Daily Ramblings:
Two Angles ...03/15/2005 03:22:27 pm
Oh boy, I have to illustrate a contrast here, in the reviews on Bill Pagel's page. The 3/11/05 Dylan show in Portland is reviewed here by someone named Tim, who makes the following comments regarding Merle Haggard's performance of "Okie From Muskogee:"
Merle was a little more playful, but just as intense and in amazing voice. He played "Okie" and got a big cheer for "San Francisco", but I'm pretty sure it was for "San Francisco" itself, and not for the whole line about hippies. Merle qualified the song after it was over, by saying that he wrote it a long time ago, distancing himself somewhat from it.
Nice of those Portland people to cheer so loud for good old San Francisco, which is - what? - 600 odd miles away. Since the show has now moved to Oakland (sister city to San Fran) I hope that Merle has changed that line to refer to "Portland" so that he can continue to get those neighborly cheers.
Flash back to a review of the 03/09/05 show, by someone named Russ (that name rings a bell for me but I can't place it):
In a review of Monday’s show, a certain Seattle newspaper critic made an observation about Merle and his reluctance to sing Okie From Muskogee. Too bad the out-of-touch scribe missed Wednesday’s show. Merle sang Okie and it brought many in the audience to their feet. Yes, about 3 or 4 people near me booed a few times during the song, but those on their feet and screaming with delight during this song drowned them out. The biggest cheer…and it was LOUD…was after the line, “…we don't let our hair grow long and shaggy, Like the hippies out in San Francisco do.” The crowd roared! Hilarious! -- not because anyone’s feelings were being hurt, or political views insulted – but, because it is a song with not a little tongue and cheek that is still able to make its point. It should come as no surprise that there are many Dylan fans who are tired of America-bashing. Merle seemed a bit overwhelmed by the reaction he got, and said nothing when it was over. He was grinning from ear to ear. Nothing else from any of the three bands, on either night I attended, gripped the crowd like this performance. Do not miss the Show in its entirety. Be sure to bring your sense of humor and you’ll be just fine.
Sounds like someone at the Portland show could have benefited from that advice.
We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee;
We don't take our trips on LSD
We don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street;
We like livin' right, and bein' free.
We don't make a party out of lovin';
We like holdin' hands and pitchin' woo;
We don't let our hair grow long and shaggy,
Like the hippies out in San Francisco do.
I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,
A place where even squares can have a ball
We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,
And white lightnin's still the biggest thrill of allOr listen here.
Down In The Flood ...03/15/2005 11:18:04 am
From today's New York Sun: Million Lebanese Stage Retort To Terrorists.
Also, as the paper points out, there was a change from the "Death To America" tone of the Hezbollah demonstrators last week.
"Thank's Free World," (sic) said one poster, held high by a woman in a bright red jacket, Rawya Okal, who told me: "We thank Mr. Bush for his position." Overhearing this in the throng, a middle-aged man in a green baseball cap, Louis Nahanna, leaned over to say, "We love the American people" - adding, "Please don't let Bush forget us. Your support is very important."
Asking more people what they thought of Americans turned up the same refrain. From a young driver, Fadi Mrad, came the message: "We want to change. We need freedom. Please don't let Bush forget us." From a group of young men came not only the message "Our hope is America," and "We believe in democracy in the Middle East," but also praise for Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. {RWB: !!!!}There was also an invitation from one of them, young Edgard Baradhy, for his heroine, Ms. Rice, to come to Beirut "and I am ready to take her for coffee."
At one point, two young men sitting on a sidewalk mistook this reporter for a Frenchwoman, and called out "Vive la France!" The European nation's president, Jacques Chirac, has also come out in support of the democratic movement. When I told them that I was American, they got to their feet and came over to say, "Welcome to Lebanon."
And in the numbers game played out over the past week that has left commentators comparing Hezbollah's crowds to those of the democratic opposition, it is important to note that yesterday's protestors showed up not under the orders of any authority, but because they are willing to risk Syria's ire. Unlike the Hezbollah demonstrators, who dispersed at speed the moment their rallies were over, yesterday's demonstrators lingered - sitting, talking, waving flags, and savoring a display of public will in which almost one-quarter of Lebanon's 4.4 million people had demonstrated for their right to join the free world.
"Please don't let Bush forget us." This post over at LGF, with a link to public information on the status of the Navy, would seem to demonstrate that no one's going to be forgotten this time 'round - not with three carrier groups coming into range of Assad the younger in Damascus.
The value of having demonstrated (in Iraq) the willingness of the United States to back up its words with actions is now set to pay off, big time. Condi Rice has said "The time for diplomacy is now." She can say that because diplomacy, originating from this U.S. administration, now means something other than just making the usual condemnations and remonstrations. Bashir Assad knows where his Baathist brother Saddam now languishes. It's a part of the equation he can no longer ignore. And it makes it all the more likely that a great many more walls can fall without the firing of a single shot.
Lest we forget, all of this was earned with the blood of America's best - along with the very real sacrifices of British, Italian, Polish, Ukrainian, Australian and other troops. The willingness of the free to make such sacrifices is the single most intimidating weapon that can be used against tyrants, who flourish by convincing people that the cost of taking them on is too high. And demonstrating that willingness to sacrifice is the best way of helping make future sacrifices unnecessary.
The bad guys will never give in to words alone. Words backed up by a genuinely credible threat of overwhelming force are an altogether different story. As someone once said:
I don't think that guy meant, "this is what it's like in 1983, but if we all hold hands and talk maybe things will get better in a few years." I think he was saying that violence will always trump good intentions, and you've just got to face it.
So those with the best intentions had better be prepared to fight - and had better make the bad guys well aware of it - or the fight will come to them anyway, when they're unprepared.
Right now, you can consider that Assad and his fellow tyrants in the vicinity ought to be very well aware that they're not just facing a defenseless population, but, with the proximity of the forces of an engaged U.S., a well prepared and determined foe.
It's likely to be a long hot summer for a lot of folks.
Odds & Ends ...03/14/2005 11:21:07 am
There's a colorful and well observed review of Dylan's Portland show here: Cultures Meld For Dylan, Haggard (it'll be linked on Expecting Rain tomorrow, but you heard it here first).
In talking about the juxtaposition of cultures, the reviewer says:
In 1970, say, the rock legend Bob Dylan was perhaps the counterculture's greatest hero. Merle Haggard's country hits promoted a love-it-or-leave-it brand of patriotism and a clear distaste for hippies. Back then, the two groups of fans likely would have brawled in the parking lot before the show began.
There's not much question that Dylan himself would have felt more affinity for Haggard's angle even back then - see Chronicles for "distaste for hippies." It's nice that he's lived to have the chance to undertake a tour like the current one with Merle. Dylan is indeed doing some culture melding. And it's nice that the audience is there for it too.
And the reviewer gets his two cents in pretty well on the age old question of Dylan's voice:
Of course these wonders come paired with Dylan's famously idiosyncratic singing, which Friday went at times beyond self-parody into willful perversity. "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" was barely recognizable behind fiendish phrasing that alternated the nasal and the guttural. "The Times They Are a-Changing" he delivered in a raspy, consumptive croon.
Yet, much of the time, his singing maintained an expressive dimension, an incisive if rough musicality that's part of his genius, even if it does sound as if he got the worse end of a parking lot brawl.
This other article, on the other hand, already got its Expecting Rain link - Bob Dylan: Troubadour With A Message. Its sub-heading is "Bob Dylan Can Help The PCA," where PCA is nothing to do with homeless animals, but rather "The Presbyterian Church In America." It's actually a very thoughtful piece by an obviously devoted and knowledgeable fan. Like this excerpt:
He sees himself as a songwriter/singer, has had little interest in social movements, politics, or ideologies, and recognizes the lostness of his times. Thinkers recognize today that the postmodern generation is the first generation, by and large, to grow up without either God or heroes, a fact that Dylan felt keenly back in 1967 when he wrote “I Dreamed I saw St Augustine”:
But I'd recommend reading it all.
Under The Red Sky ...03/13/2005 10:11:42 pm
Yes indeed, the "Socialist Worker" reviewed Dylan's Chronicles the other day. Plenty of grist there for RWB's mill, one might think. Well ... all things considered, it really wasn't that bad. Nothing compared to the job the New York Times Book Review tried to do on it. Sure, they selectively dug up every reference Dylan makes to anything vaguely commie-like, as if that demonstrates anything. And naturally they ignored the elephant-in-the-room on page 283: "My favorite politician was Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater ...." But what do you expect from the Socialist Worker? I mean, presumably the guy writing the review wants to keep his gig.
Probably the sentence I least like is this seemingly innocuous statement: "Writer and activist Mike Marqusee rightly makes the case in his book Chimes of Freedom that it is impossible to understand Dylan’s art without understanding the social movements and upheavals of the 1960s." Why would anyone even suppose that they need to get up in the morning to make such a case? That's the conventional wisdom, after all - and it's been such since about 1963. Wouldn't it be a lot more interesting if someone were to try to make the case that you can throw out everything that happened in the 1960s, and Dylan's art would still constitute a remarkable and compelling body of work? Now that's something I'd get out of bed to read.
Don't Show Me No Picture Show ...03/13/2005 09:23:15 pm
And don't miss these snaps from Russ's visit to the "Bob Dylan's American Journey" exhibit in Seattle.
It Takes A Lot ...03/11/2005 05:49:52 pm
More from our friend Russell Kelly, who picked up a copy of the Tour Program at Dylan's show in Seattle. He notes that there are some interesting new photos in it ... and then, there is the text. Contrary to some earlier reports about the contents, apparently not all of the Tour Programs contain the same text. Russ speculates that different versions may be sold at different venues. Time will reveal more on that. However, Russ says that the text of this particular "limited edition" program consists entirely of a 1992 Dylan interview from the Times-Sentinel. What was Dylan talking about in this interview? The film "Hearts Of Fire." As Russ said, "No, that's not a typo." If anyone doesn't know, that is the 1987 movie that Dylan acted in, and which is universally regarded as being atrocious. Its reputation is such that I'm sure that many dedicated Dylan fans have not even bothered to see it (admittedly, yours truly is one). I know of no one who has ever defended the thing. And that includes Dylan himself.
Russ provides quotes from the Tour Program interview:
Highlights from Tour Program #007.04:
Q: So you read the script?
A: Yeah.
Q: So what did you think after you read it?
A: I thought it was a terrible script, a pointless story. There was
nothing about it that rang true at all.
Q: So why did you do it, then?
A: I did it for the money. I mean, why else would I do it? They probably
paid me as much as they paid DeNiro or Pacino to play a role. I mean, how
could I not?
--------------------------------
Q: Were there rehearsals?
A: Oh yeah, in London where it was filmed there were some. The only guy
who had any acting experience was Rupert (Everett). He was the only real
actor on the set.
Q: Did he help you at all?
A: Are you kidding? We stayed drunk most of the time.
-------------------------------
Q: Do you think the studio had high hopes for this movie?
A: No, no. It was some kind of death wish for somebody. The director
himself, he died right around the opening night premier of the film in
London. That always seemed strange to me.
So, here we are. In March of 2005, Bob Dylan's Tour Program contains an interview on the subject of a catastrophic film that he starred in back in 1987. That's it.
What are we to make of this? (After we've stopped laughing, that is.) Do we really think this is the independent act of a professional who was employed to put together the Tour Program? From all of the available choices, they pick that?
I just don't buy it. I think that Dylan's old fashioned enough to take some kind of interest in what's in the Tour Program. I think putting an interview like that in it jibes with his, shall we say, michievous sense of humor. Think about it: a Tour Program generally has a lot of publicist drivel in it, talking up the artist, listing their great achievements, gold records, awards, hit songs, milestones, quotes from other celebrities on how wonderful they are ... you name it. Here comes Bob's Tour Program and instead we have an old, irrelevant interview in which he admits to starring in a movie which he knew was garbage, purely for the paycheck. All hail the great Bob Dylan! Makes you feel real good about dishing out the cash to go see this guy, huh? Talk about puncturing illusions.
The guy's giggling himself to sleep in the tour bus. And long may he giggle.
Do Look Back ...03/11/2005 04:45:37 pm
Victor Hanson's piece today is a keeper. He details the amazing successes of the current war, since September 11th 2001 - many of which seem all but forgotten in the never ending hubbub - and he builds to some persuasive conclusions. Excerpt:
Every time the United States the last quarter century had acted boldly — its removal of Noriega and aid for the Contras, instantaneous support for a reunified Germany, extension of NATO, preference for Yeltsin instead of Gorbachev, Gulf War I, bombing of Milosevic, support for Sharon's fence, withdrawal from Gaza and decapitation of the Hamas killer elite, taking out the Taliban and Saddam-good things have ensued. In contrast, on every occasion that we have temporized — abject withdrawal from Lebanon, appeasement of Arafat at Oslo, a decade of inaction in the Balkans, paralysis in Rwanda, sloth in the face of terrorist attacks, not going to Baghdad in 1991 — corpses pile up and the United States became either less secure or less respected or both.
So it is also in this present war, in which our unheralded successes far outweigh our notorious mistakes. A number of books right now in galleys are going to look very, very silly, as they forecast American defeat, a failed Middle East, and the wages of not listening to their far smarter recommendations of using the U.N. more, listening to Europe, or bringing back the Clinton A-Team.
On The Road Again ...03/11/2005 09:53:08 am
The above shot of the theater in Seattle where Dylan just played was kindly sent in by our friend Russ. He also sent some nice pictures from the "Bob Dylan's American Journey 1956-1966" exhibit, also in Seattle, which I'll post when I have time to do it properly. (Though I guess maybe I'd better hurry before he offers them to Star Magazine or something ...)
Bye & Bye ...03/10/2005 11:46:02 am
Right on cue, Iowahawk has spat out the final Detective Dan Rather Mystery. Excerpt:
I didn't have time to think. I instinctively reached inside my garbadine lapel with my free hand and wrestled Black Nellie, my trusty Sony FV-100 micophone, free of her shoulder holster. She was a cheap 300 ohm model, but Nellie was deadly in close-range interviews -- like an early encounter I had with the Nixon gang (Dan Rather #1: The Phantom CReEPs). My right thumb switched her safety off, but before I could wheel around Fremont tackled me to the floor. He stomped my hand with his boot heel and kicked Nellie skittering across the lobby marble.
"I'm really sorry, Inspector, there's nothing I can do," he said. "I'm supposed to escort you out of the building and hand you your personal effects."
"There's got to be some sort of mistake," I said, my mind reeling as the goon chicken-winged my arms behind my back. "Let me talk to Andy Heyward, or Josh Howard... or Mary Mapes! They can vouch for me!"
Just like the former news anchor ... you shouldn't miss it.
Russ Knows ...03/10/2005 08:04:11 am
Our friend Russ saw a second show from Dylan's Seattle stand (so Russ saw the March 8th and 9th shows) and reports back in Tour that Dylan and the band were decidedly more together than in the first one he saw. I highly recommend reading Russ's reviews - you won't find a better early picture of this tour anywhere (certainly not in the Seattle Times). And that includes great descriptions of Merle Haggard's set. RWB thanks him effusively.
Addendum: What happened to RWB's exclusivity on Russ's reviews? Here's a rewritten review of the 3/8 show over at Bill Pagel's page, credited to one Russell Kelly. Nice to see it there actually ...
God Knows ...03/09/2005 04:52:08 pm
Proving that there is room on the web for everybody is this website: Bush Revealed.com. Revealed, that is, as a member of a cult, a fan of "vile" rap music, a supporter of abortion, a cheerleader for the homosexual agenda, an underminer of marriage, and a worshipper of Allah. (Someone tell the New York Times! They may want to retroactively endorse Dubya for Prez in 2004.)
You may well assume that this is all either a joke or a disingenuous website set up by idle MoveOn.orgers, in an effort to sow confusion in the minds of their Red State enemies. Either one is possible, but based on what I've glanced through, I tend to think that these people are serious.
Anyway, I noticed several outraged stories referring to President Bush as having stated that he believes that Christians and Muslims (and Jews) worship the same God. He has stated this opinion of his more than once, while making statements related to the war on terrorism, and it has given various people pause, and perhaps with good reason. However, I remembered reading something that Richard John Neuhaus had written shortly after President Bush had first provoked ire with his "same God" statement (which in the first instance was actually in response to a direct question):
“Islam is a religion of peace,” President Bush has said on several occasions. One fervently wishes there were more evidence to support that assertion, but I understand that there are compelling reasons for Bush to avoid any suggestion that the war on terrorism is, at bottom, a religious war between Christianity and Islam. Then, at a news conference during the state visit to Britain, a reporter asked whether “Muslims worship the same Almighty.” Bush replied, “I do say that freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every person. I also condition it by saying freedom is not America’s gift to the world. It’s much greater than that, of course.” Then there was a definite pause, as though he knew he might get in trouble for saying, “And I believe we worship the same God.” That did ruffle some Christian feathers in this country. An official of the Southern Baptist Convention said Bush “is simply mistaken.” He added, “We should always remember that he is commander in chief, not theologian in chief. The Bible is clear on this: the one and true God is Jehovah, and his only begotten Son is Jesus Christ.” The president of the National Association of Evangelicals issued a statement: “The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity, and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite. The personalities of each god are evident in the cultures, civilizations, and dispositions of the people that serve them. Muhammad’s central message was submission; Jesus’ central message was love. They seem to be very different personalities.” If I understand our separated brethren, we got a competition between gods going here, with our God (upper case) being much nicer than their god, as revealed, so to speak, in the superior niceness of those of us who serve Him. Of course this is theological nonsense. It would seem to suggest a kind of polytheism. Christians confess that there is one God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jews worship the one God whom Jesus called Father and taught us to worship, although Jews do not recognize that the God whom we both worship has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Muslims worship the same God (although calling him Allah, as do Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians), believing that His definitive revelation was given through Muhammad. So also St. Paul preaching in the Areopagus: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth.” The dispute between Jews, Muslims, and Christians is not over whether they worship the same God, but over how the one God is rightly understood and worshiped. It is true that Bush is commander in chief, not theologian in chief, but on this question he is a better theologian than some of his evangelical critics.
Though I'm no theologian, and ill equipped for a religious debate, Neuhaus's formulation seemed right to me then, and still does. (So now we've got "worshipper of Allah" out of the way, at least. Take that, BushRevealed.com!)
Neuhaus is editor-in-chief of First Things, was once a Lutheran pastor and is now a Catholic priest, and has been a prominent voice on matters of religion and public life for a long time (he also wrote a book I'd highly recommend called Death On A Friday Afternoon - not that he needs my plug).
Maybe Someday ...03/09/2005 10:43:06 am
Right Wing Bob, being of Irish extraction, follows the news from the auld sod reasonably closely. The Northern Irish peace deal (negotiated with heavy involvement from President Clinton back in 1998) has plowed its crooked and excruciating path for seven years now. Though the situations are certainly different, I can't help seeing parallels to the Palestinian/Israeli circumstance, in that everyone shook hands and smiled over a peace deal that was only agreed to because the fundamental points of difference were glossed over - in classic Clinton-speak fashion (i.e. using words that allowed everyone to hear what they preferred to hear).
So for years now it's been a case of wondering when the crunch would come. Specifically, wondering when there would be a decisive clash between those who oppose the IRA (and thought that the IRA had agreed to abandon their arms) and the IRA themselves (and their supporters), who only signed onto the agreement because they interpreted it as allowing them to continue forever as essentially the same entity.
So there was the farce of "decommissioning" (of weapons), which dragged out until finally reaching a breaking point a few months ago. The IRA "agreed" that their weapons would be put "beyond use," and agreed that this would be witnessed by experts employed for that purpose, but would not agree to any photographic evidence of the event, saying that this would amount to "humiliation." The opposing side, the Unionists (those that want NI to remain part of Britain forever, while the IRA want Britain out) said that the lack of any physical evidence of such a crucial event was unacceptable. I suppose that you could criticize both sides for fetishizing the photos ... but really ... how unbelievably absurd that it would come down to this. (And funny, from a distance, for sure.)
Since then there was a bank heist, alleged to be carried out by the IRA, which drove another nail into the whole thing.
And now the situation has culminated in this: On January 30th, a man named Robert McCartney was stabbed to death in a pub, allegedly by drunken IRA men. His family - erstwhile supporters of the IRA's cause - mounted a campaign in the media to bring his killers to justice.
The pressure has been rising and rising on the IRA, and in particular on their "political wing," the party called Sinn Fein, led by one Gerry Adams. The IRA stated that they had "expelled" the alleged murderers from their organization. Yet, they were accused of engaging in a cover-up of actual evidence that could be used against them in court - including engaging in intimidation of witnesses.
So, the IRA, apparently wilting under all this negative press, yesterday made what they must have felt was a pretty big concession. They offered ... to shoot the guys who allegedly stabbed Robert McCartney (... pause for rim shot).
Today, the Bush administration's envoy to Northern Ireland, Mitchell Reiss, demanded that the IRA disband: "It's time for the IRA to go out of business."
As much as I dislike it, there's only one word that comes to me right now: DUH.
What Else Can You Show Me? ...03/08/2005 12:06:05 pm
Yeah, I saw it ... in his review in the Seattle Times of Dylan's first show, Patrick McDonald says this:
It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)," a classic anti-war song, roused the crowd, especially the line, "Even the president of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked."
This kind of stuff is making RWB very tired. But I guess we just have to face the fact that it will always continue. Just like the poor, the deluded left will always be with us. All the more important to refute these things at every turn.
So I sent the following email to Mr. McDonald:
Thanks for your review. It's nice to get a perceptive early picture of what Dylan is doing on this tour.
One thing flummoxes me, however. You refer to "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding" as a "classic anti-war song." I'm wondering what war you believe this song is "anti," and what lines in particular seem to you to be expressing an anti-war sentiment.
I realize that the reaction of the crowd to the line "even the President of the U.S. sometimes must have to stand naked" likely made you think of President Bush. It's worth noting that when Bob Dylan wrote that line, the President was Lyndon Baines Johnson. He had recently succeeded the assassinated John F. Kennedy. Vietnam did not resemble the war it would become, and Johnson was pretty popular.
Dylan has continued singing this song throughout his career, regardless of who was in the White House at any given time. Naturally it evokes more lusty cheers amongst the more obvious left-wing Dylan fans when there's a Republican in office. However, as a critic, you should beware letting a reaction from a crowd stand as your guide to what a song is about.
"It's Alright Ma" is a truly great song, about life, and about death's inevitability, and about freedom, and about the puncturing of illusion. It's a shame that one line taken out of context and a few cheers would lead some to file it away as an "anti-war" song.
Regards
Right Wing BobHe also describes how Merle Haggard apparently stopped mid-song during "Okie From Muskogee," and said something like "You don't want to hear that," and later said, "Don't worry about what George Bush does. Just enjoy the show." He concludes from this that Merle has "less conservative feelings" currently. I might point out that Merle might have been reacting to mindless leftie-loud-mouths in the audience ... but all this would get me into Merle's politics, on which I have nothing perceptive to say, and about which I have no special knowledge. So I'll have to leave that to Right Wing Merle, wherever you are ...
Most Likely You Go Your Way ...03/08/2005 09:08:24 am
The endorsements of the nomination of John Bolton to be the new U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations keep rolling in:
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry says "... this is just about the most inexplicable appointment the President could make to represent the United States to the world community ... If the President is serious about reaching out to the world, why would he choose someone who has expressed such disdain for working with our allies? ... Mr Bolton once celebrated our failure to win the U.N.'s support for the Iraq invasion as 'further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system.' Now we're supposed to believe he's the right person to represent the United States at the United Nations?"
You said it, Senator. And the fact that you characterize it as "our failure" to win the U.N.'s support, rather than the U.N.'s failure to support holding Saddam Hussein to account, just sums up how hopelessly out of touch with reality you are. Bolton understands who has failed and who has succeeded over the last several tumultous years. Some people apparently never will.
More ringing praise from Jude Wanniski at AntiWar.com:
As I was driving back to the office at midday today, I heard a news report that President Bush had nominated John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. My heart skipped a beat, and I could feel my blood pressure climb through the roof. John Bolton. Ugh. This is the bottom of the barrel. It's almost impossible to imagine the president nominating anyone worse than Bolton, a certified bully who has single-handedly done more to poison our relations with China, North Korea, and Iran than any other bureaucrat in the Bush administration. He is one of Richard Perle's principle henchmen in the neocon cabal to conquer the world with U.S. military might.
Wanniski goes on to demonstrate his unerring prowess at predicting the moves of the Bush administration:
Only a few weeks back, for goodness sakes, I had celebrated when Bolton lost his bid to become deputy secretary of state to Condi Rice. Instead, she chose Robert Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative the last four years, a certified diplomat who really believes in diplomacy. At the NATO workshop I attended in Lisbon over this last weekend, I cited Bolton's decline and Zoellick's elevation as a sign that the neocons had been set back and we might be able to expect a more reasonable foreign policy emanating from Washington in the second Bush administration.
In other words Mr. Wanniski thought that a series of stunning foreign policy successes and a decisive victory in 2004's Presidential election would have convinced President Bush that it was now time to give in to his critics and govern somewhat more like John Kerry would.
Amazing, but consistent with other aspects of the mass delusion affecting the American left.
The Democrats now have to decide if they will make a real attempt to block Bolton, or instead do a "Condi" on him - i.e. don't obstruct his nomination, but use the hearings to grandstand and drown both him and President Bush in vitriol. And all this with an eye on the poll numbers, in a nation where only 32% approved of the job the United Nations is doing in a recent survey. (Sounds to me like the American people, given the choice, would have picked someone very like John Bolton to go in there and give those multilaterally malignant failures some hell.)
The confirmation hearings will be interesting - you can count on it.
Feel Like A Fightin' Rooster ...03/07/2005 02:46:19 pm
Nominated today to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations is John Bolton (currently undersecretary for arms control and international security). Message to the U.N.: let's rumble!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, an outspoken arms control expert who rarely muffles his views in diplomatic nuance, is President Bush's choice to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made the announcement Monday with Bolton at her side.
"The president and I have asked John to do this work because he knows how to get things done," Rice said at a State Department news conference. "He is a tough-minded diplomat, he has a strong record of success, and he has a proven track record of effective multilateralism."
Emphasis on effective multilateralism, which does not include multilaterally sitting around and pretending progress is being made while everyone really knows (but just won't say) that a vicious regime is putting the finishing touches on some atomic bombs.
Maybe looking at what people who don't like John Bolton have said about him is most illustrative of what a great choice President Bush and Condi Rice have made.
From "Right-Web," whose mission is "heightening public awareness of the outrageous policies advocated by the right," this short biography of John Bolton:
John Bolton , George W. Bush's undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, is the administration's designated treaty killer. Since his nomination (which was opposed by Secretary of State Colin Powell), Bolton's reputation as a rabid opponent of international agreements and loose-lipped critic of foreign regimes has become the stuff of legend, at times hampering the State Department's ability to undertake negotiations. In July 2003, during the run up to the six-nation talks with North Korea, Bolton described Korean head of state Kim Jong Il as a "tyrannical dictator" of a country where "life is a hellish nightmare." North Korea responded in kind, saying that "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks. ... We have decided not to consider him as an official of the U.S. administration any longer nor to deal with." The State Department sent a replacement for Bolton to the talks. (5)
Bolton 's penchant for going off half-cocked extends well beyond North Korean issues. Some notable examples:
At a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association, Bolton claimed, "There's no such thing as the United Nations," saying that ''If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.'' (8)
During the July 2001 global U.N. conference on small arms and light weapons, Bolton told delegates that the United States was not only opposed to any agreement restricting civilian possession of small arms, it also didn't appreciate "the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or non-governmental organizations." Bolton 's delegation was accompanied by that distinguished American NGO the National Rifle Association. (7)
In 1998, when he was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton described the International Criminal Court (ICC) as "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous." (6)
Bolton told the Wall Street Journal that signing the letter informing the U.N. that Washington was renouncing the Rome Treaty to create the ICC "was the happiest moment of my government service." (6)
Regarding efforts to add a verification proposal to the bioweapons convention, Bolton told colleagues in 2001, "It's dead, dead, dead, and I don't want it coming back from the dead." (6)
Now that's the kind of diplomacy that Right Wing Bob can dig.
Heading For Another Joint ...03/07/2005 09:39:04 am
Dylan's latest tour starts tonight, in Seattle. Regular visitor Russ is seeing a couple of the Seattle shows and we look forward to hearing some first hand accounting of those when he has a chance. More even than usual, this tour of theaters, backed by Merle Haggard and with a clutch of new band members, should make for some interesting shows.
4 (thousand)th Time Around ...03/05/2005 10:42:05 am
How many reviews of Chronicles must a man read, before he goes hopelessly mad? But this is a good one, by Jay Michaelson: He's Wandered The Earth An Exiled Man.
Feel Like You're Chokin' ...03/04/2005 02:39:12 pm
Via Made4TheInternet, this from the Las Vegas Sun:
LUFKIN, Texas (AP) - The would-be teen mother arrived by ambulance last May, her belly bruised, the twin fetuses she carried for five months gone and her lips tightly sealed.
Authorities assumed 16-year-old Erica Basoria had been beaten and charged her boyfriend, 18-year-old Gerardo "Jerry" Flores, with murder under the state's new law protecting the unborn.
But it wasn't that simple. Basoria told authorities she had been trying to kill the fetuses for weeks and finally asked Flores to help by stepping on her stomach.
....
The case has attorneys on both sides questioning the fairness of a statute that considers one person's crime another person's constitutional right.
....
"About two weeks before the miscarriage, I started hitting myself," Basoria wrote. "I would do this every other day and I would use both of my fists when I did this. I would hit myself 10 or more times."
Then she turned to her boyfriend.
"I said I didn't want to do it," he recalled. But she kept pleading, he said, until he agreed to step on her.
....
"Murder sounds like when you go out there and kill somebody. But the baby's unborn," said Flores' sister, Maira. "It would have been different if they were born already and he killed them."
?
New Morning ? ...03/04/2005 10:32:06 am
Reason to be hopeful, number 534: new poll says Major Change Of Public Opinion in the Muslim World. (thanks to D. for the tip).
In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States’ global war on terrorism, more people in the world’s largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them.
This is just one of many dramatic findings of a new nationwide poll in Indonesia conducted February 1-6, 2005, and just translated and released. In a stunning turnaround of public opinion, support for Osama Bin Laden and terrorism in the world’s most populous Muslim nation has dropped significantly, while favorable views of the United States have increased. The poll demonstrates that the reason for this positive change is the American response to the tsunami. Key Findings of the Poll:
- For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.
- For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%).
(... continues)Of-course, decisions can't made according to polls, and of-course there's any amount of negative data you can find in polls of various parts of the Muslim world. Nevertheless, over the long term, hearts have to be changed, and this would seem to offer evidence that it is not an impossible task.
While the poll takers attribute much of the change to American tsunami relief, I wonder if they're neglecting to see that other wave that swept across the consciousness of the Muslim world on January 30th, 2005.
20 pounds ...03/04/2005 09:45:02 am
Gotta love the NY Post headline writers: BUSH TO SYRIA: SCRAM. Gotta love W. too.
Justice's Beautiful Face ...03/03/2005 09:12:18 pm
Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, from his opinion the other day in Roper vs. Simmons (pdf), where the U.S. Supreme Court found (in a 5 to 4 decision) that juvenile capital punishment was unconstitutional:
The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court's determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. ... The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
Iowahawk, with tomorrow's news today:
Court Backs 3-Oxen Dowries
WASHINGTON, DC - In a far-reaching decision that will likely create complicated consequences for the American livestock and wedding-planning industries, the Supreme Court this morning ruled 5-4 that all US marriage dowries "must include three non-diseased oxen."
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited "the weight of the expansive penumbra surrounding the historically emerging and prevailing opinions of tribal shamans from Lesotho to Myanamar" in issuing the historic ruling in American Cattleman Association vs. Modern Bride, Helverson, et al.
In a scathing and sometimes caustic dissent, Judge Antonin Scalia wrote that "Holy. Freakin'. Shit."
The American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed an amicus brief in the case, praised the decision as "an important first step in insuring that American grooms will eventually share the same access to bovine property rights as the rest of the international community."
"The decision underscores the principle of Federalism by creating uniformity in our notoriously inconsistent state dowry laws," noted Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe.
And don't miss the rest of it.
Hope I Don't Find Out Anything ...03/03/2005 10:45:09 am
Sean Wilentz, who wrote the liner notes for the Live 1964 bootleg series release, has a nice column here in The Chronicle of Higher Education (linked on Expecting Rain today). It's a reflection on his writing of those notes, and subsequent nomination for a Grammy, and some of his experience at the Grammys.
There's a section in those liner notes that goes like this:
Dylan included the banned number on his 1964 Halloween program, introducing it, with a mixture of defiance and good humor, as "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues" - a title that now seemed to cover the craven mainstream media as well as the right-wing extremists who were currently thumping their tubs for their favorite, Senator Goldwater. It was a thrilling moment for us in the audience, getting to hear what CBS had forbidden the nation to hear while also exulting in our own political righteousness against the forces of fear and blacklisting.
It's interesting re-reading that passage now, in the light of some revelations since then. One, of-course, being Dylan's statement on page 283 of his memoir Chronicles that Senator Barry Goldwater was his "favorite politician," at least circa 1962. (No information on whether he thumped his tub for Goldwater, though, with the other extremists.) The other revelation is relevant to that virtually mythological moment when Dylan walked off the Ed Sullivan show because they didn't want him to play Talkin' John Birch. As covered in this space back here, David Gates, who interviewed Dylan for Newsweek last September, says that Dylan told him that he now regrets walking off that show. (Of-course that didn't become part of the published interview and we have no further details.)
In fairness to Wilentz, he was not, in his liner notes, trying to say "how intelligent and right we were, and how wrong was everyone else." Rather he's painting a picture of the times, the audience and the atmosphere - a portrait that I'm sure is as accurate as any that anybody could write. As he says in the article linked today:
I tried to braid the background together with my memories, hoping to recapture the sense of what it was like to see things through my 13-year-old eyes (and say it with a bit of my 13-year-old voice), while sustaining what authority I have as a hindsight-blessed history professor who is now more than twice as old as Bob Dylan was that night. I tried to evoke the feeling of being a teenage cultural insider, self-consciously nestled as close to the center of hipness as possible, with an edge of callow smugness and little awareness of my own good fortune. Few of us in the audience had worked an honest day in our lives, or come close to getting our skulls cracked defying Jim Crow. But we thought we were advanced and special; and for us, the concert was partly an act of collective self-ratification. I wanted my notes to evoke the joy as well as the folly of that youthful New York moment.
Bury The Rag Deep In Your Face ...03/03/2005 09:36:54 a.m.
"Allah, open their hearts or destroy them."
Outlaw Blues ...03/03/2005 09:10:15 am
Right Wing Bob making waves in the Orient?
CHINA has closed 47,000 internet cafes in a campaign aimed at creating a more "wholesome environment" for children.
The country’s leaders encourage internet use for business and education, but have expressed growing concern that it gives children access to violent or sexually explicit material, and have tried to block online criticism of their Communist rule.
The cafes closed in the crackdown had been "admitting minors and engaged in dissemination of harmful cultural information", the Communist Party newspaper People’s Daily said on its website.
To Hide 'Neath The Hood ...03/01/2005 08:06:22 pm
Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd today compared Republicans to Nazis, because they may soon be seeking to change Senate rules in order to prevent the filibuster of judicial nominees (i.e. requiring 60 out of 100 votes to simply allow an up or down vote on the particular judge). These rules have been changed several times during the history of the U.S. Senate.
One of the most famous examples of the use of the filibuster was in fact by that man whom Democrats like to call "the historian of the Senate," Robert Byrd. He used it in an ultimately vain attempt to prevent the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. ...
The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities—including private businesses offering public services—such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.
Senator Byrd was once a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, someone known as a "Kleagle," who had the job of recruiting new members. During the fight in the 1940s over racially integrating the U.S. military, Byrd wrote a letter to Senator Bilbo of Mississippi pledging that he would never fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Senator Robert Byrd voted against the nominations of both the U.S. Supreme Court's black judges - the liberal Thurgood Marshall, and the conservative Clarence Thomas.
Last month, he voted against the nomination of the nation's first female black Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice.
Senator Robert Byrd, in an interview on national television on March 4th, 2001, expressed his belief that there are such things as "white niggers."
“There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I’m going to use that word.”
The interviewer did not press Senator Byrd on what he considers a "nigger" to be, when not qualified by the word "white."
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was voted for by 28 of the Senate's 34 Republicans. By contrast, 21 of the Senate's 66 Democrats voted against it (including of-course Senator Robert C. Byrd). For those that like math, this means that 82% of Republicans voted for it, compared to 68% of the Democrats.
To bring this all back home, when Bob Dylan sang:
he could easily have been describing Senator Byrd from West Virginia.
For the Democrats to continue to use Senator Robert Byrd as a leading spokesman of their party, and for him to compare Republicans in 2005 to Nazis - for the crime of wanting to stop his kind of obstructionism - is emblematic of the utter moral emptiness of that party at this point in American history. This is the party which has worked itself into the position of effectively opposing democracy in the Middle East, and hoping for failure, chaos and murder - if it means Bush's poll numbers go down.
And Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said 3 days ago that Republicans are evil ...
Addendum 03/03/2005: Byrd now trying to deny he was making a comparison of Republicans to Nazis, while at Daily Kos they're accusing Republican Jim Gibbons of hate speech for the following (try not to crack a rib):
“I say we tell those liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and their music and whine somewhere else,” Gibbons said to another burst of applause. ...
He said that they are the same people who wanted to go to Iraq and become human shields for the enemy.
“I say it’s just too damn bad we didn’t buy them a ticket,” Gibbons said.
Laughter rippled through the room, mingled with more applause.Both being covered over at Little Green Footballs.
Can't Wait ...03/01/2005 12:47:09 pm
It's being said that Dylan has hired some new band members: Denny Freeman, Don Herron and Elana Fremerman. That last is a violin player from the "Hot Club Of Cowtown" band who played support for Dylan last year. If she's going to be a more or less full time fiddle player on stage with Bob, it should make for some nice new arrangements. Of-course those can be expected anyway.
Original text copyright © 2005 by RightWingBob.com
Quotes from the works of others are linked to their source or are as otherwise attributed, and are used in accordance with Fair Use guidelines. Contact: rightwingbob(at)gmail.com
Serious Dylan Related Things:
Right Wing Bob On:
Who Am I And What Is This Site About?
The Whole Wide World Is Watching
More to come ...
Email: RightWingBob@)gmail.com