Fine? Why Fine?

Tighten Up the Set

Ryan Adams has a history of rubbing people the wrong way and he's arguably the most frustrating talent in music. Here's why. (Via Kaus, sorry but I still can't quite figure out how his permalinks work.)

But instead of carefully cultivating the momentum, Adams seemed to subvert it, leaving the field open to new forces such as Bright Eyes' Conor Oberst. The last couple of years have been a dizzying collage of high-profile girlfriends (Parker Posey, Winona Ryder, Beth Orton et al.), public tantrums, battles with his record label, a broken wrist, an ear infection and canceled tours.

Adams' three albums this year — the two-CD set "Cold Roses," "Jacksonville City Nights" and the new "29" — are the products of the creative drive that Adams put into gear after recovering from the broken wrist — an injury he suffered early last year in a fall from a stage in Liverpool.

His moments of brilliance have kept fans hooked, but the volume and inconsistency of his output have created a consensus that he would be better off spending more time on one record and putting out fewer of them.

Adams goes on to be quoted about this view of his work.

"I am kind of quite sick of people going, 'If he would have just taken all three of these records and dumped them down to one album he would have a perfect double album.' It's like, 'Well you guys be my ... manager, then. I don't know, I like them all. I figure, you know, Mom makes too much meatloaf means we got leftovers. It doesn't mean that she did something wrong."

From his perspective as "the artist" you can't disagree with him. Even as "a fan" I tend to fall in line with his assessment. He's become one of the handful of artists that I'll buy whatever he puts out. But as his friends and record company people in the article claim, it's hard to grow an audience releasing 3 albums (one of which is a double-cd) inside 8 months. So as a "consumer" who is not a diehard fan you're screwed somewhat.

One of the guys at Hickory Wind put together his version of a Ryan Adams album culling the songs from the three releases down to 15 songs. I agree with most of his choices, but below the fold are the songs I'd put together to create The Great Ryan Adams Album of 2005.

The Future

It's the time for all bloggers to put up their 2006 predictions so here are a few of mine.

• There will be another round of rioting/car burning in France. At some point, France will level a banlieue with a rocket or something or otherwise respond aggressively. They will think about trying to pin it on the UK like they tried for the Greenpeace thing but will hold back because they know deep down it's only a matter of time before Israel or the U.S. does something viewed as worse.
• The Mets will win the World Series and David Wright will finish in the Top 5 for NL MVP voting. His stats will be .325, 38, 127.

I'll throw some more up when I think of them.

(No one ever really goes back and checks on how these turned out, so there's no fear of embarrassment. I know a reader checks up on the folks at NRO but that's it. Maybe I should track down a few of the 2005 predictions of other bloggers. Hmm.)

Backfired

Jeff continues to break the NSA story down, remarking on the latest developments about defense attorneys using the Times' revelations as part of their defense strategies.

In the case of criminal prosecutions of the kind that will soon to be thrown into the crucible of manufactured “controversy” (thanks to the New York Times leaking of highly classified information), the warrant process and its attendant factual revelations—which together assemble the kind of evidence permissible in a criminal proceeding—would have already been vetted by defense attorneys.  The only remaining question would be how did the accused come to be the target of warrants in the first place?—a question that brings us back to the legality of NSA captures of foreign intel.  And that question, if decided against the administration, introduces the “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument, which will be the staple of defense attorneys for those accused or convicted.

Because the average American loves nothing more than seeing people acquitted on technicalities. Jeff also looks at one possible shake out of the NY Times/Democratic Party interpretion of FISA.

My guess is, defense attorneys will attempt to leverage the government’s refusal to reveal methodology with respect to intercepts as a means of appealing on behalf of their clients—a ploy that could, ultimately, bring these terrorist cases to a legal head that will result in the dissolution of FISA altogether, at least as an attempted legislative check on the President’s war time powers.

In so doing, the rebuke to FISA legislation will reassert executive power, and have the twofold political effect of showing that those who are braying loudest about the President’s illegal actions will appear weak on national security and averse to the separation of powers as set out by the Constitution.  That is, that the legislative branch has the power to micromanage the war by undermining executive constitutional authorities.

It's goddamn Rovian, ain't it?

UPDATE

Justus also has a nice round-up and commentary but I felt this part was worth highlighting.

Additionally, we must look at the harm, if any, this program causes to the innocent. It seems to me that at worst, someone who is identified by this program as a possible terrorist will be subject to further monitoring (targeted and with warrants.) While this is intrusive, it is already accepted in general that some, perhaps most, of those who are monitored will turn out to be innocent. Of course the vast majority of people monitored by this program will be innocent, but the vast majority of them will also never be listened to by a human and simply be analyzed technologically. This seems to be a very small intrusion to me.

For the most part, the harm in a ‘police state,’ comes not from the ability of such a state to identify illegal activity (considerable though that is), but from the activities that are considered illegal. Perhaps a better way to address concerns that the war on terror is eroding civil liberties would be to positively protect the legality of our various rights.

Food Stuff

Couple of quick thoughts...

A few weeks ago I had Deep Fried Mac 'n Cheese at this place and I find myself daydreaming about it ever since. We got as an appetizer for the table of 6 and if I could do it all it again, I'd get one just for myself. If you're on the Lower East Side check it out.

I know this sounds gross but trust me, warm roast beef and cream cheese makes an excellent sandwich.

And on a less disgusting note, I cannot recommend Thomas' English Muffin Toasting Bread highly enough.

The Cowboy

Why does George Bush hate Texas?

Good News, Bad News

QandO has an excerpt from the latest Stratfor briefing which will spin your head...right 'round, baby.

What the Iranians want, of course, are guarantees on future Iraqi policy. They also want to make certain that their Baathist enemies are never again in a position to return to power. And they are expecting the United States to guarantee all these things. Of course the Sunnis are expecting the United States to guarantee their interests. The Kurds have always relied on the United States. And the Israelis want to make sure that the Iranian nuclear threat is not left to them to handle. Each has its own threat. The Sunnis can crank up the insurgency. The Shia can invite in more Iranians. The Kurds can try to instigate an uprising in Turkey (or Iraq, Iran or Syria). The Iranians can threaten Israel with nuclear weapons, and the Israelis can threaten a preemptive strike.

Washington does not want any of these things. That means the United States must juggle a series of nearly incompatible interests to get a situation where it can draw down its troops. On the other hand, the Shia need the Americans to protect them from the Sunnis and the Iranians. The Sunnis need the Americans to protect them from the Shia. The Kurds need the Americans to protect them from the Turks (and the Sunnis). The Iranians need the Americans to protect them from the Israelis. And the Israelis generally need the Americans.

Not Just Dick Jokes and Dancing Armadillos

Goldstein is all over the FISA/NSA/Bush Tapping All of Our Phones story like no other.

Start at the link then search a few days back for previous developments. I'd say "yeoman's work" but that's a cliche and my blog sucks enough that I'd like to avoid such cliches. (See, I don't even know how to put the accent thing on the "e".)

We're In Grade School

Reuters sports wood over W's mix-up.

With a slip of the tongue, U.S. President George W. Bush briefly turned Osama bin Laden into Saddam Hussein on Monday.

Bush momentarily switched the names of his two greatest nemeses in a news conference at the White House where he was defending his decision to authorise eavesdropping on Americans suspected of links with al Qaeda and other organisations in the U.S. war on terrorism.

"In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone and then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak," Bush said.

"And guess what happened. Saddam ...Osama bin Laden changed his behaviour. He began to change how he communicated. We're at war. And we must protect America's secrets."

The Bush administration sought to convince Americans before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government had links to bin Laden's al Qaeda. No such links have been proven.

I haven't seen or heard the mix up, I'm sure it's available somewhere, but I'm doubting there was some deep psychological reason behind this warranting a Reuters article. But since they wrote one, are Osama and Saddam W's very own personal "nemeses." Are they the Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam to his Bugs? In Reutersworld he's the only guy on the planet who has a problem with them. The rest of us are just passively watching their little three-way. This has to rank high on the list of most immature professional news reporting of all- time.

I could go on but Philip at Theep Doughts pretty much sums it up.

So this article's sole purpose was to ridicule the President, trivialize the dangers we face, and lastly, to advance the New History as Reuters sees it. To say that "no such links" have been found is a blatant falsehood, and Reuters knows it. Saddam offered asylum to Osama, Saddam paid suicide bombers, Saddam had a known terrorist training camp at Salman Pak complete with a fuselage of a 727 aircraft. These details are not new, but the media has conveniently forgotten what many of them reported in 1999...

ITM

Iraq the Model has the finalists for their new banner. They're only accepting votes via email. I'm going with #4.

Process, People

The complaints that this election in Iraq doesn't really prove anything are a little hysterical. I don't think anyone thinks that those purple fingers mean that Zarqawi's going to just give up and Iraq will be an efficiently run democracy now. But as Reynolds has been saying all along, "Democratization is a process, not an event."

I think this timeline (scroll down) of post-WWII Germany should provide a little perspective and context on what this "process" really is. First, it was over 4 years (5/45-8/49) from the German surrender to the first election of a West German Bundestag. From the fall of the Saddam statue in 4/03 to today is under 3 years.

Of course these two reconstructions aren't exactly analogous. I mean, there was no Zarqawi in Germany, the only minor complication was, oh, I don't know, the fact that the country was split in half and being within pissing distance of Stalin & Co. Now there's a challenge. I'd imagine that there was some apprehension staring the Soviets down and pressing forward with the Berlin Airlift. But we did it.

There's a long way to go in Iraq to be sure, I mean we're still in Germany after all these years.