First time visitor? Learn more.

Woo Woo Train

by Bunk X ( 9 Comments › )
Filed under Art, Golden Age of Radio, Humor, OOT, Open thread at February 8th, 2013 - 2:47 am

Little Isadore & The Inquistors’ early R&B style is spot on. Can’t find much about LI, and maybe that’s a good thing. A googoyle search provides little, except that it leads me to cover for a blank spot on The Overnight Open Thread.

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

9 Responses to “Woo Woo Train”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | February 8, 2013 3:03 am

    Since you wanted more, here’s Little Isadore singing for Pam & Charlie Horner’s 5th Anniversary in 2011.


  2. 2 | February 8, 2013 4:14 am

    Little Isadore. Gotta love him.


  3. 3 | February 8, 2013 4:21 am

    It’s the All Isadore All Night OOT


  4. 4 | February 8, 2013 4:24 am

    Little Isadore rocks ’til dawn.


  5. 5 | February 8, 2013 7:03 am

    Michael Ledeen asks a question that’s been asked quite a bit around here:

    As I keep asking, if you wanted to design a policy to favor the success of our enemies and the despair of our friends (not just in the Middle East), how would your policy differ from what we’ve got now?

    And concludes:

    The war is on, and we are in full retreat. And the tandem of Kerry, Hagel and Brennan love it.

    Good piece.


  6. Guggi
    6 | February 8, 2013 7:19 am

    Since it has become fashionable to compare O.’s ME politics with those of Eisenhower, here an interesting article about Eisenhower and the ME

    The importance of the Eisenhower debate

    (…)

    Professor Isaac Alteras wrote a comprehensive history of this subject published in 1993 entitled “Eisenhower and Israel,” which reveals that Eisenhower actually came to regret the tough line he took against Israel in 1956. In a meeting in 1965 with the Republican Jewish leader Max Fisher, according to Alteras, Eisenhower said: “You know Max, looking back at Suez, I regret what I did. I should have never pressured Israel to evacuate Sinai.” Richard Nixon, who served as Eisenhower’s vice president, verified Fisher’s description of the former president’s view of what he had done. According to Nixon, Eisenhower even said that the Suez Crisis was the biggest foreign-policy “blunder” of his administration. In short, there is substantial evidence that Eisenhower came to renounce his own Suez policy.

    Why did Eisenhower change his mind? His administration had hoped that by distancing itself from Israel, it would be able to erect a set of Cold War alliances in the Middle East modeled after NATO, like the famous Baghdad Pact, that would help the U.S. to contain the Soviet Union. But his strategy totally backfired. As one former U.S. official pointed out, Eisenhower’s support for Nasser in 1956 strengthened the Egyptian leader significantly and led to a wave of revolutions across the Arab world that eventually required active Western intervention in Lebanon, Jordan, and eventually in the Arabian Peninsula.

    Moreover, in the wake of the revolutionary storm that followed the Suez Crisis, the Hashemite regime in Iraq was also overthrown in 1958; its leaders modeled themselves after Nasser and adopted an anti-Western orientation. The American-sponsored Baghdad Pact was finished. In the meantime, Eisenhower’s policy helped to drive the British out of the Middle East, while in the years that followed the Soviet Union managed to set up air and naval bases across the region.

    (…)


  7. 7 | February 8, 2013 7:34 am

    @ Guggi:

    Ike took responsibility and admitted his error, rather than blaming it on Truman or some extraneous outside force. Ike was a leader and an honorable man. Obama is certainly no Ike.

    To paraphrase one of my dear departed mother’s favorite saws- Obama wouldn’t make a patch on Ike’s ass.


  8. Guggi
    8 | February 8, 2013 7:47 am

    @ MacDuff:

    If you read the MSM like NYT or WaPo (to name only two) you could get the impression that O. is the essence of all presidents before him. Reality and the sad truth is that O. has no coherent strategy for foreign policy though they need every shred of comparison to explain his incoherent and stupid foreign policy.


  9. 9 | February 8, 2013 8:28 am

    Guggi wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    If you read the MSM like NYT or WaPo (to name only two) you could get the impression that O. is the essence of all presidents before him. Reality and the sad truth is that O. has no coherent strategy for foreign policy though they need every shred of comparison to explain his incoherent and stupid foreign policy.

    Our “foreign policy” seems to consist of sticking our heads in the sand (or up our butts) hoping the unpleasantness will just go away. It’s an unpopular position, but the US simply must be an active player, or we will most certainly be played and that’s precisely what is happening. In the piece that I linked to in #5, Ledeen call it “leading with our behinds”.

    I’m reminded of a quote (I’m thinking it’s Stalin or Lenin) that goes something like ‘you may have forsaken war, but war has not forsaken you’ (I can’t find the actual quote or source thereof) Whether we like it or not, we are the world’ only superpower- there is simply no one who can project power, globally, quite like us, and we’re throwing it away. Retreating from the world stage i dangerous to us-and the world- because the vacuum will certainly be filled by someone far worse. We can withdraw from history for only so long until history eventually finds us, and it will be catastrophic. We seem to have learned nothing from 9/11 and, as Santayana said we’re “condemned to repeat it”.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David