Anti-war classical music
A. Brain
ranted and raved about here now and then, including Schubert's "Raste
Krieger" and Mahler's "Wo die schoenen Trompeten blasen", I of course
thought first of all the senseless and useless deaths of American
soldiers, the severe wounded, and Iraqi civilian deaths.
The so-called "Downing Street memo" and associated documents
are most damning in their explanations that there was little planning
about how to deal with Iraq after the inevitable collapse of the Saddam
Hussein regime.
Oh, he was so dangerous......
So what are some of the other anti-war pieces? As the public and the
world are gradually realizing that this war in Iraq is the biggest
mistake in
U.S. history and that it has just made things worse, I am thinking that
classical music need not yield to Joan Baez or even John Lennon.
Britten's "War Requiem" is a start.
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Heck51
Vaughan Williams - Sym #4, and #3
Shostakovich - Sym #8 [a war-time work that hardly celebrates the idea
of war]
same with #7
Penderceki - Threnody for Victims/Hiroshima
Dies Irae/Auschwitz Oratorio
Larry Rinkel
"A. Brain" <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:hfsCe.434467$cg1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Given the character of some of the episodes, Beethoven's treatment of the
Agnus Dei in the Missa Solemnis.
jony...@earthlink.net
with its final words: "... eliminate death by dying
Vaughn Willliams: Dona Nobis Pacem
jy
William Sommerwerck
John Harrington
Barber's A Stopwatch and an Ordinance Map. George Crumb's Black
Angles. I guess Karel Husa's Music for Prague 1968 might qualify, too.
J
Donald Patterson
1121605227.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Heck51"
<dgall...@comcast.net> wrote:
Shosty's 9th turned out to be anti-war and got him into trouble.
--
Don Patterson
Trombonist
Arranger/Copyist
"The President's Own"
United States Marine Band
Rob Barnett
Britten - War Requiem
Bliss - Morning Heroes
Panufnik - Sinfonia Elegiaca
Panufnik - Katyn Epitaph
Panufnik - his Heroic and Tragic Overtures recall, I think, the slaughter of
the Poles during the Warsaw Uprising.
I am sure the list must be very long.
Wasn't there a piece by Loeffler in memory of a young flier killed during
the Great War
--
Rob Barnett
Editor, Classical Music on the Web
www.musicweb.uk.net
Editor, British Music Society Newsletter
Ronit
The fifth (Benedictus) movement of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis
Shostakovich Symphony #7 (written during the siege of Leningrad in
1941)
Johannes Roehl
> Schiller's "Ode to Joy" is anti-war.
>
Please elaborate.
It's about joy and men becoming brothers (and sisters), but never
explictly about war or peace, at least not the stanzas Beethoven set to
music.
So while it of course isn't in any way "pro-war", it's not anti-war either.
I'd nominate Haydn's "missa in tempore belli" and K.A. Hartmann's
Concerto funebre
Johannes
bjm...@aol.com
> world are gradually realizing that this war in Iraq is the biggest
> mistake in
> U.S. history and that it has just made things worse, I am thinking that
> classical music need not yield to Joan Baez or even John Lennon.
> Britten's "War Requiem" is a start.
How about listening to John Adams's ON THE TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS,
since 9/11 is the reason for the War in Iraq in the first place.
--
Mike Prager
Mike Prager
When in North Carolina, for chamber music:
http://www.americanmusicfestival.org/
Paul Ilechko
>
>
> ...
> since 9/11 is the reason for the War in Iraq in the first place.
No, it isn't. It was never even explicitly presented as the reason at
the time, it's just been gradually conflated ever since, so that dumb
fucks like you *think* that it was the reason.
Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim
- Russ (not Martha)
Frank Berger
"Russ and/or Martha Oppenheim" <moppe...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZtxCe.181683$6g3....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Tubin's Requiem for Fallen Soldiers.
>
> - Russ (not Martha)
>
>
Without commenting on any of the selections so far, lets not forget that not
every requiem or lament for fallen soldiers is anti-war.
bjm...@aol.com
So you think there would have been a War in Iraq if there had been no
9/11? C'mon, use your head, head.
gerrie...@cox.net
And it seems that other "DFs" are barren of enlightened and unbiased
thought, not to mention historical acumen. Try reading someone who
possesses all these, and more:
Frank Berger
<bjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1121627588.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's generally pointless to engage in debate with someone who has called you
a "dumb fuck." But do as you please.
Paul Ilechko
Absolute garbage.
Paul Ilechko
googlegroups2sucks
> After listening tonight to Jessye Norman's debut recording that I have
> ranted and raved about here now and then, including Schubert's "Raste
> Krieger" and Mahler's "Wo die schoenen Trompeten blasen", I of course
> thought first of all the senseless and useless deaths of American
> soldiers, the severe wounded, and Iraqi civilian deaths.
>
> The so-called "Downing Street memo" and associated documents
> are most damning in their explanations that there was little planning
> about how to deal with Iraq after the inevitable collapse of the Saddam
> Hussein regime.
> Oh, he was so dangerous......
>
>
>
> So what are some of the other anti-war pieces?
john williams' "hymn to the fallen".
i can't bear to hear it anymore. i find it too painful.
bjm...@aol.com
> a "dumb fuck." But do as you please.
I guess I was curious to see if his arguments had any substance to
them. Now I'm pretty well satisfied that they don't.
gerrie...@cox.net
I guess one with a garbage-laden mind could not be expected comprehend
anything BUT garbage.
Paul Ilechko
If you confuse "excuse" with "consequence" you don't have a clue what an
argument is.
Paul Ilechko
A. Brain
news:1121637499....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071605.html
>> >
>>
>> Absolute garbage.
>
>
> I guess one with a garbage-laden mind could not be expected comprehend
> anything BUT garbage.
You need not subscribe to the ultra-left, USA hating
garbage described by Hanson to oppose the war.
Lots of true "conservatives" opposed the Iraq war.
Pat Buchanan opposed the war. Robert Novak
opposed the war. As Buchanan remarked at the
outset of the invasion of Iraq, "somewhere Osama
bin Laden is nodding and saying "mission accomplished".
In fact, just what is "conservative" about the Bushies?
Their contempt for civil liberties and the right to
privacy? Their lack of faith in science? Their
indifference to the environment? Their rejection
of states' rights? Their desire to federalize marriage
laws and the legal system?
Traditionally, "conservatives" are wary of wars that
do not have clear objectives, winnable strategies,
and exit options. Other than the idiotic idea that
these so-called "terrorists" are like a swarm of bees
that have to be contained "over there" before they
come here, I haven't heard an explanation of why this
war is necessary or even prudent.
And is it so difficult to imagine why the "terror"
continues? Take a look at this, from a
"conservative" publication:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
Frank Berger
"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:3jvt2pF...@individual.net...
You could be more specific in your disagreement. And you forgot to call
Hanson a "dumb fuck."
>
bjm...@aol.com
> http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071605.html
> Absolute garbage.
Here's some more "absolute garbage" that you should study and memorize.
June 6, 2005
Western Liberalism Is the Only Idea Left Standing
by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services
The French and Dutch rebuffs of the European Union constitution will
soon be followed by other rejections. Millions of proud, educated
Europeans are tired of being told by unelected grandees that the mess
they see is really abstract art.
The EU constitution-and its promise of a new Europe- supposedly
offered a corrective to the Anglo-American strain of Western
civilization. More government, higher taxes, richer entitlements,
pacifism, statism and atheism would make a more humane and powerful new
continent of more than 400 million to outpace a retrograde U.S.
Instead, Europe faces a declining population, unassimilated minorities,
low growth, high unemployment and an inability to defend itself, either
militarily or morally. Somehow the directorate of the EU has figured
out how to have too few citizens while having too many of them out of
work.
The only question that remains is just how low will the 100,000
bureaucrats of the European Union go in shrieking to their defiant
electorates as they stampede for the exits.
In fact, 2005 is a culmination of dying ideas. Despite the boasts and
threats, almost every political alternative to Western liberalism over
the last quarter-century is crashing or already in flames.
China's red-hot economy-something like America's of 1870, before
unionization, environmentalism and federal regulation- shows just how
dead communism is. Will Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba go out with a
bang or a whimper? If North Korea's nutty communiques, Hugo Chavez's
shouting about oil boycotts and Fidel Castro's harangues sound
desperate, it's because they all are.
Fascism has long vacated its birthplace in Europe. The fragments of the
former Soviet autocracy are democratizing. The caudillos are gone from
Latin America. The last enclave of dictators is the Middle East. Yet
after Saddam Hussein's capture in a cesspool, their hold is slipping
too. There will probably not be an Assad III or a second Mubarak.
The real suspense is whether the Gulf royals can make good on their
promises of reform and elections. Will they end up like pampered
Windsors or go the ignominious way of the Shah of Iran? In desperation,
the apparatchik journalists in the state-controlled Arab press are
damning the United States, the avatar of change. Then there is bankrupt
Islamic fundamentalism. The zealots can always tape a beheading or turn
out a few thousand to burn an American flag. But the Taliban are gone
from power. Iran is facing popular disgust at home, while its desperate
nuclear plots are waking up even a comatose Europe. And the promise of
a return to the 8th Century has always had an appeal limited to a few
thousand pampered elites, like Osama bin Laden, Dr. Zawahiri or
Zarqawi. These losers figured they might become Saladins if they
convinced an Arab populace that the Jews and America, not their own
corrupt regimes, kept them poor. Now they are reduced to ranting about
the evils of democracy.
The Islamicists offered nothing to galvanize the Arab masses other than
nihilism. That doctrine feeds or employs no one. Instead, we witness
the creepy threats and the pyrotechnics of a lunatic ideology going the
way of Bushido and the kamikazes.
Why all these upheavals?
Global communications now reveal hourly to people abroad how much
better life is in Europe than in the Middle East and Asia- and how in
America, Australia and Britain the standard of living is even better
than in most of Europe.
The removal of the Taliban and Hussein and their replacement with
democracies proved that the United States after Sept. 11, 2001, was
neither weak nor cynical. In fact, it was the utopian United Nations,
with its oil-for-food program, snoozing in Darfur and scandals about
peacekeepers, that proved corrupt and unreliable.
What are we left with then?
Democracy, open markets, personal freedom, individual rights, pride in
national traditions, worry about big government-about what we see in
the United States, Britain, Australia and their allies in Japan and the
breakaway countries in Europe. Elections in Ethiopia, France, Iraq,
Lebanon and Ukraine all point to a desire for more freedom from central
state control.
Embers of communism, fascism, theocracy and socialism, of course, will
always flare up should we become complacent or arrogant. Wounded beasts
like Iran, North Korea and bin Laden are most dangerous before they
expire. Expect discredited EU bureaucrats to conjure up the specter of
the American bogeyman before they pension out.
Still, the racket and clamor from all these anti-democratic ideas in
2005 are not birth pangs, but the bitter death throes of those whose
time is about past.
©2005 Victor Davis Hanson
John Harrington
That's funny, I was just thinking that it is generally pointless to
engage in debate with someone who believes the Iraq war has any real
connection to 9-11.
J
John Harrington
<snip>
> john williams' "hymn to the fallen".
>
> i can't bear to hear it anymore. i find it too painful.
I take it for reasons that would be flattering to Williams?
J
Paul Ilechko
>>http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071605.html
>
>
>>Absolute garbage.
>
>
>
> Here's some more "absolute garbage" that you should study and memorize.
Yup, you categorized it perfectly. It really isn't even worth responding
to, as it's built on a mountain of false premises.
alanwa...@aol.com
Absolutely right. Although not requiems, there are some Islamic folk
songs/laments praising fallen "soldiers" which appear to be positively
pro-war.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Frank Berger
So far, you've given no evidence you are capable of refuting any of what
Hanson writes. Are you?
gerrie...@cox.net
A. Brain wrote:
> <gerrie...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1121637499....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071605.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> Absolute garbage.
> >
> >
> > I guess one with a garbage-laden mind could not be expected comprehend
> > anything BUT garbage.
>
>
> You need not subscribe to the ultra-left, USA hating
> garbage described by Hanson to oppose the war.
>
> Lots of true "conservatives" opposed the Iraq war.
>
> Pat Buchanan opposed the war. Robert Novak
> opposed the war. As Buchanan remarked at the
> outset of the invasion of Iraq, "somewhere Osama
> bin Laden is nodding and saying "mission accomplished".
Pat Buchanan has a lot of far reaching and well-thought-out ideas, esp.
on the immigration issue. Novak is a blow-hard. Neither of them has
the background, the historical military and domestic stow of knowledge
*and* analytical acumen, the immense brain power that Hanson has. AND,
just plain commopn sense.
> In fact, just what is "conservative" about the Bushies?
>
> Their contempt for civil liberties and the right to
> privacy? Their lack of faith in science? Their
> indifference to the environment? Their rejection
> of states' rights? Their desire to federalize marriage
> laws and the legal system?
I don't agree that they have a lack of "faith in science", except on
the stem-cell research issue. Lamentable. Even though I don't
entirely agree with him, Bush has proposed more flights/research to/on
the moon and Mars. How could anyone deny (if they are at all
knowledgeable) the immense advantages in all areas of science and
civilization conferred by space exploration?
The other things you mention are certainly subject to opposing belief
systems as represented by the two dominant political parties. Though I
may not always agree, the ballot box, if we are to continue to live and
be governed by it, is a viable part of our democracy.
I 'submitted' to the good and the bad of recent Democratic presidents.
And I was always 'eager' to admit their good. It seems that this is
not the case the last 4-5 years. I think that Bush has confronted
possibly the biggest challenge to the equilibrium of American as well
as world affairs than any president since Roosevelt by the event of
9-ll. He may not have been thoroughly equipped for it **in all its
far-reaching aspects**, but then, who would have? I certainly endorse
his *fundamental* reaction.
>
> And is it so difficult to imagine why the "terror"
> continues? Take a look at this, from a
> "conservative" publication:
>
>
> http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
I read with interest every word. Excellent! VERY interesting and
informative of some things/views that I hadn't considered. I will need
to mull further on this. Thanks!
Gerrie C
Ronit
A. Brain wrote:
> After listening tonight to Jessye Norman's debut recording that I have
> ranted and raved about here now and then, including Schubert's "Raste
> Krieger" and Mahler's "Wo die schoenen Trompeten blasen", I of course
> thought first of all the senseless and useless deaths of American
> soldiers, the severe wounded, and Iraqi civilian deaths.
>
> The so-called "Downing Street memo" and associated documents
> are most damning in their explanations that there was little planning
> about how to deal with Iraq after the inevitable collapse of the Saddam
> Hussein regime.
> Oh, he was so dangerous......
>
>
>
> So what are some of the other anti-war pieces? As the public and the
> world are gradually realizing that this war in Iraq is the biggest
> mistake in
> U.S. history and that it has just made things worse, I am thinking that
> classical music need not yield to Joan Baez or even John Lennon.
>
> Britten's "War Requiem" is a start.
>
Paul Ilechko
>
> I don't agree that they have a lack of "faith in science", except on
> the stem-cell research issue. Lamentable.
They have a lot of faith that science can say anything you want it to,
provided you buy the right scientist. And of course, that science should
never contradict the financial imperative to be "business friendly".
> Even though I don't
> entirely agree with him, Bush has proposed more flights/research to/on
> the moon and Mars. How could anyone deny (if they are at all
> knowledgeable) the immense advantages in all areas of science and
> civilization conferred by space exploration?
Very easily. Strangely, for some reason people expect conservatives to
have some concept of cost-benefit analysis, when they clearly do not.
gerrie...@cox.net
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> gerrie...@cox.net wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't agree that they have a lack of "faith in science", except on
> > the stem-cell research issue. Lamentable.
> They have a lot of faith that science can say anything you want it to,
> provided you buy the right scientist. And of course, that science should
> never contradict the financial imperative to be "business friendly".
And on what - do you pretend - that America - indeed, the world -
is run by?
> > Even though I don't
> > entirely agree with him, Bush has proposed more flights/research to/on
> > the moon and Mars. How could anyone deny (if they are at all
> > knowledgeable) the immense advantages in all areas of science and
> > civilization conferred by space exploration?
>
> Very easily. Strangely, for some reason people expect conservatives to
> have some concept of cost-benefit analysis, when they clearly do not.
Amusing to hear this 'answer'. Since when did the Democrats (or the
'left') propose any kind of restraint on cost-benefit? Take a look at
the "Great Society" (Johnson) and tell me what 'great benefits'
proliferated?
Gerrie C
Brendan R. Wehrung
In fact, most of the items cited were to honor the fallen, not comment
about the futility of killing for political reasons. Not that some
haven't been co-opted for this purpose. War looks a lot less glorious in
hind-sight.
Brendan
--
Brendan R. Wehrung
There would have been no war in Afghanistan if there had been no 9/11.
Iraq, I'm not so sure about. Daddy didn't finish his job there.
Brendan
--
Matt
news:1121655772.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
Take a look at
> the "Great Society" (Johnson) and tell me what 'great benefits'
> proliferated?
>
How about civil rights legislation, medicare for senior citizens, HUD,
ending racially motivated immigration quotas, clean air and water
regulations, job corps, Head Start, adult education programs, job training,
and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act?
Regards,
Matt
gerrie...@cox.net
I'll agree that civil rights and medicare were great and NEEDED
successes, but the rest??? The dung heap of failures.
Richard Schultz
: Penderceki - Threnody for Victims/Hiroshima
In what sense can that said to be "anti-war," given that he didn't pick
the title until after he'd already composed the piece?
A better suggestion would be Britten's "War Requiem."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
Dick Grayson
(Richard Schultz) wrote:
>In article <1121605227.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, Heck51 <dgall...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>: Penderceki - Threnody for Victims/Hiroshima
>
>In what sense can that said to be "anti-war," given that he didn't pick
>the title until after he'd already composed the piece?
>
I suppose the same could be said of Gunnar Johansen's Sonata II "Pearl
Harbor". He had finished the piece the night before the bombings,
and only titled it so afterwards. Though it was not concieved as an
anti-war piece, I know Johansen was, and I tend to look at it as a
reflection of the moment, of inescapable (yet wholly preventable,
unlike earthquakes,tsunami,tornado,etc.) destruction and violence
mankind wreaks upon itself--like an visceral emotional tragedy of
the effects of war. And in that sense, a sort of musical warning
to future generations, which begs to be heeded.
DG
Paul Ilechko
Those are all apparently meaningless trivialities, compared to sending a
rocket to the moon.
Jan Hoving
>
> A better suggestion would be Britten's "War Requiem."
>
Yes indeed, War Requiem represents the whole of anti-war music. A good
(live)recording of the requiem is Barbirolli's with the New Philharmonia
on BBC Legends.
JH
William Sommerwerck
idea that people should be pretty much free to do as they like, unemcumbered
by government interference. Our country was founded as a liberal democracy.
"Democracy, open markets, personal freedom, individual rights, pride in
national traditions, worry about big government-about what we see in
the United States, Britain, Australia and their allies in Japan and the
breakaway countries in Europe. Elections in Ethiopia, France, Iraq,
Lebanon and Ukraine all point to a desire for more freedom from central
state control."
Unless, of course, that freedom conflicts with the wishes of those who have
money, or social power, or espouse fundamentalist religious beliefs.
A. Brain
news:1121648774.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> A. Brain wrote:
>> Lots of true "conservatives" opposed the Iraq war.
>>
>> Pat Buchanan opposed the war. Robert Novak
>> opposed the war. As Buchanan remarked at the
>> outset of the invasion of Iraq, "somewhere Osama
>> bin Laden is nodding and saying "mission accomplished".
>
> Pat Buchanan has a lot of far reaching and well-thought-out ideas,
> esp.
> on the immigration issue. Novak is a blow-hard. Neither of them has
> the background, the historical military and domestic stow of knowledge
> *and* analytical acumen, the immense brain power that Hanson has.
> AND,
> just plain commopn sense.
"Common sense" to me includes the feeling that people of
different ethnicity, culture, and religion do not like occupying
armies.
If Hanson is such a great scholar, why doesn't he
understand the lessons of history? Why doesn't he
agree with the "Powell doctrine"? Go to war only
as a last resort, go with overwhelming force and
a clear exit strategy. That also seems to be
"common sense" to me. And if Kerry and Edwards
had stuck to that line, they'd be calling the shots today.
It does not seem to me to be "common sense"
to undertake what apparently is to be a decades-long
effort to transform one Arab/Islamic nation that is not
really a unified entity to begin with into a pluralistic
democracy. Especially when we in the U.S. have
crumbling schools, infrastructure, and a crushing
burden of debt that only gets worse with this effort.
I see Iraq as kind of like Yugoslavia was in the
days of Tito. It wasn't the worst place in the
East bloc, not the best either. At least it was
stable and not in the camp of the radical ideological
enemy. So why mess with it?
> I 'submitted' to the good and the bad of recent Democratic presidents.
> And I was always 'eager' to admit their good. It seems that this is
> not the case the last 4-5 years. I think that Bush has confronted
> possibly the biggest challenge to the equilibrium of American as well
> as world affairs than any president since Roosevelt by the event of
> 9-ll. He may not have been thoroughly equipped for it **in all its
> far-reaching aspects**, but then, who would have? I certainly endorse
> his *fundamental* reaction.
The reality is that the 9-11-01 attacks were a fluke event,
and their success was in part facilitated by the current
administration's arrogance and negligence. That
is amply demonstrated by the record and the writings of
Richard Clarke and others. What happened was that
a handful of highly disciplined terrorists with no ties to
Saddam Hussein pulled off an audacious plan that the
public should have been warned about as Bush had all
those warnings of imminent attacks including hijackings.
Going to Afghanistan was a good idea. Taking out
Saddam was a huge mistake. He could have been
a good ally in the war against Islamic fundamentalist
terrorists.
And all the money and human capital that we have
spent in this idiotic Iraq war and occupation could
have been spent on effective security to prevent
future attacks here and on our forces that are
stationed overseas, rather than on sending an army
of occupation into the middle of the Arab/Islamic
world where most of the populace harbor even
more bizarre religious notions than the "Left Behind"
"rapture right" idiots here.
I repeat: 1761 U.S. soldiers dead. 42,500 injured
seriously enough to be removed from the "theatre".
112,900 Iraqi civilians dead. For what?
Every time I see one of those "Support our troops"
stickers, I am reminded of the Vietnam War. We
are exactly where we were in the early '70s. No
one wants to face the reality that all these deaths
and injuries have not advanced our interests nor
our security.
History will be less kind to Bush and Cheney than it
has been to Johnson and Nixon.
Hanson is a nut case. He seems to think that
the "Left" alternative of blaming America, etc. is the
only option to military occupation and "nation-building".
His comments that "most evil has ended tragically and
most good has resumed through armed struggle"
begs the question. I wonder how many of his
sons or daughters are signed up for the front lines.
And did he not notice the end of a certain "Evil
Empire" not too long ago? I guess he would have
voted with the military types in October '62 who
wanted to go full speed ahead over Cuba. JFK and
RFK saved the day through a deceptive deal. I
remember it vividly, as I was in sixth grade and
terrified.
As Yogi Berra used to say, "you could look it up".
John Harrington
> Bear in mind what he means by "liberalism" -- with a lower-case l -- the
> idea that people should be pretty much free to do as they like, unemcumbered
> by government interference. Our country was founded as a liberal democracy.
Yeah, sure it was. But first we had to kill literally millions of
Native Americans and enslave millions of blacks. And our country is
still struggling with the difference between liberalism as a propaganda
tool and liberalism as an actuality.
J
Allen
gerrie...@cox.net wrote:
What interesting logic! Calling clean air and water "dung heaps". Could
have come straight from Duh Bya's mouth.
Allen
>
googlegroups2sucks
yes. "anymore" is the key word, meaning i used to love listening to
the piece (the choral arrangements in particular) but now i find it too
evocative. the music tears me up.
Ward Hardman
Disregarding your political pronouncements, let me mention a true
golden oldie, one admired (and parodied) by countless composers,
"L'Homme Arme":
'The man, the man, the armed man, the armed man - one must
beware the armed man, one must beware.
Word has gone out all over that everyone must arm himself
with an iron chain-mail vest.
The man, the man, the armed man, the armed man - one must
beware the armed man, one must beware.'
This should be enough anti-war sentiment to satisfy you. (Just replace
"iron chain-mail vest" with "explosive vest," to bring it up to date.
;-)
--Ward Hardman
"The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence, just
simple competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
- H.L. Mencken
gerrie...@cox.net
> understand the lessons of history? Why doesn't he
> agree with the "Powell doctrine"? Go to war only
> as a last resort, go with overwhelming force and
> a clear exit strategy.
Worked beautifully for its limited purpose, but surely was catalytic to
subsequent events like the WTC 1993 bombing, the Kenya and Tanzania
embassy bombings in 1998, the USS Cole bombing of 2000.
>That also seems to be
> "common sense" to me. And if Kerry and Edwards
> had stuck to that line, they'd be calling the shots today.
Thanks heavens they're not. They themselves would probably be dodging
more shots than "calling" them.
> It does not seem to me to be "common sense"
> to undertake what apparently is to be a decades-long
> effort to transform one Arab/Islamic nation that is not
> really a unified entity to begin with into a pluralistic
> democracy. Especially when we in the U.S. have
> crumbling schools, infrastructure, and a crushing
> burden of debt that only gets worse with this effort.
I agree with the latter half of this. 'Common sense' in pertinence to
the first half ("decades long effort...") was hindered at the outset by
unknown and unsuspected factors, the playing out of which regrettably
has caused all the seemingly ceaseless deaths there and the furor here
at home.
>What happened was that
> a handful of highly disciplined terrorists with no ties to
> Saddam Hussein pulled off an audacious plan that the
> public should have been warned about as Bush had all
> those warnings of imminent attacks including hijackings.
So did Clinton, and he had *seven* years after the first WTC bombing in
'93 to possibly avoid the second.
> Going to Afghanistan was a good idea. Taking out
> Saddam was a huge mistake. He could have been
> a good ally in the war against Islamic fundamentalist
> terrorists.
Oh yes. He had shown us in so many ways his willingness to cooperate!
> History will be less kind to Bush and Cheney than it
> has been to Johnson and Nixon.
Not if their ultimate aims are/were achieved, i.e., making America a
safer nation from the potentially omnipresence of terrorist activity
thru attempts to influence those mid-east countries that spawn and
harbor it to some kind of 'democracy' or at least freedom from
subjugation of tyrannical groups like al-Qaeda. "Time" will tell.
Without rehashing the plusses and minuses of Iraq, I shudder to
speculate on [2002-2005]sequels to 9-11 - here - if the US had not
taken action when it did in Afghanistan.
> Hanson is a nut case.
If Hanson is a nut case, he has inadvertently raised the status of all
such 'cases' to sublime philosophical heights.
> I guess he would have
> voted with the military types in October '62 who
> wanted to go full speed ahead over Cuba. JFK and
> RFK saved the day through a deceptive deal. I
> remember it vividly, as I was in sixth grade and
> terrified.
No doubt the Cuban Missile Crisis and its favorable outcome is a
Testament to clear thinking leadership at the time. For that we are
ALL grateful. However, a 1998 book, "The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962; A
National Security Archive Document Reader" apparently uncovers/reveals
some heretofore unknown classified info that all was not so decisive
and 'tidy' on the part of administration officials, including President
Kennedy and his brother.
[EXCERPT:] REVISING THE HISTORY OF THE CRISIS
The availability of previously classified material has enabled scholars
both to challenge the conventional wisdom and to revise long-standing
historical interpretations of the events that took place before,
during, and after October 1962. Despite the wealth of books and
articles published on this subject, until only a few years ago the
historiography of the crisis was built around the memoirs of former
Kennedy administration officials, in particular Robert Kennedy's
Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Similarly,
scholarly works on the crisis were dominated by Graham Allison's
seminal book, Essence of Decision, which drew heavily on the official
memoirs to cast the episode as the "classic" model of crisis
management.
The declassified U.S. records have allowed scholars to highlight the
inevitable distortions, limitations, and inaccuracies in the narratives
of former Kennedy administration officials, and to augment and
supplement these officials' memories. The most striking example of this
dynamic occurred between 1987 and 1992, during a series of
retrospective conferences sponsored by Harvard and Brown universities
and organized by professor James G. Blight, which brought together
former policymakers and scholars from the United States, the Soviet
Union, and Cuba to reconstruct the perilous events of 1962 and to
reevaluate why they happened.
Applying a research technique that he calls "critical oral history,"
Blight used the documents to supply facts and details that the former
policymakers had distorted or forgotten while the participants supplied
the missing context of the documents. The result was a new body of
information that provides a much fuller picture of events and
fundamentally alters how the scope and meaning of the missile crisis
has been and will be considered.
The very definition of the missile crisis has changed. Rather than a
sudden episode, the crisis now emerges as the culmination of
deteriorating relations between the United States and the Soviet Union,
and between the United States and Cuba. Moreover, no longer can the
confrontation be understood as confined to Robert Kennedy's "thirteen
days," beginning with the discovery of Soviet missiles in Cuba on
October 16 and ending with Khrushchev's decision to withdraw the
missiles on October 28. A series of letters between Kennedy and
Khrushchev, declassified and released to the National Security Archive
in January 1992, demonstrates that the crisis lasted through late
November of 1962, at the very least.
New revelations about the missile crisis have also undermined its image
as a paradigm of successful crisis management. For years Arthur
Schlesinger, Jr.'s description of President Kennedy's decision-making
as "so brilliantly controlled, so matchlessly calibrated" reflected a
mythology that the successful outcome of the missile crisis derived
from Kennedy's masterful management of both the making and
implementation of U.S. policy. In reality, as Robert McNamara notes,
the decision-making process in Washington, as well as in Moscow and
Havana, was characterized by "misinformation, miscalculation, and
misjudgment." Despite management efforts, according to Theodore
Sorensen, the crisis "came close to spinning out of control before it
was ended."
> As Yogi Berra used to say, "you could look it up".
Indeed, that I have, and many, many years before now.
To end with another quote:
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are
men who want rain without thunder and lightning." - Frederick Douglass
Gerrie C
Paul Ilechko
>
> If Hanson is such a great scholar, why doesn't he
> understand the lessons of history?
But Hanson is very clever - it's almost impossible to refute him because
his writings are based on layers and layers of untrue conservative
opinion presented as fact. If you try and debate him directly, you are
playing by his rules in his ballpark - but if you peel back all the
layers of untruth and debate on the facts, then he looks snappy and
concise, while you look pedantic & long-winded. Very good strategy,
meaningless content.
Gareth Williams
> In article <1121605227.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Heck51 <dgall...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> : Penderceki - Threnody for Victims/Hiroshima
>
> In what sense can that said to be "anti-war," given that he didn't pick
> the title until after he'd already composed the piece?
>
> A better suggestion would be Britten's "War Requiem."
... also Britten's "Sinfonia da Requiem" and his pacifist opera, "Owen
Wingrave". In the same context, and in his centenary year, don't forget
Tippett's splendid oratorio "A Child of Our Time".
--
Kind regards, Gareth Williams
John Harrington
> A. Brain wrote:
> > If Hanson is such a great scholar, why doesn't he
> > understand the lessons of history?
>
Huh, you find him clever? Good lord.... The article I read was a
series of tired straw men against "the left". We are supposed to
equate the Gulags and the Nazi death camps to Gitmo. No one suggested
equivalence, only that reading a description of our treatment of Gitmo
prisoners without knowledge of the provenance might fool someone into
thinking they were reading an account of Soviet or Nazi prison
conditions. And, yes, to any fair minded person there is a difference
between those two statements. We are supposed to believe that Muslim
and Western societies are morally equivalent, when in fact we've been
working toward the liberation of women in Muslim nations for decades
and frequently use Muslim governments as a cautionary example as to why
mixture of religion and politics in our own country is a bad idea. We
are supposed to believe that beheaders and terrorists are no different
from those who attacked Fallujah, when in fact we simply subscribe to
the mature notion that the world is not neatly divided into "do
gooders" and "evil doers". We are supposed to be opposed to all armed
struggle, when in fact the vast majority of us are not pacifists but
believers in the necessity of armed struggle in some, just not all,
situations.
It is extremely facile to write an essay in which one devastates
imaginary lefty stereotypes. I don't know what any thinking person is
supposed to learn from Hanson's essay...perhaps that the terrorists
attacked the US not because of the long history of the US's meddling in
the Middle East but because they just envy our lifestyle and "hate us
for our freedoms"? Does that seem likely to anyone with two neurons to
rub together? Are we really supposed to take someone like this
seriously, who thinks, for example, that $50B to the Egyptian gov't is
supposed to be embraced as a good work by Jihadists? Does he
understand the first thing about Middle East history or the political
inclinations of the Islamist fundamentalists?
His pompous statement that "every element" of the carefully crafted
straw man he begins with is "false" is not proven or even completely
addressed by his essay. He doesn't address the notion that we have
lost many of our civil liberties to the Patriot Act, only that we have
lost fewer than we did during the (legitimate) Civil War or at least in
less of a dramatic fashion than we did during the (legitimate) World
War II. He doesn't address why it is supposedly a "fable" that Bush's
policies have increased the terror threat, or that we have no plan to
defeat our enemies. Or that we preemptively entered Iraq, which was
indeed a secular government. He doesn't explain why he believes the
majority on the left believes terrorism is a "criminal justice matter".
He doesn't explain why he believes that terrorism can be defeated
militarily. Or why democracy can be "implanted by force". He attempts
to challenge the notion that Iraq was not a serious terrorist threat by
pointing out that four terrorists lived in Baghdad (he makes it seem
like more by saying "every terrorist *from* so-and-so *to* so-and-so",
etc., but it doesn't hide the fact that it's still just four names).
We had more terrorists living *here* before 9-11. He tries to portray
the notion that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 as a "lefty" myth,
when in fact the Bush administration has long ago admitted the same,
and in so many words. Indeed, many of the critiques of the Iraq war
that he calls leftist are argued by life-long republicans who oppose
the war.
There is scarcely a sentence in his entire essay that is even slightly
credible or shows careful thought. Clever? Try sophomoric. That a
person of this mentality is held up by the war's supporters as some
sort of exemplar of scholarship and reason speaks [redundant] volumes
about their desperation and intellectual bankruptcy.
J
John Harrington
Owen Hartnett wrote:
> In article <1121726477.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <gerrie...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > The very definition of the missile crisis has changed. Rather than a
> > sudden episode, the crisis now emerges as the culmination of
> > deteriorating relations between the United States and the Soviet Union,
> > and between the United States and Cuba.
>
> I've recommended this before, but no Cuban Missile Crisis historian is
> complete without reading "One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Kennedy,
> Castro and the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1958-1964"
> by Aleksandr Fursenko, Timothy Naftali. (It's now up to $65 in amazon
> marketplace). It contains information declassified from both the US
> and USSR. The fact of the matter is that the US and USSR blundered
> into a squeamish mess, and we were as close to nuclear annihilation as
> we've ever been, before or since. Unknown to the US, the nuclear
> warheads were already in Cuba, and their command was entrusted to
> military commanders on the ground. It the US had invaded, they were
> instructed to use the nukes against the invasion force.
What is news (to most) is the recently obtained FOIA "Operation
Northwoods" document which shows that just a few months before the
crisis the US was prepared to use a false flag operation to declare war
on Cuba (a la a "new Pearl Harbor"). For decades this was derided as a
leftist "conspiracy theory", but it was finally proven true when the
plan, which had been endorsed by all the joint chiefs, was released via
the FOIA.
John
Paul Ilechko
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
>>A. Brain wrote:
>>
>>>If Hanson is such a great scholar, why doesn't he
>>>understand the lessons of history?
>>
>>But Hanson is very clever<snip>
>
>
> Huh, you find him clever? Good lord....
Did you read past those first 5 words? My whole point was not that he is
intelligent, or makes good points, but that he builds on an edifice of
conservative assumptions (mostly ridiculous ones), making it difficult
to attack him without the effort of demolishing all those assumptions.
As I pointed out, it's a clever strategy, even though there is nothing
there.
John Harrington
> John Harrington wrote:
> > Paul Ilechko wrote:
> >
> >>A. Brain wrote:
> >>
> >>>If Hanson is such a great scholar, why doesn't he
> >>>understand the lessons of history?
> >>
> >>But Hanson is very clever<snip>
> >
> >
> > Huh, you find him clever? Good lord....
>
> Did you read past those first 5 words?
Yes, I did. Did you read past those first 7 words? My whole point was
that his points, far from difficult to attack, are so absurd that they
are baby simple to attack. Indeed, he doesn't even make an attempt to
support most of his points. His is far from anything even
approximating a "clever strategy". It's one of most transparent,
feeble and cliched "strategies" there are.
J
Peter
Jan Hoving
> I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Ullmann's Emperor of Atlantis.
>
Who the... is that? ;-)
JH
A. Brain
news:MPG.1d46538b3...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>> In article <1121646646....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> alanwa...@aol.com says...
>>
>>
> <...>
>
>> Absolutely right. Although not requiems, there are some Islamic folk
>> songs/laments praising fallen "soldiers" which appear to be
>> positively
>> pro-war.
>>
>
> As were some of the pop songs that exploited... oops, celebrated...
> oops, memorialized the 9/11 attacks in the US, particularly those out
> of the country-western genre. But, I'm sure the creation of that sort
> of song is not an isolated phenomena limited to Islamic peoples and US
> rednecks.
I think the tide is turning. There was a small town Arkansas mayor on
CNN last week complaining that he is having to lay off local police and
fire personnel--those that have not been shipped off to Iraq.
Meanwhile, they're hiring--with our money--over in Baghdad. I thought
this thing was supposed to pay for itself.
Oh, now I understand. Social Security has to pay for itself.
The war can be put on our kids' credit card. Can't pay for
armor on the humvees or for all the bullets we need? Never
mind, these kids fighting the war are accustomed to the bare
essentials; they didn't grow up with tennis lessons at the Country Club.
This idiotic war not only makes things worse for us in the "world
situation". It's also ruining our economy.
Maybe some Democratic would-be candidate will break out of the pack
on this theme. Or will they run as "Bush Lite" again and lose?
jony...@earthlink.net
Couldn't you say the same about Prokofiev's 6th?
jy
jony...@earthlink.net
> > No, it isn't. It was never even explicitly presented as the reason at
> > the time, it's just been gradually conflated ever since, so that dumb
> > fucks like you *think* that it was the reason.
> So you think there would have been a War in Iraq if there had been no
> 9/11? C'mon, use your head, head.
Yes. Bush was obsessed with ousting Sadaam long before 9/11.
(Ironically, George H.W. Bush had written in his book that anyone who'd
occupy Iraq would go through years of exactly what we're going through
now and cautioed against it. Too bad Dubya didn't pay attention to
Dad.)
Now if he or Clinton had acted on getting rid of Bin Laden when they
had their respective opportunities, maybe we wouldn't have had 9/11 in
the first place.
jy
A. Brain
news:1121771456.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Republicans, whose patriotism seems never to be questioned,
opposed everything Clinton did in the realm of defense and
anti-terrorism.
And when Bush took office, they ignored the warnings of imminent
terrorist attacks.
Now, having lowered the threshhold for impeachable offenses with
the ridiculous Clinton impeachment effort, the GOP faces the likelihood
of a prosecution for a true "high crime or misdemeanor". It's
inconceivable
that Bush, or at least Cheney, did not know what Rove was up to
in the Valerie Plame matter.
jony...@earthlink.net
> days of Tito. It wasn't the worst place in the
> East bloc, not the best either. At least it was
> stable and not in the camp of the radical ideological
> enemy. So why mess with it?
Exactly the reason the first President Bush did not rush into Baghdad
to take out Sadaam. Not taking out Sadaam wasn't "unfinished
business." It was (wisely) avoiding the kind of mess we're in now,
with pretty much the reassoning stated above.
As good, bad or mediocre as he was as President, at least George H.W.
was extremely savvy about foreign policy and relations -- perhaps the
most savvy since Nixon. Much more so -- unfortunately -- than his son.
jy
Richard Schultz
: Now if he or Clinton had acted on getting rid of Bin Laden when they
: had their respective opportunities, maybe we wouldn't have had 9/11 in
: the first place.
Clinton did, but the conservatives accused him of grandstanding to deflect
attention from his impeachment. Or to put it another way: how many people
were arrested for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center? How many
were arrested for the 2001 attack?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Richard Schultz
: As good, bad or mediocre as he was as President, at least George H.W.
: was extremely savvy about foreign policy and relations -- perhaps the
: most savvy since Nixon. Much more so -- unfortunately -- than his son.
Well, remember that he actually had experience in foreign relations
rather than in running a baseball team.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
John Harrington
<snip>
> Now, having lowered the threshhold for impeachable offenses with
> the ridiculous Clinton impeachment effort, the GOP faces the likelihood
> of a prosecution for a true "high crime or misdemeanor".
Do you *really* think Bush, after all he has done, has a snowball's
chance in hell of being impeached over *this*?
The GOP/media didn't lower the threshold for impeachable offenses.
They lowered the threshold for impeachable offenses by [putative]
Democratic presidents.
> It's
> inconceivable
> that Bush, or at least Cheney, did not know what Rove was up to
> in the Valerie Plame matter.
Of course it is, and yet, as usual, Bush has "plausible deniability" to
hide behind, because we don't have a video of his instructing Rove and
Cheney to out Plame.
J
John Harrington
> In article <dbioam$9ei$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>, Richard Schultz
> <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:
<snip>
> > How many
> > were arrested for the 2001 attack?
>
What crimes have the people in Gitmo committed, and how do you know
they've committed them?
> I don't think that numerical analysis is telling. It's who you have
> arrested.
Or, in Bush's case, the innocent people you have arrested, denied trial
or charge, and imprisoned. Those involved in the 1993 attack were
arrested, charged, allowed access to lawyers, and tried.
J
Jan Hoving
>
>
> Shame on you. Austrian composer Viktor Ullmann (1889-1944), a pupil of
> Schoenberg.
Don't worry, I'll get into this person as soon as I can.
A. Brain
news:1121772693.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, and "Boy George" chose not to consult his dad
on this war, something Kerry and Edwards should have
been complaining about "Big Time" last year. Instead,
they ran another losing "nice guy" campaign.
Oh, I forgot, GWB consulted a "Higher Father".
Talk about scary....
A. Brain
news:1121788615....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> A. Brain wrote:
> <snip>
>> Now, having lowered the threshhold for impeachable offenses with
>> the ridiculous Clinton impeachment effort, the GOP faces the
>> likelihood
>> of a prosecution for a true "high crime or misdemeanor".
>
> Do you *really* think Bush, after all he has done, has a snowball's
> chance in hell of being impeached over *this*?
Unlike his other misdeeds, this one is simple, discrete,
and clearly motivated by revenge. It's easier to understand
than the war deception and there's no Tony Blair to share
responsibility (and to eloquently defend the case).
>
> The GOP/media didn't lower the threshold for impeachable offenses.
> They lowered the threshold for impeachable offenses by [putative]
> Democratic presidents.
>
>> It's
>> inconceivable
>> that Bush, or at least Cheney, did not know what Rove was up to
>> in the Valerie Plame matter.
>
> Of course it is, and yet, as usual, Bush has "plausible deniability"
> to
> hide behind, because we don't have a video of his instructing Rove and
> Cheney to out Plame.
Well, we have an increasingly unpopular war and also an
increasingly unpopular President. Nixon had a lot of die-
hard fans too. What we lack is a Democratic Congress
and moderate Republicans in the Senate.
Paul Ilechko
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
> Yes, I did. Did you read past those first 7 words? My whole point was
> that his points, far from difficult to attack, are so absurd that they
> are baby simple to attack. Indeed, he doesn't even make an attempt to
> support most of his points.
Well of course not, how could he. when you rest all your arguments on
false assumptions, you'd better not get anywhere near logic.
> His is far from anything even
> approximating a "clever strategy". It's one of most transparent,
> feeble and cliched "strategies" there are.
>
I think we're at least in agreement on the value of the article.
William Sommerwerck
> : had their respective opportunities, maybe we wouldn't have had 9/11
> : in the first place.
> Clinton did, but the conservatives accused him of grandstanding to deflect
> attention from his impeachment.
Correct. And when Clinton debriefed W in 2001, Clinton warned him about Bin
Laden, but W didn't seem to be much interested.
It doesn't matter; Dick Cheney publicly accused W of being responsible for
the 9/11 attacks, so we know where the blame lies.
John Harrington
<snip>
> It doesn't matter; Dick Cheney publicly accused W of being responsible for
> the 9/11 attacks, so we know where the blame lies.
Eh? Ya lost me. When did this happen? Or am I missing a joke?
J
William Sommerwerck
>> for the 9/11 attacks, so we know where the blame lies.
> Eh? Ya lost me. When did this happen? Or am I missing a joke?
Not a joke at all. During the 2004 elections, Cheney "warned" the nation
that if someone other than W were elected, we would be far more likely to be
attacked.
Well, we _were_ attacked while W was President. What's sauce for the goose
is sauce for the gander. Draw your own conclusions.
gerrie...@cox.net
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> John Harrington wrote:
> > Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, I did. Did you read past those first 7 words? My whole point was
> > that his points, far from difficult to attack, are so absurd that they
> > are baby simple to attack. Indeed, he doesn't even make an attempt to
> > support most of his points.
Ever heard of the "arm-chair quarterback"? I think that there are a
few here who would make First String in that position. Knowledge of
the 'game', immersion in all pertinent historical and contemporary data
plus level-headed reasoning (as are in possession by Mr. Hanson in
spades) not required. The more you work your "points", the further
down the ladder of eligibility you descend.
"Baby simple to attack"? I'm sure simple minds might think so. Why
don't you give it a try?
> Well of course not, how could he. when you rest all your arguments on
> false assumptions, you'd better not get anywhere near logic.
I do think that anyone who dares to 'take on' VD Hanson in the realm of
logic must really be bereft of it.
> > His is far from anything even
> > approximating a "clever strategy". It's one of most transparent,
> > feeble and cliched "strategies" there are.
The man is not about "clever strategy" - only pure reasoning and
facts - historical and contempoarary, that is.
Gerrie C
Paul Ilechko
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
>>John Harrington wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Ilechko wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, I did. Did you read past those first 7 words? My whole point was
>>>that his points, far from difficult to attack, are so absurd that they
>>>are baby simple to attack. Indeed, he doesn't even make an attempt to
>>>support most of his points.
>
>
>
>
> Ever heard of the "arm-chair quarterback"? I think that there are a
> few here who would make First String in that position. Knowledge of
> the 'game', immersion in all pertinent historical and contemporary data
> plus level-headed reasoning (as are in possession by Mr. Hanson in
> spades) not required. The more you work your "points", the further
> down the ladder of eligibility you descend.
>
> "Baby simple to attack"? I'm sure simple minds might think so. Why
> don't you give it a try?
Why did you try to make it look like those are my words, when they are not?
gerrie...@cox.net
Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
> Why did you try to make it look like those are my words, when they are not?
Sorry. I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, but to
*statements*.
But....if the shoe fits...... :-)
GC
John Harrington
<snip>
> "Baby simple to attack"? ... Why don't you give it a try?
Already did:
> I do think that anyone who dares to 'take on' VD Hanson in the realm of
> logic must really be bereft of it.
How convenient that you dismiss any challenge to Hanson before reading
it. Having a closed mind must be an immense time saver.
J
Brendan R. Wehrung
Owen Hartnett (ow...@xids.xnet) writes:
> In article <1121788626.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> very soon.
>
> -Owen
Followed by the executions.
Brendan
--
Ian Pace
"A. Brain" <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:hfsCe.434467$cg1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> After listening tonight to Jessye Norman's debut recording that I have
> ranted and raved about here now and then, including Schubert's "Raste
> Krieger" and Mahler's "Wo die schoenen Trompeten blasen", I of course
> thought first of all the senseless and useless deaths of American
> soldiers, the severe wounded, and Iraqi civilian deaths.
>
> The so-called "Downing Street memo" and associated documents
> are most damning in their explanations that there was little planning
> about how to deal with Iraq after the inevitable collapse of the Saddam
> Hussein regime.
> Oh, he was so dangerous......
>
>
>
> So what are some of the other anti-war pieces? As the public and the
> world are gradually realizing that this war in Iraq is the biggest mistake
> in
> U.S. history and that it has just made things worse, I am thinking that
> classical music need not yield to Joan Baez or even John Lennon.
>
> Britten's "War Requiem" is a start.
>
Both Richard Barrett's NO (Resistance and Vision Part 1) and Peter Maxwell
Davies' Third Naxos Quartet (I think it's the Third) have an explicitly
anti-Iraq war motivation, at least as delineated in the programme note.
Ian
alanwa...@aol.com
> Both Richard Barrett's NO (Resistance and Vision Part 1) and Peter Maxwell
> Davies' Third Naxos Quartet (I think it's the Third) have an explicitly
> anti-Iraq war motivation, at least as delineated in the programme note.
>
> Ian
Yes, it is the Third Quartet and the Master of the Queens Musick took
part in the UK anti-Iraq war protest march which is probably a first
for a Master of the Queens Musick as well.
However, we both have lots of cats.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
(Performer: Czech premiere Eight Songs for a Mad King, Czech premiere
Strathclyde Concertos 1-4, 6, 8, 10 (percussion)
A. Brain
news:190720051605470810%ow...@xids.xnet...
> In article <mgcDe.13490$5N3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> A. Brain <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:
>
>> "John Harrington" <bear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1121788615....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > A. Brain wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >> Now, having lowered the threshhold for impeachable offenses with
>> >> the ridiculous Clinton impeachment effort, the GOP faces the
>> >> likelihood
>> >> of a prosecution for a true "high crime or misdemeanor".
>> >
>> > Do you *really* think Bush, after all he has done, has a snowball's
>> > chance in hell of being impeached over *this*?
>>
>> Unlike his other misdeeds, this one is simple, discrete,
>> and clearly motivated by revenge. It's easier to understand
>> than the war deception and there's no Tony Blair to share
>> responsibility (and to eloquently defend the case).
>
> smoking
> gun (like a surreptitious audio taping system) where Bush can be heard
> to say: "I want you to get at Wilson by outing Plame!" to Rove?
So you think it happened too? Just cannot be proven?
More likely that Rove and Cheney planned it and
Cheney and Bush have "deniability". A prosecution
of Rove for "treason" could prove a powerful incentive
for him to name higher-ups.
> There's so many issues surrounding it (like Wilson saying that Plame
> was not in covert status when Novak wrote the article) that it'll be
> tough to get at whether anyone committed a crime, never mind a very
> strongly Republican House handing down an impeachment.
I don't know; the law in question sets a standard that is
arguably one that could be used to characterize the
conduct as "treasonous per se". (For non-lawyers,
this refers to a legal doctrine whereby specific conduct
can meet a standard that is actionable, such as
"negligence" in civil law, by demonstrating that
there are legal prohibitions of that conduct. For
example, if you are claiming damages for injuries
in an auto accident, and the defendant was cited for
speeding or DWI, those offenses are negligence per se.
You still have to prove harm caused by the conduct.)
I don't know if this sort of analysis has been used in
treason prosecutions or impeachments for "treason,
bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors".
Consider this statement:
"That means we need more protection for the methods
we use to gather intelligence and more protection for
our sources, particularly our human sources, people that
are risking their lives for their country... I have nothing
but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust
by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, former President and CIA Director
4-26-99
But there may be some other criminal prosecutions.
Oh, what a delicious irony if the GOP, having advocated
prosecution of a President for alleged "perjury" in a civil suit where
the issues supposedly lied about were not even material
to that suit, is faced with criminal prosecutions of senior
officials where the perjury involved treasonous conduct.
Take a look:
A. Brain
[in response to my suggestion that "treason per se"
could be contended based on a statutory violation of
leaking secret or classified information]
>> I don't know if this sort of analysis has been used in
>> treason prosecutions or impeachments for "treason,
>> bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors".
>
> I'd bet that there are so few convictions of treason that it would be
> a
> simple matter to determine this, if one had the right law library
> resources.
I think I have all I need to research right here on my home
computer--a far cry from the old law school days when one
had to find the book, which might well be hiding under someone's
lunch bag or satchel in the library. I quickly discovered that
the easiest way to research was to find a recent law review
article on the subject in question and use that to find the most
important and most recent cases. One of course had then to
"Shepardize" those cases--consult these strange pamphlets
that listed case citations and paragraphs to show which
subsequent cases had cited those cases and in what particular
way. To be certain, one had always to read those subsequent
cases to be sure that the gnomes compiling Shepard's
had got it right. It was actually rather quaint and satisfying
to work in this manner--I miss the old ways.
Anyway, I had forgotten that the Constitution appears to
mandate a narrow standard for treason. An expansive
reading of the Constitution by an "activist" court--one that
perhaps was receptive to military tribunals and indefiinite
detention without counsel for "enemy combatants"-- could
nevetheless find "leaking" of "state secrets" to amount to treason.
How, in the face of the constitutional standard?
The broad treatment of "State secrets"
by the Courts when discovery is sought against the
government--as in the recent Sibel case (FBI contractor
alleging improper termination for her "whistleblower"
activities related to the 9-11-01 terrorist attacks) would appear
to argue that leaking covert agents may amount to conduct
falling within the constitutional standard of giving aid to
the enemy. Ex-CIA agents have already expressed views
to this effect concerning the Plame matter.
Well, if "public use" of private property can encompass
razing residential property for economic development so
as to raise the tax base, why can't "treason" encompass
leaking state secrets?
I think that if perjury in a civil case unrelated to conduct
while in office (Clinton's testimony in the Paula Jones
case) is alleged to be a high crime or misdemeanor, leaking of
classified
information would rise to that level, whether "treasonous"
or not.
For a good explanation of what constitutes "treason",
here is Scalia's surprisingly sensible opinion in the Hamdi case:
For an explanation of the "State secrets" doctrine and various"Espionage
Act" violations, here is the concurring opinion in the NYT Pentagon
Papers case:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC5.html
I have a paid site that gives me other appellate decisions, but I don't
think
they would be accessible to anyone who might still be reading this. I
think the Sibel case is a possible lingering bombshell if the "secrets"
were to be leaked.
jony...@earthlink.net
>>> days of Tito. It wasn't the worst place in the
>>> East bloc, not the best either. At least it was
>>> stable and not in the camp of the radical ideological
>>> enemy. So why mess with it?
>> Exactly the reason the first President Bush did not
>> rush into Baghdad to take out Sadaam. Not taking
>> out Sadaam wasn't "unfinished business." It was
>> (wisely) avoiding the kind of mess we're in now,
>> with pretty much the reassoning stated above.
>> As good, bad or mediocre as he was as President,
>> at least George H.W. was extremely savvy about
>> foreign policy and relations -- perhaps the most
>> savvy since Nixon. Much more so -- unfortunately
>> -- than his son.
> Yeah, and "Boy George" chose not to consult his dad
> on this war,
Bush said in an intereview that Shrub keeps in regular contact and
occasionally acts his advice. Forgot whether Shrub did so about going
into Iraq or what Bush said his answer was if Shrub did so.
> something Kerry and Edwards should have
> been complaining about "Big Time" last year. Instead,
> they ran another losing "nice guy" campaign.
That was a very strange and unfocused campaign in general. If Kerry
and Edwards would have been like that in office ...
Then again, if Howard Scream had made it past the primaries, what would
we have seen then?
One news network ran one story on Bush's book and the mess in Iraq now.
One. NOBODY picked on that -- not Kerry, not the other networks,
nobody as far as I know
> Oh, I forgot, GWB consulted a "Higher Father".
> Talk about scary....
So did the elder Bush. It's one thing to consult your heavenly Father
and another to act a fool by going your own direction or messing up in
the follow-through.
Bush the First is a very humble man; Bush the Second is not. Even
before Bush the Second was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000,
there were stories flying across the Internet about Bush's grudge
holding and a penchant for retribution. Very un-Christlike indeed.
One of Shrub's first cabinet meetings was about how to get rid of
Sadaam and he stayed on that even after 9/11.
You may ask God's advice on something but if He can't get through your
thick head, that's another story.
jy
A. Brain
>
> Military tribunals goes back to the querin case, not the current
> court.
> I think the current court is more notable for 5-4 decisions that
> barely
> squeak out than "activism."
That's the whole point. Bush is wanting to pack it with
so-called "conservative" and so-called "Federalist"
"activists".
>>
>> How, in the face of the constitutional standard?
>> The broad treatment of "State secrets"
>> by the Courts when discovery is sought against the
>> government--as in the recent Sibel case (FBI contractor
>> alleging improper termination for her "whistleblower"
>> activities related to the 9-11-01 terrorist attacks) would appear
>> to argue that leaking covert agents may amount to conduct
>> falling within the constitutional standard of giving aid to
>> the enemy. Ex-CIA agents have already expressed views
>> to this effect concerning the Plame matter.
>
> I'd hate to have you as my prosecutor because obviously you'd throw
> the
> book at me.
Unfortunately, almost all prosecutors, perhaps especially
the "independent" kind, go overboard in their assignments.
Kenneth Starr, thought originally to be a reasonable person
(Clinton friends reassured him to that effect when Starr
replaced the original prosecutor, Robert Fiske), was the
ultimate in overzealotry.
>
> Unless Fitzgerald's got a lot up his sleeve, it seems like he's going
> to have trouble finding a crime to prosecute for anybody, never mind
> taking down the White House.
Well, the press could be wrong, but they are saying,
based on Fitzgerald's treatment of Miller and his
filings with the judge, that this is REALLY REALLY
serious.
>
>>
>> Well, if "public use" of private property can encompass
>> razing residential property for economic development so
>> as to raise the tax base, why can't "treason" encompass
>> leaking state secrets?
>
> You're ignoring intent again. The only written evidence we've seen
> is
> Cooper's email, which hardly shows intent -- on the contrary, it seems
> almost inadvertant. Since the email is not a direct account, but
> Cooper's take on the conversation, it makes it harder still.
> Fitzgerald has to have a lot more, which may be why Miller is still in
> jail.
Intent can be inferred from conduct; the defendant need not
admit it, indeed almost never does.
> The act of treason would be to do so to harm the US government, not to
> harm a political opponent. Even considering all the facts your way, I
> can't see treason going down. This is hardly "waging war against the
> United States." The crime of treason is considered by most to be so
> heinous and unusual, thus any dilution of what is considered treason
> would not be so easy to effect.
Well, I agree that the bigger act of treason is the Bush/Cheney
war itself. Pat Buchanan's magazine, "The American Conservative",
is calling for a withdrawal. Buchanan himself was predicting that
months ago. Unfortunately, the on-line site does not have the
article available. Here's the site though. Apparently there is also
an article about Cheney planning to attack Iran next, following
another terrorist attack on the USA:
John Harrington
<snip>
> Apparently there is also
> an article about Cheney planning to attack Iran next, following
And of course the "terrorists" will oblige with a perfectly timed and
appropriately severe attack, because it is entirely in their interests
for the US to attack Iran. And this future attack will be the result
of a "conspiracy" of Muslims living in caves on a shoe string budget.
J
Paul Ilechko
> Every President tries to "pack" the SC with judges that are
> like-minded. Most would consider "federalism" and "activism" as
> oxymorons, but the way labels shift in the political arena, I wouldn't
> be the least surprised.
To Democrats, an activist judge is one who wants to roll back decades of
precedent, particularly in the area of civil liberties. To Republicans,
and activist judge is one who supports those decades of (what they
regard as) bad law with no consitutional basis, and is therefore
*against* rolling back decades of precedent. The label is thus rendered
meaningless.
A. Brain
> In article <85iEe.24316$5N3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> A. Brain <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:
>
>> "Owen Hartnett" <ow...@xids.xnet> wrote in message
>> news:220720051006398221%ow...@xids.xnet...
>> >
>> > Military tribunals goes back to the querin case, not the current
>> > court.
>> > I think the current court is more notable for 5-4 decisions that
>> > barely
>> > squeak out than "activism."
>>
>>
>> That's the whole point. Bush is wanting to pack it with
>> so-called "conservative" and so-called "Federalist"
>> "activists".
>
> like-minded. Most would consider "federalism" and "activism" as
> oxymorons, but the way labels shift in the political arena, I wouldn't
> be the least surprised.
The so-called "Federalist Society" is a puzzle to me. If
it means restoring power to the states and limiting Federal
government regulation through a restrictive reading of the
"Commerce clause", this is definitely an "activist" agenda,
since the expansive reading of the clause has been used
to justify civil rights laws for decades. One of my
favorite cases is illustrative: In Daniel v. Paul, the
U.S, Supreme Court held that the snack bar at
"Lake Nixon Club" on "Lake Nixon" in Arkansas
was covered by the 1964 Civil Rights "public
accommodations provisions because the hot dog
buns served there moved in interstate commerce.
395 U.S. 298 (1969).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=395&invol=298
If, on the other hand, the "Federalist" refers to the
system of "federalism" whereby states are free
to experiment with various schemes of regulation
and particularly in social, economic, and legal matters,
in what is termed the "laboratory of democracy",
these so-called "conservative" lawyers' efforts to
enact federal laws and to make federal cases
(literally) of what used to be handled within state
systems are hardly consistent with that notion.
> Looking at it in hindsight, I was disappointed in Starr's report -
> which seemed to rely too much on salacious details. I thought Starr
> had a good opportunity, but he blew it (no pun intended). But for the
> "ultimate in overzealotry,"
>
> Of course that leads to the question of whether Clinton's crimes rose
> to the status of "high crimes and misdemeanors," a question we've
> already hashed through often enough we don't have to revive it again.
Clinton's "crimes" were hardly crimes. "Plamegate" is much
more "promising".
> I think you liberals ought to be careful getting into bed with Pat
> Buchanan. He's certainly not mainstream conservative, and I'm sure
> his
> famous speech at the Republican convention is still ringing in a lot
> of
> ears.
I'm not sure that I am a "liberal". Is it now the defining
characteristic of "liberals" that they don't want the U.S.
to become entangled in foreign wars and they don't
want the government messing around with their private
lives and families? I always thought those were
"conservative" stances.
And how is it that "conservative" judges argue that
the only rights individuals have are the ones conferred
by the Constitution explicitly? I thought conservatives
believe that people are endowed with rights by their
Creator and that governments simply secure those
rights.
Well, I disagree with Buchanan about social issues,
and lots of other things, but I rather like his manner and
he's been right about the war for a long time. I just
subscribed to his magazine.
A. Brain
> In article
> <re2Ee.463939$cg1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, A. Brain
> <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I had forgotten that the Constitution appears to
>> mandate a narrow standard for treason. An expansive
>> reading of the Constitution by an "activist" court--one that
>> perhaps was receptive to military tribunals and indefiinite
>> detention without counsel for "enemy combatants"-- could
>> nevetheless find "leaking" of "state secrets" to amount to treason.
>
> court.
> I think the current court is more notable for 5-4 decisions that
> barely
> squeak out than "activism."
>>
>> The broad treatment of "State secrets"
>> by the Courts when discovery is sought against the
>> government--as in the recent Sibel case (FBI contractor
>> alleging improper termination for her "whistleblower"
>> activities related to the 9-11-01 terrorist attacks) would appear
>> to argue that leaking covert agents may amount to conduct
>> falling within the constitutional standard of giving aid to
>> the enemy. Ex-CIA agents have already expressed views
>> to this effect concerning the Plame matter.
>
> the
> book at me.
>
> to have trouble finding a crime to prosecute for anybody, never mind
> taking down the White House.
>
>>
>> razing residential property for economic development so
>> as to raise the tax base, why can't "treason" encompass
>> leaking state secrets?
>
> is
> Cooper's email, which hardly shows intent -- on the contrary, it seems
> almost inadvertant. Since the email is not a direct account, but
> Cooper's take on the conversation, it makes it harder still.
> Fitzgerald has to have a lot more, which may be why Miller is still in
> jail.
>
> harm a political opponent. Even considering all the facts your way, I
> can't see treason going down. This is hardly "waging war against the
> United States." The crime of treason is considered by most to be so
> heinous and unusual, thus any dilution of what is considered treason
> would not be so easy to effect.
Here's another take:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/22/23342/2018