Fine art and the forger

Just for the fun of it, I think I’ll talk about painting to-day. No, not house painting; the paintings of the old masters. Have you ever wondered how much precious art is selling for these days? Well, you should have asked. I‘d have written this piece earlier. I have this thing about people who pay ridiculous, inflated prices for items of questionable value. And, nowhere is this more obvious than in the world of fine art.

For example, last year a painting by Jackson Pollack called “No 5, 1948” sold for 142.7 million dollars in a private sale. It’s true. I swear. It was in the news. And, the man who paid that outrageous price is walking around without a straight-jacket.

Yes. I agree. Jackson Pollack was a fine artist. But to suggest his work, either individually or collectively, is worth 142.7 million dollars is delusional. The same holds true for any other artist, from Picasso to Van Gogh. Fortunately, the truth is out there; so let’s look at the cold, hard facts.

Many years ago a fellow named Elmyr de Hory sold a forgery of a Matisse to the prestigious Fogg Art Museum at Harvard University. Hory was a skilled forger whose eye for detail allowed him to create forgeries that fooled even the most knowledgeable connoisseurs of fine art. And, Elmyr de Hory was not, is not, alone. There are many examples of forgeries that required forensic examination to distinguish them from the real thing. Little scraps of paint or canvas examined under a microscope to see if the paint or the canvas material was of the same composition as that most likely used by the original artist.

If a forgery is of such quality, won’t it be just as beautiful to look at as the original? If it requires forensic evidence to disprove its authenticity, won’t it be just as valuable to the student of art to demonstrate the finer points of the original artists’ technique, whether it be his use of colour, light and shade, perspective, etc.

And, if it’s true that an artist can replicate the work of another to such a degree, then why would one painting be worth 142.7 million dollars and the other worth only a “Go to jail” card from the Community Chest”? It makes no sense.

In a time long ago and far away, painting replicas of other peoples work was, in fact, an honoured tradition. It was done without malice, to preserve for posterity the works of the renowned artists of the day, and as a learning tool; to understand and appreciate the techniques that made some paintings works of art and others just pretty pictures.

It was not until the wealthy and powerful, including the church and the state, began trading art as a commodity that these replicas became “forgeries”. To be sure, if someone passed his work off as the work of another, more renowned artist, in an effort to increase the value of his own, he was doing a disservice to all concerned. But, if none but the most knowledgeable can tell the difference and, even then, not without the help of modern forensics, how can anyone say the originals are one of a kind or “priceless”.

If a so-called “priceless” work of art were destroyed and a good forgery hung in its stead, would the many visitors who pass through the Louvre on a daily basis be able to tell the difference? Would they not still gaze in awe and admiration at the forgery as they do now at the original?

And, if you agree that the awe, admiration and inspiration would likely continue then you’ll understand that paying 142.7 million dollars for paint on canvas is obscene.

A real life soap opera (Part 2)

This is the second of a two part post, so if you’re new here maybe you should read part one first.

We’ve been following the story of Anna Nicole Smith, exotic dancer, Playboy playmate of the year and poster girl for breast augmentation surgery.

So far, Anna Nicole has climbed her way up the ladder from exotic dancer to Playboy centerfold to wet dream girl of post pubescent boys of all ages. She has sued a New York magazine for damaging her reputation and been sued by some nut bar who claimed she sexually harassed him; and won. Why in hell was he complaining?

Then she divorced her first husband and married an 89 year old billionaire who lasted over a year before buying the biscuit. It is not recorded whether or not he went out with a smile on his face.

Hell, we’ve already got enough for a good book. Now, here’s the sequel.

Anna Nicole had a daughter she named Dannielynn Hope Marshall Stern. The poor child bears the name of Anna Nicole’s deceased husband, J.Howard Marshall and her lover, Howard K. Stern, who claims to be the father. But we’re not through yet. Somebody called Larry Birkhead, Anna Nicole’s former lover, is also claiming to be the father.

Not wanting to be left out, the husband of Zsa Zsa Gabor, Prince Frederic von Anhalt, also joined the paternity battle. He claims he had a ten-year affair with Anna Nicole. He also said up to 30 men could be Dannielynn's father. The gallant Prince Frederic says, "Anna liked to have fun. She liked to have fun with men. She was a very sexy woman." Uh-huh.

Folks, I’m no expert, and as the father of three children I know doctors can’t always pinpoint the exact time of conception, but even allowing for an error of a month or more, that means that Anna Nicole had fun with a different man every night for a month. She wasn’t just sexy; she was horny as hell.

Determining the father of Dannilynn could be very important since whoever is ruled to be the father will take control of Anna Nicole's estate and the roughly half a billion dollars she could inherit from Marshall's estate, if the courts ever figure it out. They’ve had over twelve years. My but the wheels of justice do turn slowly.

Oh, but there’s more.

Broward County, Florida, medical examiner Joshua Perper concluded that Anna Nicole died of "combined drug intoxication" after taking a concoction of the sleeping medication chloral hydrate and at least eight other prescription drugs, including methadone and Valium. She died aged just 39, after being found unconscious in a Florida hotel room on February 8, 2007.

Her death came just five months after her 20-year-old son Daniel, offspring of her first marriage when she was still in her teens, suddenly died under suspicious circumstances in the Bahamas.

Her death sparked the controversy over the paternity of Dannielynn and who should be given custody.

Her live in lover, Howard K. Stern wanted Anna Nicole buried in the Bahamas where he shared a house with Anna Nicole and where her son Daniel was buried. Her mother wanted her buried in Texas. So they went to court in Florida to settle the matter, while Anna Nicole’s embalmed body decomposed in a Florida morgue.

The battle over the body came complete with weird accusations like the claim by Anna Nicole’s mother that her lover wanted her body so he could sell the rights to her funeral to Entertainment Tonight for a cool million. (Did she really have a pink funeral?) There was also an incident where Stern's lawyer Krista Barth accused Birkhead's attorney Debra Opri of claiming her client had killed Anna Nicole.

There’s more; much more; enough to turn this tale into a trilogy. But you’ll have to dig it up for yourself. This stuff is a little too bizarre for my tastes.

A Real Life Soap Opera (Part 1)

I’ve been hearing a lot about this woman, Anna Nicole Smith; in the news and on television. I knew she was a celebrity of some kind, but I didn’t really understand a whole lot about what was going on. I don’t usually pay much attention to this kind of stuff. Hell, I thought Jessica Simpson was one of Homer’s kids.

Apparently, Anna Nicole Smith had died and the body lay decomposing while her lover and her mother argued, in court, over where the body would be buried. Thinking this rather strange, I decided to peruse the web and find out a little about the case. Folks, this story is destined to become a “Movie of the Week”, maybe even a mini-series. And, it will have to be sold as a true story, because no one would buy it as fiction.

Anna Nicole was a high school dropout who got married at seventeen, had a kid and worked at a few odd jobs, at Wal-Mart, then as a waitress at Red Lobster, before buying herself a set of boobs and taking up exotic dancing. While she was dancing exotically, she was spotted by someone from Playboy who had her take off her clothes in the March 1992 issue of Playboy magazine. She was eventually named Playmate of the Year and started a whole new career as; you guessed it, a sex symbol.

One article I read claims Anna Nicole was responsible for the big bust trend. That is clearly untrue. Dorothy White started the big bust trend back in 1957. I still remember the day she caught me peeking down the front of her dress. She didn’t say anything. She was too busy trying to stifle her oncoming giggling fit. I was thirteen, she was twenty.

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah, the other girl with the big boobs.

Anna Nicole divorced her first husband in 1993, and in June of 1994 she married oil billionaire, J. Howard Marshall. Some say she married him for his money. Anna Nicole claims it was true love. She was 26; he was 89. Make up your own mind.

Also, in 1994, Anna Nicole sued New York magazine for five million dollars in damages to her reputation. The magazine had used her picture in an article titled, “White Trash Nation”. She claims she was told she was being photographed to “embody the all-American woman look.” Uh-huh. I wonder what Hefner told her?

Marshall died in August of 1995. He must have been one tough old bugger to last a whole year with that girl. Just looking at her in the flesh would cause cardiac arrest in more than a few men.

On his death, one of his sons tried to cut Anna Nicole out of the will. The son is now dead and Anna Nicole is dead, but Marshall’s estate, valued at 1.6 billion dollars has yet to be decided by the courts. A Texas probate Court decided Anna Nicole was entitled to nothing.

In 1996, Smith filed for bankruptcy in California as a result of a $850,000 judgment against her for sexual harassment of an employee. Uh-huh. Like this woman really had to resort to sexual harassment to get a man.

A Los Angeles bankruptcy judge awarded her roughly 450 million dollars from her late husband’s estate. But, in July 2001, a Houston judge affirmed the jury findings in the probate case, which ruled that she was entitled to nothing. In addition, he ordered Smith to pay over $1 million in fees and expenses to her stepson’s legal team. The conflict between the Texas probate court and the California bankruptcy court judgments forced the matter into federal court.

In March 2002, a federal judge issued a new ruling reducing her share of the estate to $88 million. In December 2004, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the March 2002 decision, once again leaving her with nothing.

The Bush administration subsequently directed the Solicitor General to intercede on Smith's behalf out of an interest to expand federal court jurisdiction over state probate disputes. In the Supreme Court's decision, handed down on May 1, 2006, the justices unanimously decided in favor of Smith. Although the decision did not give Smith a share of her husband's estate, it affirmed her right to pursue a share of it in federal court.

(To be continued)

Interview with the MPA

A while back I posted some comments about the MPA (Music Publishers Association) and their threat of legal action against OLGA (On Line Guitar Archives) and other sites for “copyright infringement.” Providing lyrics and guitar chords to a song is not theft if the publishers won't distribute that information in a simple, economical form. To my way of thinking, they're carrying this copyright infringment business a little too far.

To hear the MPA tell it, anyone patronizing such sites is clearly and simply a thief, stealing bread from the mouths of babes, presumably, the children of songwriters and composers. But, their arguments have a hollow ring to them. I recently had an opportunity to interview G. “Machine-head” Major of the Association.

Q. Why the big fuss about websites offering free, simplified tab or lyrics to songs?
A. Our members pay substantial sums to the creators and owners of the music we represent for the right and privilege to bring this music to the public in authorized sheet music products. Our members also put tremendous effort and incur significant expense in arranging, engraving, editing, marketing and distributing those products.

Q. What if I don’t want all the fancy arranging, engraving and packaging?
A. Tough tit, you take whatever we give you, pay through the nose and may, optionally, kiss our ass on the way out.

Q. But, the fancy engraving and packaging make your product too expensive for the average Joe.
A. Absolutely. Without the fancy engraving and packaging we couldn’t justify the big bucks we demand for our product. So, you take whatever we give you, pay through the nose and may, optionally, kiss our ass on the way out.

Q. I don’t read standard musical notation, is there anyone publishing simplified versions with just the lyrics and guitar chords?
A. Yes. But, we’re taking legal action to shut the bastards down. If those sites interfere with our right to sell you over-priced products that you don’t want, we’ll brand their sorry ass with a capital “T”, for thief.

Q. Isn’t that a little drastic? After all, these sites are not selling the information; they’re giving it away free and/or providing the public a forum in which to exchange the information.
A. Exactly. And, if they give it away, just who in hell will want to buy our books with the fancy engraving and the pretty pictures, you bloody moron.

Q. What if I want the lyrics and guitar chords to a song that has never been published, as sheet music or tab, and likely never will be?
A. Tough tit, at the risk of repeating myself, you take whatever we give you. We suggest you learn a song that has been published or put your guitar up for sale. We can’t be expected to publish material that only a small percentage of the people want; there’s no profit in it.

Q. How can one publisher offer a book with the melody line, guitar chords and lyrics to over a hundred songs for under ten dollars, while another wants to charge twenty dollars for only eight or ten songs?
A. Supply and demand, you dumb ass. Plus, the more expensive of the two comes with fancy engraving, fancy packaging and has lots of pretty pictures . . . and I won’t even mention the ads for other books. What are you, some kind of commie? We live in a capitalist society. We will not allow anyone or anything to interfere with our right to gouge the public.

Q. Have you ever thought of offering a similar product as those offered by these “illegal” web sites, as you call them, preferably at a reasonable price?
A. Offering similar product would cut into the profits from the books with the fancy engraving and packaging. Sales of music books and instructional material have already begun to decline. You really are some kind of commie. We’re in the business of selling music.

Q. Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe your declining sales might be attributable to your failure to provide the consumer with the product they want at a price they are willing to pay?
A. Yes. But why should we go to all the trouble of building our own web site, and offering free content to budding guitar players, when we can simply demand money from those who have already done the work? Now, get the hell out of here, you commie bastard. We live in a capitalist society. We have a right to maximize profit and we will not allow anyone or anything to interfere with our right to gouge the public to the maximum.

Q. One last question: How do you respond to people who say that music is about much more than money?
A. Don’t be so f**king stupid.

Weird & wacky country songs

I’ve always been a big fan of folk and country music. My love affair with country music began in the early fifties when I’d tune in to stations in Nashville, Tennessee (WGR) and Wheeling, West Virginia (WWVA), both stations, at the time, being synonymous with country music.

Dad had an old Marconi short wave radio with a little teardrop shaped turntable that sat on top and plugged into the back. It only played 78 RPM records which were in short supply, even when selling for under thirty cents a copy. Those I did have featured the Carter Family, Jimmie Rodgers, George Riley Puckett, Hank Snow, and starting in 1956, a new country singer named Johnny Cash.

A while back I found a web site devoted to the worst song titles in the history of country music. Many of the songs in the list were songs I listened to on that old Marconi short wave. One song I remembered was “Slap Her Down Again, Pa”, as politically incorrect a song as you’re likely to find. The lyrics went something like:
“Slap her down again, Pa.
Slap her down again.
We don’t want the neighbours
Talkin’ ‘bout our kin.”

Now, in truth, I can’t remember what the girl was doing to get the neighbours talking about her, but it must have been something real bad for her father to slap her down even once, let alone have her siblings demand that she receive another smack. These days, that type of behaviour would have dad going straight to jail. No passing go; no collecting $200.00.

But, it seems likely her dad must have felt a strong need for a little attitude adjustment. Otherwise, his daughter might have become the girl who grew up to record, “I Spent My Last Ten Dollars On Birth Control And Beer”.

Gospel songs weren’t immune to the habit of giving songs peculiar titles or lyrics. At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I give you, “Are You Drinkin With Me Jesus?” by Country Dick Montana which contains the truly touching lyrics:
"Does your head pound Jesus,
As hung over you do rise....
How does paradise look Jesus,
Through holy bloodshot eyes...
Should we take a cab home Jesus…
Or can we hoof it home from here...
I know you can walk on water
But can you walk on this much beer?"

Canadians played their part, even if they didn’t make the list. Consider Roy Payne’s “Jesus Wouldn’t Like It Down On Yonge Street”. This Newfoundlander speculates that Jesus wouldn’t like it down on Yonge Street (Toronto) amongst “the pimps and the teenage whores”. Maybe he should have paid more attention in Sunday school. Jesus might just have been right in his element.

A few years ago the Dixie Chicks, who are no strangers to controversy, had a hit with a song called “Good-bye Earl”. It told the story of some girls who thumped and dumped a girl friends abusive husband in an unmarked grave. That “tongue-in-cheek” little number caused quite a furor, with some radio stations refusing to give it any air time.

And, over the years, there have been many country songs dealing with wacky themes.

For instance, how about those country classics, “Now Claude’s Gone Forever (He Went To Sleep Drunk And The Hogs Ate Him)”, or “If I’d killed Her When I Wanted To, I’d Have Been Out of Jail By Now”. Then there’s the one that best explains why Earl got himself poisoned by the Dixie Chicks in the first place. It was called, “She Broke My Heart, So I Broke Her Jaw”. Natalie and the Chicks were right. Earl had to die.

And this one had me thinking about it for several minutes before breaking out in a grin: “I Still Miss You Baby . . . But My Aim is Getting Better” .

Not all the songs in the worst country song titles list came from the fifties and sixties. A Canadian cowgirl named Iris Larrat recorded a song on the Acclaim label in 1989 called, “I’ve Got A Cowboy In The Saddle (And Another One Holding My Horse)”. A little risqué but it got a chuckle out of me. And, not too long ago, I was listening to an older recording by Lucille Starr, called “The Boys In The Bunkhouse Don’t Think I’m Too Bad.”

Another one had me laughing out loud. It was called, “Get Your Tongue Out Of My Mouth (I’m Kissing You Good-bye)”. And, whether it was the bizarre title or my bizarre sense of humour, I also got a kick out of, “Hand Me The Pool Cue, Partner, Then Call Yourself An Ambulance”.

Given that there were over 200 songs in the list, and I think they missed at least that many, I think I’ll revisit this topic another time, so I’ll mark this as Part 1.

Songs from The Old Rambler

I've been trying to add an MP3 file player to the site, but I was having a little trouble making the whole thing work. I decided to use Streampad Mini as the player, and I think I got all the right accounts set up, but no songs were showing up in the Player. So I'm going to drop the idea for the time being.

The idea was to let readers listen to a few songs while reading the blog, including a few of my own. For the time being, I'll add a link to my Google Pages where you can listen to a few of the songs I've recorded; if you really want to listen to The Old Rambler groaning out some old fashioned folk/country stuff.

You can even download the songs if you like. Downloads are free for family and friends. And, if you're looking at this page, you're either one or the other, whether I know you or not.

I'll re-visit the idea of a media player when (if) I get the bugs out.

PS: Scrapped Streampad. Installed a player I got from MyFlashFetish.com. Still a few bugs to work out, but it's looks like this is the player I'll be using. You'll still have to click on the link in the sidebar if you want to download the files.

Blackwater - black day

According to an unidentified spokesperson, “Blackwater guards reacted lawfully to an attack on one of its convoys.” The spokesperson was commenting on an August 16, 2007 incident in which, according to initial reports, eleven Iraqi civilians were killed and fifteen others wounded. The latest news reports put the death toll at seventeen, with twenty-three others wounded when a Blackwater security detail opened fire in Nisoor Square in Baghdad.

One might reasonably ask whose law they were acting lawfully under. Back in 2004, the US State Department granted Blackwater (as well as other private security contractors) immunity from prosecution under not only Iraqi law, but under the US Uniform Code of Military Justice. Nor does this private contractor have to worry about following the rules of the Geneva Convention.

It is also unlikely Blackwater employees can be tried in the United States for crimes outside that jurisdiction, which means that Blackwater is accountable to no one. (A US rights group announced it was filing a petition to have the courts decide if they can be tried in a civil proceeding on behalf of a survivor and the families of three victims.)

The shooting prompted a wave of outrage in Iraq about the activities of private US security firms protecting diplomats and foreign workers, and calls for those responsible for the deaths to be tried in Iraqi courts.

According to an official Iraqi investigation, ordered by Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, guards from the US security firm had not been shot at before they opened fire on Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. This contention is supported by accounts from the first US soldiers to arrive on the scene, who claimed no evidence was found to support Blackwater contentions that they had come under fire.

According to a US congressional report released last week, Blackwater has been involved in 195 shooting incidents in Iraq since 2005. In 84% of those cases, the report claims, Blackwater personnel were the first to open fire.

And, apparently, it’s not just the shootings of innocent civilians by private contractors in Iraq that has Washington concerned. Federal prosecutors are investigating allegations that employees of Blackwater smuggled weapons into Iraq that may have ended up in the hands of a designated terrorist organization, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party).

The Raleigh News & Observer reported that two former Blackwater employees are cooperating with federal authorities investigating the accusations. They pleaded guilty earlier this year to possession of stolen firearms that had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. In their plea agreements, which call for a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the men agreed to testify in any future proceedings.

Back in July, Turkey officially protested to US officials that they had seized US weapons from captured PKK terrorists. The Turkish government provided the US with serial numbers from the weapons which are now being traced by the FBI.

A joint US/Iraqi commission is looking into the incident in Nisoor Square to try and sort out what really happened. The US is conducting its own investigation into the illegal smuggling of weapons into Iraq.

Neither is likely to result in anything more than a mild reprimand to any of the offending parties. A few foot soldiers will be designated as bad apples and have their butts kicked but the big wigs with the big wallets will walk away.

We’ve seen it all before; another incident; another investigation; another whitewash.

The chicks aren't ready to make nice

It’s March, 2003 and US President George W. Bush is about to unleash the military might of the United States against the people of Iraq.

The Dixie Chicks have a number one hit album, called “Home”, on the country charts in the US. The group, comprised of sisters Emily Robison and Martie Maguire and lead singer Natalie Maines, are performing at a concert at Shepherds Bush Theatre in London, England. It’s as talented a group of singers and musicians as you’re ever likely to find and one of my favourites.

During the concert, clearly frustrated and angry at her president’s intentions to wage war on Iraq, Natalie utters a single sentence, “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

She would have created less controversy if she’d gone after the man with a gun.

Country stations across the United States pulled the Chicks from play lists. Station managers said their decisions were prompted by calls from irate listeners who thought criticism of the president was unpatriotic. One station in Kansas City, Missouri held a Dixie "chicken toss party” where their critics were encouraged to dump the group's tapes, CDs and concert tickets into trash cans.

The Chicks were showered with hate mail and even death threats. Many members of the country music establishment turned their backs on the Chicks. Toby Keith, an outspoken critic of the group, displayed a backdrop at his concerts showing a doctored photo of Natalie Maines with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

One notable exception to the criticism from the realm of country music was veteran Merle Haggard, who compared the attack on the Chicks to a witch-hunt and lynching, saying; “I don't even know the Dixie chicks, but I find it an insult to all the men and women who fought and died in past wars when almost the majority of America jumped down their throats for voicing an opinion. It was like a verbal witch-hunt and lynching.”

How did the Chicks respond? They stood their ground; with dignity and grace, and refused to back down. Then they wrote a song. On March 16, 2006, the Dixie Chicks released the single "Not Ready to Make Nice", an outtake from their album, Taking the Long Way. Written by the Chicks, it directly addressed the political controversy that had surrounded the group for the previous three years, and which continues to this day. One verse from the song goes:

It’s a sad, sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better
Shut up and sing or my life will be over

An ad for Shut up and Sing, a documentary about the controversy surrounding Natalie’s comment, was turned down by NBC, citing a policy barring ads dealing with "public controversy". NBC was not alone. This prompted the film's producer, Harvey Weinstein, to comment, "It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America."

The documentary’s title was taken from "Not Ready To Make Nice", which in turn took the phrase from a threatening letter received by the band.

Despite minimal airplay, the album (Taking the Long Way) debuted at number one on both the U.S. pop albums chart and the U.S. country albums chart, selling over a half million copies in the first week. At the 49th Grammy Awards Show in 2007, they won all five categories for which they were nominated, including the coveted Song of the Year, Record of the Year, and Album of the Year.

The 41st annual Country Music Association Awards will be held on November 7, 2007. Despite their success at the Grammy’s, the Dixie Chicks have been nominated in only one category, Best Vocal Group of the Year. Odds being given by Las Vegas bookmakers suggest the Chicks have little chance of winning.

So much for freedom of speech in the good old boys America. Kinda makes you feel ashamed to be a country music fan.

Bush losing the battle

The war on terror is not a conventional war; and it won’t be won by conventional means. The way to defeat terrorism is through the very ideals of democracy and justice which it seeks to destroy.

Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted and executed as a mass murderer for the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. He was afforded his full legal rights, in a public setting and the public came to see him for what he was: a common criminal who killed hundreds of innocent men, women and children. Justice was not only done, but seen to be done.

Contrast that with the treatment of alleged terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay. Deliberately held outside the jurisdiction of the continental United States and without legal representation, they are deprived of any hope of ever seeing the inside of an American courtroom. Tortured, by all reasonable definitions; their religious beliefs used to ridicule and humiliate them. Any future trial is to be conducted in secret, under rules which guarantee conviction, advertising to the world (the Muslim world in particular), that the United States is not the bastion of democracy and justice it purports to be.

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC’s Meet the Press, “I would do it (shut down Guantanamo) because, essentially we have shaken the belief that the world had in America’s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commissions.” Every prisoner held under those conditions has supporters who become potential recruits to the terrorist cause. And, to complicate the issue further, the Bush administration simply ignores rulings from US Courts which call their tactics into question.

Iraq played no part in the atrocity known as 911. But, the Bush administration launched a war against that nation based on misrepresentation and lies. They used the war on terror as an excuse to implement their own agenda. Even Alan Greenspan, former head of the Treasury Board, acknowledges that the real reason for the war was oil.

Iraqis watch the lives of friends and family, including untold numbers of women and children, snuffed out by the American war machine; the Bush administration shrugs their shoulders and offers half-hearted apologies for the infliction of “collateral damage”.

Iraqi civilians have been dying by the tens of thousands. And, for every innocent who dies, there is a husband, a son or a brother who becomes a potential recruit for Bin Laden’s terrorist goon squads. The United States is feeding fuel to the fire, creating future generations of hate-filled terrorists who will use their murderous tactics against the people of the United States and every civilized country which supports them.

The outcome of the war against Iraq was foretold before it was fought; Iraq had no hope against the military might of the United States. But, the war against Iraq, when viewed as a single battle in the war on terror, has been lost. No one in the Arab world is likely to forget the death and devastation caused by an unnecessary war.

The actions of the Bush administration in waging war against Iraq and perpetuating the injustice of Guantanamo, greatly enhance the prospects of Bin laden and his cohorts to recruit new members to their fanatical cause.

For Iraq, the future is uncertain; for Bush, the only certainty is his declining poll numbers.

Barry's balls, OJ's suit & John's rocker

Recently, I wrote a post about some super clown spending over three-quarters of a million dollars to buy a baseball which baseball super star, Barry Bonds, had once struck with a baseball bat. The fact that this particular ball was the one Bonds sent sailing into the stands for his 756th career home run does not justify the $750,000.00 price tag. Nor should it keep super clown, Mark Ecko, out of the looney bin.

Nobody in their right mind pays that kind of money for something you can pick up at the local Wal-Mart for under ten dollars. But, it got me to wondering just how many other nut bars, masquerading as “collectors of memorabilia”, might actually be out there running around without supervision.

I’m not talking about fans who spend 50 or 100 dollars on a football jersey, or 20 bucks or so on an autographed baseball. Fan is, after all, short for fanatic.

No, I’m talking about those collectors who spend thousands, tens of thousands and much more on items of questionable value, simply because some player has soiled it with his sweat, or drooled on it, or some such. To me, those individuals are a few bricks short of a load.

Think about it people. If I were to substitute the ball that bounced off little Buddy’s bean at the local high school game for the baseball Barry Bonds sent over the wall, how in the hell would you be able to tell the difference?

In the news recently, it was reported that OJ Simpson had been arrested in conjunction with the robbery of two memorabilia collectors. OJ claims he was trying to recover signed collectibles: books, photographs, his wedding video and the suit he wore when he was acquitted of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and her boyfriend.

Memorabilia “experts” suggest the suit could fetch between $5,000.00 to $25,000.00 at auction. I can buy the same suit, probably better, at Moore’s Men Shop for under 200 bucks. And, it will fit. Who the hell pays that much for a suit they’ll never wear? Unless, of course, they’re a little kinky and inclined to do strange things in the privacy of their bedroom.

But sports enthusiasts aren’t the only ones paying big bucks for second hand stuff. At a 1996 New York auction of the belongings of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, two rocking chairs were sold; one for $442,000.00 and the other for $453,000.00, for no other reason than that it was one of roughly a dozen similar rocking chairs in which John Kennedy had parked his posterior prior to his assassination.

Similar rocking chairs go for around $169.00 at Wal-Mart. Although I can’t swear to it, I suspect the Wal-Mart specials are every bit as comfortable as the four hundred thousand dollar Kennedy model. And, would you really want to rock your grand kids on that kind of investment? What if little Percy piddles on the padded upholstery? Wouldn't steam cleaning be likely to cause undue depreciation?

For the record, sitting in John Kennedy’s rocker will not make you a great polititian, wearing OJ’s suit will not make you rich and famous, or famous and poor, whichever is the reality, and branding Barry’s balls will not make you a baseball super star.

What spending that kind of money on second hand junk should get you is an insanity hearing.

Branding Barry's Balls

Is everybody out there familiar with the stories in the news about Barry’s balls? And that designer fella, Mark Ecko’s, plans to brand them. Have you ever heard such foolishness?

Just to refresh your memory, San Francisco Giants leftfielder Barry Bonds recently tied and broke the all-time home run record of Hank Aaron (755 career home runs). The fan who caught the ball Barry Bonds hit out of the park for his 756th career home run, auctioned off the baseball. The ball was purchased by a fashion designer named Mark Ecko, who paid the princely sum of just over $750,000.00 for the privilege of owning the baseball, if only for a brief moment in time.

He bought the ball to deliver a long distance slap in the face to Bonds. He plans to permanently mark (by branding or otherwise defacing the baseball) with an asterisk, and then send this particular piece of memorabilia to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown to be put on display.

Ecko, like many other baseball fans, is upset with Bonds because he has been implicated in a drug scandal involving steroid use by both professional and olympic athletes.

Bonds denies all allegations of steroid use. He has never tested positive for any banned drug or otherwise been proven to have participated in any illegal steroid use. From what I can tell, he has been tried by Ecko, and many fans, in the court of public opinion and been found guilty by association.

Hank Aaron averaged just over 32 home runs a year in 23 seasons with the Braves. Barry Bonds averaged just over 34 home runs a year over 22 seasons with first Pittsburg, then the Giants. But, Bonds exceptional 2001 season where he hit 73 home runs, toppling Mark McGuire’s record, to many pundits and fans alike, is seen as proof that he must have been on steroids.

The immortal Babe Ruth averaged 32 home runs a year over 22 seasons, including a phenomenal year in 1927 when he hit 60 in 151 games. There were no calls for an investigation into steroid use.

Why is it so difficult to believe that, with the training regimens, nutritional supplements, etc. available to the modern elite athletes of the 21st century, that Bonds couldn’t set the records he has without the use of steroids? Can you imagine the records the Babe could have set if he had laid off the booze, watched his weight and done a little weight training back in 1927?

Raw deal for Bonds. If he’s ever proven to have used steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, you may feel free to do all the Barry-bashing that you want. But, until then, he’s innocent until proven guilty; not the other way around.

And, as for this Ecko guy . . . let’s just say his sanity is questionable to say the least. Any man that pays three-quarters of a million dollars for a damn baseball that you can pick up in a hardware store for under $10.00 is a candidate for the looney bin. Of course, he’ll find his way into history on the back of the man to whom he has chosen to shower with such scorn, his name forever associated with Barry Bonds’ 756th home run.

But, I suspect Mark Ecko’s name will be followed by an asterisk.

The Blundering Bush

The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the wanton slaughter of 3,000 innocent people was the most heinous atrocity ever perpetrated against the United States. It was not simply the death and destruction visited upon an unsuspecting nation that made it so; but the grief and anguish caused to the families and friends of the victims, indeed the entire nation. And, because of the international flavour of the Trade Centre, the United States was joined in her mourning, and her resolve to avenge the innocents, by people around the world.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a reasoned, calculated response. Take away their sanctuary, tear down their training camps and leave them no place to hide; don’t wait for further provocations. And, the world recognized the need for a military response by the United States and her NATO allies and offered its support.

But, then came the Patriot Act, Guantanamo and the invasion of Iraq. And, support for the US cause dissipated like the morning dew. George Bush and his administration gave Osama Bin Laden exactly what he wanted.

For the purpose of those attacks on September 11, 2001, was not simply to kill Americans. Nor was it to destroy US symbols of financial or military might. The objectives of the terrorist mission were to create a climate of fear in the US; and, to provoke a massive retaliation, where use of US military power would be seen as an attack on Islam itself.

What the world suspected prior to the invasion of Iraq has been shown to be true. The rationale the Bush administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq was a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction; there was no nuclear capability; there were no terrorists plotting attacks against the US.

Confidential documents recording conversations between Bush and the British Prime Minister, and a conversation between Bush and the President of Spain, have been made public. They demonstrate, quite clearly, the intent of George Bush to wage war against Iraq, even if he had to manufacture an incident.

And, with the invasion came the massive destruction of an Iraqi infrastructure, already severely damaged by years of US led economic sanctions, tens of thousands of civilian casualties and the internal conflict between opposing religious factions that threatens to engulf the country in a bloody civil war when occupying forces are withdrawn. Prior to the US invasion, there was no al Qaeda presence in Iraq; now, it flourishes.

Photos from Abu Gharib showing Iraqis being tortured, their religion and religious taboos being used to humiliate them, do nothing to alleviate the belief of many Iraqis that their country is being torn asunder, not because of anything they’ve done, not because of any “war of liberation”, but simply because they’re Muslim and Bush needed a scapegoat on which to vent his anger.

Iraq was not a necessary battle in the war on terror. In fact, it compromised the fight against terror. The blunders of the Bush administration have played into the hands of Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist goons. And the people of the United States are paying the price; in dollars and cents and in the lives of the young men and women serving in her armed forces.

And, judging from the polls, they know it.

Don't squeeze my OLGA

Many years ago, after listening to Johnny Cash and the Tennessee Two on CJCB radio, I decided I’d like to sing and play the guitar. I talked my Dad into forking out 29 dollars for a Simpson-Sears special. It was a lot of money back then; nearly half a weeks pay.

The guitar came with five free song folios from guys like Grady Owens and Hal “Lone” Pine. If you’re not familiar with the names, don’t worry about it, I didn’t know who in-the-hell they were a half century ago. The only name I did recognize was a guy called Gene Autry. I even knew some of the songs in his book from the radio:
“Tweedle’O’twill, puffin’ on corn silk, Tweedle’O’twill, whittlin’ wood, Sittin’ there wishin’, he could go fishin’, over the hill, Tweedle’O’twill.

Don’t laugh. Songs like that made Mr. Autry a lot of money. He even gave up singing and strumming and bought himself a major league baseball team.

Unfortunately, I didn’t read music at that time and the books were pretty much useless to me, except to learn the lyrics. But, as I said, they came free with the guitar; I’d never have bought them.

Back in those day, the usual way to pick up the lyrics and guitar chords to a song was to spend the 25 to 30 cents on a copy of the record (78 RPM), along with a package of “needles” and play the song over and over again, while neatly printing the words and chords in a “scribbler” for future reference.

The easier way to learn a song, of course, was to get together with a bunch of guitar players, usually in someone’s kitchen, and trade songs. You also traded tips and techniques to make your playing just a little bit better. “Listen to the song the next time you hear it on the radio. He’s using a nice little bass run to make that chord change. Try doing this.” Everything was duly noted in your scribbler so that tips could be passed on to the next guy.

Forty years or so later, I was surprised to learn that the same basic strategies for learning guitar were available through the internet. The On Line Guitar Archives (OLGA) provided the same information we used to trade around the kitchen table. And, it was available free of charge, the same way it was back then.

You could post a request for the words or guitar chords to a long forgotten song and someone out there in cyberspace would post the information back for you. Except for the fact you never got a chance to meet the guy (or girl), might never share a laugh, or a bottle of Kik Cola, it was basically the same method of freely exchanging information as we used many years ago. OLGA became a regular stop on my travels through the wide, wonderful world of the web.

Last week, I was looking for the words to an old country song I first heard back in the fifties. I thought I’d try OLGA. But, all that came up was a brief apology for being unavailable and a copy of letters from lawyers for the Music Publishers Association of the United States (MPA), advising OLGA that they were infringing the copyright of some of its members. Close the site, the lawyers advised, or face the legal consequences.

A statement from the MPA reads:
“We are doing this to protect the interests of the creators and publishers of music so that, the profession of songwriting remains viable and that new and exciting music will be continue to be created and enjoyed for generations to come.”

Two points for the MPA (and the public) to consider. One, “new and exciting music” was being produced long before the MPA existed, and it will continue to be produced long after the MPA ceases to exist. Musicians trading songs and/or guitar licks have never interfered with that process. In fact, they’ve enhanced it. And, two, when you get lawyers involved, it’s seldom about principle; it’s about the money.

And, yes I will have more to say on this subject.