Sunday, 13 December 2009
Iranian intel chief warns of extent of opposition
Iran's top intelligence official denounced senior clerics who he said support the country's opposition, an acknowledgment of the split in the leadership amid the postelection turmoil and a sign of growing pressure by hard-liners within the government to extend the crackdown.
The comments, reported Thursday by the state news agency IRNA, came after this week's widespread student protests, the biggest anti-government rallies in months. The unrest appears to have raised authorities' frustration that a fierce crackdown since the June election has failed to crush the opposition.
Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi spoke to a gathering of pro-government clerics in the holy city of Qom and warned that the opposition movement -- which authorities label as a foreign-backed plot to overthrow clerical rule -- extended into the country's high ranks.
"Unfortunately, based on precise intelligence, a lot of forces that were expected to defend the supreme leader instead went with those who rose against the supreme leader, he said, referring to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who stands at the top of Iran's clerical leadership.
A Nobel winner who went wrong on rights
In accepting his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Thursday, President Obama talked about the quiet dignity of human rights reformers such as Burma's Aung San Suu Kyi, the bravery of Zimbabwean voters who "cast their ballots in the face of beatings" and the need to bear witness to "the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran." Earlier in the week, thousands of Iranians did just that, gathering at university campuses in the most substantial demonstrations in the country since the summer, when hundreds of thousands protested Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed presidential election.
But back in June, even as much of the world cheered the Iranian protesters, Obama seemed reluctant to weigh in. "It is not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling," he said at the time. The White House may have feared that public support from Obama would allow the regime to paint the demonstrators as American stooges or might undermine U.S. efforts on Tehran's nuclear program. Such fears seemed to paralyze the administration.
The irony of Obama's Nobel Prize is not that he accepted it while waging two wars. After all, as Obama said in Oslo: "One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek." The stranger thing is that, from China to Sudan, from Burma to Iran, a president lauded for his commitment to peace has dialed down a U.S. commitment to human rights, one that persisted through both Republican and Democratic administrations dating back at least to Jimmy Carter. And so far, he has little to show for it...
What I WILL do next year (a plan!)
Boy am I really pissed off to always see CRAPPY 'hand writing' (ie computer done w/ NO individuality) used in ads!!!
Saturday, 12 December 2009
(As) my friend Stan (said:)
Next time some snot nosed kid with a blog claims to be a music journalist tell them to read this and see how it's done http://bit.ly/6hINOK
Glenn Greenwald:The strange consensus on Obama's Nobel address
Reactions to Obama's Nobel speech yesterday were remarkably consistent across the political spectrum, and there were two points on which virtually everyone seemed to agree: (1) it was the most explicitly pro-war speech ever delivered by anyone while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize; and (2) it was the most comprehensive expression of Obama's foreign policy principles since he became President. I don't think he can be blamed for the first fact; when the Nobel Committee chose him despite his waging two wars and escalating one, it essentially forced on him the bizarre circumstance of using his acceptance speech to defend the wars he's fighting. What else could he do? Ignore the wars? Repent?
I'm more interested in the fact that the set of principles Obama articulated yesterday was such a clear and comprehensive expression of his foreign policy that it's now being referred to as the "Obama Doctrine." About that matter, there are two arguably confounding facts to note: (1) the vast majority of leading conservatives -- from Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich to Peggy Noonan, Sarah Palin, various Kagans and other assorted neocons -- have heaped enthusiastic praise on what Obama said yesterday, i.e., on the Obama Doctrine; and (2) numerous liberals have done exactly the same. That convergence gives rise to a couple of questions:
Why are the Bush-following conservatives who ran the country for the last eight years and whose foreign policy ideas are supposedly so discredited -- including some of the nation's hardest-core neocons -- finding so much to cheer in the so-called Obama Doctrine?
How could liberals and conservatives -- who have long claimed to possess such vehemently divergent and irreconcilable worldviews on foreign policy -- both simultaneously adore the same comprehensive expression of foreign policy?
.jpg)
Let's dispense first with several legitimate caveats. Like all good politicians, Obama is adept at paying homage to multiple, inconsistent views at once, enabling everyone to hear whatever they want in what he says while blissfully ignoring the rest. Additionally, conservatives have an interest in claiming that Obama has embraced Bush/Cheney policies even when he hasn't, because it allows them to claim vindication ("see, now that Obama gets secret briefings, he realizes we were right all along"). Moreover, there are foreign policies Obama has pursued that are genuinely disliked by neocons -- from negotiating with Iran to applying some mild pressure on Israel to the use of more conciliatory and humble rhetoric. And one of the most radical and controversial aspects of the Bush presidency -- the attack on Iraq -- was not defended by Obama, nor was the underlying principle that produced it ("preventive" war)...
Contine reading @'Salon'
Icons
The obscure but semi-legendary Neon Boys were a precursor to Television, featuring Tom Verlaine, Richard Hell, and drummer Billy Ficca. Their duration, from the fall of 1972 to the spring of 1973 according to Clinton Heylin's From the Velvets to the Voidoids, was brief. They were certainly ahead of their time, however, as recordings that later surfaced proved. On "That's All I Know" and "Love Comes in Spurts," which finally came out as one side of a seven-inch EP years later, the group played with an edge suggestive of both speed freaks and punk rock. There was shrieking guitar, half-spoken lyrics declaimed in a semi-state of hysteria, and words that were too scabrous to have been considered for commercial airplay in 1973 (certainly on "Love Comes in Spurts," at any rate). A then-unknown Dee Dee Ramone unsuccessfully auditioned for the band as a second guitarist before the Neon Boys, still a trio, decided to disband.
Of course all three of the principals would rapidly resurface as members of the original Television lineup, although Hell dropped out of that group before their first album. Hell would re-record "Love Comes in Spurts" himself as a solo act. The Neon Boys' versions of "That's All I Know" and "Love Comes in Spurts" were issued as one side of a seven-inch EP on Shake Records that had two later Hell solo recordings on the other side. Another Neon Boys recording, "High-Heeled Wheels," surfaced on a CD single (which also included the two previously released Neon Boys cuts) on the UK Overground label. According to From the Velvets to the Voidoids, three other Neon Boys songs -- "Tramp," "Hot Dog," and "Poor Circulation" -- were also recorded, although they have not yet been released.
Terence Trent D'Arby (Remixed by Lee 'Scratch' Perry)
Released: 1987
Tracklisting:
1 Sign Your Name 5:18
2 If You All Go To Heaven 4:54
3 Rain 2:54
4 Greasy Chicken 4:41
(Tracks 1-3 remixed by Lee Perry)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
