I'm a necessary talent behind every rock and roll band

I kid about the business in which I work, the music business...the hell I do! It's a serious place, no time for art or emotion, it's all about numbers shipped, seats filled, merchandise revenue, royalties.

My friend Patrick just got back from a mini-tour of Europe with The Low Lows, and he has much to say about some crazy times.

But he also emailed this to me, and it's really spot-on:

y'know, you can pretend to be the ultimate industry insider with the following three phrases:

When talking to a bunch of musicians, whenever the name of a band comes up, you say "I heard they had some problems with their label."

When talking to a bunch of producers or engineers and the name of a band comes up: "They really should have let their producer actually PRODUCE the record..."

When talking to a bunch of label employees and the name of a band comes up: "I heard those guys are really hard to do business with..."

Suddenly, you're always right.

That says it all. Amen.


Sailor adds:

"We signed an act just like that in 2000. Didn't go anywhere."

Indeed!

It won't be wrong

Much has been written about the nexus of 3 major political deaths recently: Milton Friedman, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Augusto Pinochet. They all had dealings and influence with each other, with Friedman and Kirkpatrick enabling Pinochet to hold power in a very ugly way.

From the Guardian:

• A total of 3,197 people were tortured, murdered and then disappeared under Pinochet's brutal 17-year regime

• Inside the infamous torture centres, victims were subjected to violent and continuous beatings, often to the point of death, before doctors revived them to prolong their suffering

• Prisoners were tied up and "walled in" tiny cubicles where they were denied food, water and clothing; others were tied to a metal rack known as "the grill" where they were subjected to electric shocks to all parts of the body, including their genitals and their mouths

As Borat would say, "Very nice."

Read the whole article.

Here's Pinochet with another of his friends:




Update: The General adds:

A dream extinguished

Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

My good friend Lambert at CorrenteWire brought this to my attention:

WaPo:

A military watchdog group is asking the Defense Department to investigate whether seven Army and Air Force officers violated regulations by appearing in uniform in a promotional video for an evangelical Christian organization.

In the video, much of which was filmed inside the Pentagon, four generals and three colonels praise the Christian Embassy, a group that evangelizes among military leaders, politicians and diplomats in Washington. Some of the officers describe their efforts to spread their faith within the military.

You thought that was the money quote? No, this is the money quote:

“I found a wonderful opportunity as a director on the joint staff, as I meet the people that come into my directorate,” Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack J. Catton Jr. says in the video. “And I tell them right up front who Jack Catton is, and I start with the fact that I’m an old-fashioned American, and my first priority is [1] my faith in God, then [2] my family and then [3] country. I share my faith because it describes who I am.”

Right. But I don’t want to hear you describe yourself, or your faith, General, and you shouldn’t be using my tax dollars, or the uniform I paid for, to impose your beliefs. Moreover, even though I’m aware Christianists are OK with lying as long it leads to religious conversion, I don’t think you should be breaking your officer’s oath.

Here is the oath of office that General Catton took:

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

So, which is it, General Catton? Is supporting the Constitution first one your list, or third?

I believe AA has the right take on “God” (or a higher power, or The God of Your Choice, if any). They always add the qualifier “God, as we understand God.

What if, for example, the God of General Catton’s understanding told him to heave a nuke at the Satanic regime in Iran? Would he do it? By his own confession of faith, yes.

And this is not farfetched scenario: the Air Force academy has been heavily infiltrated by Christianists.

Can a Christianist ever be loyal to the United States?

If we take General Catton’s words seriously—as we’ve learned over and over again, with the right, that we should do—the clear answer can only be:

No.

NOTE Kudos to the military watchdogs who called bullshit on a general. And kudos to the Post for covering the story and putting it, gosh, as up front as A3. But just liike yesterday’s story in the Times, about Christianists forcing their beliefs on prisoners and children, it’s a little late.

NOTE Prairie Weather has a fine description of the video, and its context. “The aroma of Christ.”

UPDATE This story just made it to NPR — Apparently, the Christian[ist] Embassy have access to a dining room in the inner ring of the Pentagon that is about as high status as you can get.

UPDATE Now the story is up on Reuters. Apparently, the Christianists are fucking the careers of non-Christianists. Honestly, it’s like Eye in the Sky!

I just had to spead the good news. Lambert nails this one, as far as I'm concerned.

Lest anyone forget here's what the Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Here's what John Stuart Mill says:

"It is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less, if put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions."

Here's what Jefferson says:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

The problem with any theocratic trend into the government is that it opens the door for any theocratic trend into the government. What? What the heck do I mean?

I mean, what if an old school Mormon were elected to office (No, not a slam against Romney)? Would we suddenly be hearing about the virtues of polygamy? Proselytize all you want, just don't do it on my time. And when you work for me, you're on my time.

This means you, George:

"Through my Faith-Based and Community Initiative, my Administration continues to encourage the essential work of faith-based and community organizations. Governments can and should support effective social services, including those provided by religious people and organizations. When government gives that support, it is important that faith-based institutions not be forced to change their religious character."

Idiot.

Do it wrong or do it right it's alright, it's alright

Must be something in the water lately. We sure have seen some interesting mea culpas from some Righties, like Sen. Gordon Smith (R-flipflopper):

On the Senate floor Thursday night, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) said Bush’s Iraq policy “may even be criminal.” This morning on ABC’s This Week, Smith elaborated on his criticism of Bush, calling his Iraq policy a “dereliction” and “deeply immoral.” Smith said the death of ten soldiers on Wednesday made him go from “steamed to boiled” about Bush’s failed policies.

Very nice. That should be deserving of accolades, of bi-partisan support in the spirit of forgiveness and peace, right?

Not so fast, Spanky.

Exactly what has changed since you said this:

"The rhetoric on this is too heated," said Sen. Gordon Smith, R- Ore., whose state is home to the parents of one of the soldiers killed this week by insurgents. "When I hear things like 'Bush lied, kids died,' or even on our side that 'Retreat and' -- whatever the mantra is, my soul cries out for something more dignified.

"I don't believe their dissent is unpatriotic," Smith said of Democrats. "I simply believe it to be unwise. It is a tactical mistake of monumental proportions."

I can tell you exactly what has changed: an election. And polls.

This is barely an act of moral strength. It's really an act of a politician sensing his career is doomed.

Want praise and support, Gordon? Not gonna find it here. You had plenty of chances to show moral leadership and courage.

Instead, you show exactly what has been wrong with the Republican leadership the last several years:

If it doesn't affect me, I love it.

If it's going to hurt me, I'm against it.

Those are the deciding factors.

Bastard.

He took it all too far but boy could he play guitar

2 posts back I used a YouTube of The Byrds, featuring a guitarist not really well-known outside the guitar world and Byrds aficionado circles, Clarence White.

As has probably been obvious by any who read here regularly, I am a guitar junky. I don't play as much or as well as I used to, due to spinal cord damage, but I'm still totally in love with the instrument, and fascinated by those who play it really well. And Clarence played really well, and was a true innovator.

Clarence grew up in the bluegrass world. Here's an early picture (He's on the right):

Growing up in Southern California, I watched country music shows produced locally. One was Cal's Corral, produced by Cal Worthington, eccentric car dealer. I clearly remember in high school, in the '60s, seeing the Kentucky Colonels on Cal's Corral, and thinking that while they looked pretty grim, man could those boys play, especially the guitarist.

While there had been flashy country players for a long time, the conservative and traditional bluegrass world hadn't adapted yet. Solos were played by the banjo, fiddle, and mandolin players, once in a while the dobro, with the guitar used as a rhythm instrument, to augment the bass. Clarence really helped change that becoming one of a group of young bloods playing dizzying leads on Martin D-28s.

Here are the Colonels on the Andy Griffith show:



Seems pretty ordinary so far, right?

For those with iTunes accounts, go there now for a real treat. Search for Clarence White. Now play the first selection, "Bury Me Beneath The Willows." Go ahead, I'll wait.

. . .

Pretty nifty finger picking, you're probably thinking, right? Well, no. That's Clarence using only a flat pick in his right hand. Starting to get it?

To see how that works, watch this clip from a few years later, demonstrating what could be done with a flatpick. The first song is a bit ho-hum, but wait for the second, you'll clearly see what the fuss was about:



Clarence was attracted to the growing alt country scene here in L.A., and quickly adapted to the electric guitar, becoming one of the most prolific session players around. And here is where his second innovation came along.

After playing on several seminal country-rock records, including the Byrd's Sweethearts of the Rodeo, he was asked to join the Byrds. While country electric guitarists had been bending strings to simulate pedal steel licks for some time, Clarence wasn't satisfied with this. He brainstormed with the Byrd's drummer, Gene Parsons, who was a pretty handy guy with tools, and the B-string bender was born.

Here is an early clip of Clarence using the bender with the Byrds:



Here he is much later in the Byrds career, with a much different look. By now his style had adapted from straight flatpicking to a much more advanced hybrid style, using both the pick and fingers:



And here's a picture I took at the old Ash Grove on Melrose (now the Comedy Store), in 1970. A bunch of rockers who all started playing in bluegrass bands at the Ash Grove got together for a bluegrass night. That's Chris Hillman far left playing mandolin, and Bernie Leadon, original guitarist in the Eagles on banjo, admiring Clarence's playing:


And for those who really want a treat, here's "Eight Miles High" from the Fillmore East:



Sadly, Clarence died July 14, 1973. Who knows what else he would have done.

Here's some links to fan sites, and discographies:

http://www.myspace.com/clarencewhite

http://members.chello.at/bluegrass.newgrass/clarencewhite.htm

I saw the lie, I saw the lie

So here's a funny story. See, the Iraq Study Group walks into a bar...


Seriously, since the publication of the Baker-Hamilton report Wed., the Right Wing bloggersphere has been in a tizzy. And while I could be tempted to gloat, I really feel more anger than vindication.

There are few on the Right I can read on a regular basis, except Andrew Sullivan (R-coming around), and Rick Moran at the never ironic RightWingNuthouse. Rick, while having an always right, well, far-right of center point of view, still shows some reasoning capability. And he definitely not a complete GWBush suck-up and sycophant.

So here's Rick today on the ISG Report, with my running commentary:

The ISG gave us milquetoast when we needed red meat. Bush gives us platitudes and a maddening vagueness that indicates either he refuses to accept that the mission is in deep trouble or that he can’t decide what is the best of a lot of unpalatable options.

The Democrats appear split. Some want to be part of whatever solution we can come up with. Others not so much.

And the left? The netnuts don’t seem to be interested in anything except humiliating Bush and driving him from office. The idea that the Middle East just might blow up if we do as they suggest hasn’t seemed to penetrate their pointy little heads. If that would be the price of marching Bush off to the guillotine, so be it.

No, Rick.

First, GWBush has never given you anything except "platitudes and a maddening vagueness". Why expect anything different now?

And what flavor of red meat would you like? Some al-Qaeda ribs? Some Iranian flank steak? Seriously, dude.

And the Dems are split: Some want to leave Iraq in 1 year, some in 2 years. As opposed to virtually the entire Right establishment in the country who wants a magical pony to appear and fix everything, so until then, it's "Stay the Course." Or something.

And I have exactly zero interest in humiliating GWBush. There's nothing I can do that would be any better than what he's already done to you, me, and the USofA. And no impeachment, please. No one capable of rational thought wants Cheney within pacemaker distance of the Oval Office.


And regarding the idea that the Middle East might blow up was something that many of us were concerned about prior to the Iraq Invasion. Sorry that you weren't.

Well, first the windup, now the pitch:

And for those who believe we’ve already “lost” and there is no hope of retrieving the situation, get out of the way because you refuse to be part of a solution. You are entitled to your opinion. But many millions who look at the same facts on the ground in Iraq as you disagree. We are not stupid. We are not blind. We are not Pollyannas. We don’t minimize the problems or understate the dangers. You only reveal yourself to be a shallow thinker if you can’t see that there are, in fact, avenues to success in Iraq that would allow us to leave behind a relatively stable society not run by terrorists. How to traverse those avenues is the problem, not that the all avenues have been closed off. Yes we agree that this is not the dream of the “neo-cons” or Bush, that Iraq will not be as free as we like or as peaceful as it eventually will be. But if we’re talking about the art of the possible here then what we should be seeking with our exit is basically to avoid catastrophe. And almost everyone agrees that this can be done.

Wow.

"We don’t minimize the problems or understate the dangers."

Perhaps not now, but back in '03, when the Grand Adventure was being pimped? Dude, it's be a cakewalk. You said so.

"there are, in fact, avenues to success in Iraq that would allow us to leave behind a relatively stable society not run by terrorists".

Right. Sad that Dr. Rice, the ISG, bunches of Generals, and hundreds of pundits and party bureaucrats haven't quite figured out how that works. Enlighten me, oh wise one:

"How to traverse those avenues is the problem, not that the all avenues have been closed off."

Too bad no one has done any thinking on this up 'til now. I'm thinking, how about magical unicorns? They can usually traverse avenues...I'm just saying.

"But if we’re talking about the art of the possible here then what we should be seeking with our exit is basically to avoid catastrophe. And almost everyone agrees that this can be done."

No, that's you, William Krystal, and six other guys at the Young Republicans frat house who think so.

But Rick continues:

The netnuts are making this argument, although why they seem so eager to embrace defeat makes one question their sanity when you realize who then correspondingly would be victorious. Iran and al-Qaeda stand to be the biggest winners. And by gladly handing them the winner’s cup before the race is completely over is nuts.

Goddamit, this really pisses me off. First, we (sane people who actually thought about, you know, consequences of actions) warned that exactly this would happen. So don't turn the desire to stop American deaths into 'defeat'. How freaking dare you!

Of course Al-Qaeda and Iran would be winners in this scenario. There was no other outcome possible! And we don't necessarily have to hand them the winner's cup, we can actually negotiate with them, with Syria, with Lebanon, and the puppet government in Iraq.

And lest you forget, the Iraqi people, in an inconvenient act of, you know, democracy, refused to have anything to do with our hand-picked leader Ahmed Chalabi, being able to see through his slimy reputation and American support. Did you actually think they would accept this international con man?

There is still time to thwart some of what Iran hopes to gain with our hasty exit from Iraq. And there is still time to kill a lot of al-Qaeda terrorists, thus preventing them from realizing their plan to use Iraq as a base to strike western targets around the world. But what do we have to do in order for these goals – less than total victory but still very desirable outcomes – to be achieved?

I think the first thing we have to do is pretty obvious; don’t give up.

OK. Well, let's go to the table with Iran, something that should have happened back in, oh, say, 1980. Instead of sending Ollie North with gift baskets full of missiles after they thumbed their noses at us with the hostage deal, we should have had a 'come to Jesus' meeting with them. But no, we don't deal with terrorists, do we? Except when, you know...

And yes, I suppose it's easier now that al-Qaeda has a foothold in Iraq, to go after them. After all, it was so inconvenient to chase Bin Laden in Afghanistan after 9/11, wasn't it?

And Rick, my man? After the first thing, you should suggest a 2nd or 3rd thing. Besides, 'clapping louder'.

Iran is supporting the Shi'ites. Saudi Arabia (our close friend, and sponsor of the 9/11 hijackers) is supporting the Sunni insurgents. And the Kurds are staying put in Kurdistan. What do we do about that?

Me, I'm for spilling no more American blood for the glory of GWBush's Excellent Adventure:


But Rick, your commenter Steven Donegal really said it best:

Your post seems to exemplify the problem everyone has with the situation in Iraq. You write a very long and well written post about Iraq and say:

“I think the first thing we have to do is pretty obvious; don’t give up.”

Unfortunately, your post does not contain a second thing or a third thing. It is fine to argue that some form of success in Iraq is essential for the US. It would be nice, however, to articulate a way to get there from here. This is all reminiscent of a Far Side cartoon:

Step 1. Invade Iraq
Step 2. then a miracle occurs
Step 3. Stable Iraqi democratic government

As the Far Side caption said, I think you need a little more explanation in Step 2.

Damn. I wish I had said that.

So you want to be a rock'n'roll star

The Weakly Standard is, as usual, in full revisionist mode. Witness Ralph Peters and the money quote from his latest critique of the Iraq Study Group:

No matter the politically correct language in which it may be couched, the group's fundamental recommendation will be to return to a foreign policy in which the quest for stability trumps freedom, ignores human rights, frustrates the will of ordinary people, and violates elementary decency. By resisting change, the study group will only make the changes that do come to the Middle East even more explosive and anti-American.

Right.

Freedom:


Human Rights:

Will of ordinary people:


Elementary decency:


Remember, that's the same Ralph Peters who said, in the whimsically titled opinion piece "Dude, Where's My Civil War?":

Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.

And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.

Yeah. Clearly connected to reality.

Bastard.

And this here is my puppy dog, its name is little andy

Andrew Sullivan continues to become almost sensible:

I agree we need an effort to expand the military by several divisions. That was Al Gore's position in 2000, by the way, the candidate the Weekly Standard hounded as insane and weak. It was Kerry's position in 2004, another candidate the WS smeared as Jane Fonda in drag.
. . .
It's over, guys. Your beloved Bush administration botched this so badly it's irrecoverable. You enabled them. You never fully took them on when it would have counted - and you trashed those of us who did. You knew this before the 2004 election and still cynically played the anti-Kerry card for all it was worth, telling yourselves you could sway Rummy after the election. Well, you couldn't and you didn't. Your policy was sabotaged by a defense secretary who never believed in it and by a president too weak and out-of-it to rein him in. Get over yourselves and recognize that this dream has died. And we have to fight the nightmare we now face rather than pretend your dream is still even on life-support. That's the patriotic responsibility at this point. And no, I'm not impugning your patriotism. I'm asking you to place it before your shattered dreams.

Wow.

If only he hadn't written crap like this:

Monday, March 24, 2003

SOME PERSPECTIVE: From the invaluable David Warren:

You wouldn't know it from reading most of the papers, but the war in Iraq is going fabulously well. After just five days the U.S. Third Infantry Division and supporting units are approaching Baghdad. The immense steel column continues to drive reinforcements across the Iraqi desert, while its leading edge rumbles through the fields, villages, and waterways of Mesopotamia. To its rear, the "sleeper cells" of Ba'athist and terrorist hitmen waiting in ambush are being eliminated one by one. Special forces have seized bridges, dams, airstrips, oil and gas fields, and weapons sites all over the country. The U.S. Air Force has devastated leadership targets, military infrastructure, and the physical symbols of the Saddam regime, across Baghdad and elsewhere. Allied troops have Basra, Nasiriyah, now Karbala, and other Iraqi cities surrounded, and are tightening each noose. Snipers in the towns are being patiently deleted. The "Scud box" of western Iraq is in allied hands, daily more secure, and allied forces are building with endless air deployments to the northern front. In all, the allies have taken only a few dozen killed, and a couple hundred lesser casualties -- many of these from small accidents within the most amazing and vast logistical exercise since our troops landed in Normandy (when we lost men at the rate of up to 500 a minute, liberating France). In just five days all this has been achieved! And while the most grisly parts of the campaign still lie ahead, all the worst fears have gone unrealized, so far.

I second that. And if we weren't bending over backward to act scrupulously while the enemy behaves like barbarians, we'd be even further along.

And this:

- 11:19:30 PM

HOW DO THE IRAQIS FEEL? It's too hard to tell. It seems to me that we may have under-estimated the psychological effect of president George H. W. Bush's brutal betrayal of the Iraqi people in 1991, at the behest of the U.N. No wonder Iraqis are still skittish about Americans and fearful that this interlude may end. The allied strategy of simply skirting past major cities also means that Saddam's henchmen may still be in control there, and so feelings are still deeply skeptical, mixed or shrouded. I also think that we hawks might have under-estimated the Iraqis' sense of national violation at being invaded - despite their hatred of Saddam. That's what this piece suggests and what Salam Pax reveals. And yet we also have evidence of their obvious joy at the possibility of ending the long nightmare of Saddam. We simply don't know for sure, and the mood may vary dramatically from area to area. In fact, we may not know at all until Saddam is finally gone. Like so many other things in this conflict, we'll see.

Well, Andy, keep at it. Someday your penance will have been paid, and you'l be accepted back into the reality-based world again.

Till then, look at this:

I’m looking through you and you’re nowhere

Damn! I thought I had dibs on the X-Ray Specs deal, but TBogg must not have gotten my memo. The bastard, he beat me to it:

Sky Harbor International Airport here will test a new federal screening system that takes X-rays of passenger's bodies to detect concealed explosives and other weapons.

The technology, called backscatter, has been around for several years but has not been widely used in the U.S. as an anti-terrorism tool because of privacy concerns.

The Transportation Security Administration said it has found a way to refine the machine's images so that the normally graphic pictures can be blurred in certain areas while still being effective in detecting bombs and other threats.

Sez Tom:

Here you see an example of the full x-ray scan of radio host and professional nitwit, Hugh Hewitt

(Correction: I have it on good authority that the above pic is actually Dennis Prager.)

The article goes on:

Some say the high-resolution images - which clearly depict the outline of the passenger's body, plus anything attached to it, such as jewelry - are too invasive.

But the TSA said the X-rays will be set up so that the image can be viewed only by a security officer in a remote location. Other passengers, and even the agent at the checkpoint, will not have access to the picture.

In addition, the system will be configured so that the X-ray will be deleted as soon as the individual steps away from the machine. It will not be stored or available for printing or transmitting, agency spokesman Nico Melendez said.

That's nice, because we don't want this picture circulating the internets:

Everyday I write the book

Several fine bloggers have had fun with this story:

Right-wing radio host Dennis Prager wrote a column earlier this week claiming that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress, had “announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.” Prager claimed this “act undermines American civilization,” and compared it to being sworn in with a copy of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”

Bloggers on the left and right — including Taylor Marsh, Steven Bennen, Eugene Volokh, Stephen Bainbridge — have torn apart Prager’s argument on constitutional grounds.

But Prager’s column is based on one other glaring error: the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives never includes a religious book.

But there's another point that needs to be made. Prager's phony born-again bluster is amusing, especially considering he's Jewish.

He's also the guy who writes for David Horowitz's hate rag:

So I have no doubt that some readers who until now have held me in esteem will lose respect for me when they learn that not only do I smoke cigars and a pipe, but I love doing so, have no interest in stopping and have been happy to pass this pleasure on to my older son. In fact, we regularly have some of our best talks while we enjoy our cigars.

For the record, I never smoke cigarettes, which I happen to dislike the smell of, and which I acknowledge to be dangerous. But what I write here largely applies to cigarette smokers as well. In fact, I find anti-smoking zealots far more dangerous to society than cigarette smokers, and would much sooner date a cigarette smoker than one of the zealots.

Boy, there's some hard driving political commentary.

Idiot.