Here it is, folks.
Turns out it was not just a few bad apples, but the general in charge of everything in Iraq said that torture was OK.
And, (not so) remarkably, Johnnie Cochran is the big story now. I guess the fact that a 3-star general authorized torture in contravention of both US law and the Geneva Conventions isn't as important as the search for the real killer.
Turns out it was not just a few bad apples, but the general in charge of everything in Iraq said that torture was OK.
And, (not so) remarkably, Johnnie Cochran is the big story now. I guess the fact that a 3-star general authorized torture in contravention of both US law and the Geneva Conventions isn't as important as the search for the real killer.
I'm speechless. But what's up with Gere's face?
OK. Just like the Congress, I'm coming out of Spring Break to talk about this amazing case.
The poor woman in Florida has become an international controversy. To sum up the case quickly, this woman, Terri Schiavo, suffered a heart attack in 1990 and has been in a "persistent vegitative state" ever since. Her husband, who has legal guardianship over her, won the right to order her feeding tube removed in 1998. Her parents filed suit immediately. Several judges agreed with Terri's husband, who testified that his wife told him she would want to simply be allowed to die if she ever was in this condition. Her feeding tube was removed. Evangelical Christians took up the case and applied all sorts of pressure to Repbublican lawmakers. The Florida Legislature cooked up "Terri's Law" in 2003 which allowed governor Jeb Bush to personally intervene. The feeding tube was replaced. The Florida Supreme Court declared "Terri's Law" unconsitutional, and the feeding tube was removed again on March 18, and Terri remains peacefully off of life support -- just as she said she'd want it.
Now, Republicans in the United States Congress, facing pressure from those radical Christians, have moved to intervene. They want to pass a "Terri's Law" of their own which would allow the case to travel to the federal court system, where judges might (or might not) decide to overturn the rulings given by the Florida state courts, allowing Terri to pass away peacefully.
OK. Why is the United States Congress taking up this one person's case? Well, clearly, because of these radical Christian organizations, which are working day and night on this issue, linking it to abortion and the "right to life" campaign. The Congress will meet in emergency session at midnight tonight to pass an unprecedented bill that would make this a federal case. In other words, this bill will affect just one person.
We have a provision in the Constitution which prohibits the Congress from making a law targeting one person. Such a bill is called a Bill of Attainder. This constitutional provision protects the division of powers -- checks and balances. The legislature is not allowed to act like a court, and it cannot intervene in judicial matters. This provision also is designed to protect individuals from persecution by the Congress. House Republican leader Tom DeLay has been personally attacking Terri's husband, saying, "I don't have a whole lot of respect for a man that has treated this woman in this way... What kind of man is he?" Well, Tom, he's clearly not a huge douche like you. He's being forced to justify a painful and personal decision that his wife told him to make. And he clearly had no idea that the force of the United States Congress and its political opportunits like DeLay would come down upon him like a ton of bricks. I thought we believed in freedom.
While some conservative commentators have insisted that the emergency bill that might be passed tonight is technically not a bill of attainder because this "isn't a criminal case" and because the courts will still decide the issue eventually, I think the Supreme Court might disagree. The federal legislature is intervening in a state court's jurisdiction. This is a clear violation of the constitutional separation of powers. In any event, the attainder issue will undoubtedly be raised if the case reaches the federal court system.
Look. I'm all for saving lives, but I agree with my conservative friends when I say that the government should butt out of deeply personal decisions like the right to choose whether to live or die. And I've never italicized anything on this blog before, so you know how strongly I feel about this.
The real motive of DeLay and the Republicans here is completely transparent -- they're using Prime Screw Time to cater to their radical Christian base.
Even more amazing is the hypocrisy uncovered by the good people over at Echaton who note that while governor of Texas, President Bush signed a law making it legal for hospitals to recommend euthanasia when a patient can't pay for care and a prognosis shows little chance for recovery. Now he claims to be all for stopping Terri's from choosing to pass away peacefully rather than persist in a vegatative state.
What happened to conservative fervor for state's rights and personal choice? Why am I suddenly put in the position of defending these hallmarks of conservatism? Why do these ultra-radical Christians have so much power?
UPDATE: 4:50PM March 21, 2005: So the Congress passed their emergency bill, and a federal judge in Florida has held a hearing on the case. He hasn't ruled yet, and, significantly, has declined (so far) to issue an injunction or an order to replace the controverisal feeding tube. Also, ABCNews conducted a remarkable poll (PDF), showing that a vast majority of Americans believe that the Congress should not have intervened in this case. Most believe as I do, that Congress did this for blatent poltical reasons and not out of any genuine concern for Terri, who said that she would want to be allowed to pass away if she were in this condition, anyway. Way to go, Republican douchebags.
The poor woman in Florida has become an international controversy. To sum up the case quickly, this woman, Terri Schiavo, suffered a heart attack in 1990 and has been in a "persistent vegitative state" ever since. Her husband, who has legal guardianship over her, won the right to order her feeding tube removed in 1998. Her parents filed suit immediately. Several judges agreed with Terri's husband, who testified that his wife told him she would want to simply be allowed to die if she ever was in this condition. Her feeding tube was removed. Evangelical Christians took up the case and applied all sorts of pressure to Repbublican lawmakers. The Florida Legislature cooked up "Terri's Law" in 2003 which allowed governor Jeb Bush to personally intervene. The feeding tube was replaced. The Florida Supreme Court declared "Terri's Law" unconsitutional, and the feeding tube was removed again on March 18, and Terri remains peacefully off of life support -- just as she said she'd want it.
Now, Republicans in the United States Congress, facing pressure from those radical Christians, have moved to intervene. They want to pass a "Terri's Law" of their own which would allow the case to travel to the federal court system, where judges might (or might not) decide to overturn the rulings given by the Florida state courts, allowing Terri to pass away peacefully.
OK. Why is the United States Congress taking up this one person's case? Well, clearly, because of these radical Christian organizations, which are working day and night on this issue, linking it to abortion and the "right to life" campaign. The Congress will meet in emergency session at midnight tonight to pass an unprecedented bill that would make this a federal case. In other words, this bill will affect just one person.
We have a provision in the Constitution which prohibits the Congress from making a law targeting one person. Such a bill is called a Bill of Attainder. This constitutional provision protects the division of powers -- checks and balances. The legislature is not allowed to act like a court, and it cannot intervene in judicial matters. This provision also is designed to protect individuals from persecution by the Congress. House Republican leader Tom DeLay has been personally attacking Terri's husband, saying, "I don't have a whole lot of respect for a man that has treated this woman in this way... What kind of man is he?" Well, Tom, he's clearly not a huge douche like you. He's being forced to justify a painful and personal decision that his wife told him to make. And he clearly had no idea that the force of the United States Congress and its political opportunits like DeLay would come down upon him like a ton of bricks. I thought we believed in freedom.
While some conservative commentators have insisted that the emergency bill that might be passed tonight is technically not a bill of attainder because this "isn't a criminal case" and because the courts will still decide the issue eventually, I think the Supreme Court might disagree. The federal legislature is intervening in a state court's jurisdiction. This is a clear violation of the constitutional separation of powers. In any event, the attainder issue will undoubtedly be raised if the case reaches the federal court system.
Look. I'm all for saving lives, but I agree with my conservative friends when I say that the government should butt out of deeply personal decisions like the right to choose whether to live or die. And I've never italicized anything on this blog before, so you know how strongly I feel about this.
The real motive of DeLay and the Republicans here is completely transparent -- they're using Prime Screw Time to cater to their radical Christian base.
Even more amazing is the hypocrisy uncovered by the good people over at Echaton who note that while governor of Texas, President Bush signed a law making it legal for hospitals to recommend euthanasia when a patient can't pay for care and a prognosis shows little chance for recovery. Now he claims to be all for stopping Terri's from choosing to pass away peacefully rather than persist in a vegatative state.
What happened to conservative fervor for state's rights and personal choice? Why am I suddenly put in the position of defending these hallmarks of conservatism? Why do these ultra-radical Christians have so much power?
UPDATE: 4:50PM March 21, 2005: So the Congress passed their emergency bill, and a federal judge in Florida has held a hearing on the case. He hasn't ruled yet, and, significantly, has declined (so far) to issue an injunction or an order to replace the controverisal feeding tube. Also, ABCNews conducted a remarkable poll (PDF), showing that a vast majority of Americans believe that the Congress should not have intervened in this case. Most believe as I do, that Congress did this for blatent poltical reasons and not out of any genuine concern for Terri, who said that she would want to be allowed to pass away if she were in this condition, anyway. Way to go, Republican douchebags.
It's not talked about much, but the time right after a Presidential inauguration -- particularly for a second term -- is when the worst of the worst ideas make their way through Congress. This is when we see political kickbacks come into full effect.
Why now? I guess the conventional wisdom is that everyone in the country is so sick of hearing about political stuff that now is the best time to take care of unpopular bills. And, considering that the next Congressional elections are nearly 2 full years away, it's safe to assume that we'll all forget about the terrible votes that our representatives up on Capitol Hill are making right now. We need to let these politicians know that they can't get away with stuff like this, we won't forget the shenanigans they're pulling, even if they pull them off during Prime Screwing Time.
Some great examples of what happens during Prime Screwing Time are underway right now. The biggest one is the new bankruptcy law just passed by the Senate last week after an 8 year lobbying campaign from our friends in the credit card industry. Where was the huge national outcry to make it harder for people in over their heads to file for bankruptcy? Oh, that's right, there wasn't one. But the credit card companies sure do love this idea -- once this bill passes the House and Bush makes good on his pledge to sign it, people who have resorted to the extreme of filing for bankruptcy will still not be free from their debts. I won't get into the finer points here, but let's just say that the only beneficiaries of this new law are the credit card and banking industries. You and I are screwed. And lots of Senators -- Democrats and Republicans -- voted for this bill now, in Prime Screwing Time. I'll point out that every single Republican voted for the bankruptcy bill.
Another great example of Prime Screwing Time -- the "Class Action Fairness Act," which isn't fair at all and makes it more difficult for people to come together and demand recourse after a corporation damages them in some way. In other words, now it's even more difficult for employees or customers to hold wrongdoing corporations accountable for their actions. Again, where was the national outcry for this bill? There wasn't one. The idea is unpopular, so it passed through quickly here in Prime Screwing Time.
We need to keep a close eye on the Congress over the next few weeks because we're still right in the hot, steamy middle of Prime Screwing Time. Watch out, and keep pressuring your representatives to let them know that in the era of blogs, there's never a downtime when we aren't paying attention. We at The Most Important Blog... Ever, are proud to announce: the era of the Prime Screw ends here and now, folks.
UPDATE: 2:50PM -- See what I mean? Geez, it's like they were trying to prove me right.
Why now? I guess the conventional wisdom is that everyone in the country is so sick of hearing about political stuff that now is the best time to take care of unpopular bills. And, considering that the next Congressional elections are nearly 2 full years away, it's safe to assume that we'll all forget about the terrible votes that our representatives up on Capitol Hill are making right now. We need to let these politicians know that they can't get away with stuff like this, we won't forget the shenanigans they're pulling, even if they pull them off during Prime Screwing Time.
Some great examples of what happens during Prime Screwing Time are underway right now. The biggest one is the new bankruptcy law just passed by the Senate last week after an 8 year lobbying campaign from our friends in the credit card industry. Where was the huge national outcry to make it harder for people in over their heads to file for bankruptcy? Oh, that's right, there wasn't one. But the credit card companies sure do love this idea -- once this bill passes the House and Bush makes good on his pledge to sign it, people who have resorted to the extreme of filing for bankruptcy will still not be free from their debts. I won't get into the finer points here, but let's just say that the only beneficiaries of this new law are the credit card and banking industries. You and I are screwed. And lots of Senators -- Democrats and Republicans -- voted for this bill now, in Prime Screwing Time. I'll point out that every single Republican voted for the bankruptcy bill.
Another great example of Prime Screwing Time -- the "Class Action Fairness Act," which isn't fair at all and makes it more difficult for people to come together and demand recourse after a corporation damages them in some way. In other words, now it's even more difficult for employees or customers to hold wrongdoing corporations accountable for their actions. Again, where was the national outcry for this bill? There wasn't one. The idea is unpopular, so it passed through quickly here in Prime Screwing Time.
We need to keep a close eye on the Congress over the next few weeks because we're still right in the hot, steamy middle of Prime Screwing Time. Watch out, and keep pressuring your representatives to let them know that in the era of blogs, there's never a downtime when we aren't paying attention. We at The Most Important Blog... Ever, are proud to announce: the era of the Prime Screw ends here and now, folks.
UPDATE: 2:50PM -- See what I mean? Geez, it's like they were trying to prove me right.
I just attended a rousing press conference put on by the good people at Pueblo, and organized thanks to the efforts of many people including the webmaster over at the highly important Hoverbike blog. A story about today's press conference appeared on the front page of the Santa Barbara News-Press.
The Santa Barbara for a Living Wage Coalition has forwarded an ordinance which would require the city of Santa Barbara to supply all workers with a living wage. This wage would be based on a federal formula which takes into account the cost of living in Santa Barbara County.
Currently, many part-time city workers receive poverty-level wages -- particularly when the high cost of living in Santa Barbara is taken into account. It seems like a no-brainer that the city would move to give its workers a wage that is fair. While opponents might claim that a living wage ordinance would stifle competition, it seems to me that the ordinance would encourage companies to pay workers a fair wage if they hope to compete for a city contract. Furthermore, it seems to me that not paying a living wage costs our community more in the long run. First of all, many workers have to live far from their place of work becuase they can't pay rent nearby. That increases traffic, increases pollution, and strains families. Speaking of straining families, when parents are forced to work 3 or 4 jobs simply to pay the rent, its difficult to raise a family. It seems to me that a good place to start improving the conditions of working people in Santa Barbara is with our tax dollars -- our tax dollars should not be used to subsidize poverty. We must demand that they be used to support workers with a fair wage.
Sadly, the issue is not yet even on the agenda at the city council. Even more sadly, the city council has recently changed its rules making it very difficult to put new items on the agenda. The campaign launched today is currently working just to get the issue on the agenda. Right now, the city council is meeting. During this meeting, members of the Living Wage Coalition will speak in support of placing this issue on the agenda.
Stay with us for more updates as they happen, and for information on how you can get involved.
The Santa Barbara for a Living Wage Coalition has forwarded an ordinance which would require the city of Santa Barbara to supply all workers with a living wage. This wage would be based on a federal formula which takes into account the cost of living in Santa Barbara County.
Currently, many part-time city workers receive poverty-level wages -- particularly when the high cost of living in Santa Barbara is taken into account. It seems like a no-brainer that the city would move to give its workers a wage that is fair. While opponents might claim that a living wage ordinance would stifle competition, it seems to me that the ordinance would encourage companies to pay workers a fair wage if they hope to compete for a city contract. Furthermore, it seems to me that not paying a living wage costs our community more in the long run. First of all, many workers have to live far from their place of work becuase they can't pay rent nearby. That increases traffic, increases pollution, and strains families. Speaking of straining families, when parents are forced to work 3 or 4 jobs simply to pay the rent, its difficult to raise a family. It seems to me that a good place to start improving the conditions of working people in Santa Barbara is with our tax dollars -- our tax dollars should not be used to subsidize poverty. We must demand that they be used to support workers with a fair wage.
Sadly, the issue is not yet even on the agenda at the city council. Even more sadly, the city council has recently changed its rules making it very difficult to put new items on the agenda. The campaign launched today is currently working just to get the issue on the agenda. Right now, the city council is meeting. During this meeting, members of the Living Wage Coalition will speak in support of placing this issue on the agenda.
Stay with us for more updates as they happen, and for information on how you can get involved.
With all the non-stop coverage of the terrible courtroom shootings in Atlanta, you'd think that nothing else important was going on. Good thing we're here to keep you up to date.
More bad news from Israel and Palestine today. Israeli soldiers have killed a Palestinian man, as the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports here.
MSNBC.com was the only US mainstream media (MSM) website reporting that "Israeli Troops Kill Palestinian Militiant." This headline directly attributes the killing on the Israeli troops. The headline appeared last night on MSNBC, but it's gone now. It still counts. I'm tracking how often blame is places on the Israelis in headlines, and this marks the third time we've seen a US MSM headline directly blame the Israelis for killing a Palestinian. We've only seen the opposite (Palestinians directly blamed for the killing of an Israeli) twice.
There is no photo in this story, so no changes to the photo tallies.
Both the Ha'aretz and the MSNBC story mention that the dead man was wanted in connection with the February suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Ha'aretz notes that Israel promised not to carry out offensive military operations, but that the Israelis also never ruled out taking military action if they felt that the Palestinian security forces weren't doing enough to reign in terror. In other words, the Israelis never promised to do anything differently in their cease-fire declaration, and tonight's news shows how much things have, unfortunately, remained the same.
None of the other US MSM websites we monitor (CNN.com, ABCNews.com, CBSNews.com, FOXNews.com, NYTimes.com) carries a headline about this story on their front pages. Still, since the MSNBC headline appeared, we cannot count this story in our tally of unreported Palestinian deaths. Click here for more details on this project.
MSNBC.com was the only US mainstream media (MSM) website reporting that "Israeli Troops Kill Palestinian Militiant." This headline directly attributes the killing on the Israeli troops. The headline appeared last night on MSNBC, but it's gone now. It still counts. I'm tracking how often blame is places on the Israelis in headlines, and this marks the third time we've seen a US MSM headline directly blame the Israelis for killing a Palestinian. We've only seen the opposite (Palestinians directly blamed for the killing of an Israeli) twice.
There is no photo in this story, so no changes to the photo tallies.
Both the Ha'aretz and the MSNBC story mention that the dead man was wanted in connection with the February suicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Ha'aretz notes that Israel promised not to carry out offensive military operations, but that the Israelis also never ruled out taking military action if they felt that the Palestinian security forces weren't doing enough to reign in terror. In other words, the Israelis never promised to do anything differently in their cease-fire declaration, and tonight's news shows how much things have, unfortunately, remained the same.
None of the other US MSM websites we monitor (CNN.com, ABCNews.com, CBSNews.com, FOXNews.com, NYTimes.com) carries a headline about this story on their front pages. Still, since the MSNBC headline appeared, we cannot count this story in our tally of unreported Palestinian deaths. Click here for more details on this project.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is in more hot water today.
Recently, this champion of the Israeli right wing had begun to curry favor with Isareli peace-niks (and ire from right-wing Israelis) for his ardent proposal to evacuate Israeli settlements from the Gaza strip. Suddenly, it seemed as if the Sabra and Shatilla massacre -- when General Sharon was held "indirectly responsible" by the Israeli government for having his troops stand watching as thousands of Palestinian refugees were slaughtered -- had never happened. It seemed as if September 28, 2000 had never happened, when Sharon took over 100 of his closest armed bodyguards to "visit" the Muslim holy site in Jerusalem, the golden Dome of the Rock, in a move clearly designed to rile up Palestinian violence that led to the current 4-year-long uprising and propelled Sharon to the Prime Minister's seat. Now that Sharon is talking about removing settlements, can we really believe that it's all good and move on?
Well, as it turns out, no. A damning new report -- carried out at the behest of the Americans -- has found that the Israeli government has been illegally funding illegal settlements on Palestinian land.
What's the big deal about settlements? Well, they're Jewish-only towns built on land that the Israelis captured in the 1967 War. The Israelis currently occupy these territories -- the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip -- and they are moving a civilian population into these lands as part of a blatant attempt to hold the territories indefinitely. This is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which require that military occupiers do not move civilians into the lands they occupy and must move to end their occupation as quickly as possible. Settlers unabashedly state that they intend to keep their land forever -- and the Palestinians who live there can basically go to hell, as far as they're concerned. The existence of settlements forces the Israeli army to set up checkpoints in and around Palestinian cities, towns, and villiages. The settlements take land away from Palestinians, bit by bit. And this has been going on, despite widespread international condemnation, for the last 38 years (since 1967).
This is why peace-niks were so excited last year when Sharon -- one of the greatest heroes of the settler movement -- forwarded his "bold" plan to dismantle settlements in Gaza. It looked like all of this was about to change. The settlers' attempt to grab land was about to suffer a major setback. The settlers, for their part, have responded like they usually do, with violence and threats on Sharon's life. (Don't forget a pro-settlement Israeli citizen assassinated Isareli PM and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Yitzakh Rabin after he attempted less drastic anti-settlement moves.)
The report released today indicates that the Israeli government has been circumventing its own laws to provide settlers with financial and logistical support in their quest to steal land from Palestinians. The scathing report calls for a complete revamping of the Isareli Housing Ministry, and has prompted a lot of finger pointing at Mr. Sharon himself.
In a lot of ways, this report isn't shocking at all -- it just confirms what Palestinians and anti-settlement activist organizations in Isarel have been saying for a long time, that the Isareli government has been providing active support to the settler movement despite the assurances from the Israelis that settlements were slowing or stopping.
Shit. Looks like this Sharon is still the old Sharon.
Recently, this champion of the Israeli right wing had begun to curry favor with Isareli peace-niks (and ire from right-wing Israelis) for his ardent proposal to evacuate Israeli settlements from the Gaza strip. Suddenly, it seemed as if the Sabra and Shatilla massacre -- when General Sharon was held "indirectly responsible" by the Israeli government for having his troops stand watching as thousands of Palestinian refugees were slaughtered -- had never happened. It seemed as if September 28, 2000 had never happened, when Sharon took over 100 of his closest armed bodyguards to "visit" the Muslim holy site in Jerusalem, the golden Dome of the Rock, in a move clearly designed to rile up Palestinian violence that led to the current 4-year-long uprising and propelled Sharon to the Prime Minister's seat. Now that Sharon is talking about removing settlements, can we really believe that it's all good and move on?
Well, as it turns out, no. A damning new report -- carried out at the behest of the Americans -- has found that the Israeli government has been illegally funding illegal settlements on Palestinian land.
What's the big deal about settlements? Well, they're Jewish-only towns built on land that the Israelis captured in the 1967 War. The Israelis currently occupy these territories -- the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip -- and they are moving a civilian population into these lands as part of a blatant attempt to hold the territories indefinitely. This is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which require that military occupiers do not move civilians into the lands they occupy and must move to end their occupation as quickly as possible. Settlers unabashedly state that they intend to keep their land forever -- and the Palestinians who live there can basically go to hell, as far as they're concerned. The existence of settlements forces the Israeli army to set up checkpoints in and around Palestinian cities, towns, and villiages. The settlements take land away from Palestinians, bit by bit. And this has been going on, despite widespread international condemnation, for the last 38 years (since 1967).
This is why peace-niks were so excited last year when Sharon -- one of the greatest heroes of the settler movement -- forwarded his "bold" plan to dismantle settlements in Gaza. It looked like all of this was about to change. The settlers' attempt to grab land was about to suffer a major setback. The settlers, for their part, have responded like they usually do, with violence and threats on Sharon's life. (Don't forget a pro-settlement Israeli citizen assassinated Isareli PM and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Yitzakh Rabin after he attempted less drastic anti-settlement moves.)
The report released today indicates that the Israeli government has been circumventing its own laws to provide settlers with financial and logistical support in their quest to steal land from Palestinians. The scathing report calls for a complete revamping of the Isareli Housing Ministry, and has prompted a lot of finger pointing at Mr. Sharon himself.
In a lot of ways, this report isn't shocking at all -- it just confirms what Palestinians and anti-settlement activist organizations in Isarel have been saying for a long time, that the Isareli government has been providing active support to the settler movement despite the assurances from the Israelis that settlements were slowing or stopping.
Shit. Looks like this Sharon is still the old Sharon.
I really do mean "incompetent." Here's a harrowing and amazing article from the Christian Science Monitor describing the experience of US checkpoints in Iraq. The description clearly shows how something as astonishing as the attack on the Italians must happen all the time to everyday Iraqis.
Is it really so hard to figure out why they hate us?
Is it really so hard to figure out why they hate us?
Boyz II Men appeared outside Los Angeles recently, and your Most Important Blogger... Ever was on hand to witness the greatness in person.
The concert was not their best ever. I remember the heyday of the mid-nineties, when Boyz II Men were backed by Sony, and they put on ridiculous shows featuring fireworks, dozens of costume changes, mobile stages (I once saw them climb from the main stage to another stage up in the rafters at the Palace in Detroit), and even diamond-encrusted microphones. Yes, Boyz II Men were huge in the 90's, and they had huge shows.
This show was refreshingly smaller. No band. No costume changes. No fireworks. Just three guys (the fourth has retired from music to pursue a career in architecture) with three amazing voices and some of the best pop music ever written.
The show was great. Taking advantage of the small venue, the guys joked back and forth with the crowd. They did something I've never seen before, taking crowd-band interaction to a new level, when they took cell phones from the crowd and sung "A Song For Mama" over the phones to people's moms. Amazing. They sang all their great hits -- "End of the Road," "Water Runs Dry," "I'll Make Love To You" (with their now famous rose-tossing routine) -- and they performed some tracks from their new remake album, Throwback. They've never sounded better. The lack of a band was keenly felt, but these guys can do a capella just fine.
And the most amazing thing about Boyz II Men shows hasn't changed from the 90's. These guys attract people from all walks of life. Seriously. I saw some tricked-out, middle-aged black guys (who looked like reverends from a church) in the same space as teenaged white girls from the OC, along with some punked out indie-style kids with bleached white streaks in their jet-black hair, young ghetto-fabulous black teenaged couples, Asian people old and young, and even a few white dudes in full business suits. Twenty-something women made up the bulk of the crowd, but seriously, everyone enjoys a good Boyz II Men song. This kind of broad-based appeal has been generated by very, very few other musical acts, and it was through this appeal that Boyz II Men helped inaugurate the current domination of R&B and Hip Hop in worldwide popular music.
The guys were fully aware that they're on hard times, and they profusely thanked the audience for helping to keep Boyz II Men in the business for more than 15 years. And some self-depracation showed that they don't take themselves too seriously. The sold-out show was amazing -- and it will be back in Southern California by popular demand later this month. They also have dates scheduled in Atlantic City, Buffalo, Atlanta, and Ontario. Go check them out.
The concert was not their best ever. I remember the heyday of the mid-nineties, when Boyz II Men were backed by Sony, and they put on ridiculous shows featuring fireworks, dozens of costume changes, mobile stages (I once saw them climb from the main stage to another stage up in the rafters at the Palace in Detroit), and even diamond-encrusted microphones. Yes, Boyz II Men were huge in the 90's, and they had huge shows.
This show was refreshingly smaller. No band. No costume changes. No fireworks. Just three guys (the fourth has retired from music to pursue a career in architecture) with three amazing voices and some of the best pop music ever written.
The show was great. Taking advantage of the small venue, the guys joked back and forth with the crowd. They did something I've never seen before, taking crowd-band interaction to a new level, when they took cell phones from the crowd and sung "A Song For Mama" over the phones to people's moms. Amazing. They sang all their great hits -- "End of the Road," "Water Runs Dry," "I'll Make Love To You" (with their now famous rose-tossing routine) -- and they performed some tracks from their new remake album, Throwback. They've never sounded better. The lack of a band was keenly felt, but these guys can do a capella just fine.
And the most amazing thing about Boyz II Men shows hasn't changed from the 90's. These guys attract people from all walks of life. Seriously. I saw some tricked-out, middle-aged black guys (who looked like reverends from a church) in the same space as teenaged white girls from the OC, along with some punked out indie-style kids with bleached white streaks in their jet-black hair, young ghetto-fabulous black teenaged couples, Asian people old and young, and even a few white dudes in full business suits. Twenty-something women made up the bulk of the crowd, but seriously, everyone enjoys a good Boyz II Men song. This kind of broad-based appeal has been generated by very, very few other musical acts, and it was through this appeal that Boyz II Men helped inaugurate the current domination of R&B and Hip Hop in worldwide popular music.
The guys were fully aware that they're on hard times, and they profusely thanked the audience for helping to keep Boyz II Men in the business for more than 15 years. And some self-depracation showed that they don't take themselves too seriously. The sold-out show was amazing -- and it will be back in Southern California by popular demand later this month. They also have dates scheduled in Atlantic City, Buffalo, Atlanta, and Ontario. Go check them out.
I meant "incompetent."
OK, I'm getting sick of hearing this.
Recently, even My Personal Hero has succumbed to the temptation to give the neo-conservatives credit for the string of better than terrible news that has come out of the Middle East.
Could they have been right all along? Was attacking Iraq the right thing to do? I mean, look -- there was a pretty successful election in Iraq, Egypt has announced a surprise reform to allow more than one person to run for president, and now Lebanon is finally throwing off their Syrian yoke! And there's a cease-fire in Israel and Palestine. Roses! They're throwing roses at freedom's inexorable march through the streets of Baghdad, Beirut, Jerusalem, and even Cairo. It's just like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz said it would happen -- after Iraq, the whole region will experience a democratic revolution!
Bullshit. Leaving aside the fact that Bush told us we went to Iraq not for the sake of "democracy" but for the express purpose of destroying weapons of mass destruction (and now he's fallen back to this "democracy" BS), each of these developments do not add up to a trend.
Let's talk about what hasn't happened. Saudi Arabia is still a remarkably oppressive dictatorship. Syria isn't much better, and neither is Yemen, Oman, the Emirates, and let's just leave Iran alone for the time being. There is no trend of democratization in the Middle East, and it's silly to pretend that the Bush administration really wants Saudi Arabia to have free and open elections -- they are all about propping up that dictatorship.
As for what has happened -- it is clearly good news that Egypt will change their basic law to allow more than one person to appear on the presidential ballot. But President Mubarak has put all of his serious opponents in jail. There is little chance that a thriving opposition will suddenly appear because of this change.
Lebanon. This is completely unrelated to Iraq. The Syrian occupation of Lebanon started a long time ago. The devastating assassination of Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister would be analogous to someone assassinating Bill Clinton -- this guy was popular. And the anger has boiled over into the streets, forcing the resignation of Syria's puppet government in Beirut. It's too early, unfortunately, to call Lebanon an independent democracy. And I'm pretty sure that this kind of uprising in Lebanon would have happened whether we trashed Iraq or not.
And the elections in Iraq were relatively successful, which of course is great news. The brave Iraqi people deserve all of the credit for this success. Now, as soon as the bumbling US occupiers can keep the electricity on and keep bombings from killing hundreds of people every month, then we can talk about a success for US policy. We're a long way off from those very basic goals.
As for the situation in Israel and Palestine, I'll agree that it's looking more hopeful than at any other moment in the last four years. But there's still a long way to go, and again, if we hadn't gone into Iraq, I'm sure we'd still have seen similar developments in Jerusalem and Ramallah.
I'm all for good news from the Middle East. But Bush, Wolfowitz, and their ilk deserve none of the credit.
It is a rare pleasure here at the blog when we can bestow ignoble accolades on one of our own.
Ian, whom regular readers of The Most Important Blog... Ever will recognize from his persistent-to-the-point-of-obnoxious comments on the blog has just informed me of a new fellowship which is funding his way through one of the most prestigious journalism schools in the nation.
Yes, that's right, the former ENN Chief Editor has been given a generous fellowship from our old enemies at Wal-Mart Corporation. Rather than turn down this award like any duitiful conservative who believes in pulling himself up by his bootstraps, Ian has courageously decided to jettison his conservatism when it suits him. As a fellow poor graduate student, I sympathize with this decision, but then again, I've never been one to argue for small government or for individualism.
In honor of this unique award and to recognize a valued contributor to The Most Important Blog... Ever, it gives me a great sense of awe to bestow my oldest and best friend with a special Wal-Mart Douchebag Award: Nemesis Edition. Congratulations, Ian, and best of luck with your trek through j-school. We hope to see you continuing to provide important commentary here at the Blog.
Ian, whom regular readers of The Most Important Blog... Ever will recognize from his persistent-to-the-point-of-obnoxious comments on the blog has just informed me of a new fellowship which is funding his way through one of the most prestigious journalism schools in the nation.
Yes, that's right, the former ENN Chief Editor has been given a generous fellowship from our old enemies at Wal-Mart Corporation. Rather than turn down this award like any duitiful conservative who believes in pulling himself up by his bootstraps, Ian has courageously decided to jettison his conservatism when it suits him. As a fellow poor graduate student, I sympathize with this decision, but then again, I've never been one to argue for small government or for individualism.
In honor of this unique award and to recognize a valued contributor to The Most Important Blog... Ever, it gives me a great sense of awe to bestow my oldest and best friend with a special Wal-Mart Douchebag Award: Nemesis Edition. Congratulations, Ian, and best of luck with your trek through j-school. We hope to see you continuing to provide important commentary here at the Blog.
It's been a rough week for your Most Important Blogger... Ever, but we'll be back later today with a shocking, brand-new Wal-Mart Douchebag Award and with commentary about social security, Israel and Palestine, Boyz II Men, and more. Stay tuned.
