Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Feb. 24, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
185 Comments
“High school seniors are performing worse overall on some national tests than they did in the previous decade, even though they are receiving significantly higher grades and taking what seem to be more rigorous courses, according to government data released yesterday.
The mismatch between stronger transcripts and weak test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called the nation’s report card, resonated in the Washington area and elsewhere. Some seized upon the findings as evidence of grade inflation and the dumbing-down of courses.
“We have our work cut out for us,” Education Secretary Margaret Spellings said in a statement. “If, in fact, our high school students are taking more challenging courses and earning higher grades, we should be seeing greater gains in test scores.”
About 35 percent of 12th-graders tested in 2005 scored proficient or better in reading — the lowest percentage since the test was launched in 1992, the new data showed. And less than a quarter of seniors scored at least proficient on a new version of the math test; officials called those results disappointing but said they could not be compared to past scores. In addition, a previous report found that 18 percent of seniors in 2005 scored at least proficient in science, down from 21 percent in 1996.
At the same time, the average high school grade-point average rose from 2.68 in 1990 (about a B- minus) to 2.98 in 2005 (about a B), according to a study of transcripts from graduating seniors. The study also found that the percentage of graduating seniors who completed a standard or mid-level course of study rose from 35 to 58 percent in that time; meanwhile, the percentage who took the highest-level curriculum doubled, to 10 percent. “
Interesting link on paid trolls infiltrating blogs.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×275469
Ok but that last line bothered me, we must disclose who we’re associated with in order to be taken seriously? I don’t think so.
I belong to organizations, but my opinions are my own, and because I belong to organizations they reflect my own views. And they don’t ALWAYS mesh.
I would say probably most people who blog about politics and such do so because they believe in what they are saying, and probably do get active in the community politics as well.
So it is just natural that you’ll end up with people who will be a mouthpiece for certain camps. If they good enough at it to get paid for it, so what?
Hey ksfarmgrrl, it’s happening right here, right now. Run a little test. Post someting truthful, but critical, about the beloved Kansas Senator Pat Roberts. Explain how Pat concealled the truth about the evidence that Bush used to justify the war in Iraq. Explain how Pat lied in August 2006, about the Phase II Report he swore to give to the American people, and didn’t. Explain how Pat made sure he got off of the Senate Intelligence Committee, so that when the Report gets finished and the truth comes out, Pat can then say, “Ah, the Democrats are lying”. Explain how if Pat had told the truth about Bush’s basis for the Iraq war, the three Kansas soliders that died last week would still be alive. Say something that Patty doesn’t like and his trolls will come crawling out of the sewer to say what a great american Pat is. Betcha!
Herrbloggingestapofuehrer: “Actung. S’your papers, fraulein!”
Blog Administrator: Why is there no “click on” mechanism available at the top of “WE Blog” to return to Kansas.com Home Page, like is available on the other pages. As it is, you must “back, back, back, back, back, etc”; log completely off, and then log back on and start all over again; or maintain another open window containing the Home Page. None of the above are earth-shattering, just damned inconvenient. How about a little minor tweaking, or an explanation why it can’t be done — for us dummies that wouldn’t grasp some techie gobbledegook? Thank you.
I have a relative that is 6 yrs. old. In his public school classroom, he kept putting his head in his shirt. The teacher addressed the problem by having him remove his shirt, and sit there with it off while the class laughed at him. The teacher defended her actions by saying they were effective, and the child had not shown her respect all year. What does everyone think should be the outcome for this absurd behavior?
Interesting question, especially in this era where “self esteem” is deemed more important than learning to spell “C-A-T”. What was the outcome of the “punishment”? Positive, negative, or more of the same? I think commentary, one way or the other, would be inappropriate without that conclusion. It certainly wasn’t corporal punishment. Please complete the story, and then I’ll certainly forward an opinion, however unqualified it may be, with my compliments, Steve.
So far the situation hasn’t been resolved. The parent met with the teacher, who when told that her actions were completely inappropriate by the parent, was defiant and expressed no remorese, except to say she didn’t mean to humiliate the kid. The principal was then contacted, she said she’d never heard of that kind of action by a teacher, and said she’d been made aware of the situation. She would not say if any disciplinary action was iniated. Another meeting with the parents, teacher and principal to follow. The parents want the child transferred to another class, the principal recommends against, as the child may feel it’s his fault.
I don’t need to read the rest of the story to voice my opinion Steve.
Teacher made child remove his shirt–Principal should make teacher remove her blouse and sit there.
Why wasn’t it being addressed that the kid was acting this way in the first place?
Maybe there was a reason he was doing it, or maybe he was just being a turd?
Parent told teacher that if child misbehaved, she could be contacted, or child could have been given time out, or sent to the principal’s office. But public humiliation wasn’t appropriate.
For the actions to be justified by the teacher you have to assume the child has been a disruption the entire school year.Has the child been disciplined repeatedly this year?Documentation on record with the Principals office and notes home?Documentation from parent/teacher conferences?I’d say every teacher has their breaking point. But I’d be interested in knowing the history prior to this incident.
He’s a little difficult to handle, but not unmanageable, definitely not to an ADD level.
One other incident comes to mind, after the snow, teacher came out to the car without a coat on ranting about the boy and his brother had thrown snow balls at each other, after she told them not to. All the while other children all around were throwing snow balls at each other, and teacher seemed oblivious to it!
Sen. Phil Journey would not only approve of the discipline meted out by this teacher, but he would also want to pass a law giving the teacher and the school district immunity from liability for harm done to this child, and every other teacher/school who decided to mete out discipline in this way, or in similarly embarrassing or insulting ways!
“Hey ksfarmgrrl, it’s happening right here, right now.”
Yeah, I know. That’s why I posted the link :)
I dont think EVERYONE has to disclose every association. But if someone is getting paid to blog here, they need to disclose that.
Truth in advertising, fairness, etc. I dont think it is too much to ask for paid prolls or pr people to disclose that.
And if they think it diminishes their credibility? Duh. That’s why it is needed!!!!
…of course, it isnt like we cant pick out the paid trolls amongst us!
Steve: You opened by saying that the child “kept putting his head in his shirt”. That day…often, every couple of days…every day since school started? As Mr. Kia noted, does the teacher have documentation to back up her allegations, although, whatever they are, I would assume they’re probably accurate.
The teacher states she did not mean to humiliate the child. OK, fair enough. What the hell did she “mean to do”?
What were the weather conditions at the time? Rooms for 25 or 30 individuals are typically maintained “chilly” to offset the warmth emitted by the population when they’re in use and full.
The teacher states that it was effective. Again, that day…for a few days…it has not occurred again since the incident in question? The teacher has the same obligation to the other students, and cannot tolerate antics by one which disrupt the rest of the class and their access to learning. Much too often, the welfare of many is sacrificed for the PC of one, and everybody loses.
So far, I do agree that transfer to another class, out of hand, without other more positive potential outcomes, is just a knee-jerk response, whomever is suggesting or demanding it.
Please continue, Steve.
Frmgirl: Damn, if somebody is handing out paychecks to do this, where do we get in line? :) Mailbox money is good!
Powerline.
A few days ago, Dick Cheney challenged Nancy Pelosi on Iraq, saying that pulling out, as she advocates, would play into the hands of the terrorists. Pelosi resorted to the old “How dare he question my patriotism” dodge, and complained to President Bush’s Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten. Now, Cheney says he isn’t backing down:
During Friday’s interview in Sydney with ABC News, Cheney said, “I’m not sure what part of it is that Nancy disagreed with. She accused me of questioning her patriotism. I didn’t question her patriotism. I questioned her judgment.”"You also have to be accountable for the results. What are the consequences of that? What happens if we withdraw from Iraq?,” he said. “And the point I made and I’ll make it again is that al-Qaida functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That’s their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we’ll quit and go home. And my statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, that then we will validate the strategy of al-Qaida. I said it and I meant it.”
Asked if he was willing to take back his criticism of Pelosi, Cheney replied, “I’m not backing down.”
This gets to the heart of the Democrats’ problem. They can’t deny that precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster, they just don’t want to talk about it. And if you bring it up, they say you’re questioning their patriotism.
ditto rm!!
Powerline? Hindraker? Assrocket?
If that is a credible source, so is DU!
To me, the method used would never be justified. There are more less destructive methods of dealing with a kindergarten aged child, which would be justa as effective. In my youth, I’ve had my knuckles rapped with a ruler, seen others wear a dunce cap, had spats, but these would actually be less cruel measures in my opinion. The reason to change classes is the teacher is perceived as being petty, partisan and demonstrating immature discipline techniques, and parents don’t think child will get a fair shake if he remains in this environment. Has anyone ever seen this kind of disciplinary action in their life? I’ve not.
“This gets to the heart of the Republicans’problem. They can’t deny that staying the failed course in Iraq would be a disaster, they just don’t want to talk about it. And if you bring it up, they question your patriotism.”
There isn’t such a thing as a bad teacher.
Well! That is what they have us believe.
That’s still an opinion. I think staying the course in Iraq would not be a disaster.
People believe it is are the ones that listen to the media, politicans and read left-wing blogs.
I listen to the troops and their testimony. Most all of them believe in their mission and do not believe it is a disaster at all, they want to stay in.
I don’t question people’s patoritism. I question their politican motivation.
Anonymous, are you going to do anything other than post unattributed anarcho-capitalist anti-public schools crap here?
Ben
Have I ever questioned your patriotism?
ksagnostic are you going to do anything other than post unattributed attacks on other posters who don’t align to your political ideology crap here?
kfg
As usual, no substance, just blather.
Pelosi’s strategy is much wiser,
‘Who’s Helping the Terrorists?’http://consortiumnews.com/2007/012507.html“Intelligence analysts estimate that al-Qaeda’s forces account for only five percent or less of the armed opposition fighting U.S. and allied forces – and many of those young jihadists are not considered committed fighters.
As Zawahiri said in one captured letter, a rapid American military withdrawal could cause al-Qaeda’s new foreign jihadists, who have gone to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.
“The mujahaddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal,” Zawahiri wrote, according to a text of a July 9, 2005, letter released by the office of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence.
Bogged DownAccording to the internal communications, al-Qaeda’s real wish is for the United States to stay bogged down in Iraq, so the terrorist group can continue recruiting and training young jihadists while buying time to overcome the hostility of Iraqis toward outsiders.” (continues)
Heckler! I notice that it is an excuse the left uses to make themselves out to be victims of Republican remarks. Which isn’t true!
But the tables can be flipped. What do people on the left call those who support the war in Iraq? Don’t they call them derogatory names? Just look at all the remarks the left has against Joe Liberman.
But it’s ok that isn’t coming from the left.
Joe
I know, it just kills me when I hear people from the left get their panties in a knot over being called a name. And like Pelosi, they’ll just SAY you called them a name when you didnt. Crazy.
Heckler – maybe not you but having been called “sadaamer” etc for opposing the invasion in the first place there are many who do. Add to that certain righties here who refer to “Osama-Obama” all the time. And I would note that it is also only an opinion that the surge will work; an opinion that I do not share.
I hope to hell you guys are right and this thing works. But, I honestly believe it will not and then what is Plan B?
I also question the political motivation of those who SUPPORT the surge; not only those who oppose it.
Regarding believing the surge will work “People believe it is are the ones that listen to the media, politicans and read right-wing blogs” See Joe!; that works both ways too.
Wrong Ben! It was Senator Edwark Kennedy who made the remark calling Obama – Osama.
Never heard the Sadammer remarks. That’s the first I ever have seen it.
Plus in the begining of the war, there were very few against it. And I don’t remember anybody questioning them. This is when everybody had American Flags on their SUV’s.
Forgot! I need to show proof of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos
But when you go to left-wing websites, like Media Matters, they say that Rush Limbaugh makes those remarks, which isn’t true. What he is doing is parodying Edward Kennedy.
Again! How the left never revels the whole story or the truth.
What the heck with the political motivation remark? Real Americans want their troops to always succeed. It’s only the Rainy Day Sunday Liberal Democrits that run away when things get too tough for their tender selves.
I am not defending the teacher’s actions. Surely, wearing the dunce cap would be just as humiliating. Raps on the knuckles and swats are, for all intents and purposes, outlawed, and bear the potential criminal and civil liabilities. Time outs, as I have observed with my grandchildren, are only marginally effective (as far as containing the instant problem) and have little or no long-term deterrent effect.
The teacher exhibits, from your account, pettiness, partisanship, and probably shouldn’t be in charge of anything, especially young pliable minds.
It’s your business, but you didn’t answer any of my later questions. And that’s fine. But, major risks of having him transferred to another class.
1. He’s transferred and the new teacher is even worse.2. He’s transferred and the behavior does not improve; or even worse, deteriorates.3. Whatever comfort level he has attained with his classmates since the school year began (more than 1/2 over already) is gone, and he has to start all over again socially.
Just some suggestions to think about. It’s somewhat like the old adage: “Be careful of what you ask for, you just might get it!”
Ben
I hope the Surge works, I have no idea if it will. Early returns are promising, but who knows.
As for the Osama-Bama thing, which I don’t use, it’s really a slam on Teddy Kennedy. I don’t know if all who use it mean it that way though.
What pisses me off about the leadership of the Democratic party is, and maybe it’s just my perception, they don’t give a rats ass what happens in Iraq. They don’t give the war on terror a second thought outside of politics. Their primary concern is what gives the Dem. party more power, EVERYTHING else is secondary.
Joe! I referred to “right here” – I think it might have been Ksgolfnut. And if you do not remember many of us opposing the invasion then I cannot speak for your memory.
Roscoe! It’s simple! The Democrats ran on a platform of bringing the troops home and won seats as a results. In order for them them to stay politically viable and re-elected, they must pursue the results of what they campaigned for. Going back on your campaign is usually a election lost wish.
So they will make damn sure that this war isn’t successful and that troops are brought home prematurally. It will make Iraq spiral out-of-control to the nth degree when we leave and then they can blame it all on Bush and the Republicans. Then their re-election rate will improve in 2008.
Damn the troops! They could care less. It’s all lip service. They care about maintaining and building on political power.
And then we have the crazy “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” types calling us “Rainy Day Sunday Liberal Democrits”
But of course there is no political motivation to that.
“So they will make damn sure that this war isn’t successful”
And just how the Hell do we do that? Are you accusing people of arming the insurgents?
Joe; you are full of BS today. We care about the troops; we just believe that their leadership is “suspect”.
I’m sure there is no political motivation to your slander either! NOT!
This blog isn’t that old Ben, to be able to gauge the active members opposing the invasion back in 2002. And I didn’t know you or others before this blog or remembering many people opposing the invasion in general.
Even precious Democrat Politicans like Hillary Clinton wanted to go in.
If you opposed the Invasion back in 2002, that’s cool. I cannot etest to that. I disagree with you, but that’s it.
How do you do that? By withdrawling the troops. Isn’t that what you want?
Can you name any Military General that states what you and Democrat politicans want?
Sure! Question the leadership, the decisions of certian tatics and plans, but to uniformaly remove every single troop within a scope of several months, just so you can win political points isn’t good enough.
Unless you call that success. You may! And again! I would disagree with you.
Yes, I opposed it 4 years ago. I said the rosy projections were bogus. I said the WMD claims were false. I said Curveball was a liar. I said “months not years” was BS.
As for Hillary she blew it on that IMO. But she was nowhere NEAR as wrong as your precious Chalabi. And Bush. And Cheney. And Perlman. And Rumsfield. …
Hillary’s big mistake was trusting them.
Joe! Generals have been linked here numerous times saying the course is fatally flawed.
Did I say each and every? No, I said redeploy like the Brits are doing. The fact is that your precious Bush has incredible FUBARED this whole thing. Do you call the past 4 years a success? Did we complete it in “months not years” like your precious cheney said? have we reduced troop levels to 5000 like your precious Rumsfield said?
But …
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
I have no political motivation. I just believe what is right, and staying in Iraq to counter the terrorist violence and to train the Iraqi Security Forces until the Generals on the groud and at CITCOM say that we can reduce our troop levels. That isn’t a Republican or Democrat stance. That is trusting the leadership and decisions of our Military. I support the troops in that way.
I don’t believe that Democrat Politicans making the decisions to end conflict based on what is politically expediate for them to gain votes.
Joe Williams,
“But when you go to left-wing websites, like Media Matters, they say that Rush Limbaugh makes those remarks, which isn’t true.”
Joe, do you have reading/hearing PROBLEMS? Rush DID make those remarks.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120008“As Limbaugh acknowledged on his show, Kennedy did correct himself after mistakenly saying “Osama bin” instead of “Obama” at a January 12 press conference at the National Press Club.”
They also quote that transcript section later.
Media Matter’s point is that Kennedy made an (understandable) misstatement — but Rush deliberately and repeatedly did it, to mock Kennedy, and attack Obama.
Some Generals say that we need different stratigies. Some say we need more troops, some say keep the ones we have and some say we can probably reduce them. But the head General in charge makes the decision.
But have you ever heard any General agreeing with Murtha in defunding the war, withdrawling Bush’s authority to enact forces and to redeploy the troops back to Europe and Japan. Have you ever heard that?
Please provide links to any Cheney and Rumsfeld comments about troop levels.
Joe! I have no political motivation either. I just believe that what is right is very different than what you do.
And, four years ago, I believed that invading was stupid. Tell me Joe, do you still think invading was a good idea?
Cosmos! Media Matters? LOL
Yeah! Nothing wrong with Parody. Comedians do that all the time.
Kennedy was probably drunk and just slipped.
But my point is that it started with Kennedy and what Rush does is Parody. You admitted it yourself. What’s wrong with that?
Are we heading towards censorship of comedians? That we cannot make fun of Democrat Candidates now?
haha! Democrits want to make it political and keep saying leadership this and leadership that. Full of beans and smell like rotted manure! Maybe the Democrits needs a resolution to vote so they will know what they believe! All of you Democrits in favor of being wishy-washy say aye!
I do Ben! I think that invading Iraq and freeing the world from Saddam Hussien was the correct action.
But Saddam is gone. He was hung by trial of his peers.
Joe Williams,
“I just believe what is right, and staying in Iraq to counter the terrorist violence…”
Joe Williams wants to HELP al Qaeda get stronger,
‘Who’s Helping the Terrorists?’http://consortiumnews.com/2007/012507.htmlAccording to the internal communications, al-Qaeda’s real wish is for the United States to stay bogged down in Iraq, so the terrorist group can continue recruiting and training young jihadists while buying time to overcome the hostility of Iraqis toward outsiders.
I guess doing the opposite will mean the end of al-Qaeda and their recruiting jihadist and their hositlity and terrorism. Peace in Iraq at last. All we have to do is withdrawl all the troops and prais the Democrats for making it happen.
Joe Williams,
“they say that Rush Limbaugh makes those remarks, which isn’t true.”
Maybe YOU don’t read what YOU write?1) Rush DID make those remarks.2) Media Matters said that Kennedy (not Rush) made it first.
Well Joe!; we disagree. And then we have people with political motivations like Roscoe who put politics above country.
I never said that Joe! However, not invading in the first place would have left an enemy of al-Quada there against them.
Joe Williams,
“I guess doing the opposite will mean the end of al-Qaeda and their recruiting jihadist and their hositlity and terrorism.”
It’d probably end the recruiting, and strengthing of al Qaeda in Iraq.
That seems wiser than recruiting more terrorists there, and giving them “experience” that makes them stronger.
The Osama Obama Ted Kennedy verbal gaffe exploitation has its roots with lap dog to Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity. Hannity (or rather one of his technicians, since Hannity can’t tie his shoes without instruction from Roger Ailes and Rupert Murcdoch) looped and re-edited the tape in order to make it more than it was.
I REALLY do not think it is a good idea for the right to pounce on verbal gaffes. george bush being a poster child for gibberish and all!
But JR – when we point out Bush’s verbal gaffes we are being just so MEAN!
If someone can explain to me how pulling out of Iraq is going to cost even one more unnecessary American life, or conversely, how sending more troops is going to save even one more American life (instead of simply adding more targets to shooting/bombing gallery), I’m more than willing to listen. That keeps it about as simple as I can. Any takers?
Ben! My response was to Cosmos.
That’s fine! We can all do the “what if” all day long.
What I think is right did happen. What you thought was right didn’t.
Now! I think withdrawling right now is wrong and it hasn’t happen.
You think it’s wrong to stay in, but we are still there.
;)
rm6046. Let’s just say that over 4,000 of American soliders died under Bill Clinton in his first 4 years in office.
In other words, it’s all in perspective. Accurately, political perspective and persuasion.
The net result with Iraq and al Qaeda is that there was not an al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the invasion in March 2003 – and now there is.
If the purpose of the post 9/11 military action was to address terrorism, then the War on Iraq has failed miserably.
The Bush War of Choice has strengthened al Qaeda, has provided a recruiting tool, provided a training ground for terrorist actions and has turned moderate Muslim against us.
Everything that SHOULD have been done to address terrorism has been flipped by the War on Iraq. Bush could not have gotten it more backwards if he had set out to deliberately take the opposite actions.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
Thanks, George.
“Let’s just say that over 4,000 of American soliders died under Bill Clinton in his first 4 years in office.”
? Can you verify that? Where?
“Let’s just say that over 4,000 of American soliders died under Bill Clinton in his first 4 years in office.”
WTF???
And where did 4,000 Americans die?
And your point is? 4,000 soldiers died in his first 4 years…in combat, by accident, at home, abroad, illness, old age? How? That’s a meaningless statistic without a context.
A hell of a lot more people than that died those same 4 years in automobile accidents.
And, BTW, I’m a Republican. I despise the the Clinton’s — both of them. The only one I feel sorry for is Chelsea. I”m surprised she hasn’t gone into the Witness Protection Program.
But, again, what the hell is your point?
Using a left leaning source as to add merit.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/02/21/colon/index.html?source=rss
…military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That’s 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who’s counting?
Ben
He is getting that number from talk radio.
Or at least, I’ve heard that arguement there.
DO provide links Joe.
And IF these deaths on Clintons watch were due to accident, then you must provide accident military casualty figures under bush or the statistic is dishonest.
we’d like to point out the irrelevance of the statistics Colon cites. In fact, when you look at the data provided by the Defense Department, you’ll notice that almost none of the deaths during the Clinton administration — just 76 over an eight-year period — were from hostile action or terrorism. The rest were the result of accident, homicide, illness or suicide or were of an as-yet-undetermined nature.
My point rm is that people use statitics for any advantage for a point. You asked:
If someone can explain to me how pulling out of Iraq is going to cost even one more unnecessary American life, or conversely, how sending more troops is going to save even one more American life (instead of simply adding more targets to shooting/bombing gallery), I’m more than willing to listen. That keeps it about as simple as I can. Any takers?
You asked a question on lives, I’m just letting you know it’s all in perspective. You can make out whatever you want to in any statitic to further your point or agenda.
Doesn’t answer your question out right, but at least gives you the reasoning behind any answer that somebody will try to give to you.
The statitics might be irrelevent, because they were accidents, friendly-fires, suicides, but they aren’t to the family memebers who suffered a loss.
It is no different from a troop losing a life on the battlefield of Iraq and one at home on a fireing range accident. It’s a loss of life and it has meaning to somebody, even if you cannot use it to further a political agenda.
Joe! So, you are blaming Clinton for people getting old?
I wonder, how many service men and women have died over the past 6 years from ALL causes, including just getting old?
Joe! We can get rid of our police since more people die of accidents, illness and old age than from murder. Thus murder is not very important!
I don’t blame Clinton for anything. I don’t hold him responsible for anybodies death. They aren’t war time deaths, there isn’t any direct decision he gave that resulted in a death of a solider in those 4 years. Yes! It is very different than combat deaths under Bush.
Just stating the facts and I gave you a source.
Again! I always back up anything I say.
I’m still waiting for your Rumsfeld and Cheney troop level comment source.
Very good Joe.
Now please go get us a total of ALL military that have died on bush’s watch regardless of how they died.
Do that or admit that your original post was dishonest.
“The absolute number of deaths under Clinton is lower than it was under either Ronald Reagan or the first Bush administration.”
So, you have facts that are ABSOLUTELY irrelevant.
Ben! Did I say anything about getting rid of Clinton or the Military because of a death of a solider? Where in the hell does this “rid of” senerio come from?
What kind of spin are you trying to do? What ever it is, it isn’t working.
*shakes head*
Irrelevent to your own political agenda. Again! To repost an eariler post I have written.
The statitics might be irrelevent, because they were accidents, friendly-fires, suicides, but they aren’t to the family memebers who suffered a loss.
It is no different from a troop losing a life on the battlefield of Iraq and one at home on a firing range accident. It’s a loss of life and it has meaning to somebody, even if you cannot use it to further a political agenda.
Good slippery parsed words from Joe! the clear IMPLICATION of his 4000+ statement was miliatry war deaths in that we had been discussing military war deaths already. Very clever Joe!
Joe! Where did i claim you wanted to get rid of Clinton?
You advocated that by stating an IRRELEVENT statitic that I should use other irrelevent statitic to cause action of disbanding a police force. I’m assuming that if you are correlating getting rid of police because of irrevelent crime statitics, then getting rid of Clinton for irrelevent military death statitic should also be the case.
Good job of obfuscation Joe!
Good God, Joe, you’re smarter than that. Let’s say, just to keep the numbers easy and simple, and say that in the last 5 years, there have been 1,000 military deaths per year, excluding combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. That equals 5,000 deaths. Again, for talking purposes, there’s been 800 military deaths per year in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. That equals 4,000 deaths. Or a total of 9,000. It doesn’t take quantum physics or analytic geometry and calculus to understand that those 4,000 would still be alive had we let them fight their own civil wars, and I submit they would be no worse off than they are right now. Neither do I submit that they would be one iota better. But we would have saved one hell of a lot of money that could have gone for far better purposes and, more importantly, we would have 4,000 living, breathing, mostly young Americans still with their loved ones and this country as a whole. And that would be a good thing and something in which we could take pride…more pride than will ever come from the course of action taken. I used to feel that I was still glad I voted for Bush because no matter how bad he f**ked it up, he couldn’t do worse than Gore. Now, it’s just a coin-flip…with a two tailed coin.
“So they (Democrats) will make damn sure that this war isn’t successful and that troops are brought home prematurally.”
DING DING DING DING DING!!!! RING THE BS BELL ON JOE WILLIAMS
Your side had FOUR YEARS to make it happen in Iraq, Joe, with absolutely NO interference by the Democrats.
They voted to give the pResident the power to invade. They went along with funding requests etc.
After FOUR YEARS, the war is getting worse, not better.
It’s the American people who are tired of it. The Democrats are simply following the will of the majority.
It was GEORGE W. BUSH who FUBAR’d Iraq. Don’t blame the F*** UP of the century on the Democrats.
Jerk.
Glad to ruffle the feathers.
rm! Nobody wants any solider to die.
One death is probably too many. But playing number games probably isn’t the answer either.
The question is: What are we trying to accomplish?
http://weather.kansas.com/auto/kansas/radar/station.asp?ID=ICT19&type=loop
We are right in the middle of the storm system – in the eye. Cool picture.
I’m not defending Bush. I didn’t vote for him and he’s not a good President at all.
I just believe that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam was the correct action.
It may have not been necessary, but it was a correct one.
The question is: What are we trying to accomplish?
Good question? Prepare fertile ground for alQuada where there was none? We have done a good job of that! Remove a mortal enemy of alQuada? Done that too!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Ben: Just looked at that radar. As long as we can stay right in the middle, we’ve coasted it. As long as….
I SEE that on the radar Ben. That is cool.
I note a leading edge beginning to freeze about 150 miles west.
I wonder if the temperature will be dropping suddenly soon.
Joe?
Think on what might have happened had we left Saddam alone.
CLEARLY he was not as potent as he thought or pretended to be. He was also not a young man.
Eventually, he would have died. His two sons would have vied for power but Iraq at large would have remained stable….and harmless.
A link to an excellent column by Christopher Dickey.
“Europe’s bitter memories of the Bush administration’s insults and hypocrisy are undermining efforts to restrain Iran’s nuke program…”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17302110/site/newsweek/
Nice going George, now that we REALLY need our European allies, they are running for cover.
WSC: Just read that Christopher Dickey article and it’s interesting. The part I don’t get though is the line toward the end about “…struggling to grasp an exit…”, or some such. Whatever happened to, “You wanted rid of Saddam. He’s gone, dead, hung. You’re welcome. Good bye and good luck. Don’t call us, we’ll call you!” Que sera, sera.
rm,
Just saying thanks here for stating the obvious to Joe. The “it’s 4000 MORE deaths” is what this is all about, not the “but 4000 die in auto accidents or while in the military” thing.
Joe is comparing apples to oranges. Some of us here would like to save another 4000 lives.
Although I doubt Joe Biden will get the Dem nod, and even if he did, I don’t know that I’d back him, but he does have a sensible handle with a doable plan on the Iraq thing.
Then again, Murtha did, too. And others. But the administration has proven that they do not want to leave Iraq, not in any way, any form, at any time. And hardcore neocons follow blindly in lockstep, never questioning anything the administration does.
BTW, Ben, I was one of those who, when hearing Bush announce the invasion of Iraq, sat in my chair and said, “What the hell for?”
I’d guess the number of those not in favor of the invasion of Iraq from the beginning is close to 1/3 of the population. They just were screaming loud enough to be heard among the GET ME A FLAG FOR MY CAR screamers.
And the majority of the flags were leftovers from 9/11. Note that there aren’t nearly as many as there were during the end of 2001.
Sorry, that should have been:
they just wereN’T screaming loud enough…
Heh, thanks for reminding me, RM.
Remember CANDIDATE Bush saying in his first debate in answer the question “when would you use military force, generally?”–Bush replied,
“Well, if it’s in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are — our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. [IRAQ DID NOT MEET THIS CRITERION]
Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. [IRAQ LACKED THIS CLARITY]
Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. [OBVIOUSLY NO ONE KNEW WHAT WINNING IN IRAQ IS]
And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy.
[EXIT STRATEGY?! ARE YOU S***ING ME?!]
I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don’t think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we’ve got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today’s military is too low. We’re having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we’re overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It’s to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
LYING HYPOCRITE, THY NAME IS BUSH.
RD! Never said anything but what you said. Read my post.
I’m not trying to compare apples to oranges. I spouted a number and everybody took it and ran with it like they do with everything else. They play number games.
By the response, discrediting, the irrelevant statitic statements, all I did was make my point.
You guys can take it how you want. I was just saying you can use any figures you want to make a political point. I wasn’t using the 4,000 for myself. Just that you can if you want. And you Dems took the bait.
*laughs*
In other news. They found Jesus:
James Cameron has been directing a documentary on an accedental tomb finding outside of Jerusalem back 27 years ago. It took more than 20 years for experts dispher the names of the tomb of the ten graves. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Film-makers Cameron claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.
He is going to announce a press conference on Monday about the finding of Jesus. His Documentary will be shown worldwide on an unnounce date, but will be shown on the Discovery Channel here in the USA.
http://time-blog.com/middle_east/
Should be interesting. I’ve been making that point for years. That Jesus is buried somewhere out there.
RD: I appreciate your kind thanks. I know my “plan” is clearly over-simplistic. But Joe asked earlier (and I just realized I had failed to respond directly), but our goal was to depose a cruel dictator, (whether or not that was a good idea or not is for others to decide). In any event, that’s done. What do we desire to accomplish now? Get our troops out of there and home. Logistically, at best, that’s 6 month project, no doubt. As far as moving equipment, screw it. Leave it there to rust. Just like everything we left in ‘Nam. They could only use it for a very short period of time, if at all. A military does not operate on equipment…it operates on spare parts and food/water. Those are the two essentials. Those are the two things you can’t do without. All the iron, steel, aluminum, blah, blah, blah put together is not worth one American life. If Halliburton and the rest of the independent contractors want to stay, that’s up to them.
Interesting post, Joe, but I would have to wonder how DNA evidence entered into the equation, unless it was just used to verify the famial relationship between the bodies.
Being a reformed Christian, the relevations that a body has been found that “could” be that of Jesus means little to me, but I would hope that Cameron has some pretty unassailable evidence.
Joe: Isn’t Cameron the guy that did Titanic, Dark Angel, (the) Terminator movies, etc.?
Yep! That him.
I would like to know about the DNA evidence myself. Seems like a stretch or a publicity stunt to me. But I’m interested.
Hmmmm. Just read the Time article. Yeah, that’s who I thought it was. That should be interesting. WSC’s question is compelling. How could DNA play in, except establishing an inter-relationship between the remains? There certainly would be nothing to compare it with.
Unless the Da Vinci Code is true. ;)
Was Cameron the Titanic guy?
I was under the impression that there was a brother James. Mary and Joseph were both common names during that period, so it’s going to be difficult to prove these are the family of Jesus and Jesus’ remains.
A few years ago, there was an ossuary (bone-box) found, believing to be that of Jesus’ brother James.
“In the week of October 21, 2002, headlines around the world screamed that evidence of Jesus Christ had been found in the form of an ossuary, or bone-box, supposedly once containing the bones of “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” as was inscribed on the box in Aramaic. The original scholar who reported this spectacular find, the Sorbonne’s biblical expert Andre Lemaire, “born a Catholic,” concluded it was “very probable” that the inscription referred to Jesus of Nazareth, i.e., Jesus Christ. The ossuary, therefore, would supposedly be that of the biblical “James the Just,” who is referred to as Jesus’s “brother” at Matthew 13:55 and Galatians 1:19.”
Since this was never proven (no date exists on the ossuary, only a guess at the age of it), this “find” has fallen to the wayside as many others have. The Shroud of Turin is one example.
I have two side of thinking on the “proof of Jesus”. The first is that God had the proof hidden so that true faith would be shown in the believers. (My Christian upbringing leads me to this explanation.)
The second is that there is no proof because the person we know as Jesus never existed, but is a compilation of many or a prophet, as some religions other the Christianity beleive. (This is my non-Christian side.)
Those are my opinions only, and everyone is entitled to their own. Okay?
However, I’m interested in seeing how this latest find turns out.
If it were to turn out that the DaVinci Code was true, those guys who claimed it was plagarized and lost their suit would be really, really PISSED!!!!!!!!!
Please, please forgive my horrid spelling above. Can’t type and talk to somebody at the same time. ;)
RD: Yeah, they can take this “multi-tasking” bullshit and…..! I’m having a really good day if I can remember what the hell I went into the other room to get, let alone two things at once! :)
rm,
I thought the theory in the DaVinci Code, along with that in Holy Blood, Holy Grail (by the guys who claimed plagiarism…can’t think of their names) is interesting. Is it true? How do I know? But it certainly makes interesting debate. ;)
The outcome of that plagiarism suit was correct. An idea cannot be stolen. The 2 (or actually 3) men who wrote HB/HG published it as non-fiction, and in effect, it is, as it contains historical facts. BTW, HB/HG is not the only book which delves into the same theory. Brown took that idea and wrote a fictional story around it.
Words themselves can be plagiarized. And there has to be a certain number of words before it becomes plagiarism. I can write, “Eat my shorts,” in a novel, but so can thousands of others. NOT plagiarism.
Yeah, I, correctly for a change, told anybody who was interested enough to ask, that, in my opinion, it (the lawsuit) didn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell. But, then again, even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then.
Cept for the fact that many people in those times had the same names, Matthew, Joseph, Mary. They used town names and -son- of to show where they came from. Hogwash!
There is independent historical evidence from Roman records that a Jewish rebel by the name of Jesus was executed by crucifixion at approximately the time of Christ’s death. We know that Jesus existed.
I am curious as to how Cameron’s data corresponds with that information.
It’ll be interesting to see what he has.
I’ve always had trouble with the whole Jesus thing myself. Oh there is certainly evidence of such a person. But if a guy was executed brutally and then returned three days later? I think there’d be more record of it. Such things being rather uncommon!
Execution by crucifixion was rather common in Roman territories in those times. It could only be done by the Romans, which gets the Jews off the hook for being “Christ Killers” since the Jews could only execute by stoning.
But it did not take much to get one crucified by the Romans.
Of course, if Jesus had risen from the dead after three days it probably would have made the front page of the local news.
They still dispute descendants of Thomas Jefferson. They can’t tell if the descendants are of Thomas Jefferson, from Thomas Jefferson’s brother or the slave descendants may be from one of the ancestors of Thomas Jefferson who owned slaves! How they gonna prove anything! Hogwash!
Did you get a discount on exclamation points, Roscoe?
Also, the Romans did not screw around. I should think that if someone they meant to execute was rumored alive they would be looking to finish the job.
Christ appeared to Mary Magdalene (John 20:14), the other women (Matthew 28:9-10), to the apostles without Thomas (John 20:19-24), to the apostles with Thomas (John 20:26-29), to the Emmaus disciples (Luke 24:13-33), to James (I Corinthians 15:7), to a multitude of 500 (I Corinthians 15:6), and to Paul (Acts 9:3-6). One of the most significant aspects of this line of evidence is simply the large number of the eyewitnesses.
If only one or two of the disciples claimed to witness the resurrected Lord there might be room for doubt, but to claim that over 500 people from various walks of life who witnessed the risen Lord at various times and under various circumstances were all deluded or deceived is preposterous.
The ability to mass reproduce written record is what was uncommon, especially considering the backgrounds the disciples came from.
ok 500 people saw him?
But no Romans? Were they even looking?
Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Actually, Mr. KIA, there were four or five AUTHORS that claimed that a number of people witnessed a risen Jesus, and their writing took place 30-70 years after Jesus’ death.
The 500 plus people that allegedly saw Jesus after His crucifixion did not leave written records of their sightings.
Also, you need to remember that a savior rising from the dead after three days is a myth that has it’s origins in Greek mythology.
The alleged Saint Paul travelled extensively in Greece after his conversion to Christianity. Truthfully, three quarters of the New Testament was written by Saul/Paul.
How you going to prove something that was not seen by Romans! If Jesus did not travel near or around Romans after he rose from the dead how is anyone going to record that he was not seen by any Romans! WS Clark believes in nothing and exclaims to know all! Pray WS CLARK! Here is your prayer! “Out NADA Which art in NADA hallowed be thy NADA. Thy NADA COME Thy NADA be done, as Earth as it is in NADA. We can not believe in anything in WS CLARK says because he has belief in NADA!
Wrong again, Roscoe, I believe in God, I just moved away from Christianity about fifteen years ago.
But thanks for playing the game.
Yeah Right WS CLARK! You believe in God as long as it conforms to your opinion! God at your convenience! Typical atheistic Democrit!
LOL a neocon meltdown is always funny.
“God at your convenience!”
Off your meds again today, Roscoe? I have no idea as to what the hell your post was supposed to mean, but I am guessing that you do not have a clue, either.
So, what DOES “God at your convenience” mean?
I’m sure the Jews felt the same about Jesus, afterall God just up and changed his mind with all the old testament crap, a kindler gentler god whose loving thing was to send his own son to die a torturous death!
Yeah that’s fabulous.
I am not melting down Political Mammy! The truth shall sting you! You know what it means WS CLARK. If you don’t know you better buy a pet rock and have a conversation with it about where you shall spend eternity!
ow i’ve been stung.
This could be entertaining.
IF there were a God? I should not be offering up any praises to him.
I’D be asking questions and demanding a little divine intervention before there’d be any hosanahs offered up.
Yo God? What’s with the suffering? Mitigate that, won’t ya? And how about hunger? And poverty and disease. What are you doing about them? No?
Well then I say no proof of existence is proof of no existence.
“buy a pet rock”
For Christ’s sake, Roscoe, get over yourself. You’re losing it big time here. You’re in real danger of blowing a gasket.
… and, for the record, just because I am not Christian does not mean that I do not observe and live by a moral code. Contrary to popular opinion, Christians do not have the market cornered on morals.
Actually, with the recent news, it would seem that Christians have been a little lax in the morals department lately.
“Typical atheistic Democrit!”
Please Roscoe explain how being a “democrit” is typicaly atheistic?
Rosco is just a little defensive from the bitch slap he got on the tread on the Babtist gay basher who was out trying to get him self a little guy love.
Only one way to find out! Die! Without a covenant with God you will ensure your destiny to non commitment! Ask any scientist who believes in God and Jesus Christ why they believe! WS CLARK one person gets reported in the news and you condemn millions of Christians! You have no faith, no belief and no chance! Your only hope is death which will release you of your bonds of your own self-destruction!
“Ask any scientist who believes in God and Jesus Christ why they believe!”
I believe they will answer that they believe because they believe.
So what, I believe Rosco has no more or less chance of “release of his bonds of self-destruction than anyone else.
You see Rosco if you believe that you have more knowledge of God than, say WSClark, then you are blasphemous. Because God is after all unknowable.
Complete BS Roscoe!
But you’re religous. You’ve been indoctrinated. Nothing wrong with your faith and having a belief system. But God doesn’t listen to you nor anybody else.
I’ll see you in hell, along with everybody else that has ever lived.
God is unknowable!?! Pure atheistic hogwash! A philosophical mud puddle put forth for convenience in an argument of their platitudes that unwashed Democrits sing in harmony so they can justify their nothingness!
Ignore the following if you’re a Christian with thin skin (Christians singled out because they seem most likely to have the thinnest skin of all; may be due to a lack of spiritual divesity in Kansas).
————————————-
Jesus Christ. If you want other people, normal people, to read your posts, don’t quote the Bible. Unless, of course, if you’re looking for ways to obscure your secular message.
‘Cuz any thinking person skips RIGHT OVER that cesspool of total crapola.
Your Biblical stuff differs from Shii’a Biblical stuff (whatever that may be) by less than the distance between my thumb and forefinger when I’m makin’ the “OK” sign.
Just sayin’.
Roscoe<—–ranting : (***
Now! Now! Hogwash is politically incorrect to say. Could offend Musliums. Chickenwash is the PC way of saying it now.
Actually the Law can be summed up as what Jesus said were the Greatest two commandments; Love God; Love your neighbor. Basically the 10 Commandments (the Law) point to those two things, so Jesus did not change anything from the Old Testament; including the shedding of blood (His) for the forgiveness of sin.
Yes Roscoe- God is unknowable! His power and glory would blind you if you ever really saw him.
Bow down before him, but don’t and I really, really mean it: for Gods sake don’t look up!
Actually wouldn’t Hogwash offend the jews?Holy Cow the Hindu’s?Horsehockey the Native Americans?
“Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”Posted by: Mr Kia | February 24, 2007 at 09:13 PM
What?!? What was that?
Pee-U, what’s that smell?? :)
It’s been the topic of the Open Thread for 3 hours now Pedant.You can always wait for tomorrow’s Open Thread.
Jaysus, what a total frickin’ snore fest.
Does that mean you’ll leave Jaysus outta tomorrow’s Open Thread?
Is it a promise then?
I won’t start the path down what I consider blasphemy I can assure you that!
There are thousands of scientists who are all sorts of religious beliefs. You’re taking a mighty big chance betting on the one.
“Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there be that find it”
Not terribly reassuring, Mr. K.
You may be the odd Californian who’s terminally boring when you’re wont to discuss spirituality.
We expect greater things of our wacky brethren, Mr. Kia. Please try yer best to rise to our expectations.
I’ll try my best to be patient, but I gotta admit blasphemy is one of my greatest weaknesses. ;)
Christ. Strengths!!!
“you condemn millions of Christians!”
You are funny little man, Roscoe. I am not condemning millions of Christians. You believe what you want, but Christians certainly do not have a monopoly on morals.
The moral standards that Christians claim are the same standards that virtually every culture observes. Christians are not unique.
The only thing unique about Christianity is the believe that Jesus died for your sins so that you could go to Heaven.
… and that is the part of Christianity that I do not believe in.
I actually find living in a land where you can both surf and ski (snow) on the same day pointing more to a Creator than living someplace else would, but that’s just me.
Isn’t it true WS (in a nutshell) that every faith (religion) on the planet is based around either becoming your own God or working your way to Him, when Christianity is the only one in which God comes to us?To me that makes it more believable.
“A philosophical mud puddle put forth for convenience in an argument of their platitudes..” Posted by: Roscoe | February 24, 2007 at 09:08 PM
“Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there be that find it”Posted by: Roscoe | February 24, 2007 at 09:27 PM
Does anyone else find this as amusing as I do?
Well, son, that’s a glaring hole in yer faith.
If you need the drama of snow and surf in one day to convince you of (I have difficulty writing this with a straight face, so bear with me) what, yahweh or whoever, then isn’t that a bug rather than a feature in your status as a Californian of faith?
Christ, all they need around these parts is a lack of rain.
I would not simplify it quite that way, Mr. KIA, but it is true that Christianity is the only religion where you can repent and express a belief in Christ and punch your ticket to Heaven.
I just have a hard time with the concept that the Dali Lama is going to go to Hell and Charles Manson could repent on his deathbed and go to Heaven.
That just does not add up for me.
Hijack attempt #2:
As an aside to the group here who’s equally without a life here on this Saturday eve, don’t you agree that perhaps the best rock album ever recorded — as defined by the album that best captures the spirit (non yahweh type spirit, that is) of rock and roll –that the best live rock album ever is “London Calling” by the Clash?
Keyrist, what a feast.
Discuss.
Hey, I have a life. One that demands a great deal of thought and effort. So I find this kind of mindless entertainment refreshing.
Now I will pray just a bit that Roscoe will give me just one more laugh before the History channel gives me something more entertaining.
Well, Pedant, you are obviously younger than I am, since you selected a Clash album as the best of all time. While I agree that London Calling is great, I cannot agree that it is the best.
But I was a little confused by the wording of your post – are you referring to ALL albums or just LIVE albums?
Actually, I prefer the way Cheap Trick turned total crapola into pure-D gold in “Live at Budokhan” myself.
Anyone care to second the motion?
Sorry, WS: just the live stuff. A truly great smorgasbord of rock, imo. Joe Strummer was a god.
Sorry, Mr. Kia!
Best – Jimi Hendrix – Live at Winterland.
Worst – Peter Frampton – Frampton Comes Alive.
The latter still makes me want to puke to this day.
Joe Strummer is GOOD, but Hendrix was GOD.
Whoops! The late Joe Strummer WAS good.
Persuasive argument, WSClark, although I’m not convinced the production standards of rock ca.1968 were up to those of rock ca.1979, given Tom Dowd’s multitrack discoveries of 1969. ;)
But who’s to quibble?
OK, I’m in!
I am a little partial on this one – I was Hendrix live at Cobo Hall in Detroit in 1969 – he played a similar set to the Winterland album.
Back in the day, I was fortunate enough to see a lot of great bands live, Cream, the Who, the Doors, Cocker, Zepplin, Beck, Airplane, Pink Floyd, etc.
I missed the Stones and the Beatles, but life goes on!
I SAW Hendrix live yada, yada….
Dang.
>So they will make damn sure that this war isn’t successful and that troops are brought home prematurely. It will make Iraq spiral out-of-control to the nth degree when we leave and then they can blame it all on Bush and the Republicans. Then their re-election rate will improve in 2008.Damn the troops! They could care less. It’s all lip service. They care about maintain
JW you are delusional!!
I hate live albums of any kind. The singing is often off key and the instruments are the same.
I’d rather have a good Best of album.
“unwashed Democrits”
I’ll have you know that I showered tonight. :)
Saturdays for us are family night, where all my kids, their spouses and kids and I (with a friend of someone’s thrown in for a good mix sometimes) share supper/dinner and talk or play trivia games.
How many of you family value conservatives can say the same?
My family shares supper every night!
I agree with you Roxann about the live albums.
My family shares supper every night!
Posted by: Roscoe | February 25, 2007 at 08:00 AM
There’s old Roscoe sitting at the dinner table, Moses on one side Jesus at the other, God allmighty sits at the head of the table and they make lists of who is going to Hell and who is going to Heaven.
Such a wonderful sight to see.
My family shares supper every night!
Posted by: Roscoe | February 25, 2007 at 08:00 AM
There’s old Roscoe sitting at the dinner table, Moses on one side Jesus at the other, God allmighty sits at the head of the table and they make lists of who is going to Hell and who is going to Heaven.
Such a wonderful sight to see.
I can’t think of a live album I really like to be honest. There are a few acoustics I like.There was a Presley live album (live in Memphis?)50,000,000 fans can’t be wrong (not the name of the album).Coincidently The King won all his grammy’s for his gospel recordings :)
Willie Nelson’s live album from 1976.
Oh for the days of the “cosmic cowboy”, Janis Joplin, the Armadillo World Headquarters, and old Austin in general…..
Just shows what happens when a buncha high tech californians move in and drive up the real estate prices.
“dont it always seem to go that you dont know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone. They paved paradise, put up a parking lot”
Maybe the same will be sung about the kansas water supply in say, oh, ten years?
Michael Dell is a native Texan.
Nah, there are some great live albums. The ones already mentioned, by Hendrix, The Clash, and Cheap Trick are great recordings of what must have been awesome live shows. But make no mistake: each stands alone as a great album, totally outside the live show.
Others: lotsa Dick’s Picks for the Dead, The Who’s Leeds show (Live at Leeds), Dylan at Royal Albert Hall in 1966 (the “Judas!” show), Springsteen in London in 1975.
There are more, but not many new ones. I think it’s because technology has displaced the old 60s/70s knowledge about both musicianship (in rock anyway) and recording live music.
There are lots of great live recordings, though.
Let’s not forget Live Shots: Joe Ely and The Clash recorded together in London in 1980.
If you get the CD, don’t on your life miss the cover of Norman Petty’s “Not Fade Away.” And turn it up to 11!