March 26, 2015

"I grew up listening to classic rock, and I'll tell you sort of an odd story: My music taste changed on 9/11."

"And it's very strange. I actually intellectually find this very curious. But on 9/11, I didn't like how rock music responded. And country music collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me. And I have to say, it just is a gut-level. I had an emotional reaction that says, these are my people... So ever since 2001, I listen to country music. But I'm an odd country music fan, because I didn't listen to it prior to 2001."

Said Ted Cruz, quoted in Rolling Stone (where I got via Jaltcoh, who said "On 21st-century rock music, I don't like how Ted Cruz responded").

I can understand feeling so different because of 9/11 that your preference for music would changed. You might resist loud, harsh guitars and self-involved, cynical words. You might find succor in mellower instrumentation and sincere-sounding lyrics. But Cruz's isn't only talking about how he felt, subjectively. He does speak of what "resonated with" him, on a "gut-level." But he's also passing judgment on musicians, how they responded.

I don't know what the time lag is, when you're waiting for a response to a big event. On 9/11 itself, the music available was not responding to 9/11. It was all pre-9/11 music, to be played by you if you saw fit. That was your response, not music's response.  

Later, music have might responded to 9/11, but what music was that? Did rock or country music change to fit the post-9/11 world? I'm blanking. The only thing I can think of is Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising." Does Cruz have a problem with that?

What's Ted talking about? I think he uses words carefully — he's a language master — so I'm taking his language seriously. I'm making it my business to understand the "Ted talk" (to coin a phrase).

I'm queasy about his "these are my people." Cruz is a politician, so who's he trying to get in good with? And what exactly did he hear in country music that made him suddenly see himself belonging in that aural milieu?  I'm thinking he's just posing for us on the theory that we're conned by that loves-country-music bullshit. He's one of the salt-of-the-earth folks. You know, the kind who actually intellectually find their own music taste very curious. The real America.

This makes me think of that old line: "The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made" (Jean Giraudoux). And then there are the corollaries: "It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid" (George Bernard Shaw) and "A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal" (Oscar Wilde).

Cruz is not stupid.

280 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 280 of 280
Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Sounds to me like he was talking about rock artists vs. country artists. The country artists responded more patriotically. So he started listening to country music more because he liked the artists more. Perfectly natural.

I'm the same way about art. For example, Sean Penn is so obnoxious with his politics that I'm just not going to see him in anything. Most of the time I segregate the art from the artists views but with a guy like him, I just can't support anything he is associated with anymore. There are others.

Birches said...

Too much angst unfortunately led to emo music and some really bad Morrissey solo albums.

lol

I'll never forget hearing the annie song on the radio one day and thinking wtf until I figured out what was going on...

That's a good song.

For an even better example of appropriating a "white song" and turning it into something better, see this.

Quaestor said...

Once written twice... wrote: Right after 9/11 there was that rock concert at Madison Square Gardens with The Who, Elton John, etc. Cruz is full of shit.

On the contrary, Cruz has gotten the shit out. The undeniable fact is rock is owned by the Left. I do not claim that every musician who works in that genre is leftwing, there are exceptions, but they are outliers. Ted Nugent readily comes to mind, but he's clearly on the fringes of that world. To the editors of Rolling Stone Nugent is mad, and Ozzy Osborne is the father who knows best. Many conservatives love rock, but to do so they must willfully ignore the subtext.

There were many rockers who commemorated 9/11 -- typically greeted as a tragedy, followed by a reminiscence about a person they had some connection to who died. All very nice... except that 9/11 wasn't a tragedy.

In classical drama tragedy is what happens when the defects of one's own character finally does one in. The reaction of rock-n-roll to 9/11 could be generalized to this random act of violence with no connection to Islam, the religion of peace, causes us to sympathize with America and New York in this hour of mourning; however, we must address the root causes that lead to such tragedies, specifically the United States policies in the Middle East, and its failure to adopt a balanced approach toward the Palestinian cause. If rock-n-roll culture had been around in 1941 the talking points would be the evil war machine called the United States Navy, and the dangerous weather in Oahu.

9/11 wasn't a tsunami, or the random act psychopaths, nor was it about the defects of American foreign policy. It was not a tragedy. It was the inevitable consequence of believing that people ought to be killed on the command of preachers or demagogs. Noble principles are dangerous to have, so if you believe women have the right not to be put into sacks, and Jews have the right not to be put into ovens, then you'd better get used to having enemies eager to kill you. 9/11 was the act of a power that must either destroy us and our republic, or be destroyed. It was not a just police matter or an act of Nature; it was an act of war.

If rock has a theme it's War is Bad, and Love (or more specifically Sex) is Good, and Gay Sex is Better. In the rock-n-roll Weltanschruung war is the ultimate evil, and all that's required to have peace is to not fight, just have another toke and relax. The Jews of Europe tried the rock-n-roll peace process for twelve years and got even more war for their trouble. And the war goes on. Seven years of world war lacked the scope to extinguish two thousand years of Jew-hatred.

Ultimately, the problem with rock-n-roll culture is that it lives in an adolescent fantasy world. The only war it wants to fight involves short guys and magic rings. Real wars about real issues are ignored or denounced, as if the freedoms rock must enjoy to exist are mere facts of life and not treasures bought with blood. To a rocker the Kingdom of Gondor is real and Pyongyang is a fairytale.

I'm not a country music fan. My iTunes library contains names like Monteverdi, Scarlatti, and Telemann. Doc Watson is about as close to country as I come. My interest in rock is even less. I hear more than enough of it out in the environment to bring it into my sanctorum. However, country at least has the balls to view the world without rose-colored spectacles.

Bricap said...

There will be no Dropkick Murphys at any Cruz rallies, apparently.

Gahrie said...

You could make a list akin to this for virtually any administration of the last half-century.

Name another president in the last half century in which there have been credible worries about whether or not he actually loves his country and wants it to succeed and lead the world.

I don't recall any issues about Nixon's, Ford's, either Bush's, or Reagan's, patriotism. Even the most loony of the Lefties never suggested that they disliked their country.

Clinton is corrupt and a sexual predator, but I believe he loves America and wants us to lead the world.

Carter is a fool, but I believe he tried his best and loves his country.

JFK and LBJ clearly believed in American exceptionalism.

But any honest examination of the record of the Obama administration has to at least leave you wondering.

Unknown said...

Mr. E. Prole, I looked at the wiki page & recognize maybe 5% of the songs. I suspect Cruz's impressions were based on airplay.

Mr. J. Farmer, when Clinton's approach tubed Dems in Congress, he said, "America has spoken I'm listening." When Obama's approach tubed the Dems in Congress, he said basically "shut up, I'm right & y'all are wrong."

Simon, "audit the Fed" is Rand Paul's baby. Whatever RP says about it (and I don't really care), Cruz says RP is right. As for "Common Core," repeal may be a loose term but "Get rid of Common Core as a policy initiative" is too many words.

Quaestor said...

From theWikipedia entry on Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" -- Rolling Stone worried that, "As with 'Born in the U.S.A.', the title ... may mislead some who hear it, particularly those intent on retaliation, which Springsteen himself shows little interest in contemplating. His concern is not with a national uprising but with a rising above: the transcending of ever-mounting losses and ancient hatreds."

Q.E.D.

The modern world is much too small for the ideals of Thomas Jefferson and the ravings of Muhammad's sky god to coexist. The civilization of reason must either triumph or be destroyed, because the civilization of faith will not tolerate contradiction. War is already upon us. 9/11 was just a morsel from the table prepared for us, so it's either fight or put your wife in a bag. Which will it be?

J. Farmer said...

@Quaestor:

Oh, give me a break. Never mind your meaningless, pedantic attempt to draw a distinction between the word "tragedy" as it is colloquially understood and its meaning in "classical drama." What does anything you said have to do with anything?

I look to musicians for entertainment, not lessons in geopolitics.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

Talk about grasping at straws. So when other presidents pursue bad policies or take political positions you disagree with, it means one thing. But when Obama does it, it is evidence of his secret hatred of America?

Quaestor said...

What does anything you said have to do with anything?

J. Farmer, an aging adolescent in denial.

J. Farmer said...

@Quaestor:

Sadly we cannot all be little Don Quixotes, furiously tilting at those windmills.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

J. Farmer wrote: I look to musicians for entertainment, not lessons in geopolitics.

So you're a shallow moron without a trace of aesthetic sensibility. Tell us something we don't already know.

J. Farmer said...

@Quaestor:

Congratulations, you can insult people, Your mother must be very proud.

Please enlighten us as to how you factor an artist's personal political philosophy into your aesthetic judgment of his or her work.

Murph said...

Warren Meyer posted this at coyoteblog.com a week or so ago.

https://youtu.be/5pidokakU4I

Quaestor said...

Please enlighten us as to how you factor an artist's personal political philosophy into your aesthetic judgment of his or her work.

The fact that you think rock musicians keep their politics and their music in non-overlapping domains only goes to show how shallow your shallowness truly is.

I should apologize for insulting you. Actually I'm flattered you read my comments. Except when they're addressed to me personally I never read yours.

Shanna said...

We looked at that one in my guitar lesson one day, Murph.

I just found this one and it's pretty cool too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83aqGYsRgAY

Gahrie said...

But when Obama does it, it is evidence of his secret hatred of America?

I began this conversation asking you for your explanation for the actions of the Obama administration over the last six years.

I don't want to believe that we have elected someone who hates America, and wants to diminish its position and role in the world. But at this point, I am left with a choice between rank incompetence or deliberate diminshment.

Obama's statements and actions are unquestionably out of step with every president going back to at least JFK.

Anonymous said...

I followed a similar path. I was big into popular music until after 9/11. But the patriotism of country music brought me around.

Its hard for me to doubt Cruz here, considering my experience was similar.

J. Farmer said...

@Quaestor:

"The fact that you think rock musicians keep their politics and their music in non-overlapping domains only goes to show how shallow your shallowness truly is."

I can enjoy Your Song without giving a toss what Elton John thinks on any political issue. It's a rather easy endeavor to me but probably just a product of my shallowness.

p.s. If you read my comments about foreign policy, you would probably find yourself overall better informed and less prone to the kind of rambling, overwrought comment on war that you have entertained us all with.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

"Obama's statements and actions are unquestionably out of step with every president going back to at least JFK."

What actions would those be?

urpower said...

A paraphrase of Cruz' sentiment would be: "On 9/11 I grew up." Instead of rock's meandering, ironic formulations repurposed for sentimental use ("We can be heroes just for one day") country music responded with nationalistic anthems that might have some chance of summoning a real response to a profound threat from without.

Quaestor said...

J. Farmer wrote: If you read my comments about foreign policy, you would probably find yourself overall better informed and less prone to the kind of rambling, overwrought comment on war that you have entertained us all with.

I don't read your comments about foreign policy because I have this rule about stupid stuff and entertaining stuff. I'll read stupid stuff only if there's entertainment value. Since your comments are both uniformly stupid and stultifyingly dull I leave them unread as a matter of brain hygiene.



Simon said...

Unknown said...
"Simon, 'audit the Fed' is Rand Paul's baby. Whatever RP says about it (and I don't really care), Cruz says RP is right."

As I recall, it started out as a Ron Paul hobby-horse, whence it seeped into the tea party's rhetoric, and thence into the rhetoric of politicians who pander to that constituency. The problem is, it's like the debt-ceiling business--I don't know Rand Paul, I don't know if he's actually stupid or whether he's just pandering. But I do know Cruz a little, and I know that he isn't even close to being stupid enough to believe those rhetorical tropes, which makes it frustrating that someone whose core appeal is that he is the very embodiment of the virtues Newt Gingrich praised last time out, of moral and intellectual clarity, and yet he's willing to debase himself with this kind of lowest-common-denominator pandering. (Funnily enough, we have lumbered back on-topic!)

"As for 'Common Core,' repeal may be a loose term but 'Get rid of Common Core as a policy initiative' is too many words."

The only federal action on education that I want to see is the elimination of federal interference in education. Period. Education is a state question, not a federal one, and if any state other than my own wants to adopt common core, that's their business; I may say that Indiana shouldn't, and I might get a vote on that, and I might have an opinion on what the others do, but I don't get to tell them. If Kentucky wants to sign up for whatever cockamamie nonsense it likes, quite frankly, what business is that of anyone except the people of Kentucky? The only answer, it seems to me (and I think it seems to Ted Cruz), is when Kentucky has surrendered the rights to do something either fully or partly in the federal constitution. But other than that, it seems to me that it's entirely their business.

Gahrie said...

What actions would those be?

Well, we can start with trying to destroy the special relationships we have Israel and the UK, while cozying up to Cuba and Iran.

Simon said...

J. Farmer said...
"I can enjoy Your Song without giving a toss what Elton John thinks on any political issue. It's a rather easy endeavor to me but probably just a product of my shallowness."

The Clarkson fiasco seems relevant.

wildswan said...

I moved toward country and western after 9-11 also. And started siding with Major Frank Burns when I watched MASH - though really I just began to hate MASH because it was so demeaning to conservatives. And that's where I first really saw liberal preening for what it was.

Lem, I think that Dylan moved folk music to rock and brought along a lot of the moral concern of the folkies. So any kind of rock was a sign of support for civil rights in a way. It was more of an attitude though - a sort of "blacks shouldn't have to wait any longer" for civil rights mixed up with rejection of authority since authority was blocking civil rights, rock and (if you were young then) sex. The same thing was true in Poland under Communism - rock was a desire for truth and freedom.

That was then. Now the people who still like rock want trigger warnings and rooms with crayons and twinkle hands.

I think there should be a sex/gender category called "Special Snowflake" which replaces all the others except "male" and "female." What their music would be I do not know but probably Easy Listening, elevator music, rock music so worn it's being used to sell Rolls Royce cars, etc.

MadisonMan said...

Cruz would have been -- what -- 30 on 9/11. Lots of things change at about that age.

J. Farmer said...

@Gahrie:

"Well, we can start with trying to destroy the special relationships we have Israel and the UK, while cozying up to Cuba and Iran."

I'll ignore Eisenhower's threats to the UK and Israel over their Suez scheme since you did just want to go back to JFK. George H.W. Bush was well known for having a much sharper stance towards Israel than his predecessor, and it was something the neocons in his administration despised about him. This animosity can be seen in the mini-brouhaha that was made over Jeb including James Baker in his team of advisors after Baker gave a speech to J Street (oh, the horror). Rand Paul has also been criticizing for the high crime of failing to express sufficient deference to Israel. Is this also a product of his secret hatred for America?

I have no idea what action you could be referring to that you imagine is or was an attempt to destroy the relationship with UK. As far as I have been able to tell, Obama and David Cameron seem to get on swimmingly, and Cameron was enthusiastic to follow Obama's foolish lead into wanting to bomb the Assad regime, until his own backbenchers staged a revolt and handed him a pretty humiliating defeat in parliament.

Ending the embargo against Cuba is supported by a majority of Americans, a majority of Floridians, and a majority of Cuban-Americans. George Schultz managed to come to the conclusion without having to tap a reservoir of hidden anti-American animus.

Is David Cameron or Angela Merkel pursuing negotiations with Iran out of a hatred for their country?

Known Unknown said...

For some reason Bono's crusading never grated on me, perhaps because I've always loved U2. I do think that The Joshua Tree is a bit overrated. Achtung Baby is a great album as were the early Steve Lilywhite produced albums like Boy.

Part of the reason is because Bono is still a semi-devout Catholic who hates taxes.

He also once said "you can work with the Republicans." A blasphemer in the music world for sure.

War is U2's best album for me.

J. Farmer said...

@Simon:

"The Clarkson fiasco seems relevant."

I don't really see how it has anything to do with what we were discussing...

CWJ said...

Garage Mahal wrote -

"There is no such thing as rock music. It's called rock and roll. Boiled down further, there is blues, and then everything else."

Meade responded -

"Thick As A Garage Mahal."

For Garage:

Really don't mind if you sit this one out. Your words but a whisper. Your deafness a shout.

Meade you magnificent bastard. It nearly writes itself.

J. Farmer said...

@Quaestor:

"Since your comments are both uniformly stupid and stultifyingly dull I leave them unread as a matter of brain hygiene."

Yes, yes, I know. I think this about the half dozen time you have told me you do not read anything I write and that everything I write is stupid and dull. Finding yourself in the middle of such a perilous war for civilization, I am surprised you waste your time with such frivolities as blog commenting. Oh well, someone has to keep the home fires burning. And you will always have the baroque to comfort you.

Gahrie said...

Did Bush ever intervene in an Israeli election in an attempt to unseat the Israeli Prime Minister?

Drago said...

MadisonMan: "Cruz would have been -- what -- 30 on 9/11. Lots of things change at about that age."

Cruz really should have said that he musically evolved after 9/11.

That phrasing comes pre-approved from the left.

Skyler said...

My tastes changed too. I remember listening to the Who seeing about "No one knows what it's like" and thinking, "how insipid and immature." Skyscrapers are melting to the ground from murderous thugs attacking our civilization and this incessant navel gazing just no longer is tolerable.

Skyler said...

Um, that's "Singing about" not "seeing about."

gadfly said...

"Classic Rock was invented in the 1980s as a radio format to permit playing the current contemporary music styling and Rock and Roll from the '60s and the Disco sound from the '70s.

So I am unsure what Ted Cruz was abandoning because modern Country music composed in Nashville matured side-by-side with the '60s rock.

Wake up, Little Susie.

Simon said...

EMD said...
"Part of the reason is because Bono is still a semi-devout Catholic who hates taxes."

Everyone hates taxes. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans don't just want to reduce our own taxes.

Simon said...

J. Farmer said...
"I don't really see how it has anything to do with what we were discussing..."

If you read the article, I think the relevance is clear. The article talks about the inability of the left to prevent their politics seeping into everything in their world, in marked contrast to the rest of us. Liberals, it points out, "are so unstintingly forthcoming about their fatuous opinions, so ready to declaim and shrief and disparage anyone who might dare gainsay them."

You and I are able to say that we enjoy a song by a band without "giving a toss what [its members] think[] on any political issue," but it is rare to find a politically-engaged progressive who actually likes country music. I don't think it's because you and I are shallow, I think it's because we don't allow political dogma to control everything in our lives.

RecChief said...

I went to war with a bunch of people from Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama.

I spent the next year listening to Hank Williams (SR), Merle Haggard, Johhny Cash, Waylon Jennings, and some SRV thrown in (odd that).

Michael K said...

" As far as I have been able to tell, Obama and David Cameron seem to get on swimmingly, and Cameron was enthusiastic to follow Obama's foolish lead into wanting to bomb the Assad regime, until his own backbenchers staged a revolt and handed him a pretty humiliating defeat in parliament. "

Cameron is almost as shallow an intellect as Obama, which is saying something. Merkel Is constrained by Germany's dependence on Russian energy,

The Cuba embargo was put of date but Obama has allowed them to tap US funding to make up for the loss of their patrol Chavez without a price, like a little freeing of political prisoners.

The Libya attacks were a British French initiative which Obama, for reasons that escape me, went along with.

If you think Bush was stupid for invading Iraq, you cannot be a supporter of Obama for far less intelligent actions that are leading us to disaster,

That suggests to me that your animosity is ideological and not based on any intelligent analysis.

MrCharlie2 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MrCharlie2 said...

kinda' sorta' shows that he's kinda' sorta' stupid, or sure tries to be. where can I get a huntin' license at anyway?

Big Mike said...

You could make a list akin to this for virtually any administration of the last half-century.

Not within my memory has a president done more via executive edict without selling the idea to the citizenry first. As far as he's concerned, he knows best and the rest of us are a pack of stooges.

But somehow I think the term "stooge" applies most properly to the people who are apologists for this administration.

Meanwhile, looking at American foreign policy in the era of Obama, all I can say is that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." By that definition this administration's foreign policy is certifiably insane.

hombre said...

garage: "Amusing you take issue with me instead of the dickless, anonymous cowards that follow me around this blog constantly."

"Dickless, anonymous?" I'm not sure about dickless, but we're all more or less anonymous, including you.

I am pretty sure nobody follows you around the blog, you just don't seem to inspire that kind of thing. People do react to your comments though. Isn't that what you get paid for or, at least, hope for?

Coregis said...

There is only one post 9/11 song that actually addressed the attack - Neil Young's "Let's Roll," that should bring goosebumps to any adult. John Fogerty's "Deja Vue All Over Again" is also pretty good. Springsteen's drivel required him to let Rolling Stone know that it was about 9/11; when you need a scribe to tell the world what you were singing about, you have a problem.

On the country music side, you have Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" and Alan Jackson's "Where Were You." But much of the really effective country music focused on the war that followed and the soldiers that fought the battles. Darryl Worley "I Just Came Back from A War" and "Have You Forgotten?", Tim McGraw "If You're Reading This," and John Michael Montgomery "Letters from Home," just to name a few. Also can't forget the heartbreaking video for the Carrie Underwood song "Just a Dream."

Country music found resonance in those people who had friends and family deployed and fighting the war; rock music was insulated.

While not technically a 9/11 song (it was actually written in response to the Oklahoma City bombing), Crosby Stills and Nash performed "Half Your Angels" on the first Leno Show following the attack. Still lingers with me.

Wilbur said...

"I can enjoy Your Song without giving a toss what Elton John thinks on any political issue. It's a rather easy endeavor to me but probably just a product of my shallowness."

It's not shallowness. It's that you haven't been slapped in the face every day of your life by a viewpoint ubiquitous in the mass media/entertainment complex that runs counter to and sneers at nearly everything that you believe is true and real.

I haven't been to a movie in 20 years. I refuse to put a nickel into the pockets of those who would destroy us. I'm sure you can't even imagine that.

And you and Alan Alda don't even realize that you'll be the first ones ISIS nails to a cross.

nucint said...

Suspect Sen Cruz was thinking about songs like Trace Adkin's "Songs About Me".

Spent time in Afghanistan in 2010. Never saw or heard of any pop or rack group doing a USO tour in my time there. But did see Toby Kieth perform at Kandahar.

Simon said...

Big Mike said...
"Not within my memory has a president done more via executive edict without selling the idea to the citizenry first. As far as he's concerned, he knows best and the rest of us are a pack of stooges.

I don't see Obama's use of executive power as being notably more sweeping than President Bush's.

Among other things, President Bush took us to war in Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war over a public that was skeptical at best. Now, don't get me wrong: I supported that war to the hilt. I argued for that war at the time, and I still maintain that it was absolutely the right thing to do, but we went to war, and I am hardly being alone in not being persuaded that either the AUMF or the AUMFAI amounted to a declaration of war. We went there on President Bush's authority, and God bless him for having the nerve to do it, but it was an almost unparalleled use of executive authority.

By contrast, President Obama's most sweeping use of military power, the de facto amnesty pushes the bounds of prosecutorial discretion to and perhaps past their limits (I think the latter, but that is far from uncontested), but, in the last analysis, that really is all it is: An exercise in prosecutorial discretion. What characterizes it is its degree, not its kind.

It seems to me that the objectionable character of Obama's use of executive power is how pervasive it is—just think of all those Obamacare waivers—rather than the size of any particular "prod."

Simon said...

Wilbur said...
"And [him] and Alan Alda don't even realize that you'll be the first ones ISIS nails to a cross."

There's a degree of unreality to those who think that gays are hard done-by in America because the Governor of Indiana doesn't think that they get to demand that their favorite bakery make them a "wedding" cake, when, meanwhile, Iran will hang you for being gay, and that's nothing compared to your fate if ISIS get hold of you. #CheckYourPrivilege

Moneyrunner said...

A very good thread started by someone who after "careful consideration" voted for Barack Obama. May I commend our foreign guest for whom English is a second langues?

Known Unknown said...

pop or rack group doing a USO tour in my time there. But did see Toby Kieth perform at Kandahar.

Recent USO activities:


1992
Answer: Alex Trebek. Question: What host of a hit game show has been touring on behalf of the USO regularly since a trip to Germany in 1987? Trebek has frequently visited troops and families around the world, some of whom have won the contestant search and appeared on Jeopardy! This photo is from a 1992 trip to Turkey.

December 1996
Sinbad, Sheryl Crow and other celebrities entertained U.S. troops serving in Bosnia.

2000
2002
Robin Williams embarked on his first of many tours with the USO, the first one to Afghanistan and Turkey, to provide comic relief and a show of appreciation to the troops. He has since accompanied Chairmen of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff on many of their annual holiday celebrity tours to U.S. military bases, including in 2007 (pictured here), when he traveled to Iraq and six other countries.

2003
Project Salute, Operation Iraqi Freedom’s first large-scale entertainment tour to the Persian Gulf region, included Robert De Niro, Kid Rock, Alyssa Milano, Brittany Murphy, John Stamos, Rebecca Romijn, Neal McCoy, Gary Sinise, Lee Ann Womack and other entertainers and athletes. Partners included MTV and Vanity Fair magazine.

2003
Country music star Toby Keith went on his first of many trips to entertain troops around the world; as of 2010, he had completed eight tours. He was also instrumental in launching the USO2GO program. Here, an appreciative audience at Forward Operating Base Sharana in Afghanistan surrounded him and guitarist Scott Emerick.

2005
Willie Nelson and Jessica Simpson treated the crowd to a duet at Ramstein Airbase in Germany, part of a performance shown on ABC that included the duo Big & Rich, Jimmy Kimmel and Nick Lachey. Other notable USO shows on broadcast on TV during the decade included the “For the Troops: An MTV/USO Special,” featuring Jennifer Lopez, Kid Rock, Ja Rule and others.

2008
Actors Ben Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey, Jr., hammed it up for the camera when they hosted a special screening of their hit movie Tropic Thunder at Camp Pendleton, CA..

July 2008
Sesame Street and the USO began their successful partnership to provide programs and performances to address the concerns of today's military families as they deal with multiple deployments and lengthy separations from loved ones. Here, Elmo comforts a young friend.

June 2009
Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert taped "The Colbert Report" in Baghdad, the first time in USO history that a full–length non–news show was filmed, edited and broadcast from a combat zone.

December 2009
USO helped bolster the Fort Hood community for a day of healing with performers that included Nick Jonas, Gary Sinise, Aaron Lewis, children's entertainer Mallory Lewis and Lamb Chop, rapper Chamillionaire, comedian Dana Carvey and others.



Coregis said...

Simon, I guess you missed President Obama's action in Libya, conducted without consulting Congress nor did he submit the required information to Congress as prescribed by the War Powers Act if actions extend beyond 30 days.....the US actions lasted several months.

While I think that a Declaration of War would have been preferable, we have chosen to bypass that route since the 1950's. I will accept congressional concurrence as a substitute.

Phil 314 said...

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

Simon said...

Coregis, since I indicated that I supported President Bush going to war—no fucking around, real, honest-to-God boots-on-the-ground war—without Congress expressly declaring war, does it seem likely that President Obama's relatively trivial airstrikes on Libya and now Syria would strike me as an excessive act of executive power? ;)

As to the War Powers Resolution, every President since Congress rammed it through, every President except (ironically) this, has taken the position that that resolution is unconstitutional, and the legislative veto potion of it (section 5, IIRC) has been a dead-letter since Chadha.

machine said...

I grew up listening to...oh my god, the world's on fire!


...wrote a song about it--like to hear it here it goes...

Laslo Spatula said...

Humor me with My Classic Rock -- Joe Strummer:

All over people changing their votes
Along with their overcoats
If Adolf Hitler flew in today
They'd send a limousine anyway

I am Laslo.


Moneyrunner said...

Ted Cruz’s has the ability to drive the Left crazy because he says the things that get people fired from their jobs, get them ostracized from the faculty, get them called “uppity” by writers at the New Yorker. He refuses to pay homage to the stuffed shirts that define the boundaries of acceptable speech, or the accents that we are allowed to use, the music that we are allowed to listen to lest the delicate flowers of academia or popular culture get their undies up their crack.

His is an invitation to buzz off. To butt out of our lives. To stuff your IRS where the sun don’t shine so that the next election the IRA, FBI, SEC, BATF and various other agencies that can put you in prison doesn’t put its fat greasy thumb on the scales.

I spent an hour today listening to a lawyer tell me how to have the taxpayer pay for my nursing home expense even if my house is worth a million dollars. I know that the NSA is able to tap my phone and the sheriff is able to track my movements. All the while Hillary is giving the middle finger to fly-over Americans because the Democrats in charge of the justice system won’t do a damn thing to enforce the law. Imagine if we didn't have to feel guilty of being Americans. Imagine that we could call Islamic terrorism by its name.

That’s why Ted Cruz scares the hell out of people who think that with a few tweaks this government is just fine. That’s why Ann is uncomfortable with Cruz. It’s not him; it’s the people who like him that Ann doesn’t like.

FedkaTheConvict said...

And now we have MSNBC's Jamilah Lemieux's reaction to Ted Cruz: Nothing Says ‘Let’s Go Kill Some Muslims’ Like Country Music

To their credit, MSNBC apologized a bit later.

Big Mike said...

I don't see Obama's use of executive power as being notably more sweeping than President Bush's.

Your comment is breathtaking in the scope of its foolishness.

Among other things, President Bush took us to war in Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war over a public that was skeptical at best.

That's not how I remember it. The CIA was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, but the citizenry was in favor of taking down Saddam Hussein by an overwhelming margin. And the proof is reflected in the number of hardcore Democrats who voted for the AUMF.

Now, don't get me wrong:

I'm sure I won't

I supported that war to the hilt. I argued for that war at the time,

As did nearly everybody else who watched Hussein defy the UN resolutions and paid attention to what the Congress-critters who had privy to CIA briefings were saying.

and I still maintain that it was absolutely the right thing to do,

Seemed so at the time, and if Barack Obama had focused his mind on a Status of Forces Agreement we might well have a stable Iraq today.

but we went to war, and I am hardly being alone in not being persuaded that either the AUMF or the AUMFAI amounted to a declaration of war.

You're so close to being alone it's why mathematicians invented epsilon-delta proofs.

We went there on President Bush's authority, and God bless him for having the nerve to do it, but it was an almost unparalleled use of executive authority.

Not really. His father in Persion Gulf I and Bill Clinton's saturation bombing of Kosovo and Serbia were wars fought under AUMF. Not to mention Bush 43 had overwhelming bipartisan Congressional backing for what he did, numerous allies, and was in full accordance with UN resolutions.

By contrast, President Obama's most sweeping use of military power,

You mean bombing Hell out of Libya, taking down a dictator who had been scared into abandoning his own weapons of mass destruction program? Mostly so that ISIS could come in and slaughter helpless prisoners? Is that why you were afraid to complete your thought?

the de facto amnesty pushes the bounds of prosecutorial discretion to and perhaps past their limits

Perhaps?!? As in "perhaps ice is cold, perhaps burning thermite is hot"? It's unprecedented, and, getting back to my original post, done absolutely without taking into account the will of the electorate. Possibly the electorate could have been persuaded and won over, but that's too much like work for this president.

(I think the latter, but that is far from uncontested),

Contested by stooges for the Obama administration and who else?

but, in the last analysis, that really is all it is: An exercise in prosecutorial discretion. What characterizes it is its degree, not its kind.

Which hearkens back to my statement: "Not within my memory has a president done more via executive edict without selling the idea to the citizenry first."

It seems to me that the objectionable character of Obama's use of executive power is how pervasive it is—just think of all those Obamacare waivers—rather than the size of any particular "prod."

It is pervasive, oftentimes objectionable with respect to the actions taken without the consent or agreement of the electorate, and flouts the plain text of the applicable laws (e.g., Libya).

In addition to the examples you provide I would include "Operation Fast and Furious," which apparently -- the administration's stonewalling will prevent us from knowing the full truth until 2017 at the earliest -- ran guns to Mexican drug cartels. Not to mention using the IRS as a weapon against political adversaries. Obama joked about that -- turned out he probably wasn't joking. Not to mention DOJ lawyers lying to federal judges. Want some more example? There are plenty.

If your goal was to persuade people, I suggest you go back and try again.

Big Mike said...

@Moneyrunner, as I said much earlier, we love him because he fights back.

rcommal said...

Indeed, Cruz is not stupid, and he is not wise.

William said...

I think Cruz likes music in the way that Obama believes in God. It's true that sometimes Obama speculates on whether he might be the hidden iman, but I don't think God is a significant part of his life. Cruz's statement about country music might be true, but I just don't see him getting wrapped up in music of any type......,When I was a horny adolescent I thought as a horny adolescent. It's very hard for someone past forty too get into popular music. Lust, sated, denied, or frustrated, is not the biggest part of your life......To paraphrase an old cliche, politicians know as much about music as musicians know about politics. Beethoven was a big believer in Napoleon and you don't want to inquire too deeply into Wagner's political beliefs. Those guys were worse than Springsteen.

Anonymous said...

@Big Mike,

Probably my favorite quality of Cruz, he fights back.

I'm so tired of these push overs in the Republican Party who are always apologizing for holding a conservative position.

Even Walker comes off like that. I was disappointed when he was asked about boots on the ground against ISIS and he couldn't give a straight answer.

I'd like to have a candidate, just once, who gives straight answers and when challenged, pushes back and gives our thought process and reasoning.

Like Cruz did with Mika on MSNBC the other day.

Ken Mitchell said...

I'd never much cared about country music, but in the days following 9/11/01, there was somebody I'd never heard of who had written a song about kicking Taliban butt - and Peter Jennings had nixed playing the song at the 4th of July concert in 2002. Country music folks all over started sending one boot to Jennings, and of course, I had to listen to the song, which was Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue", which declared "We'll put a boot up your ass, 'cause it's the American way". I liked the song, and expanded to other Toby Keith songs.

I decided that I was going to intentionally spend a year cultivating a taste for country-western music, and now I split my music listening to country, classical, and "oldies" rock.

So Cruz's claim resonates with me. Perhaps it wouldn't, if I didn't already like his position. But I'm delighted that he's running, and I'm glad to have been part of that "million dollar day" - because that's how many donations he received that day.

All I need is a "Cruz/Jindal" bumper sticker to cover up the fading "Romney/Ryan" sticker that is STILL on my car today....

Michael McNeil said...

Fighting under an AUMF is just a president unilaterally taking us to war? That's bullshit.

As Vice President Joe Biden (then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Biden) put it in response to a question from the floor during a speech on October 22, 2001:

Question: “Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom?” (Scattered Laughter)

Biden: “The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I'm the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction … Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what … against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.”

Emphasis added. Quoted from Joe Biden's own (now defunct) senatorial website.

Simon said...

Eric said...
"I'd like to have a candidate, just once, who gives straight answers and when challenged, pushes back and gives our thought process and reasoning."

That's the case for candidates such as Gingrich and Cruz, in a nutshell. And Ted doesn't come with Newt's baggage.

Simon said...

Michael, you know, funnily enough, I'm not terribly impressed by the opinion of Joe Biden (!) about anything. A declaration of war initiates or confirms the existence of hostilities; thus, for example, our Declaration of War on Japan:

"Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

And that's not just its operative language, by the way—that's the whole thing. That's a declaration of war. The AUMFAI is not. Rather than initiating or recognizing the existence of hostilities, it gives the President the authority to initiate hostilities in the event that he deems it necessary. After reciting the laundry-list of Iraq's transgressions, its operative language says:

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to — (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Now, is that void? Meaningless? Empty? Clearly it is not. But a declaration of war it is not.

I supported the Iraq war, but we need to be clear-eyed about this: We went there on President Bush's say-so. And that is true, mind you, even on the most expansive possible reading of the AUMFAI: Even if you're not buying a word that I'm saying, even if you're unshakably convinced that AUMFAI is a kinda-sorta declaration of war, read it again, carefully. It is, at very best, a conditional declaration of war; it is a blank cheque given to the President with the instruction "spend this if you deem it necessary." Even on its own terms, AUMFAI does not purport to make the decision to go to Iraq, it says that the decision to go to Iraq is on President Bush. The left can argue until it's blue in the face that that was a mistake (it wasn't), and Biden—Joe Biden?! You cited Joe Biden at me?!—can dress it up in whatever self-serving rationalizations he likes, but it was President Bush's decision, and it was the right one, but it was his.

SGT Ted said...

The last thing I give a shit about is Ted Cruz's music tastes.

J. Farmer said...

@Simon:

"The article talks about the inability of the left to prevent their politics seeping into everything in their world, in marked contrast to the rest of us."

I generally agree with everything you wrote in that comment above. I have little doubt that there were many within the BBC hierarchy eager to see Clarkson sacked for what they consider to be his retrograde, politically incorrect statements. However, I don't think his case is particularly illustrative in this instance, since he has a long history of controversy and on this occasion was fired for pretty good cause...physically assaulting his producer over something as petty as being served a cold dinner as opposed to a steak.

I disagree with you, though, that this is a phenomenon solely of the left. The whole Dixie Chicks imbroglio that has been referenced here is one example.

@Michael K:

"If you think Bush was stupid for invading Iraq, you cannot be a supporter of Obama for far less intelligent actions that are leading us to disaster.

That suggests to me that your animosity is ideological and not based on any intelligent analysis."

I am not a supporter of Obama, and I have said that repeatedly. I was also not a supporter of Bush but also believed that a lot of the criticism directed at him from the left was hysterical and unhinged. I think the same is true of the current administration. I disagree with a lot of what they're doing, but I have not seen any evidence to suggest Obama is a secret double agent working for the benefit of Iran and trying to bring America to ruin out of a seething hatred of the country. Yes, I think that analysis is detached from reality. You might even call it Obama Derangement Syndrome.

I should also add that while I think Obama's foreign policy has been a mess, I do not think any of the decisions he has made or has taken thus far have been as foolish or strategically idiotic as regime change in Iraq. That action, in fact, by insuring that Iraq would be transformed into a Shia-dominated culture and thus much more closely aligned with Iran than the Gulf state sunnis. And let's not forget it was Mr. Bush who assured us of the purity of Mr. Putin's motives thusly:“I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.”

Circle said...

My gut reaction is, He's faking it. Which is why I am keeping my guard up with him.

J. Farmer said...

I should add that to me a logically coherent position regarding US foreign policy of the last 15 years would be to broadly support both administrations or broadly oppose both administrations. How someone can manage to arrive at strongly supporting one and strongly opposing another seems pretty incoherent to me. John Boehner's recent press conference remarks seem illustrative on this point. Since coming to office, Obama has ordered military strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. And the critique from the opposition? Obama too much of "an anti-war president."

Big Mike said...

Biden: “The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law."

A ConLaw professor who said on national TV that Article 1 of the Constitution describes the Executive Branch.

(Some of you may want to look up Article 1 to understand the cognitive dissonance. You will only need the title of the article.)

J. Farmer said...

Ehh...Joe Biden is an affable goofball who has been exaggerating his resume for 30 years now.

Michael McNeil said...

Michael, you know, funnily enough, I'm not terribly impressed by the opinion of Joe Biden (!) about anything.

Joe Biden was being more than just Joe Biden at that point, he was also chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the person who drafted the bill in question. That should give a pretty good indication of what was intended by the drafters in Congress at the time the bill was passed: that is, the equivalent of a declaration of war.

However, constitutional law professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA (whom I personally respect far more than Joe Biden) agrees with Biden in this regard — or rather, considers that Biden agrees with him. As Volokh wrote back in 2002 (as it happens, in response to a letter from me):

“DECLARATION OF WAR: I've argued below that both U.S. and international law recognizes that we can be in a war, with all that that entails, without a declaration of war. I've also suggested that even if a declaration of war were somehow required for certain actions -- which I don't believe is the case -- it's hard to see why the Congressional authorization of the use of military force shouldn't qualify, at least unless the magic words "We declare war" are required.

“Reader Michael McNeil points out that Senator Biden, who drafted the use of force resolution, agrees on this:”

Followed by what I've quoted to you before.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael McNeil:

I agree with you regarding Iraq and the AUMF. I never tire of reminding my pro-Obama friends that the Iraq War, while foolish and ill-advised, had far more legitimacy than the Obama administration's "kinetic military action" in Libya.

I think a far more salient example of Bush's executive overreach was the administration's contention that the President had the power to declare an American citizen on American soil an "enemy combatant" and deny them habeas corpus and access to civilian courts.

grackle said...

Who gives a shit[that country music crowd is largely patriotic and that the rock crowd is largely NOT patriotic]?

I don't care either but was pointing out a fact that may have relevance to Cruz's statement about liking country music more after 9/11.

The problem with saying that one likes country music is that the genre is so very very broad.

Other genres that are "very very broad."

Rock music, pop music, rap music, blues, folk music, jazz, etc.

J. Farmer said...

@Grackle:

I agree. I think one can never express enough cynicism about the motives of politicians, so I am going to be unfair to Ted Cruz and just assume this statement was a pathetic pander to his perceived base. If so, I think it would only be slightly less lame than John Kerry's duck hunting photo op or poor Michael Dukakis looking like a man-child in that tank.

Joe said...

Don't have time to read all the comments, but I'm sure it's already been said that Cruz is full of shit. Yes, he can debate, but the more I know about him, the less I like him. (I'm still a Walker supporter.)

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 280 of 280   Newer› Newest»