Skip to content

Friday Night Music, Fats Domino

Friday, May 2, 2008

Okay, so I was looking for Sam Cooke, but there’s slim pickings at youtube for one of the greatest rock/soul pioneers. I try to avoid the videos that just consist of music and still pictures, but that’s pretty much all there is on Sam. At least on that Sam. I also discovered that there is another Sam Cooke, who has talents entirely different than the legend. Search the name at youtube and you’ll see what I mean.

So, by the process of free association, I got to Fats, seen here in what appears to be a clip from some sort of movie. (Is that Danny Kaye in there?) Could you possibly get away, today, with having a group of black performers play to an all white audience? It is a better world today, in many ways. Here’s Fats singing “Ain’t That a Shame”.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OG3uPULQRs[/youtube]

As a bonus, here’s another, definitely not lip synched, at a joint Ricky Nelson-Fats Domino concert from 1985, which gives me an idea for future Fridays. Blueberry Hill:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl5hknXqXps&feature=related[/youtube]

Filed in Music | | Comments (2)

In case you missed it

Friday, May 2, 2008

Yesterday the Longshoreman’s Union closed the ports of the West Coast to protest the Iraq war. If you’re a Times reader you’d know all about this, if you made your way to page A12.

West Coast ports were shut down on Thursday as thousands of longshoremen failed to report for work, part of what their union leaders said was a one-day, one-shift protest against the war in Iraq.

Cranes and forklifts stood still from Seattle to San Diego, and ships were stalled at sea as workers held rallies up and down the coast to blame the war for distracting public attention and money from domestic needs like health care and education.

“We’re loyal to America, and we won’t stand by while our country, our troops and our economy are being destroyed by a war that’s bankrupting us to the tune of $3 trillion,” the president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Bob McEllrath, said in a written statement. “It’s time to stand up, and we’re doing our part today.”

The Times has sometimes expressed regret for its shameless pimping of the Iraq War in the palmy days of Fall, 2002, when Judith Miller had a direct line to the very best WMD fantasies money could buy. It has never expressed regret, so far as I know, for systematically ignoring and downplaying the extent of war opposition at that time. No doubt a closure of our ports is nowhere near as important as yet another story (Page 1, of course) about the tiresome Jeremiah Wright. The Times always has it both ways. They will bemoan the press feeding frenzy distractions on their editorial pages, while joining in with gusto on their front page. We await with patience similar coverage of McCain’s bigoted religious supporters.

Anyway, good for the Longshoremen.

Filed in Iraq, Media | | Comments (1)

It’s a holiday!

Thursday, May 1, 2008

For most of the world, it’s May Day. For George Bush, it’s Mission Accomplished Day. For us lawyers, it’s Law Day, a reaction to May Day, no doubt.

Herewith, (via Lawyers, Guns and Money) in honor of Law Day, a liberal lawyer’s wet dream, at least the first half of it is:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GG7sj2APpc[/youtube]

Being a TV illiterate, I had no idea where this was from. I couldn’t believe anyone would put dialog like this into a real show about lawyers. But someone did. It’s from a show called Boston Legal. Totally absurd. But anyway, it was fun viewing.

Filed in Lawyer stuff, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Crime wave in Connecticut

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

I suppose it’s just me, but I find the “Home Invasion” scare that is currently the rage a little puzzling. These incidents are covered as if they represent a species of crime without precedent. We have, in fact, had laws on the books for years that deal with all aspects of this type of crime. Burglary, breaking and entering, assault and battery, murder and manslaughter have all been against the law since the Middle Ages. In fact, if my dim recollection of my law school education is correct, some of them were actually crimes at common law, meaning that there was originally no positive legislation on them. I could be wrong about that, but in any event they have an ancient lineage.

Nor do I quite understand the push for new laws. All of these crimes carry penalties more than sufficient to provide whatever deterrent the criminal law provides, and more than sufficient to punish if punishment is the objective. The legislation that Rell briefly threatened to veto, passed in response to these incidents, might do some good in terms of improving the judicial system or the probation and parole system, but it’s not going to provide deterrence. A potential “home invader” is not likely to pause due to the prospect that there are two laws covering conduct previously adequately covered by one.

What brings this to mind is my growing suspicion that we will see a rash of these incidents as the definition of “home invasion” is broadened, so that the newspapers and TV stations can do what they like to do best: spread fear. Here’s a possible case in point, a story about an incident which, according to the New Haven Independent, has an entire neighborhood “reeling”:

A 55-year-old woman was house-sitting at 97 Loomis Place Tuesday night when three men burst into the house, according to police. They beat her in the head with a baseball bat and tied her to a chair while they looted the home. After stealing some items, including a computer and some ice cream, they drove off in the woman’s car. The woman called 911 at 11:40 p.m.

I am having trouble believing that this story belongs in the big leagues. Of course, I could be wrong, but a few details give me pause. First of all, I am not the strongest person in the world, but it’s hard for me to conceive that I could avoid killing or causing serious brain injury to a person should I choose to “beat her in the head with a baseball bat”. (In my dictionary the first definition of “beat” is “to strike repeatedly”) A baseball bat is a very hard object, and unless one is gripping it only a few inches from the sweet spot, it packs a powerful punch. And I know skulls are hard, but I’d put my money on a properly wielded bat any day of the week. I can’t honestly see why anyone would need to tie someone up after truly beating them on the head with a bat. These invaders must have been singularly inept batters to cause such little injury that the lady was able to call 911 shortly after being beaten. Maybe they were, since they also appear to be rather inept looters, if “ice cream” made the list of specified stolen objects.

I’m not suggesting this was not a serious act. (Double negative, I know, but I’m sticking with it). I’m merely suggesting that the Invasion of the Home Invaders is being seriously overhyped in this state, and that the details of this incident may have been enhanced in the re-telling. We need to take a deep breath and recognize that there’s nothing new under the sun. Not every incident of this sort is a replay of the tragedy in Cheshire, so not every incident of this sort should be compared to that situation, as the Independent does with this story.

Filed in Local issues | | Comments (1)

Pushing back

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Apparently John Kerry learned something from the Swift Boat episode:

This is what Democrats need to do. Like all bullies, and the broadcast press is composed primarily of bullies, they back down in the face of determined opposition. Notice the look on her face when he pushes back.

One of the reasons we need to get rid of Hillary now is so that every Democrat in front of any camera anywhere can get on message and start pushing back against these people. They will stop if they are constantly challenged. Right now, the Hillary folks, dead enders that they are, are getting plenty of air time and are feeding this frenzy.

Even Kerry’s approach is only half way there. Just as the Republicans have accused the media of having a “liberal bias”, the Democrats have to accuse the media of bias at every turn. At this point it happens to be true. When these things come up they should be ready to ask why the media is not following John Hagee around, and why they’re not hanging Hagee around McCain’s neck. Stephanopoulos was roundly criticized after the Pennsylvania debate and he felt compelled to confront McCain on that issue the following Sunday. Of course he wasn’t nearly as offensive with McCain as he was with Obama, nor did he press McCain as he would have pressed Obama, but these things take time.

Filed in Media, Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Distractions continue

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

I mentioned a couple of days ago that my kids were visiting this weekend, so I wasn’t paying attention to the Jeremiah Wright 24/7 coverage. Apparently a Clinton supporter unleashed the man onto the national stage and the press, as is its wont, dutifully engaged in the pack journalism that is the hallmark of our times. Chris Matthews, for instance, was amused at the idea that the press should recognize that Obama is not Wright. According to Chris, they are Jekyll and Hyde.

I don’t remember the book Maybe he’s right. Was Mr. Hyde intent on destroying Dr. Jekyll in the same way Wright appears to want to destroy Obama? And are the members of our vaunted press corps so stupid that they can’t see that Wright can not be oblivious to what he is doing. In the face of that, can they continue to hold Obama responsible for Wright’s views? Of course they can!

I have faith, though. Now that Obama has thoroughly disassociated himself from Wright, the press will start to cover John Hagee, report breathlessly on his every pronouncement, and will hector John McCain until Mr. Maverick Straight Talker denounces Hagee in equally unequivocal terms. Surely it is not only black preachers that represent a threat to American values and of course the press can see that seeking the endorsement of a confirmed bigot is far worse than being a parishioner of a loose cannon. In fact, I’m sure Chris Matthews will lead the way.

Here’s part of Obama’s speech.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JicZeBkg67A[/youtube]

I have to give this guy credit for trying to keep the national conversation out of the gutter. I hope it works. I’ve seen it fail too often, but these are no ordinary times. Whether the media like it or not, the sorry state of our country might just concentrate people’s minds on what’s important. The media cannot, after all, always sell their narrative. After all, if they could do that, Hillary would now be the former wife of an impeached President.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (1)

AP accepts Republican spin as gospel

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

We liberals are often frustrated by the refusal of the press to call the Republicans or the right when they out and out lie. No claim they make is absurd enough to warrant anything other than “on the one hand, on the other hand” type of coverage. Not to worry, that type of coverage is not universal. The AP proved today that it is perfectly ready to point out falsehoods, but only, it appears if its Democrats that are doing the falsifying. Here’s what the AP had to say about a Democratic ad attacking John McCain:

“The Republican National Committee demanded Monday that television networks stop running a television ad by the Democratic Party that falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq.”

Now, as Editor and Publisher points out, the AP is accepting the Republican spin, it is not saying that the Republicans allege it is false, it is saying that the ad falsely suggests something. Here’s the ad:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6ul9iMgmOw[/youtube]

In fact, there is no allegation either way. You can infer what you want. The AP has taken Republican spin as gospel. What else is new though. By the way, there is a Republican politician who disagrees with what McCain says is his position: that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely as we remain in Europe and Korea. That would be straight talker John McCain (2005 version) who had this to say:

Three years before the Arizona Republican argued on the campaign trail that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for 100 years in the absence of violence, he decried the very concept of a long-term troop presence.

In fact, when asked specifically if he thought the U.S. military should set up shop in Iraq along the lines of what has been established in post-WWII Germany or Japan — something McCain has repeatedly advocated during the campaign — the senator offered nothing short of a categorical “no.”

“I would hope that we could bring them all home,” he said on MSNBC. “I would hope that we would probably leave some military advisers, as we have in other countries, to help them with their training and equipment and that kind of stuff.”

Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. “You’ve heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I’ve heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German…the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?”

McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. “I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence,” he responded. “And I don’t pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.”

We will, of course, hear nothing from the “liberal” press about this flip flop, not even from Matthews, to whom he made the statements. Throughout the campaign we will be told that McCain is a guy who sticks to his positions and gives us nothing but straight talk.

Filed in Media | | Comments (1)

Vote suppressors vindicate vote suppressors

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Eight years ago the Supreme Court ruled that one man’s right to equal protection was more important than the votes of the mass of voters in Florida, or at least the ones that weren’t counted. They would claim, I’m sure, that the fact that the man in question was George Bush was purely coincidental. Since then Scalia has told us all to get over it, something he has never said to the folks who insist that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided. Yesterday the court decided, as informed observers knew they would, that the the poor and the elderly were not entitled to the same protection as George Bush-not by a long shot. Despite the fact that there is no evidence of vote fraud, even on a trifling scale, the court upheld a photo identification law that was consciously designed to prevent the poor and the elderly from voting.

What does this prove? Does it prove that a court that once took pride in protecting the disenfranchised has become the agent of a political party? To anyone with sense it does. But Hans von Spakovsky, the man who led the voter suppression drive at the Justice Department sees it differently:

“This decision not only confirms the validity of photo ID laws, but it completely vindicates the Bush Justice Department and refutes those critics who claimed that the department somehow acted improperly when it approved Georgia’s photo ID law in 2005,” said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and a former Justice Department official.

What a deal for Bush. He and his party are able to launder their criminality and constitution abuse through a Supreme Court, the members of whom were picked precisely because they promised to perform that very task at the time of their appointments. We have six John Yoos on the Supreme Court Bench, or, more precisely five John Yoos and one delusional justice who falls off the rails every once in a while. But they only need five, and they’ve got them.

I suppose when the Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott case there were slave owners who felt they’d been vindicated. We as a country are now reaping the fruits of our own insistence that electoral choices should be made in line with what our media tells us is important: pledges of allegiance, flag pins, rides in tanks, trips to Russia, preacher’s sermons, and bowling scores. Since 1980 at the very least, the most important domestic issue in each election has been judicial appointments. The Republican party has perceived the judicial nomination process as part of their war on democracy; simply another front in their battle to take and hold power by whatever means necessary. They have appointed judges that are co-conspirators in the process, “intellectuals” that provide a paper thin veneer over these naked power grabs.

If Obama gets elected that court will frustrate him at every turn.

Filed in Lawyer stuff, Politics | | Comments (0)

JJB Dinner tomorrow

Sunday, April 27, 2008

I have inflicted very few posts on the world lately. My kids were here visiting this weekend, so my output has decreased quite a bit.

Tomorrow, it’s unlikely that I’ll have much to say. We’re going to the JJB dinner to hear Joe Biden speak. Once again, we expect to see nothing of Joe Lieberman, for which relief, much thanks.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)

Holy mother Church does the right thing

Sunday, April 27, 2008

This is Sunday, so it’s entirely appropriate that we turn to religion today. By a happy coincidence, religion is in the news, at least it was in today’s Courant, which reports that the Archdiocese of Hartford is kicking the Protestants off of its radio station, including the Episcopalians.

I was shocked when I read the article. What true Catholic wouldn’t be if he had found out that the One True Church had been letting the Protestant heretics broadcast over holy airwaves for the past 30 years? I’m just glad I haven’t happened to listen to the Catholic station for just about that length of time, because had I found out that some mushy brainers in Hartford had given the forces of evil free air time I might have cared.

Now some might say that we should at least give the Episcopalians a free pass, seeing as they’re practically Catholics anyway. But that’s only on the surface. Deep down, their cult is rife with heresy. For instance, whereas we Catholics believe that we eat the real Jesus every week, the Episcopalians believe they are only eating his essence. I’m sure there’s a difference there, and I’m ready to burn anyone who disagrees. Moreover, the Episcopalians let their priests get married, seriously impacting the number of pedophiles preaching the word of God. To make matters worse, some of them let women become priests, which has to have an impact on the number of misogynists in the priesthood. Where would the one true church be without misogynistic pedophiles? To put the icing on the cake, they are willing to allow their relatively few gay priests to be open about it, while we rightly insist that our priests, the majority of whom are gay (those that aren’t pedophiles, that is) stay in the closet and engage in virulent, albeit ritualistic condemnation of gay people. We don’t need all this Episcopalian “tolerance” and common sense infesting our church.

So I say, keep those Episcopalians, those white bread pseudo-Catholics, off our airwaves. We don’t need no ecumenicalism. We just need more thought control.

Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)