IN JUNE, THE HOUSE PASSED the Improved
Financial and Commodity Markets Oversight and Accountability Act, which
would give the president authority to dismiss and replace inspectors
general at five financial regulatory agencies. . . . The bill was
sponsored by Rep. John Larson (D-CT), who argued that making these IGs
presidential appointees would make them more “independent” and “ensure
better performance from government agencies.” The IGs themselves
strongly disagreed, testifying in opposition to the bill. . . . The
Larson bill was also criticized by Danielle Brian, executive director
of the Project on Government Oversight, which tracks government
watchdogs. “I think you can be more independent reporting to a
bipartisan board than being at the mercy of the president’s good
graces,” Brian told the Washington Post.
Quis custodes custodiet? The Custodis-in-Chief apparently.
that on his lapel?
COMING EARLIER. One of our favorite new sites is Big Hollywood, which
features all kinds of subversive content -- show biz conservative
bloggers, movie reviews that dare to acknowledge political agendas, and
retro stuff like the best TCM (and other) old Hollywood
pictures to watch this week. It's the brainchild of new media lion
Andrew Breitbart, who's behind the oh-so-uncomfortable-for-lefties
ACORN videos that have been surfacing for the last week or so. Today,
though, we were genuinely surprised to find an acerbic defense of Jay
Leno and his new show, which to be honest, we didn't watch and probably
won't. Nothing against Leno per
se; it's just that talk-variety shows of this sort have some of
the numbest, dullest, least spontaneous interviews one could ever
imagine, and it's gotten truly depressing to watch actors one sort of
likes demonstrating what shallow, lunatic boors they are in person.
piece about Leno includes a wholly earned takedown of David
Letterman and a refreshing "critique the critics" (especially NPR)
component that makes it irresistible. A sample:
Jay Leno scored 18 million viewers
yesterday. Letterman draws around 4 million on a good night. If you
like your television personalities too cool for school that’s got to be
troubling – if you prefer those with a hold on the popular culture five
nights a week not parade around with a United States flag (unless it’s
on fire), today you’ve got to be a little frustrated. First ACORN, now
this... What’s happening to my
Even worse, those five hours Jay’s eating up could’ve otherwise been
used to trash Christians and Republicans on “Law & Order: God We
You have to wonder if it will ever happen… If the coastal critics and
their ilk will ever figure out that today they are the establishment …
they are The Man … and that the only real accomplishment of the cruel
little needy Letterman who bounces at the end of their string is
tarnishing a long history of sell outs.
We knew Leno had his good points. He loves cars and motorcycles. He
seems to have an extraordinary work ethic. Yeah, he's a liberal, but aren't they all? Maybe not a CRAZY liberal. Right now we're pleased that
he has the guts to wear that little pin on national TV while working
Maybe he deserves a look? Dunno. Up to you.
thinks this is flattering. I don't.
He looks like the kind of growth that sends you running in headlong panic to your dermatologist.
FIXED & SICKENING GRIN. Has there ever been a president of the
United States who was actually evil? I know the reflexive answer is
Nixon, the currently popular answer George W. Bush, and the
up-to-the-moment conservative answer Barack Obama. But I believe the
only correct answer thus far is Jimmy
Carter. Obama still has an opportunity to rise above error,
arrogance, ideology, prejudice, and ignorance to become president of
more than his blindly adoring worshippers. Carter, on the other hand,
has repeatedly proven himself a kind of slowly devouring cancer of the
soul, which is a thing he has come to resemble even physically. A sort
of walking, talking melanoma. Hats off to Ed
Morrissey for taking this stand:
If Jimmy Carter believes that the
“overwhelming” portion of criticism towards Barack Obama is due to
racism, does he also believe that the overwhelming portion of criticism
towards Israel is anti-Semitic? Wouldn’t that apply to a man who
hangs out with people who target Israeli citizens for terrorist
attacks? After all, Hamas regularly issues anti-Semitic harangues
and smears, and yet Carter has no problem cozying up to them and
claiming that their criticism of Israel is legitimate.
From now on, using Carter’s own logic, we should note each of his
remarks on the Middle East by saying they come from “Jimmy Carter,
known anti-Semite.” Two can play this game.
. We here at Instapunk have taken some criticism in the
past for giving a good
review and then changing our minds later
(scroll) without alerting the IP readership. This post is therefore an
update in re the third season
of the Showtime series Dexter.
The first review elicited
the following from Thomas Jackson, an upright member of the site's
I realize television has become a race
to see who can get to the bottom of the cesspool quickest. Most shows
lack wit, plot, or anything worthy of the term entertainment,
substituting the attractions that the brain-dead find interesting.
These include filth, gore, sex, and anything you were taught was
unacceptable behavior in kindergarten.
I would note the same people who condemn shows that do not feature
these attractions as boring are the same people who react most
violently against any production code, action against Janet Jackson and
her ilk, or allowing consumers to have a selection of channels on cable
rather than... the gerbil dressed in lederhosen humping Janet Jackson...
The reason for this is clear; while most consumers will take some
channels they have little interest in, most[ly] niche channels. Bravo
had to change when they [went] all queer... attracted Barney Frank and
no one else. But we still get it rammed down our throats.
Dexter being on showtime means we are spared having to see it unless,
like other cable channels, we get a schedule of one horrific program
Original programming need not be torn from the mouth of the Jerry
Springer show. Most of these will pass away unmourned and unnoticed
while the great programs go on forever.
Talent used to mean something in television. Now sensationalism
matters. And we are poorer for it.
Yeah. Okay. And all that. Probably right. We stand rebuked by those who
know without having been tempted. Hats off to your virtue,
Thomas, and nobody feels worse than I do about having to concede that
Season 3 is absolutely FANTASTIC. Mrs. CP and I just finished the
seventh episode and we immediately agreed that it may have been the
best single series television episode we'd ever seen. A cold-blooded
serial killer asked to perform a mercy killing. Something about life
and love and the incredible complexities of moral responsibility.
Something unexpected. Something very moving in a totally antiseptic and
artificially rational way that comes down, as these things do -- for
you and me and the children who will have this power over us one day --
to a coldly delivered soul instinct, but this time presented to us
inside out. Everything we thought Dexter was about it is about. There's an easy epithet
here that would go a long way toward rebutting the Thomas Jackson type
dismissals, but it won't be uttered here. Easy answers are rarely easy
in the learning of them.
The most seriously philosophical and, yes, ultimately religious, series
ever made. And the most discomfiting. The
fact that Michael C. Hall hasn't won an Emmy as the ethical but
admittedly evil Nemesis we only hope
could one day, as a Miami forensic technician, deal (uh, you
know) with David
Caruso on CSI Miami is a
Rent Season 3 at the earliest possible opportunity. You won't regret
it. Even Jimmy Smits is finally acting...
The two-party system probably isn’t
going anywhere, although one of the parties could radically change in
character, or give birth to a truly viable third party, which
eventually devours it. There is too much power to be gained from unity
of purpose, and for all the factional squabbling and single-issue
jousting matches, the division between the parties has become
increasingly clear… at least to everyone except the more clueless
Republican politicians. The past nine months have fast-forwarded us to
a point we would otherwise have reached in ten or twenty years, when
the old game of saddling free-market taxpayers with the bill for
socialist programs could no longer be played. Before we can move any
further to the Left, the essential character of our nation must be
forever changed. In a process that began with TARP bailouts and
auto-company takeovers, and is meant to continue through the
destruction of the health insurance industry, those markets will no
longer be “free” in even a rhetorical sense. To grow any larger, the
government requires serfs, not sugar daddies.
The choice now is between liberty and tyranny. It always was, but like
a used car, tyranny can be made to sound like an attractive purchase:
loaded with good intentions, and financed with no money down and low,
low payments. That deal is no longer on the table, and never will be
again. The restlessness of the Blue Dog Democrats is the queasiness of
people who aren’t sure they stand on the right side of the battle
lines, when the morning fog melts away and lances are lowered.
uh, shouldn't they promote him to the main page, given that he writes
and thinks better than everyone else associated with the site?
Cute thing about "The Green Room." They don't even tell you who wrote
what. Like, who cares, huh? It wouldn't do if he upstaged the
scrupulous moderate, the shallow beta-male cynical atheist, or the
media superstar of the whole shebang, would it?
Only one point we're making here. Go to HotAir
every day, look at the right hand column, scrolling down till you find
the un-highlighted Green Room section, and click on everything till you find Doctor
If he's reading or watching, or if you know how to reach him, he should
know that he has fans who admire and seek out what he has to say. We'd
love to talk to him and exchange views. We're even prepared to pretend
that HotAir isn't mostly hot air. Because his cold air illuminates.
. I've never
understood why so many conservatives keep giving
Howard Kurtz the benefit of the doubt, as if he's actually thoughtful,
fair, and decent. I suppose he's good at posing as all these things,
but that's about it. His latest columns are proof positive of what I
say, but before I dig into the manure pile, I have to remind those who
might stumble in here by accident that this website has long
anticipated the bind the mainstream media now find themselves in. Back
in July 2008, InstaPunk tried to give them some friendly
Continue being the same adoring
cheerleaders you've been so far --
through the inevitable crises and missteps and blunders and failures --
and the already tottering structure of the MSM will collapse in
cataclysmic ruin. You will bore your dwindling audience absolutely to
death, and they will begin seeking honest news reporting elsewhere. (As
they have been, btw, for some time now; how's NYT stock doing these
days, kemo sabe?)
The nature of your bet thus far is idiotic -- that Obama really is the
absolute answer to everyone's prayers you so want him to be. He isn't.
He's a flesh-and-blood man who will stumble and err and make some truly
awful decisions. When that happens, your extravagantly uncritical
support for his rise to power will make you accountable to many
Americans before you cover the first act of his administration. And
when he does take office, the fact that you have let him rewrite all
the rules of what is and is not fair coverage in political reporting
will do you in no matter what course you choose. Criticize him and be
branded with some of the worst labels available in these United States.
(The New Yorker is anti-muslim?
Anyone? Please.) Suck up to him and go rapidly out of business -- not
to mention lose all the power
you have so jealously acquired and used so self-righteously in the last
Take your pick.
Well, they have taken their pick of the options available, and in the
words of the guardian
of the grail, they "chose poorly."
Sorry. Couldn't resist the little plastic stop-motion figures. Kind of
how I think of the NYT and WAPO folks anymore... You plumb the various
degradations of the metaphor; I'm busy.
Now the Pew organization, hardly a bastion of conservative propaganda,
informs us that nine months (?!) into the Obama administration, MSM
coverage of the liberal Christ child's administration has resulted in,
Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low
Public Evaluations of the News Media: 1985-2009
Similarly, only about a quarter (26%)
now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not
politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are
politically biased. And the percentages saying that news
organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations
(20%) or are willing to admit their mistakes (21%) now also match
Republicans continue to be highly critical of the news media in nearly
all respects. However, much of the growth in negative attitudes toward
the news media over the last two years is driven by increasingly
unfavorable evaluations by Democrats. On several measures, Democratic
criticism of the news media has grown by double-digits since 2007. Today, most Democrats (59%) say that the
reports of news organizations are often inaccurate; just 43% said this
two years ago. Democrats are also now more likely than they were in
2007 to identify favoritism in the media: Two-thirds (67%) say the
press tends to favor one side rather than to treat all sides fairly, up
from 54%. And while just a third of Democrats (33%) say news
organizations are “too critical of America,” that reflects a 10-point
increase since 2007. [boldface added]
Which brings us all the way up to the past couple weeks, which I submit
are among the worst in the tawdry history of the mainstream media in
the last half century. The self-promoting "Paper of Record" failed to
cover the Van Jones controversy until after
he'd resigned. MSNBC chose to honor 9/11 by focusing on the muslim victims of the attack by
fanatics of their religion on Americans. The 9-12 protests in
Washington were too
small to merit serious coverage by the MSM. You
know, not enough people in attendance to displace real
stories: [scroll for Sunday, 9/13. Tippy-Top Story -- "Americans
easily win third straight Walker Cup." Cool.]
Or something like that. And the ACORN scandal doesn't boast nearly
enough sex, corruption, and federal tie-ins to merit any kind of
excepting the possibility that the City of Baltimore might prosecute
the undercover journalists involved.
And so to bed. (For all you flyover dittoheads, that's a reference to
the diaries of Samuel Pepys. Look it up lunkheads.) Except maybe not
quite to bed yet. There's still the nagging matter of how the MSM
explains to itself the brand new mission of committing journalism by
not covering stories they don't approve of. That's where Howard Kurtz
comes in. His job, officially, is to comment on media stuff for the junior paper of record, the Washington Post.
We have to admit, he's dutiful. He dealt with the Van Jones omission on
and then with the 9-12 protests on Tuesday.
Maybe his unblinking, nose-to-the-grindstone shamelessness is the
source of the respect he's accorded for no other reason.
On Van Jones, his position was that, uh, maybe the press should have
covered the controversy. But only after
he had spent the first half of his two page entry blasting the temerity of a
nobody called Glenn Beck:
It has become a familiar chain
reaction: Talk-show hosts whip up a noisy controversy, which hits
higher decibels as it spreads to the establishment media, which costs
some unfortunate soul his job.
But now the middleman -- the journalistic gatekeepers of yore -- may no
longer be necessary.
By the time White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned over
Labor Day weekend, the New York Times had not run a single story.
Neither had USA Today, which also didn't cover the resignation. The
Washington Post had done one piece, on the day before he quit. The Los
Angeles Times had carried a short article the previous week questioning
Glenn Beck's assault on the White House aide. There had been nothing on
the network newscasts.
"Where is the press on this?" Beck asked in late August during one of
several rants against Jones. But it turned out the Fox News host didn't
need the big news organizations to claim his scalp.
Beck's rhetoric may have been over the top as he denounced Jones as a
"black nationalist" and "avowed communist" (Jones embraced communism in
the 1990s but said he later changed his views). Yet Beck also trumpeted
information that forced Jones to issue two public apologies within
days. The first was for calling Republicans "a--holes" in a February
speech, video of which was posted online by Beck backers. The second,
more serious offense was that he had signed a 2004 petition charging
"that people within the current administration may indeed have allowed
9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext to war." Jones said he didn't
agree with that view, but his signature was on the "truther" document.
Although he began firing at his target
earlier, Beck intensified his assault after a group co-founded by
Jones, Color of Change, launched a boycott campaign that has led dozens
of advertisers to withdraw from his television show -- a detail that
Beck neglected to tell viewers.
As a proponent of creating "green" jobs, Jones was a respected figure
within the environmental movement. But he was sufficiently obscure as a
special adviser to the White House Council on Environmental Quality
that major news organizations basically ignored him. Only The Post ran
a profile, in December, and a story last month on his government
work... [boldface added}
And blah, blah, blah. That Beck. What a creep. That Van Jones. What a
visionary. Note the boldfaced paragraph. I just loved the phrase, "a
detail that Beck neglected to tell viewers." So the proper journalistic
response would have been to, uh, what? Quit pursuing the story in light
of the fact that the target was retaliating undercover? Or prejudice
the bare facts by preaching to the audience about a suspicion that an
unprovable retaliation might be underway? Yet the closing thought
(always put the most important element, the one you really want them to
remember, at the end of the sentence, junior journalists!) is an
imputation of wrongdoing by Glenn Beck.
But this piece was just a warmup for the real exercise in journalistic
integrity published today. By Howard Kurtz. The conscience of The Washington Post (er, the
American League Champion of newspapers for you dimwit Middle
Americans...) In this multi-page gem, Howie tackles the question of the
9-12 demonstrations his newspaper could hardly bear to report on. (WAPO actually ran an AP account in
its pages rather than its own; the in-house DC staff were too busy with, like, the
Walker Cup.) But forget the facts. What really matters is what it all
meant. And about that we can do no better than consult the ultimate
experts on America, the elite pseudo-intellectuals who reference each
other's finest insights about what the Morlocks outside the Beltway are
up to today:
A Black-and-White Question
By Howard Kurtz
Is it racial?
Are the protesters, tea-partiers, birthers, deathers, doomsayers and
hecklers motivated, at least in part, by a distinct discomfort with the
country's first black president?
Or is that a smear against disgruntled Americans who have every right
to express their dissent?
There is no definitive answer, of course, since we are talking about
millions of people, from Joe Wilson, the disrespectful congressman
who's now raised $700,000 for his "you lie" outburst, to the woman who
told Arlen Specter that Obama is trying to transform the US of A "into
Russia, into a socialist country."
But I began to suspect that race was a
factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about "the
Constitution" and "taking our country back." Maybe Obama's health-care
plan is an awful idea and his budget is way too big, but how exactly is
any of this unconstitutional? Clearly, for some folks, there's
a deeper rage at the man occupying the White House.
I do think we all need to be careful about tarring the critics with a
broad brush. Dissent is an essential
element of America's DNA. Civil rights protesters transformed
the country. Protesters helped turn the country against the wars in
Vietnam and Iraq. The majority of those digging in against Obama's
policies sincerely believe that he is moving the country in the wrong
Still, there is an ugly undercurrent
out there. Yes, some on the right tried to delegitimize Bill
Clinton as well -- remember the garbage linking him to drug trafficking
and murder? -- but this is dark and personal in a much more unsettling
way. What other president -- with a Hawaii birth certificate, no less
-- would be subjected to conspiratorial doubts about whether he was
born in this country?
There was a hopeful moment after Obama's election when the country --
even many of those who had voted against him -- seemed proud of itself
for having broken a racial barrier. Maybe we were all being naive.
Maybe prejudice is not so easily drained from the swamp.
The subject got a major boost in
visibility from Maureen Dowd, who began with the shout-out from
the South Carolina congressman who was a member of Sons of Confederate
"Fair or not, what I heard was an
unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"
"I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer --
the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a
foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who
would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids -- had much
to do with race. . . .
"But Wilson's shocking disrespect for
the office of the president -- no Democrat ever shouted 'liar' at W.
when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq -- convinced me: Some
people just can't believe a black man is president and will never
accept it. . .
"For two centuries, the South has feared a takeover by blacks or the
feds. In Obama, they have both."
Ouch indeed. [Excuse me. I've just had a tweet from TruePunk. He asks
me to inform you that he's got a post on the way that will make you all
cheer after you're done weeping over this one. Asshole.]
Anyway. How perfect does it get? An inside-the-beltway clown-journalist
actually believes that citing an inside-the-beltway clown-skagop-ed
writer represents some kind of verification of his own
Let's all take a Brizoni moment. Throbbing, pulsating,
EXPLOSIONS of furious contempt I'm feeling...]
Now. Deep breath. Start over. Three simple points I want to make here.
One. (another deep breath)
Only people who don't really care about the Constitution could see
mentioning it as a code word for racism in the current environment.
This administration has assumed authority in areas never before
envisioned by a presidential administration. The right of the executive
to fire private sector CEOs. The right of the executive to set pay for
anyone in the private sector. The right of the executive to take over
private sector corporations. The right of the executive to bypass
congressional advice and consent in order to name "czars" with
responsibilities overlapping and sometimes displacing cabinet
responsibilities with no oversight other than the president of the
United States. The right of the executive to create out of thin air a
"right to health care" and to require
uninsured private citizens to pay for health insurance they don't want.
There isn't one word in the Constitution authorizing any of this. So
people who start to feel the Constitution is being shoved to the side
in favor of executive authoritarianism are therefore racist? Huh? WTF? The people who
find this sinister would be in the streets today if the president
overseeing it were a pink aaardvark.
ALL the talk about race that has occurred since this administration
took office has come from the Obama administration itself. It's really
nothing more than the permanent "get out of jail free" card we warned
about here almost a year ago. Maybe the MSM is afraid to criticize the
administration because they accepted rules they shouldn't have in their
orgasmic rush to elect a black president, but the American people don't
care what color the president is. They want a president who regards
himself as president of all
Americans, not just the politically correct ones. Last week's
healthcare speech by President Obama is easily the nastiest, most
partisan and divisive address ever delivered by a president to a joint
session of congress. (Look it up, you beltway intellectuals.) It was
the moment when the president made it indisputably clear that he is the
president of those who agree with him and no one else.
[btw, Dowdy one (and the Howie one), the crack about adding "boy" to
someone's statement is one of the oldest and lamest jokes in the world.
Let's see. Try adding "bitch" to everything ever said by anyone to
Hillary. "Fat, drunken murderer" to everything ever uttered to Teddy
Kennedy. "MISTER Snopes" to everything said to Harry Reid. "Plastic
Medusa" to every retort to the wit and wisdom of Nancy Pelosi. One difference, I guess.
Doing it to a congressman from South Carolina seems to smack of racial
and geographical profiling. Doesn't it? You bet your tight
(non-homophobic) liberal asses it does...]
The behavior of the Obama administration in the face of protest from
ordinary Americans who have never before been known to take to the
streets in defense of their liberties against the federal government is
despicable. The behavior of the press, however, is not only despicable
but almost incomprehensibly suicidal. In the age of the Internet, NOT
covering stories you don't like is more
than professional malpractice. It's fucking lunacy.
IT'S NO LONGER POSSIBLE FOR THE NEW
YORK TIMES AND CBS NEWS
TO KILL A STORY BY NOT REPORTING ON IT. PERIOD.
What part of this fact of life do you not get? And in case you haven't
figured out the corollary either, allow me to point out that
inside-the-beltway prejudices are easily recognized in Kansas, Idaho, and New Jersey as pretentious
snobbery. You do not get to
tell us what's important and what our concerns imply about who we are. We get to do that.
Yet the patronizing, sanctimonious apologists for a dead autocracy
continue to roll out their rationalizations, excuses, judgments, and
cocktail-party wisdom to the world at large as if -- AS IF -- in
some sense they still speak for us. They don't.
THEY DO NOT.
The opposition to Obama is not racial.
It's MSM support for Obama that's racial. The man is trying to kill the
United States. The importance of the Washington protests is not whether
they numbered 70,000 or 700,000. It's that people who have never
protested in the streets before in their lives -- unlike the generation
of lefties who have lived in the streets without ever earning a dime --
are showing up there now. That's the biggest story in a hundred years.
These people, the ones who are protesting now, didn't even show up to
oppose the ugly treason of the Vietnam War protests. Why are they on
the streets now?
The MSM can't see a story in that other than racism? No. They can't. Which is the ultimate bind. Because they're going to die if they continue to interpret journalism as not covering stories that make Obama look bad. And the more they beat the racism drum, the more impossible they'll find it to criticize him when they finally feel thermselves slipping under the waves for the third and final (drowning) time. Hah. Really. That's the first laugh. The last laugh you'll hear will sound like something from the bottom of a well. But, well, that's where you'll be when you hear it.
Your whole journalistic business enterprise is fucking done. Guaranteed.
And Howard Kurtz? I denounce you as an unprincipled whore. (um, were
you ever upset about this?
Naaaah.) Too bad you can't make up the income differential by donning a
pair of red spiked heels and peddling your saggy ass in Georgetown. No
one would want it.
Maureen? You go, girl. One word of advice: Mandingo.
anyone liked the poster in the top graphic, here is the full-scale version:
Yeah, I kind of like it, too.
An outstanding column today by Victor Davis Hanson called The Rise of the Uncouth. He
fearlessly connects in print some outlier dots we've been connecting
quietly in our heads. A flavorful morsel:
[T]wo tropes appeared after January
20th of this year:
One—cannot we all get along? We deplore this resort to barbarism and
Two—if you dare sound off like we just did, then you are now a racist.
Not So Fast
The problem is that the public is not really stupid and has a long
memory. It hates hypocrisy as much as it does crudity. Part of Obama’s
decline is precisely because of this sudden disingenuousness in which
one rises to the top on hardball, Chicago politics and playing identity
politics (remember Rev. Wright, Ayers, “typical white people”,
clingers, etc.), and then of course wants an end to the crudity (like
hoping the music stops only when you have grabbed that last chair).
Or so Obama said that he wanted a sort of end to the acrimony. But once
he was elected, we got Eric Holder slurring the nation, the President
slurring the police, the environmental jobs czar slurring almost
everyone, and a host of satellites like Charles Rangel and Diane Watson
leveling charges of racism.
So where do go from here?
The standards of civility, torn down during the 1960s, were obliterated
completely after 9/11 (hours after, actually, when Michael Moore (Jimmy
Carter’s hero) wished a red-state had been hit instead). We have no
more “Wise Men” in Washington and New York, but rather graying children
of the Sixties, aging badly. A large segment of the left—from Code Pink
and Moveon.org to Acorn and the unions—believe that they really can
smear and defame and then retreat to mythical standards of decency when
they are now on the receiving end.
You all get so wrought up. Here's the simplest
answer to what's ailing the country. Let's make Washington, DC, a
separate nation. Or to put it less nicely, let's kick them out of the damn country. Think about it. Pretty perfect, huh? They can keep
their congress, their bureaucrats, their experts, their taxes, their
unions, their trial lawyers, their social programs, their Barney
Franks, their Patrick Leahys, their Nancy Pelosis, their Harry Reids,
their czars, their sullen First Lady, and their Narcisssist-in-Chief.
Just imagine what a paradise on earth they can have for themselves...
What do we get? Everything
else. We get to keep the Constitution of the United States. All the
job-creating businesses, the greatest military in the history of life
on earth, all the doctors and hospitals, all the brilliant scientists,
engineers, and technologists. All the cities, towns, and fields where
real work is done and real life is lived day after day. All the
churches, skyscrapers, bridges, farms, siloes, and winding roads and
turnpikes. All the oil, coal, and natural gas. All the factories, all
the stores, all the homes and schools where people make their
lives. All the other resources, too, from trees to mountains rich in
minerals and natural beauty. Of course, we'll have to have a new
capital, which, in my opinion, should be located -- like all the state
capitals -- in the center of the sovereign domain. Looks like somewhere
in Kansas. Okay with you? Okay with me. Actually, it seems like in the
day and age of terror a centrally located capital might be, you know,
There will be some transition issues. We'll need to elect an all new
House of Representatives and Senate. We'll need a new Supreme Court,
which means, obviously, we'll need a new President to make some
Anybody feel that's beyond our poor yokel power to accomplish? Didn't
If you think it's a good idea, pass it on. Let's go viral. And please
let me know where exactly in Kansas the new capital will be located.
I'd like to invest in some real estate. Sorry. Old capitalist instincts.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Not Beating a Dead Horse
Hero Worship is Kewl.
IS, UH, REFORMED. I was going to let this one go. I really was.
Even though Mrs. CP abruptly announced to me that she could no longer
support Ohio State football even if it was one of the abiding
sentimental legacies of my late mother. I understood her:
In Saturday’s game against Navy, [Ohio
State quarterback] Terrelle Pryor put the word “Vick” on his eye black
(”Mika” is his sister’s nickname). As far as I know, he still had
it on in the second half. He had a very questionable quote after
the game, saying “Not everybody’s the perfect person in the
world. I mean everyone kills people, murders people, steals from
you, steals from me, whatever. I think that people need a second
chance, and I’ve always looked up to Mike Vick, and I always will.”
She was further upset by early reporting that OSU Coach Jim Tressel's
first response was evasive and even flippant. I looked up the record
and Tressel seemed more protective and guarded than casual:
He's a kid, but he had to perhaps expect that this could be
Tressel: I think that's
probably -- you would think, but on the other hand, Terrelle's of the
opinion that, you know what, I'm not any big deal, I haven't done
anything, and like anything else, whether it was a coverage read or a
defensive guy not playing a gap or whatever, these are all moments that
we can learn from, but again, I guess I would refer back to the fact
that you have -- you would have to know him the way I know him to
understand that he didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, to be
insensitive to something that someone feels strongly about, that's just
If there's ever anyone that feels bad about something or downtrodden
about something, he's the first one there with his arms around them,
that's just the way he is. So as they say, it is what it is and you
learn from what you learn from and it's -- to go back to your original
question, I don't know the answer to that because if someone came in
and wanted to put "Mom" on their eye patch or their wrist, I've got a
tough time questioning that.
And so that's part of life and I'm sure Terrelle -- he's one of those
guys that he feels terrible about anything that's not just right. And I
know he doesn't feel good that that disappointed someone. And his
intention would never be to make anyone disappointed about something
and that's just his nature and we all sometimes miss the mark, but as I
say, teachable, learnable moment.
Well, "Mom" and "Mika Vick" aren't exactly the same kind of entry on an
eyepatch, but what a coach says in public and what he says to his team
in private can be two different things, and I also don't believe that
Terrrelle Pryor is actually endorsing killing people or killing dogs.
He took plenty of heat for what he said in Columbus, and he's taking
plenty of heat for it from Mrs. CP. Michael Vick is nobody to look up to. Who would hide this fact from a dumb, naive kid? But it's easy enough to give the kid a second chance, at least until he smashes his girlfriend's face or beats his dog to death.
As I said. I was going to let it go. Until I read Michael Wilbon's
column. Which rubbed me the wrong way. A lot. Here
The folks in the Buckeye State like it
when Terrelle Pryor is throwing or running for touchdowns, when he's
playing quarterback for them. But if
he feels something they don't feel, if he keeps his own opinions and
not theirs, specifically on the subject of Michael Vick, they don't
like the 20-year-old college sophomore so much. Some of them
dislike Pryor intensely because he likes Vick and had the nerve to say
so publicly by putting "Vick" on an eye-black strip during Saturday's
game. You can read the columns, the Buckeye message boards and see how
many think he's dumb, or stupid, or a disgrace to his team and his
This is the world we live in, where
it's not enough to have your own feelings; you have to pound everybody
else until they believe exactly what you do. It's too bad Pryor isn't
eloquent enough to express himself any better than he did following
Saturday's game, when he said in defense of supporting Vick,
"Not everybody is the perfect person in the world. Everyone does ...
kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me. I just
feel that people need to give him a chance."
It's an almost incoherent defense,
really, the suggestion that "everybody murders or steals." Then again,
we're talking about a college sophomore who, not surprisingly, plays
football better than he speaks. I deal with enough college students,
not all of them athletes, who increasingly are numbingly inarticulate,
which isn't the same thing as being stupid. While Pryor ought to be
able to express himself with a little more clarity, he also ought to be
able to like or dislike pretty much whomever he wants without having
outrage directed his way.
When Pryor walks onto a football field or into a college classroom,
where disagreement was encouraged once upon a time, and declares how
much he likes Vick, groupthink (or more precisely, nothink) kicks in. Fans have taken the partisan politics of
Washington to other areas and overrun the internet with pitchforks.
Heaven forbid a player or coach expresses an opinion or anything that
anyone anywhere disagrees with. If Pryor weren't so talented,
well, they might even call for him to be benched this week against
What Pryor said that isn't offensive,
to me anyway, is "I always looked up to Mike Vick and I always will
because I still think he is one of the best quarterbacks." People want
to pass a law now making it illegal to say anything that isn't hateful
about Michael Vick? Last I checked, he served nearly two years in
prison for his crimes. Move on.
The level of intolerance that people
so boldly express now is stunning and even worse, quietly accepted.
Same thing was evident in Kentucky where John Calipari sent a team
jersey to President Obama (which he filmed for his Facebook page) and
came under such heat for it that the post had to be deleted. Don't think for a minute that race under
the guise of conservatism has nothing to do with this.
I've never been a Mike Vick fan, particularly, and thought he deserved
jail time for his heinous crimes. But
the sanctimonious criticism directed at anybody who suggests that Vick
should have a second chance or that people should simply let him be,
has become ugly. And if young Pryor is bold enough to take the heat for
simply speaking his mind, even if the sentiment is unpopular, some of
us ought to be bold enough to stand with him. [boldface added]
Michael Wilbon should know better than to conflate morality with
"feelings." Before he went to Northwestern University's School of
Journalism, Wilbon attended St. Ignatius Prep, where, presumably, he
gained an education in Christian moral doctrine. His insistence on
further confusing moral outrage with political and racial prejudice is
downright repellent. There's a whole catalogue of hypocrisies he's
committed here, and I am
going to call him on them.
Things Wilbon is dissimulating about, to the detriment of those he pretends to care about:
1. Professional athletes have to care what people think of
them. Like all entertainers. If he cares about Terrelle Pryor, he
should make it clear that making enemies in the audience is a very bad
idea, economically and professionally.
2. "It's too bad Pryor isn't eloquent enough to express himself any
better than he did following Saturday's game." Too bad? How about
tragic, pitiful, fatal? Yes, people are inclined to be forgiving about
the missteps of youth, but we're not exactly innocent about the
implications of what young people say anymore. Hell, the whole popular
culture is designed to rub old noses in the grime of youthful
relativism, isn't it? You can expect all you want that post-adolescent
parents and grandparents will accept whatever whims young idiots have
latched onto for the moment, but you cannot demand that we accept what
we regard as unacceptable because the faces who spit in ours are young,
unmarked, and education free. In case Wilbon can't see it, let me make
it clear for him. People are entirely free to write off Terrelle Pryor
as a person of no interest without even trying to "pound everybody else
until they believe exactly what you do."
3. "I deal with enough college students, not all of them athletes, who
increasingly are numbingly inarticulate, which isn't the same thing as
being stupid." Excuse me? Not the same thing? Ever heard the
phrase "distinction without a difference"? Is that what they taught you
at St. Ignatius and Northwestern? That having a moral conviction, a
story, some demonstrable facts were all that mattered? That if you
couldn't find some way to extract them from your skull in a form
understandable by other people they were still Pulitzer worthy?
4. "What Pryor said that isn't offensive, to me anyway, is 'I always
looked up to Mike Vick and I always will because I still think he is
one of the best quarterbacks.'" I'll come back to this one.
5. "The level of intolerance that people so boldly express now is
stunning and even worse, quietly accepted." Intolerance has to do with
things like fashion, hygiene, and manners. It's an idiotic word when
you apply it to to matters of fundamental human behavior. Can I be
"tolerant" of wifebeating? Pedophilia? Killing? Animal cruelty? As long
as they act sorry afterwards? Sorry, Michael. (Whichever one answers...)
6. "Don't think for a minute that race under the guise of conservatism
has nothing to do with this." I'll come back to this one, too.
7. "But the sanctimonious criticism directed at anybody who suggests
that Vick should have a second chance or that people should simply let
him be, has become ugly. And if young Pryor is bold enough to take the
heat for simply speaking his mind, even if the sentiment is unpopular,
some of us ought to be bold enough to stand with him." By all means
stand with him. As long as you're still standing with him when his
career goes nowhere and he's tending bar in Dublin, Ohio, 25 dreary
improverished years from now.
But you won't be there, will you Michael Wilbon? You're just using Terrelle Pryor for your own
expedient political purposes. Because there are a whole lot of things
you'd be more forthcoming about if you really cared about Terrelle, or
race, or young people, or even all your political ideals. But you don't
really care about those things. You're just another hypocritical
liberal mass media parasite.
Name calling? Yup. But I can prove it all. You make your living in and
from the world of professional sports. You know -- not kidding, you KNOW -- that the mysterious
difference between the dazzling college stars who fizzle in the pros
and the Hall of Fame all stars in every professional sport is almost
always disciplined intelligence, an ability to work as hard and
productively at the mental aspects of the game as the physical. You
also know that reading, writing, and 'rithmetic figure strongly in this
hidden part of the excellence equation. No, they don't have to be scholars, but being a
person with the attributes of a scholar is indispensable.
That's why the speeches at the Hall of Fame inductions are usually so
moving. Outfielders, point guards, goalies, offensive linemen, and
murderous linebackers step up to that podium and wow us because they
have a sense of history, personal humility, emotional memory, family,
language, and character that makes them momentarily eloquent and
usually overcome. Illiterate, narcissistic psychopaths need not apply.
When brutes do creep into the mix on the basis of pure physical skills,
they are, well, embarrassments, and they may have made fortunes but
they don't rest comfortably in the eternity of the game. Yeah, it's
probable that O.J. Simpson was
the greatest NFL running back who ever lived, better than Brown,
Sayers, and Payton. But whose story would you rather repeat to your
children? And would you still defend Terrelle Pryor if he put O.J. on
his eyeblack because he was "the greatest back ever"?
But you choose to defend stupidity on behalf of stardom and high draft
status while overlooking the one supreme service you could provide to the people of your
race you are so hypersensitive about. You could, not to put too fine
point on it, tell young people the truth. What's that?
What IS that, kemo sabe?
Now hear MY RACIAL RAGE.
I understand you pitched a one-hitter when you were a high-schooler,
Michael. Did you ever think you were going to be in the White Sox
starting rotation? No? Why not?
Because you weren't an idiot.
At St. Ignatius you also paid attention in math class and you knew that
there are only about 10,000 jobs in professional baseball, most of
which pay almost nothing. Compared to jobs for smart well educated
people, which amount to maybe 50
million. Which are far FAR greater odds than any that
exist for making a living at professional basketball. How many NBA
jobs? 500? If you care as you say you do, how can you not stump the
country, night and day, imploring kids to learn everything they can in
school, as opposed to offhandedly reporting that college students of
all kinds are "numbingly inarticulate"? Oh. That's right. You have a
career to look after, WAPO savant...
YOU MAKE ME COMPLETELY SICK. The only hope for young people who have
athletic talent and less than stellar academic talent is to find a
sport in which they might earn a scholarship for the purpose of getting
a real education that could
lead to a job, graduate school, or other
knowledge-based opportunity. Swimming, diving, gymnastics, wrestling,
soccer, baseball, volleyball, lacrosse, etc, etc. Which mean run like
hell from both basketball and football, the worst dead ends in terms of
college opportunity there are. Less than one percent make the pros. The
other 99 percent have no time to go to class and finish as 7-11 clerks
with lifelong physical disabilities well after they've had their 48
minutes on national TV.
What do YOU do? You comment in your cultured, sanctimonious way about
only the most high visibility sports, and you make excuses for the
total illiterates who are exploited by the American collegiate athletic
system and discarded afterwards, except for the celebrated one percent
who get to be privileged thugs, given endless second chances, by you,
in the professional marketplace. Because they give you something to
talk about. And patronize the rest of us about. On air. Screw you.
Terrelle Pryor will be a non-story in the professional ranks. He's an
athlete. But he's as doomed as Michael Vick. Whose inexplicable
failure to be a great NFL quarterback is easily explicated by the fact
that he's -- barring some unlikely intervention by wise, stern men who care -- a
fantastically athletic but narcissistic, semi-literate, psychopathic
punk Just like Vince Young. He'll never look
like a living statue at the Canton induction ceremony, applauded by his
physician, professorial, and otherwise professional children and his beloved wife of 30 or 40
years. Take my bet: Vick (and Pryor after
him if the cycle isn't broken) will spend more time in prison than
delivering motivational speeches. Just
Still objecting, Wilbon? What would you tell Terrelle in private if you
weren't defending him from the
fancied army of intolerant white people
who actually have moral standards? You'd tell him to grow up. You'd
tell him to get an education. Like YOU did. You'd tell him to watch and learn from
the dignity of men like Jamie Dukes.
You should have seen his lesson on NFL
Gameday Scoreboard to his co-hosts about being "the
face of the franchise." Impressive.
Yeah, I know who he is. He
puts you to shame in terms
of pure character stature, Wilbon. Even if he didn't go to private
Catholic school. He's actually learned
something from his Florida State education.
Being a man isn't about race. It's about, uh, well, being a man.
Something Terrelle Pryor will never learn if he reads your columns.
Top points for the first person who can document the tongue lashing
Michael Vick administered to Terrelle Pryor for having picked the
wrong NFL idol... and extra credit for the substitute idols he
suggested to the very fine young man who worships the ground he walks
. Was Obama at
Ground Zero on this first anniversary of 9/11 to occur during his
presidency? No. But he showed up at the Pentagon and registered his
usual dry-eyed vote, "Present."
Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and
members of the Armed Forces, fellow Americans, family and friends of
those that we lost this day -- Michelle and I are deeply humbled to be
Eight Septembers have come and gone. Nearly 3,000 days have
passed -- almost one for each of those taken from us. But no
turning of the seasons can diminish the pain and the loss of that
day. No passage of time and no dark skies can ever dull the
meaning of this moment.
So on this solemn day, at this sacred hour, once more we pause.
Once more we pray -- as a nation and as a people; in city streets where
our two towers were turned to ashes and dust; in a quiet field where a
plane fell from the sky; and here, where a single stone of this
building is still blackened by the fires.
We remember with reverence the lives we lost. We read their
names. We press their photos to our hearts. And on this day
that marks their death, we recall the beauty and meaning of their
lives; men and women and children of every color and every creed, from
across our nation and from more than 100 others. They were
innocent. Harming no one, they went about their daily
lives. Gone in a horrible instant, they now "dwell in the House
of the Lord forever."
We honor all those who gave their lives so that others might live, and
all the survivors who battled burns and wounds and helped each other
rebuild their lives; men and women who gave life to that most simple of
rules: I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
We pay tribute to the service of a new generation -- young Americans
raised in a time of peace and plenty who saw their nation in its hour
of need and said, "I choose to serve"; "I will do my part." And
once more we grieve. For you and your families, no words can ease
the ache of your heart. No deeds can fill the empty places in
your homes. But on this day and all that follow, you may find
solace in the memory of those you loved, and know that you have the
unending support of the American people.
Scripture teaches us a hard truth. The mountains may fall and the
earth may give way; the flesh and the heart may fail. But after
all our suffering, God and grace will "restore you and make you strong,
firm and steadfast." So it is -- so it has been for these
families. So it must be for our nation.
Let us renew our resolve against those who perpetrated this barbaric
act and who plot against us still. In defense of our nation we
will never waver; in pursuit of al Qaeda and its extremist allies, we
will never falter.
Let us renew our commitment to all those who serve in our defense --
our courageous men and women in uniform and their families and all
those who protect us here at home. Mindful that the work of
protecting America is never finished, we will do everything in our
power to keep America safe.
Let us renew the true spirit of that
day. Not the human capacity for evil, but the human capacity for
good. Not the desire to destroy, but the impulse to save, and to
serve, and to build. On this first National Day of Service and
Remembrance, we can summon once more that ordinary goodness of America
-- to serve our communities, to strengthen our country, and to better
Most of all, on a day when others sought to sap our confidence, let us
renew our common purpose. Let us remember how we came together as
one nation, as one people, as Americans, united not only in our grief,
but in our resolve to stand with one another, to stand up for the
country we all love.
This may be the greatest lesson of this day, the strongest rebuke to
those who attacked us, the highest tribute to those taken from us --
that such sense of purpose need not be a fleeting moment. It can
be a lasting virtue.
For through their own lives –- and through you, the loved ones that
they left behind –- the men and women who lost their lives eight years
ago today leave a legacy that still shines brightly in the darkness,
and that calls on all of us to be strong and firm and united.
That is our calling today and in all the Septembers still to come.
May God bless you and comfort you. And may God bless the United
States of America. (Applause.)
Um. Yeah. Empty, arid words and the Great Manipulator's resort to
And I have to say one nasty thing. Those of you who lost family on 9/11
and signed the same petition Van Jones did -- you have forfeited my
sympathy. Sorry. That's just the way it is.
For all the rest there is still the inconsolable sadness that only
those who live every day with deep loss can ever understand.
Let us defend this republic against ALL who who would do it in.
ME. So. On a post
I didn't even write, Steve from Canada decided to unload on
InstaPunk.com in half a dozen comments on some Lost Weekend sort of night.
That's okay. We don't charge rent for our Comments section. But
something happened between him and another commenter that we have to
respond to. First, here's a concatenation of multiple "Steve" comments:
has never produced a Mozart nor a Beethoven.
Precision Marine drill with bagpipes still makes me tear up. Seriously,
Marines rock. Ask any Canadian grunt in Afghanistan...
I will grant you one mulligan -- Hendrix. But that's it.
Punk? Fucking give me a break! I lived trough the 1970s same as you,
'cept I wasn't permanently PCP brain-fucked to the point where I ever
-- EVER -- thought that punk culture was anything other than the nadir
(until now) of US decline. Punk by definition is ugly, anti-Christian
and just plain irrelevant to anyone who gives a shit about 6,000 years
You know what pisses me off?
It's like having a perfect older
brother who would always bail you out when you made stupid kid mistakes.
All that swept away with one election. You fucking monumenatally
egostically stupid Americans elected a communist immediately after
waging a 50 year cold war against communism.
It's like dieting -- a year of watching calories is undone by a
month-long cake binge. Your 200 years has yielded: a population even
Canadians are disgusted by. Fuck you and your martial culture!
Let's see you take over Southern Alberta. You'd get 100 feet and
there'd be a military cease-and-desist. We really might as well have
10th century Rome as a "threat".
Thanks to you fucktards I've had to buy new shotgun shells, sight in
the old deer rifle, wire the 163 year old house for a generator, and
set in provisions.
And we aren't going to fight any more
wars for you. Find us in the mountains and the villages, one by
Losers. Fuck you. ..
While we're in the mood, there is one
IP contributor who loves to make assholish remarks about Canadians.
Last week: two more dead. US
Fuck you, TruePunk. Fuck you up
the arsehole with a gun barrel. [boldface
Next, here's the rebuttal from our own "Billy Oblivion," who's as
certain in his own way as Steve is in his:
Dude, back off on the Meth a bit.
Seriously, life lasts longer when you don't do that shit.
Punk wasn't any more anti-christian than anything else in the late 70s
and early 80s. I've known a lot of punks of various kinds, and most of
them had personal relationships with religions that gave them good
reason for their attitudes. Some were still very strong in their
beliefs in god, some weren't. And given how the major churches in
America were behaving (RCs covering up child sexual abuse for example,
and the rise of the Send Me Your Money mega churches), they (the
churches) deserved every bit of the abuse they got...
I've been a fairly hard core punk/Deathrock type (hung out with a lot
of Goths in the 90s) since highschool and while yes, there is a strong
currently of anti-religion in Punk, it goes right along with the rest
of the anti-authoritarianism and nihilism that was a product of and a
reaction to 70 something years of progressive politics in American and
Western Europe (1900s-1970s). I can't find the article(s) now, but
there was some stuff published that indicated a deliberate attempt by
socialist/communist organizers in England to co-opt the punk "movement"
there. Obviously it had much more success there (Crass, Sub-Hum-Ans (as
opposed to the Canadian Subhumans, which was a totally different band)
for example had ardent and obvious left wing politics. But then Britain
always was further left than the US.
American *has* produced the likes of Mozart's and Beethovens in terms
of talent, but our cultural tastes ran along very, very different
lines. In the US we didn't (until FDR) have a real patronage system, so
talent had to find popular acclaim to keep working, not just critical
acclaim or the pleasure of one man.
Europe produced Bach and Brahms.
America produced Johnny Coltrane, Miles Davis, Fats Domino, Charlie
Parker and Duke Ellington. And the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo.
Canada is really screwy. Your snipers rock, your Royal Engineers
impressed the hell out of my father in Korea (which takes a lot. He was
a fairly tough guy). It's disappointing that your soldiers aren't as
well respected inside you country. And your "Human Rights Commission"
needs to be put down with prejudice (BTW, feel free to name 8 or 10
American departments, commissions, councils or whatever that also need
a single .22 shot to the back of the head). [boldface added]
Which is where I, TruePunk, have to step in. First of all, thank you,
Steve, for reminding everyone of the truly outstanding posts InstaPunk
has done about Canada (1,
which I also didn't write. Their deep-down goodness and truth
speaks for itself and requires no additional rhetoric from yours truly.
Second, I have to note the schizophrenia of the "phrenzied" abuse of
the U.S. in the context of this extraordinary confession: "It's like
having a perfect older brother who would always bail you out when you
made stupid kid mistakes." Is that so? Yeah, we are the older brother
and, as such, we've been everywhere and faced everything important
before you, almost always with an eye out for your safety as the
resident shrimp, and most of your accusations are as easily dismissible
as the tantrums they are. You hate us, you love us, understood. We
really don't care. When push comes to shove, we'll see to it that
nothing awful happens to you. Even if we give you noogies afterwards
for inconveniencing us.
And I don't care at all about your debate with Billy over the origins
of punk. At all. Or your childish tirade about me, TruePunk. Fine. Have
at it. If you ever do piss me off, look out. I'll tear you a new one
faster than you can churn out 50 new deranged comments. Right now, I
don't care to.
BUT. There's an exchange between Steve and Billy that I can't let pass
America has never produced a Mozart nor a Beethoven.
Billy: Europe produced Bach
America produced Johnny Coltrane, Miles Davis, Fats Domino, Charlie
Parker and Duke Ellington. And the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo.
What an unmitigated load of noisome crap on both sides.
You're both assholes, for different but complementary reasons. I'll
demonstrate why one at a time.
Steve's assertion is meaningless. Nobody but Austria ever produced a
Mozart. Nobody but Germany ever produced a Beethoven (or Bach). Nobody
but Britain ever produced a Turner, Shakespeare or Dickens.
Nobody but Poland ever produced a Chopin. Nobody but Italy ever
produced a Michelangelo, da Vinci, or Puccini. Nobody but France ever
produced a Debussy, Satie, Piaf, or Voltaire. Nobody but the Russians
ever produced a Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, or Tolstoy. Nobody but Spain
ever produced a Goya, el Greco, or Gaudi. Nobody but Norway...
Are you starting to get it yet? Genius is always unique. But, by the
way, nobody but Canada ever produced... uh, Gordon Lightfoot and Celine
Dion? The Mozart/Beethoven argument hardly qualifies Canada as a
superior to the United States.
Phooey. Steve, you're a fool.
Which leads me to Billy Oblivion's response, which is, honestly, the
real reason I'm responding to such duelling nonsense at all.
"Johnny Coltrane, Miles Davis, Fats Domino, Charlie
Parker and Duke Ellington." Unhhh. So
tired of this pretentious bullshit. Soooo
Yeah. Only a tiny handful of black musicians are available to stake
America's claim to a contribution to the music world. What
fucking politically correct horseshit.
America's contribution to the world of music is so huge it surpasses,
by far, even the accomplishments of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and every
other genius composer whose works are played in symphonic halls around
the world. America democratized
music. And it's not just a black thing. America added multiple new genres to the world of music:
Broadway, country, blues, jazz, rock and roll, and, yes, even pop,
which if it has given us Britney Spears has also given us Judy Garland
and Frank Sinatra.
What a small-minded vision it is that surveys American musical history
and can only cite the heroin jazz of Johnny Coltrane, Miles Davis, and
Parker with a nod to the ancillary contributions of Fats Domino and
Duke Ellington. What utter crap. Leaving Louis Armstrong off this list
is a sure sign of incompetence, even given the myopic narrowness of the
It tires me out even to try to list the key figures in American music,
and I'm not going to try to connect anyone to the obviously abundant
YouTube files of Cole Porter, Jimmy Rodgers, Scott Joplin, Jerome Kern,
George Gershwin, Aaron Copland, Woody Guthrie, "Blind" Lemon Jefferson,
Leadbelly, Aerosmith, Bing Crosby, Johnny Cash, Artie Shaw, Patsy
Kline, Beebe King, Elvis Presley, Muddy Waters, Bunny Berigan, Roy Orbison, Samuel
Barber, Nina Simone, Bob Dylan, Hank Williams, Sinatra, Garland,
Brubeck, Doris Day, Tom Waits... aaagh, forget it.
To leave anybody out is an automatic crime. But the list of Americans
is so long it hammers the memory to mush.
What the hell is wrong with you people? To think that music is a
vulnerability of the American
contribution is moronitude. To think that
the rebuttal of such a lame assertion is a function of a handful of
artists from one ethnic group is imbecility.
TruePunk says: YOU'RE BOTH FUCKING IDIOTS.
As for the rest of you, go to YouTube and rediscover the incredible
volume contribution of American artists to music. Trust me. It will
help you forget just how ugly TruePunk gets when he reads nonsense from