So I went to nearby Atlanta to spend New Years Eve with Concrete Blonde. I normally don't like hanging out in the "ATL", but couldn't make it to New York as planned. The show was awesome for the first hour or more. We were right up in the front wondering how such a rough looking woman could still hit every note. I mean she was trashed! Masscara running down her face and clothes hanging on for dear life. Then it happened. I knew it was coming....I could sense it. About two minutes before midnight, not having a short song to play, she starts this rant about the war in Iraq. Going on and on about how evil the president is and other typical anti-american garbage that I hadn't paid to listen to. I wish just once I could go to a show and not have to listen to this. I'm sick of it. I have a really good friend who's been in Iraq for almost a year now. He believes in what he's doing and I support him and our president fully. I mean there are people out there who are hellbent on killing Americans and we are either going to fight them over there or fight them over here. I used to consider myself a Libertarian until I researched their thoughts on foreign policy. I think a lot of people in this country are in a state of denial and a good bit of said folks happen to be entertainers. That's right "entertainers", so get off your soap box and entertain me, dammit.
On a lighter note, we had a swell party tonight, and while drinking whiskey on the porch, I managed to talk a guest into putting on an afro wig and streaking around the block. (My porch overlooks a pretty major intersection!) It was brilliant! Everyone cheer on the Tigers tonight and keep it real....
brandon [email] said at 12:11 PM 01-04-2004: Don't take this the wrong way, but going to a Concrete Blonde show might be unamerican in the first place.
The rumor is that Johnette Napolitano owns stock in starbucks and convinced Ed Kowalczyk to play for the other team.
byron... said at 2:55 PM 01-04-2004: Like I said, I tend to lean toward Libertarianism except for their foriegn policy. I support the president in defending our country. If you haven't checked out the Libertarian Party, you should, but they just cannot be trusted to protect us in the current state of the world.
cricket [email] said at 12:08 AM 01-05-2004: but imean REALLY???!!! you trust our current president in all regards??!!! i mean, for sure i am wasted right now writing this, but even in my drunken state i kno9w not to trusrt anyone in politics right now, and i am just curious how someone i knew so well for three years could possibly now trust geaorge bush. i mean, it weirds me out. so i just wonder how much of this you have really thought out. i bet its alot b/c i think you are very perceptive. so... lets here it.
zack [email] said at 12:26 AM 01-05-2004: I just want to point out that it's not anti-american to disagree with GW or the occupation of Iraq. Carry on.
byron... said at 1:46 AM 01-05-2004: Once again, I support our president fully in defending our country. In other matters, except for their current thoughts on foriegn policy, I tend to agree with the Libertarian party. It would take me all night to lay out their ideas so check out their website. Please do not take my words out of context. I'm simply tired of going to shows and hearing the same played out anti-bush rants. I mean of course I don't trust politians, but you can't deny the fact that he has enough balls to do what it takes to take the fight to the enemy. Just think about it for a second. What would it be like if the war was on the streets of DC? If suicide bombers were to start blowing themselves up in coffee houses in your neighborhood? The man will get my vote this year.
zack [email] said at 5:10 PM 01-05-2004: Yeah, anti-bush is correct.. saying an anti-bush rant is anti-american, however is sloppy thinking, and even if you maybe didn't mean it, you should be aware of the difference.
cricket [email] said at 1:53 AM 01-05-2004: okay, i understand your response in the context of a militarized society- but we dont live there. it just seems scary to support a war and a president who started a war over evidence that never existed and over threats that just werent ever present really. i mean these arguements are so over done, i feel sheepish sticking to them, but i dont understand how anyone could still believe our initial premises of bringing freedom and democracy to afghanistan and iraq. war was so clearly laid out- even if you just read headlines and websites. check out that weird global/colonial website the rumsfeld think tank runs and then read colin powell's new year address in the new york times on jan 1 and its pretty clear how the new administratuion has a very precise vision of what the next 20 or so years should be like in global policy and they are making that a reality right now. how is that not evident? anyway. that is what comes to me.
anotherben.. said at 6:40 AM 01-05-2004: the new administratuion has a very precise vision of what the next 20 or so years should be like in global policy .. don't blame them for having a plan. if you don't like the plan.. then make that argument.
anotherben.. said at 2:22 PM 01-06-2004: initial reason for going into afghanistan - they refused to turn over bin laden, whom they admitted harboring.
initial reasons for going into iraq were a bit murkier, but freedom and democracy were merely lagniappe tossed in as a consolation prize for the mess that was inevitable. what specifically about the administrations plan do you dislike?
monkey again said at 10:55 AM 01-05-2004: I love Dick Cheney. I just wanted to state that for the record, so in 20 years when he is King, He might have mercy on me, poor ignorant soul that I am.
monkey again said at 11:29 AM 01-05-2004: Wouldn't it kick ass if it turned out that Dick Cheney's "undisclosed location" is actually Michael Jackson's hyperbaric chamber?
