Despite its somewhat to the right of Stalin editorial pages, Dow Jones media properties -- most notably the WSJ and Barrons -- has been publishing some of the most cogent and damning critical reporting on the war. Meanwhile, the rest of the Press (at least much of it) has been AWOL.

Of all the things I've read about Iraq, the most disturbing by far came in (yet another) WSJ article this week: Former General Sees 'Staying the Course' In Iraq as Untenable.

Its one of those reads that makes the hair on your neck stand up. It was written by John Harwood, the Journal's political editor. Harwood discusses the perspective of retired Gen. William E. Odom, who is the author of "Fixing Intelligence: For a More Secure America."

Here's the money quote:

Maybe it's time, in other words, to listen to retired Gen. William E. Odom. It is delusional, asserts the Army veteran, college professor and longtime Washington hand, to believe that "staying the course" can achieve President Bush's goal of reordering the Middle East by building a friendly democracy in Iraq. For the sake of American security and economic power alike, he argues, the U.S. should remove its forces from that shattered country as rapidly as possible.

"We have failed," Mr. Odom declares bluntly. "The issue is how high a price we're going to pay. ... Less, by getting out sooner, or more, by getting out later?"

His is not the voice of an isolationist, or a peacenik, or Republican-hater. He is talking from the conservative Hudson Institute, where he was hired years ago by Mitch Daniels, later Mr. Bush's budget director. His office displays photos of Ronald Reagan, under whom Mr. Odom directed the National Security Agency, and Jimmy Carter, on whose National Security Council staff he served.

Rather, his unsettling view reflects a broader reassessment of America's predicament as Iraq looks ever-uglier. It can be seen as well in U.S. Administrator L. Paul Bremer's tacit admission of error in disbanding the Iraqi Army and Mr. Bush's new reliance on United Nations help.

Mr. Odom opposed the Iraq war before it happened. An expert in comparative politics who teaches at Georgetown and Yale, he warned that there was no reason to expect that Iraq could soon develop the ingredients for constitutional democracy: individual rights, property rights and a tax-collection system supporting a government to enforce them. The violence of recent months, he concludes, has exposed Mr. Bush's vision of doing so as a dream.

That is brutal criticism from a person who is one of the nation's leading experts on strategic warfare and comparative politics. And, he's a guy who has actually donned a uniform and fought in wars. His perspective, his view of strategic planning, comes from a place with more gritty realism and experience than the administration's current war planners -- much of whom avoided military service.

Odom has started to do the circuit: He appeared on NBC's today show yesterday morning (I missed it). When people with these sort of credentials start speaking out against the war, it raises very serious issues -- not of the politics of the war, but rather, of the execution and administration of it. As the rest of the interview makes clear, he is gravely concerned about the unintended -- but not unexpected -- consequences of the Iraq war:

"Following the planned June 30 handover of nominal sovereignty, Iraqis may go to the polls and vote. But the result, Mr. Odom explains, will resemble theocracy more than liberal democracy. As televised images of Iraqis cheering attacks on U.S. troops suggest, it's not likely to be anything Americans would consider worth the war's cost in blood and treasure.

"Anybody that's pro-American cannot gain legitimacy," he says. "It will be a highly illiberal democracy, inspired by Islamic culture, extremely hostile to the West and probably quite willing ... to fund terrorist organizations." The ability of Islamic militants to use Iraq as a beachhead for attacks elsewhere may increase.

But can't U.S. troops there tamp down such hostile activity? Well, yes, he says -- at a cost of rising hostility to the U.S. throughout the region.

"It probably will radicalize Saudi Arabia, [and] it could easily radicalize Egypt," Mr. Odom says. Violence yesterday between security forces and terrorists in Syria hinted at what may come, heightening dangers for Israel and the U.S. Iran might agree not to stir trouble among fellow Shiites who are 60% of Iraq's population -- provided the U.S. eases its hostile stance toward Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Yet the stakes, in Mr. Odom's view, are much bigger. The longer U.S. troops hang tough, he reasons, the more isolated America will become. That in turn will place increasing strain on international economic and security institutions that have undergirded the emergence of "America's Inadvertent Empire," as Mr. Odom's latest book calls it. "I don't know that the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, [or] NATO can survive this," he says.

Jeez. How's that for thinking something through?

Harwood also notes that General Odom's proposed solution sounds a lot like Mr. Kerry's: a call for the U.N. and European allies to take charge of political and security arrangements. Where he differs is in the tactic that along with our request we make a "unilateral declaration that U.S. forces would leave even if no one else agrees to come in."

Such a move, he concludes, might even provoke an unexpected result a year after Mr. Bush brushed off opposition from France, Germany and many others to oust Saddam Hussein. "The Europeans might get scared [of chaos] and go in," Mr. Odom says. "There'd probably be a big effort to try to rescue" Mr. Bush. But U.S. troops would be gone within six months in any event.

It is a jarring prescription. But ask yourself, as bullets fly in Najaf and Fallujah, which sounds more credible: Mr. Odom's gloomy forecast, or Mr. Bush's prediction of success?

Um, sure. Not likely to happen under either candidate.

The real problem that lay at the heart of this misadventure is the utterly miserable and often missing strategic planning done -- or not done -- before the war.

I was not rabidly anti-invasion 1 year ago. In fact, we published a Pre-War Analysis on March 19, 2003: Not-So-Hidden Agenda: Strategic and Economic Assessments of U.S. led Invasion in the Middle East.

This was in response to an enormous demand from our European clients -- who all thought the United States had lost its collective mind. I tried to evaluate what credible reasons existed for invading Iraq, so they would have a better sense of the political situation here.

And it turns out, there actually were justifiable strategic reasons to "reshuffle the deck" in the Middle East. The problem is, Team NeoCon dropped the ball.

Like all wars, this one also required forethought, extensive planning, intelligent strategies, and superb execution to result in a positive outcome. As General Odom makes all to clear, those elements are notably missing in the current misadventure in Iraq.

What's worse than bad policy? Bad policy poorly executed . . .

UPDATE: May 15, 2004 6:33am
There is a May 12 interview with the General posted at Democracy Now: Ex-National Security Agency Head Calls For U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

Sources:
Former General Sees 'Staying the Course' In Iraq as Untenable
JOHN HARWOOD
WSJ, Page A4, April 28, 2004
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108310695176695357,00.html

Not-So-Hidden Agenda: Strategic and Economic Assessments of U.S. led Invasion in the Middle East
Pre-War Analysis
March 19, 2003
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2003/07/notsohidden_age.html

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL
17 April 2002
by William E. Odom, LT GEN, USA, Retired
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/107/odom0417.htm

Fixing Intelligence: For a More Secure America
Gen. William E. Odom
Yale University Press, March 2003
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300099762/ref=ase_thebigpictu09-20/103-2972001-5798213

Posted at 06:48 AM in Media, War/Defense | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

The best part of Google's S-1 filing with the SEC -- the document that takes them public -- is the letter from its two young co-founders, where they enunciate their guiding principle:

Don’t be evil.

Anyone think they might want to avoid turning into another Microsoft?

Here's the actual letter:

Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company.

Google users trust our systems to help them with important decisions: medical, financial and many others. Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, and we do not accept payment for them or for inclusion or more frequent updating. We also display advertising, which we work hard to make relevant, and we label it clearly. This is similar to a newspaper, where the advertisements are clear and the articles are not influenced by the advertisers’ payments. We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see.

MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE

We aspire to make Google an institution that makes the world a better place. With our products, Google connects people and information all around the world for free. We are adding other powerful services such as Gmail that provides an efficient one gigabyte Gmail account for free. By releasing services for free, we hope to help bridge the digital divide. AdWords connects users and advertisers efficiently, helping both. AdSense helps fund a huge variety of online web sites and enables authors who could not otherwise publish. Last year we created Google Grants—a growing program in which hundreds of non-profits addressing issues, including the environment, poverty and human rights, receive free advertising. And now, we are in the process of establishing the Google Foundation. We intend to contribute significant resources to the foundation, including employee time and approximately 1% of Google’s equity and profits in some form. We hope someday this institution may eclipse Google itself in terms of overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the world’s problems.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Google is not a conventional company. Eric, Sergey and I intend to operate Google differently, applying the values it has developed as a private company to its future as a public company. Our mission and business description are available in the rest of the prospectus; we encourage you to carefully read this information. We will optimize for the long term rather than trying to produce smooth earnings for each quarter. We will support selected high-risk, high-reward projects and manage our portfolio of projects. We will run the company collaboratively with Eric, our CEO, as a team of three. We are conscious of our duty as fiduciaries for our shareholders, and we will fulfill those responsibilities. We will continue to attract creative, committed new employees, and we will welcome support from new shareholders. We will live up to our “don’t be evil” principle by keeping user trust and not accepting payment for search results. We have a dual-class structure that is biased toward stability and independence and that requires investors to bet on the team, especially Sergey and me.

In this letter we have explained our thinking on why Google is better off going public. We have talked about our IPO auction method and our desire for stability and access for all investors. We have discussed our goal to have investors who determine a rational price and invest for the long term only if they can buy at that price. Finally, we have discussed our desire to create an ideal working environment that will ultimately drive the success of Google by retaining and attracting talented Googlers.

We have tried hard to anticipate your questions. It will be difficult for us to respond to them given legal constraints during our offering process. We look forward to a long and hopefully prosperous relationship with you, our new investors. We wrote this letter to help you understand our company.

via linkfilter

Posted at 11:14 PM in Finance, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

As I wrote in "Greatest American Rock and Roll Band?," about the Talking Heads:

"You either 'got' and loved the T. Heads in the '80s, or you didn't, in which case you were probably a disco loving jerk -- but lets not start with the name calling so soon, ok?"

So you can guess I like the T-Heads. Thats prolly why I enjoyed this interview with David Byrne in of all places, The Onion.

Here's a quick clip:

"In a funny way, music—certainly now—just seems more emotional to me. That's what people say about music, that it has a more direct link to the conscience, the emotional centers, or the brain or heart or whatever. Certainly more than the word, which is something you have to read and then translate, and then it has to affect you somehow. With music, you often don't have to translate it. It just affects you, and you don't know why. It seems almost backwards to me that my music seems the more emotional outlet, and the art stuff seems more about ideas. Whereas maybe years ago, it may have been more of the opposite: My music was more idea-based."

"David Byrne is best known for his stint with one of the weirdest and greatest rock bands of all time, but he's kept busy since Talking Heads broke up in 1991. As a musician, he's maintained a steady and eclectic solo career, funneling his worldly interests into soundtracks and pop albums that strain his strange sensibility through increasingly stately songs. On his new solo album, Grown Backwards, Byrne croons through opera arias, string-swept ballads, and wily torch songs—like the sly pro-America ode "Empire"—that undermine their own status as anthems.

Byrne has carved out a big presence in the art world, too. His book The New Sins, a quasi-Bible published in 2001 by Dave Eggers' McSweeney's imprint, was first conceived for an art show in Valencia, Spain, where Byrne distributed the books in hotel nightstands. Readings for the book led to a series of art projects made with Microsoft PowerPoint, the ubiquitous software used for all manner of corporate presentations. A number of Byrne's PowerPoint works were recently collected for Envisioning Emotional Epistemological Information, a handsome book packaged with an accompanying DVD. Byrne's merchandise pile also grew last year with Once In A Lifetime, a four-disc retrospective of Talking Heads' career. "

Good stuff . . .

Posted at 07:17 AM in Music | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The WSJ's Alan Murray had a very interesting article yesterday: Woodward's Portrait Of Bush Nails Down The Man as He Is. Murray sought to explain why Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack is the number one book on the White House's suggested reading list. Note that:

"Rush Limbaugh called it an "anti-Bush, antiwar screed" in The Wall Street Journal. Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution calls it a "deeply disturbing indictment of the president and his policy," while MSNBC's Bill Press says it would cause presumed Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to "win by a landslide" if widely read. It is fast becoming a staple on the Bush-hater's bedside table. According to Amazon.com, those buying "Plan of Attack" also bought John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" and Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them."

All this leads to the obvious question: Why is the "White House giving Mr. Woodward such a warm embrace?"

Some suggest that the Bush administration does not want to repeat the mistake of making another "all-out attack on former U.S. terror adviser Richard Clarke," which only served to increase book sales. "By endorsing Mr. Woodward's [book]" Mr. Murray suggests, perhaps officials think it might "get less attention."

The really interesting part of "Portrait Of Bush" is, as Murray terms it, the simpler explanation:

"This book gets it right. The president is exactly as Mr. Woodward portrays him: a man who judges his counterparts by their character -- he often uses an earthier term -- rather than their intellect. A man so certain of his positions that he loses no sleep to doubts. A man who talks to God about key decisions, but avoids long discussions with advisers who disagree. Love him or hate him, this is the real George W. Bush. And the presidential election of 2004 is less about defining him -- Mr. Woodward has done that very well -- than it is about defining us, the voters who will either re-elect him, or not."

I find that to be an astute observation. But where I disagree with Murray -- where he simply goes off the rails -- is his indictment of Bush's political opponents using a strategy of trying to accurately depict the President as who he is:

"There is a tendency among Mr. Bush's critics to think that if word just gets out -- if Americans find out what he is really like -- they will toss him from office. An example of that kind of thinking slipped onto the front page of Sunday's Washington Post, in a story arguing that the president's "skillful use of language and images" had enabled him to retain high poll numbers despite misadventures in Iraq. The story seemed to suggest that Americans were tricked by clever public relations into supporting Bush and his war.

Hogwash. That's "Blue America" elitism at its worst. By now, all Americans have taken fair measure of their president. And their sharp disagreements have less to do with who he is and what he has done than with who they are and what values they hold. Mr. Bush has become the ultimate Blue America-Red America litmus test. Your response to him determines which side of the great divide you populate.

Here's why I disagree with Alan Murray (for whom I have a wealth of respect): The public doesn't really know this President. This has been the most secretive administration since Nixon. Rove & Co. have displayed an ingenious ability to use misinformation and propaganda. Why do 57% of Americans still believethat Iraq was responsible for 9/11? This degree of prevalent false belief persists, despite Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield admitting Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11.

Of course, the fact that the book places all of the WMD blame on CIA Director George Tenet didn't hurt. Indeed, Woodward quotes Bush as initially not buying into the WMD argument: "One of the book's best moments is when the president reacts skeptically to intelligence suggesting Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Tenet shuts the discussion down by rising up, throwing his hands in the air, and saying: "It's a slam-dunk case!"

Whether that actually happened or not is irrelevant to the White House. Bush has boxed in Tenet via Woodward, who has given the President a "fall guy" for the catastrophic failures in intelligence. Any Democrats who question the President's intelligence or political acumen would do well to pay attention to this brilliant bit of manuevering.

Indeed -- number one on the Bush Campaign reading list -- with a bullet . . .

Source:
Woodward's Portrait Of Bush Nails Down The Man as He Is
Alan Murray
WSJ, April 20, 2004; Page A4
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108302179226194161,00.html

Posted at 06:44 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

A credit card that will not work unless it hears its owner's voice could become an important weapon in the fight against fraud. The card requires users to give a spoken password that it authenticates using a built-in voice-recognition chip. The idea is to prevent thieves using a stolen card or fraudsters using someone else's credit card details to buy goods online.

A prototype built by engineers at Beepcard in Santa Monica, California, represents the first attempt to pack a microphone, a loudspeaker, a battery and a voice-recognition chip into a standard-sized credit card.

They are not quite there yet: the card is the length and width of an ordinary credit card, but it is still about three times as thick. Alan Sege, Beepcard's CEO, says the company now plans to use smaller chips to slim it down to normal thickness.

Newscientist, via Gizmodo

Posted at 05:45 AM in Finance | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Dynamic duo?

The Spot: In a short film available solely on the Web (www.americanexpress.com/jerry), Jerry Seinfeld loafs around with his good buddy Superman. They nosh at a diner, take in a Broadway show, and (briefly and distractedly) fight crime. The product pitch, for American Express cards, is almost an afterthought.

On line short

Source:
It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's a … Webisode?
Seinfeld's new short film for AmEx.
By Seth Stevenson
Slate, Monday, April 19, 2004, at 11:56 AM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099152/

Posted at 10:29 AM in Finance, Humor, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Kurt Jones is a Sports Photographer. His site has some absolutely astounding photos.

One of his most famous shots (above and below) is being circulated around the Net -- either without attribution or with someone else wrongly claiming them as their own. Also, these are not -- as erroneously described -- sharks attacking surfers:

1) Kurt Jones took the photos, and not the idiot claiming them as his own;

2) These are Dolphins, not sharks. (Its even been debunked by Snopes).

UPDATE: April 27, 2004
Kurt and I exchanged emails -- yes, these are his photos; no they are not sharks, they are merely Dolphins being playful.

Check out the rest of his way cool photographs.


Kurt Jones Photography
http://www.kurtjones.com/main.htm

Surfshooter
http://www.surfshooter.com/DolphinInfo.html

Posted at 05:40 PM in Science | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack

While you're enjoying that delicious brew, check out yet another delight on BBC 6: The
CRAIG CHARLES Funk Show.

So far, just by clicking around, I've discovered a few great shows on BBC 6 and BBC2.

Just go random.

Here's the streaming digital radio access: Launch BBC 6 Player

Posted at 08:32 AM in Music | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I've been to your home or apartment. We've broken bread, drank some wine or beer, had a few laughs and a good time. Its getting a little late, and a little caffeine would be good for the ride home.

Here's the problem: Your coffee sucks. That's right, I said it: You do not know how to brew a good cup of Joe.

You suffer (actually, I'm the one who suffers) from one of four likely problems. Lucky for you, opinionated bastards like me are here on the 'net to give you good advice you didn't even know you needed:

   1) You Use Crappy Coffee. Forget instant, that's not even under consideration. Store bought, no name, canned ground coffee is at its best, mediocre. If you buy a good French Roast, and use 5 to 6 heaping scoopfuls (not spoonfuls, but those little plastic scoopers), you get a halfway decent brew.

But most people don't. They buy whatever lame ass coffee is on sale that week, and then they use  miserly portions. Bleeeccch.

  2) Your Coffeemaker Sucks
That's right, its a piece of shit: It brews too fast, and it doesn't make the coffee hot enough.

A good brewer will slowly let the water drip into the basket, allowing the natural oils, flavor and aroma of the beans to come out. Ahhhhh, can you smell that? Hmmmmm.

Ideally, your brewer will use fresh filtered water, crank up the heat, and then have the warmer turn off quickly -- otherwise, it will burn the brew.

By the way, when was the last time you cleaned that stanky coffeemaker of yours? You can buy commercial products, or just run a 50/50 mix of vinegar and water. Clean it every six months or so.

  3) Your Coffee Was Ground Ages Ago
Forget the stuff in the can -- that was factory ground in 1994. I'm talking to the people who buy beans, ground them up immediately, and then put them in a jar in the fridge for months. That starts the gradual loss of flavor and aroma immediately. (Why even buy beans?)

You want beans, and you want them ground as close to the brewing process as possible.

  4) Your Tap Water is Nasty
Depending upon where you live, your tap water ranges from tasty to industrial run off to chemical comtaminants to carcinogenic.

Cancer flavored coffee tends to taste bad.

OK now you know why your coffee sucks. Let's resolve each of these issues for you poor shlumps who up until know, did not know any better (but now ya do): 

   1) BUY GOOD COFFEE
There, that wasn't too hard to figure out, was it? It doesn't have to be expensive, just good.

My favorite coffee supplier is Porto Rico Importing; They have excellent coffee, and its about 1/2 to a 1/3 of what Starbucks charges. Here's their contact info:

201 Bleecker St.
New York, N.Y. 10012
212-Gr7-5421
1-800-453-5908
Fax:212-979-2303
http://portorico.com/

If you are tight with the moolah, then you can stock up during their twice yearly sales: Going on right now is the Springtime sale (April 15-30); They run a fall sale (for Peter's birthday) in October.

Try the Danish Blend (1/2 Mocha & Java, 1/2 French Mocha), or Peter's Blend (1/3 French Mocha, 1/3 Colombian Supremo, 1/3 Venezuelan Tachira).  Both are on sale for $3.99/lb this week. 

I'm sure there are plenty of other good roasters in your region. Outside of NYC, the Fairway on Long Island has their own roaster -- also good coffee at reasonable prices.

Hunt around a bit, you'll find something.

  2) Get a Kickass Coffeemaker
My machine is the Capresso 453.01 CoffeeTeam Luxe 10-Cup Electronic Coffeemaker with Conical Burr Grinder. It cost me about 2 beans (I never see it go on sale). Its a great balance between performance and cost. The next step up beyond it are $600 to a few grand (see picture at bottom). That's a lot of wood, Jerry.

For half the price of my machine -- about $100 -- there's a decent looking Cuisnart. It comes in Black or White; You can spend $150 for the Chrome machine, but at that point, you are better off spending the extra 50 clams for the Capresso.  I've never used this Cuisnart machine (but I have used their previous model grind and brew). Please post any comments on this if you have first hand experience (There's a wide range of opinions at epinions).

Way back when, Toshiba made a grind and brew called "My Cafe" -- and it was terrific. They still pop up on eBay, and in used appliance stores from time to time. Nice symmetrical design, too. There was a cottage industry repairing them. If you see one, grab it.

  3) Grind Your Coffee Fresh
The 'grind and brew' machines resolve this issue. If you don't want to go that route, than buy a small burr or blade grinder. As close as possible to the actual brewing, freshly grind the coffee beans. (Hmmmm, smell the aroma).

If you grind them at night for the morning's coffee, that's acceptable. Anything longer than that loses too much flavor.

  4) Use Fresh Filtered Water
You have plenty of options: Some people buy the large 5 gallon jugs of bottled Deer Park water, or, you can buy the 2 gallon refrigerator size. Others use a separate filter (i.e., Brita) -- its a pain, but better than tap water.

We installed a Moen carbon filtration system right into our kitchen sink; Most brand name kitchen hardware companies -- Moen, American Standard, etc. -- offer this as a modestly priced option. If you are remodelling your kitchen, this is a MUST DO option. If not, it is merely highly advised. 

Yes, I'm being a bit on the picayune side here? Yes, but that's the price for really good java.


I've been meaning to get this post up for sometime. Now go make me a good cup of coffee. I'll be right here waiting . . .

UPDATE October 29, 2006 7:53 am

I originally posted this here over 2 years ago. This week, I received as a birthday gift the latest Capresso Design -- and its awesome: The Capresso 455.05 CoffeeTEAM Therm Stainless Coffeemaker/Burr Grinder Combination

Yeah, its $300 -- but its the best machine I've come across that's under 4 figures.

P.S.You probably don't want to spend this type of wood, but consider what you get if you spend 10X as much, you can get the $3,000 Magic Saeco.

Now that's a nice looking machine . . .

 

Graphic courtesy of  New York Times

Posted at 01:00 AM in Design, Food and Drink | Permalink | Comments (60) | TrackBack

Time for an update on the late great Bill Hicks:

Frequently asked questions
http://www.billhicks.com/darktimes/other/darktimes20/faq/faq.html

Hicks in a Comic
http://www.sacredcow.com/hicks/preacher/

Hicks related links
http://www.billhicks.com/links.html

Audio and Video
http://www.billhicks.com/darktimes/

Multimedia Video
http://www.sacredcow.com/allnew/index_content.php?n=multimedia_video_bill

Posted at 12:21 PM in Humor | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Taboo Tunes: A History of Banned Bands and Censored Songs

From the medieval eras diabolus en musica to the Dixie Chicks firestorm of late, Elvis to Eminem, from Puff the Magic Dragon to Cop Killer.

A unique compendium of several centuries worth of scandalously morbid murder ballads, blasphemous satanic songs, paeans to intoxicating substances, raunchy sex ditties, and radical political anthems along with the dirt behind historical efforts by censors to squelch artists and their ideas. Taboo Tunes flips the rocks over and casts a much-needed spotlight on the largely untold story of the various societal forces be they repressive governments, busybody community organizations, or self-appointed moral guardians who have throughout history attempted to regulate the conduct of others and limit what forms of public expression are acceptable.

Note that ancient (451 BC) Roman law that defined the singing of bawdy songs as a disruption of public order an infraction punishable by death.

Far from simply recounting dusty old history, Taboo Tunes brings readers fully up-to-date by documenting some of the under-reported impacts that reactions to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have had on music. Most folks probably remain unaware that, for example, within hours of those traumatic attacks Americas largest radio chain (Clear Channel) imposed a ban on further airplay for over-150 particular songs. Or, that the Secret Service leaned on the managers of one popular-if-a-bit-rebellious rock bands Web site resulting in perfectly legal content being disappeared. Or, that the nations largest Internet provider, America Online (AOL), suddenly began cutting service to punish subscribers for simply getting involved in online chats about the political dimensions of certain hit song lyrics. Or, that the Crime Prevention Resource Center (CPRC) recently proposed the creation of computerized databases for law enforcement agencies to monitor the Internet traffic and musical proclivities of suspicious youth. Or that, in the wake of 9/11, certain risk-aversive record companies altered a few new records over concerns that various lyrics or graphics might be offensive to the shell-shocked American psyche. And that, according to the cruelly misnamed USAPATRIOT Act of 2001, anything the authorities now decide to define as advocating terrorism including: home computers, libraries, diaries, and music can be targeted and seized by the FBI.

Taboo Tunes digs deep to examine serious complexities within key censorship issues. Among those are: Threats to authority posed by the intrinsic power that songs have to suggest new and different ideas to people; The constitutional principal of Free Speech as it applies to the arts; America’s traditions of dissent as expressed through music; The varying manifestations of censorship from the political Right and Left; The role that the radio and record industries play in America’s informal censorship “system;” And, perhaps most significantly, the patterns of censorial behavior which have occurred and reoccurred throughout time. As Blecha writes: “By surveying this historical landscape it is hoped that we can gain a more informed understanding of how crusades to ban music—usually in the guise of “protecting society”—have been woefully misguided, often destructive, occasionally comical, and remarkably unsuccessful.”

Posted at 05:37 AM in Books, Music | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

If you liked Danger Mouse's the Grey Album, try London Booted:

The producers have requested downloaders make a donation to one of a selected group of charities.

CD artwork included

You can download London Booted here.

courtesy of Culture Deluxe

Posted at 05:23 AM in Music | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

From the same people who brough you the Electrolux Deathray, comes the Hamilton D-6 rapid fire pulse cannons:

The lightest of the rapid fire pulse cannons, this compact power house turns you from a tank commander into an actual tank. Choose from a range of antipersonnel and armor shredding settings for the variable auto-feed. Repeated firing can damage internal organs so be sure to add a rapid fire recoil vest before hitting the field a one man wrecking crew.

Gotta get me one . . .

Posted at 10:45 PM in Design | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The CIA has a very straightforward threat advisory:

It may not be Bert and Ernie, but its a pretty good, straight forward design nonetheless . . .

Posted at 05:53 AM in Design | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Why did the EPA official in charge of Air Quality quit? Here's a hint: It had something to do with the administration's changes in clean air regulations and enforcement:

If you're going to make a stand by walking away from your job, it should be over something pretty important. How about the air we breathe? A new government report found that the air in 31 states, affecting nearly 160 million people, fails to meet new federal health standards for smog. Part of the reason is pollution coming from big coal-burning power plants. For decades, the Clean Air Act helped improve air quality, a man named Bruce Buckheit helped enforce it. But now, this former top government official has given up his job, frustrated because he says the country is taking a giant step backwards -- and that you and your children may soon see the difference in the air you breathe.

Worth reading in its entirety . . .

Posted at 06:12 AM in Politics, Science | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Independent Film Channel is the source of my latest little guilty pleasure: Rocked With Gina Gershon. It's a quasi documentary about the Gershon produced film, Prey for Rock & Roll.

Gina first drew my attention with her portrayal of Corky, the pouty lipped lesbian ex con in Bound.

As a rocker, she has a sexy presence in leather pants and a tight cut off t-shirt. But her smoldering dark is somewhat reminiscent of Chrissie Hyndes of the Pretenders. Every now and again her voice has that "Precious" sneer which Hyndes perfected in thier debut album.

Its a guilty lil pleasure because as sexy as Gershon is -- which is to say very -- you almost want her tobe a good singer. She shows a glimmer every now and again.

I suggest she do a the life story of Hyndes and the Pretneders. Now THAT is an interesting tale worth seeing . . .

Here's IFC's promo crap:

Have you ever dreamed about leaving the daily grind behind and being a rock star? (Who hasn't??)

Gina Gershon decided to stop dreaming and start screaming...into a microphone, that is. And IFC followed her every step of the way to create our new documentary series, Rocked with Gina Gershon.

This documentary series follows the actress on a multi-city tour across the US with her band. Along the way, Gina encounters the highs and lows of touring: a crazed fan calls in a bomb scare at one of the venues, the House of Blues has to shut down temporarily for crowd control and she jams with Lenny Kravitz til 3am at her NYC show at Joe's Pub.

It's a riveting glimpse in to a world most of us only dream about, and a tribute to taking a leap of faith.

Check out the show -- you might find it intriguing.

Posted at 09:07 PM in Music, Television | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

The 100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time (via PREMIERE magazine)

Celebrating the most memorable movie characters and talks to some of the actors who brought them to life:

"There are plenty of things we go to the movies for: spectacle, an escape from our workaday lives, a portal into a different world, a laugh, an artistic epiphany. And then there are the people. Not the people we go to the movies with, or the people in the theater for that matter. (Hey, you in the next row—knock it off with the cell phone.) The people in the movies, conjured by an actor speaking a writer’s words, guided by a director, locked onto celluloid by a cinematographer, projected onto the screen by a beam of light. So many degrees of contrivance—but sometimes we believe in these people as much as we believe in . . . well, actually, more than we believe in that joker who’s still on her cell. For this list, we’ve shunned biopics, which begin with a filmmaker’s mission to do justice to reality. Here we’re giving priority to people who never were—but who are always with us movie lovers."

What, no Deckard, from Bladerunner? What about Bill Murray's Dr. Peter Venkman? Go argue with them right now.

Posted at 07:04 AM in Film | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hey Rick: Listen up:

The Push Stars hail from Boston -- as did edgier guitar bands like the Pixies -- but the Push Stars' music is far more melodic and comfortable. Lead singer Chris Trapper has a great rock-n-roll voice -- soulful and pleading -- and is an inventive songwriter. The band's signature is well crafted pop tunes with clever but deeply felt lyrics. The songs are upbeat and catchy, with a rich, warm sound -- yet avoid the cloying sentimentality of other pop bands.

After the Party

Play the tune: Drunk is Better than Dead

Amazon.com noted "After the Party" is the perfect accompaniment to sunny days, open windows, and good moods."

Posted at 08:59 PM in Music | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

BlogShares is a simulated, fantasy stock market for weblogs where players invest fictional money to buy stocks and bonds in an artificial economy where attention is the commodity and weblogs are the companies. Weblogs, or blogs for short, are valued by their incoming links from other known blogs. In effect, links become the business deals in the simulation and players speculate on the fortunes of thousands of blogs by buying and selling shares. A whole host of options exist for advanced play including gifting shares, leveraged buy-outs, stock splits, additional share issues, market and player bonds.

Go outside and play with your friends. RIGHT NOW. No, seriously, I'm going to take that computer away from you if you don't boot it down and have some nonvirtual human interaction.

Posted at 06:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Here's a very funny parody of the iMac adverts ala Star Wars.

The Basics The iWing "Colors" commercial is a parody of the original 30-second iMac "Colors" commercial featuring the song, "She's a Rainbow" by the Rolling Stones. The iWing ad uses the same soundtrack as the original iMac ad, as well as an almost-identical choreography. However in certain sequences, iWings performed fly-by's rather than the constant dizzying rotations of the iMacs.

Download the video

Posted at 07:03 AM in Humor | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

How To Gag On 'The Passion'
Nine fun-filled ways Mel Gibson's brutal snuff film makes a mockery of true belief. Clip n' save!

Posted at 06:22 PM in Media | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

5748cc, 12 cylinder, 48 valve, 65 degree all aluminium engine.
540 Horsepower.
0 to 62mph (100 kmh) in 4.2 seconds.
Top speed of 196mph.

Hmmmmmmmm, Ferrari . . .


via Ferrarista and Auto Intel

Posted at 06:26 AM in Design | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

I subsist on a steady media diet of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Daily Show, several British papers, and a broad variety of magazines and websites.

I am also an active participant in media, often quoted in print and occasionally appearing on television. As such, I have what might be described as an "interesting" perspective on the media.

Lately, I have noticed several changes in the media's coverage of both the White House and the Iraq War. This shift has accelerated recently, and in some instances, dramatically:

- Today's New York Time's front page shows a soldier's casket being unloaded from a plane (its one of 3 front page photos of grieving family members). There are additional photos (page A13) of all 64 American servicemen killed this past week;

- The Wall Street Journal has been critical of numerous statements of the administration. Several articles directly challenge as false facts put forth by the administration;

- At the President's Tuesday night press conference, the media asked far more difficult, uncomfortable questions than they have in the past. Though not nearly as voracious or "in your face" as the UK press, it was marked change from the kid glove treatment the President has enjoyed in the past.

- Much of the media carried explicit photos of the burned and desecrated bodies of 4 American contractors hanging from a bridge in Fallujah.

What we are seeing -- in real time -- is an unravelling of the administration's media management strategy.

How did so a dramatic shift come about?

Source: New York Times

As a media junkie, I trace the loss of press timidity back to one specific event: Robert Novak's outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. After years of spin and overtly politically motivated policies, that single event is where the White House "jumped the shark." I suspect it was the event that crossed the line for many professional journalists.

The Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview was the next order of magnitude shift. When the Nation's Chief of Counter Terrorism tells the country that the President of the United States was asleep at the switch, it generates some media introspection.

Then came the worst week of the war in terms of U.S. Casualties. The Fallujah debacle added to the sense that the war was slipping from our grasp.

Click to view full chart.
Source: New York Times

These three events have emboldened a cow-towed Media. No one likes to feel they have been played for a fool. Its apparent (to me at least) that the Press is perturbed over having smoke blown up their collective arses for the past 4 years.

The sharks smell blood in the water, and they are more than willing to exact some revenge.

This is extremely significant, at least from an election campaign perspective. The media has been complicit in much of what has happened during this administration. A lack of vigorous fact checking, and little challenges of outright falsehoods has enabled much of what the Bush White House has accomplished in their first term. With few exceptions (The New York Time's Paul Krugman, and the Kansas City Star come to mind), the Press has been mostly AWOL during most of President Bush's term.

How significant is this? With the Press engaging in self-censorship post 9/11, the White House was free to set the media agenda, determine the tone of discourse, and control what subjects were ripe for further exploration.

That is an enormous concentration of power.

How did we ever to get this point, in an open Democracy with a Free Press? For a perspective on that, I suggest you watch Alexandra Pelosi's 2000 campaign documentary "Journeys With George." Pelosi is the youngest daughter of California Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic Minority Leader. Far from a liberal screed against a far right candidate, the documentary reveals the candidate George W. Bush as an intelligent and likable person.

If you have ever wondered how one of the least qualified (on paper at least) major party candidate for President got elected in the first place, this film provides at least part of the answer. In short, W utterly charms the pants off of the press corps.

That charm, combined with the President's initial good post 9/11 performance gave him an enormous amount of latitude with the media; W got the "benefit of the doubt." That's an edge which the White House has enjoyed and exploited ever since the terrorist attacks shocked the nation.

Do not underestimate the impact of this: It is the most significant change in the 2004 Presidential campaign. For a variety of reasons, but most especially the three mentioned above, Rove & Company has lost the "benefit of the doubt."

So far, we have seen how the President's handler's have performed since losing that edge: Not very well. The President gave a steady speech on Iraq, only to turn into a Deer int he Headlights during the Q&A portion. Is it any wonder that this was only his 3rd prime time Press Conference since taking office?

This makes a multitude of debates less likely. It means we will see less of the President in situations where he is working "without a net." Karl Rove is likely to stick to a strict script of tightly controlled photo ops and prepared remarks. I suspect he is willing to risk further alienating the media and attempt to run out the clock.

At least, that's the impression I got from watching his televised expressions Tuesday night during some of the President's less eloquent monents.

Indeed, the failure on the part of most of the mainstream press to adequately discharge their duties is what has enabled the blogosphere and sites such as this one to come about and thrive. There is a definite public hunger for a more aggressive media, complete with better fact checking and challenges to authority.

The free market despises a vaccum. If the press will not provide a vigorous fact checking mechanism, we have seen the market place step nito the void and do so instead. This is a warning shot across the bow of the mainstream commercial media, and they had best take notice of it.


Getting back to the politics of the recent media shift: Without a compliant and willing press, the White House will have a much harder time getting their message out unfiltered. Both the right and left wing echo chambers preach to the converted. But its the mainstream media that speaks to the great middle, the swing voters and the independents.

In a divided nation, this is the strategically a very important group of voters. Losing media compliancy is a potentially devasting loss in what looks to be a very close election.

Sources:
Deadly Week Ends in Tears for the Fallen
By MONICA DAVEY
New York Times, April 15, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/national/15SOLD.html

Families in Mourning
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2004/04/14/national/20040414_soldier_slideshow_1.html

Graphic
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/04/15/national/20040415_SOLD_GRAPH.html

Bush News Conference Set Amid Campaign Concerns
ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times, April 13, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics/campaign/13POLI.html

Posted at 12:55 PM in Media, Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Very cool new search tool via Amazon: a9

• Search Inside the Book™: In addition to web search results we present book results from Amazon.com that include Search Inside the Book. When you see an excerpt on any of the book results, click on the page number to see the actual page from that book. (You will need to be registered at Amazon.com.)

• Adjustable Columns: Simply drag the boundaries between the columns either to the left or the right to change their width of the different result sets (web, books, history). You can also close any column at any time. The next search will remember these new settings (if you allow cookies). This feature currently does not work on all browsers (but we're working on it!).

• URL Short Cuts: At A9.com you can search directly from the browser URL box by typing:

• a9.com/query

• Search History: All your searches at A9.com are stored on our servers and shown to you at any time from any computer you use. Clicking on a link performs the search again. You can hide the window at any time and a password will be required to open it again. You can edit your history, for example, to hide an entry.

• Click History: If any of the web search results include a site that you have seen before, it's marked on the result. We even tell you the last time you visited that site.

• Site Info: Place the cursor on one of the Site Info buttons to see a lot more information about that site without leaving the search result page.

• Web Search: Web search results are provided by Google.

via linkfilter

UPDATE: April 15, 2004 9:27am
Dan Gillmor points to a full write up over at John Battelle's Searchblog

Posted at 08:27 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Reuters is reporting George Tenet "never informed a vacationing President Bush in August 2001 that a suspected Islamic extremist had been detected taking flight lessons, the panel investigating the Sept. 11 jetliner attacks on New York and Washington heard on Wednesday."

Tenet's comments came during today's 9/11 Commission questions of the CIA Chief. Former Democratic congressman Tim Roemer "asked Tenet if he had ever mentioned to Bush the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui in mid-August 2001 after he had been detected behaving suspiciously in a Minnesota flight school."

The Chief Spy's response?

"Tenet said he had not spoken to the president at all that month, when Bush was staying at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Nor did he bring it to the attention of other senior officials, saying it was "not appropriate."

"He's in Texas and I'm either here or on leave for some of that time," he said. "In this time period, I'm not talking to him, no."

After Moussaoui -- believed to be one the 9/11 attacks planners -- was arrested, top CIA officials (including Tenet) received a briefing titled, "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly."

This story ties together two previously unrelated subtexts of the pre- and post- 9/11 period:

1) Did the President's somewhat excessive vacations impact his information flow (and therefore his decision making) during the months before pre-911? In other words, was the President of the United States "Out of the Loop?"

2) Why did the President keep President Clinton's CIA Chief? After the WMD Intelligence debacle, why not give Tenet the Heave ho?

The first question reveals a not-very-veiled acknowledgement of the President's vacation status: "He's in Texas and I'm here" ain't exactly subtle.

This is especially true in light of the recent Washington Post tally of Presidential vacations: The most recent Crawford foray "is Bush's 33rd visit to his ranch since becoming president. He has spent all or part of 233 days on his Texas ranch since taking office, according to a tally by CBS News. Adding his 78 visits to Camp David and his five visits to Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush has spent all or part of 500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."

Tenet's comments, in light of this data, puts the president in a rather bad light. Was this a purposeful gaffe, or a signal from the CIA to the White House that they better not scapegoat the agency?

Adding fuel to that fire was Tenet's admission of errors by the Intel community. He distinguished himself from the President today by admitting his department "erred." While not quite a Richard Clarke mea culpa, it certainly stood in stark contrast to what the Nation heard from the President last night.

As to why the President kept Tenet: The tinfoil hat crew typically assumes that Tenet has some sort of very nasty Intel on Bush/Cheney. In the present case, they may not be so far off of the truth.

Its undisputed that VP Cheney made unprecendented visits to the CIA. Whether he attempted or actually succeeded in influencing analysts may be sunject to debate (I have my own beliefs).

A negative comment from Tenet on the subject would explode that issue beyond any doubt. If I was Bush/Cheney, I'd want to keep the CIA spymaster happy also.

UPDATE: April 15, 2004 3:04 pm
Josh Marshall points to Fred Kaplan's story, "The Out-of-Towner" (While Bush vacationed, 9/11 warnings went unheard).

Beat 'em by 2 hours!

Source:
Tenet: Vacationing Bush Not Told of 9/11 'Clue'
Reuters, April 14, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20040414/pl_nm/security_commission_dc_23

Posted at 03:35 PM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

We previously mentioned that the new puritanism of the post Boob-Gate FCC might force Howard Stern to Satellite Radio.

That's starting to look more and more likely; Salon has some dope on how Stern could get booted off of the air:

"For the past several weeks shock jock Howard Stern has been insisting that his days on the radio dial are numbered. And based on recent events, he might be right.

Last Thursday Stern was permanently kicked off six stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, the country's biggest radio chain, after the Federal Communications Commission slapped the media giant with a half-million-dollar fine for airing a Stern program on April 9, 2003, that was deemed offensive. With the FCC suddenly adopting harsher guidelines for indecency enforcement and with legislation pending before Congress that would jack up those fines into the seven- and possibly eight-figure range as well as threaten license renewals, Stern's daily doomsaying about his broadcasting demise can no longer be dismissed as self-involved chatter.

"They're executing him," says Michael Harrison, publisher of the radio industry's Talkers magazine. "The government has unleashed a round of volleys that will drive him off the air."

Incidentally, BuzzMachine owns this story; Check out Jeff's site for more details on the continuing saga . . .

Source:
Howard Stern unplugged
Eric Boehlert
Salon, April 14, 2004
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/14/sternunplugged/index.html

BuzzMachine
Jeff Jarvis, April 14, 2004
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_04_14.html#006825

Posted at 02:54 PM in Media | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

This is hysterical:

Insert Snarky Title Here:

Someone I don't like is saying something I don't agree with.
"Here's a quote." (Isn't that dumb?)
Here's a link disproving what they say.
Hey! Look at my pop-culture references!
Here's something proving that they're a hypocrite:
     "Look at what a big hypocrite I am!"
Now, I'm going to try to tie this all together with a poignant point and a recommendation for future action.
Behold my mighty blog, calloo and callay.

Pandagon via Brad DeLong

Posted at 01:49 PM in Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Morford emailed this out to his subcriber list. Apparently, there is much more to the tale than meets the eye:

Just a quick note, a delirious reply to all the astounding queries and the "Where the hell are you?" emails.

This is to you. This is to everyone who wrote in, about 1,300 of you (yes, this is a mass email reply -- deep apologies, but I had to), not knowing a thing of what happened to me or my column, not really believing the line that I was on sudden unannounced vacation/hiatus and intuiting, quite correctly, that Something Must Be Wrong. Here, then, is the bottom line:

I am not dead.

That is, for most, the good news. I, Mark Morford, am not dead and my Notes & Errata column on sfgate.com is not dead and my deeply skewed, wildly popular, ever-lubricious Morning Fix email newsletter, well, that's a different story.

The newsletter and I, we have been through a bit of legal and corporate hell lo these past six weeks, as our futures with this company were suddenly under duress, picked apart, threatened, reviewed and revised and reconsidered. It was ugly. Blindsided me completely. Access to my sfgate.com email was disabled in early March and not reactivated until last Friday. I had no way to read or reply to anyone who wrote in to this address. Such is the way. Let that be a lesson to me. Or something.

The short of it: The case against me did not hold. The fire and brimstone died down, explanations were delivered, punishments were doled. I am still with sfgate.com. My Notes & Errata column still lives and should return this week, intact. The future of the Morning Fix remains to be seen. Life, it be surreal and spasmodic.

(Note: My case, apparently, reached far up the corporate heirarchy. So please, no angry emails to sfgate.com editors/management -- they had little to do with it).

You who wrote in asking about my status, you should be gilded and licked by angels. I am flattered by all the concern and wish you all a long hard intensely felt tongue kiss coupled with a gentle back massage and maybe a nice bottle of expensive sake poured slowly over your tailbone by gangs of moist dreamy nymphs who can recite Keats while playing with your nipples with their toes. Thank you.

Salud, namaste, kampei, lube on,

--mm

Side note: I hope to have markmorford.com, which I already own, up and running relatively soon (right after I work through the logistics of how to design and maintain it) so readers will have somewhere to go in case this happens again. Which of course it won't. But in case it does. Which it won't. But just in case. Know what I mean?
--

Posted at 10:15 AM in Media | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Tom Toles hits another Home Run:

via Yahoo

Posted at 11:52 AM in Politics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Noir Cinema:

"The phrase, as I've discovered, is not popularly understood. I've been a fan of many movies considered to be film noir and didn't even know myself what exactly it meant or that these movies were examples of it. That was the genesis of this project, to bring together some of the information available, to educate and maybe intrigue a little. There are many excellent resources available, both online and in print, and I highly encourage you to investigate them. This web site is not meant to be an all-encompasing or scholarly look at noir, it's just a guide. So getting back to the subject at hand..."

There's also a gorgeous collection of Film Noir Posters ranging from the '40s and '50s (The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep) to more recent '80s Noir (Taxi Driver and Bladerunner).

An interesting site movie buffs will find worth poking about.

Posted at 06:47 AM in Art & Design, Film | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack