John Bramfeld's blog

I have never understood people who don’t like the Rolling Stones. I suppose ignorance is an acceptable excuse. Another possibility is that they were turned off by the cult of celebrity perpetually keeping the bandmembers on the brink of destruction. A third possibility is the immoral nature, mild by today’s standards, of some of the songs - probably not the songs you are thinking of. 

The remedy, as I have written before, is to steadfastly resist knowing anything about the artists personally. Forty-five years of relentless publicity makes this difficult in the Stones’ case, but it’s not too late to begin the withdrawal process. 

Martin Scorsese’s new film, Shine A Light, apparently of a small venue Stone’s performance, is being released today. I was looking forward to seeing it, but now, after exposure to the publicity, I may take a pass. More likely, I will wait and see what others think and decide later. 

One of the reasons I was excited by this film is that the Stones are impossible to see live in any musically relevant way. They are either in huge arenas where the music is lost somewhere in the half mile that separates you from them, or they are in a small venue populated by coked out models and Hollywood types. Not that I wouldn’t snort coke to get in, but I am unlikely to be invited. 

In about 1971 I actually went to a Stones concert, reasoning that they were unlikely to tour again. I don’t remember much about it, except that for every thousand feet away from the stage you are, the closer you are to not being there at all. 

The Stones concert I remember best was actually an IMAX film at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago about twenty years ago. Not only was that experience the best Stones concert, it was the best musical experience of my life. That includes ten rows back from Segovia, all three concerts the Doors did in Chicago, and our own band playing warm-up for Segal-Schwall and BB King, leaving me and my bandmates exactly front row center for BB, a perk I don’t think the promoter intended. 

That concert, exquisitely filmed and miked, included no backstage scenes, no guest stars and no bullshit. Mick ran several miles during the concert, something I would rather he didn’t do, but since he never missed a note I am not in a position to complain. I am hoping this film gets to the IMAX again in the wake of Shine A Light publicity.

 If you want to take a risk and decide to see Shine A Light, consider seeing the IMAX version. There are approximately ten IMAX theaters within a day trip of here, and any one of them will be twice as better than Carmike. 

Once in a while I will get behind a car with a bumper sticker that says something like "Why is there always money for war and never money for education?"  I don't know if I keep getting behind the same car or if there is more than one person in this area stupid enough to believe that.  At any rate, it appears they may be right.  It comes to my attention that our newest casino, finished recently in East St. Louis, is claiming a 25% drop in revenue because of the smoking ban.  http://www.bnd.com/business/story/289872.html

This will be interesting, because education funds allegedly come from casino revenues.  Even if it doesn't work out to be a direct benefit to education as our political class maintains, it unequivically generates income for the State, and some of that finds its way to the schools.

So what will smoking ban fans do about this?  First of all, it is irrelevant for political purposes whether or not the claim is true.  We will see calls to ease the smoking ban in casinos because now taxes are threatened.  The only thing more precious than the air we breathe is the tax we collect. 

While the State is busy easing up on the smoking ban, I am hoping Champaign will ease up to the point that we can replace some of the garbage cans downtown.  They were taken out because God forbid a smoker might use one, though there was no evidence a smoker ever had. How many dogooders in this town would support a needle exchange for addicts and oppose an ashtray for smokers-an ashtray where incidentally I could put the beer bottles I collect on my way to the office.

John

In another post, I had a few semi-complimentary words to say about Ann Coulter and the response was the usual vitriol. I suggested in so many words that people were afraid to admit they enjoyed her columms and I heard nothing in the replies that disabused me of that notion, but I did hear that fear formulated in a different way, in a way that struck me. It was suggested that Ann was doing nothing to advance the conservative cause. I have no reply to that, and the more I thought about it, the more I wonder; who is advancing the conservative cause?

Of course, on balance, no one is advancing conservatism because conservatism is in general retreat. That doesn’t mean some conservatives are not making a positive difference (by slowing the rate of decline, presumably).

As much as I admire our president’s remarkable tenacity on Iraq, I would not describe him as advancing the conservative cause. McCain won’t, and makes no such promise.

What national figures, politicians, pundits, intellectuals or celebrities do you perceive as advancing the cause?  And don't forget to say why.  If there are others that are hurting the cause, by inexcusable rudeness or otherwise, let's hear about that also.

John

Now that Ann Coulter is persona non grata among conservatives who wish to be well thought of by liberals-heck, even Mike Adams has lashed out at her- I think this article by her, and about William F. Buckley, gives some insight into both their characters. Read and enjoy, it’s almost all quotes from WFB.
 
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=237
 
John

http://www.nationalreview.com/

I use long titles because I am too undisciplined to write a coherent essay. On the other hand, lack of coherence is the coin of political discourse, so maybe my own lack thereof is a benefit in following politics. Discussion of politics and religion is way beyond incoherent, so we are all on our own there.
 
Romney is an interesting case. On one hand, his current ideology appears to be such that he is the only true conservative among the four frontrunners. He has a better resume than anyone else in the race, even marred as it is by the insufficiently pro-choice tack he took as governor of Massachusetts. He has repented, an option open to both Mormons and Christians. OK, I have implied that he is not a Christian and I confess I have not investigated that thoroughly. In fact, except for a brief and fairly distressing turn through the Book of Mormon, I don’t have much to go on. I will say that the religion of a candidate is important to me. So for instance, as a Catholic, I am interested to know that Giuliani is also. He is a Catholic in much the same fashion as Bill Clinton is a feminist. He is also an abortion rights and gun control candidate. The combination of his disdain for his own religion and for basic conservative principles is a deal breaker for me. I would certainly vote for him over any conceivable Democrat, but I sure wouldn’t like it.
 
Romney is a Mormon. We are told by many, including Romney, that religion should not be a factor; to which I say "Good luck." In fact, the biggest strike against Romney for me is that he is apparently a practicing Mormon. I can’t help what I think, and I think Mormonism is a religion that can best be described as goofy. On the other hand, Romney and other Mormons I know don’t strike me as similarly goofy, so I temper my opinion by the thought that Romney may be no more influenced by his religion than Giuliani.
 
Anyway, I much prefer Romney’s current polical philosophy to Giuliani’s or Huckabee’s. McCain may have a conservate philosophy, but it doesn’t translate well to his politics. I factor their religions into my equation, along with everything else, and Romney comes out on top. Not because I am disregarding his religion, but in spite of the big negative his religion represents to me. If I had a choice between Romney and and similarly qualified mainline Christian, it would be no contest.
 
I am very suspicious of the motives of people who tell us religion should not be a factor, including my current favorite candidate person, Romney. What they are saying is that religion isn’t important. I am sure many of these people believe that. I could just as easily argue that political affiliation is not important, but like you, I tend to look at the political affiliation of all the candidates. I figure that since religion is more important than political affiliation, I should look at that also.
 
I am not trying to convert anyone here to Romney. I would rather convert you to the idea that you can look at any factor you like when you pick your nominee, and you shouldn't feel the least bit bad if religion is high on the list.
 
Adding to the incoherence here, did you know that Tony Blair recently converted to Catholicism? Of course you didn’t, the media think religion is not important. Would they have reported his conversion to Islam?
 
John

Senator Obama just can’t get patriotism right. He never will get it right until he learns what it is. He already knows what it isn’t, which he explained when asked why he had quit wearing his lapel flag. The proper explanation would have been something like this: "Why don’t your write down the rules for the proper display of patriotism and hand it up at the end of class. I’ll memorize it and try to adhere to the rules in the future." Instead, we got the usual drivel coming from a liberal whose patriotism has arguably been challenged - he challenged the patriotism of people who do wear a lapel flag. He said that wearing a lapel flag had, since 9-11, become a substitute for real patriotism. Now I am afraid to wear my own lapel flag, which is attached to a blue suit I wear about once a week. I think we can all agree that, contrary to our Senator’s remark about us, wearing a pin could never be a substitute for patriotism. There is nothing wrong and plenty right about wearing one, and there is nothing wrong with not wearing one. 

This is one of the results of political correctness, which consists mostly of a series of code words and phrases which, while devoid of serious thought, serve as useful identifiers for the faithful. Sort of like sticking your foot under the stall divider. It is also telling that our Senator is so insecure in his own patriotism that when challenged by an obvious idiot, he resorts to attacking other people's patriotism.
 
Now Obama, whose tin ear for public discourse is becoming something of an embarassment, has been caught not holding his hand over his heart during the singing of the national anthem. I haven’t heard his explanation, but my guess is that he will not attack the patriotism of people who do hold their hands over their heart; if not because he is getting smarter, at least because all of his Democratic rivals had their hands over their hearts at the same event while senator Obama stood with his hands at his sides.
 
I know exactly why he didn’t hold his hand over his heart. He was understandably tired, unfocused from the rigors of the campaign, and he blanked out. I do that myself, as some of you may be able to tell. Is that the explanation he will give? Since it contains no platitudes, I doubt it. I suggest you watch this recording of the event. OK, now that you are familiar with the particular and peculiar circumstances, I am offering this explanation to the Obama campaign gratis. "I, Senator Barack Obama, winner of several elections and author of not one but two memoirs, was waiting for the national anthem to begin. As I patiently stood, I heard some kind of caterwauling in the background and I began to worry that the unpleasant sound would interfere with our patriotic moment. After several seconds of this, I discerned that the sound I was hearing was some kind of song, and I began to be concerned that I had missed the start of the anthem. I noted however, that where the anthem might have had five notes and perhaps four syllables in a familiar pattern, this song had ten or more notes and syllables in an unfamiliar pattern. By the time I had come to the realization that someone was horribly desecrating our national song, it was too late, and she got off the stage before I could get my hands around her throat."
 
And another piece of advice for the Senator. You may lack a common touch, but at least you could have a common name. John was Jack, Ronald was Ron, James was Jimmy, William was Bill. How about Barry?
 
And remember your base in Chicago. Add an apostrophe, Senator Barry O’Bama, and maybe you can be vice-president.
 
John

I won't burden you with my thoughts on

The Dangerous Book for Boys
by Conn Iggulden and Hal Iggulden
HarperCollins, 288 pp., $24.95

but I will say this review is a great introduction, with some quotes from eminent personages that you never heard before and can impress your spouses and neighbors with. 

John

A recent tally by McClatchy Newspapers underscored this point: Thomas has spoken 281 words since court transcripts began identifying justices by name in October 2004. By contrast, Thomas' neighbor on the bench, Justice Stephen Breyer, has uttered nearly 35,000 words since January.

For those of us who haven't been able to recreate that special lack of interest about who would win the Iran/iraq war, there is a new dispute guaranteed to bring you to the brink, and beyond, of apathy.  Remember David (lying then and lying now) Brock, the Republican smear artist turned Democrat smear artist and proprieter of Media Matters?  Remember Anthony Martin-Trigona, aka Anthony Martin aka Tony Martin, ex-CU landlord, ex-candidate for some statewide office or other, subject of unprecedented Federal Court order for no-more-federal-lawsuits-without-federal-court-permission?  They are engaged in a libel suit.

Prepare to sit back in perfect peace and apathy about the outcome.  In this article, Catherine Moy makes the mistake of thinking Martin is some kind of Republican and siding with him, but read it anyway.

Wayward was kind enough to furnish a link for Professor Francis Boyle's famous "Chief" emails to the President of the University of Illinois.  It turns out that the good professor has a flair for comedy.  For instance, he consistently spells it "Illiniwak."  I think this is like "Amerika," which I hope he doesn't find out about. In the same hilarious vein, he compares the Ch**f to Little Black S**bo, which may turn out to be our only area of agreement ever.  They are alike;  they are both excellent examples of fake racism.

Professor Boil (see how funny that is?) may appeal to a leftist's idea of racism, but after you read the epic tale of Little Black Sambo, complete with racist illustrations, I suspect you will be scratching your head.

Full disclosure is all the rage today, so let me admit that S**bo is also what I called my younger son Samuel.  I was like the Don Imus of fatherhood.

John

John Foreman at the News-Gazette has been busy formulating The Wonders of Champaign County for awhile now, and in order to make the list more impressive, there is no requirement that the wonder actually be in Champaign County. The exact criterion, I believe, is that you be able to get there from Champaign County. With that important caveat, I have to nominate the wind farm going up east of Bloomington. I also have to thank Ed Scharlau for reminding me about the farm.
 
One of the most pleasurable aspects of being a lawyer in Champaign is going to the small courthouses that surround us. Last week I had the good fortune to appear in front of a fine jurist without the necessity of going through a metal detector. It is the only courthouse I know of where that is possible. The defendant, from whom I was collecting a smallish debt for a largish client, agreed to a judgment and payment arrangement and we recited it to the judge. When the judge finished handwriting the entry on the docket sheet he looked up at the defendant and said, "Are you working now, because I haven’t seen you at the grocery store lately."
 
That, for me, sums up a great day, so I was reluctant to return to my office right away. Instead, I headed west on Route 9 to see if I could find the windmills. As if they could be missed. Imagine they were building the Grand Coulee Dam thirty miles away and nobody ever saw or mentioned it. That’s what it’s like. I haven’t burdened myself with the facts, but I can tell you what I observed; about one hundred enormous towers each holding up a bus size turbine powered by blades that looked to be every bit of 150 feet in diameter. At their apogee, the blade tips appear to be over 400 feet in the air. About twenty percent of the windmills are operating, and their propellers took a lazy 4 seconds to turn around once. It looks very slow, but by my calculation the end of each propeller was going about 200 miles an hour.
 
So drive out there, and when you get to the first turbine, go south to the first county road heading west again and traverse the whole nine mile length of the complex. As you get closer to the end you will see some partly erected turbines accompanied by giant cranes.
 
What you don’t see is people. An occasional truck goes by on some mysterious mission, but the whole area is eerily quiet and empty. All in all, it is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen.
 
Think about this; on the next sunny weekend, plan a trip to Tobin’s Pizza in Bloomington (another Champaign County Wonder) by way of the most amazing secret billion dollar project you have ever seen.
 
John

When the media get involved, and when don’t they, things get stupid. Hence, forty or fifty college kids get shot, and Brian Williams breathlessly asks a bystander if he has been able to "absorb" the event not yet a day old. If he feels it necessary to channel Barbara Walters, someone should explain she is not dead yet. We also saw our Empathizer-in-Chief travel to Virginia to hear a poetess compare the massacre to, among other things, killing elephants for ivory. This apparently struck no one as odd. Indeed, considering the location, it was not. The only good thing about this new media circus is that the old media circus around Don Imus died out about a month early.

I don’t know anything about Imus other than what I’ve read since his thug-like comments about a women’s basketball team. I read a conservative describing him as a liberal and a liberal describing him as a conservative, but everybody seems to agree that he is a shock-jock. When he was originally criticized for calling a predominantly black women’s basketball team "nappy-headed hos," and we were as usual provided no context for the statement, I reserved judgment. I finally got around to some old Media Matters newsletters and found a link to the video where I discovered that the context was not particularly complex. Imus was saying that these women with multiple tattoos were not as "cute" as the Tennessee players who beat them. His method for doing so was to call them whores. I gather this is the shock jock part.

There has been some suggestion that "nappy-headed" is a racial slur. I suppose one could think that, but it’s a little hard to justify. My understanding, and I am not big on racial slurs, is that "nappy-headed" is a colloqialism for kinky hair, perhaps not complimentary. Goldilocks is an unfavorable colloquialism for caucasian hair. Even if a known racist like Al Sharpton used that expression, it would be hard to call it racism.

If Imus had called the team "curly-locked whores," would that have been any better? As the saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the ongoing culture wars, that saying could be updated with a dog scooper as the tool.

On the other hand, ever since an obvious non-racist like Howard Cosell was labelled a racist for referring to an agile black football player as a "monkey" ("Look at that monkey run" is how I remember it) it has been clear that racism is to be defined only by the alleged victims. In any other context that would be a conflict of interest, but it is a right we now give to all victims, and we are used to it. So let’s assume the reference to nappiness is racism; can we all agree that there are worse things? Like calling a young woman you don’t know a whore on a nationally syndicated program? How about ten young women?

John

My last post was about Saturday Night Live and Hillary Clinton, so naturally comments are still going strong about the war in Iraq.  This post is about Friday Night Lights, also on NBC, so expect several days from now that the comments here will be about stem cell research.

What I really want to do is thank NBC for this little gem of a series.  It seems clear that it will not be renewed, primarily because no one has seen it, which is a shame.  I am not a big fan of TV drama, especially network TV.  HBO has the Sopranos, PBS has Masterpiece Theater and the big networks have pontificating self-important lawyers, which is too much realism for me.

Friday Night Lights revolved around  a high school football coach in a Texas town where football is way too important.  Perhaps the kids are a little too good looking, but the series was mesmerizing in its attempt to set out real characters with real lives in real settings, and succeeded brilliantly (and  I am by no means a football fan.  I watched when my kids played in high school and college and that's about it, but this series even had interesting football).

Do yourself a favor and catch the reruns, if they bother to run them.  It will become a cult classic eventually, and you can rent it.

RIP Friday Night Lights.  I and your 11 other fans will miss you.

John

Old habits die hard.  So hard that I still occasionally watch Saturday Night Live.  When I first started watching, I was liberal and the show was funny, occasionally, except when it delved into politics.  Chevy Chase's "impersonation" of Gerald Ford set the bar low, on the ground actually, for subsequent political humor.  I didn't think much of it was funny when I was a liberal, and now that I am a conservative, I think it is less funny.  Except now the lack of funny has infected the whole show.  I guess the joke is on me, because, after all, I still watch.

Some of you may have noticed last week that Saturday Night did something unusual.  They have come out against Hillary.  My plan was to link to the video which was available on YouTube, but which is now not available.  It was about as vicious a skewering of a politician that I have ever seen on SNL, or anywhere else.  It was of course a personal and not a political skewering, and it was of course viciously unfair. And this judgment comes from a man with close to zero respect for Ms. Clinton. 

So, what does the official support of a liberal dinosaur like SNL do for Obama?  Make no mistake about it, the show, by trashing Hillary was making a not so subtle turn in his direction in the only way it can, by turning on his opponent.  Will this work do you think?  I am particularly interested in what liberals think.

If anyone can find a link to the skit, share it with us.

John

The writers, readers and commentors on this blog tend to get wrapped up in political and social disputes and at times it becomes easy to lose sight of the more important things in life. For instance, I have a first floor office that looks onto downtown Champaign and have witnessed big changes over the last ten years. Streams of people buy coffee across the street for prices that could feed all of the hungry down here.

I was trying to find a link to Professor Francis Boyle’s infamous emails to U of I President White after White shook hands with Hitler…I mean Chief Illiniwek. One of the first things I came upon in my search was the articles of impeachment Boyle drafted. I thought it might be an interesting lesson for the impeach Bush crowd to see what this diseased mind can come up with. I provide the link, but here is a sample:

and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the Constitution since September 11, 2001. This subversive conduct includes but is not limited to trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress…

blah, blah, blah.
 
If the guy hates Abraham Lincoln, you can imagine what he thinks of President Bush.
 
Homer Simpson discovered the meal between breakfast and brunch, and Boyle discovered the sweet spot between complete fabrication and one-quarter truth. If you have not already seen it, make sure you read Jim Dey’s Sunday column with the psychotic email exchange between White and Boyle.
 
John

Fox is allegedly putting on a conservative half hour news satire.  The blurb is below.  By the way, it is not completely true that liberals don't know how to poke fun at themselves.  I hope you are watching 30 Rock, one of two current television shows based on producing Saturday Night Live.  30 Rock, not despite but because of the participation of Alec Baldwin and Tina Fey, is hilarious, particularly Baldwin.  The other one, whose name escapes me, but which stars mostly West Wing veterans, is dedicated to the proposition that running a comedy show is much harder than running the country, and much less funny. 

Ann Coulter Conquers Hollywood?

by Jed Babbin (more by this author)

Posted 02/16/2007 ET
Updated 02/16/2007 ET

Okay. Confess.  Even though Stephen Colbert is really funny and Jon Stewart may make you cringe, you want more.  You want a conservative satire on the news, and haven’t seen one since, well, since time began.  Why?

We all know that conservatives have a better sense of humor than liberals. That's why Rush, Laura and Sean are conquering all and why Minnesota senatorial candidate Al Franken needs a job.  Liberals are incapable of poking fun at themselves.  Conservatives produce endless humor in writing and on radio.  And now, this Sunday, our appetite for televised conservative humor is apparently going to be satisfied.  

It’s called "The Half Hour News Hour" and is produced by Joel Surnow (creator and exec produce of "24") and Ned Rice.  But the best part is that Ann Coulter -- yes, our Ann, HUMAN EVENTS legislative correspondent -- is in it.  Is it funny?  One gent e-mailed me to say that, "Critics are already calling it 'the funniest show ever produced by the FOX News Channel, not counting Geraldo.'"

Pop the corn, pour the wine, sit back and watch.  Step aside, libs.  It’s our turn.

"The Half Hour News Hour" premiers Sunday, February 18 at 10 p.m. EST.

John