... the Real Reason the Internet Exists.
Hat Tip: Kevin Rose and Co at digg.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Friday, July 22, 2005
Help Us Name Our Next Album
My band Chris Plays Guitar is busy working on the new album. We are trying to decide on the title and album cover. One suggesttion has been "How to Teach a Pussy to Rock and Roll!". Take the album pictured here, replace the cow with a cat, and give the cat a guitar, and maybe a "Chris" nametag, and there you go. I don't like it.. No, I HATE it. But, hey, the concept is probably too straight for me, or it could be that I have no imagination left as I spent it all in my youth. Ah, the things we give up to grow up. The Web Site the "cowlbum" was lifted from probably won't help, but it sure is fun!!!
PS. I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO glad the seventies ended and are NEVER coming back.
PPS. I know, they'll be back in another 65 years, but I'll be pushing daisies by then, so it's not my concern......
.....and here's one for Cory and Olie and North Dallas Thirty.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Forget Rove!!!
I just found out who is the REAL mastermind behind the goings-on in the Bush administration.
Hat Tip: NDT
Hat Tip: NDT
Monday, July 11, 2005
A Reply
Sarah Z said...
"Just a little thought - One of the core beliefs of Islam is the unity of church and state. Makes American Democracy not really workable for the Muslim people".
But don't many argue that Iraq under Saddam was a secular government, as is Syria purported to be? Yet they are / were run by loyal Muslims. And isn't that why Osama supposedly did not collaborated with Saddam?
Church and State unity has extreme variations. There are many democracies where Church and State coexists successfully. Israel is one, England is another. After the Constitution was signed, several of the U States had official state religions. One of those was Thomas Jeffersons home state, Virginia. As far as I know, the first acknowledged democracy, the Greek prototype, had no such separation. The kind of situation I'’m deriding is where the State functions at the privilege and whim of the church or religious sect, such as that under Taliban rule.
My Rare Form drummer, Dan, made a similar argument that trying to install a democracy in Iraq was futile, but his argument was based on a book that came out a couple of years ago that suggested that Muslims, due to their culture, learn from birth to deal with the world with two faces, by saying one thing but doing another, and therefore cannot be trusted. It is second nature to them. One example was Arafat. During the 90s, he would talk of truce to the western leaders and news forums, but when back in Palestine, he would still preach "“Death to Israel" to his comrades and countrymen. A current example could be the Saudis. They look like they are getting tougher on terrorism, but most experts conclude that there is still some family (and oil) money funding the Wahhabi terrorist groups, and that many connected to the royal family are providing safe haven for terrorists. So does this mean that all Muslims and two-face and canÂ’t be trusted? I think not! But that book used that very Buchannonish argument to deride our involvement in the Middle East. And what if, instead of Muslims, I implied the same logic to Jews or Africans. I would be called a racist or bigot.
The statement “Makes American Democracy not really workable for the Muslim people” seems presumptuous to me. Before the American Revolution, most Englishmen could not fathom a workable government without a sovereign. Yet here we are without a sovereign. And if democracy doesn't work for Muslims, then why do so many immigrate to western, democratic countries such as Britton, France, and the US? Why did 8 million plus in Iraq risk their lives to go to the polls to vote this year? Assuming the Iraqi effort succeeds, their democracy certainly will not look exactly like ours; but where does it say that it has to in order to succeed?
PS. I love you Sarah (don't tell your hubby).
"Just a little thought - One of the core beliefs of Islam is the unity of church and state. Makes American Democracy not really workable for the Muslim people".
But don't many argue that Iraq under Saddam was a secular government, as is Syria purported to be? Yet they are / were run by loyal Muslims. And isn't that why Osama supposedly did not collaborated with Saddam?
Church and State unity has extreme variations. There are many democracies where Church and State coexists successfully. Israel is one, England is another. After the Constitution was signed, several of the U States had official state religions. One of those was Thomas Jeffersons home state, Virginia. As far as I know, the first acknowledged democracy, the Greek prototype, had no such separation. The kind of situation I'’m deriding is where the State functions at the privilege and whim of the church or religious sect, such as that under Taliban rule.
My Rare Form drummer, Dan, made a similar argument that trying to install a democracy in Iraq was futile, but his argument was based on a book that came out a couple of years ago that suggested that Muslims, due to their culture, learn from birth to deal with the world with two faces, by saying one thing but doing another, and therefore cannot be trusted. It is second nature to them. One example was Arafat. During the 90s, he would talk of truce to the western leaders and news forums, but when back in Palestine, he would still preach "“Death to Israel" to his comrades and countrymen. A current example could be the Saudis. They look like they are getting tougher on terrorism, but most experts conclude that there is still some family (and oil) money funding the Wahhabi terrorist groups, and that many connected to the royal family are providing safe haven for terrorists. So does this mean that all Muslims and two-face and canÂ’t be trusted? I think not! But that book used that very Buchannonish argument to deride our involvement in the Middle East. And what if, instead of Muslims, I implied the same logic to Jews or Africans. I would be called a racist or bigot.
The statement “Makes American Democracy not really workable for the Muslim people” seems presumptuous to me. Before the American Revolution, most Englishmen could not fathom a workable government without a sovereign. Yet here we are without a sovereign. And if democracy doesn't work for Muslims, then why do so many immigrate to western, democratic countries such as Britton, France, and the US? Why did 8 million plus in Iraq risk their lives to go to the polls to vote this year? Assuming the Iraqi effort succeeds, their democracy certainly will not look exactly like ours; but where does it say that it has to in order to succeed?
PS. I love you Sarah (don't tell your hubby).
Thursday, July 07, 2005
One Other Thing
No, make that two!
A. For those who espouse the idea that the Afghanistan invasion was justified but the Iraq invasion was not, and is what lead to the bombings in London today, do you really think that kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan would not be reason enough for the attacks?
B. Don't call the insurgents in Iraq "Freedom Fighters". That term is reserved for people who are fight for the cause of freedom, not only from foreign occupying forces, but also from repressive forces from with-in. "Freedom Fighters" fight for the rights of the individual along with the rights of the country. The terrorists in Iraq only want either a return to the murderous ways of Saddam, when they had power, or a new repressive Taliban type government, where church and state are one. Neither of these can be allowed to happen, no matter the cost.
PS. Why some libs are so against a church + state government here, but tolerate it there I will never understand.
Sorry. I needed to vent.
A. For those who espouse the idea that the Afghanistan invasion was justified but the Iraq invasion was not, and is what lead to the bombings in London today, do you really think that kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan would not be reason enough for the attacks?
B. Don't call the insurgents in Iraq "Freedom Fighters". That term is reserved for people who are fight for the cause of freedom, not only from foreign occupying forces, but also from repressive forces from with-in. "Freedom Fighters" fight for the rights of the individual along with the rights of the country. The terrorists in Iraq only want either a return to the murderous ways of Saddam, when they had power, or a new repressive Taliban type government, where church and state are one. Neither of these can be allowed to happen, no matter the cost.
PS. Why some libs are so against a church + state government here, but tolerate it there I will never understand.
Sorry. I needed to vent.
Blast in London
I want all the Bush-hating, lefty terrorist sympathizers to look at this and tell me they still believe Michael "There is no terrorist threat" Moore is their sage. Through-out Europe, every known radical Muslim extremist needs to be detained and shaken down for info, like they do at Gitmo. The pacifists in Europe (I'm looking your way, Chirac) needs to realize we are at war against these extremist, and have been since at least 1979, circa Iran, if not longer. Playing nice won't satisfy them. It never satisfies any group with stated ambitions of world domination. Wanting peace is great and noble and all, but there is no peace when one side sees glory in blowing up trains and buses and buildings filled with innocent people. They want to destroy all infidels. That includes YOU! They don't care if you sympathize with their cause or not. Do you think one of the terrorists was on a bus, counted the number of pacifists on it, and decided "Too many of our allies are on this bus. I won't blow it up." That's stupid. Spain and France bought themselves some time by laying down in the face of the threat. They bought a false peace, because sooner or later they will do something, prosecute someone, that ticks off the extremist, which will make them a target also. This attack today must unify Europe and intensify their resolve against the Muslim extremist who think it is their duty to kill innocent civilians. Unless of coarse you subscribe to the Ward Churchill "Little Eichmann's" philosophy, in which case, all Westerners deserve to die.
Friday, July 01, 2005
My First Album
Corey over at OPIEblue got me thinking about the first LP I ever bought. It was "Out of Sight" by K-Tel, released in 1975 (ish). It featured "Rock the Boat" by Hues Corp., "Having My Baby" by Paul Anka, "I've Got The Music in Me" by Kiki Dee, and "The Streak" by Ray Stevens. THIS is the only decent link I could find so far, but it does list the tracks on the album. I don't remember just why I had to spend my hard-earned allowance on this, but there it is. The next album I remember buying was Foriegner's debut album in 1977. I think I still have it. Why did I wait so long between LP purchases??? Maybe I was traumatized by the realization that I had blown my hard-earned allowance on K-tel's "Out of Sight".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
