When President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, a Saudi tycoon and his business associate sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to the U.S. to help pay for the inaugural celebration and get a picture with the president, according to court documents and an analysis of campaign finance records by The Associated Press.
U.S. election law prohibits foreign nationals from making those sorts of political contributions. But the donations Sheikh Mohammed Al Rahbani tried to send to Obama’s inaugural committee were funneled through a seasoned straw donor, the records and the AP analysis show.
That intermediary, Imaad Zuberi, agreed this month to plead guilty to making illegal campaign contributions to several American political candidates on behalf of foreign nationals. He is also set to plead guilty to concealing his work as a foreign agent as he lobbied high-level U.S. government officials.
The prosecution by the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles is the latest in a string of cases that highlight the prevalence of banned foreign money in American politics and the often lax approach campaigns take in vetting contributions.
Zuberi, a jet-setting fundraiser and venture capitalist, has raised millions of dollars for Democrats and Republicans alike over the years. Prosecutors say he has worked on behalf of several foreigners, not just Rahbani. (…)
Zuberi’s case raises questions about the degree to which political committees vet donors. One campaign, not identified by name, accepted donations made in the name of one of Zuberi’s dead relatives, prosecutors said. Another political committee took donations from a person Zuberi invented.
Zuberi has been a big fundraiser for candidates of both parties, including candidate Donald Trump.
There’s a lot of funny money going around. I keep trying not to covet.
The organization found that 51% of Americans think the First Amendment is outdated and should be rewritten. The poll found that 48% believe “hate speech” should be illegal. (“Hate speech” is not defined but left up to the individual participant.) Of those, about half think the punishment for “hate speech” should include possible jail time, while the rest think it should just be a ticket and a fine. More millennials and Gen-Xers think hate speech should be made illegal—as do women, blacks, and Hispanics. The various regions in the United States think roughly the same.
The fundamental problem with regulating hate speech is who defines it? The courts have generally shied away from restricting hate speech because of that issue. The most important U.S. Supreme Court case that could be applied is Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, a 1942 decision in which the court put forth the “fighting words” restriction on speech.
Chaplinsky was arrested for provocative statements made
in the town square. While being transported to the local police station, he
called the town marshal “a damned fascist and a racketeer.”
Justice Frank Murphy defined fighting words: “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting, or ‘fighting’ words, those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
But some legal scholars think the lower courts have defined
fighting words in an inconsistent way, while others think the decision remains
a threat to free speech.
Whatever the case, an arrest for using fighting words is a rarity. One happened a few years ago here in Philly when a local teacher got in a cop’s face and threatened him and his family.
An estimated 57% think that the government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false. Only 35% disagree with the statement, with the rest undecided. Men and women poll about the same—as do various sections of the country. The only slight difference is that millennials rise to a level of 61%.
Surprisingly, in my view, the poll found that many think the government should impose jail time for those who publish fake news. A total of 56% said that journalists should only face a fine, but the other 46% said that actual jail time should be imposed on the offenders.
The implications of the poll seem obvious, but the ramifications not so much.
The poll does underline the antipathy of the public toward the
media, and it comes from all age groups, geographic regions, income brackets,
and races.
The media would be well served if they did not ignore the
bitterness toward news organizations from just about every group.
Fifty Octobers ago a brilliant musical work was released that Rolling Stone called, “By all odds the best British album of 1969,” adding, “It shows that Pete Townshend still has worlds to conquer, and that the Beatles have a lot of catching up to do.”
The Who issued Tommy that spring and the Beatles’ last recorded album, Abbey Road, was released in September.
What was that “best British album?” Arthur (or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire) by the Kinks, written and produced by Ray Davies.
To celebrate, the Kinks, who broke up in 1996, but the surviving original members appear to have re-formed, last week released a twelve disc vinyl collector’s edition filled with remixes, demos, mono versions, new songs, and a never-released Dave Davies solo album.
There’s shorter version also available too. On Friday I downloaded the 1 hour 22 minute edition on Apple Music, with mono versions (why?), some alternative cuts, and one new song, “The Future,” credited to Arthur and the Emigrants (with Ray Davies).
Arthur is a great as I remembered. But the album was released at a troubled time for the Kinks. Fed up with the band’s lack of success, bassist Peter Quaife left. In 1965 the Kinks were banned by performing in the United States by the American Federation of Musicians. The ban, which to this date was never explained, was lifted in 1969, but much had changed by the end of the 1960s. The Who, the Rolling Stones, and the Beatles had expanded their fan base–it was always large for the Beatles–and they also expanded the breadth of their music.
Meanwhile, the Kinks were in a way marooned in England. Like children forbidden by their parents from playing outside after a blizzard and the usual resultant bitter cold temperatures, Ray Davies and the Kinks were locked inside and forced to rely on what they could find at home musically to entertain themselves. Much of their mid-1960s output owed much to British Musical Hall, the tunes of their parents. Music Hall in Britain is what Vaudeville was to America, only it spawned a distinct musical style that centered on spirited singing and catchy melodies that begged for sing-alongs. Famous, or used-to-be famous Music Hall songs include “Ta-ra-ra Boom-de-ay,” “Pack Up Your Troubles in Your Old Kit-Bag,” and “I’m Henery the Eighth, I Am.” That last one was a 1960s hit for Herman’s Hermits. That band scored another hit with “Dandy,” a Kinks song.
The Kinks first American hit was “You Really Got Me” in 1964, that tune and similar early Kinks aural assaults inspired two genres, punk rock and heavy metal. In 1967, the Music Hall-inspired “Mr. Pleasant” was the last Kinks single to break the Billboard Hot 100 until “Victoria,” the opening track of Arthur.
The Kinks clearly were back as hard rockers with “Victoria,” but there are still are Music Hall influences on Arthur. This is a concept album meant to be the soundtrack to a television play that never aired. Even in success they failed. When introducing a song on their last album, the (mostly) live To The Bone, Ray laments, “It kind of summarizes everything we’re about, the Kinks. Because everyone is expecting us to do wonderful things and we mess it all up, usually.”
The Arthur narrative centers on an elderly English suburbanite who symbolizes the disappointment that in 1969, Britain was not a classless society, as was hoped for after World War II ended.
Arthur? Oh, of course–England and knights and round tables, Excalibur, Camelot, “So all day long the noise of battle roll’d among the mountains by the winter sea.” Sorry, no. This is Arthur Morgan, who lives in a London suburb in a house called Shangri-La, with a garden and a car and a wife called Rose and a son called Derek who’s married to Liz, and they have these two very nice kids, Terry and Marilyn. Derek and Liz and Terry and Marilyn are emigrating to Australia. Arthur did have another son, called Eddie. He was named for Arthur’s brother, who was killed in the battle of the Somme. Arthur’s Eddie was killed, too–in Korea. His son, Ronnie, is a student and he thinks the world’s got to change one hell of a lot before it’s going to be good enough for him. Derek thinks it’s changed a bloody sight too much–he can’t stand England any more, all these bloody bureaucrats everywhere, bloody hell, he’s getting out. Ronnie and Derek don’t exactly get on.
Families split along political lines? You mean like now? Brexit versus EU? Donald Trump versus Elizabeth Warren?
Derek and family’s move to Australia mirrors the Davies’ sister Rosie and her husband, Arthur, relocation to Down Under a few years earlier, which inspired the 1966 Kinks’ song, “Rosie Won’t You Please Come Home.” That tune, as with many Kinks songs, is also a story. While watching Ken Burns’ Country Music series on PBS, one of the commentators mentioned that many of the greatest country songs involve stories, sometimes dramas. Which deep down is why I love the work of the Kinks. Their music is compelling. The tales they tell even more so.
One story from Arthur, a Music Hall romp, is “She Bought a Hat Like Princess Marina.”
She’s bought a hat like Princess Marina’s To wear at all her social affairs She wears it when she’s cleaning the windows She wears it when she’s scrubbing the stairs But you will never see her at Ascot She can’t afford the time or the fare But she’s bought a hat like Princess Marina’s So she don’t care.
He’s bought a hat like Anthony Eden’s Because it makes him feel like a Lord But he can’t afford a Rolls or a Bentley He has to buy a secondhand Ford He tries to feed his wife and his family And buy them clothes and shoes they can wear But he’s bought a hat like Anthony Eden’s So he don’t care.
The saddest song I know of, from anyone, is another story from Arthur, “Some Mother’s Son.”
Two soldiers fighting in a trench One soldier glances up to see the sun And dreams of games he played when he was young And then his friend calls out his name It stops his dream and as he turns his head A second later he is dead.
Some mother’s son lies in a field Back home they put his picture in a frame But all dead soldiers look the same While all the parents stand and wait To meet their children coming home from school Some mother’s son is lying dead.
The music on Arthur rises to the occasion too. Unlike many late 1960s efforts, the horns compliment, not dominate, the songs. And the Kinks, led by lead guitarist Dave Davies, are at the top of their instrumental game here.
Arthur was not a hit but it enjoyed modest sales, unlike its pastoral predecessor The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society, which wasn’t able to crack Billboard’s Hot 200 Albums chart. The stage was set for the Kinks’ return to well-deserved prominence one year later with Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One. That album of course contained “Lola,” their biggest American hit since 1965’s “Tired of Waiting for You.”
The Kinks were back.
But then it was time to “mess it all up” again. There wasn’t a Part Two of the Lola album. The next year the Kinks released a country rock collection, Muswell Hillbillies which began another decline in popularity. Only this time their time in the wilderness would last much longer.
Oh, one more item. After 50 years, the play Arthur (or the Decline and Fall of the British Empirewill finally be performed. That will happen later this year on BBC Radio.
Two of history’s most pathetic losers made the news this past
weekend, mainly because of their bizarre antics.
Hillary Clinton decided to call out presidential wannabe Tulsi
Gabbard as a Russian agent.
Seriously? This attack comes from someone who has managed to cover
up all of her wrongdoings from Benghazi to Whitewater.
The evidence is scant, mainly an ill-informed visit to Syria and a
meeting with its butcher president.
The apparent reason for Clinton’s attack goes back to 2016 when Gabbard backed Bernie Sanders and the notion that Gabbard might run as a third-party candidate—something she has vowed not to do.
In her bitterness campaign after the election, Clinton blamed a
third-party candidate for her loss to Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, another loser, Mitt Romney, has jumped on the impeachment
bandwagon.
In 2016, Romney denounced Trump as a “phony” and a “fraud,” and warned of the “trickle-down racism” that would accompany his election. After he won, Trump briefly considered tapping Romney as his secretary of state but decided not to do so. And in the years that have followed, the tension between the two men has gotten worse.
In an incredibly pathetic display, Romney apparently opened a
Twitter account under a pseudonym: Pierre Delecto.
If Trump pulled either of these stunts, the Democrats would be
adding another article to their impeachment campaign.
If two losers aren’t enough, it appears that Michael Bloomberg may
be considering joining the Democrat clown show because he’s worried about
Elizabeth Warren winning the nomination.
That means that Bloomberg, the old white guy who’s richer than Trump, would be 79 by the time he entered the White House in 2021.
I guess it’s not difficult to understand why this trio want to
remain in the limelight, but it’s time for someone to tell each of them how
bitter and silly they look.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 