Singer Linda Ronstadt Ejected by Las Vegas Casino
[SIZE=4]Singer Linda Ronstadt Ejected by Las Vegas Casino[/SIZE]
Mon Jul 19, 2004 06:54 PM ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Singer Linda Ronstadt was thrown out of the Aladdin casino in Las Vegas on the weekend after dedicating a song to liberal film maker Michael Moore and his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," a casino spokeswoman said on Monday.
Ronstadt, who had been hired for a one-show engagement Saturday night at the Las Vegas Strip casino, dedicated a performance of "Desperado" to Moore and his controversial documentary, which criticizes President Bush and the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
That dedication angered some Aladdin guests who spilled drinks, tore down posters and demanded their money back, said casino spokeswoman Sara Gorgon.
"We had quite a scene at the box office," she said.
About a quarter of the 4,500 people in the audience got up and left before the performance had finished, Gorgon said.
Before her concert, Ronstadt had laughingly told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that she hoped that the casino performance would be her last.
"I keep hoping that if I'm annoying enough to them, they won't hire me back," she was quoted as telling the newspaper.
A statement issued by the Aladdin said Ronstadt had been "escorted out of the hotel" just after her performance and said the performer would "not be welcomed back."
"Ms. Ronstadt was hired to entertain the guests of the Aladdin, not to espouse political views," the casino said.
Ronstadt was not immediately available for comment.
Awwww, what about the people who WERE entertained by Ronstadt's performance? I'd have been entertained by the fact that so many people got hot under the collar about it.
“Yes, it’s a lovely home, and the neighborhood is great. I’m sure my client will appreciate your generous offer, and I’ll have our escrow company start drawing up the papers.
Before we sign the offer though, I’d like to take 5 minutes to explain why you should voted Republican in the upcoming election. Remember, a vote for a Democrat is a vote for treason …
… hey, where are you going? What about my right to free speech? CENSORSHIP! CENSORSHIP!”
If you’re hired to do a job, do the job. She was hired to be a singer, not a political commentator.
-sm
She was hired as a "performer" and singers often talk between songs. That's common and expected; otherwise they could just play a CD. Singers are not robots and they use emotion in their acts.
My ex-wife works for the Alladin and it's filled with stuffy English pricks. Do you think they'd kick U2, the Beastie Boys, Garbage, Barbara Streisand, etc. off the stage? All of them are known for their political comments while performing. There's no way in hell they'd do that to the other performers.
She did her job, and the Alladin was out of line. Now I have another reason never to go there.
Demonstrates the type of people who support George Jr. Low intelligent, easily swayed by Rush Limbaugh 'lies by telling half truths', and so extremist as to justify destruction of property only because another expresses a political viewpoint. I have even seen it happen in coffee shops. Linda Rhonstadt got blamed only because some drunk extremist fools like the mental midget and got violent. Their violence is justified when they express their political views? And Linda Rhonstadt cannot express any views? How right wing extremist! What CIA agent will be outted next in retaliation? What happens there stays there? Apparently not when right wing extremist put their spin on facts. Violence by right wing extremists is justified.
Violence in support of a mental midget president is justified? Singing a song in opposition to that president is not?
"Tin soldiers and Georgie's coming.
We're finally on our own.
This summer I heard the calling.
Dead posters in Las Ve Gas."
Bad lyrics to a song dedicated to a lying president. One who did nothing even after his Presidental Daily Briefings even warned of the WTC attack.
Blaming violent rioters on Linda Rhonstadt is classic of right wing extremist spin. Something I would expect from CBN, Fox News, or fools who believe Rush Limbaugh - prophet of god's choosen president.
If she were in a dirt bar singing this stuff and went off on a leftist rant in the middle of her set, she would get booed right offstage, and not collect her payday, and we would all nod and understand completely.
"I'd like to introduce my keyboard player Jimmy, give him a hand folks... he doesn't care if half of you don't care about the state of the country. Get up and dance people, unless you don't care about the landmines issue. Oh and please tip the waitresses, you morons."
Stipe once stopped a concert to complain about the brand of beer some fan was drinking. I don't get it: if we tell him to shut up and just sing, it's some kind of quashing of debate, but if Stipe wants to instruct the mob on what beers are politically correct it's not acting oppressive at all.
If they don't want certain people in the audience, or if they expect some sort of group-think, well I think they should print that on the tickets.
If they don't want certain people in the audience, or if they expect some sort of group-think, well I think they should print that on the tickets.
When did we have to print on the ticket that right wing and violent extremists are not welcome in any concert?
She wasn't trying to control the audience, she was expressing herself. The Audience is free to agree or disagree and to leave the concert. But destruction of property isn't allowed, and isn't the fault of someone expressing themselves. If those audience members don't like what she's saying or otherwise don't like her show, they're free to leave and not purchase her albums anymore.
What is it about the right-wing zealots that they can't grasp the concept of changing the channel or voting with their dollars? If something is offensive on television, the radio, etc. don't violate thier rights, just change the channel or turn it off. What's so hard about that?
Demonstrates the type of people who support George Jr. ... so extremist as to justify destruction of property only because another expresses a political viewpoint.
Careful,
that knife cuts both ways.
-sm
Depot Ronstadt to Mexico.
Send rioting patrons to Cuba.
Let's get back to debauchery.
Viva Las Vegas. :biggrinje
She wasn't trying to control the audience, she was expressing herself. The Audience is free to agree or disagree and to leave the concert. But destruction of property isn't allowed, and isn't the fault of someone expressing themselves. If those audience members don't like what she's saying or otherwise don't like her show, they're free to leave and not purchase her albums anymore.
Am I missing something, or is the "extremist, violent destruction of property" that we're referring to here the spilling of a few drinks, and maybe one drunk guy ripping down her poster on the way out?
What is it about the right-wing zealots that they can't grasp the concept of changing the channel or voting with their dollars? If something is offensive on television, the radio, etc. don't violate their rights, just change the channel or turn it off. What's so hard about that?
What is it about left-wing zealots that always equates “voting with their dollars” as a form of censorship. Dixie-chicks piss off their audience, the core country fan base doesn't want to listen to them anymore, radio stations stop playing their music, and it's a censorship issue, a conservative witch-hunt.
Whoopie makes crude comments about the Prez, Slim-Fast realizes that a pretty good chunk of their market base probably likes the guy, so they vote with their pocketbook and drop her. Suddenly it's a censorship issue; Whoopie releases a statement accusing the Bush re-election campaign of
scheming to harm her financially. I think the conservative right is pretty damn good at voting with their pocketbook. The thing you're pissed about is that our pocketbook holds billion dollar companies like Clear Channel, Newscorp, Nabisco, Aladdin, Icon ...
-sm
I really can't answer that question since I'm not a right-wing or a left-wing zealot. I have absolutely no problem with people voting with thier dollars. I don't consider it censorship. If I'm going to hire someone to sell a product, it will be someone for whom the consumers of my product will like. I wouldn't hire Michael Moore to represent Smith & Wesson, and I wouldn't hire George W. Bush to represent the United States of America.
"My ex-wife works for the Alladin and it's filled with stuffy English pricks"
Theyre English? And they support Bush?
If you go to a Ronstadt concert you know the rant is coming, unless you actually think Rush has permission to use her music. This all played out the way it should in an open society, she says what she thinks and the casino decides whether in the future they want to give her a forum.
You know that the Dixie Chicks thing is more complicated than that, because the Feral Government decides who gets broadcast licenses. We do NOT have a free market in broadcast media.
I wouldn't hire Michael Moore to represent Smith & Wesson, and I wouldn't hire George W. Bush to represent the United States of America.
*grin* nice line!
Hey, maybe Derek Jeter can step out of the batter's box grab a wireless mic and start lecturing the fans in Yankee Stadium about how John Kerry is going to place our military under the control of Kofi Annan and the United Nations and its the duty of every red-blooded American to not vote for him. Who cares if its true - Jeter has the right to speak his mind, right?
Let's see all the Ronstadt supporters come to his aid. I'll be sure to hold my breath.
He can and Steinbrenner can trade him or put language (betcha it's already in there) in his contract (prolly MLB already has something in the collective bargaining agreement about pissing in the soup) forbidding it. If Linda broke a contractual agreement that is another thing entirely. When you go to see Ronstadt you know what you are in for. The dopes who made a scene probably went there intending to make a scene.
Wow did she just say, "I dedicate the next song to Michael Moore" or was it more than that? Damn! :eyebrow: :mad:
When you go to see Ronstadt you know what you are in for. The dopes who made a scene probably went there intending to make a scene.
I doubt it Griff, I've a feeling that crowd was probably clueless. The Conceirge said I can get you into Ronstadt and they said OK, I've heard of her. :rolleyes:
Wow did she just say, "I dedicate the next song to Michael Moore" or was it more than that? Damn!
That's about it.
It sounds like she may have said a few things about the film, encouraged people to see "the truth about how things really are."
-sm
praised Mr Moore as a "great American patriot" who "is spreading the truth."
She also dedicated the song "Desperado" to Mr Moore and urged the audience to go and see "Fahrenheit 9/11,"
Sounds like she might have taken a minute or two. :)
"Sounds like she might have taken a minute or two. "
.........Oh well in that case it's perfectly understandable and reasonable that the adult patrons threw a tantrum
Hey sm, as a guy who just might get such work, what do you think the rest of the band thought? Ronstadt herself doesn't give a crap but what about the $300 a day people backing her up? Do they get paid now or not?
[size=1]i actually did blue bayou at a wedding once, but not her version[/size]
Here's an interesting article about
Ronstadt. The article acknowledges the Moore thing but is about Linda Ronstadt.
Love her or hate her (I'm a huge fan but had no idea she incorporated her politics in her act- not that I care I just didn't know), you have to admire her musical flexibility. I don't necessarily agree with her top songs as indicated in the article and would add her remake of Elvis Costello's
Girl Talk to the list.
Of course she was (is?) married to Jerry Brown... :)
So the bottom line has nothing to do with Linda Rhonstadt. Problem really was either with patrons who were too inferior to act as adults (throwing drinks; attacking billboards) or with management of the Aladdin casino that failed to maintain order. The casino is ultimately responsible for protecting those 75% of their patrons from the 25% who acted as children; who destroyed a good show for the other 75%.
The Aladdin casino has the right to cancel all future engagments with Linda Rhonstadt. And Linda Rhonstadt has every right to dedicate her music to Saddam Hussien if she wants. Instead she dedicated music to an American that extremists so fear as to attack other patron's entertainment. For that, the children went ballistic? And were forgiven because they supported an extremist right wing agenda? No wonder those children also fear what Howard Stern or Bill Mahr might say. Then an extremist press spins this into condemnation of Linda Rhonstadt? Do they think we are that stupid?
None of this can be discussed without first pointing to the reasons for all this: a lying president.
Unfortunately more civil disobedience is expected because a president lies - even about knowing in advance about the WTC attack - the 6 Aug Presidential Daily Briefing and a 5 Jul National Security Council meeting that will be discussed tomorrow.
When presidents lied about VietNam and patriots properly demonstrated in Chicago, then the police, under orders of Mayor Daley, unilaterally attacked those demonstrators. The whole world was watching. This is what extremist supporters do in the name of lying leaders. What happened in Las Vegas suggests what is in our future because George Jr is a liar - and a mental midget president. Extremists will condone more violence under the disguise of patriotism? And Rush Limbaugh will condone their violence as well? This is what a second George Jr administration threatens for America - not to mention how things get unsafe for Americans overseas.
Things will get even more confrontational if George Jr is reelectted and then starts his invasion of Iran. So how will those inferior patrons from the Aladdin casino blame Linda Rhonstadt and Michael Moore for that war? This Linda Rhonstadt event is becoming more frequent. I have seen same in coffee shops in different states. We need an honest president. George Jr does not qualify.
"Then an extremist press spins this into condemnation of Linda Rhonstadt? Do they think we are that stupid?"
Unfortunately yes, they do. You only have to look at the coverage in the media of the "war on terror" to see that they really have a very low opinion of their audience. "We have always been at war with Eurasia"
And were forgiven because they supported an extremist right wing agenda?
No, because they were paying customers. The bottom line has replaced Elvis as king, in Vegas and most everywhere else. :yelsick:
I doubt it Griff, I've a feeling that crowd was probably clueless. The Conceirge said I can get you into Ronstadt and they said OK, I've heard of her. :rolleyes:
You're prolly right about the Vegas scene. People don't really seek out acts they just end up places. I don't get the mentality, but since when do I understand American culture?
"It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know."
--- Linda Ronstadt (from Beestie's link)
That's exactly how your audience feels about you, Ms. R.
Shut up and sing.
Vote as you like, think as you like but when people are paying to hear you sing (or whatever artistic product you are selling)........do the doin' and go home.
Tell your dog how you think. He might give a rat's ass.
More people seem to care more about what Linda Ronstadt thinks than is probably healthy.
Wow did she just say, "I dedicate the next song to Michael Moore" or was it more than that? Damn! :eyebrow: :mad:
she actually has made that a part of every show since F9/11 came out. this is the same woman who said that she is unable to enjoy a show if she thinks there might be a republican or a fundamental christian in the audience. just another entertainer who forgot that they exist to entertain us, not lecture us. and yes, i feel that way about every entertainer no matter their political preference.
the aladdin has every right to toss her out. they are a business. whether they feel that her comments were inappropriate or her breath was just a little smelly, it doesn't matter, they own the joint and they have to right to toss her for any reason or no reason at all. freedom to express one's opinion goes both ways.
Like so many problems, it seems that the cause of this was a number of people behaving stupidly in a close proximity. Linda Ronstadt, who made volatile, politically charged remarks to her politically-mixed "fans," and the audience members who thought that a temper tantrum was a suitable rebuttal. Aside from the destruction of property, nobody did anythig "wrong," but many are guilty of being nose-bleedingly stupid.
Sure, she has the right to say whatever she wants, but then she must pay the obvious consequences (being asked to leave, and never being invited back). The ultimate price of freedom is that other people may sometimes exercise their freedoms in ways you don't like. Many Americans seem to forget that these days.
just another entertainer who forgot that they exist to entertain us, not lecture us. and yes, i feel that way about every entertainer no matter their political preference.
Why? What makes you think entertainers exist only to entertain you? If someone has a soapbox and an opinion, they have every right to use it. Being a singer doesn't make her opinions any more valid - or any less. It's easy enough for me to not listen to Dennis Miller. I don't try to get him fired. (In fact, if he were fired, his occasional egregiously bad bits wouldn't make the rounds on the internet.)
Of course the Alladin has the right to fire Linda Ronstadt. If their clientelle can be whipped into a riot by the mention of Michael Moore, it would be foolish for them to have someone a controversial as Linda Ronstadt. They should just pipe in some light jazz.
If their clientelle can be whipped into a riot by the mention of Michael Moore,
it doesn't sound like a riot to me. sounds more like a few drunken idiots who found an excuse to act out. i've seen one or two of those in vegas, myself.
i wasn't saying that entertainers give up the right to speak their minds. if i go to a musical concert, i pretty much just want to see the show, hear the songs, that type of thing. if i go see a comedian, i expect to hear political ranting. anyway - they have the right to say what they want, it is their stage. i just hate hearing some of them turn around and cry when people respond by boycotting their projects. it is not censorship when your marketability suffers because of your politics, no matter what Martin Sheen, Robbins, or any of the others think.
Just like the Dixie Chix - that whole thing was overblown and stupid, but really. if you make your very comfortable living off country music fans, who for the most part are red, white, and blue wearing, right leaning, self-described patriots who support the president - don't be surprised when people quit buying your tickets and cd's for a short period of time after you insult the man.
I can have as many discussions of political (or religious or other controversial) topics as I like amongst my coworkers, behind the scenes.
If I do so with a customer (patient or patient's family) I can be fired.
Says so in my employee handbook and everything.
... What makes you think entertainers exist only to entertain you? ... If someone has a soapbox and an opinion, they have every right to use it.
What kind of dumb question is that? No entertainer has the
right to hijack a performance for which they are being compensated. No one has the right to use their employer's venue to espouse their personal opinions.
A soapbox speech is delivered at the expense of the deliverer and not on someone else's dime. If Linda Ronstadt has something to say, let her pay for a concert hall, sell her own tickets and then she can blab all she wants. Or, she can publish her own book or cut her own CD with her views narrated on it. Or she can ask Oprah to invite her on to discuss her views. Whatever.
It isn't
free speech when someone
else is paying for it! Of course, highjacking a conservative venue to deliver a liberal message is ok since the end justifies the means, right?
If she didn't have the right to say it, she would have been sued. As it was, she was invited not to return. She was well within her rights to say it and the casino was well within their rights to fire her. The only people who did anything wrong were the vandals.
No entertainer has the right to hijack a performance for which they are being compensated.
Our society has a lot of self-imposed pseudo-rights which are based on political correctness. As a citizen, Linda Ronstadt has the right to do
anything that is not against the law. If her contract said that she is forbidden from sharing political views while performing, then she has waived that right upon signing it. But it is doubtful that her contact carried any such stipulation, otherwise we'd be reading about the breach of contract.
So yes, she had the
right to do it, but that doesn't make it smart, nor socially appropriate. And the consequence will probably be reduced popularity with the Repulicans out there. But if that doesn't bother her, why should it bother anybody else?
just another entertainer who forgot that they exist to entertain us, not lecture us. and yes, i feel that way about every entertainer no matter their political preference.
And there was I thinking America had a long and proud tradition of protest singers. Woody Guthrie must be turning in his grave. Would you guys prefe rit if there had been no Dylan? Or would you just like to have had him declawed ?
Since when were Americans so afraid of political views? Since when did they compartmentalise politics away from entertainment and the arts? Life is political. Man is a political animal and so is a female singer. She was honest and true to herself as an artiste and as a human being. To percieve such a vast crime ( rightly or wrongly) and to allow that crime to go unmentioned when she has a platform would be negligence on her part. Keeping silent whilst crimes are committed in your name is in itself a crime to my mind.
To be silent about a crime you do not percieve is one thing, to stay silent when you believe these things to be true is unforgivable.
If you pay to see a show, you are paying to see whatever show the entertainer wants to give you. You don't choose which songs they'll sing or what they'll talk about. She was given a suite by the hotel which was surely in her contract. She was escorted (thrown) out of the casino before she could even go to her room to collect her things.
She did nothing wrong, but the hotel did. They have the right to fire her, but if her contract called for a suite, she's entitled to it, and entitled to gather her things before leaving.
Also if the musicians didn't lose thier job because of something she said, they lost thier job because a bunch of morons decided to throw drinks and make a big deal out of nothing. They lost their jobs because the casino chose to fire the band even though Linda Rondstadt did nothing that could be considered inappropriate.
And there was I thinking America had a long and proud tradition of protest singers.
um, yeah. all i am saying is that when entertainers,who do not have politics as a normal subject matter in their performance, go on a rant it can be annoying. they have the right to do it. i defend that right. i also defend the right of the people who object and refuse to give further funds to the entertainer. i do not support idiots who were looking for an excuse to throw drinks.
personally i would throw drinks and go into violent convulsions just being forced to listen to Linda R's voice. ;)
And there was I thinking America had a long and proud tradition of protest singers. Woody Guthrie must be turning in his grave. Would you guys prefe rit if there had been no Dylan? Or would you just like to have had him declawed ?
Linda Ronstadt is not now nor has she ever been a protest singer. She is a used up, has been lounge singer.
Protest singers are fine people ... there's a big difference, though, between "Blowing in the Wind" and "When Will I Be Loved" in terms of political content.
I gotta say that "I didn't expect to hear Moore's name" has gotta be the stupidest excuse for vandalism I've heard in a while.
UT
RE: the band getting cut their checks, it depends on how good the Musical Director was when he negotiated the contract. If this was a house gig (they were staying for an extended time in one spot) then they are being contracted by the venue, not the artist, and they probably got paid by the week, and had the rest of that weed paid out.
If it was part of a road gig, then they are being contracted by the artist to fulfill her obligation to promoters, and they are paid for the amount of time spent on the road regardless of how many dates are booked. If they're getting $3k a week for 12 weeks, then they get their cash even if individual dates fall through. If the whole tour gets cancelled though, then they're lucky if they get a plane ticket home.
-sm
RE: the band getting cut their checks, it depends on how good the Musical Director was when he negotiated the contract. If this was a house gig (they were staying for an extended time in one spot) then they are being contracted by the venue, not the artist, and they probably got paid by the week, and had the rest of that weed paid out.
I want a house gig so I can be paid in weed... I'm in the wrong profession.
"I want a house gig so I can be paid in weed... I'm in the wrong profession."
You should come work for me making pot pipes :P
SM, it was a one shot deal, neither road trip (tour) nor extended stay. :)
then if they showed up, they got paid. Doesn't matter if the thing got canned.
and HP, that was a Freudian slip if ever I've seen one!
-sm
Summary:
Ronstadt had the right to say what she wished.
The casino had the right to kick her out.
The audience did not have the right to vandalize the place.
The new owners of the casino will have the right to
invite Ronstadt and Moore back, to sing "America the Beautiful".
damn... new management - politics aside i hope they don't change much in the casino. the aladdin is my favorite place to play roullette.
Unfortunately, I believe they plan on changing it to the "Hard Rock Casino". So the decor will probably change.
None of this can be discussed without first pointing to the reasons for all this: a lying president.
[COLOR=Navy]You're wrong. The issue with Linda Ronstadt and the Aladdin Casino and the music and fans can be discussed and rehashed WITHOUT blaming George Bush.
[/COLOR]
dammit OC don't you know GWB shot JFK, on a special operation for the CIA, thus putting into power LBJ, who lied??? this led us to nixon who lied and eventually died... ford was in power even though he never appeared on a ticket. carter was just a saintly good old boy, but he fell to the evil evil ronnie raygun who had iran contra with the CIA/DIA and more recently died... after him we have a little bush who once worked for the CIA, then our hero Bill Clinton, who tried to help his friend Al, but the election was stolen by the evil GWB then he took us to war with lies from the CIA... now we have come full circle because GWB is up against another JFK... all because there was no *drum roll* no smoking gun!!!
You're wrong. The issue with Linda Ronstadt and the Aladdin Casino and the music and fans can be discussed and rehashed WITHOUT blaming George Bush.
Nothing involving the WTC and Pentagon attacks can be discussed without mentioning the 6 Aug 2001 briefing that George Jr apparently did not even read. What was he waiting for? A formal invitation to the party from Osama? The contentiouos nature - and the reason why those extremists felt justified in creating civil disturbances in a Rhonstadt concert is directly traceable to the current political climate in America - as created a mental midget president and his administration. An administration that even justified the outing of a CIA agent and Gitmoizing of innocent Iraqi prisioners.
Osama bin Landen will attack buildings with airplanes? So he sat there for seven minutes in an elementary school as if he knew nothing about what was happening. Oh wait. He did not know. Cheney did not tell him to read the details. It was only titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” To understand planes attacking buildings, the president would have had to read details. Details. That is Cheney's job. Therefore those anti-social minority in a Las Vegas concert are justified in destroying a the night of entertainment for real Amerians?
When someone criticized this president, what do all good Americans do? At minimum they stay quiet and acknowledge that all who criticize this president have plenty of reasons to do so. Did I mention something called an economy?
What is wrong here is that anyone is even discussing Rhonstadt. The problem is George Jr and his extremist friends who find nothing wrong in trashing a casino. Also wrong here are those who don't comdemn those extremist violent actions in their very first post - hint hint.
And so to understand the violence in Las Vegas, we start with the source - George Jr and his 'screw everyone else' politics.
Nothing involving the WTC and Pentagon attacks can be discussed without ...
That's the second time in the same thread that you've used the phrase "Nothing can be discussed without...".
It's an obvious gambit to force the discussion into a specific channel. I don't know about others, but it ticks me off because you are telling me how I have to approach a topic.
The phrasing is definately not a "Win Friends and Influence People" sort of thing.
What was he waiting for?
Who? Clinton or Berger?
Just in case you need a refresher...
Richard Clarke: Let's GET Osama!!
Berger: no.
Richard Clarke: Let's GET Osama!!
Berger: no.
Richard Clarke: Let's GET Osama!!
Berger: no.
Richard Clarke: Let's GET Osama!!
Berger: no.
Who? Clinton or Berger?
Just in case you need a refresher...
Richard Clarke: Let's GET Osama!!
Berger: no.
Richard Clarke: Let's GET Osama!!
Berger: no.
Richard Clarke: Let's GET Osama!!
Berger: no.
Richard Clarke: Let's GET Osama!!
Berger: no.
There appears to be very much truth to what Beestie posts here. I have not yet read enough to be sure. But this has been my suspicion for some time. Clinton signed off again and again to attack, capture, or kill bin Laden between 1997 and 2000. Tribal leaders with intimate knowledge of where bin Laden always was were to kidnap him. Delta Force could not get spooky into position due to fuel limitations. The Emir of UAE got in the way. Cohen, during the Clinton era, was even running a field office dedicated only to getting bin Laden. When we did go after bin Landen just once, either the Navy used surface ships (giving away what we were doing) or Pakistan had to be notified so that those cruise missiles launched against bin Laden did not start an Indian / Pakistani nuclear war. Either way, bin Laden and his closest 50 friends at the meeting left quickly.
Of course we were not the only ones who tried to take out bin Laden. The list includes Egypt, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and even Libya. Got to give the man credit. He stays alive. He has inadvertant friends in the right places (from his perspective). He even has a president who would not let the Marine expeditionary force nor 10th Mountain go get him. Bin Laden even got an American president who helped him stay alive. (Generals Zinni and Shelton were furious.)
The phrasing is definately not a "Win Friends and Influence People" sort of thing.
If you are posting to win friends and influence people, then you are not my friend. I want the facts, blunt and honest. That means being politically incorrect. Those who are politically correct lie too much. If you have an emotional opinion of what I have posted, then, as far as I am concerned, you have not yet learned to be an adult. Your opinion should only be on the facts as posted. Emotion has no place in adult thinking.
Truth must be posted bluntly no matter how much it hurts.
Same applies to those who want to save me from seeing something painful or atrocious. Don't insult me. If they are cutting off his head, then show me ... in detail. Then I can assertain the credibility of the event, appreciate the real intent of the killers, AND identify other unique information not observed by others. Again, stop with thinking nice is good. Nice is bad. Honest and blunt is good.
In the meantime, it is an honest opinion but not backed up by supporting reasoning. You don't think there is anything gained by first starting with the reason for that Las Vegas violence? Fine. You don't like it. Why? Why does that unjustified violence by a minority of Las Vegas extremists not belong in this discussion first and foremost? Not your feelings. Facts. Why should we ignore the fundamental reasons for the disruption of a show at the expense of other Linda Rhonstadt fans?
Whilst I agree with your sentiment to a degree tw I think "Emotion has no place in adult thinking." takes it too far. We are not vulcans. We are thinking, feeling creatures. To make decisions and reach conclusions based on no more than an emotional response may be less useful than reaching your decisions or conclusions via a logical and calm thought process, but that doesnt mean any decision opinion or response which has involved emotion is unworthy.
We are emotional animals and we are thinking animals. We can be emotional thinking animals and we can think rationally whilst still experiencing an emotional response....to discount al emotional responses in arguments is to discount passion. Politics and passion go hand in hand ....passionate debate is often the most thought provoking and illuminating
[color=Navy]You're wrong. The issue with Linda Ronstadt and the Aladdin Casino and the music and fans can be discussed and rehashed WITHOUT blaming George Bush.
[/color]
[color=DarkOrchid]what? no purple?!
[color=Indigo]no indigo?
[color=DarkSlateBlue]
[color=Navy]you've changed it to blue?[/color]
[/color][/color][/color][color=DarkOrchid][color=Indigo]
[/color][/color]
We also have to remember that emotion is a short cut based on previous higher order thinking. unless it's the gin talking
Whilst I agree with your sentiment to a degree tw I think "Emotion has no place in adult thinking." takes it too far. We are not vulcans. We are thinking, feeling creatures. To make decisions and reach conclusions based on no more than an emotional response may be less useful than reaching your decisions or conclusions via a logical and calm thought process, but that doesnt mean any decision opinion or response which has involved emotion is unworthy. ...
From those days of wrestling where a loss was not acceptable - emotion is a powerful tool. I only found out years later that we all became 'strange' the day before a match. Its part of tapping the emotion.
But emotion is only a tool that must be both used and controlled by the logical brain. Once emotion overrides the brain, then we have a minority groups of extremists destroying a night of entertainment in a Linda Rhonstadt concert. Or we have religious extremists blowing up airliners and crashing into buildings. The mentally weak are easiest to use as cannon fodder because they don't understand that emotions must always be secondary to logic. Cannon fodder can exist where men are driven by emotion rather than by logical reasoning (or cannon fodder can exist when men of logic realize the necessity of their task and use emotion in a suicidal (supreme) sacrifice).
In another post, I noted why this administration probably is promoting so many terrorist alerts. Fear. Fear is how a leader stays popular. Fear is why Father Stalin was so popular in the early USSR. Fear is the emotion we must get people to use so they don't think logically.
Once emotion overrided logic, then the world is in trouble or we have lots of troops ready to become cannon fodder. Yes, there always will be those who make good cannon fodder.
You may think we are not Vulcans. True. But the less often we act like Spock, then the more often we have drive by shootings - and other both emotionally inspired and illogical actions.
and the less we feel love, joy, glee, happiness, contentment, pride, et friggin cetera.
don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because you don't like negative emotions, like ire, and fear, and rage. you are incomplete if you abandon all emotion.
and that is a blunt, honest fact
We also have to remember that emotion is a short cut based on previous higher order thinking.
What the hell is going on there? Freakin' cocktails with Project Zero? (hic hic)
I believe you just picked up todays obscure reference award... nicely played. :thumpsup:
If you are posting to win friends and influence people, then you are not my friend. I want the facts, blunt and honest.
It was meant has humorous phrasing. If you are not attempting influence or to persuade people to your way of thinking, then why post?
In addition, you contradict yourself. You state that you only want to deal with facts. When, actually, this statement
"Nothing involving the WTC and Pentagon attacks can be discussed without mentioning the 6 Aug 2001 briefing that George Jr apparently did not even read."
is an opinion.
The part that makes it nasty is that you attempt to state your opinion in such a way as to a priori disallow another point of view.
In addition, you contradict yourself. You state that you only want to deal with facts. When, actually, this statement is an opinion.
Quote:
"Nothing involving the WTC and Pentagon attacks can be discussed without mentioning the 6 Aug 2001 briefing that George Jr apparently did not even read." is an opinion.
The part that makes it nasty is that you attempt to state your opinion in such a way as to a priori disallow another point of view. The part that makes it nasty is that you attempt to state your opinion in such a way as to a priori disallow another point of view.
This post will be long because it cites some of the so many details that say George Jr does very little reading for a president. Numerous sources say this president does very little reading and has very little knowledge of the world. My quote stands as accurate in part because dar512 cannot even challenge it. He assumes the claim is made by someone who reads like George Jr. Some reasons why George Jr apparently does not read:
The statement that Bush apparently (or probably) did not read that August 6th PDB comes from numerous characteristics of how the George Jr administration works AND from his own comment. Had George Jr been reading those 36 Presidential Daily Briefings that warned of what we now call 9/11, then he would have made efforts to thwart such an event. Instead, George Jr described that memo to the 9/11 Commission thus:
The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America.
But the two CIA analysts wrote that PDB warnings of a dangerous, and impending attack.
NY Times of 25 Jul 2004 entitled "Correcting the Record on Sept. 11, in Great Detail"
Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious. The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.”
The actual text of that briefing says an attack was pending
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
Sounds quite actionable to me - if it was read.
When Clinton received actionable threats, the government was empowered to stop those threats. The 9/11 Commission report notes previous attacks on US Embassies in Uganda, Tirana. In response to attacks on US Embassies in Qatar and Ethiopia, even Gen Shleton of the Joint Chiefs put into place preemptive attacks. Even that attack on LAX was thwarted because the Clinton administration *acted* on these 'historical' warnings.
But instead George Jr read this 6 August briefing and called it only historical in nature? Either he is that mentally incompetent OR he did not really read the briefing.
So now we learn how this president operates. Clinton received and read in detail his PDBs - often with handwritten questions or actions in the margins. Instead George Jr gets Tenent to drive over from the CIA every day at 8 AM to personally tell him the daily briefing. George does not read it. He hears it. Even worse is what George Jr hears. Clinton demonstrated the problem in testimony to the 9/11 Commission on page 199:
In December, Bush met with Clinton for a two-hour, one-on-one discussion of national security and foreign policy challenges. Clinton recalled saying to Bush,“I think you will find that by far your biggest threat is Bin Ladin and the al Qaeda.” Clinton told us that he also said,“One of the great regrets of my presidency is that I didn’t get him [Bin Ladin] for you, because I tried to.” Bush told the Commission that he felt sure President Clinton had mentioned terrorism, but did not remember much being said about al Qaeda. Bush recalled that Clinton had emphasized other issues such as North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Clinton also had Sandy Berger emphasis those same warnings to Condi Rice because he considered the Al Qaeda threat that serious. Apparently George Jr not only does not read much, but he also hears selectively.
And so we go to Sec of the Treasury Paul O'Neill who notes how George Jr's senior staff briefs this president. The conference on energy, cited in Ron Suskind's book "The Priced of Loyalty" page 147 demonstrates:
So, on March 19, at an hour long meeting in the cabinet room, the President was hearing dark predictions about the economic effects of a looming energy crisis. ... For this President, cabinet meetings and the many midsized to large meetings he attended were carefully scripted. Before most meetings, a cabinet secretary's chief of staff would receive a note from someone on the senior staff of the White House. The note instructed the cabinet secretary when he was supposed to speak , about what, and how long. ... The idea of a cabinet meeting or any significant meeting between the President and his seniormost officials being scripted semmed to kill off the whole purpose of bringing people together. ...
O'Neill was watching Bush closely. He threw out a few general phrases, a few nods, but there was virtually no engagement. These cabinet secretaries had worked for over a month on detailed reports. O'Neill had been made to understand by various colleagues in the White House that the President should not be expected to read reports. In his personal experience, their President didn't even appear to have read the short memos he sent over.
So when I say George Jr apparently did not read the 6 August PDB, I also go farther to suggest that decisions are often made for this President. Apparently, much of what former presidents once read (ie memos from the cabinet secretaries) are instead vetted by George Jr's staff - probably his political staff headed by Karl Rove. They in turn censor what he reads and setup cabinet meetings to tell the president what he is to decide. Sounds much like Potamkin villages for those who read history. For example, EPA Director Christie Whitman was excluded from saying anything about Energy in that meeting. She is the EPA Director - completely involved in Energy decisions. But decisions had already been made as to who could tell Geroge Jr what. Christie's opinion was contrary to what George Jr was to be told.
[continued in next post]
[continued discussion on why George Jr apparently does not read much]
A year or so back, after the global warming memo to Bush ended up in Paul Gigot's Wall Street Journal column, O'Neill had ranted to Michele Davis, "I'll be goddamned if I'm going to stop writing memos to the President because some bastard at the White House is trying to leak me into extinction." So he kept writing them. The President might not read what he sent, but, O'Neill felt, "he should have the opportunity to see coherent thoughts on paper."
When I say "without mentioning the 6 Aug 2001 briefing that George Jr apparently did not even read.", then the statement comes from signifcant background on this president. I said "apparently did not even read". We can never know for certain if he read beyond the title of that memo. But then we have something curious. Just after that memo, the President asked Condi Rice about this Al Qaeda threat he had been hearing about. So he asked Condi Rice to find out more about it. As a result, Richard Clarke writes this in his book on page 237:
On September 4 2001, the Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda that I had called for "urgently" on January 25 finally met. In preparation for that meeting, I urged Condi Rice to see the issue cleanly. ... The Principals meeting, when it finally took place, was largely a nonevent. Tenent and I spoke passionately about the urgency and seriousness of the al Qaeda threat. No one disagreed. ...
Rumsfeld, who looked distracted throughout the session, took the Wolfowitz line that there were other terrorist concerns, like Iraq, and whatever we did on this al Qaeda business, we had to deal with the other sources of terrorism.
Of course we have since learned that those other sources of terror did not exist.
After that 4 September meeting, nothing more happened to thwart real world terrorism. Plans for the invasion of Iraq had been ongoing for at least six months. Was George Jr aware of the seriousness of hijacked planes and threats to NYC buildings? When the first plane crashed into the WTC, George Jr was in an elementary school. They told him a small plane had crashed into the WTC. Apparently information in the August 6 PDB was not in his head. He asked nothing about the event or even asked who was taking charge. Chaos reigned at the highest levels as no one even gave the pilots authorization to shoot down airliners nor told those pilots where to go. The pilot that was suppose to be over Washington was 150 miles at sea to defend against cruise missiles. Rumsfeld could not be found because he decided to push stretchers in the Pentagon parking lot. An informed George Jr would have instead asked questions, discovered chaos, and taken charge.
Again, Geroge Jr had ignored sharp warnings from President Clinton, had ignored and done nothing about 36 references to Al Qaeda attacks (whereas Clinton was very actively trying to destroy Al Qaeda), and Geroge Jr even took his briefings verbally (not in writing). Briefings where even the senior staff was told in advance what they should tell the president!
Those involved in counterterrorism were quite alarmed by the summer of 2001 as noted in Richard Clark's book page 235
By late June, Tenet and I were convinced that a major series of attacks was abut to come. "It's my sixth sense, but I feel it coming. This is going to be the big one," Tenet told me. No one could have been more concerned about the al Qaeda threat than George, but he had been unable over several years to get his agency to find a way to go after the heart of al Qaeda inside Afghanistan.
In the meantime, where is all this written material about the impending terrorism attacks? If it was not a threat from Saddam, then was it being censored? But even Tenent was giving the President written daily briefings. Did George Jr ever read these? Apparently he did not because he called them only historical. He called them historical because he failed to read the details.
Not only do I believe George Jr reads little. I also believe he is told what to decide by his political advisors. Not his technical staff - the cabinet and other key Directors. A political staff decides based upon ideology.
It is well known from many sources that George Jr did not have knowledge of any other nation but Mexico. His entire knowledge of the world comes from an intense 1.5 year training course that started in 1998 when his father introduced him to Condi Rice in Kennebunkport. A team of Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and other members of the vulcans (neoconservatives) taught George Jr about the world. How can one be that naive? First one must not read very much. *Apparently* he also does not read other information sources.
When I said George Jr apparently did not read that briefing, well yes, it is an opinion. An opinion substantiated by a significant reading and numerous details. Notice over the years how my opinions have changed from saying Bush Jr may be a compassionate conservative to eventually believing this president is as bad a Nixon. It started when the foreign minister of Norway predicted that George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords AND when the first foreign leader to visit George Jr, the Chancellor of Germany, was all but insulted by George Jr. Did you know about those events? If not, then how informative is your reading? Since then, this president has output a chain of ideological half truths - better known as lies. This post is but a very short example of how much I have read about this president. Enough that when I say this president "apparently did not read" the breifing, then it comes from his long history of not reading AND of using ideology as a replacement for hard fact analysis.
My statement stands based upon extensive reading of how George Jr operates, is manipulated, and lies. I did not contradict myself. My adversion to George Jr is based upon his history and just too much published details of what has been ongoing in this White House. This includes an outright denial that Al Qaeda was a threat AND attempts to blame 9/11 on Saddam Hussien. This sort of leadership is classic ideological thinking - reality be damned.
One cannot say enough bad things about a president who so openly lies as to even claim alunimum tubes were for WMD - when written reports from three advance physics labs contradicted that claim. Did he bother to read those reports also? *Apparrently* not which is why even on The Cellar, some foolishly were convinced those aluminim tubes were for nuclear weapons development. Notice I had read about those physics labs reports that George Jr *apparently* did not read when he lied about WMD. *Apparently* I do read some things. And having done this little bit of reading, I further believe this president does very little reading before he 'makes' a decision. He has a political staff headed by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney to do all the reading for him. No wonder this president could not testify before the 9/11 Commission without Cheney's help. Somebody who reads had to be there.
don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because you don't like negative emotions, like ire, and fear, and rage. you are incomplete if you abandon all emotion.
and that is a blunt, honest fact
Failed to understand the point of that post - that started with an example of using rather than quashing emotions. Emotions are a powerful force. But does one fire high power rifles and 105mm cannons into the air only because happiness that a son was born? Yes if emotions are your enemy. No if a logical brain controls those emotions.
Apparently you failed to comprehend what was posted. No where did I say humans should be emotionalless - should be Spock. In fact I posted, by example, the complete opposite. Emotion is a powerful force. But human emotions are always controlled by a logical brain - when the human is an adult. There are many adults who are still children. They will fire military weapons in the air simply to celebrate a wedding - even in LA. No adult would ever let emotions threaten human life. The difference between an adult and an adult child.
don't throw the baby out with the bath water just because you don't like negative emotions, like ire, and fear, and rage. you are incomplete if you abandon all emotion.
and that is a blunt, honest fact
Failed to understand the point of my post - that began with an example of using rather than quashing emotions. Emotions are a powerful force. But does one fire high power rifles and 105mm cannons into the air only because happiness that a son was born? Yes if emotions are your enemy. No if a logical brain controls those emotions.
Apparently you failed to comprehend what was posted. No where did I say humans should be emotionalless - should be Spock. In fact I posted, by example, the complete opposite. Emotion is a powerful force. But human emotions are always controlled by a logical brain - when the human is an adult. There are many adults who are still children. They will fire military weapons in the air simply to celebrate a wedding - even in LA. No adult would ever let emotions threaten human life. The difference between an adult and an adult child.
that's crazy talk
Crazy talk is when one advocates doing anything to appease one's emotions. It is also called 'being a child'. Politicians and salesmen love adult children. These are the easiest to separate from their money. True adults keep their emotions in check - buy what they really need and therefore have more fun and happiness.
no, i meant you sound like you're crazy. not so much what you were saying, more ~how~ you say it. cuckoo...... cuckoo......
has anyone here met tw face to face?
no, but we DO have an artist's composite
hereLittle-known but absolutely true factoid: tw and the Cellar lived within apx. 200 feet of each other for a year and a half in the early 90s and neither one knew it until later. Adjacent apartment buildings.