Cindy Sheehan Calls National Anthem A “Hymn To War”
Yes, originally it was but it is clear in Momma Sheehan’s rant on MichaelMoore.com (did you doubt that she is truly part of the Leftist Fringe and not the PR image of a bereaved Mom?) that she hates America and everything we stand for. Time to take a field trip to Baghdad, Momma! I’ll pack your bags. (Hat tip: Expose The Left)
After the tragedy of 9/11 we were on our way to becoming a fledgling Matriotic society until our leaders jumped on the bandwagon of inappropriate and misguided vengeance to send our young people to die and kill in two countries that were no threat to the USA or to our way of life. The neocons exploited patriotism to fulfill their goals of imperialism and plunder.
This sort of patriotism begins when we enter kindergarten and learn the nationalist “Pledge of Allegiance.” It transcends all sense when we are taught the “Star Spangled Banner,” a hymn to war.
What the hell is a “Matriotic” society? What a buffoon.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
UPDATE (from GPW): Calling Cindy a “malignant narcissist,” our pal Tammy Bruce notes how this unhinged activist tried to make the State of the Union address all about her. As with anything by Tammy, it’s best just to read the whole thing.
UP-UPDATE (from GPW): Lorie Byrd has more.
UP-UP-UPDATE (from GPW): Gateway Pundit has even more (along with a picture).
UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (from GPW): While an AP reporter describes Cindy Sheehan as a “mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the anti-war movement” while James Taranto describes her as “an anti-American crackpot.” If the MSM reported honestly on Ms. Sheehan, they might more accurately call her the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who has recently associated with some of the more radical anti-American zealots at home and abroad.
83 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
dunno about that, but musically, it really is one of the worst songs ever written…
Comment by Kevin — January 31, 2006 @ 11:31 pm - January 31, 2006
This is what I found during a short search of matriotic .
Comment by John — January 31, 2006 @ 11:48 pm - January 31, 2006
“I know one thing from the bottom of my heart. My son, Casey, who was an Eagle Scout and a true American patriot, was not served well by his idea of patriotism. I will never forgive myself for not trying to counteract more the false patriotism he was raised on, with a true sense of Matriotism.”
I have a hard time believing that Mrs. Sheehan didn’t do her utmost best to try and change her son’s ideas on patriotism.
On a related note, it looks like the base of her story has changed. Her current essay implies that her son was wrong in his beliefs but not that he was mislead by the adminstration. Maybe the previous spin wasn’t polling as well as it had previously?
Comment by cbi — February 1, 2006 @ 12:02 am - February 1, 2006
Well, duh. It was written to commemorate a battle during the war of 1812. It is indeed a battle hymn, and we should be proud of it not only because it tells the story of a glorious battle, but also embodies the spirit of this nation.
Even if it is a BITCH to sing properly.
Comment by caltechgirl — February 1, 2006 @ 12:03 am - February 1, 2006
sorry..that last line is awful.
It should say “Maybe the former message wasn’t polling as well as it had previously?”
Comment by cbi — February 1, 2006 @ 12:04 am - February 1, 2006
#2
“To the Dyke-mobile!!”
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 12:39 am - February 1, 2006
#5
Nah. I think it has more to do with cash flow value.
I was waiting for her to decide to marry Chavez. Given that her last marriage was an apparent disaster, I figured she would feel more comfortable with another Commie loser who “understands” her.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 12:42 am - February 1, 2006
In pure musical terms, it is one of the best songs ever written.
It is very difficult to sing; so are Mozart operas and many other works of excellence.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 1:41 am - February 1, 2006
Actually, the lyrics, as penned by Francis Scott Key, are to commemorate the battle for Baltimore harbor during the War of 1812. The music is an English tune called “To Anacreon in Heaven” with a rather fascinating history.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 1:47 am - February 1, 2006
That is very interesting.
In terms of the lyrics: another interesting thing about it is that is one of the few national anthems in human history – possibly the only? – to question the nation’s very existence, and indeed, to end on a note of actual doubt about it.
That, as well as the stuff about battles, reflects the frailty and preciousness of human freedom, and the American experiment.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 1:55 am - February 1, 2006
Libs routinely diss The Star-Spangled Banner because it commemorates things like history, battle, and patriotism that they are profoundly uncomfortable with. Libs usually prefer America the Beautiful because it’s a more values-neutral meditation on landscapes, although they are pretty uncomfortable with that “God shed His grace on thee,” bit.
Comment by V the K — February 1, 2006 @ 6:08 am - February 1, 2006
I like the Stars Spangled Banner, and honestly as anthems go, it is one of the better ones to listen to in instrumental arrangement.
Cindy Sheehan has lost her sanity, there is no other way to describe it.
Comment by Just Me — February 1, 2006 @ 6:54 am - February 1, 2006
You know what, let’s allow the Liberals to keep their creature of PR, Cindy Sheehan. They saw an opportunity, hatched and nutured her, and now she won’t “just go away” for them. It’s ok. Keep calling her a liberal. Keep identifying her as Left of center. Call her a Democrat. Take care to arrest her when appropriate. She’s the perfect poster girl for the Left in America –those who would cut and run from our troops, stand for nothing if not obstructionism and backward looking isolationism, and sees moral decay as proof that their policy preferences are winning.
She’s just Congressman John Conyers in drag –and without playing up the race card at ever opportunity. That’s gotta be a blessing of sorts.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 1, 2006 @ 8:48 am - February 1, 2006
That “Matriotic” lesbian-feminist prayer site cracked me up. That screams Cindy Sheehan.
Cindy reminds me of this hilarious Datalounge parody thread of “Nan Michiganwomyn’s” takedown of Brokeback Mountain.
http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/forum/thread/gossip/2550903/page-1.html
Comment by Cranky Gay Conservative — February 1, 2006 @ 9:28 am - February 1, 2006
*11 V the K are you smoking crack – every Liberal I know loves the Star Spangled Banner – something about war, making it through the night, standing up to the Brits. America the Beautiful is nice but its no SSB. Of course, I prefer blue crab to all others, the O’s to the A’s so I may be a bit biased. But same preference held true of my liberal friends when I lived at the base of Pikes Peak
On a separate note – Cindy can hate the HCIC but respect the office. Last night was just an embarrassment to herself.
Comment by ralph — February 1, 2006 @ 10:09 am - February 1, 2006
“In pure musical terms, it is one of the best songs ever written.”
Actually, it’s not. The interval leap between the second A and the bridge is too big. That’s why so many people have trouble finding a key in which they can sing it. If it starts out ok, it get too high.
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 10:24 am - February 1, 2006
gets…
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 10:25 am - February 1, 2006
#11 – Maybe Kumbayah would be the best national anthem, then.
It’s easy to sing. The lyrics still refer to “my Lord”, but note the generic grammatical construction there. It carefully avoids “The Lord” which would carry Christian overtones, thus allowing the liberal to mentally substitute their own choice of Lord, such as Chavez, Saddam, Castro, Mao, Stalin, Vishnu, Allah, Mohammed, Satan, or whoever they’re praising / following that week.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 10:56 am - February 1, 2006
“In pure musical terms, it is one of the best songs ever written.”
Actually, it’s not. The interval leap between the second A and the bridge is too big.
And that, ladies and gentleman, is a tiny piece of the bizarre liberal mentality right there.
Because a piece of music is difficult, then by definition, it can’t be good. Again, we should clearly switch the National Anthem to Kumbayah which is much easier, therefore “musically superior”.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 10:58 am - February 1, 2006
America the Beautiful has been touted for years as a better Anthem. And it is a wonderful song.
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 11:01 am - February 1, 2006
Of course.
But that doesn’t take away in the least from The Star Spangled Banner also being musically one of the best-written, memorable and inspiring tunes around.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 11:03 am - February 1, 2006
sorry, “most” memorable / inspiring
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 11:04 am - February 1, 2006
I’m sorry but musically it’s a very clumsy tune. And it’s based on a British drinking song, which is not much of a pedigree. I realize that you can’t bear to be corrected, but I am sick and tried of you setting yourself up as an expert on everything.
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 11:27 am - February 1, 2006
She said when he told her he was joining the military, she tried to get him to run with his tail between his legs to Canada. I’m quite sure Mama Moonbat did everything she could to turn him into an America-hater.
Fortunately, it didn’t work, and her son is a hero.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 1, 2006 @ 11:38 am - February 1, 2006
Her son isn’t a hero. Her son is dead.
Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 12:24 pm - February 1, 2006
Personally, I still feel that “America the Beautiful” would be a more appropriate National Anthem just based on it’s more singable musical-range. TSSB really requires a trained-voice, and after watching it endlessly be turned into a mangled-wretch at public gatherings like the Super Bowl; it really cries-out to a more “popularally singable” anthem.
As for “militarism” give me the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”. After 9-11, my local liberal-leaning public-broadcasting Classical station played different versions of the “Battle Hymn” very workday at 11:55am for 90-days; The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, College glee clubs, various symphonic renderings, small groups a’capella, operaic soloists…they put a real effort into it. And no-one complained….they “got it”. While overtly Christian, Americans understand “…tramping out the Vintage where the Grapes of Wraith are stored”…
And for a stirring and stately tune, the old but unofficial National Hymn, “God of Our Fathers” was hard to beat.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 1, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - February 1, 2006
Bravo Ted.
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - February 1, 2006
…our pal Tammy Bruce notes…
Jesus F. Christ. Tammy Bruce? She’s a nutcase.
Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - February 1, 2006
Ol’ hank, pulling the same old crap….
“I’m sorry but musically it’s a very clumsy tune.”
Says you. Based on………………? The great songs (or any songs)you’ve written, are……..? (the list?)
I speak as someone who actually writes songs, some bad, some very occasionally good, and appreciates the difficulty.
“And it’s based on a British drinking song, which is not much of a pedigree.”
Whoops hank, there goes your claim to expertise!! In fact, it was the official song of a London musicians’ society.
“I realize that you can’t bear to be corrected, but I am sick and tried of you setting yourself up as an expert on everything.”
Talking to the mirror again! 🙂 Once more, hank pretentiously attempts to correct others based on “information” that is arguable, if not (as on past occasions) downright wrong.
But if you’re sick and tired of anything here – Just leave.
To put it a bit differently, hank: whether you are sick and tired of anything here is in no way my problem.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 1:48 pm - February 1, 2006
#26 – Good comments Ted. Different strokes for different folks.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 1:52 pm - February 1, 2006
#25 – Her son is a hero. Your values and ability to appreciate where your freedom comes from, apparently, are dead.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 2:03 pm - February 1, 2006
Say what you will about old Whitney….but she sure tore the hell out TSSB.
click on this link and arrow down to the fourth “Watch the……”.
and turn up the volume.
http://music.aol.com/artist/main.adp?artistid=4519#
monty
Comment by monty — February 1, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - February 1, 2006
“Says you. Based on………………? The great songs (or any songs)you’ve written, are……..? (the list?)”
Based on the example I gave you of the interval at the bridge. I have been a professional musican for 45 years. I know what I’m talking about.
I give a concrete example, and your response is…”bizarre liberal mentality “.
What then makes it…”musically one of the best-written, memorable and inspiring tunes around.”
Give me a reason. Or is it just your opinion?
And yes, it was a drinking song.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trm065.html
I don’t know what “talking to the mirror means”. But you’ve worn it out .
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 2:30 pm - February 1, 2006
“Matriotic” My first flash was “Motherland” which was the standard translation for the Soviet term “Rodina”. Is that what she meant?
For the record – “If women ran the world” – almost every society on record where women have had equal or significant power in society, the Comanche, the Iroquois, the various Celtic groups, and most clearly Sparta, has been quite warlike. Women got the role of conscience of the society, which usually meant egging the men on to war, and since they ran things at home the men had time and energy to go off an d fight. So much for matriachal pacifism.
“While overtly Christian, Americans understand “…tramping out the Vintage where the Grapes of Wraith are stored”…”
Yeah, Americans understand and love it, but Southerners start to foam over that song.
Comment by Jim — February 1, 2006 @ 2:32 pm - February 1, 2006
You’re right. A bit too much of a Civil War reminder.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - February 1, 2006
I meant that Whitney “tore the hell out of TSSB” in a GOOD way. 🙂
One of the best renditions of that song….including many chorus versions….IMHO.
monty
Comment by monty — February 1, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - February 1, 2006
# 31 Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 2:03 pm – February 1, 2006
Her son is a hero. Your values and ability to appreciate where your freedom comes from, apparently, are dead.
Some of us prefer not to debase the language. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time does not make one a hero.
As far as I’m concerned.
Just to let you know, my freedom–such as it is–has nothing to do with the US war on Iraq. It never did.
Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 2:43 pm - February 1, 2006
“I don’t know what ‘talking to the mirror means’.
OK, I’ll do you the favor of clueing you in, then.
— You, hank, frequently set yourself up as an expert on things and make a fool of yourself in the process. (Remember the “yuh sutation” post, in which hank played spelling and “grammer” [sic] critic? 🙂 )
— And you, hank, visibly dislike being corrected.
— Therefore, when you criticize me for such traits, in fact you are taking traits of you possess and “deflecting” (the psychological term) them onto someone else. It as if you were speaking into a mirror – and (mis)believing that the image in the mirror is someone else.
OK, is my meaning on that phrase clear? And it’s only worn out if you should choose to cease accusing others of your traits.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 2:51 pm - February 1, 2006
P.S. – As for your being a musician of 45 years – Good for you. Whoopee. You have a few more years on me, but maybe I’ve studied or practiced actual songwriting more – Who knows. Now you have your opinion, and I have mine. Yours is negative on our national anthem, but so what. We’re each entitled, OK? Deal with it.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - February 1, 2006
#29
So, “Mr Songwriter” (btw, I’ve written four off-Bway shows, the theme song for a major national charity, recorded more than 30 albums, have a Theater World Award, and an Outer Circle Critics Award,). What have you done little boy?
Where is your example of what makes it …”musically one of the best-written, memorable and inspiring tunes around.” I gave you a concrete example of why it’s a clumsy tune. I’m not talking about the lyric. The tune. Make your point.
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - February 1, 2006
And final P.P.S. – My time budget for you hank is strictly limited at (max) 15 minutes a day. So here is where I get off. Make a big fuss in the last word, knowing that others will see it – and I won’t.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 3:00 pm - February 1, 2006
raj baby, you got it wrong again on US Army Spc Casey A Sheehan. He WAS a hero, you schmuck.
http://www.fallenheroesmemorial.com/oif/profiles/sheehancasey.html
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/257123.html
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/08/army_specialist.html
For the record, he volunteered to assist his CO in a search and rescue effort of fallen comrades. He was a mechanic –he didn’t HAVE to do it.
raj:”Being at the wrong place at the wrong time does not make one a hero.”
You, sir, are a class A ass. So is Cindy Sheehan. Her son was a hero.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 1, 2006 @ 3:04 pm - February 1, 2006
and while you 2 guys are on the “Whitney” page, might as well both listen to that ear piercing rendition of “I Will Always Love You”.
🙂 🙂
monty
Comment by monty — February 1, 2006 @ 3:07 pm - February 1, 2006
#42 Michigan-Matt — February 1, 2006 @ 3:04 pm – February 1, 2006
Oh, please, give me a break. He was killed because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you wish to debase the language by saying that made him “hero,” I frankly don’t give a tinker’s damn.
And I didn’t bother calling you a name.
Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - February 1, 2006
#44 – In the battle where he lost his life, Casey Sheehan went into great danger – knowing the danger – volunteering that day – consciously choosing to do somebody else’s job (actually not even his own job) under likely danger of being attacked. The military gave him the Bronze Star.
raj, I know that’s alien to you. I know that, if you could acknowledge military heroism as such, it would rock your whole philosophy (e.g., raising the real question of why you never joined). So you don’t.
For the record, Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives hero as: “a person…who is admired for their courage…”
There is simply no denying that Casey was (1) courageous; likely a good deal more so than raj; and (2) is admired for it. QED.
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 3:53 pm - February 1, 2006
P.S. and Matt, I could have done without the name-calling as well.
I do understand the impulse. When someone says something that is so far out of the pale, the name-calling becomes a time-efficient shorthand for saying, “I want you to understand that you’ve said something outside the pale; SO far outside that I am now actually JUSTIFIED in dropping certain civilized rules with you, such as trashing you personally.”
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 4:00 pm - February 1, 2006
#45 Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 3:53 pm – February 1, 2006
The military gave him the Bronze Star.
This is supposed to mean something? The US military seems to hand out medals like there isn’t enough metal going around.
He was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Does that make him a hero? No.
Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - February 1, 2006
#45 Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 3:53 pm – February 1, 2006
Regarding
In the battle where he lost his life, Casey Sheehan went into great danger – knowing the danger…
So, the US military is supposed to give awards for stupidity. That is essentially what you are condoning.
Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 5:13 pm - February 1, 2006
Forget it Raj
“Doctor” Cal. won’t even answer my question, because he can’t.
“Therefore, when you criticize me for such traits, in fact you are taking traits of (sic) you possess and “deflecting” (the psychological term) them onto someone else. ”
Now he’s a phychologist.
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 5:42 pm - February 1, 2006
So, the US military is supposed to give awards for stupidity. That is essentially what you are condoning.
Ah, how their tunes change….why, for all of 2004, Raj and his fellow Democrats were trumpeting that their candidate should run the country because he had gotten what they are now calling “awards for stupidity”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 6:04 pm - February 1, 2006
#47 – raj, I already addressed what you say there. Casey Sheehan was courageous – in a way that (I take it) you aren’t. Sorry it hurts and you have to mentally repress/reject it.
#48 – “So, the US military is supposed to give awards for stupidity. That is essentially what you are condoning. ”
Thank you for illustrating neatly what I claimed: Casey stood for concepts you simply fail to understand.
raj, when you just don’t get something, why not say, “You know, I don’t get it” instead of digging the hole deeper? or trying to put down the dead guy?
In your view, Casey’s heroism equals stupidity. Logically, you are saying in effect that Cindy Sheehan was the mother of a stupid, stupid son in your opinion. Let’s state that nakedly.
If it’s really what you think, it raises the question as to whether anyone here should ever bother with you.
Which in turn, raises the question of why you come here. I don’t know; perhaps it’s to leave offensive turd-droppings behind? – Which, IF TRUE, raises a final question about whether good people should want to know you at all.
#49 – is hank-spew? – he reached his 15 minutes (for me) so bleah, no read / answer
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 6:18 pm - February 1, 2006
Becuse I caught you in your pretentious lies.
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 6:25 pm - February 1, 2006
#48. “So, the US military is supposed to give awards for stupidity. That is essentially what you are condoning.”
Damn Raj, how sad a life you must lead to sink so abysmally low that you would imply Casey Sheehan was stupid. If you had been in danger and Casey had been able to help you – even at his own risk – he would have done so. But since selflessness does not seem to be a quality to which you aspire I doubt you can even begin to understand such virtue, nobility and bravery… nor believe that it exists
Comment by Dave — February 1, 2006 @ 6:26 pm - February 1, 2006
Dave, agree.
hank – LOL – cut back on the wacky stuff! (or boost your anti-psychotic meds… as the case may be)
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 6:31 pm - February 1, 2006
Don’t you have a class?
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 6:33 pm - February 1, 2006
It’s not your problem or concern. Just as your various mental problems and peeves are not mine. (hope you got that from earlier)
Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2006 @ 6:47 pm - February 1, 2006
why is Hank helping Raj?
Comment by greek_chorus — February 1, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - February 1, 2006
“It’s not your problem or concern. Just as your various mental problems and peeves are not mine. (hope you got that from earlier)”
“is hank-spew”
More Cal crap
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 8:16 pm - February 1, 2006
Cal. Rethinking this. Let’s call a truce , ok?
I’m sorry to have pushed your buttons. And I regret having gotten angry with you. I think that you have alot to offer, although I humbly suggest that you are caught in the “academic” trap. I’ve been there, and it is seductive. I perhaps have been too insistant on sharing my “life experiences”. I apologize.
At any rate, it’s just opinions.
You have yours, and I have mine.
Good luck to you.
Comment by hank — February 1, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - February 1, 2006
#53
But…but…Raj used to live in Germany, dammit! You can’t argue with that! He’s “nuanced” after all. He can tell you everything you never gave a damn about regarding Germany. Don’t you have any respect for that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 8:46 pm - February 1, 2006
#13
Was that supposed to be nurture, neutre or both?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - February 1, 2006
Did anyone listen to TSSB by Whitney??
Jebus.
monty
Comment by monty — February 1, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - February 1, 2006
#26
Yeah.
Let’s have a Yankee song.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 1, 2006 @ 8:57 pm - February 1, 2006
#62
Thanks for link. I get goosebumps when I hear her sing that song.
Comment by John — February 1, 2006 @ 9:21 pm - February 1, 2006
No one has a thought on Whitney??
Most of you guys seem to have several “opinions” growing out of one orafice or another. 🙂 🙂
Isn’t that rendition just the best??
monty
Comment by monty — February 1, 2006 @ 9:23 pm - February 1, 2006
John,
Thank you. I cry everytime I hear her sing it.
Never heard it better by anyone.
Makes me proud to play it on my desktop whenever I feel….depressed.
monty
Comment by monty — February 1, 2006 @ 9:28 pm - February 1, 2006
Hank, don’t be shy. You’ve teased us with general info, how about some details? I’m sure that I’m not the only one who would like to check out your work.
Comment by Bobo — February 2, 2006 @ 12:21 am - February 2, 2006
Here’s a great piece about the SSB by the late (liberal) Isaac Asimov. Note that although he was an atheist, he still loved the anthem even though it contains references to God.
It begins:
Comment by Jim C. — February 2, 2006 @ 12:38 am - February 2, 2006
Why do we give Cindy Sheehan so much attention? She thrives on it.
I learned a long time ago that when you step in dog shit you’d better scrape your shoes before you track it all over the carpets.
Comment by Jack Allen — February 2, 2006 @ 2:20 am - February 2, 2006
Why do we give Cindy Sheehan so much attention?
The same reason traffic slows around a car wreck.
Comment by V the K — February 2, 2006 @ 7:24 am - February 2, 2006
The other reason is because, if you want to get rid of an idiot, the best way is to give them a microphone.
That, and the more the links between anti-Semitic, terrorist-loving Mother Moonbat and the Democratic Party can be shown, the more likely it is that the necessary Moveon.org and others purge will take place and this country can get back to having a real opposition.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 2, 2006 @ 10:10 am - February 2, 2006
From dictionary.com:
“No entry found for matriot.”
“No entry found for matriotic.”
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 2, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - February 2, 2006
raj baby, it’s a pity you prefer to live clueless rather than be able to admit you erred, overstepped decency, and reclaim what little respect anyone here could commend or muster. In your best raj-style, let me say from my extensive travels in central Europe, I’ve found that nearly everyone with true Euro-centrist sensibilities like you would be able to do those 3 things because they’ve had lots of practice being wrong, over and over, about so much in the 20th & 21st C.
Raj baby, admit it; you didn’t mean Spc Sheehan was stupid and his sacrifice and those of his fellow soldiers have been in vain. Come on, you’ll feel better when you admit it –and we know if your feelings are front & center and catered to, the universe must be righting itself (no pun intended).
In my world, calling someone a Class A ass –someone like you who utters dishonor after dishonor while trying to scramble out of the filthy muck of his own statements– isn’t name calling. Nor is schmuck. It’s just being truthful and fair since the people you smear with your outrageous statements aren’t able to defend themselves. Calarato is right: it’s also easy shorthand.
You can jump up on the buffet table of civil discourse and feign shocked alarm when your conduct warrants it, your comments are proscribed by civility, and you quit calling courageous soldiers like Casey Sheehan “stupid” or demean their contribution by inanely reducing their sacrifice to “wrong place, wrong time, so sorry”. It is, for patriots, the true singular offense which warrants a strong opposing demonstration, raj baby.
Sometimes when one waves a bloody red shirt, it has a consequence. You erred. You clearly overstepped a fairly broad bound of decency tolerated here. It’s time to admit your mistake and move on like an enlightened person.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 2, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - February 2, 2006
hank: New day, new 15 minutes of willingness to read your posts, such as they are – and respond to their content, such as it is.
#40 – have you recorded >30 commercial albums? Under what name? (Now that you have introduced such a claim on your behalf, you must take responsibility for it.)
As for this part: “Where is your example of what makes it …”musically one of the best-written, memorable and inspiring tunes around.” I gave you a concrete example of why it’s a clumsy tune..”
Rubbish, hank! You gave no concrete example of why it’s a clumsy tune.
You did give a concrete example of why it’s a difficult (to sing) tune, true, and you mislabeled that as evidence of clumsiness. That mislabelling is your problem. I pointed it out in #19, i.e., the bizarre equation in your mind of “difficult” with “clumsy”. That enraged you, and the rest of yesterday’s garbage-y posts followed. Deal with your rage, hank; don’t blame me the low content / quality of your own posts, or for pointing out the obvious.
As for me supporting my claim that TSSB is skillfully written, memorable and inspiring with an example: Would fact that people remember it and that a nation is moved and inspired by it be acceptable evidence of the latter two, for you, hank?
And for the skillful writing of the tune: I can’t go into a musical analysis on this keyboard (or without violating the 15-minute rule) so let’s just say in the quickest possible way, that one of the things that makes a tune memorable is when it follows a certain “internal logic” in its motifs and “style” of melody, intervals, chord structure, etc. – when those things are all integrated to one another, in other words. TSSB has that in spades. Which, if your claims to musicianship are valid, you ought to know (but if you happen to write “modern” or atonal stuff, perhaps you don’t).
#49 – Come on hank, cut the baloney. You knew from #41 (posted at the same minute as #40 and independently) that I instituted the 15-minute rule and wouldn’t be reading #40 that day. (or responding)
We’re up to 15 minutes right here. I don’t think that will give me time to read and respond to others of your posts that I never read.
Comment by Calarato — February 2, 2006 @ 1:22 pm - February 2, 2006
#59 – Sounds nice hank, but I’ve heard that from you before.
You resent me in some deep way; it will break out again; and, fundamentally, it’s not my problem.
The things I say usually make sense or have solid information behind them; but you resent me in some deep way; then you trip over yourself trying and failing to make my statements look wrong; and again, it’s not my problem.
Over time, I have been more than patient with you. That is, I have given you lots of attention and time – more than you deserve. Now I am seeking to limit myself to 15 minutes a day (max). But even that is still being very patient with you – “giving you the time of day” and as much as 15 minutes more.
Comment by Calarato — February 2, 2006 @ 1:37 pm - February 2, 2006
Gheez Calarato, you let hank (is that Ridor-the-mean in hiding) off pretty easy.
I’d still like to see him back up the claim that he has ‘x’ number of these awards, ‘z” number of these awards, a charity hit, some Outer Circle awards, a Kennedy Center honor, the Presidential Medal of Honor, the Congressional Freedom award and all of John Kerry’s military ribbons in a safe place. Yeah, that’s the ticket… and a Knighthood by the Queen.
I think he’s a fake. He might have hummed all the songs he’s claiming to have won awards for… but I think that’s as far as it goes. Unless Sir Elton John is now hanging out here instead of little boys bathrooms in the train stations.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 2, 2006 @ 4:42 pm - February 2, 2006
Thank you Matt!
Funny you mention Sir Elton – when I saw “over thirty albums”, my mind went to him as well! I still adore his early stuff (first 10 years).
As for hank’s claims – I don’t know and don’t care. In the online world, anyone could be faking. Or truthful. So I prefer to just stick to content.
The purpose of my originally saying, “I know a little about songwriting, even though most of my stuff is bad” was only to underscore my appreciation of the Masters.
Certain people – Sir Elton & Taupin, Cole Porter, Paul McCartney, etc. – make songwriting look ridiculously easy. It so isn’t. Not if you’re writing great stuff, anyway – memorable and inspiring.
Comment by Calarato — February 2, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - February 2, 2006
Matt – one more thought –
What’s this about Ridor? I’ve forgotten which ‘crazy’ he was. (His M.O.)
So I’ve no idea if hank is connected to Ridor, but I will say this… hank has felt “off” to me for awhile, in the following way. – One day I’m Satan (to hank). The next day I’m “really balanced”. Then I’m Satan. Then I “have a lot to offer”. then I’m Satan. Then “we just got off on the wrong foot”. Then I’m Satan… etc…
During all this, I’m really the same as always. So I know hank’s comments on me are not really on me. Having a wildly oscillating view of somebody is a psychiatric symptom, in fact, but I can’t remember the name.
Comment by Calarato — February 2, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - February 2, 2006
I have never said those things about you. Although we did get off on the wrong foot, and you do have alot to offer. Just not to me.
This spat over a song was silly. You think it’s great. I don’t.
That’s all.
Comment by hank — February 2, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - February 2, 2006
– #59: where I “have a lot to offer”
– other numbers here: where I may as well be Satan, with (alleged) horrible behaviors X Y and Z
– some thread a couple weeks ago where I chided GP for going too far on Harry Reid as treasonous – where I was really “balanced”
– some other dumb thread more recently – where I “have hurt a whole lot of people here” or some weird thing
– a thread a few weeks ago – where “we got off on the wrong foot”
– that “yuh sutation” thread – where I was again allegedly evil and, as well, someone who you were showing off to people as (allegedly) unable to form an English sentence or spell it
Just a few off the very top of my head… more could be cited, but no interest here in digging… Ciao.
Comment by Calarato — February 2, 2006 @ 7:45 pm - February 2, 2006
Oh, and to be clear: NOT complaining here… just momentarily fascinated.
Comment by Calarato — February 2, 2006 @ 7:47 pm - February 2, 2006
#67
Thanks Bobo. I’d be happy to tell you. But as can see, I can’t do it here. My intention wasn’t to “tease”. Just to give credibility to what became a ridiculous argment.
Comment by hank — February 4, 2006 @ 11:00 am - February 4, 2006
actually she just stole the line from a 2003 episode of The Simpsons (“Bart of War”).
Comment by bull — May 21, 2007 @ 7:29 pm - May 21, 2007