Extreme Left/Right Both Wrong About Terror

I am tired of my socialist friends coming up with a littany of excuses for terrorists.

Like somehow evil people with no conscience, are entirely the fault of our own foreign policy. It's a childish and simplistic notion, and it is also in my opinion, a dangerous one.

These would have been the same people that would have found reasons not to get involved in stopping the Nazis in the 40's and the same people that would have found Chamberlain's approach to "keeping the peace" in Europe, the 'smarter approach'.

Well history has taught us, that the Nazis were assholes, that the anti-war movement in America and Canada in the late 30's and early 40's was wrong and the world is a better place because those voices that 'reasoning', did not prevail. History has judged Churchill as being correct and Neville Chamerlain as being wrong.

But which one do you think Al Franken would have sympathized with, had he lived in that era?

And yes, sometimes war is not only necessary, it can, (on rare occcasions) actually improve the quality of our lives. Liberals can put that notion in their pipes and smoke it, because that is historical fact.

Now, for you Republican blokes out there, don't think that means I'm bowing down to the ridiculous rhetoric and squandering of public trust that the Bush administration has perpetuated for 5 years straight.

The Iraq war was mismanaged from day one, anyone who claims otherwise does not know the facts. The Iraq war was miscalculated strategy. Bringing democracy to Iraq is not the answer. Let's set aside that wasn't the reason we the people agreed to go to war in the first place. The fact of the matter is, democracy in Iraq is not the answer.

The single most compelling reason I can think of as to why democracy in Iraq is not the answer to terrorism, is because Iraq itself, should not even be a country, at least the way the country is drawn on the map now. Iraq's current borders were drawn up by colonial England nearly a century ago.

Someone once wrote that Iraq was 'not governable' and that insurgency would always be a problem there. They wrote those words in 1920. Do you know who that person was? That person was Winston Churchill.

Iraq's borders cross ethnic, cultural and religious lines. The borders make no sense! They never have, and as a result, bringing any form of stable and peaceful government to the region will never work. Even the mighty Ottoman Empire struggled with insurgency in that region for 300+ years! Look it up, that is historical fact.

300 years of insurgency? How does that sound to you Republican boobs out there?

It was an arrogant and blind administration, that believed that the age-old rivalries between Persians and Arabs that have existed for over 1000 years could simply be wiped away with an American flag and a piece of paper with the word 'constitution' on it.

Sure the ink stains on the old woman's thumb made for great press, but its an illusion that things 'are getting better in Iraq'. They will never get better in Iraq, because it is a country that has been knee-deep in cultural antipathy since the country's inception and indeed, for centuries before that.

That antipathy will never change, nor will it subside. Deluding yourself that it will change, at the expense of billion of dollars borrowed from China, is one of the dumbest moves in American foreign policy history.

Anarchist on Welfare

He's an anarchist on welfare
He's such a fucking joke.
The government is evil, until he needs the poke.

He's first in line for handouts
He wants the life that's free.
He's an anarchist on welfare
and he's such a fucking joke.

Anarchy's religion,
or so he likes to say,
But his mother sends him cookies
To help him through his day

He thinks that he is hardcore
Doc Marten boot spit shine
And his leather jacket artwork
helps keep his peace of mind

But he's an anarchist on welfare
He's such a fucking joke,
The government is evil, unless he needs some cash
He likes to rob the system blind,
...so he can buy an ounce of hash.

If you're an anarchist on welfare
You are a fucking joke
You think you have conviction,
but in fact, you're just a joke

The government is laughing,
because you are its tool.
And the day they decide to start the draft,
you'll be the first in line you fool.

For the sake of just dollars a day,
You've submitted to their rule
You're just an anarchist on welfare, a total hypocrite
So please don't lecture me at all,
you collosal piece of shit.

IFC's Punk Documentary

So I dial up my TiVO and was delighted to see a 90 minute documentary on punk rock had been downloaded from the Independent Film Channel.

Info on this documentary can be found here:

http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2005/Jul/EEN42cec8f17e252.html

What a pile of rubbish this documentary was and I am just too angry about it to let it go.

First of all, any punk documentary that spends 88 minutes recording drivel from David Johannsen pontificating on how socially significant they are and only two minutes showing and playing actual *music*, is bollocks.

To me, the best visual and audio historical documents of punk are the performances themselves and other than a very cool gritty film clip of an ancient Ramones performance at CBGB's, the actual musical performances in the film are brief.

We get endless musings from Henry Rollins however, weighing the 'significance' of this or that and we get Jelo Bifra congratulating himself for how important he is. (NOTE: Score a major point for Rollins, when he said PIL was infinitely more interesting than the Sex Pistols, I could not agree more).

The sum theme of the film is essentially, that Punk is an American invention, invented by Andy Warhol and then robbed and tainted by the British. While the film gives due credit to The Clash (and the film is dedicated to Strummer), and highlights worthy bands such as the The Slits, it also takes many occasions to deride the London scene. The scene in New York which was equally derivative and shallow at times, is largely given a clean bill of health.

And saddest of all, the punk scenes and punk bands that aren't from London, New York or LA aren't even mentioned at all, with the exception of Bad Brains, which I was pleased to see, but even they are barely a footnote, compared to about 15 minutes dedicated to Nico from Velvet Underground.

Then the documentary pulls an interesting stunt, it derides previous histories of punk as always glossing over the 80's, then immediately glosses over the 80's. The film literally moves from the breakup of the Sex Pistols to Nirvana, in about 5 minutes and most of that 5 minutes, is the lead singer of Agnostic Front whining that he never made it big.

The politics embedded in punk is utterly dismissed, and even suggested here and there, that it never belonged anyway. Like somehow, "Too Drunk to Fuck" was pure punk and something like "2 Milllion Voices" were just spoiled Londoners whining about the Dole.

Also embedded in the film are each artist's contempt for one another. Rollins passively-aggressively takes a stab at the California scene, Johannsen seems to think everyone owes him a percentage of their royalties he was so influential, and just about every New York artist suggests the London scene was bollocks.

The London artists, all seem to like everyone, except Nancy...as once again, we all refuse to believe that Sid Vicious was responsible for what he did to his body and his career. Right, and Yoko was the reason the Beatles broke up too I guess? Bah.

The film isn't a disaster, its just dull. It is really more a love affair with the music scene of the New York underground from 71 to 76. I don't disagree that was an influential and fascinating time and place for music, but to suggest punk 'died' shortly thereafter, or suggest that London just 'subscribed' to whatever scene was in New York and then fucked it up, is more than unfair, its downright boring and petty.

A punk documentary shouldn't be introspective. It shouldn't take a few egos and paste them all over a canvas with insightful commentary. It should have the same kind of energy and nihilism that was the center of what made 'punk' so refreshing.

Most tragic of all, the documentary, couldn't find one interesting new band to tell me about. Are you kidding me? I saw a great punk band in Kansas City of all places, the last time I was there and the only new punk bands you see to tell me about are fucking Green Day and Rancid? Do your homework, there's still great punk out there, what kind of garbage is this?

This isn't a punk documentary, it was more suited for an analysis of Pink Floyd or Eric Clapton. It might as well have been broadcast on PBS with Ken Burns directing. It actually tried to take something as random and beautifully meaningless as "punk rock" and put it in a bottle, label it and paint a historical perspective around it.

What do I think of this documentary? Unless you want to hear other artists tell you how wonderfully terrific MC5, Television and The Ramones were, *over and over and over again*, for about 90 minutes, you are better off finding some bootleg Stiff Little Fingers video and just watching that instead.

Klub Sportowy Deby Osielko

Witaj na oficjalnej stronie internetowej Klubu Sportowego "Dęby Osielsko". Mam nadzieję, że znajdziesz tu wszystkie informacje jakie potrzebujesz na temat naszego klubu...

http://www.deby.osielsko.com.pl/

Steve Raible ma wąsy prawo

Ever Just Sit Back?

Have you ever just sat back and watched the human dynamic in motion?

Have you ever been to a meat market, with no self-interest other than to just observe those desperate for love and companionship?

Try it sometime, go ahead, be the nerd at the end of the bar. It's not such a bad ride, in fact, on nights like this, it's better than therapy and it will probably cost you less.

The truth is, Vodka is cheaper than Freud.