February 24, 2006
Am I the Only Californian
. . . who didn't even know we
had levees here? Well, of course we must: how else could we steal water for agriculture in the Central Valley? But other than that "keep the produce coming; I like water; faster, please" attitude, I hadn't thought much about how we actually channel the stuff. Stupid of me, really.
Arnold knew, though. Along with Crime-Fightin' Feinstein, who co-signed his letter asking for Federal funds. (No. Thanks for asking: I'll never forgive her for tipping off the Nightstalker when he was in SF. What a stupid woman; Ramirez' victims deserved better than that.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:45 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Di-Fi tipped off the Nightstalker? What?
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at February 25, 2006 08:37 AM (28wud)
2
You didn't know? Darlin', you need to get more than 20 miles inland
sometime in your life!
Then again, I have an unfair advantage in the "knowing California has levees" war 'cause I grew up in Sacramento.
Posted by: McGehee at February 25, 2006 10:14 AM (lAOTn)
3
McGehee: The state goes more than 20 miles inland? Say
what?
Oh! You mean Yosemite!
Stuart: When Ramirez was in the Bay Area, DiFi was mayor of SF. The cops told her they knew for a damned fact that the Nightstalker was in her city, and they shared with her the pivotal/confidential piece of information: they had ID'd the pattern on his tennis shoes from some of his SoCal crimes. She released that little datum to the press, and the next thing you know, the shoes are in the SF Bay, the cops have one less tool for tracking him, and evidence tying him to his crimes has been destroyed.
This is, of course, without even getting into the arguments over her role in the "Twinkie murders" (Moscone and Milk):
After Dan White assassinated Mayor George Moscone he "slipped out and ran across City Hall's rotunda. He used a passkey which his aide had given him and let himself in the back door to the supervisor's office. Dianne Feinstein saw him along the way. She called to him as he passed, but he ignored her." The then went on the kill Harvey Milk ...And police took the opportunity to do a little gay-bashing of their own, raiding bars and beating up the clientele. The officers on the line made it no secret that they saw Dan White as a hero. ... The jury found White guilty only of voluntary manslaughter.
The argument is that she might have been able to save Harvey Milk's life if she'd been more proactive, though not everyone can think that quickly, and I honestly don't believe that--no matter how ambitious she was--she wanted these guys murdered to further her own ambitions. It did, of course, end up helping her career.
But she's against military-looking guns, and for the "war on drugs," so she must be tough on crime. Right?
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 25, 2006 04:01 PM (s96U4)
4
Wow--I don't remember having heard that--yet another reason to be disgusted with her, and with SF politics. Is there any accountability out there? Not that there is any in Chicago. We have had one-party rule here since the dawn of time . . .
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at February 26, 2006 01:17 PM (6z8Ep)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Now These People
are the ones who need the fucking
Prozac.
Or a little lead poisoning; one of the two.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.
Harrell Sums Up
. . . the
Port Deal Controversy.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:11 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Nice post.
I still haven't heard a thing from the MSM on who is running the rest of the ports. I guess the only way they get the news is if it is leaked or shoved down their throats.
Posted by: Jack at February 24, 2006 08:47 PM (w+UVk)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
So Stick That in Your Transmogrifier
. . . and
parse it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:29 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
This Is an Idea . . .
whose
time has come.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:13 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
So I Ran Out of Prozac.
And I've been too depressed to get more.
Send me some SSRIs, stat.
I wonder if the PayPal button will work for pharmaceuticals. It should, you know; I would think drugs would be a perfectly acceptable way to tip a blogger. A good entry would go for some bud. A really funny one would get me a week's worth of Prozac. Something truly provocative would net me a few Ambien 10s, and if I hit it out of the park, you PayPal me a few Tylenol 3s to help me batten down the hatches next time I have a bad period. Next person to choose me as his/her blog-crush can buy me a little Tanqueray. Tanqueray 10 if you've convinced yourself you're in love with me.
This is a workable system.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:52 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Personally, I find a prescription & a pharmacy to be a great shortcut.
Betty Butterfield strongly recommends
Mexican pharmacies for all your mood-altering needs
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 24, 2006 09:26 AM (871nV)
2
I can't help you with Prozac, but I've got some Zoloft I could part with.
I think your tip-jar idea is kinda bogus though. Everybody knows that bloggers produce more entertaining content when they're unmedicated than when they're all drugged up.
Posted by: Totally Not Jeff Harrell at February 24, 2006 11:31 AM (SesmD)
3
Jeff: the pharmacy is
all the way down the hill. I'd have to
get into my car. (Though I will today.)
Not Jeff: What a grim thought. I mean, truth be told I can live without mary jane and alcohol. And I can white-knuckle it through the cramps. Without the sleeping pills I'm just up all night, and often happily so. But the panic attacks when I'm off Prozac are truly debilitating. Stepping into an elevator or onto a plane is a big deal when I'm all the way off. Ugh.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 24, 2006 12:29 PM (s96U4)
4
I used to get panic attacks, & now always keep a pill case in my pocket with a Valium in it. It tricks your mind, since panic attacks are driven by fear of being out of control. You know you can always pop the Valium. Before I get on a plane, I take a quarter of a Valium.
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 24, 2006 01:03 PM (871nV)
5
That isn't a bad idea. I guess my equivalent is the way I've come to regard my one-drink-per-flight as a sort of entitlement: that bloody Mary or gin and tonic rewards me for getting on the plane all orderly-like without freaking, and keeps me from freaking out if we hit turbulence.
I do not like stepping into a tube to be shot across the country with a bunch of strangers in my space.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 24, 2006 01:38 PM (s96U4)
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at February 24, 2006 03:47 PM (JAozc)
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 24, 2006 07:57 PM (s96U4)
8
Only between consenting adults.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at February 24, 2006 10:28 PM (JAozc)
9
How about a gift certificate for an online Canadian pharmacy? You redeem it, they mail you your shit, you pop it and you're nice.
If only.....
Posted by: Daniel at February 24, 2006 10:59 PM (GIhW0)
10
Oh, wait. That won't work. I don't get nice. I just get a bit
less bitchy.
I can send you some links to nice webloggers, though.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 25, 2006 01:03 AM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
About That Civil War in Iraq . . .
don't count your broken omelet eggs
before they're hatched. Or something.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.
February 23, 2006
Nice Little Discussion.
It's happening at
Krempasky's blog, and (primarily) at
On Tap. Krempasky postulates:
Traditional (read: career) reporters who have never had a “run-in” with bloggers are a lot like the wide-eyed college kid who still drinks tequila.
Traditional reporters who have had that “run in” tend to become one of two people:
1. The cautious but respectful one that realizes that thereÂ’s fire in that there bottle. One? Two? No problem. Life of the party and all that. Five? Call your office, you wonÂ’t be in today.
2. The villain at the end of every Scooby Doo episode shaking his fist at the sky (or in handcuffs) saying, “if it wasn’t for those damn kids . . . ”
[Yes, everyone. I fixed a typo in the quote. I really can't help myself, okay? Get off my back. I didn't change "damn" to "stupid," so I'm not wearing my fact-checking hat. But the proofreading one is permanently attached to my head.]
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:17 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Everyone knows the canonical quote is "if it wasn't for those meddling kids!"
Posted by: John at February 23, 2006 05:40 PM (y1z3c)
2
I'm positive I heard "stupid" at some point . . . we'll have to review the scripts, now.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 05:47 PM (s96U4)
3
Alcohol and webloggers always seem to be near each other. We're like really old-school journalists.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at February 23, 2006 09:37 PM (JAozc)
4
I always relate to the old stereotype about how the reporters are in these rumpled suits, and manage to look homely no matter what. I'm like that with my laptop and briefcase and handbag and whatnot: on the surface, at least, very scattered.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 11:06 PM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Tomorrow, 12:00 noon. Washington, D.C.
Hitchens:
Update, Feb. 22: Thank you all who've written. Please be outside the Embassy of Denmark, 3200 Whitehaven Street (off Massachusetts Avenue) between noon and 1 p.m. this Friday, Feb. 24. Quietness and calm are the necessities, plus cheerful conversation. Danish flags are good, or posters reading "Stand By Denmark" and any variation on this theme (such as "Buy Carlsberg/ Havarti/ Lego") The response has been astonishing and I know that the Danes are appreciative. But they are an embassy and thus do not of course endorse or comment on any demonstration. Let us hope, however, to set a precedent for other cities and countries. Please pass on this message to friends and colleagues.
It would be lovely to see this in other cities as well. Perhaps it should be in every city, on every Friday at noon. But if you're in the D.C. area, please consider going, for it is certainly happening there.
Via Foster.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:04 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.
The Port Issue
As usual, Malkin is able to make a cogent-sounding—yet somehow still unpersuasive—
case for the DPW deal being an unwarranted risk. But at least we can't accuse her of not having enough information on it: go to her site, and you may drown in data. (Not all of it helpful, mind you: but it does contain facts, which we could all use more of.)
Via commenter Jack, though I should have realized Malkin would be a treasure-trove on this.
Contrariwise, Hackbarth has an update on senatorial self-importance in this arena.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:50 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
Jealousy
With writer's group looming tonight, I look at all the raw material I have in my files. As usual, every single thing I've ever written sucks. If it doesn't suck, I've already read it aloud in group and received the usual critiques ("less dialogue, please" "is that really autobiographical? You're a fucking freak, aren't you?" "Your fiction has too many characters in it, and I can't keep 'em straight." "Do you ever think of anything other than sex?" [Answers: fuck off, yes, fuck off, no]).
I should read from my Big-Ass Crime Novel, but that sucks more than usual this week. In desperation, I turn to an embryonic piece I've had on the back burner for a while about triangle relationships in my teenage years. I start to flesh it out, and end up with something I'm (just barely) willing to read tonight. Presumably that will end up being part of my looming semi-autobiographical flim-flam.
But at least I'm not writing poetry any more, which is a step up. I think.
When all else fails, I metaphorically take off my clothes: the story begins with my feelings about jealousy, and a few snapshots from times I felt it very strongly. I'm not discussing envy, here: I'm talking about jealousy, when you desire attention from someone who's enraptured by another person. It's an amazing feeling, because it's so purely an expression of id. And it's the most bald-faced liar of any emotion: what else can make you murderous at the same time you feel disempowered and insignificant?
When I shut off the computer in relief to make myself my eighteenth cup of tea for the day, I think about the songs I've heard that have tried to capture not just the pain of jealousy, but its ugliness as well. How do you write about an experience so universal, so painful, and so prone to transform the sufferer into a complete monster?
The partial green-eyed discography:
• "Jealous Again," The Black Crowes
• "Alison," Elvis Costello
• "Jealousy," by the Gin Blossoms, which conveys the energy, but not necessarily the excruciating pain of the experience.
• "Is She Really Going Out with Him?" Joe Jackson
• that Marianne Faithfull song "Why D'ya Do It?" which documents the ugliness of jealousy, but fails IMHO because it becomes ugly itself.
• "Jealous Again," Black Flag
• the Alannis Morissette song "You Oughta Know." This might be the best effort: it's got plenty of energy, which—say what you migh—jealousy will give you, though I don't mean that in a good way. ("Will she go down on you in a theater?" "And every time I run my fingers down his back, I hope you feel it—yeah, do you feel it?")
• The Pursuit of Happiness' "It's Hard to Laugh" ("You have to laugh to prevent yourself from cryin'").
• "Jealousy" by Queen; one of the reflective, mournful takes.
• "I Want You," by Elvis Costello, which is quiet and reflective, but no less intense than tunes with lots of drums and bass. It tears my heart out every time I hear it. ("I want to hear the things you do that we did, too . . . were you fool enough to love it when you heard him say, 'I want you'?")
Did your id ever lie to you more than when you were jealous? And how did you come to terms with the situation?
Do you know anyone who escaped this?—and did they really, or did they just learn to lie and pretend they were above it?
How ugly did you get when you were jealous? What's the worst thing you've ever done under its influence? (No criminal confessions, please. Don't make me call the cops or anything like that.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:29 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 621 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Nothing worse than a little stake-out surveillance action on my part a few years ago and a thorough search of her palm pilot.
As for the id's lying, it does not strike me as incongruous for feelings of impotence, insignificance, and disempowerment to lead to murderous rage on the part of some people. In fact it seems entirely understandable--how enraging to have oneself accounted as nothing. So I'm not sure what you mean by the id lying to you, you know?
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at February 23, 2006 04:57 PM (REXOp)
2
But you aren't nothing. And I'm not, either. Yet in our jealous moments, we get attached to the rather odd notion that
who we are has to do with how much attention so-and-so is paying to us. (And never mind the fact that so-and-so is often a bad match for us.)
That is a lie. We are who we are, and we're precious and valuable. That's entirely independent of what so-and-so thinks or feels.
We, the jealous, are universally feared for our unpredictability and volatility. That's why the cops come looking for us when they find dead bodies.
In an not-unrelated issue, that's also why we get locked up a lot.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 05:30 PM (s96U4)
3
I've seen jealousy swirl and surge around me. I can't say that I've experienced it that much.
The worst was when Daisycat was *trying* to make me jealous the summer we met, by wanting to spend some time with this loser geek she was playing against me.
But I knew it for what it was, let her play her little game, and called her bluff. In the end I got the girl, 'cause I knew the geek just didn't stack up in any way to me.
(*strut, strut, strut*)
Posted by: Desert Cat at February 23, 2006 07:38 PM (xdX36)
4
OK, I get it.
I agree that to have one's sense of well-being riding entirely on the estimation of others is to live a lie. But I can think of an example just as bad as jealousy: pride. There the id is lying about how great one is, right?
Posted by: Stuart Fullerton at February 23, 2006 09:13 PM (80oWh)
5
Sure (though actually, it's probably the ego telling the lie). However, pride is a much more civilized emotion: jealousy is very primal. Very basic and childlike.
I just have the sense that pride tends to be more complex.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 11:10 PM (s96U4)
6
You have to get hit with jealousy to know what it is. I'm not talking about the few seconds everyone feels now and again, I mean the type that hits like a disease and stays around for years--three, in my case. The type where emotions are kept alive as if the "trigger" had just happened, with the same physiological reactions/responses. I was thirty when I got my "education" and thought myself immune, having experienced breakups before. Twenty-one years have passed and I still don't want to think about it for fear that it could all start all over again. Feelings? Absolute powerlessness, hopelessness, and unfairness. It may take two to make a relationship work, but it only takes one to walk away and blow it all to Hell. With no recourse. Friends are useless, and most don't even want to hear the first exposition, much less the constant rehashing. You are totally alone. You realize that everything you do, everything you think of doing, will only make matters worse and leave you looking like more of a fool. And yet you still consider them. You start to think that maybe those that murder their lovers are really the compassionate ones--if she really loved me she would have just given me a triple tap to the head and moved along. I won't be pressing charges.
Posted by: Darrell at February 24, 2006 10:20 AM (uehZJ)
7
The devastation of a breakup can be overpowering. Mine haven't had a lot of jealousy in them: mostly the jealousy has been in cases of unrequited love, open relationships. That kind of thing.
The worst breakups I ever had led me to 1) stop eating more than a little for some months. (My weight dropped to about 97 pounds from its healthy 115-120 average at that time.) And: 2) wear nothing but shades of gray and black. (Although I still had to actually break up with that person myself; he'd moved on, though, and I knew it.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 24, 2006 12:42 PM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Respecting My Husband's Incorrect Choices
I managed to commandeer Attila the Hub's laptop computer for a while today until I made up with my own. And I would like
full credit for not fixing his browser bookmarks, which are all wrong (also, there aren't enough of them; if you don't have to scroll for five minutes, you don't have enough).
I'd also like full credit for not fixing the pre-sets on his radio when I borrow his car. Those are likewise not as they should be.
Question: What went wrong? Why don't I rule the world? I could save all of you a lot of decision-making time on these issues. You'd actually find it rather liberating.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:25 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 121 words, total size 1 kb.
1
And the winner is, Attila Girl, for putting up with our insufferable nonsense.
When I used my sister's (tired old) PC, I did
not erase my brother-in-law's bookmarks, which include luminaries like Juan Cole, Dkos, Atrios, etc.
However, I did add a few, just to see if he'd notice
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 23, 2006 06:48 AM (zmzBp)
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 11:30 AM (s96U4)
3
I thought that was a male trait -- a biological/genetic need to fix things. I fix things until I hear a female voice yelling, "Stop that!"
Posted by: Attila (Pillage Idiot) at February 24, 2006 10:18 AM (C31gH)
4
Well, there's plenty of evidence that I'm actually a 17-year-old boy trapped in a curvaceous, short female body. I mean, what do I like?--guns. Trains. Tanks.
I don't do the channel surfing thing when I watch TV, but I do it in my car when I listen to the radio. No attention span whatsoever.
I used to try to fix people, until I realized they are simply, as a race, beyond repair.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 24, 2006 12:47 PM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Bombing of the Shia Shrine
This is some
fucked-up shit. Omar at Iraq the Model has the
local scoop:
• President Talabani promises to make rebuilding the shrine his personal responsibility and to donate the required money from his own.
• Head of the Sunni endowment sheikh Ahmed al-Samarra'I announces that he will allocate 2 billion dinars (~1.4 million $) for the rebuilding of the shrine from the treasury of the Sunni endowment.
• Huge demonstrations in many of Iraq's provinces including Samarra and Mosul where thousands of people condemned the attack.
• The top 4 Shia Ayatollahs hold a meeting at Sistani's home to discuss the situation.
• The Association of Muslim scholars and the Islamic Party condemn the "criminal act".
• Retaliatory attacks on reportedly 29 Sunni mosques and the Accord Front warns from the consequences of such violent reactions.
He also points out that it's very unlikely that Sunnis in Samorra were behind the attack, since the shrine has been there for a very long time, and Shia pilgramages to it help the local economy.
It really looks like this is another present to the Iraqis from the insurgent outsiders who are there to "help" (read: destroy the country).
But when the Ayatollah Sistani calls for protests, the situation is very dire.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:14 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Insurgents? What insurgents?
According to Iran's sweetheart Ahmadinejad the
US and Israelis did this.
Obviously it isn't just us americans who have cornered the market on spin.
Posted by: Yolanda at February 23, 2006 01:58 PM (dLzW2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 22, 2006
The Ports Deal
Sean basically
has this one right: there aren't a lot of good solid arguments against the DPW running our ports. I'm also hearing a lot of "ick, Arabs" stuff that's pretty offensive.
Remember, folks: if we turn into a nation of bigots, the terrorists will abso-fuckin'-lutely have won.
UPDATE: David Foster of Photon Courier and Chicago Boyz is smarter than I am (which is offensive to me, but he doesn't seem to do it on purpose) and he responds in my comments:
Remember, ports are used for export as well as import (as hard as this is to remember sometimes) What happens if we need this export capacity in support of a major military operation?...and the government in question disapproves of the operation and decides to shut down the ports? We will have just lost a huge % of our total outbound freight capacity, until we can take control and reorganize things.
This is not a theoretical objection. Already, during the current Iraq war, a European company refused to supply JDAM missile parts on grounds that its country was a neutral in that war.
At a bare minimum, the company and the government should be required to post a surety bond, forfeitable in event of nonperformance as described above, of such magnitude that its loss would bankrupt the company and take a major chunk of of the hide of the government.
And Yolanda adds:
The UAE has not done much to vociferously support America in front of its citizens, nor does it forcefully condemn acts of terrorism perpetrated by its citizens.
She suggests that deals of this magnitude should be reserved for more reliable partners in the War on Terror.
I'm still wondering, however, what the real risks are here: presumably for the DPW to stop running the ports for some reason (because we're defending those nasty Jews again, say) would cost them money they couldn't afford to lose. I'm still more concerned about our dependence on foreign oil than I am about this particular deal.
But let's keep talking.
UPDATE 2: Marshall Manson weighs in over at On Tap. He'd like us all to take a chill pill, too.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:11 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Remember, ports are used for export as well as import (as hard as this is to remember sometimes) What happens if we need this export capacity in support of a major military operation?...and the government in question disapproves of the operation and decides to shut down the ports? We will have just lost a huge % of our total outbound freight capacity, until we can take control and reorganize things.
This is not a theoretical objection. Already, during the current Iraq war, a European company refused to supply JDAM missile parts on grounds that its country was a neutral in that war.
At a bare minimum, the company and the government should be required to post a surety bond, forfeitable in event of nonperformance as described above, of such magnitude that its loss would bankrupt the company and take a major chunk of of the hide of the government.
Posted by: David Foster at February 22, 2006 05:21 PM (5F0ML)
2
Telling the UAE to take a hike isnÂ’t racism.
The UAE has not done much to vociferously support America in front of its citizens, nor does it forcefully condemn acts of terrorism perpetrated by its citizens. In fact, its government controlled Religious channel airs such shows that host:
Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhri, and Faraj Shalhoub, to discuss the recruitment and training of Palestinian suicide bombers (http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=117)
Hamas leader, Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, on Al-Arabiya TV (Dubai) and discussed the Jews and their history of destroying societies. (http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=40)
Or the all time favorite: Al-ArabiyaÂ’s TV Special on the Culture of Martyrdom and Suicide Bombers. (http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=807)
Just like the Muslim countries “take their business elsewhere” when the Danish publish a stupid cartoon, so should we “take our business elsewhere” when Muslim countries like the UAE do not do enough to discourage terrorism by its citizens.
Posted by: Yolanda at February 22, 2006 08:20 PM (dLzW2)
3
Could they actually shut down the ports? I keep hearing about how we are abdicating our security to the UAE but that is not true. The Coast Guard will still be in charge of security.
And is having the British in charge really that much better. Remember Richard Reed, British and and Islamic terrorist. The British have not done that well protecting their bus and subway lines, why should we think they are better at this.
Also the liberals are total hypocrits on this. It is discrimnatory to single out and search people from the middle east getting on an airplane but it is ok to not let them run the ports?
And who would run the ports if not the UAE? There is NO american company that does this. Would it be ok with the liberals for Haliburtun to get a no bid contract for running the ports?
My first thought is that it is wrong for the UAE to run the ports.
My second thought is what do they actually control, since they run the ports on the other end and only about 5% of shipments are inspected couldn't they already ship in what they want?
Third thought is can't terrorist just off load an A-bomb at sea and bring it in on a speed boat if they wanted to.
Fourth thought, why are the liberals all of a sudden so intrested in terrorism and security when they have opposed it up to this point? Is there something else going on that the MSM has not reported yet?
I'm sorry but I reserve any opinon until further facts are presented. We are being asked to jump to a conclusion and decry Bush by liberals and some conservatives without a good explaination of the facts. I have the feeling this is much more about union contracts, lobbyists and money.
Posted by: Jack at February 22, 2006 08:30 PM (sIyTu)
4
Jack,
Some concervatives?
Senate majority leader Frist (a RE-PU- BLI-CAN) is engineering the legislation to "postpone" this deal. House Speaker Dennis Hastert & Peter King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, (all RE-PU-BLI-CANS) have serious concerns over this deal.
Lieberman (A DE-MO-CRAT from CT) is in favor of it and supports Bush. Tom Dashcle has been hired to Loby in favor of the deal.
There's no party bondaries regarding this issue... yet.
What news are you watching?
Posted by: Yolanda at February 22, 2006 09:09 PM (dLzW2)
5
Jack...a couple comments;
1)The Danish shipping company Maersk has a subsidiary that is a major port operator, and could be an alternative if we were looking for one.
2)It's true that only about 5% of inbound shipments are inspected; however, this doesn't mean people can ship in anything they want. I'm a little rusty on the process, but basically what happens is that the entity shipping the goods (or their agent) electronically sends documents describing the contents to the port operator and to Customs, describing the contents of the shipment. A decision can then be made as to who is trustworthy and who is not, and physical inspection resources allocated accordingly.
What concerns me is the possibility that a port operator (or a set of rogue employees) having *physical* access to the containers could bypass the documentation process and get something out the gate without Customs or other govenment entity being informed. THe degree to which this is a real risk is a function of the detailed flow of materials and information within the port; I wish someone who is knowledeable about current port operations would chime in on this.
See this very interesting article from a shipping trade publication, which was published before the deal was finalized.
http://www.floridashipper.com/news/article.asp?ltype=feature&sid=799
Posted by: David Foster at February 23, 2006 06:42 AM (5F0ML)
6
Yolanda;
Anyone who believes the MSM is not paying attention.
Yes some Republicans are against this. But are they just giving a knee jerk reaction or have they investigated this too. Is all of the Rebulican party against this? Is all of the Democratic party agains this? Just because some of the leaders are does not make a majority.
Is this really about money and unions?
I am saying lets not make a racist judgement based on feelings. Lets make a logical judgement after waiting till all of the facts are in. And so far all we are getting is MSM propaganda. And how do I know it is propaganda, because the MSM votes to the liberal side of Berkley CA. I say yes we should look in to it, but lets not be like liberals and vote our feelings.
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 10:47 AM (VuU/a)
7
David;
A Danish company? Isn't that still a foriegn company? Aren't the Danes already folding to Islamic pressure because of cartoons? Don't the Danes already have a high Muslim population and high Muslim imigration? Can't terrorist infitrate the Danish company and do exactly what an UAE company could do?
And exactly where did you get the idea that a foriegn operator whould be working here? Wouldn't the local operators still be US citizens? Or did we import hundreds of workers from the UK? Would the US unions have approved that?
And do you actually think a foriegn country could shut down the ports in the US during a war? How fast would any president declare marshall law and take over the ports in the US.
And exactly which European company refused to ship JDAMS and was it a UAE controlled port?
And are you telling me that a piece of paper can't be falisfied, say a shipping manifast. How about a cargo container is shipped in which it says lawnmowers for Wal-mart from China. It is in port but BEFORE it is inspected it blows up (A-Bomb). Would we ever be able to say who shipped it or even which container blew up. A LOT of the containers that come into this country are already shipped through UAE ports and the cargo is stored in US ports before being inspected (maybe).
My answer still stands. Although I have reservations I will not allow myself to be swayed by emotionalizm based on racist fear FROM EITHER PARTY.
Give me more facts. Right now I am seeing the MSM reporting a knee jerk reaction from both parties and I don't know how real that is since I haven't seen much from the MSM gives me any confidence in what they report.
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 11:07 AM (VuU/a)
8
I share some of Jack's frustration that it's hard to get good information about how these processes work.
But David is not a racist merely for thinking the deal could entail risks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 11:37 AM (s96U4)
9
Jack,
You keep on falling back on that tired catch phrase of "knee jerk racist reaction"
There is nothing racist about this!
We are a country at war... are we not?
UAE hasn't completely proven itself to be on OUR side of this war.
Six years ago when China Ocean Shipping wanted to move to a former Navy base in Southern California, Capitol Hill objected on the grounds of national security concerns. And this was BEFORE 9/11!
I think America's current situation calls for more "wariness" regarding control of its ports.
Because we are at war, we can wire tap American citizens with ties to the middle east, but we'll turn around and sell management of our ports to THE MIDDLE EAST!!!
My brain's gonna explode...
Posted by: Yolanda at February 23, 2006 12:01 PM (dLzW2)
10
Excuse me if David or anyone else infered that I said he was a racist.
But I am reminded of WWII and all of the Japanese that were intered. Granted some of them were spys but we did not intere the Germans on the East coast. And that is how I see this. Everyone is jumping to a conclusion because of where the company is located and who runs it and because they don't look euopean and white, I'm not sure the UK should have run this either. Supposedly they (UAE) are friendly to the US which can't be very good for them and their relationship with their neighbors. And I don't think we should just dump on anyone who is friendly to us with out proof.
Now granted if it was a 'Palastine' company I would be rushing to judgement too. But I have yet to hear how having a UAE company is any different then having a UK company run it. If it is so important why doesn't the US government run it?
I just want everyone to take a step back, take a deep breath, and wait to see if this is not just another overblown hyped up situation like Cheney's accidental shooting. I have seen too many incidents of the MSM media throwing everything they can against the wall hoping to see something stick so they can attack Bush.
What exactly does running the ports entail? I haven't seen anything yet on what exactly they do when they run this port. They certainly don't tell the unions what to do, not even our own government does that.
And to Yolanda;
Do we wire tap people with middle east connections or do we wire tap anyone in the whole world (even if in America) if they call a cell phone owned by a terrorist? I have seen nothing released from the government that says exactly what criteria NSA uses, only supposition from the MSM. I am leary of accepting anything the MSM says about anything.
And to everyone else, I dont' support the sale and I don't oppose it either, I am saying lets get the hyperventialtion out of the way and look at the facts.
Now has anyone got facts?
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 01:51 PM (Pkzay)
11
David;
Do you have any information on what is actually done by the current operators (UK) in their operation of the ports?
Does anyone here know what the companies actual job description is?
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 01:57 PM (Pkzay)
12
David;
I followed your link. I also found it interesting that a Hong Kong co. was also in the bidding.
I keep wondering if Clinton was in office would the MSM media make as much noise if the Hong Kong co. won the bid. Even though Hong Kong is now part of Communist China.
I also wonder why there is no US company in the bidding. Doesn't the US have a company capable of running our ports? If they are such a vauluable resource and so important to our security why isn't this port operation limited to US only companies?
I still think there are too many questions, too many suppositions, and not enough facts.
One of the things I would like to know is why wasn't Bush informed of this before the fact if it is so critical.
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 02:06 PM (Pkzay)
13
Question for the group.
Who runs the rest of the ports?
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 02:18 PM (Pkzay)
14
Jack
Don't listen to MSM. I don't.
Jack,
To prove I'm not racist, I would have less of a problem with a private company from UAE wanting this port deal.
But in this case it is the UAE government! Not a private company.
Yes, Many US port terminals are owned by private foreign companies. But none are owned by a foreign government.
Posted by: Yolanda at February 23, 2006 02:25 PM (dLzW2)
15
I am reading a bunch of information at Michelle Malkins web site (now that is back up after a DOS attack). So far this is the best post I have seen with actual information.
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 02:32 PM (Pkzay)
16
"I am reading a bunch of information at Michelle Malkins web site (now that is back up after a DOS attack). So far this is the best post I have seen with actual information."
Just read it. I agree. Most infromative. Thanks!
Posted by: Yolanda at February 23, 2006 02:49 PM (dLzW2)
17
Group;
China runs the other ports, at least from this article;
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200602231409.asp
I now think that a thorough investigation should be made on the operation of all US ports and not just the UAE's operation.
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 02:50 PM (Pkzay)
18
I just have a moment now, but certainly a foreign company could shut down a port (terminal) operation that it was managing. The equipment and the workers might still be there, but if local management was directed to shut the port down (or, more probably, to refuse to handle cargo destined for country "x") then those shipments would stop. For the US to restart them would be possible, but would take time, including (a)obtaining the legal right to do so (b)finding qualified managers (c)understanding the systems & procedures in place. It's also likely that there would be serious IT issues, since remote servers would probably be involved iin the process and those could be shut down.
Posted by: David Foster at February 23, 2006 03:03 PM (5F0ML)
19
It could be that WRT any operation of this importance, it's important to have a "manual override"—a procedure for what to do if a decision is made to shut things down without what the DHS considers adequate reason. Otherwise, any organization (public, private, U.S., foreign) could theoretically be subject to a group of rogue operators creating this type of glitch at a critical time.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 03:39 PM (s96U4)
20
"exactly which European company refused to ship JDAMS and was it a UAE controlled port?"...the House Armd Svcs Committee (see link below) said that a subsidiary of Swatch refused to ship JDAM components which were to be assembled by Honeywell and Boeing into tail kits. I doubt seriously that a UAE controlled port, or any seaport at all, was involved, as these are components that weigh ounces rather than tons and are well-suited to air freight.
Note also that delivery of grenades to British forces was apparently blocked by the Swiss government.
armedservices(dot)house(dot)gov/issues/03-07-25washtimes.htm
(had to do it this way because the content filter objected to a normal link)
Posted by: David Foster at February 23, 2006 04:25 PM (5F0ML)
21
Theory FWIIW; (Subject to change with newer facts)
1. The MSM jumped on this to make Bush look bad.
2. The democrats jumped on this to make Bush look bad and to make themselves look good on defense in preperation of an election year.
3. The rebulicans jumped on this to catch up with the democrats on defense, to distance themselves from Bush (election year), and show that they are not Bush followers.
4. Neither MSM, democrats, or republicans know what running the ports entails but they are afraid to show their ignorance and they would much rather pratice partisan politics to gain an advantage as they know that the publics short memory will only remember todays headlines and not tomorrows facts.
5. The ports are an important asset, but letting any country other than the USA run them could be a risk without proper precautions. Even a USA company needs survailance and rules.
6. The UAE may or may not be a threat when operating our ports. Same caveat for China and the West coast ports (or any other country running them).
7. An independent panel should be formed to investigate this sale and whether it should go through. NO POLITICIANS should be on it.
8. The UAE should be allowed to montior the investigation and provide rebutal. They may be an innocent bidder being unjustly discriminated against.
9. The UAE has not shown outstanding support of the US but they are an Arab country surrounded by Arab countries. It is hard to be brave in that situation. But if they are to be involved in our ports and earn american money they must be more supportive of the US and must condem terrorism and help to capture and punish those in their country who don't or future contracts will not be offered and present ones will be recinded. (carrot or whip, either one to get them moving).
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 05:43 PM (r7Gp9)
22
Yolanda;
Sorry if you infered that I thought you were racist. It was not my intent.
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 05:47 PM (r7Gp9)
23
David;
Then would you agree that a Swiss 'company' should also not run our ports and being an Arab country should not have as much weight given to it as the MSM has?
If that is true then it is not just the UAE that should be thorougly checked but any company, even a US company.
Would anyone here feel safer if it was a US company that ran all of the US ports whose CEO was say,... George Soros? Cindy Sheehan? John Kerry? Al Gore?
Actually this whole thing has made me more suspecious of our politicians and more nervous of our security. I now feel that most of our politicians would rather play politics then really make the tough decisions.
Posted by: Jack at February 23, 2006 05:56 PM (r7Gp9)
24
UAE hasn't completely proven itself to be on OUR side of this war.
uh, i'm not sure what you mean by this, but UAE is listed by CENTCOM as part of the coalition in Iraq. (also on a side note, most of the water our soldiers drink over there is bottled in dubai.)
Posted by: maggie katzen at February 23, 2006 08:31 PM (rVzXG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Blogging May Be Light
. . . until I figure out what's wrong with my computer. I'm on Attila the Hub's PowerBook right now, while mine gets over whatever little mood it's in. I'm giving it a time out so it will learn to play nice with the other kids. Especially me.
Of course, if that doesn't work it's back to the Genius Bar at the Mac store; they are so tired of me there.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:01 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.
Holy shit.
I agree with
Bill. [Charlton Heston voice] Darn the luck!
Islam is not the enemy; Islamo-fascism is. There are plenty of perfectly decent, sane Muslims. Like these guys, for instance.
My argument with Islam has always been that too many mainstream Muslims have failed to condemn what the jihadis are doing, but that is also changing.
Via Protein Wisdom.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:56 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Muslims need to learn three things in order to become a truly modern society: Separation of mosque and state, individual interpretation of their holy writings, and moral restraint.
As things are, whenever Muslims become sufficiently powerful, they demand that their beliefs be incorporated into public law.
Individual interpretation of the Koran is strongly discouraged in Islam. You pick which learned scholar to follow; you don't try to figure it out for yourself.
And the Muslim world is so steeped in a "might-makes-right" worldview that by itself it explains virtually everything we see in Muslim behavior.
Posted by: John at February 22, 2006 06:30 PM (y1z3c)
2
hahahahahahaahahahaha!
Next you'll be agreeing with Rusty!
BTW, what is going on with LGF? Is it denial of service? Hacker jihad? Zombie down too, the last 24 hrs
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 22, 2006 07:10 PM (gda28)
3
I've been to LGF several times and all was normal. Try it again. Maybe you picked up a little "nasty" visiting leftist places you shouldn't visit. Try looking for blocked sites on your privacy report if you use Windows XP. It's happened to me before. A-holes are always playing games.
Posted by: Darrell at February 22, 2006 08:27 PM (yRSFw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 21, 2006
Uh-oh.
Time to
sterilize my coat-hanger again.
The problem with ultra-late-term abortions is that when a exception for the "health" of the mother—excuse me: innocent victim kidnapped by vicious alien fetus—is written into the law, the phrase is often interpreted to mean "mental health," rather than "physical health." And once that interpretation is permissible, nearly every abortion can be allowed because carrying the child to term will cause the woman "distress."
(And, before everyone stampedes to either agree with me or attack me, I need to point out that I am still pro-choice. But I'm tired of seeing women buffaloed into having abortions when there are better options available. And I'd like to see a few of the "safe, legal and rare" people act like that phrase has some real meaning to them.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:13 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm glad I beat the stampede! You are right, as usual. We all have to come out of our trenches and re-address all the issues involved. We are about to approach 50 million abortions and that can't sound right to anyone. I hope.
Posted by: Darrell at February 22, 2006 01:55 PM (YzQct)
2
Gee, Darrell,
Why don't you also count how many pregnancies were avoided by the use of birth control? That should inflate your numbers nicely. ;-)
Don't masturbate either, "every sperm is sacred!" (I love quoting Monty Python)
I'd bet that South Dakota must be looking pretty nice to you now.
Posted by: Yolanda at February 23, 2006 07:25 AM (dLzW2)
3
I bow to your superior logic! I "forgot' all about the moral equivalency between nonreproductive sperm emissions and abortion! Why, just fooling around on the back of an envelope for a second, since 120-600 million sperm are "lost" in a single careless or premeditated ejaculation and there is a US adult male population between the ages of 15 and 64 of roughly 100 million and assuming 10% ejaculate on any given day, we have the potential for 1200 trillion(10**12)-6000 trillion "lives" lost everyday! It makes NARAL look like pikers, doesn't it?
Heck, the guy in Sioux Falls having a "taffy pull" while repeating Yo-Lan-DA! in soft moans, has a lot more to answer for!
I'd like to see you coordinating the DNC's position in these matters. Please! Pretty please? They are always on the lookout for mainstream thinkers.
Posted by: Darrell at February 23, 2006 01:08 PM (kqFnR)
4
Okay, everyone's proven his/her point: we're all smart here.
But I would still like to see what can be done to curtail abortion that isn't coercive or overly statist.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 02:19 PM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Cotillion Ball!
. . . is hosted this week by classy
Cassandra, who put it together with sass and verve.
James Lileks is expected to drop by just to check out her cool mid-century graphix.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:16 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.
Hitch on the Cartoon War
Writing in
Slate:
There remains the question of Denmark: a small democracy, which resisted Hitler bravely and protected its Jews as well as itself. Denmark is a fellow member of NATO and a country that sends its soldiers to help in the defense and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. And what is its reward from Washington? Not a word of solidarity, but instead some creepy words of apology to those who have attacked its freedom, its trade, its citizens, and its embassies. For shame. Surely here is a case that can be taken up by those who worry that America is too casual and arrogant with its allies. I feel terrible that I have taken so long to get around to this, but I wonder if anyone might feel like joining me in gathering outside the Danish Embassy in Washington, in a quiet and composed manner, to affirm some elementary friendship. Those who like the idea might contact me at christopher.hitchens@yahoo.com, and those who live in other cities with Danish consulates might wish to initiate a stand for decency on their own account.
Good idea.
Via James Joyner, who quotes extensively and provides worthwhile commentary, concluding:
The impulse to not offend Muslims is decent and understandable. In the context of Muslims murdering innocents over free speech, however, it is also dangerous.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.
Queen vs. Led Zepp.
Discuss.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:10 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It's nobody's fault but mine that the levee broke as the song remained the same. You know, cause it's been a long time since I personally rock and rolled while going to California with an aching, in my heart. It's like, Crunge tim, and I just can't find that bridge. I also got knocked backassward going in through the out door to the house of the holy.
And it was all Mr Roboto's fault.
Posted by: William Teach at February 21, 2006 02:23 PM (TFSHk)
2
"Led Zeppelin, not disco, are the agents of stagnation." - Joe Strummer
Queen, on the other hand, was one of those quasi-glam groups like Sparks that managed to bridge Old School & New Wave
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 21, 2006 02:39 PM (wLMQq)
3
Related:
Robert Plant vs Ann Wilson. Discuss
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 21, 2006 02:40 PM (wLMQq)
4
Something tells me you're NOT TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, JEFF! J'accuse!
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 21, 2006 02:57 PM (XbEp3)
5
Yes.
Wait...what was the question again?
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at February 21, 2006 03:37 PM (1hM1d)
6
SERIOUSLY, if I never hear Stairway to Heaven again, it will be TOO SOON. I was a pup during those awful mid 70s when KLOS ruled by playing Layla & Stairway every hour on the hour, in between tired old Beatles & Stones. Zzzzzzz
Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 21, 2006 04:10 PM (wLMQq)
7
"Another One Bites The Dust" was my debate team theme song my senior year. So...I'm a little biased toward Queen, yeah.
"Don't try suicide,
You're just gonna hate it.
Nobody gives
Nobody gives
Nobody gives a damn."
We played that album to death, back in the team room that year.
Posted by: Desert Cat at February 21, 2006 06:10 PM (xdX36)
8
For their album, "Magazine," Heart edited "You Shook Me" to cut out a part at the end of the song where Ann Wilson immitated Robert Plant's vocal improvisation from the end of Led Zeppelin's version. So I think it would be Ann Wilson in three rounds tops. Always go with size and mass.
Posted by: Darrell at February 21, 2006 08:41 PM (67ZOx)
9
That better not be a fat joke, Buddy . . .
But now I have to hear the original version of that.
Plant's range was impressive, but he never really exploited it like Freddie Mercury did his own.
And just as most Tull fans don't want to hear "Bungle in the Jungle," I have no need to hear "Bohemian Rhapsody." I like the more obscure songs, like "Keep Yourself Alive." Or "The March of the Black Queen," which is really (along with "An Die Freude") my song.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 21, 2006 09:42 PM (XbEp3)
10
It was a size and mass joke, actually. It's all relative.
If you want to hear the original version of "You Shook Me," Mushroom Records pressed 5000 LPs of "Magazine" during the contractual dispute, They were sold in LA and Hollywood, Florida. Look for the disclaimer on the album cover back-- "Mushroom Records regrets that a contractual dispute has made it necessary to complete this record without the cooperation or endorsement of the group Heart, who have expressly disclaimed artistic involvement in completing this record." Make sure you check to see that the song order, sides A and B, varies from the version you can buy at Amazon. Look at the record: Someone can always insert a common record in a collectable sleeve.
Maybe one of your readers can help you. Or someone named "k" in Florida who may visit little record shops and flea markets.
Posted by: Darrell at February 22, 2006 12:21 PM (YzQct)
11
Freddy had a distinctive voice and excellent range. Plant was the Sinatra of Heavy Metal, the original type. Queen's best song was Tie Your Mother Down.
Queen had nowhere near the significance that Led Zed had and still has. Jimmy Page owns the best classic rock guitar licks, and the most. Achiles Last Stand, nothing better.
Queen was great. Zepelin was on another, higher plane. I can only stand to listen to Queen's Greatest Hits, and in small doses. Even the worst of the Zepelin albums is still damn good.
Posted by: Elvis at February 23, 2006 10:09 AM (qwHlq)
12
Unfortunately, when I was in high school any group had a lot of baggage. The problem with Led Zepp was that it was associated with the "stoner" crowd, and a lot of my friends considered themselves too intellectual for that music. (And my Westwood Village friends were pretty far in the other direction: more toward Black Sabbath, but we had nowhere to go to play music anyway--since we couldn't go home--so we were largely stuck with the radio.)
The fact that a lot of Zeppelin songs got saturation airplay didn't help with this at all. "Stairway," in particular, was the butt of a lot of jokes. I can just barely stand to listen to it now, after three decades or whatever.
Both groups featured incredible musicianship; both groups experimented with different musical styles. Queen had the advantage/disadvangage of comprising guys with Real Jobs in Other Fields, so they could be more playful on their first five albums (Queen, Queen II, Sheer Heart Attack, A Night at the Opera, A Day at the Races).
Brian May is, in my opinion, greatly underrated as a guitarist: after all, Queen didn't use any synthesizers at all on those first five albums--and this was at a time when it was standard procedure to do so. Furthermore, May actually built his own guitar in his father's garage as a teenager.
I can admire Plant's ability to screech on-pitch, but it doesn't thrill me the way Queen's harmonies do--or the way Mercury did when he threw his soul into hitting those bizarre high notes without lapsing into self-parody.
I listen to both, but my heart is with Queen (preferably early Queen).
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 11:56 AM (s96U4)
13
oh! k would like to help with a point in the right direction, Darrell, if nothing else.
But, unfortunately, k is a hermit and doesn't get out to the stores much these days. Complicated mobility and health issues, for about the last 15 years. So I wouldn't even know where to start.
That may improve some in the next year or so. We'll see. Meanwhile, there is one interesting thrift store I visit with Walter when he's home, and I'll definitely keep my eyes open there. They have all sorts of interesting stuff, and often enough, they don't know it.
Now: Can you tell me, why in the world did they pick Hollywood, FL?!?
Posted by: k at February 23, 2006 05:39 PM (Ffvoi)
14
Oh, I'm sure I could find that album if I could figure out how to play it (along with my all my other vinyl dustcatchers).
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 05:55 PM (s96U4)
15
You can still buy turntables, you know...Quite a few of them around, because of professional disk jockeys--the kind that lug vinyl to parties/clubs. Or you can have a pro copy your LPs into digital music files, then to CD...Ignore the "boos and hisses" from the purists. It'll cost you around $14/album. If you go the turntable route, expect to pay somewhere between $200-$400 for a good unit with a quality stylus and cartridge. I did find a $79 deal online that looks interesting(four out of five stars, 24 reviewers at NexTag)... see http://www.onlinecarstereo.com/CarAudio/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductID=15998
But i suspect you would like to have the fun of finding one...
Posted by: Darrell at February 23, 2006 10:02 PM (WSxK9)
16
MAGAZINE-Mushroom Records-1977(unauthorized release)
Original vinyl pressing contained the inner groove inscription "At Last" on Side 2.
# MRS-5008 LP
Tracklist: Side One "Heartless"*,"Without You"*,"Just The Wine"*,"Magazine"* Side Two:"Here Song","Devil Delight"*,"Blues Medley-Mother Earth/You Shook Me","I've Got The Music in Me".
The asterisk indicates a different version of the song from the standard available through Amazon, and may include rough lead vocals; different, longer running times; and some different instrumental solos. Mnay of these were live recordings from a 1975 performance at the Aquarius Tavern in North Seattle. Towards the end of the song "Magazine" you can hear a radio playing a eulogy for Elvis in the background. Also in the background you can hear an intro to "Magic Man" played backwards. Heart sued over the album and won the right to re-mix the contents to their satisfaction. That was a first.
Why Hollywood, Florida? I think it is just an East Coast stopping off point. Mushroom(not the Aussie firm with the name now) was in Vancouver, BC. I think they just hit both coasts. If you want to know more, check out the Wikipedia entry for "Charlie Richmond." I'm sure you'll just swoon when they talk about the Universal Audio vacuum tube mixing console and the 40 pre-amps! I know what sets women's hearts fluttering! Or maybe how to put them in a coma? Don't know which--sort of a problem.
I think that gives you enough to search on the Web... We're talking something like $20 for a clean copy here. If you'd like me to check, I have one of the best sources(for vinyl) in the country within 5 minutes of me--Beverly Records.
Posted by: Darrell at February 23, 2006 10:35 PM (WSxK9)
17
At the moment, my budget for musical upgrades is zero. With a little luck, though, in six months or so I'll be on the market for a turntable and the Heart album. (Just need another client--or to sell my stupid book--and we'll be off the super-skinny budget.)
Thanks for the info!
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 23, 2006 11:22 PM (s96U4)
18
Actually, I was never much of a Heart fan. But the Hollywood, FL bit threw me.
The Ft. Lauderdale airport's actually called the Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport. I get this impression they hopped on a plane, dropped off a bunch of records at Peaches', hit the beach and the bars - no SoBe scene, back in the day - then hopped back aboard and headed home.
Posted by: k at February 24, 2006 01:16 PM (Ffvoi)
19
Both are great in their own way. Queen were heavily influenced by the early Led Zep (see Queen I and II for evidence), but quickly found their own sound. Both bands were never afraid to experiment with a variety of musical styles - sometimes more successful than others - and like Bowie, that to me is a sign of real musicians. It takes a lot of guts for super-popular bands like them to risk falling on their faces, but I applaud their efforts.
Having seen Zep in 75, and Queen once in 76 and twice in 77. I give the live nod to Mr. Mercury and co. IMHO, Freddie was the greatest frontman rock has ever seen (yup, above Elvis, Jagger, Planty, etc), and he was an entertainer as well as top-notch vocalist and musician. Plus, he was funny and lovable as hell, camping it up to the Nth degree. If you ever get the chance to see or hear bootleg CDs or DVDs of them from 74-77, you'll be stunned at how great they were. I'm saddened that we will probably never see the likes of either band again.
Posted by: Happy the Man at February 25, 2006 12:22 PM (wZLWV)
20
I'm afraid I didn't see Queen live until 1980 (circa The Game), after Freddie had cut his hair and gone all macho on us. At the time I saw it as a sort of "sellout"; you know how humorless teenagers can be.
But since then I've seen DVDs of the "macho" Freddie in concert, and it looks like he's really having fun.
Posted by: Attila Girl at February 25, 2006 04:09 PM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
111kb generated in CPU 0.034, elapsed 0.1679 seconds.
218 queries taking 0.1504 seconds, 575 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.