Althouse Conjures Up Some Bad Music.

Share Button

She asks:

“What band claimed to have ‘built this city on rock n’ roll’?”

If you don’t know the answer, it’s the band Starship. If you don’t know the song, BE GREATFUL!!!

“We Built This City” – What a wretched piece of garbage that song is. A little bile comes up in my throat just thinking about that song. And wasn’t it just soooooo cute that each large market city (San Diego, Chicago, etc.) had a version of the song with it’s name inserted in the lyrics.

Jefferson Airplane was a very good band (Jack Casady is a fine bassist). Even JS had their moments, though in hindsight you could see where things were going. It was all about the record sales, and by the late 80’s, big, unchallenging, mindless, by the numbers,  ghost-written-by-commitee finger painted songs were being churned out by the industry. When bands devolve musically to this point, we give them the “Phat” label. The term derived from the 80’s version of Heart, and no, it had nothing to do with Ann Wilson’s size. It was based on that huge, booming, cookie cutter song writing template they adopted after they found their 70’s success had faded. This sound became typical of “comeback” bands during the 80’s. This metamorphosis brought us “What About Love” and the catchy titled “All I Wanna do is Make Love to You”. You had Phat Chicago playing “Stay The Night”, Phat REO Speedwagon with “I Can’t Fight this Feeling Anymore”. Genesis, though not a comeback band, gave us “Invisible Touch”.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the 80’s. There were some great new bands – Mr. Mister, Crowded House, Oingo Boingo to name a few, and some of the older guys were recording good stuff – Don Henley, Peter Gabriel, Sting all shined during this period, but man, some of the stuff that emanated from my radio just makes my head hurt.

Amnesty, Immigration, and Reagan.

Share Button

An excellent concise reminder of his stance on the subject, posted by Derek Walker.

The One Reason I'm Happy the Writers Strike is Over….

Share Button

New episodes of “Burn Notice” – slated for July.

Hannitizing History, pt. 19,284,739,739,827,490,854

Share Button

Sean just said McCain-Feingold was the worst attack on free speech rights in US history. Guess he was absent or asleep on the days when the history teacher discussed the Alien-Sedition Acts. The later cost John Adams his presidency. The former hasn’t seemed to make that much a dent in the prospects of McCain’s bid for the office, not for a lack of trying.

Nancy Pelosi's Mission Creep.

Share Button

OK. I’ve picked on the Republicans enough for one week, lets get back to the Dem’s, lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I don’t have anything current by Reid at the moment (though if I tried hard enough I’m sure I could dredge something up), but I do have this Pelosi gem from CNN:

“There haven’t been gains, Wolf,” the speaker replied. “The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure…” (insert jumping up and down and arm waiving here)

She does go on to praise the troops for doing a fine job. How noble of her.

Funny how Mrs. P seems to have forgotten what she said about the surge a few months ago and what it was supposed to achieve. Lets look at statements made by Pelosi and Reid, circa June 13 of last year:

The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.

It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.

In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.

Notice that the high casualty rate is emphasized far more than political reconciliation. Though no one is claiming it to be the sole reason, the surge has at least contribute to a dramatic drop in violence in Iraq. The 2007 statement by P. and R. seems to indicate that that was the more pressing concern between the two. So the surge has, at the very least, been half successful. But Mrs. P conveniently erases that measure from her mission rubric. Would this qualify as “Mission Creep”?

Lets face it, there is no way we can predict if the Iraq’s will ever find common ground, and that is something the Bush administration seems not to have considered when they entered into this occupation (it was going to be a quick in-and-out operation they promised) – [see NOTE below]. That said, conciliation between the various factions will be A LOT easier when sides aren’t busy blowing each other up!

Funny, she STILL hasn’t accomplished most of the stuff she promised us in the first 100 days of her tenure as Madam Speaker. Yet she takes offense if we declare – “This is a failure. This is a failure”.

PS. Holy Crap!!! I’ve been Instalanched!!! Welcome Insta-P readers, to the fourth most defective mind on the web! Does this mean I am now a legitimate blogger, or do I have to pass some sort of test or meet some set of benchmarks to be considered legit?

NOTE: People are giving me flack about my “quick in-and-out” aside, so much so that I was doubting my memory, which is wise in since mine is often faulty. My comment was poorly worded, and I think everyone is hanging up on the “out” part of my comment. I don’t mean that to say we would, as policy, just pick up and leave Iraq to its fate. Of coarse I knew before this started that we would have some military presence in Iraq after we toppled the Saddam regime; they would need some help getting on their feet. But no one seemed to contemplate the possibility that our military would still be fighting three years later. This is what Rumsfeld said in Nov. of 2002:

“The idea that it’s going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990,… Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,…”

Rumsfeld said the U.S. military at present is capable “to do the job and finish it fast.”

He didn’t say we would be “out” of Iraq, but I would say he presented the case that combat troops would not be active and fighting after six months. That was part of the sales pitch to get public support for military action in Iraq. It has “This Will Not Be Another Vietnam” written all over it! Oh, the title of the article –

Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War

So HA!!!!!!!

NOTE #2: Here is more to back my interpretation of the meaning of “It Would Be A Short War“.

“I’m not a blowfish, but for $20 I can be anything you want me to be.”

Share Button

Again, from these jerks!

Oh Freaking Hell!!!

Share Button

I gotta do this!!!

First I was afraid, I was petrified…

Share Button

Why? Don’t know. But they started it!!!

Just A Thought….

Share Button

“As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want,”

Donald Rumsfeld, Dec 9, 2004.

So, the so-called “Reagan Conservatives” are more than willing to send our troops into deadly military battle with sub-par equipment, shortage of supplies and a faulty post-Saddam strategy. When asked to enter the much less lethal political arena with a candidate who they consider sub-par, short of temper, and faulty on principles, will they go to war with the candidate they have, not the candidate they want? The answer seems to be NO! They would rather pack up and go home. Too bad they refuse to consider the same for our troops.

Tells you all you need to know about THEIR principles, doesn’t it!

PS. I still think, ultimately, we did the right thing deposing Saddam, and Rumsfeld was, in his cold, hard, brutal way, absolutely right. But, both morally and economically, we simply cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely. Sooner or later, hopefully sooner, we will have to come home.

Bacon Candy

Share Button


…and since  we’re talkin’ bacon….