Party Fears, Tosca and New Zealand!

[tcpip]

Well, I've finally managed to get (nearly) all my things in the same place, thanks to the help of the superkind caseopaya. Part of this was the discovery of Party Fears - heads up reddragdiva. For those of you who don't know the reddragdiva is a long-term rocknerd. He used to produce a good quality independent music 'zine in Perth in the mid-80s to early 90s.

It even won an award. (No really, you must read this link).

Bar_bar_rella! The page is down ! Fix it please! For the sake of the relationship of musicians to gormet chefs! Please!

Anyway, the good Dr. is putting his olde journal online. If it's any help I have issues 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 18....

The lovely severina242 took me to the opera on Saturday night - Puccini's Tosca. What a lovely story. What a excellent performance. What exceptional value for money. I mean, about 10 main actors, a few dozen extras, a full choral orchrestra, three magnificant sets... And less expensive than a "rave" party or some moderately popular international rock band.

This causes me some pondering. Popular culture is now more expensive than high art. Will pop eat itself? Quite possibly under those circumstances.

The other thought that ran through my head (a la Horkheimer/Adorno) was that only capitalism could debase the Enlightenment art of the opera to the musical (which I must admit does work when it's incongruous - "Dancer in the Dark" or parody - "Rocky Horror Picture Show").

Finally, I'm in New Zealand - country number six for the year!! Flew in via Emirates (haha, the day that Saddam was caught, how ironic), who did pretty well. Currently in Auckland, leave for Palmerston North tomorrow. About to head off to a warfside pub called "Lenin's Bar". If I can't find a decent full-bodied red there I'll eat my hat.

Speaking of Saddam, did anyone else notice how the news photos of "cheering Iraqis" vanished so very very quickly once it was discovered that they were cheering members of the Iraqi Communist Party?

Comments

[erudito.livejournal.com]

On CNN, try

http://isntapundit.com/?date=20031216#dipnut_144951

The Rice/Powell stuff struck me as just registering the change in views about acceptable risk that Sept 11 occassioned.

I would also point out that it is evidence against the 'they always wanted to attack Iraq' line. But then a lot of criticisms of US policy are cancelled out by other criticisms.

There could have been some doctoring of pictures. It's wartime, military powers do that sort of thing.

As for Saddam's history, I thought Sir John Keegan's piece covered that well. It's the old 'no permanent friends, just permanent interests' reality of diplomacy -- particularly in the Middle East snakepit.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I think it's fairly self-evident what's going on there. CNN weren't told to report on the event.

As for Keegan, I reckon he's a bit of a fruit-cake

His comments over Saddams' capture will be proven quite wrong. For example:

"The capture of Saddam immensely simplifies the security situation in post-war Iraq. It strikes a disabling blow at his surviving supporters, who must now lose heart."

Assuming of course, that the "security situation" is primarily the result of Saddam supporters.

And he's optimistic about the information that Saddam will give..

"They will particularly seek to extract from him whatever he is prepared to admit about his development of weapons of mass destruction."

And what if he admits that he didn't have any?

I suppose it's no surprise he wants a rapid death penalty imposed on the dictator.

A diplomatic agenda which works on interests rather than friendships will ensure that no principled decisions will be made and no progress is possible. It is a policy of managed chaos rather than social development.

No wonder the United States loathed Qassim and Mossadeq.

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/021020Marshall.html

[erudito.livejournal.com]

A diplomatic agenda which works on interests rather than friendships will ensure that no principled decisions will be made and no progress is possible. It is a policy of managed chaos rather than social development.

So Churchill shouldn't have allied with Stalin against Hitler?

When the US was playing footsie with Saddam, Iran looked the bigger menace -- guys who couldn't even play by basic accepted rules like 'you don't seize embassies'. (The US never played nearly as much said footsie as the Soviets and the Europeans of course.)

It is always a tough call, the principle v practicality one in international affairs. Stopping Hitler required allying with one of history's great tyrants and mass murderers. I lean towards erring on the side of principle, but I understand the constraints of practically.

With Keegan, I wasn't talking about his projections (historians shouldn't, they have a bad record on that) but being an historian. Can't comment on his views on military intelligence because I haven't read the book, but we are talking about a very great military historian (his The Face of Battle is brilliant).

The Qassim and Mossadeq cases also occurred in the context of a global struggle, of course.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

So Churchill shouldn't have allied with Stalin against Hitler?

They weren't really allies, more that they had a common enemy. As far as I know Churchill didn't send troops to help Stalin nor vice-versa. They fought on their individual fronts.

Churchill, Rooselvelt, de Gaulle (and/or Giraud) and Chang Kai-Shek were allies...

One could make a case that co-operation reached the point of alliance by the Tehran Conference of December '43, but prior to that, I would suggest not...

US was playing footsie with Saddam, Iran looked the bigger menace

But we must remember that the US was playing footsie with Saddam well before then. They worked with him in '59 in the attempted assasination of Quassim and they worked with in '63 to overthrow him. They provided the Ba'ath party the names of thousands of communists to liquidate (Saddam took over soon after '63). The helped install Saddam as Deputy leader in '68, leading to his ascension to power in '79.

The Qassim and Mossadeq cases also occurred in the context of a global struggle, of course.

Indeed. Traditional monarchists like the Shah and modern fascists like Saddam were evidently preferable to the democratically elected Mossadeq and the moderate republican nationalism of Qassim.

[erudito.livejournal.com]

I think it's fairly self-evident what's going on there. CNN weren't told to report on the event.

I's sorry, this is a bit too gnomic. You mean?