More From the FRIGGIN' Bombardier

Two summers ago, in a post entitled "Playing Backyard Bombardier", we saw Congressman Tom Tancredo's absolutely idiotic proposal to deter terrorist attacks:

TANCREDO: Well, what if you said something like, if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites.

CAMPBELL: You're talking about bombing Mecca.

TANCREDO: Yeah. I mean, what if you said, "We recognize that this is the ultimate threat to the United States, therefore this is the ultimate threat, this is the ultimate response." I mean, I don't know -- I'm just throwing out there some ideas because it seems to me, at this point in time, or at that point in time, you would be talking about taking the most draconian measures you could possibly imagine. Because other than that all you could do is, once again, tighten up internally.

A few days later, he issued a statement to say that he was just "musing", and not really serious -

"I do not advocate this. Much more thought would need to be given to the potential ramifications of such a horrific response," Tancredo wrote.

His spokesman, Will Adams, said the congressman is a "free thinker" who was grappling with a hypothetical situation.

And, at the time, this is what I thought of that -

Now, I have a serious problem with this. First of all, this is a statement which could only come from someone who was either screamingly ignorant, or simply venal - because he confuses "Muslim" with "terrorist". But, more important, you know that if some Imam somewhere said that it would be a good idea to set off a bomb at the National Cathedral, or the Lincoln Memorial, as payback for something that America did, the usual crowd from Fox News and talk radio would be foaming at the mouth, demanding that every single Muslim denounce such statements - and continuously bringing it up in case they didn't think the denunciations were public enough or strong enough.

Not to mention the fact that a headline like "U.S. Official Threatens Bombing of Holy Sites" not only hinders our nation's ability to reach out for allies in the Muslim world, but is also a handy little recruiting tool for those who need pliable, impressionable young men to strap on a bomb vest and blow themselves up.

Well, via Talking Points Memo, we see that apparently he's at it again -

Followers of radical Islam must be deterred from committing a nuclear attack on U.S. soil, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said Tuesday morning, saying that as president he would take drastic measures to prevent such attacks.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," the GOP presidential candidate said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of."

Are the Republicans going to distance themselves from this guy? Does anyone think that would happen?

[Edited to add] Well, wonders never cease, and I stand (partially) corrected. Commentator Jim Geraghty at the National Review (of all places) has a major take-down of Tancredo over this, similar to the thoughts I had previously expressed -

The problem, Congressman, is that having already lost an American city in this scenario, we will have gone from having some debated percentage of the Muslim world as our enemy to having 100 percent of the Muslim world as our enemy. And then our problems will be even worse than they were when we had lost one city.

And oh, by the way, casual discussion of nuking two holy sites seems likely to make the situation worse in the here and now, not just a future horrific time. If a foreign state talked about deterring Christians by attacking Rome and Jerusalem, would we feel assured that the country was not "at war with Christianity"?

Let's hope for more of the same.

[Edited again to add] His campaign spokesperson, Bay Buchanan, is apparently just as nuts as Congressman Tancredo. According to her, the fact that he would make this threat is a positive aspect of his personality -

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”

In the same news story, the State Department has an appropriate response to this -

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”

And, of course, there are reports overseas, in Muslim countries, about this now, and governments of even our allies are reacting, such as in Pakistan -

Speaker National Assembly Chaudhary Amir Hussain has said that a full-fledged debate on the highly provocative statement of Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo would be carried out in the parliament on Monday.

Talking to APP here Saturday evening, he expressed the hope that house will unanimously adopt a resolution against this mischievous statement. Amir Hussain said that Makkah and Madina are the holiest places of Islam and Muslim Ummah would not tolerate such statement which are highly condemnable.

It is a fact that such statements would further widen the gap between Muslims and rest of the world, he added.

Seriously, his fellow Republicans have to say something about this, and they had better condemn it.

Sunday Night Springsteen

Okay, I admit it. I have a blog that I don't post to a lot. If anyone has arrived here looking for opinions, I apologize for the small number of opinions actually expressed.

We are planning to do better, from now on. And by "we", I mean "me", but "we" sounds like there's somebody else who cares about what's written here. Heck, even the Cautious Wife doesn't know about this site. ;-)

Anyway, to inaugurate our "back to the beginning" phase, tonight's offering is "Blinded by the Light". That's right, the song that Manfred Mann took further than Mr. Springsteen. As it turns out, Mr. Mann may be remembered for the song, but Mr. Springsteen will be remembered for the career.

So, here is the original cover -



And the "live" cover -


These versions led to disputes about the lyrics, as demonstrated in the definitive "Blinded by the Light" sketch here -



Finally, Mr. S's cover of himself, which some of us may prefer

Sunday Night Springsteen

"We've got an immigrant song for New York City" were the opening words at the Bruce Springsteen/Seeger Sessions show we went to last summer at Madison Square Garden.

Did I mention that we were right in front of the stage for that one? I mean, I told everyone I know ...

Lots of people are bothered by immigration, apparently - at least, immigration of people who are considered less than "desirable". Of course, those are the kind of folks who actually built the country, but why let facts get in the way?

The McNicholas, the Polaski's, the Smiths, Zirillis too
The Blacks, the Irish, the Italians, the Germans and the Jews
The Puerto Ricans, illegals, the Asians, Arabs miles from home
Come across the water with a fire down below

They died building the railroads, worked to bones and skin
They died in the fields and factories, names scattered in the wind
They died to get here a hundred years ago, they're dyin' now
The hands that built the country we're all trying to keep down

By the way, I learned from this guy (the source for all lyrics, setlists, and other important trivia) that the Zirilli family, representing Italian immigrants in the lyric, is Springsteen's mother's family.

In any event, "American Land" -

Independence Day

First, go read The Declaration of Independence, especially the part in the beginning about having "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind". Seriously, I'll wait ...

Now, I seem to be repeating myself, lately. This is from something I posted on July 4 a couple of years ago. Because, no matter what anybody tells you, Independence Day is about more than invading other countries because our leaders would rather be political than protect our nation the right way -

I am a patriot and I love my country
Because my country is all I know

And I ain't no communist, and I ain't no capitalist
And I ain't no socialist
and I sure ain't no imperialist
And I ain't no democrat
And I ain't no republican either
And I only know one party
and its name is freedom
I am a patriot

And the river opens for the righteous, someday

Little Steven, I Am A Patriot

Some versions on video. First, Mr. Van Zandt himself, preceded by a great speech about how real patriotism means that you aren't complacent regarding your government. Sadly, it's from 1984, which goes to show how far backwards the Administration has taken us.



And Eddie Vedder, doing it nice and slow, then nice and rough.





What the heck, one more. Michelle Branch, with a nice dedication speech.

Sunday Night Springsteen

Independence Day is this week. This land was made for you and me.

London Calling

So, two summers ago, the Cautious Wife and I took the Cautious Kids to London. We didn't let fear of the bombs and bomb threats that summer keep us away (as noted here and here at the time). And we learned that a LOT of other people thought the same way, in the "We're Not Afraid" campaign.

Well, about a month ago the Cautious Wife and I decided to plan a vacation, for after dropping our younger child off at her first semester of college at the end of August. And we decided to go to - London, of course.

I have this funny feeling that the situation in Great Britain, combined with the deep-seated desire of Republican Presidential candidates to exploit it for their own ends, will keep the drumbeats of fear going this summer.

And my reaction is the same - We're Not Afraid.

She Had One Last Chance to Make it Real …

… and gave it up. I’m referring to Christine Todd Whitman, former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and prior to that the former Governor of New Jersey. In today’s installment of the Washington Post’s series on how Vice President Cheney has operated, Ms. Whitman is supposedly “coming clean” about her decision to resign as head of the EPA -

It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure.

~ snip ~

Whitman, then head of the EPA, was on vacation with her family in Colorado when her cellphone rang. The vice president was on the line, and he was clearly irked.

Why was the agency dragging its feet on easing pollution rules for aging power and oil refinery plants?, Cheney wanted to know. An industry that had contributed heavily to the Bush-Cheney campaign was clamoring for change, and the vice president told Whitman that she "hadn't moved it fast enough," she recalled.

Whitman protested, warning Cheney that the administration had to proceed cautiously. It was August 2001, just seven months into the first term. We need to "document this according to the books," she said she told him, "so we don't look like we are ramrodding something through. Because it's going to court."

But the vice president's main concern was getting it done fast, she said, and "doing it in a way that didn't hamper industry."

At issue was a provision of the Clean Air Act known as the New Source Review, which requires older plants that belch millions of tons of smog and soot each year to install modern pollution controls when they are refurbished in a way that increases emissions.

Industry officials complained to the White House that even when they had merely performed routine maintenance and repairs, the Clinton administration hit them with violations and multimillion-dollar lawsuits. Cheney's energy task force ordered the EPA to reconsider the rule.

~ snip ~

Sitting through Cheney's task force meetings, Whitman had been stunned by what she viewed as an unquestioned belief that EPA's regulations were primarily to blame for keeping companies from building new power plants. "I was upset, mad, offended that there seemed to be so much head-nodding around the table," she said.

Whitman said she had to fight "tooth and nail" to prevent Cheney's task force from handing over the job of reforming the New Source Review to the Energy Department, a battle she said she won only after appealing to White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. This was an environmental issue with major implications for air quality and health, she believed, and it shouldn't be driven by a task force primarily concerned with increasing production.

~ snip ~

Cheney had a clear mandate from the president on all things energy-related, she said, and while she could take her case directly to Bush, "you leave and the vice president's still there. So together, they would then shape policy."

What happened next was "a perfect example" of that, she said.

The EPA sent rule revisions to White House officials. The read-back was that they weren't happy and "wanted something that would be more pro-industry," she said.

The end result, which she said was written at the direction of the White House and announced in August 2003, vastly broadened the definition of routine maintenance. It allowed some of the nation's dirtiest plants to make major modifications without installing costly new pollution controls.

By that time, Whitman had already announced her resignation, saying she wanted to spend more time with her family. But the real reason, she said, was the new rule.

"I just couldn't sign it," she said. "The president has a right to have an administrator who could defend it, and I just couldn't."

A federal appeals court has since found that the rule change violated the Clean Air Act. In their ruling, the judges said that the administration had redefined the law in a way that could be valid "only in a Humpty-Dumpty world."

Writing over at Blue Jersey, Xpatriated Texan points out that it’s hard to tell whether she is telling the truth now, and was lying then, or vice versa.

But, my problem with Whitman is more basic. Remember, she was the former governor of our fair State of New Jersey. These pollution reduction rules have a MAJOR impact on the quality of life here. New Jersey is aggressively working to clean up its air, within its own borders. Nevertheless, the prevailing winds bring the discharge from Midwestern coal plants and other polluters over into our air. Only a Federal solution can protect us from those dirty discharges. And, Whitman was in the perfect position to make it happen.

Instead, she gave in to the Vice President and the rest of the Administration time and time again. And, finally, when she decided to resign she had ONE LAST CHANCE to do something, to try and protect our air. She could have announced that she was resigning on principle, because she could not support the Administration’s degradation of the environment. That could have been a powerful statement, to support cleaner air.

Instead, she went away quietly. Basically, she betrayed everyone in New Jersey, just like she betrayed those workers at Ground Zero after 9-11.

I’ve got no more use for Christie Whitman and her mealy-mouthed excuses.

Time Slips Away, ...

Once again, we've neglected this space. At least this time, it's been busy here lately. The Cautious Daughter graduated from High School, and we've been planning the getaway to college (and our own getaway after we take her there). Maybe I should write about that ...

As usual, I have been just sitting and reading, or viewing, some absolutely stunning things. Tonight, I watched Ann Coulter with Chris Matthews, and she was even more hate-filled than usual. Sure, Matthews sand-bagged her by having Elizabeth Edwards call in, and ask Ms. Coulter if she could avoid the personal attacks. Ms. Coulter (predictably) deliberately restated that as a request to stop writing, and showed some of the usual vileness. In addition, at the end a Barack Obama supporter asked her why she would characterize Obama as "godless", and she went off on a rant about the church Obama attends. Funny, but I can't recall ever reading about any church that Ms. Coulter actually attends. She seems to be making a good living being some sort of "Christian" commentator, but it's not clear how that carries over to her off-hours.

In any event, that's the kind of hypocrisy that really bugs me. Maybe I should write more often ...

Sunday Night Afternoon Springsteen Zach Braff

From last night's "Saturday Night Live", host Zach Braff is in a "New York Jersey State of Mind".

Sunday Night Springsteen

Mother's Day edition.

What else but "The Wish", in which our hero does something that no self-respecting rock 'n roller is supposed to do - sing a tribute to his mom.

Mission (Accomplished) Man

"My fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

- President Bush, May 1, 2003.

Everyone is remembering that today. But, the speech had a couple of other classic "Bushist" claims. For example, his insistence on linking the war to September 11:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world."

That's the same "logic" that will be used today, when the President vetoes a war funding bill that tries to set goals for withdrawing our troops from the occupation of Iraq.

And then, of course, is the President's misuse of Scripture:

"And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope -- a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, "come out," -- and to those in darkness, "be free."'"

Those words are from Isaiah Chapter 49, verse 9, which is a proclamation of peace. Unfortunately, the President used them as part of a proclamation of continued war and violence.

As if we shouldn't have expected that.

Sunday Night Springsteen

This week, there is much talk in Washington D.C. of what constitutes "surrender".

What some call "surrender", others would call "cutting your losses".

This is a song that notes what happens, when America is essentially occupying a country, and fighting the people who live there, and who will still be there, no matter when we decide to bring our troops home. As summarized in this simple, but haunting verse:

I had a brother at Khe Sanh
Fighting off them Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone

Born in the USA.



(There's a Spanish television announcer at the start, but wait a minute for it.)

"So you keep a little secret down deep inside your dresser drawer ..."

Yes, I know there are more important things in this world, but this story about GOP Presidential candidate/former governor Huckabee's son just bugged me.

Mike Huckabee's son, David, 26, was arrested at the Little Rock National Airport about 5:30 a.m. this morning for having a handgun in carry-on luggage while preparing to board a plane. The gun was found during routine security screening.

"It was a mistake," said police Lt. Terry Hastings. "It happens all the time. He just forgot he had it." He said airport security said such forgetfulness occurs three or four times a year at the airport.

A friend quotes David as saying it was a "stupid, stupid mistake." Young Huckabee, who travels in the mortgage business, often carries a gun with him on the road. He usually travels by car, but told a friend that he threw his computer case (and gun) in a bag when he got up at 4:30 a.m. for an early morning flight and simply forgot about the gun.

Look, you want to argue about being able to carry concealed? Fine, I can respect that. I disagree vehemently, but I can accept that you have a different view.

But, "I forgot I had a gun"? Give me a break. If you really can't keep track of where your loaded pistol is, that is not a comforting thought.

So It Goes

Kurt Vonnegut passed away, we heard today. As a result, I'm sitting here with my pile of Vonnegut books. From his last book of essays, "A Man Without A Country", page 80 -

I am, incidentally, Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that totally functionless capacity. We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, "Isaac is up in heaven now." It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, "Kurt is up in heaven now." That's my favorite joke.

So, Kurt is up in heaven now.

Brilliant Disguise

I just watched Glenn Beck (CNN Headline News) on the Anderson Cooper "360" show, criticize Don Imus. I have a kid at Rutgers, but even if I didn't, I'd wonder why it was "okay" to verbally abuse a group of college athletes, just because they were non-white. That being said, the sad part about this whole episode is the fact that the aforementioned Mr. Beck is using this to justify every cheap racist thing that he's ever done.

If anyone cares, my own opinion -

No, dickhead. The fact that you're trying to use this to defend yourself only shows what an a$$hole you really are.

At least Imus is trying to apologize. You're just a schmuck.

Sunday Night Springsteen

The "I ain't here on business, I'm only here for fun" edition.

This past week the Cautious Wife and I attended a fundraiser at Carnegie Hall for the Music for Youth Foundation. It featured some terrific (mostly) young musicians in a tribute to the music of Bruce Springsteen. I wanted to go because, well, I'm a sucker for stuff like that. There's a great summary of the evening on this NJ.com blog.

Some examples of the best performances - Pete Yorn performed "Dancing in the Dark", noting that it's not really a "happy" song, despite the bouncy music in the original (not to mention the unfortunate Bruce-dances-with-Courtney-Cox music video, which itself demonstrates that the 80's affected everyone).



The quality of this video isn't the best, but you'll get the idea.

Folk music legend Odetta was on the bill, and I just couldn't figure out what she would do. She surprised everyone with what even Mr. Springsteen would call the best version ever of "57 Channels (And Nothin' On)".



And at the end, the announcer asked if there was one wish she could grant the audience, what would it be?

And Bruce came onstage to a standing ovation.
"The good news is I'm still alive!" he said.
"It's like I'm invisible and floating high above the room and hearing all these people talking about you. It's like a funeral.
"Thank you to all the artist for showning up."
He said he liked the version of "57 Channels" Odetta did. he talked about meeting her when he was 23 at Max's Kanas City.
Bruce was wearing a black sport jacket and blue jeans.
He did an acoustic version of "Promised Land" which was a little bit different from the way he had been doing it at the end of the "Devils & Dust" shows.
Bruce then played an acoustic version of "Rosalita."
Toward the latter part of the song he stopped playing and said:
"Well, it's getting late, unfortunately. And this song is really long. Man, I wrote a lot of lyrics back then! Anyway, you don't really want to hear the rest of the story. You know the damn story already. Rosie rode off with our hero . . . they got married . . . and they lived pretty much happily ever after, more or less . . . despite what you might read in one or two tabloid stories. Our hero got himself a band . . . Made a fortune and became a star and made a whole lot of people happy with his songs. . . and then he started to get sort of happy himself. So he broke up the band, and started writing a bunch of songs about being happy. And no one liked them. So he got the band back together. He wrote some new songs. These ones were about being sad. Everyone loved them. And the years went by. Our hero put on a few pounds. His hair started to get some grey in it - at least when he wasn't touching it up. The United States turned into a kingdom. The whole damn planet got so pissed off about the whole thing that it just started getting hotter and hotter. Some babies came. And then they turned into children. And then they turned into...something else. And our hero came one night to the biggest city in the world. And he found himself onstage at the fanciest music house in the whole world. I know you're thinking this story is bullshit. I know it doesn't really happen like that. But tonight, I'm telling you, it's all true. So we might as well just cut to the chase already!"

As he then finished the song, he invited all the other performers out onto the stage. Since the house band knew "Rosalita", they all performed it, again. But, the honoree made a point of letting the other artists do most of the lead singing. They acted like they were kids again, singing along to the record. It was kind of sloppy, but well ...



And they were all having fun, as did we.

Rise Up

There's an unfortunate tendency, on the part of some of my favorite progressive bloggers, to forget that religious belief and liberalism DO actually go together. So, since it's Easter, that means that it must be time to make fun of the Christians. See, for example, the master of snark, here (You may be offended).

Don't worry, I'm not going to go all Bill Donohue now, or anything like that. Christians remember (or, at least ought to, if they pay attention in Church) that this is the same reaction that the first witnesses received, when they tried to tell their story -

Then they returned from the tomb and announced all these things to the eleven and to all the others.

The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles,

but their story seemed like nonsense and they did not believe them.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that from the beginning, the first Christians knew that they were telling a story that others found hard to believe, and actually mocked. Christianity here in the United States has gotten too complacent, so that lots of prominent "spokesmen" get offended if anyone questions their beliefs. But, it's always been that way, folks, so get over it.

Oh, and Happy Easter.

What's So Funny About Peace, Love and Understanding?

This fantastic guest column in today's New York Times by Robert Wright has stirred me from my posting lethargy. Here's a snippet so you get the drift (note, if you need to log in to read the whole thing, you can use "Cautiousman" and the password "Cautious") -

The religious left — yes, there is such a thing — complains that Mr. Bush ignores the Bible’s moral injunctions. But leave morality aside. If he could just match the Bible’s strategic savvy, that would make a world of difference.

Consider a teaching of Jesus that seems on its surface devoid of strategic import. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Last fall I was privileged to be asked to offer one of the readings, at our community's observance of the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. I was asked to share something from the Christian tradition, and I could think of nothing better than the same passage cited by Mr. Wright (from chapter 12 of Paul's Letter to the Romans)-

Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head."
Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.

Basing his argument on this idea, Mr. Wright drives his point home effectively -

Of course, Mr. Bush is more in the shoes of the Roman emperor than of Paul. America isn’t a small but growing religious movement. It’s a great power threatened by a small but growing religious movement — radical Islam. But the logic can work both ways. Great powers, by mindlessly indulging retributive impulses, can give fuel to small but growing religious movements. If you want to deprive jihadists of ammunition, make it hard for them to persuade others to hate us.

Right after Paul espouses kindness to enemies, he adds: “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Sounds like naïve moralizing until you look at those Abu Ghraib photos that have become Al Qaeda recruiting posters.
...

Mr. Bush says his favorite philosopher is Jesus. One way to show it would be to spend less time repeating the mistake of the Romans and more time heeding the wisdom of Christ.

Amen, brother, Amen.

Tougher Than The Rest?

I'm really tired of Rudy Giuliani and his "one note" campaign. This article in today's New York Times shows how he has nothing constructive to offer. He's running on his reputation as being Mayor of New York on 9-11, and is offering a hodge-podge of right-wing ideas coupled with "toughness":

But Sept. 11 was a constant backdrop, and as Mr. Giuliani promoted his vision of a forceful foreign policy that calls for the United States to continue slugging it out in Iraq, he let his audiences know that his was an outlook forged by fire.

“What they say in Washington is not going to affect the fact that there are terrorists around the world that are planning to come here and kill us,” he said in Iowa, in the most spirited part of his newly honed stump speech.

Pointing his finger and bouncing up and down on his toes, he declared, “It is something I understand better than anyone else running for president.”

What makes him qualified to "understand better" about dealing with terrorism? All of us in the New York area had to deal with 9-11. Lots of us know people who perished on that day. Even in the suburbs, we helped our friends and neighbors who ran from the collapsing towers. Public officials of all stripes, in ways large and small, showed strength in the face of such terrible events.

What part of Mr. Giuliani's background makes him "better"? Was it the way he left his police and firefighters unprepared to even communicate with each other? Was it the way he put New York's emergency center right at the city's biggest target? Was it the way he tried to delay the election of his successor? Was it the way he ordered the rubble of the Twin Towers to be bulldozed, instead of allowing the search for remains to continue?

He says he'll be tough on foreign policy, citing the time he barred Yasir Arafat from a United Nations concert - which is really an example of showboating, not of diplomacy. And here's what we could look forward to under President Giuliani:

At a house party in New Hampshire on Monday, he said the United States would most likely be fighting in Iraq for a long time, “unless there is some kind of miracle.” He attacked the “dangerous and irresponsible” Democratic effort for a withdrawal timetable.

And speaking at a high school in St. Petersburg, Fla., he maintained that the struggle would be over only “when they stop planning to come here and kill us.”
...

Mr. Giuliani spoke of what else he means when he says America needs to be on the offensive against terrorism. He would resist efforts to water down central provisions of the USA Patriot Act. He favors legal but aggressive eavesdropping. He backs intense interrogation of suspects, though not torture.

This is a recipe for endless warfare and fear-mongering, not a strategy to actually make America safer.

The solution is not to treat the terrorists as if they were just like the squeegee men he once chased off city streets, only better-armed.

Sunday Night Springsteen

Struggling valiantly against the tide of "take downs" that the "Man" insists on, in the Viacom vs. YouTube battle, we present a video that has (so far) escaped deletion.

For those of a certain age, the first time you heard "Born to Run" was a revelation. And then, all over again, you heard it again as if for the first time, in a version like this ...



And that's why we are fans.

Everyone Wants To Be The Man At The Top ...

... except if you already have the best job in New Jersey. Steve Van Zandt has the distinct honor of being the well-known sidekick of two of the most famous "Jersey guys" in the world - Bruce Springsteen and Tony Soprano. That's why he seems like the most "Jersey guy-ish" of them all.

We here in New Jersey live in an under-rated state, and often seem to be playing a supporting role, whether it's in politics or culture. But, as we who live here know, you can't really succeed without one of us.

Seriously, think about it ...

57 Channels and Nothing On

Okay, now I am getting peeved.

I keep losing the Springsteen videos that are in my posts below. As I write, the last one is there, and the cartoon one before that, but the Oscar-winner is now gone. On YouTube, the message that comes up when you try to view it is:

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International, Inc."

This has got to stop.

I want my Bruce-TV!!!!

Now Who's The Man Who Thinks He Can Decide

Now who's the man who thinks he can decide
Whose dreams will live and whose shall be pushed aside
Has he ever walked down these streets at night and looked into the eyes of
None but the brave

So I learned something by reading today’s press briefing from the White House.

Basically, it appears that “the Decider” was apparently not involved in “deciding” whether to fire those US Attorneys.

I’m not sure how that fits into that whole “serve at the pleasure of the President” concept, if the President isn’t involved in the “deciding” to fire them.

From today’s briefing -

Q There is one email from November 15th from Mr. Sampson to Harriet Miers, I believe, "Who will determine whether this requires the President's attention?"

MR. SNOW: Right.

Q And then there's a gap in emails. Was there any -- perhaps any emails about the President in there? And did the President have to sign off on this? Because the question was raised --

MR. SNOW: The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him.

~snip~

Q Just to follow, did you say, again for the record, that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about any of this?

MR. SNOW: Yes, the removal -- yes, that is correct.

~snip~

Q You said earlier that the President has no recollection of anyone bringing this issue up to him.

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Does anyone who now or previously worked at the White House have any recollection of bringing it up to him?

MR. SNOW: Not that I'm aware of, but I don't -- I don't think so. But this is one, John, where I think this is one of those things that members of Congress are going to want to explore, and if they accept our offer, they'll be able to get an absolutely exhaustive investigation of it.

~snip~

Q But earlier you were saying that, when I asked about, well, was the President informed of this decision, did the President sign off on U.S. attorneys being fired, you said the President has no recollection of being informed of all this.

MR. SNOW: Correct.

Q So were his advisors really advising him on this? Is this really privileged communication involving the President and his advisors, if the President wasn't looped in, you're saying, on this decision? So it was other people --

MR. SNOW: Well, that also falls into the intriguing question category.

Q But, I mean --

MR. SNOW: No, you're asking -- you're asking me to -- look, Ed, there are a number of complex legal considerations in here, and I'm not going to try to play junior lawyer. These are the sort of things that people are going to have an opportunity to talk about.

Q But aren't you having it both ways? If you're saying the President wasn't in the loop, but we need to cite executive privilege for the President's communications --

MR. SNOW: No, what you're -- what you are saying is, are conversations that didn't take place privileged? Well, no -- they didn't take place.

Q So what are you protecting, if they didn't take place?

MR. SNOW: Well, no, we're not -- what we're trying to do is to protect the ability of the American people to see folks in Washington get at the truth without, in fact, engaging in the kind of unseemly partisanship that has too often been a factor in recent political life.

Of course, that last question is also a good one. How the heck can you claim a privilege for a conversation that didn’t take place?

Sunday Night Springsteen

The "too-ri-ay, fol diddle-de-day, too-ri-you-ri too-ri-ay" edition.

First, I had other things that I thought of to post this week, but I did not do it. Not that you care, but I just had to get that out. I will try harder (but, that's what I always say ...).

Okay, so to continue. St. Patrick’s Day yesterday, the fourth anniversary of the Iraq invasion tomorrow – and a fitting song for both of them is “Mrs. McGrath”. As the album notes from the Seeger Sessions point out, this is an Irish song that dates to the Napoleonic Wars, with printed versions found from 1815. The sentiment about war is the same as today’s however.



We’ll give the last word to Ms. McGrath herself:

"All foreign wars I do proclaim
live on blood and a mothers pain.
I'd rather have my son as he used to be
Than the King of America
And his whole Navy!"

Sunday Night Springsteen

As you may be able to figure out, the posts have not been frequent here.

We are going to try to do better. We have also written the same thing here, before.

I don't know if this time will be different, but we're going to give it a try.

In the meantime ...

This is from someone who has combined two of my favorite things -

The Boss, and Looney Toons.



It's a joke, son ... ;-)