Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin

James Neibaur wrote:
> David Totheroh 4/28/06 8:10 PM
>
> > Fifty or so years ago it was Chaplin, now it's Neil Young. Why does it
> > take British subject US resident aliens to make the artistic statements
> > that cut through the US political mendacity?
>
> I am wondering why it takes an old timer like Neil Young. Back in the
> sixties it wasn't the music of our parents' generation making protests with
> their work. Now, it takes a 60 year old rock and roller from our time to
> get the message across.

To be fair, back in those days there was Woody and Odetta and Seeger
and the Weavers who were the shoulders that Dylan and Ochs and others
rode on and all of their songs were a significant part of the sixties.

And nowadays, (even without counting Springsteen' Seeger album) there
are artists like the Dixie Chicks and Green Day and Pearl Jam (and
Pink) who are making statements.

I think Clear Channel is a big part of the difference. Young recognized
this and is exploiting the fact by pushing exclusive internet streaming
(and soon downloading) to intro Living With War before CDs go on sale
later. Clear Channel is just an institutionalized version of what the
CWV and VFW did to distribution of Monsieur Verdoux and Limelight.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

George Shelps wrote:
> dtotheroh.TakeThisOut@aol.com (David Totheroh)
> wrote:
>
> >>Fifty or so years ago it was Chaplin,
> >>now it's Neil Young.
>
> >Why does it take British subject US
> >resident aliens to make the artistic
> >statements that cut through the US
> >political mendacity?
>
> Profound ignorance about their own
> mendacity?

Everyone here knows the tortured logic you use to 'prove' Chaplin's
socalled mendacity, but I'd love to see you try to support your claim
that Young has been mendacious in any way. Go for it (I love watching
tool/dupes twist themselves into pretzels).
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

James Neibaur wrote:
> David Totheroh 4/29/06 9:58 AM
>
> > And nowadays, (even without counting Springsteen' Seeger album) there
> > are artists like the Dixie Chicks and Green Day and Pearl Jam (and
> > Pink) who are making statements.
>
> Yeah, I know. And we had shallow pop stuff years ago that isn't unlike the
> American Idol junk today.

I'll readily bow to your superior musical knowledge/exposure, but I
don't see the groups mentioned as being "American Idol [level] junk"
except maybe Pink which was the reason for the parens. (But her "Dear
Mr. President" is pretty direct, potent stuff.)

>
> But it seems that protests were so much a part of mainstream music.
> Everyone knew about it, knew the songs, knew why they were being sung. It
> wasn't limited to a handful of artists like today.

Remember, we're 'only' about four years in now, and it took nearly that
long for the FSM to kick off the protest movement on any significant
national level. I think we're about to see an explosion of opened eyes,
Shelpslike tools notwithstanding.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

George Shelps wrote:
> dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
> wrote:
>
> >>>Fifty or so years ago it was Chaplin,
> >>>now it's Neil Young.
>
> >>>Why does it take British subject US
> >>>resident aliens to make the artistic
> >>>statements that cut through the US
> >>>political mendacity?
>
> >>Profound ignorance about their own
> >>mendacity?
>
> >Everyone here knows the tortured logic
> >you use to 'prove' Chaplin's socalled
> >mendacity,
>
> No "totured logic" was necessary,
>
> Chaplin was a far-left hypocrite who
> bashed the US while whitewashing Stalinist Russia.

Bashed the US?? When, and how?

>
>
> > but I'd love to see you try to support
> >your claim that Young has been
> >mendacious in any way. Go for it (I love
> >watching tool/dupes twist themselves
> >into pretzels).
>
> Young is attacking the liberator of 25
> million people by calling for his
> removal from office, thus supporting
> the goals of Hussein, Zarqawi, and
> bin Laden.

The 'liberator' of 25 million? Have you asked any of the families of
the probably 100,000 killed how liberated they feel? Or the women
living in Baghdad who ? Have you checked with any of the 20,000 people
who have been kidnaped for ransom or killed in sectarian violence in
the last 6 months?

Even the DoD admitted on Friday that the invasion has created an
environment and a training ground for terrorists that threatens the
rest of the world in ways that didn't exist before we invaded. So it is
now clear to the DoD that the "goals" of the terrorist leaders have
been advanced by our invasion. Bush's incompetence has played into
their hands in ways they couldn't have even dreamed of 4 years ago.

But believe me, I'm not at all surprised that you wouldn't be able to
admit the reality that even the DoD has finally acknowledged.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

dtotheroh.RemoveThis@aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:

>>>Fifty or so years ago it was Chaplin,
>>>now it's Neil Young.

>>>Why does it take British subject US
>>>resident aliens to make the artistic
>>>statements that cut through the US
>>>political mendacity?

>>Profound ignorance about their own
>>mendacity?

>Everyone here knows the tortured logic
>you use to 'prove' Chaplin's socalled
>mendacity,

No "totured logic" was necessary,

Chaplin was a far-left hypocrite who
bashed the US while whitewashing Stalinist Russia.


> but I'd love to see you try to support
>your claim that Young has been
>mendacious in any way. Go for it (I love
>watching tool/dupes twist themselves
>into pretzels).

Young is attacking the liberator of 25
million people by calling for his
removal from office, thus supporting
the goals of Hussein, Zarqawi, and
bin Laden.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

David Totheroh 4/28/06 8:10 PM

> Fifty or so years ago it was Chaplin, now it's Neil Young. Why does it
> take British subject US resident aliens to make the artistic statements
> that cut through the US political mendacity?

I am wondering why it takes an old timer like Neil Young. Back in the
sixties it wasn't the music of our parents' generation making protests with
their work. Now, it takes a 60 year old rock and roller from our time to
get the message across.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

George Shelps wrote:
> dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
> wrote:
>
>
> >>>Everyone here knows the tortured
> >>>logic you use to 'prove' Chaplin's
> >>>socalled mendacity,
>
> >>No "tortured logic" was necessary,
>
> >>Chaplin was a far-left hypocrite who
> >>bashed the US while whitewashing
> >>Stalinist Russia.
>
> >Bashed the US?? When, and how?
>
> I'm not going over this ground yet
> again. Reread my old posts.

In other words, you have nothing except your slimey innuendo and
ideological interpretation. And before you go claiming my
interpretation is equally ideological, I'm not the one making the wild
claim that CC "bashed the US." I made no claims I'm not willing to
support, as you have just done.

>
> Like you, Chaplin was a Class A
> far-left hypocrite.
>
>
> >< but I'd love to see you try to support
> >>your claim that Young has been
> >>mendacious in any way. Go for it (I love
> >>watching tool/dupes twist themselves
> >>into pretzels).
>
> >>Young is attacking the liberator of 25
> >>million people by calling for his
> >>removal from office, thus supporting
> >>the goals of Hussein, Zarqawi, and
> >>bin Laden.
>
> >The 'liberator' of 25 million? Have you
> >asked any of the families of the probably
> >100,000 killed how liberated they feel?
> >Or the women living in Baghdad who ?
> >Have you checked with any of the 20,000
> >people who have been kidnaped for
> >ransom or killed in sectarian violence in
> >the last 6 months?
>
> I stand with Bush and against the
> terrorists.

If you stand with Bush, you stand for policies that are, intentionally
or not, effectively serving the aims of the terrorists far better than
anything they have done themselves. It's not Bush's intentions that I
question as much as his competence. Nothing he has said he would
accomplish in the foreign policy realm has been achieved.

>
>
> >Even the DoD admitted on Friday that
> >the invasion has created an environment
> >and a training ground for terrorists that
> >threatens the rest of the world in ways
> >that didn't exist before we invaded.
>
> How do they know that? By now,
> there would have been another terrorist
> attack on US soil.

You'd have to ask the DoD. It was the conclusion they presented
yesterday.

Why would you expect another domestic attack so soon? It was eight plus
years between the two previous attacks. Are you saying that Clinton was
that much better than Bush at preventing terrorist attacks on US soil?

>
> (I just got back from watching UNITED
> 93. The tragedy of 9-11 has not been
> repeated thanks to Bush)
>
>
> > So it is now clear to the DoD that the
> >"goals" of the terrorist leaders have been
> >advanced by our invasion. Bush's
> >incompetence has played into their
> >hands in ways they couldn't have even
> >dreamed of 4 years ago.
>
> Bush eliminated 2 terrorist states
> and set the stage for 2 democratic
> states.

So far the only "stage" is chaos. Afghanistan just exported it's
largest opium/heroin crop in years. Tribal overlords control the
majority of the area in Afghanistan. Sectarian militias control most of
Iraq. Crime is at an all-time high and security is more problematic
than ever. The oil industry that was going to finance reconstruction is
now producing less than half of what it was before the invasion.
Potable water and sewers are less available than before. Electricity is
more intermittent than pre-invasion. Even without accounting for the
corruption and profiteering, more is being spent on 'security' than on
reconstruction, and all indications are that the US is turning its back
on those rebuilding obligations. The "stage" that's been set looks a
lot more like a gallows than a springboard.

>
>
> >But believe me, I'm not at all surprised
> >that you wouldn't be able to admit the
> >reality that even the DoD has finally
> >acknowledged.
>
> I stand with the commander in chief of the
> DoD.

I'm not at all surprised. Rumsfeld said there would be intransigent
dead-enders to deal with.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

David Totheroh 4/29/06 9:58 AM

> And nowadays, (even without counting Springsteen' Seeger album) there
> are artists like the Dixie Chicks and Green Day and Pearl Jam (and
> Pink) who are making statements.

Yeah, I know. And we had shallow pop stuff years ago that isn't unlike the
American Idol junk today.

But it seems that protests were so much a part of mainstream music.
Everyone knew about it, knew the songs, knew why they were being sung. It
wasn't limited to a handful of artists like today.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

dtotheroh RemoveThis @aol.com (David Totheroh)
wrote:


>>>Everyone here knows the tortured
>>>logic you use to 'prove' Chaplin's
>>>socalled mendacity,

>>No "tortured logic" was necessary,

>>Chaplin was a far-left hypocrite who
>>bashed the US while whitewashing
>>Stalinist Russia.

>Bashed the US?? When, and how?

I'm not going over this ground yet
again. Reread my old posts.

Like you, Chaplin was a Class A
far-left hypocrite.


><  but I'd love to see you try to support
>>your claim that Young has been
>>mendacious in any way. Go for it (I love
>>watching tool/dupes twist themselves
>>into pretzels).

>>Young is attacking the liberator of 25
>>million people by calling for his
>>removal from office, thus supporting
>>the goals of Hussein, Zarqawi, and
>>bin Laden.

>The 'liberator' of 25 million? Have you
>asked any of the families of the probably
>100,000 killed how liberated they feel?
>Or the women living in Baghdad who ?
>Have you checked with any of the 20,000
>people who have been kidnaped for
>ransom or killed in sectarian violence in
>the last 6 months?

I stand with Bush and against the
terrorists.


>Even the DoD admitted on Friday that
>the invasion has created an environment
>and a training ground for terrorists that
>threatens the rest of the world in ways
>that didn't exist before we invaded.

How do they know that? By now,
there would have been another terrorist
attack on US soil.

(I just got back from watching UNITED
93. The tragedy of 9-11 has not been
repeated thanks to Bush)


> So it is now clear to the DoD that the
>"goals" of the terrorist leaders have been
>advanced by our invasion. Bush's
>incompetence has played into their
>hands in ways they couldn't have even
>dreamed of 4 years ago.

Bush eliminated 2 terrorist states
and set the stage for 2 democratic
states.


>But believe me, I'm not at all surprised
>that you wouldn't be able to admit the
>reality that even the DoD has finally
>acknowledged.

I stand with the commander in chief of the
DoD.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

David Totheroh wrote:
> Fifty or so years ago it was Chaplin, now it's Neil Young. Why does it
> take British subject US resident aliens to make the artistic statements
> that cut through the US political mendacity?
>
> www.neilyoung.com


Who's going to break the news to Neil Young that he's a Marxist?




--Shush--
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

George Shelps wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
>
> >>I'm not going over this ground yet
> >>again. Reread my old posts.
>
> >In other words, you have nothing except
> >your slimey innuendo and ideological
> >interpretation.
>
> Reread my old posts, as I said.

I don't have to, they are indelibly etched in my brain, as clear cut
examples of slimey innuendo and ideological interpretation without
anything more solid or rational to back them up.

>
>
> > And before you go claiming my
> >interpretation is equally ideological, I'm
> >not the one making the wild claim that
> >CC "bashed the US." I made no claims
> >I'm not willing to support, as you have
> >just done.
>
> Chaplin bashed the US in the "Ramparts"
> interview where he lauded Castro for
> giving the USA the finger.

I suggest YOU reread the Ramparts interview, and consider the context
in which your 'pull quotes' were made.

>
>
> >>I stand with Bush and against the
> >>terrorists.
>
>
> >If you stand with Bush, you stand for
> >policies that are, intentionally or not,
> >effectively serving the aims of the
> >terrorists far better than anything they
> >have done themselves.
>
> By abolishing 2 terrorist states?

Which 2 terrorist states were abolished? Regiemes I'll give you, but so
far what they've been replaced with falls far short of being terror
free.

>
> > It's not Bush's intentions that I question
> >as much as his competence. Nothing he
> >has said he would accomplish in the
> >foreign policy realm has been achieved.
>
> That's untrue.
>
> And you're being disingenuous, because
> you actually hope he fails so it will advance your political causes.

Sadly for all of us, I don't have to "hope he fails" because he has
done so on his own quite miserably with no help from me.

>
> >>Bush eliminated 2 terrorist states
> >>and set the stage for 2 democratic
> >>states.
>
> >So far the only "stage" is chaos.
>
> Including "chaotic" national elections?

Given their results to date, yes.

>
> >Afghanistan just exported it's largest
> >opium/heroin crop in years. Tribal
> >overlords control the majority of the area
> >in Afghanistan. Sectarian militias control
> >most of Iraq.
>
> All debatable.

There are a whole lot more people who'd successfully oppose your
position than those who would defend it. And I notice you don't even
try, yourself.

>
> > Crime is at an all-time high and security
> >is more problematic than ever. The oil
> >industry that was going to finance
> >reconstruction is now producing less
> >than half of what it was before the
> >invasion. Potable water and sewers are
> >less available than before. Electricity is
> >more intermittent than pre-invasion.
> >Even without accounting for the
> >corruption and profiteering, more is
> >being spent on 'security' than on
> >reconstruction, and all indications are
> >that the US is turning its back on those
> >rebuilding obligations. The "stage" that's
> >been set looks a lot more like a gallows
> >than a springboard.
>
> Yearning for the good old days of
> Saddam, eh?

Nope, simply wishing for competent, foresightful leadership here to
extricate us from the chaotic mess the ones we're stuck with have
gotten us into. As I was considering the administration's own DoD
report and some budget analyses and his gas price stand last night, I
realized that Bush has the unique distinction of being both too much
too soon and too little too late, with his choices of when to do which
destined to cause the most chaotic damage possible in all cases.

>
> >>I stand with the commander in chief of
> >>the DoD.
>
> >I'm not at all surprised. Rumsfeld said
> >there would be intransigent dead-enders
> >to deal with.
>
> It's called honor.

Given the circumstances, I'll stick with my adjective. It's much more
accurate.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

Shush wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> > Fifty or so years ago it was Chaplin, now it's Neil Young. Why does it
> > take British subject US resident aliens to make the artistic statements
> > that cut through the US political mendacity?
> >
> > www.neilyoung.com
>
>
> Who's going to break the news to Neil Young that he's a Marxist?

What the hell, he's a Canadian! Socialist, Marxist, what's the
difference (did I get it right George?)?
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin 

David Totheroh wrote:

>>I'm not going over this ground yet
>>again. Reread my old posts.

>In other words, you have nothing except
>your slimey innuendo and ideological
>interpretation.

Reread my old posts, as I said.


> And before you go claiming my
>interpretation is equally ideological, I'm
>not the one making the wild claim that
>CC "bashed the US." I made no claims
>I'm not willing to support, as you have
>just done.

Chaplin bashed the US in the "Ramparts"
interview where he lauded Castro for
giving the USA the finger.


>>I stand with Bush and against the
>>terrorists.


>If you stand with Bush, you stand for
>policies that are, intentionally or not,
>effectively serving the aims of the
>terrorists far better than anything they
>have done themselves.

By abolishing 2 terrorist states?

> It's not Bush's intentions that I question
>as much as his competence. Nothing he
>has said he would accomplish in the
>foreign policy realm has been achieved.

That's untrue.

And you're being disingenuous, because
you actually hope he fails so it will advance your political causes.

>>Bush eliminated 2 terrorist states
>>and set the stage for 2 democratic
>>states.

>So far the only "stage" is chaos.

Including "chaotic" national elections?

>Afghanistan just exported it's largest
>opium/heroin crop in years. Tribal
>overlords control the majority of the area
>in Afghanistan. Sectarian militias control
>most of Iraq.

All debatable.

> Crime is at an all-time high and security
>is more problematic than ever. The oil
>industry that was going to finance
>reconstruction is now producing less
>than half of what it was before the
>invasion. Potable water and sewers are
>less available than before. Electricity is
>more intermittent than pre-invasion.
>Even without accounting for the
>corruption and profiteering, more is
>being spent on 'security' than on
>reconstruction, and all indications are
>that the US is turning its back on those
>rebuilding obligations. The "stage" that's
>been set looks a lot more like a gallows
>than a springboard.

Yearning for the good old days of
Saddam, eh?

>>I stand with the commander in chief of
>>the DoD.

>I'm not at all surprised. Rumsfeld said
>there would be intransigent dead-enders
>to deal with.

It's called honor.
 >> Stay informed about: Unvarnished Truth to Power - Young Chaplin