onto Mineta's radar screen.
A few months later, after 19 Muslim men hijacked U.S. airplanes and turned them into weapons of mass destruction on American soil, Mineta was a whirlwind of activity. On Sept. 21, as the remains of thousands of Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from implementing the one security measure that would have prevented 9-11: subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He sternly reminded the airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin, or religion.
Mineta would have sent the letter even sooner, but he wanted to give the airlines enough time to count the number of their employees and customers who had just been murdered by Arab passengers.
On Sept. 27, 2001, The ACLU sent out a press release titled, "ACLU Applauds Sensible Scope of Bush Airport Security Plan," which narrowly won out over the headline: "Fox Approves Henhouse Security Plan." As a rule of thumb, any security plan approved by the ACLU puts American lives at risk. ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt praised Bush's Transportation Department for showing "an admirable degree of restraint by not suggesting airport security procedures that would deny civil liberties as a condition of air travel." The ACLU had zeroed in on the true meaning of 9-11: Americans needed to be more tolerant of and sensitive toward ethnic minorities.
Flush with praise from the ACLU, Mineta set to work suing airlines for removing passengers perceived to be of Arab, Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian descent, and/or Muslim. If we're going to start shifting money around based on who's rude to whom, my guess is Muslims are going to end up in the red. But that's not how Mineta's Department of Transportation sees it.
Despite Mineta's clearly worded letter immediately after the 9-11 terrorist attacks and another follow-up letter in October, the Department of Transportation found that in the weeks after the 9-11 terrorist attacks carried out by Middle Eastern men, the airlines were targeting passengers who appeared to be Middle Eastern. To his horror, Mineta discovered that the airlines were using logic and deductive reasoning to safeguard their passengers – in direct violation of his just-issued guidelines on racial profiling!
The Department of Transportation filed a complaint against United Airlines, claiming United removed passengers from flights in "a few instances" based on their race, color, national origin, religion or ancestry. Mineta gave United no credit for so scrupulously ignoring ethnicity on Sept. 11 that it lost four pilots, 12 flight attendants, and 84 passengers (not including the nine Arab hijackers). In November 2003, United settled the case for $1.5 million.
In another crucial anti-terrorism investigation undertaken by Norman Mineta, the Department of Transportation claimed that between Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2001, American Airlines – which lost four pilots, 13 flight attendants and 129 passengers (not including 10 Arab hijackers) on Sept. 11 by ignoring the ethnicity of its passengers – removed 10 individuals who appeared to be Middle Eastern from American Airline flights as alleged security risks. On March 1, 2004, American Airlines settled the case for $1.5 million.
The Department of Transportation also charged Continental Airlines with discriminating against passengers who appeared to be Arab, Middle Eastern or Muslim after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In April 2004, Continental Airlines settled the complaint for $500,000.
Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the great slogans the airlines could use:
"Now Frisking All Arabs – Twice!"
"More Civil-Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!"
"The Friendly Skies – Unless You're an Arab"
"You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin – Not So Fast, Mohammed!"
Worst of all, the Department of Transportation ordered the settlement money to be spent on civil-rights programs to train airline staff to stop looking for terrorists, a practice known as digging your own grave and paying for the shovel. Airlines that have been the most vigilant against terrorism are forced by the government into re-education seminars to learn to suppress common sense. Airlines are being forced, at their own expense, to make commercial air travel more dangerous.
If John Kerry would promise to fire Norman Mineta and start racial profiling at the airports, I would campaign for him. Unfortunately, like George Bush, Kerry doesn't travel commercial air with the little people.
Arab Hijackers Now Eligible For Pre-Boarding
By Ann Coulter
In June 2001, as Mohamed Atta completed his final "to do" list before the 9-11 attacks ("... amend will to ban women from my funeral ... leave extra little Friskies out for Mr. Buttons ... set TiVo for Streisand on 'Inside the Actors' Studio' ..."), Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was conducting a major study on whether airport security was improperly screening passengers based on ethnicity. As Mineta explained: "We must protect the civil rights of airline passengers." Protecting airline passengers from sudden death has never made it onto Mineta's radar screen.
A few months later, after 19 Muslim men hijacked U.S. airplanes and turned them into weapons of mass destruction on American soil, Mineta was a whirlwind of activity. On Sept. 21, as the remains of thousands of Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from implementing the one security measure that would have prevented 9-11: subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He sternly reminded the airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin, or religion.
Mineta would have sent the letter even sooner, but he wanted to give the airlines enough time to count the number of their employees and customers who had just been murdered by Arab passengers.
On Sept. 27, 2001, The ACLU sent out a press release titled, "ACLU Applauds Sensible Scope of Bush Airport Security Plan," which narrowly won out over the headline: "Fox Approves Henhouse Security Plan." As a rule of thumb, any security plan approved by the ACLU puts American lives at risk. ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt praised Bush's Transportation Department for showing "an admirable degree of restraint by not suggesting airport security procedures that would deny civil liberties as a condition of air travel." The ACLU had zeroed in on the true meaning of 9-11: Americans needed to be more tolerant of and sensitive toward ethnic minorities.
Flush with praise from the ACLU, Mineta set to work suing airlines for removing passengers perceived to be of Arab, Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian descent, and/or Muslim. If we're going to start shifting money around based on who's rude to whom, my guess is Muslims are going to end up in the red. But that's not how Mineta's Department of Transportation sees it.
Despite Mineta's clearly worded letter immediately after the 9-11 terrorist attacks and another follow-up letter in October, the Department of Transportation found that in the weeks after the 9-11 terrorist attacks carried out by Middle Eastern men, the airlines were targeting passengers who appeared to be Middle Eastern. To his horror, Mineta discovered that the airlines were using logic and deductive reasoning to safeguard their passengers – in direct violation of his just-issued guidelines on racial profiling!
The Department of Transportation filed a complaint against United Airlines, claiming United removed passengers from flights in "a few instances" based on their race, color, national origin, religion or ancestry. Mineta gave United no credit for so scrupulously ignoring ethnicity on Sept. 11 that it lost four pilots, 12 flight attendants, and 84 passengers (not including the nine Arab hijackers). In November 2003, United settled the case for $1.5 million.
In another crucial anti-terrorism investigation undertaken by Norman Mineta, the Department of Transportation claimed that between Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2001, American Airlines – which lost four pilots, 13 flight attendants and 129 passengers (not including 10 Arab hijackers) on Sept. 11 by ignoring the ethnicity of its passengers – removed 10 individuals who appeared to be Middle Eastern from American Airline flights as alleged security risks. On March 1, 2004, American Airlines settled the case for $1.5 million.
The Department of Transportation also charged Continental Airlines with discriminating against passengers who appeared to be Arab, Middle Eastern or Muslim after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In April 2004, Continental Airlines settled the complaint for $500,000.
Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the great slogans the airlines could use:
"Now Frisking All Arabs – Twice!"
"More Civil-Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!"
"The Friendly Skies – Unless You're an Arab"
"You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin – Not So Fast, Mohammed!"
Worst of all, the Department of Transportation ordered the settlement money to be spent on civil-rights programs to train airline staff to stop looking for terrorists, a practice known as digging your own grave and paying for the shovel. Airlines that have been the most vigilant against terrorism are forced by the government into re-education seminars to learn to suppress common sense. Airlines are being forced, at their own expense, to make commercial air travel more dangerous.
If John Kerry would promise to fire Norman Mineta and start racial profiling at the airports, I would campaign for him. Unfortunately, like George Bush, Kerry doesn't travel commercial air with the little people.
Return of the Secaucus Seven
This is John Sayles' first film, made in 1980. I can't recall when I saw it for the first time. I believe it was after The Big Chill, the major studio version of Secaucus's premise of old lefty friends getting together for a reunion, was released. I do remember it was at the old Janus Theaters in Greensboro. I hated Secaucus when I saw it. It seemed talky, pointless, and looked like it had been shot in somebody's hall closet.
Tonight I watched the DVD of Secaucus and had an entirely different take. It's not a great movie, but it is an enjoyable one, and the fact of its having been made on such a small budget makes it seem all the more impressive. Also, the DVD version looks very good. Effort must have been expended to make it look so much better than I remember the film looking. It features appearances by an extremely young looking David Straithairn, and Gordon Clapp (best known for playing Medavoy on NYPD Blue. I can't remember the last time a movie has made it from my list of films I can't stand, to one of movies I would recommend. If you're counting stars, give Secaucus 3 out of 5.
This is John Sayles' first film, made in 1980. I can't recall when I saw it for the first time. I believe it was after The Big Chill, the major studio version of Secaucus's premise of old lefty friends getting together for a reunion, was released. I do remember it was at the old Janus Theaters in Greensboro. I hated Secaucus when I saw it. It seemed talky, pointless, and looked like it had been shot in somebody's hall closet.
Tonight I watched the DVD of Secaucus and had an entirely different take. It's not a great movie, but it is an enjoyable one, and the fact of its having been made on such a small budget makes it seem all the more impressive. Also, the DVD version looks very good. Effort must have been expended to make it look so much better than I remember the film looking. It features appearances by an extremely young looking David Straithairn, and Gordon Clapp (best known for playing Medavoy on NYPD Blue. I can't remember the last time a movie has made it from my list of films I can't stand, to one of movies I would recommend. If you're counting stars, give Secaucus 3 out of 5.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Excellent post from World Magazine's blog:
"Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan"
OK, don't have a coronary, but read and see what part of the left is like. Ben Shapiro, probably America's youngest syndicated columnist (he's entering Harvard Law School in the fall) emailed the excellent column of his that Creators Syndicate just sent out:
What would you call Pat Tillman, the former Arizona Cardinal football player killed in Afghanistan? A hero? An inspiring example of American military men and women? A model of principled strength? How about a "dumb jock"? A "baby killer"? A "dumb-a--"? A victim of "brainwashing"? If you were a regular reader of Indymedia.org, odds are that you'd put him in the latter group. You'd think that Pat Tillman was a boob, a complete dimwit at best -- you might even believe that Pat Tillman was an evil person and deserved what he got.
Indymedia.org has 50 local chapters in the United States. Forty-four of them made no mention of Pat Tillman's death. The other six celebrated it. The Portland, Ore., chapter of Indymedia.org posted the news of Tillman's death accompanied by this headline: "Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan." Some who posted comments suggested alternate titles for the piece, like "Privileged Millionaire, Blinded by Nationalist Mythology, Pisses Away the Good Life," "Cottled Sports Star Allows Nationalism to Foster Jingoistic Irresponsibility Resulting in His Death," and "Capitalist Chooses to Kill Innocents Instead of Cashing Check."
Others made comments on the site comparing Tillman to a Nazi and accusing him of responsibility for "the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of Afghan civilians." "Karma sure is a b----, isn't it, Tillman?" one sneered. The Urbana-Champaign, Ill., chapter of Indymedia.org posted two articles about Tillman. One carried the headline "Pat Tillman is gone good riddance." The other labeled all soldiers "dumb-a--(es)."
The North Carolina Indymedia chapter also posted a piece labeling soldiers like Tillman "dumb-a--(es)" and added that Tillman was killed during a "baby-killing raid." San Francisco Indymedia posted the same piece. St. Louis Indymedia stated that Tillman was "brainwashed by the 'patriotism.'" One commenter on the Washington, D.C., Indymedia site wrote this: "I saw the Post this morning, on the front page. It was sickening. They built this guy up like he was Audie Murphy or something, publishing this foto of him in his Ranger getup, all tough-looking and stony-jawed, like a goddamn' recruiting ad ... Puke-o-rama. Cold as it may sound, 'Dumb Jock Dies for Pipeline in Afghanistan' pretty much sums it up."
What is Indymedia? According to its Web site, "Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grass-roots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate and passionate tellings of truth." Indymedia is made up of leaders in the anti-globalization and anti-war movement, coordinating massive protests. They revel in wild conspiracy theories. They're rabidly anti-capitalist and generally anti-American. In short, they're a bunch of left-wing nuts.
Yet the American left has neglected to excise the Indymedia cancer from its support base. In 2002, the left-leaning Ford Foundation gave Indymedia $50,000. The Tides Foundation has donated $376,000 to Indymedia, according to Frontpagemag.com. Two of the biggest donors to the Tides Foundation? George Soros, who has given over $15 million to Democratic causes during this election cycle, and Teresa Heinz Kerry. Ralph Nader is one of Indymedia's biggest supporters; his group, Public Citizen, is listed as on Indymedia.org as an "ally."
Indymedia is no small-potatoes venture. Aside from its Web sites based in 50 major American markets, it also has Web sites located in five chapters in Africa, 13 in Canada, 39 in Europe, 15 in Latin America, eight in Asia, and nine in Oceania.... This latest outrage underscores the leftist community's tolerance for an ugly, radical element. The Pat Tillman insults have been floating around the Web for days; the liberal silence is deafening. Tillman died to protect freedom of speech -- that doesn't mean anyone should use it to spit on his grave.
Posted by Olasky at April 28, 2004 09:05 PM
"Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan"
OK, don't have a coronary, but read and see what part of the left is like. Ben Shapiro, probably America's youngest syndicated columnist (he's entering Harvard Law School in the fall) emailed the excellent column of his that Creators Syndicate just sent out:
What would you call Pat Tillman, the former Arizona Cardinal football player killed in Afghanistan? A hero? An inspiring example of American military men and women? A model of principled strength? How about a "dumb jock"? A "baby killer"? A "dumb-a--"? A victim of "brainwashing"? If you were a regular reader of Indymedia.org, odds are that you'd put him in the latter group. You'd think that Pat Tillman was a boob, a complete dimwit at best -- you might even believe that Pat Tillman was an evil person and deserved what he got.
Indymedia.org has 50 local chapters in the United States. Forty-four of them made no mention of Pat Tillman's death. The other six celebrated it. The Portland, Ore., chapter of Indymedia.org posted the news of Tillman's death accompanied by this headline: "Dumb Jock Killed in Afghanistan." Some who posted comments suggested alternate titles for the piece, like "Privileged Millionaire, Blinded by Nationalist Mythology, Pisses Away the Good Life," "Cottled Sports Star Allows Nationalism to Foster Jingoistic Irresponsibility Resulting in His Death," and "Capitalist Chooses to Kill Innocents Instead of Cashing Check."
Others made comments on the site comparing Tillman to a Nazi and accusing him of responsibility for "the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of Afghan civilians." "Karma sure is a b----, isn't it, Tillman?" one sneered. The Urbana-Champaign, Ill., chapter of Indymedia.org posted two articles about Tillman. One carried the headline "Pat Tillman is gone good riddance." The other labeled all soldiers "dumb-a--(es)."
The North Carolina Indymedia chapter also posted a piece labeling soldiers like Tillman "dumb-a--(es)" and added that Tillman was killed during a "baby-killing raid." San Francisco Indymedia posted the same piece. St. Louis Indymedia stated that Tillman was "brainwashed by the 'patriotism.'" One commenter on the Washington, D.C., Indymedia site wrote this: "I saw the Post this morning, on the front page. It was sickening. They built this guy up like he was Audie Murphy or something, publishing this foto of him in his Ranger getup, all tough-looking and stony-jawed, like a goddamn' recruiting ad ... Puke-o-rama. Cold as it may sound, 'Dumb Jock Dies for Pipeline in Afghanistan' pretty much sums it up."
What is Indymedia? According to its Web site, "Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grass-roots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate and passionate tellings of truth." Indymedia is made up of leaders in the anti-globalization and anti-war movement, coordinating massive protests. They revel in wild conspiracy theories. They're rabidly anti-capitalist and generally anti-American. In short, they're a bunch of left-wing nuts.
Yet the American left has neglected to excise the Indymedia cancer from its support base. In 2002, the left-leaning Ford Foundation gave Indymedia $50,000. The Tides Foundation has donated $376,000 to Indymedia, according to Frontpagemag.com. Two of the biggest donors to the Tides Foundation? George Soros, who has given over $15 million to Democratic causes during this election cycle, and Teresa Heinz Kerry. Ralph Nader is one of Indymedia's biggest supporters; his group, Public Citizen, is listed as on Indymedia.org as an "ally."
Indymedia is no small-potatoes venture. Aside from its Web sites based in 50 major American markets, it also has Web sites located in five chapters in Africa, 13 in Canada, 39 in Europe, 15 in Latin America, eight in Asia, and nine in Oceania.... This latest outrage underscores the leftist community's tolerance for an ugly, radical element. The Pat Tillman insults have been floating around the Web for days; the liberal silence is deafening. Tillman died to protect freedom of speech -- that doesn't mean anyone should use it to spit on his grave.
Posted by Olasky at April 28, 2004 09:05 PM
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
| Which Bob Dylan song are you? Tangled Up In Blue
|
| Click Here to Take This Quiz Brought to you by YouThink.com quizzes and personality tests. |
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
An excellent, to the point post from blogger Citizen Smash:
About Those Medals
THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO, a young John Kerry threw a handful of military decorations over the fence of the US Capitol as part of a protest against the Vietnam War.
Today, in the context of a contentious presidential campaign, questions are being raised about exactly what happened on that day, and how Kerry later characterized his actions: Did he throw medals, or just ribbons? Were they his medals, or someone else's? Did he once claim to have thrown his own medals, but later change his story?
But these are the wrong questions.
THE "RETURNING" of Kerry's military decorations was clearly a symbolic act. The decorations themselves are symbols of a nation’s gratitude for heroic or otherwise meritorious actions. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter whether Kerry threw medals or ribbons; nor does it particularly relevant to whom the decorations originally belonged.
This much we know: Kerry was there. He helped organize the protest.
The questions we should be asking, then, are these:
* Why did Kerry take part in the symbolic act of “returning” his decorations? Is he ashamed of what he did in Vietnam? If so, why does he repeatedly bring up his service in the context of the political campaign?
* Does he regret taking part in this protest? If not, why did he hold on to some of his own medals? Why is he adamantly denying that he “returned” his own medals?
* Looking back, how does Kerry feel about his service in Vietnam today? Given that in the decades following the American withdrawal, millions of Vietnamese took to the sea in an attempt to flee the brutal communist regime, does he still believe that we made the correct decision to abandon the South?
* If he is elected president, how will his experience in Vietnam and subsequently in the Peace Movement affect his decision-making on national security issues?
I think these are fair questions, and I'd really like some answers.
About Those Medals
THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO, a young John Kerry threw a handful of military decorations over the fence of the US Capitol as part of a protest against the Vietnam War.
Today, in the context of a contentious presidential campaign, questions are being raised about exactly what happened on that day, and how Kerry later characterized his actions: Did he throw medals, or just ribbons? Were they his medals, or someone else's? Did he once claim to have thrown his own medals, but later change his story?
But these are the wrong questions.
THE "RETURNING" of Kerry's military decorations was clearly a symbolic act. The decorations themselves are symbols of a nation’s gratitude for heroic or otherwise meritorious actions. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter whether Kerry threw medals or ribbons; nor does it particularly relevant to whom the decorations originally belonged.
This much we know: Kerry was there. He helped organize the protest.
The questions we should be asking, then, are these:
* Why did Kerry take part in the symbolic act of “returning” his decorations? Is he ashamed of what he did in Vietnam? If so, why does he repeatedly bring up his service in the context of the political campaign?
* Does he regret taking part in this protest? If not, why did he hold on to some of his own medals? Why is he adamantly denying that he “returned” his own medals?
* Looking back, how does Kerry feel about his service in Vietnam today? Given that in the decades following the American withdrawal, millions of Vietnamese took to the sea in an attempt to flee the brutal communist regime, does he still believe that we made the correct decision to abandon the South?
* If he is elected president, how will his experience in Vietnam and subsequently in the Peace Movement affect his decision-making on national security issues?
I think these are fair questions, and I'd really like some answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
