Friday, August 06, 2010

Wickedness' Little Sister

Janera's side project, Rock N Roll Fridays, is back again with some more rock song theme questions. So Let's Get It Started In Here...










1. MADNESS: OUR HOUSE … “I remember way back then when everything was true and when we would have such a very good time, and such a fine time, a happy time”….
What is a funny memory of a parent, sibling or guardian in your childhood home?


One of the funniest things my brother ever said was second hand, but funny nevertheless. On a school trip, the bus broke down. They parked in a Chinese restaurant parking lot, and the restaurant let the children inside to use the restroom. My brother, walking across the expensive looking restaurant, remarked, "Nice place....I think I can leave my urine here." 








2. MEN WITHOUT HATS: SAFETY DANCE … “We can dance if we want to, we’ve got all your life and mine…as long as we abuse it, never gonna lose it, everything will work out right”…
What activity did you do that would be considered dangerous or reckless?


Back in the day? I went to some wild Metallica shows, I guess. 










3. FRANKIE GOES TO HOLLYWOOD: RELAX … “But shoot it in the right direction, making it your intention…live those dreams, scheme those schemes, got to hit me, hit me, hit me with those laser beams”…
What was your dream job and what did you actually wind up doing?


My dream job is managing the Boston Red Sox. 


I wound up standing up all the time and getting yelled at a lot. I guess that's kind of the same thing. 














4. MODERN ENGLISH: I MELT WITH YOU … “I’ll stop the world and melt with you…you’ve seen the difference and it’s getting better all the time, there’s nothing you and I won’t do…I’ll stop the world and melt with you”…
What is the most romantic getaway you have taken?


A couple of theatre trips to NYC were pretty good.












5. THOMAS DOLBY: BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE … “I don’t believe it! She’s tidied up again and I can’t find anything!All my tubes and wires, and careful notes”…
What valuable item have you lost?




My sanity. 














6. DEVO: WHIP IT … “Crack that whip, give the past the slip, step on a crack, break your momma’s back”…
Were you spanked as a child? How were you punished?


I may have been. If I was, certainly not very often. 


Generally, the shame of having done wrong was enough punishment. 














7. ANIMOTION: OBSESSION … “You are an obsession, You’re my obsession, who do you want me to be to make you sleep with me?” …
What is the oddest thing you ever did to get someone to like you?


Wrote them a story. 
















8. TOMMY 2-TONE: 867-5309 JENNY JENNY … “Jenny Jenny who can I turn to? You give me something I can hold onto..I know you think I’m like the others before, who saw your name and number on the wall” …
Who do you regret giving your phone number to?


A couple of former co workers. 












9. KAJAGOOGOO: TOO SHY … “Modern medicine falls short of your complaints, ooh, try a little harder, you’re moving in circles wont you dilate? Baby try”…
What is your favorite medicine or drug?


Caffeine. 














10. GARY NUMAN: CARS … “Here in my car, I feel safest of all, I can lock all my doors, it’s the only way to live, in cars”…
What was /is your favorite car?


1985 Audi that I bought used. Oh my, yes. 














11. THE GO-GOS: OUR LIPS ARE SEALED … “Can you hear them? They talk about us, telling lies, well that’s no surprise” …
What is the worst lie or rumor anyone ever told about you?


I think we covered this before. I'm not interesting enough to be rumored about. 


















12. DURAN DURAN: HUNGRY LIKE THE WOLF … “In touch with the ground, I’m on the hunt I’m after you, smell like I sound, I’m lost in a crowd, And I’m hungry like the wolf” …
What food do you crave so much you would brave a long line or travel a far distance to get it?



Five Guys Burgers And Fries. As we've also covered before, if you don't know, you better ask somebody!














13. JOAN JETT: I LOVE ROCK N ROLL … “I saw him dancing there by the record machine. I knew he must have been about 17. The beat was goin’ strong, playin’ my favorite song” …
What was the last song you paid to hear on a jukebox?


Gosh. If you can even answer this question, you're old. 


I think it was "Please Please Me" in a Johnny Rockets. That's the last jukebox I recall seeing. 

17 comments:

  1. I love some of those songs, especially Thomas Dolby.

    I was going to add a comment on our discussion of Afghanistan, but I can't find it.

    I wanted to add that today's news about the Taliban massacring a group of medical aid workers is an illustration of why we most win. Or, more importantly, why the Taliban must be completely defeated. As completely as the Nazis were at the end of WW2.

    Despite the calls from Osoma, Kucinich, McGovern, Venezuelan dictator Chavez, Mullah Omar, and others who want the terrorists to win in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's funny. It should be here somewhere.

    I have this kind of childish faith in Google-"They'll keep everything forever, right?". I should really back up the whole site. But that sounds disturbingly like work, and I don't think I got really good at this until maybe the last year or two, so much of this is not worth saving.

    I think I have my father's packrat gene-keep it, because you never know. However, I don't have his sticktoitiveness gene.

    I really don't think it's fair to say that anyone , save Omar, on that list "wants the terrorists to win." Chavez wants us to lose because he always wants us to lose. The other three? I don't think that's fair. It isn't that simple. Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they want to reinstate the caliphate. (I also want to add that George McGovern knows more than you and I about fighting Nazis, because he actually went and did it.)(I don't know your age, but I'm just assuming you're not of that generation, based on your musical tastes.)

    Opposing the war doesn't mean you think the Taliban are wonderful people. Pulling out probably means they take back over, yes. Net loss for humanity.

    But what we've done hasn't worked. (At least partially because some damn fool president pulled a whole lot of troops out to invade another country for no rational reason.) Continuing to do what we are doing is not likely to work.

    Call it cut and run, call it whatever you like. But continuing to pour money and blood down a rat hole is insane.

    Yes, the Taliban are murderous, insane, subhuman f^&kwits who would have me up against the wall with a blindfold in about 5 minutes if I lived there. But the world is full of murderous, insane, subhuman f^&kwit regimes that are cruising for a bruising. We don't have the time, money, energy, and blood to invade them all. American power has limits. We can persuade, cajole, annoy, pester, offend and outrage them, but we can't invade them. Sorry.

    You know what the best way to end the war would be, though? Immediate, across the board 30% increase in personal income tax rates until operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are concluded. They'd be home by Thanksgiving.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dennis Kucinich is at the extreme of those in Congress who oppose fighting back against anything. But yes, it is unfair to say he wants the terrorists to win. He's just a blissful boob who has no idea what is going on in the world. He's the type of guy who thinks that sticking flowers in the tank barrels of Hitler's Wermacht would have ended WW2.

    It is not unfair to say that about George McGovern, who did at one time during the past decade say that he did want the US to be defeated in the war on terror.

    I don't use the phrase "opposing the war" for those who oppose the US fighting back. Because they aren't really opposing the war after all. Saddam Hussein and Al Queda were attacking and slaughtering before the US got involved....i.e. there was war, and the "anti-war activists" did nothing to oppose it. And Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorists would have a field day and expand their war if the US were not present and significantly curtailing their operations.

    I'm not sure who the third person was in "the other three". Probably OSama with an S. I typoed him as Osoma. I think you read OBama with a B! No, Obama was never on that list. In fact, he's putting a good effort into defeating the Taliban. Pres. OBama is now in a position to know what is really going on, more than any of us, and he knows how important it is to defeat the terrorists, and that it is not money down a rathole.

    "At least partially because some damn fool president pulled a whole lot of troops out to invade another country for no rational reason."

    You might be referring to Bush. There was every reason to retaliate against Iraq. Especially with the significant cease-fire violations and aggression. And especially with the large number of terrorist groups hosted by and funded by Saddam Hussein (also a cease-fire violation, and something to take very seriously in a post 9/11 world.

    Bush would have been a damn fool to NOT have struck back.

    "We don't have the time, money, energy, and blood to invade them all."

    True, but it is insane to ignore the ones that attack us, and not solve the problem.

    "You know what the best way to end the war would be, though? Immediate, across the board 30% increase in personal income tax rates until operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are concluded."

    So, part of the war effort would be the US engaging in economic warfare against its own people with even more plunderous excessive taxation.

    Sorry, I disagree here. The object is to crush the Taliban, not the American taxpayer. And it would not end the war. The Taliban would still be there, now victorious, free to attack us without hindrance. Your choice is to quickly ensure a terrorist victory, or send the US into a full blown depression. Neither is necessary.

    And I know that's not your intent, but I'm sure that the Taliban and other terrorists would love their proposal. It ensures their victory.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also, in regards to being anti-war, the war in Iraq is pretty much over. The accurate death toll that is counted as war-related in Iraq at the "Iraq Body Count" site is about the same as the murder rate for Los Angeles County.... and Iraq has three times as many people, total.

    This is in great contrast to the "status quo" of Saddam Hussein's Iraq... a status quo the US "anti-war activists" wanted to maintain. with tens of thousands killed inside the country each year due to mass executions, genocide, and other brutality, and Iraq engaging in war against its neighbors and against Israel. The "anti-war activists" opposed all efforts to stop this, and they offered no alternatives.

    Despite the best efforts of the "anti-war activists", this is all a thing of the past. The warfare is over, and they fought to keep it continuing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's funny to me that people like Kucinich, who is admittedly a bit of a wackdoodle, people who consistently, regularly, enthusiastically advocate for peace, people who are more like Jesus than most of us, are considered extremists.

    I'll have to take your word on the McGovern quote, because I can't find it. It doesn't sound like something he would say.

    What Hussein and Osama did before the war were criminal acts, not acts of war.

    American anti war activists don't protest the actions of foreign powers because...well, they are foreign. Why do you march in front of the Pentagon for something they did not do?

    You're right-obviously, in retrospect, I read what you typed as Obama. My bad. Obviously Osama, like Mullah Omar, wants his own side to triumph. He may be a murderous psychotic loon, but he's not stupid.

    Once again with the Iraq links to terror argument.

    Sigh.

    From the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 2006:

    "No postwar information indicates that Iraq intended to use al Qaeda or any other terrorist group to strike the United States homeland before or during Operation Iraqi Freedom."

    (Read the original here.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. "A newly-declassified (but redacted) 400-page Senate Intelligence Committee analysis of pre-war Iraq reports no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It concludes that Hussein "distrusted" al Qaeda and "viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

    It includes a CIA determination that prior to March 2003, Saddam Hussein ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward [Abu Musab al Zarqawi] and his associates.'' Instead, he "attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al Zarqawi." "

    (From a summary of the same report.)

    Saddam Hussein was a secularist. He was obsessed with exactly one thing-himself and his hold on power. He was not an imminent threat to the United States before we invaded. And it's not just me saying so. The 2002 NIE said "Should Hussein conclude that a US led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would be become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions". Hussein was an annoyance, but was not a serious threat to the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is insane to ignore an attack on our country, I will give you that. I will even yield that a properly carried out war in Afghanistan in 2002, 3, and 4, even if it didn't work, might be justifiable. Personally, I'm more comfortable with the law enforcement approach-you know, the one that has worked every time it's been tried.

    But what is deeply insane is doing something that isn't working, hasn't worked, and shows no sign it is going to work. That, I argue, is current US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The tax policy was suggested out of anger, not really as a serious proposal. But it seems that is the only way to reach the American public.

    If there were some way to enact a "war tax"-mandating that, let's say, everyone's taxes go up 10%, but all the money goes straight into the war chest? I'd support that.

    But government isn't a cafeteria.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anti war activists offered no alternatives?

    Antiwar activists begged and pleaded that the inspections continue. Begged and pleaded that the war not come. Begged and pleaded for an imperfect inspections regime, which was annoying but not killing people, to continue.

    That was an alternative. It was never considered, but it is an alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  10. When you look at the whole picture. Kucinich does not advocate peace when he pushes for one side to lay down their arms in the face of unrelenting aggression. That only leads to more war.

    "The war in Iraq is pretty much over?"

    To which you gave a link to a page about a suicide bomber killing 8. I could get similar numbers from the police blotters in LA County. Might as well throw in the towel, right? US out of LA County!

    As for Saddam and terrorists, he did have positive ties, and he chose to host a large number of terrorist groups in Iraq, many of them "Islamists"

    "He was not an imminent threat to the United States before we invaded"

    He was a threat, and he was attacking US and UK peacekeepers. Each of which was a cease-fire violation. He refused to allow inspection of his WMD factories as required, and refused to turn over his remaining WMD (also as required). It only made sense to respond and end this real threat before it became an even worse threat.

    "Once again with the Iraq links to terror argument. Sigh"

    Yes, because it needs to be pointed out again and again. Saddam Hussein was a major terrorist kingpin. The links between him and terrorism are like the links between Bill Gates and Microsoft.

    "But what is deeply insane is doing something that isn't working, hasn't worked, and shows no sign it is going to work. That, I argue, is current US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan."

    It has worked in Iraq very well. The country is no longer any sort of threat to the US nor to its neighbors (and it certainly was under Saddam). The number of terrorists in Iraq is but a fraction of what it was when the dictator was in power. And Obama appears to be set on making it work in Afghanistan.

    ". Hussein was an annoyance, but was not a serious threat to the United States."

    The same was said of Bin Laden, prior to 9/11. Back when people thought it make sense to let a terrorist kingpin keep attacking us.

    ReplyDelete
  11. And about the inspections? They weren't working! They were supposed to have been completed right after the first Gulf War, and in early 2003 they still were not done, because Saddam was blocking them. Hans Blix in his Feb. 2003 report on Saddam's refusal to comply with cease-fire requirements said that compliance was "improving". But no where near complete.

    All the while during the inspections, Saddam Hussein was slaughtering and starving his people (with massive casualties every year), making new imperialist threats against Kuwait, and directly funding efforts to exterminate the Jews.

    This was the status quo that the "antiwar" activists were arguing to preserve. If that's peace, then what is war?

    You said: "That was an alternative. It was never considered, but it is an alternative"

    Actually, the status-quo alternative had been tried for a decade.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "The same was said of Bin Laden, prior to 9/11. Back when people thought it make sense to let a terrorist kingpin keep attacking us."

    This might be the silliest thing you've ever said.

    Read this.

    "The shorter memorandum was written in response to a request for "major presidential policy reviews" worthy of a meeting of "principals," the president's top foreign policy advisers. It began: "We urgently need such a Principals level review on the al Qida network." The word "urgently" was italicized and underscored; the "al Qida" spelling was used in both documents.

    "We would make a major error if we underestimated the challenge al Qida poses," the memorandum said.

    The principals' meeting on Al Qaeda took place, but not until Sept. 4, 2001, a week before the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. "

    Richard Clarke was SCREAMING about Al Queda. He warned Rice that the one thing she was going to spend more time on than anything else was Al Queda.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "As for Saddam and terrorists, he did have positive ties, and he chose to host a large number of terrorist groups in Iraq, many of them "Islamists" "

    I quote myself, again:

    "A newly-declassified (but redacted) 400-page Senate Intelligence Committee analysis of pre-war Iraq reports no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It concludes that Hussein "distrusted" al Qaeda and "viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime."

    Original here.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "And about the inspections? They weren't working! They were supposed to have been completed right after the first Gulf War, and in early 2003 they still were not done, because Saddam was blocking them. Hans Blix in his Feb. 2003 report on Saddam's refusal to comply with cease-fire requirements said that compliance was "improving". But no where near complete."


    The inspections were not perfect. Hussein would have continued to obstruct, deny, and just be a general d%^k about it. But the alternative was much, much worse.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "You said: "That was an alternative. It was never considered, but it is an alternative"

    Actually, the status-quo alternative had been tried for a decade."

    Bush never considered it. He made noises about requirements for Hussein to avoid war, but it is abundantly clear now he was going in, truth and facts be damned.

    The status quo wasn't perfect. But it was better than the billions of dollars and buckets of blood we spent to create a kleptocracy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "When you look at the whole picture. Kucinich does not advocate peace when he pushes for one side to lay down their arms in the face of unrelenting aggression. That only leads to more war."


    If we ever tried this, I might believe you.

    Kucinich believes in peace. I agree he's a bit of a nutjob, but I respect him for sticking to his guns. And I still maintain he's closer to what Jesus would do than any other politician in Congress.

    ReplyDelete

I apologize for making you sign in, but I'm trying to cut down on spam.