Photo Exhibition

Burco and Lili's photo exhibition is opening this evening, yay!

www.itsaplane.com

www.misslili.net


Una

one of Burco's photees 

one of Lili's photees 

LISTEN TO THE BLEEDIN BLEEDINS

and bump them up the CPU chart

http://artists.cpu.ie/bands/317/

I've made it...

... an interview I did with Yngwie Maalmstein was quoted in another blog.

http://www.stephenbass.blogspot.com/

listening to : Sun Kil Moon - Glenn Tipton

in Dragon on Thursday night after the Hard Working Class Heroes launch (major thesis avoidage) 

Is This It

listening to: Hal - Keep Love As Your Golden Rule

After a hellish week, involving 2 all nighters, over a hundred cups of coffee, 2 packs of Solpodene, over 20 cans of Red Bull and 13,600 words of a thesis, I am finally spent.

Due at 12 o clock on Friday afternoon, Elaine, Ruairi and I had stayed up all night writing and editing across the city. I managed to make it into town to finish editing in Ruairi's apartment, and then met Aoife who was camped outide the Thesis Centre on Camden Street. There was a weird guy with crappy dreadlocks looking very nervous beside her.

While we went for coffee and waited for Ruairi, I was just waiting for the relief that would come. My whole year has been consumed by research for this frickin thing, and as shit as the end result was, I just wanted it out of the way.

What followed was a delerious car journey into DCU, practically collapsing as I handed the thesis in, mashed potato and gravy, and a game of pool. And a bus journey home that very nearly killed me. And then sleep, sleep.

That evening, our class decided to come full circle, and head back to The Palace - where we had our first class night out. Here;s the evidence of too much Jagermeister.
http://www.bebo.com/pt2/2053298a26654347b37326186c668620403d64

In the morning, Elaine, Jim, Ruairi and I went for a shake-off-the-hangover-walk down Dun Laoghaire pier, where Elaine offered such gems as "can birds swim?" upon seeing a bird in the sea.

That evening, the best play ever in the Samuel Beckett Theatre - 'Come Good Rain' http://www.activelink.ie/ce/active.php?id=1978

And then Corina's birthday in Bia Bar. So, yeah, I guess, a busy time. It's over now though.

Just to be boring....

I'm posting some thesis extracts


listening to : JJ72, She's Gone

The Philosophies of Neoconservatism (by me)

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF NEOCONSERVATISM

“Neoconservatives are not crazy. They are smart and determined and politically skilful. They are also, in their way, peculiarly American - true believers convinced that providence calls upon the United States to save the world by spreading the American way of life.” – Andrew J Bacevich, author of The Neocon Revolution and American Militarism and Professor of International Relations and Director of the Centre for International Relations at Boston University

Its proponents label neoconservatism a ‘persuasion’ and not a ‘movement’. In many ways neoconservatism is a collection of personal opinions from a group of thinkers who share the same legacy. Originating among the disgruntled Left in the 60s and 70s, the original neoconservatives; Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz believe that the true meaning of neoconservatism can only been made out in retrospect.

In essence neoconservatism is a collection of ideologies; it takes what it has learned from the Left, collecting conservative alliances along the way and mixing them with the optimism of America. It trades realism for idealism, recognising the limits and compromises realism offers. It borrows some principles from the traditional right and is a particularly American strain of conservatism. But its roots go deeper than that, and deeper even than the Trotskyite beliefs of the original neocons.

By recognising the various and often unpredictable roots of neoconservatism, its belief system is demystified, brought out of the shadows in which it is usually kept. Analysing these underlying beliefs offers explanations to the thoughts, actions and dreams of neoconservatives today.

Leo Strauss
Leo Strauss has been cited as the biggest and most controversial influence on neoconservatism. Strauss dedicated his life to classical political philosophy. He wrote extensively on Socrates and Plato before his death in 1973. Strauss drove to have the modern philosophers more seriously.

Strauss despised relativism; the theory that beliefs have no reference, and that our behaviour and understanding of the world is only relevant within whatever historical context we are currently existing. He feared that this relativism - in which people valued his or her opinions as much as anyone else’s - would lead to nihilism. Then nothing would matter, and there would be nothing to live for. Society would fragment completely. Strauss believed that this would create a disillusioned society. He felt that government had to intervene, to mobilise beliefs in a common cause, for example the progress and welfare of an empire. Like the original neoconservatives, he rejected modern liberalism. He saw that it gives priority to individual liberty at the expense of social cohesion. And, therefore, society suffered as a result.

Strauss believed that this contemporary liberalism was the outcome of modernity as practiced by the Western world; which was vulgar and lacking in morality. His argument against relativism is the same used by Cardinal Ratzinger before his selection as pope, and Muslim leaders against the decline of Islamic morality. Strauss wanted a return to classical political rationalism and moralism.

He also believed in a controversial method of reading philosophical writings. Strauss thought, that because philosophy was itself so controversial, that there were hidden meanings in the writings of ancient philosophers. One interpretation of their writing is on the surface – the exoteric teaching. The other has a deeper meaning, which is designed for only a select few to discover, the esoteric teaching. Strauss believed by reading texts slowly and with these questions in mind, one would be able to learn the hidden meanings that the philosopher intended to teach cryptically.

This is echoed in the very beliefs of Strauss’ own philosophy. He believed that certain things had to be achieved within society to prevent moral corruption. But Strauss acknowledged that it was hard to make the rapid progress needed to achieve this. So he proposed that leaders be entitled to deceive their people for a greater good. In order to create a stable society, Strauss upheld the belief that those in power should not disclose all of their actions, as this would lead to distrust, and was strategically foolish. What those in power needed to do, according to Strauss, was propagate myths to give people meaning and purpose within society, and to achieve their hidden goals.

Strauss went further to insinuate that the perpetual deception of citizens by those in power is critical to achieving anything in government. This is quite a radical belief, and definitely one open to question. Strauss saw conspiracy and confidentiality in government as completely necessary. Like the philosopher hiding his or her true intent in cryptic writings, those in power must do the same to fulfil their aims.

How is this reflected in the neoconservative reality? Well, take the propagation of myths for the ‘greater good’. We now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We also know that the intelligence forces building the campaign for a war knew this and fabricated and exaggerated evidence. The public was sold the reason of WMDs and Sadaam Hussein’s threat to the rest of the world. But that was not the reason the US-led ‘coalition’ went to war. America decided very early that regime change in Iraq was necessary for their greater plan in the Middle East, and this is what happened, even with the reasons for the war changing while it was still raging. The neoconservatives behind much of this policy believe this greater good was achieved by selling the public a more acceptable version of why the country should be invaded. The deception is merely a bridge to achieving what they set out to.

Strauss justified this by recognising the danger that radical opinions often caused. He believed that because philosophy was so radical, in comparison to common opinion, one had to keep one’s intent to oneself. He equated this with Socrates who after causing controversy with his opinions was forced to drink the hemlock.

The element of manipulation in Straussianism is not up for debate. It is openly evident. This is justified by Strauss’ conviction in the ‘universal principles of right.’ Like Plato and Aristotle before him, Strauss believed that there was a right and wrong in the world. The characters in Plato and Aristotle’s were often punished by ‘the Gods’ even when their actions were lawfully correct. But they were morally wrong. Because there is a greater force of ‘right’ out there, punishment, or even karma was inevitable.

The rules of morality are very appealing to neoconservatives. Invading a country maybe legally wrong then becomes irrelevant, if the perpetrator believes it to be morally correct. Some say that Bush thinks he has God on his side, and many of his American supporters believe that they do to. This sense of a higher ‘right’ than what is handed down by lawyers or opposition is very much evident in the actions of the Bush administration, and the beliefs of many Republican Party supporters. But ‘right’, ‘wrong’ and morality are subject to opinion. One person’s moral corruption is acceptable to another. It is a matter of opinion, and therefore open to interpretation and manipulation.

Strauss believed that “good politicians” needed to reassert moral values, and this would overcome moral relativism. George W. Bush has achieved this connection with moral values and the electorate. ‘Moral’ battles he has recently fought include gay marriage (by rolling back state legislation), abortion (by installing pro-life judges), contraception (by promoting abstinence in schools as the only effective way to combat STDs), evolution (obligating schools to place stickers on science books that read ‘Evolution is a theory, not a fact’) and most recently ferociously fighting Maria Schiavo’s right to die. These moral battles win favour with the neoconservatives largest and most powerful partners, the fundamentalist Christians.

There is a more sinister and complicated element to analysing Strauss’ beliefs. Strauss believed that we needed to acknowledge that there was no equality, and never will be. He stated that a privileged few will always rule, and his battle against relativism enforces elitism. This all fits in well with the development of neoconservatism by a group of people who were comfortably elite to begin with. Status quo of elitism; the government will always be the wealthy leading the poor. Strauss had little faith in a people without guidance. He constantly stressed the need for strong leadership and believed that citizens needed to be and wanted to be led. Modern liberalism has stressed individual liberty as the highest goal, but Strauss wanted to divert that, by encouraging government to reassert its dominance. Straussianism is by definition elitist.

Analysing George W. Bush’s second inauguration in 2005, the neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard described his Bush’s speech as “informed by Strauss”, even including a quote from Strauss’ ‘On Tyranny’, a book popular among neoconservatives. “A social science that cannot speak of tyranny with the same confidence with which medicine speaks, for example, of cancer, cannot understand social phenomena as what they are.”

Perhaps most importantly, Strauss recognised that philosophy was ultimately political and philosophers wrote with political intent. Because of this, leaders were obligated to return to the origins of philosophy and take their lessons from this, and not from modern science or modern philosophy, which he discredited in the shadow of the classical philosophical writings. Neoconservatives heeded.

Classical Political Philosophy
Like Strauss, neocons draw man of their beliefs from classical political philosophy. They tend to view texts on classical wars as more relevant than modern philosophy. Most of this is learnt via Strauss’ interpretation of these texts, which have influenced neoconservative Donald Kagan’s classical philosophy course at Yale called ‘The Origins of War’, one of the university’s most popular courses of the last twenty-five years.

The text constantly referred back to is Thucydides account of the Peloponnesian War. Neoconservatives mainly refer to Strauss’ writings on this, rather than the original account itself. The account of the war between Athens and Sparta is most famous for a description of a speech the commander of Athens, Pericles, gave at a mass funeral of soldiers, “our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbours’, but is an example to them,” he said, reflective of current beliefs in the Bush administration.
The largest lessons learnt from this are that of the preservation of an expansionist empire, which Athens was, and what America has become. During the funeral oration by Pericles, he stated, “We go alone into a neighbour’s country; and although our opponents are fighting for their homes and we on a foreign soil, we have seldom any difficulty overcoming them.” Neoconservatives today, who brush off the extremities of war as if every battle is a foregone conclusion, reiterate this confident nature.

So, why is this the ideal text of a neoconservative? It is littered with bravery and expansionist ideals. Those who receive aid from the Athenians are ungrateful, which confused Athens, like today, when Americans puzzle over why people dislike them so much when they believe they do so much good in the world. Wars are necessary and almost constant to defend the ruling few and fancy rhetoric is dealt down to the families of fallen soldiers, similar to what Bush says today to the American armed forces as all citizens are expected to make a sacrifice for the empire.

The war in question lasted 45 years, with many different phases and fronts. It was an ideological long-term plan. Of course, the Athenians lost, making the same mistakes America is making today. The planning may be careful, but it is not logistically attentive. The turning point of the Peloponnesian War came when the Athenians decided to invade the city of Syracuse in Sicily. They gained access to the town through the harbour easily, and invaded the city, expecting a swift victory. But the people of Syracuse resisted, recruiting fighters from far and wide to share their cause. Thucydides later wrote, “Without realising it, the besiegers had become the besieged.” The Athenians fought their way out in a messy and unprepared exit strategy. This ‘Imperial Overreach’ (described as such in The Weekly Standard’) is what America is risking today. But acknowledging it is recognising realism. And for neoconservatives, realism is undesirable as it has limits. For the same reasons neoconservatives disliked Reagan’s foreign policy realism, they disregard this element of the Peloponnesian War. This is indicative of the peculiar reality constructed by neoconservatives - picking and choosing elements of history to formulate a belief system that they deem justifies their actions. In a text so favoured by neoconservatives, they would do well by acknowledging these finer points. The turning point of the battle reflects the situation in Iraq almost as an eerie déjà vu.

It also indicates that a succession of small losses can topple an empire. A war is about momentum. Once the momentum is lost, so is the ambition, and realism seeps in. The Romans conquered and fell. The Greeks conquered and fell. America, too, will fall. The question is: what and who will it take on the way down?

Woodrow Wilson
Ideologies of former American presidents play a part in the neoconservative thought process. Woodrow Wilson is now regarded as man whose philosophy has seriously contributed to neoconservatism. But how? The term ‘Wilsonian’ is bandied about in writings on neocons, again without much explanation.

Parallels can be drawn between Woodrow Wilson’s aspiration for American military domination, and the current actions of the Bush administration, but this was only in the context of a world war and the peacemaking and nation building that followed (and as a desired response to communism and Lenin’s thesis. The ‘Wilsonian’ view has been generalised as a want to promote American ideals globally. But there are vast differences, Woodrow Wilson believed in multilateralism and international law (even if it just was to further American expansion), of which neoconservatives have little regard. This is why neoconservatives have been labelled ‘hard’ Wilsonians. While they admire Wilson’s championing of American ideals 80 years ago, they believe these ideals will not be achieved through multilateral actions, but solely through America’s exclusive military power.

The real effect Wilson may have had, bar the hypothetical rhetoric on American ideals, is very little. There is nothing in his writing or actions to strongly mirror beliefs of neoconservatives. The label of ‘Wilsonian’ is an empty phrase, one of many surrounding the confused climate of deciphering neoconservatism.


The Legacy Of The Left
The legacy of the Left hangs in the background of neoconservatism. This is not surprising, given the original neocons began as Trotskyites, before moving further and further to the right from the 1970s onwards.

The most important aspect of this is opposition awareness. Second generation neoconservatives (principally William Kristol editor of the neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard, and son of neocon ‘Godfather’ Irving Kristol) did not begin their political beliefs with affiliations to communism. But the original neoconservatives did. This offers them an advantage as an understanding of how ‘the Left’ operates. One of he most powerful tools neoconservatives have is an understanding of those who confront them. This runs all the way to the Republican Party, who, as witnessed in the 2004 presidential election, knew as much about the Democrat Party as they did about themselves.

In the beginning, neoconservatism was an anti-ideology, founded by deflectors from another and defined by what it was not. Today, with a second generation of neocons taking control, it is founded on less pessimistic definitions, becoming an original forward-looking persuasion.

Andrew J. Bacevich, quoted at the beginning of this article, has written that neoconservatism is a type of ‘inverted Trotskyism,’ but again, this defines neoconservatism as what it isn’t and has little solid meaning. The real importance of such a legacy is to acknowledge it as a trend, rather than a remaining belief. Neo-liberals and neoconservatives have all dramatically shifted from left to right, forming their own niches in political theory. Although this trend may seem unusual to some, it displays, most importantly how disillusioned the original neoconservatives were, how dramatic their change in beliefs were and how they also have experience of their opposition.
Individual PhilosophiesGiven that neoconservatives continuously repeat that their beliefs are not part of a concrete movement in the leftist sense, it can be concluded that personal opinion contributes a lot to what they believe. Even the term neoconservatism can upset some people as Andrew J. Bacevich explains, “the label tends to blur differences and overlook subtleties. However, you'll find that more neocons will identify themselves as such when things are going their way. They tend to dodge the identity when they become the targets of criticism as has been especially the case since the Iraq War turned sour.”Even neoconservatives themselves debate the label. Some call themselves neoconservatives who think one thing, but not another that might be in common with other neocons. The Pulitzer Prize-winning neoconservative Charles Krauthammer, who in 2004 was awarded the ‘Irving Kristol Award’ by the neocon think tank The American Enterprise Institute, reflected this a la carte trend in neoconservatism. (Disclaimer: although Charles Krauthammer’s office agreed to an interview, the final answers were given by his research assistant Matt Lenkowsky who said that the answers “reflect Charles’ views, but is not his direct wording” and should not be directly attributed to Charles Krauthammer himself.)

“Charles (Krauthammer) views himself as a neoconservative. However, the exact definition of that term is a bit complex. Contrary to popular belief, neoconservatives are not all identical in their thinking, even on foreign policy. In fact, there is a great deal of debate among neoconservatives. To give one example, over where America should use its influence and power. Bill (William) Kristol, for instance, wants to see America promote democracy actively everywhere. Charles, on the other hand, is somewhat more of a realist: he favours an active promotion of democracy “where it counts” (today, that is the Middle East), and a more passive promotion of democracy in other regions of the world (i.e. support in principle, but not be willing to risk blood and treasure.) Basically, the term neoconservative, as you are probably referring to it here…can be summed up as the belief that America should take advantage of the unique situation she finds herself in…to promote democracy and democratic reform around the world in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile counterweight to America.”
Personal opinion may make up a lot of the beliefs, given that neoconservatism is a ‘persuasion’ driven by individuals, but the collective belief of American duty to spread democracy is common throughout.

This element questions the strength of an umbrella neoconservative belief system. Taking neoconservatism as a genuine political philosophy, one expects a solid framework of values. But that is not so. There is a long scale of degrees of adherence to neoconservatism. This makes it even harder to interpret. It also brings into questions its validity as a philosophy at all. Naturally, no one shares the exact same beliefs, but the very common tendency for individuals who label themselves as neoconservatives to accept some beliefs and deflect others and to mould their own extended political beliefs around the term is unique to neoconservatism.

Neoconservatism 101 (by me)

NEOCONSERVATISM 101: A History, and an Explanation


“The historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy” - Irving Kristol, ‘Godfather’ of neoconservatism, The Neoconservative Persuasion.

Before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, one group of people suddenly occupied an incredible amount of space in newspapers around the world. The world media focussed on who they believed was now in charge of American foreign policy. Neoconservatives had apparently gained control of the White House and were planning war after war as a process of assuring American global dominance. They were depicted, without explanation, as elusive and secretive warmongers, eager to colonise ‘the axis of evil’. Neoconservative became shorthand for the White House administration, Christian fundamentalists, supporters of the ‘War On Terror’, staff of the Pentagon, and even Bush himself. But who are the neocons? What do they believe in, and what do they seek? Their agenda is depicted as secretive and dangerous, yet never explained.

Neoconservatism is perhaps the most misunderstood term in recent political history. The term peppers articles that address anything from globalisation, to the Republican Party, to the ‘War on Terror’. There are many reasons why the truth behind this political theory has yet to be properly explained. One reason is the refusal of the European media - which generally portrays American political theory as one lacking in sophistication - to engage on any real level with neoconservative theory. The coverage of American politics is relegated to a one-sided condescending analysis. And so, famous headlines are written illustrating the patronising European standpoint. “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” asked the Daily Mirror famously, when George W Bush was re-elected. The answer was in the question’s conclusion. Another reason why most people still don’t know what neoconservatism actually is (even though we read about it almost every day), is the media’s tendency to presume understanding, rather than to explain.

There are other reasons too and most of them relate to the machinery of neoconservatism itself. A neoconservative will say that they have no platform, manifesto, leader or spokesperson. They say the very nature of neoconservatism is not a centralised political belief system, but a ‘persuasion’. This makes their beliefs harder to grasp. Perhaps this is a front to avoid direct analysis. If so, it has worked, as objective beliefs of neoconservatism are continuously muddled. But by tackling the roots of neoconservatism, we can begin to see the core beliefs, its development and greatest advocates, and how it came to hold the attention of our world. More importantly, we can realise what it has in store for a new world order.

THE BEGINNING
The 1950s echoed a traditional conservatism in the US - one that was very much isolationist in character, as America recoiled into a shell. In many ways, the socially turbulent America of the 1960s was a reaction to that. Protests against the Vietnam War challenged the heart of American politics. The comfort zone of the conservative 1950’s when Americans retreated into suburbia was permeated with disillusion. Socially, the migration of African Americans to northern cities, the creation of ghettos and rise of urban crime and decay created further cause for concern.

At the same time, the recognition of Joseph Stalin as a fully blown imperial dictator, with intentions to swallow Europe launched the Cold War. Lyndon B. Johnson who took office following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, initiated a series of domestic initiatives for his ‘Great Society’ programme (although The Vietnam War overshadowed his presidency.) The isolationist conservatives found a common cause with the anti-war movement. And finally, the 1960’s was giving birth to Neoconservatism.

By now, ‘The New Left’ (a term given to radical social activism throughout the 60s) and the ‘Counterculture’ (the reaction to the conservative norms of the 1950s) were seeping into the mainstream. The media and intellectual elite were more or less sympathetic to their liberal social cause. But not everybody was content with this new America; not least a few key Trotskyites who would later become the original Neoconservatives.

Like most political theories, Neoconservatism was born out of disillusion. It addressed a domestic agenda, and the preservation of American society. Second generation Jews had a vested interest in the preservation of American society. They had nowhere else to go. Equally urban, educated and motivated as ‘the New Left’, they were angered at American society’s thoughtless descent into vulgarity. They resented the laisez faire attitude of the socially liberal left.

Irving Kristol was a core member of a group of Trotskyites who studied together at City College, New York in the 1930s. Describing himself as “a liberal mugged by reality”, he had experience on the Left, as an anti-Stalinist Trotskyite, and during the 1960s and 70s came to the opinion that his previous political beliefs were both intellectually and morally redundant.

Kristol, along with other disillusioned leftists including Norman Podhoretz angered by the lawlessness of the 1960s political currents rejected what seemed to be an endless bashing of American society by liberal intellectuals. Social changes were being made, and they viewed these as the wrong social changes. Their proof was in the disintegration of the American family and the large increase in crime in American cities, (notably in their own, New York). They began to rally against the anti-establishment (Neoconservatives were later described as ‘The Counter-counter Culture’.)

Irving Kristol embodied what the larger group of Neoconservatives would later become: self-confident, optimistic, pragmatic, urban, secular and given to generalisations. Kristol was also the editor of a small publication, The Public Interest, and began to use it as a forum for neoconservatism. Utilising such publications became a key weapon for neoconservatism in the intellectual debate.

Kristol’s writings have been instrumental in deciphering the beliefs of neoconservatives, namely in his 1983 book ‘Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead’. An article published 20 years later called ‘The Neoconservative Persuasion’ gives an explanation more relevant to the present day. The article was published in the neoconservative magazine, The Weekly Standard edited by his son, William Kristol, one of the most influential neoconservative thinkers today.


NEOCONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
Republican Party presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford held office from 1969 until 1977, with Democrat Jimmy Carter then succeeding until 1981. Neoconservatives began to enter the White House under the presidency of Ronald Reagan occupying second and third tier jobs, mainly in defence and intelligence. Among these neoconservative promotions were William Bennett - now an occasional speechwriter for George W. Bush – who was appointed Secretary of Education, and Richard Perle, who was appointed assistant Secretary of Defence. There, he became known as ‘the Prince of Darkness’, because of his opposition to nuclear arms control agreements. Perle became chairman of the Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee from 2001 to 2003 in the Bush administration. Jeane Kirkpatrick, an up-and-coming neocon, was appointed as Reagan’s foreign policy advisor and eventually as ambassador to the United Nations, where she was known for her anti-communist stance and support of rightwing dictatorships, supporting Pinochet in Chile and Marcos in the Philippines.

Although neoconservatives had suddenly gained access to the White House, they never quite entered its inner sanctum, and gradually became disenchanted with Reagan, especially on foreign policy issues. They viewed him as a tough talker, but lenient in action. Reagan was a realist, and neoconservatives dislike realism, because realism means limits and is therefore too pessimistic for the neocon worldview.

Neoconservatives were relegated to the sidelines again under traditional conservative
George Bush, with the exception of William Kristol, Irving’s son, who became vice president Dan Quayle’s chief of staff. Several young neoconservatives became speechwriters for the president, namely John Podhoretz, (son of Norman Podhoretz, one of the original neocons alongside Irving Kristol.) Around this time, neoconservatives were gaining allies within the media. The op-ed (opposite editorial) pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times – both traditional forums of ideological debate – began to feature greater representation from the neoconservative persuasion. William Kristol had also won over Robert Bartley, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal. The editorial pages there had now become a counterrevolution of the ‘New Class‘’ attack on corporate powers and big business. As neoconservative opinions were given increased representation in the newspaper, its readers (a highly influential and wealthy demographic) began to show more support for the neocon writers and thinkers.

The collapse of the Soviet Union saw a period of confusion among Neoconservatives. Anti-communism was part of their raison d’etre, and it had already become apparent that neoconservatism was going to become more and more preoccupied with foreign policy, rather than a domestic agenda. Their domestic ‘social’ beliefs were suited to whoever would make an alliance with them (today, fundamentalist Christians). Their economic beliefs were conservative and libertarian; beliefs in free trade, lower taxes and less government involvement in the market. This became a time of restructuring and recruiting, while those in opposition were prematurely writing the obituary of a ‘persuasion’ that seemed to have run out of potential.

The Clinton years saw a fervent neoconservative opposition and alliance building. A marriage of convenience between fundamentalist Christians had begun. The neoconservatives needed them to create a stronger opposition to Clinton. Fundamentalist Christians had huge influence on the electorate, many of whom were appalled at Clinton’s liberal stance on homosexuality, contraception, abortion and his own sexual scandal involving Monica Lewinsky. The alliance offered substantially more weight to the Neoconservative group opposition. This was also a time of struggle in the Republican Party itself. Traditional, or ‘paleo’ conservatives within the party were losing ground to the more forward-looking neocons, especially on foreign policy and social issues.

Meanwhile, William Kristol was immensely successful in opposition to Clinton, almost single-handedly defeating the Clinton healthcare proposal, and in the mid nineties, he founded two new platforms and powerhouses of neoconservative thought – The Weekly Standard magazine and the ideological political think tank, The Project For A New American Century.

The re-ascendance of Neoconservatism into the White House occurred most dramatically under the next administration, when George W Bush took office.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEOCONSERVATISM OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE
Being in opposition sometimes inspires the greatest advances. Because neoconservatives were so underrepresented in government apart from the Reagan era and today’s administration, they were forced to establish their own institutions.

Key neocons founded think tanks (namely the Project For A New American Century) and transformed others (The American Enterprise Institution), publishing reports that had a wide audience in the Republican Party and beyond. The less representation neoconservatives had in presidential administrations, the greater their structural development within think tanks and publications.

In a speech delivered by George W Bush to the American Enterprise Institute in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, the president commented “you do such good work that my administration has borrowed twenty such minds,” referring to the members of his administration that also reside at the institute. During this time, neoconservatives had their most success projecting their opinions through publications. Founded in 1945, the monthly Commentary Magazine, published by the American Jewish Committee saw the two founding fathers of neoconservatism - Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz – take posts as editors. Like the neoconservative movement, Commentary was left leaning in its early years. Today it is an ardent supporter of Israel and American unilateralism. It prides itself on being “the intellectual home of the neoconservative movement.” Podhoretz still holds the title of ‘Editor-at-large’.

Irving Kristol founded The Public Interest magazine in 1965 and it was intensely and ideologically neoconservative in outlook from the beginning. Focussing mainly on domestic policy, it acted as the domestic neocons organ to The National Interest’s foreign policy writings. The National Interest, a highly influential foreign affairs quarterly, was founded in 1985 by Irving Kristol. In 1989, it featured Francis Fukuyama’s article entitled ‘The End of History?’ The editorial board includes Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle. William F. Buckley’s National Review founded in 1955 also deserves a mention. Although more traditionally conservative than neoconservative, it became open to neoconservative thought at this time.And perhaps most influential of them all was and is The Weekly Standard. Founded in 1995 by William Kristol. This magazine has perhaps been the most successful and sensationalist neocon organ and reportedly read by almost every senior member of the George W Bush administration.

Along with these, Forbes magazine was welcoming to neoconservative thought, under the editorship of Steve Forbes, a member of the AEI. Rupert Murdoch’s media outlets (which include The Weekly Standard), The New York Post and the Fox News Channel also began to hold a neoconservative bias, as did The Wall Street Journal.

GEORGE W BUSH AND THE REBIRTH OF NEOCONSERVATISM
At the tail end of the 1990s, Neoconservatism was in danger of being swallowed by the sustained traditional conservatism movement. Norman Podhoretz wrote ‘Neoconservatism, A Eulogy’ emphasising the point. The whole movement had been whittled down to a few, if very prominent, intellectuals. There was little representation of neoconservative ideas in government during the Bush Snr and Clinton years. In fact, the entire faction of neoconservatism had been relegated to think tanks and magazines, which, although influential on Capitol Hill, had little clout in the White House. Which is why the next turn of events took most by surprise. Upon his election, George W Bush installed neoconservatives, and conservatives sympathetic and open to the neoconservative persuasion in key positions in his administration.

Paul Wolfowitz, who had been a military analyst under Reagan, and a founding member of the Project For A New American Century, was appointed Deputy Secretary of Defence. His superior, Donald Rumsfeld, a supporter of neoconservatism, was seen as an elderly figurehead, put in the position because Wolfowitz was too controversial for the job. Wolfowitz has since become head of the World Bank.

Zionist Douglas Feith was made Undersecretary of Defence for policy. His Pentagon unit (Office of Special Plans, formerly the Northern Gulf Affairs Office) was heavily criticised by the Senate Intelligence Committee’s review of intelligence leading to the Iraq War.

Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, who also worked in the Reagan administration, was appointed vice president Dick Cheney’s (himself a supporter of neoconservatism) Chief of Staff and advisor on National Security Affairs. Libby was taught by Paul Wolfowitz at Yale University. Libby came under intense scrutiny in 2003, when he was suspected of revealing the identity undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political gain.

Political scientist Condoleeza Rice (who had worked on the National Security Council for Bush Snr,) joined the Bush administration as National Security Advisor and in the second term as Secretary of State, succeeding the more moderate Colin Powell. Named by Forbes magazine in 2004 as the world’s most powerful woman, Rice was one of the strongest proponents in the White House for invading Iraq.

Note the key neoconservatives hold positions exclusively in foreign policy, defence and intelligence. Many other neoconservatives occupy positions in foreign policy, defence and in the Pentagon as advisors.

When it comes to ticking boxes, George W Bush is not a neocon per se. There are two versions of his relationship with neoconservatism; he is either very open to the beliefs of neoconservatism, or as presidential hopeful Howard Dean said he has been “captured by the neoconservatives around him.” Only Bush and those closest to him know what the real truth is.

9/11 was a turning point for American politics. And for neoconservatism, it became a policy watershed. Their foreign policy, which had previously appeared dramatic and hawkish, now became very realistic. In fact, the neoconservative approach seemed to be the only one that fitted with that exact time. Suddenly, neoconservative ideas were pushed to the fore, and their once extremely ideological worldview became America’s foreign policy.

For most who disagree with neoconservative politics, it is almost impossible to debate them. But within the world, exist many individual and collective realities, and if anything, the neocons have been particularly successful in constructing their own reality, one beyond the realms of rational debate.

THE PRINCIPALS OF NEOCONSERVATIVE FOREIGN POLICY
The most controversial and widely talked about element of neoconservatism today is their radical foreign policy beliefs. Here are the basic neoconservative foreign policy beliefs in the context of a neoconservative reality:

After 9/11, the world is different therefore a different approach is needed
International relations are now discussed in terms of pre and post 9/11. Clichés abound as to “the day the world changed forever”, which although quite a grand and America-centric viewpoint is one neoconservatives fervently hold. To them, isolationism is dead. America needs to adapt to this ‘new reality’. Foreign policy cannot sit idly by, but must adopt drastic actions and pro-active measures. Optimism (always evident in Bush’s rhetoric about the situation on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan) and a positive outlook on the future hold this view together.

A nation’s security is not a domestic matter
Neoconservatives believe that their own security is achieved through foreign policy. This paradoxical viewpoint of ‘making the world safer’ by essentially going to war causes perhaps the most controversy. Believing that external action solves internal problems is very much a long-term solution. In the short-term, it causes massive disruption in the countries that America decides to ‘liberate’. Neoconservatives openly propose regime change in many countries that they view as a threat to American security. Others in the White House (principally Colin Powell in the lead up to the Iraq War) see this as too hawkish an outlook to bring to the people, which is when other excuses for invasion are thought up.

Prevention prevents
Again, a simplistic generalisation favoured by neoconservatives, basically meaning pre-emptive action is necessary, to rid security threats to America.

The American system is better for the world
This is perhaps the principal ideology of neoconservatism, and the source of America’s plan for the Middle East. It is difficult to argue that democracy is bad. Tyrannical dictators populate the Middle East, and citizens under their rule would be better off without them. That much is true. And that is the beginning and the end of the neoconservative ideological plan for the Middle East. What can be argued is the method in which this is achieved. Previously, America advocated a watered down version of exporting democracy, preferring to support and arm uprisings within countries, rather than march in and do the jobs themselves. But sometimes America does not pick the right battles, like arming the Taliban (and Bin Laden himself) against the Russians in Afghanistan, and half heartedly supporting a coup in Iraq, which was quashed easily by Saddam Hussein. But now, no expense is spared to make sure America goes in, does it their way, and stays in. The chief term in all of this is ‘Freedom’. Freedom is good, freedom is necessary, and everybody wants to be free. It’s easier to sell ‘Freedom’ and ‘liberation’ to the American public than ‘occupation’ and ‘invasion’.

America will not abandon nations as they have done in the past
Talk of ‘exit strategies’ is viewed by the neocons as negative. This is where ‘Nation Building’ comes in. Most presumed that America would be in and out of Iraq swiftly (indeed, perhaps the neocons thought this themselves too), and leave the UN to clean up the mess. But the neoconservatives seem to have a more developed plan to maintain a presence in the countries they ‘liberate’. Of course, there is the added bonus of control, because America will oversee all the ‘restructuring’ of both government and economy. The largest embassy in the world is currently being built in Baghdad where American authorities will reside.

There are sub-principals to all of this, which fill in the gaps to neoconservative foreign policy. Neoconservatives believe that foreign policy is military policy, and not diplomacy. No matter whatever rhetoric is thrown around regarding ‘exhausting all the options’ before action is taking, neoconservatives believe in the military might of America and its position as the world’s sole superpower. They see this situation as no accident and one that America has a duty to act upon. And the Iraq War showed this. The ‘options’ were not ‘exhausted’. They dealt with the UN with nothing more than contempt, weapons inspectors were not allowed to complete their work, and the very legality of the war is still in doubt.

Neoconservatives believe that the budget deficits suffered in order for their foreign policy to be acted upon are irrelevant, as they see them as merely a short-term loss. They also believe that although self-interest is at the heart of foreign policy (combined with ‘moral duty’), economic benefits of foreign policy actions are consequential and not convenient. For most of the world, this statement is hard to swallow, given the obvious massive natural resources and strategic positions of the countries affected in the War on Terror, along with the relationship the American government has with companies awarded contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Finally, a crucial element of neoconservative policy: Neoconservatives believe a country is solely in charge of its own security and this is too important to be left to world government or international law. These are the general foreign policy beliefs held by most neocons, however, personal opinion influences how neoconservatives occasionally differ from each other. Some neoconservatives are more hawkish than others, while some have more respect for multilateralism than others.

NEOCONSERVATISM, WORLD GOVERNEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
“There is no United Nations. ... When the United States leads, the United Nations will follow. When it suits our interests to do so, we will do so. When it does not suit our interests, we will not.” – John Bolton, Undersecretary of State and proposed US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Historically, America has regarded international institutions with deep suspicion. Over time, this suspicion has evolved into disregard.

On a diplomatic level, America, being a young nation, is consistently arrogant. Statesmen are taught to have the ability to distinguish ‘friends’ from ‘enemies’, hence the rhetoric of ‘axis of evil’, or Condoleeza Rice’s more recent “outposts of tyranny” metaphor. It’s a simplistic worldview, but in America, the simplest ideas are often publicly regarded as the best. Part of this is due to the emphasis on ‘national interest’. America is in a uniquely powerful position in the world. Its national interest is not a geographical term. Another country’s ‘national interest’ begins and ends at its boarders, an isolationist view. But America has more extensive interests. Its ‘national interest’ extends across the globe.

The United Nations is a recipient of increased neoconservative distain. International Law – especially the UN – depends on the cooperation of all governments involved. Neoconservatives view this as a series of compromises, many with governments that they do not view as legitimate. The neocons believe that the UN institutionalises corruption and conflicts of interest. The recent disintegration of the UN, especially the scandals surrounding ‘oil for food’, have been massive boosts for the neoconservative belief that the UN is corrupt, listless and ultimately useless.

Neoconservatives see no reason to leave the governing of their own country in the hands of a greater institution. This is an issue of control. They believe that no one knows a country better than the country itself; therefore its security and interests should be left to the individual country alone. This sentiment that America knows best also allows relative abstention from international agreements that are viewed as inconvenient, or are not in the ‘national interest’.


OTHER TRAITS OF NEOCONSERVATISM
It is already obvious that in sensibility, neocons reject the stuffiness and resistance to change of traditional conservatives. Instead, they are intensely optimistic and enthusiastic about the future. In this sense, neoconservatism may be difficult for Europeans to grasp because it is so uniquely American in attitude. For neocons, the positive American attitude, the belief that every problem has a simple solution, and the apparent innocent optimism is central to the sentiment of neoconservatism.

Patriotism is greatly supported. It is viewed as a natural and healthy sentiment that should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. It is also a method of control and manipulation, where previously undesirable endeavours can now go ahead ‘in the name of the USA’. Critics of US policy within America are labelled the worst thing of all – ‘unpatriotic’. The Patriot Act, basically a series of restrictions on civilian rights shows where blind ideology doesn’t just cross over into policy, it sometimes creates it.

Adaptability, a legacy of understanding the Left and awareness of ones enemy (unlike the Democrat Party, which seemed to have no understanding of their competition) has served the neoconservatives well. They are also opportunistic, seizing on alliances in the early days, like that with the fundamentalist Christians, even though the majority of high profile neoconservatives are in fact Jewish.


IRVING KRISTOL’S LEGACY
In 2003, Irving Kristol, (by then 83 years old) published the ultimate neoconservative explanation in The Weekly Standard, the magazine edited by his son William. ‘The Neoconservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is’ explains the sentiment and attitude of neoconservatism, rather than what it hoped to achieve on a global scale. In the article, Kristol outlined some invaluable observations. He pinpointed the mechanics of the development of neoconservatism, using the word ‘persuasion’ very purposely, and writing that neoconservatism was still developing, and that its true meaning is only evident in retrospect. Concentrating on the optimism of neoconservatism, a seemingly positive picture is painted, “it is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim.”

Crucially, Kristol identifies the American outlook of neoconservatism, a characteristic necessary to understand its larger sentiment, “neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the ‘American grain.’”

Kristol’s ‘Neoconservative Persuasion’ was seen as a final explanation to a view that had by this time infiltrated the White House. Neoconservatism’s lack of self-explanation provided its opposition with the ammunition that it was a secretive and murky belief system, hiding its actions from the greater public.

What Kristol outlines still remains vague. He says that there is “no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. This adds another dimension that has become apparent within neoconservatism. Because there is no manifesto laid down, neoconservatism can be very much left to one’s interpretation. This works on two levels. Firstly, the opposition end up interpreting it as many different things. Secondly, those who call themselves ‘neoconservatives’ often have very different views. This adds to a difficulty in explaining what neoconservatism actually is.

Following the outline of these thoughts by Kristol, the split between the now ‘traditional’ conservatives or ‘paleo-conservatives’ and neoconservatives was clear. The major element of difference was in foreign policy, where neoconservatives were winning approval, as their objectives seemed more relevant to ‘a changed world’. The traditional conservative isolationism was completely redundant in this new reality.

This brings us back to the starting quote from Irving Kristol about transforming the Republican Party and American conservatism in general. For now, this is what they have achieved. Neoconservatism was written off as the obsession of a few communist deflectors before 9/11. The events on that day gave legitimacy to neocons beliefs, there is not doubt about that. Neoconservatism needed a dramatic change in world events to make its policy a reality and 9/11 provided that flashpoint. The manifestations of neoconservative foreign policy beliefs have resulted in two wars in as many years, and now, the precariousness of such radical actions are showing. Support for the Iraq War is waning in America. The people will only tolerate the human and economic cost for so long. There is a large consensus that the public is being lied to – a deceptive ruling method that Leo Strauss (the political philosopher many see has the biggest influence on neoconservatives) championed. The neocons have almost achieved what they set out to do: convert the Republican Party and American conservatism in general. But such achievement is conditional. If Iraq continues to disintegrate and if the Republican’s lose the next presidential election, neoconservatism will be dead on its feet, reverting back to the opposition and giving traditional conservatives an excuse to reform.

America’s current government has strong ideologies. The military superiority of America makes these ideologies reality, where the ideologies of other nations begin and end in speeches, impossible to implement. A strong enough ideology will always demand human sacrifice. Because America values democracy and ‘freedom’ above all else, it claims it will always seek to defend a democratic nation under attack. What has become evident is that America picks its battles with strategic economic and geographical benefits in mind, which is not surprising for a nation founded on self-interest, self-preservation and self-advancement. By rising to the top, the neoconservatives are truly living the American dream.

What is actually in 'hemlock'?

http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/mom/hemlock/hemlock.html

certain things are sounding like a better and better alternative to doing this bloody thesis.

Una

Mike (Bleedin Bleedins) @ the Crawdaddy gig on Thursday night. photee by Lili 

BLEEDIN' TOWER INSTORE 

my thesis is due in 6 days

fuck

listening to: JJ72 - She's Gone

the tough boyband shot (Temple Bar) 

Mike, Barry (weird coincidental stripey jacket), Dave 

THE BLEEDIN BLEEDINS ARE IN TOWN!

yay! Photoshoot Wednesday, Crawdaddy gig Thursday, Limerick Friday, Tower Records instore Saturday.

Havin fun and their set @ Crawdaddy rocked

AND I GOT MY LEATHER JACKET BACK FROM DAVE YAAAAAAAY!

listening to: The Bravery: Honest Mistake

JJ72 tour poster some kid got signed 

this is JJ72 in Leeds 

Weird Shit

Weird shit has been happening recently, which serves to prove that real life is weirder than made up shit. When the universe aligns to freak you out, you're fucked. This is last week's weird shit update.

Exhibit A:
Fitzy was coming home from the pub on the bus. Deperate for a pee, he couldn't make it home so ran behind a shop and peed in some bushes. Feeling a little uneasy, as if someone was watching him, he moved his foot to walk away. And stood on a body.

Exhibit B:
Ruairi was cycling into college. A car pulled infront of him wrecklessly and Ruairi flicked the driver the bird. The car followed him all the way into college, with the driver throwing golf balls at Ruairi's head the whole way in.

Exhibit C:
Me and Elaine were sitting outside a cafe in Temple Bar reminiscing about our trip earlier this year to Brussels. We began to talk about our chat with the Labout MEP Prionsias De Rossa, and being immature made fun of his name giggling 'Munchias, Crunchias de Rossa'. Then we began to talk about the weird shit that had been happening. A few minutes later, Prionsias De Rossa walked passed out table.

Exhibit D:
I told Lili to email 2fm to request a song by the Bleedin Bleedins. She did so, and a while later the DJ forwarded Lili an email that I had sent for no reason.

Of Course, this isn't propaganda...

...because it's America.

And America is free, like Iraq.

Because it's not as if dictators plaster giant billboards of themselves along with statues and natty little frescos across their cities.

Anyways, this is Orlando. (soon to be named Bushingrad)

Isn't he smiley?

Big Dubya is watching you.

listening to: freedom-loving music

na na na na na na na na LEADER, LEADER, FISHING. D'OH! 

Dude from The Cranberries has a new band

MONO CULTURE

Leaving aside one of the most successful rock groups in the world after selling 38 million albums to start a small solo project of your own is not something most people would do, surely? But that’s what Cranberries guitarist Noel Hogan did, abandoning a new Cranberries album to focus on his own creation Mono Band. Una Mullally asks why.

Noel Hogan is bunged up. Sitting in the sedate surroundings of the Merrion Hotel, he looks lackadaisically groomed; an appearance only the truly loaded can pull off in such a conservative setting. His t-shirt, jeans, white runners and bomber jacket jarring slightly with the angry suited man next to us screaming into his phone about outsourcing fifteen companies to Bangalore, or something to that effect.

Mono Band began when the follow up to 2001’s unremarkable ‘Wake Up And Smell The Coffee’ didn’t. The Cranberries were ready to record their seventh studio album when Hogan announced that he wanted to bring in some different elements to their song writing and recording process. Hogan had done some experimental work with a programmer in London. “For years I thought that computers have no place in the studio,” begins Hogan, “but I had become very interested in what you could do with programming. So the album was put on hold.” Hogan bought a laptop and software and created a bunch of songs for himself. There’s no mention of what sort of acrimony if any this caused amongst The Cranberries, but it does appear as though Hogan’s ‘creative differences’, so to speak, were behind the stall in The Cranberries work.

Not only had Hogan’s methods of making music changed dramatically, but so had his influences, “I was listening to stuff like Beck and Daft Punk. I liked the way they missed electronica and real instruments. Stuff like Blur’s ‘Think Tank’ album and Gorrillaz. In the early years, I was into The Smiths and The Cure, all these 80’s indie bands,” he says, almost ridiculing such predictable taste, “I still listen to that, but definitely the stuff I’m listening to these days is closer to what I’m trying to get done now.” We chat for a while about the snobbery in rock music towards technology, where Hogan is for the only time during the interview witty, “there’s this while thing of ‘I want to go into a studio made in the 60s and use all the same instruments’,” he sneers happily, before flicking back into serious mode, “when I started using a computer, it just opened up a whole world. There’s now way I could’ve made this album without it.” Hogan recorded the whole album at home in his garage, with numerous vocalists, two of which now come on tour.

The difference as a live dynamic was the most dramatic with Hogan, “the first gig was weird. I hadn’t played on stage in over two years. There’s seven of us on the stage, so it’s pretty tight. Being up there and looking around and seeing all these different faces, y’know, I was so used to seeing the other three people, y’know?” he tails off. The gig in Whelan’s will be the first full-length show Mono Band will have performed. Hogan is nervous, “I’ve been nervous for maybe the last month - there have been a few sleepless nights alright,” he remarks shifting on the couch. He speaks at times inaudibly, half a reason is his cold, the other is because his airy, boyish voice doesn’t carry much projection. When he raises it, a rush of Limerick emerges. When he mentions the Cranberries success (which he rarely does, referring to them only as ‘the band’), he looks sideways in embarrassment, hands clutching his elbows for some kind of protective reassurance. Hogan was behind ‘Dream’ and ‘Linger’, tracks that propelled The Cranberries even further into multi-million selling territory. For a moment, he is strangely candid, casting doubts over The Cranberries later and distinctly average work, hinting that perhaps he compromised his own ambition by repeating tired old methods in their later albums. He indicates that Mono Band relit his interest in music, “I guess when things get comfortable and you get successful and you know a certain formula works, there is a temptation to get a bit lazy and kind of go ‘that’ll do’. Doing this now has made me realise what actual hard work is.”
As for the future of The Cranberries, Hogan is sketchy. “I would find it hard not to do it (recording) the way I’m doing it now,” he ventures, “whenever we decide to get back together, or whatever happens, still, this is how I’ve got used to working. It’s a lot more liberating.” He utters ‘bye’ faintly and rushes over to reception to take care of something, sliding his hands into his back pockets, and looking around the lobby distracted.

THE MAGIC NUMBERS

IT’S A KIND OF MAGIC

The Magic Numbers are gently winning the hearts and minds of the most cynical all across the musical spectrum. Now, they perform in Dublin as part of the Bud Rising Festival. Una Mullally spoke to front man Romeo while the Magic Numbers were on the road in England, heading for Bristol.

The Magic Numbers are in the middle of their own sold out headline tour, and singer and guitarist Romeo Stodart is breathless. “It’s just insane,” he gulps, before describing the tour in a stream of happiness, “our show at the Forum went really well. I mean, it was sold out. And everyone was singing from the first song. And everyone knows the words. We’ve played a lot in a year and a half. And I think people have been taping the shows or something, because they’d come up after the gigs with bootlegs to sign. That has definitely helped. It’s just a mind-blowing response. We keep pinching ourselves.”

‘Insane’ is an appropriate description, given that their self-titled debut LP isn’t due out for another month. It seems The Magic Numbers’ success is testimony to how powerful word of mouth can still be even in a musical climate of hype machines. A couple of songs came out on vinyl, downloaded, shared, ripped, and then the shows were recorded by fans and distributed among friends. The more forgiving side of the Internet’s double-edged sword has been the making of The Magic Numbers, as their music gets shared on a wider and wider scale.

Romeo Stodart and his bassist sister Michele grew up in Trinidad, before moving to New York and finally London. There, he met and began to make music with drummer Sean Gannon, “we locked ourselves in a room and kept rehearsing and kept getting better,” remembers Stodart. Gannon’s younger sister, Angela eventually joined as a percussionist and vocalist. The depth of vocalists draws the band together, creating off-kilter saccharine melodies that echo the wide-eyed shyness of the band’s live performances. On the front page of the Magic Numbers website, the band members stand in cartoon form with their hands overlapping, almost clasping each other. Their closeness is just one reason why this band that has been winning hearts around the world, “there’s no other thing to it. It’s two families getting up on stage and singing songs that mean everything to us. It’s kind of scary, because it’s all I’ve ever wanted to happen,” says Stodart.

A performance at the South By South West festival in Austin was the leg up the band needed. Critics emerged from the few thousand strong sets in Texas with their heads spinning owing to The Magic Numbers. ‘Big in ‘05’ lists were quickly rewritten to include a band that appeared the most unlikely of candidates. The warmth and approachability soon created a faster connection with their audience than the ice-cool hedonists populating the rest of 2005’s new rock crop. Stodart puts it simply, “people are responding to the songs. People are connecting with the band. Talking to people after the shows, that’s what I’m getting, that’s what people are saying.”

Their single, ‘Forever Lost’, has since climbed to the top of the NME chart, removing Maximo Park from the number one spot. Although you expect their music videos to run like the opening credits of the Wonder Years - all scratchy 8mm and hugging in a flower filled field - The Magic Numbers aren’t hippies, but they do seem to have been drafted in from a different era, one completely devoid of cynicism. Today, rock music is dominated by 80s riffs, power suited art students and angular haircuts, and it seems that every new band has to fit that criteria. But you can’t listen to image, hype, record company promotion or ‘cool lists’. The Magic Numbers are a remedy to all of that, based on songs and songs alone. They quietly snuck in the side door. This is now their year.

The Magic Numbers are for now the support act to the nu-new wave, but it won’t be long before the headliners switch. Their authenticity as people is more real and populist than any upstart rock band proclaiming world domination. Their bashfulness live is far more endearing than stage wrecking indie boys. “We want to find out more about people, outside the band, when we’re talking to people, we just want to make that connection,” says Stodart, almost marvelling, “this has just happened, probably because we just never spent time thinking about it.”

The Magic Numbers play The Village on Wexford Street on Friday 3rd June as part of the Bud Rising Festival. Support comes from Joe Chester and Jessie & Layla. Doors 8pm, admission €15. www.themagicnumbers.net / www.budrising.ie / www.ticketmaster.ie

In State

by Kathleen Edwards is my favourite song to play at the moment. She rocks.

G G G Galway and JJ72

listening to : Blur - Girls and Boys

Went down to Galway on the bus yesterday. Busses suck, but me and travelling buddy Corina kept ourselves amused with a million magazines, and conversations about each other, Angelina and Brad and Corina claiming to see a 'trampolines for sale' sign that so didn't exist. The trip was in aid of Sarah playing a gig at the Roisin Dubh as part of JJ72's club tour.

Anyway, the gig frickin ROCKED. The set was so tight, and they played so well, so it was cool. Weird to see Sarah signing autographs and stuff!

Other notable points from the night:
- Crazy obsessed fans moshing
- Me giving my tour poster to a fan so the band could sign it for her
- Their tour manager showing us his tattoo that said 'TAXI'. Random.
- Me falling down the stairs of the tour bus
- Talking to the Chuzzle support band guys, who were the nicest dudes ever
- Chillin with Corina, Adrian and his girlf
- Fun, proud moments of my homie Foxy!

listening to: Brendan Benson - Spit It Out

Reading Books Does Not Make Baby Jesus Cry

listening to: The Strokes - Take It Or Leave It

So, what am I reading at the moment?

And End To Evil: How To Win The War On Terror - David Frum and Daniel Perle

Neocon Reader - Collected essays, edited by Irwin Stelzer

The End Of History and The Last Man- Francis Fukuyama


just finished;

The Orange Mocha Chip Frappucino Years - Ross O'Carrol-Kelly

The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom


writing;

My thesis

An article on Internet Sex Addiction for the Gay Community News

The Bud Rising festival preview for the Event Guide

This blog


Una

listening to: Bell X1 - Slowset

HEART ATTACK

Listening to: Delays - Wanderlust

I have been having heart pains recently, so if this blog stops being updated regularly THAT'S WHY.

Other heart related stories;

Heart Attack American is a fantastic song by The Bronx

A blue whale's aorta is large enough for a person to crawl through

HEART are still touring! Catch them at a college football stadium near you
http://www.heart-music.com/tour/tour.asp

The Heart: an online exploration http://sln.fi.edu/biosci/heart.html

The existence of the heart was well known to the Greeks, who gave it the name Kardia, still surviving in modern words such as cardiac and tachycardia. Aristotle believed that the heart was the seat of the soul and the center of man. Romans modified Kardia to Cor, the latter word still surviving in "cordial greetings". The old Teutonic word herton was also derived from Cor and gives us heart via the medieval heorte.

The heart is not in your left chest. It is dead centre in between your two lungs. On reflection, those heart pains may be chest pains.

Una

Listening to: Kathleen Edwards - Back To Me

FREEDOM HATING FIDGETING

listening to: Hal - I Sat Down

My mother has just returned from a business trip to New York (hence the Harlem Gospel Choir CD playing downstairs). Colin Powell was the main speaker at this conference she was attending. It seems he has hit the seminar circuit running. Anyway, I was hoping my Mum could pick up his autograph so I could hawk it on ebay. But this was not to be.

The group my Mum was with who were to be graced by Colon's fine words on 'communication', were 'briefed' before the mighty general took to the podium. The 'briefers' provided them with warnings of "no photography, no approaching the stage and no movement." Yes, no movement.

It seems now the mighty Republican hawks are wary of the slightest terrorist act of leg crossing or the threat to national security that a head scratch may pose. Funny that it comes the same week that George W Bush was rushed to a 'safe room' in the White House when radar picked up an enemy aircraft approaching and launched missiles at something that turned out to be...a cloud.

Pussies.

Una

Listening to Brendan Benson - Good To Me

Lyrics coming to mind most this year

The Jesus of Suburbia is alive and screaming. Are we the waiting? (GreenDay)


An ending fitting for the start, you twist and tore our love apart...the boy kicked out at the world, the world kicked back a lot fuckin harder. (The Libertines)


I buried my first victim when I was 19. Went through her bedroom and the pockets of her jeans. (Sun Kil Moon)


This is a .44 calibre love letter to the heart. (Alexisonfire)


Down, down, down by the sea. (JJ72)


All I ever wanted was to pick apart the day, put the pieces back together my way (Aesop Rock)


The lights are out, it's late, we're here (The Bleedin Bleedins)


You wanna go home. Well at least there's someone there that you can talk to. And you never have to face up to the night on your own. Jesus, it must be great to be straight. (Pulp)



God, that was very teenaged!

Una

Paris (squared)

does anyone else find it strange that Paris Hilton is dating someone with the same name?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/05/06/story201372.html

Listening to: The Who: Live At Leeds

DON'T NEED NO HATERATION

The promoters MCD (who practically have a monopoly on every big gig in Ireland) are none to pleased with an article I wrote published this week, which favours the 'boutique' festival: Electric Picnic over MCD's Oxegen. I thought it was fair. But, hey, see for yourself.

FESTIVAL FACE OFF

Oxegen and Electric Picnic are battling for your attendance this summer more vigorously than previously thought, thanks to EP taking on the two day format. Una Mullally adds up the pros and cons. Or you could always just go to both…

Ah, the lure of a festival. A mud-caked campsite, teenagers brushing their teeth with Bulmers, a yogurt carton of noodles for €6.50, ballsy opportunists pretending to be the drug squad and ´confiscating´ soapbar hash, and, for some reason, always quite a lot of Nutrigrain wrappers. Of course, there is more to this parallel universe in a field; there’s those weird trampoline harness things and an opportunity to buy some kind of an anti-establishment beanie hat. Oh, shit, yeah, and music.

2005 sees the titans of the music industry engage in a transmorphic Gladiatorial duel to get bums in tents. Last year there was no contest. Electric Picnic was a one day pansy second offering to the titan four day binge of Oxegen (two of these days actually contained actual real music). This year, with Slane legging it into the sunset with a suicide note signed by 50Cent, we have a real fight on our hands people.

As headliners for Oxegen began to filter through this year, I was transported back to 2002 when Green Day, The Prodigy, Foo Fighters and The Frames played. The Oxegen crew obviously saw this as a fail safe formula worthy of repetition. There were a few grumbles in college bars across the country, but because everybody under 23 has to go to Oxegen anyway (some Dail legislation hiding behind a radiator in Buswell´s) no more was thought of it.

That was, until Electric Picnic, who kept their programme very hush hush, unleashed a muso bazooka upon us all throwing Kraftwerk, Mercury Rev, Fatboy Slim, Nick Cave, Flaming Lips and De La Soul around willy nilly. Cheek. What Electric Picnic lacks in tens of millions of albums sold, it makes up for in invention and the conscientiousness with which the acts seem to have been chosen. All of a sudden Oxegen began to look, well, a little bit boring.

The ´supplementary´ acts (as I like to call them) give away a lot about these two festivals. Oxegen has booked brothers in arms Kaiser Chiefs, Bloc Party, Razorlight and Kasabian all of whom wield massive clout this year at least. Also on the bill are The Streets (yay!), The Killers (massive draw alert), Snoop Dogg (good party atmos move) and musician shaped haircuts The Bravery. These are all stellar, if predictable additions.

Electric Picnic´s choices were more left o´field and definitely more dance orientated with Goldfrapp, Royksopp, Mixmaster Mike, Mr Scruff, Asian Dub Foundation and DJ Sneak stepping it up. There can only be one conclusion drawn from this. Electric Picnic are clearly throwing a lifeline out to the older crowd who were drowning in Oxegen´s NME splurge. Where Oxegen is party punk and nu-indie, Electric Picnic is scenester hip-hop and thought rock. There was no way Electric Picnic could have possibly competed with Oxegen´s massive resources, but instead of offering a total alt. day of fun, they´ve managed to perhaps capture the idea that some people don´t want to relive 2002. Oxegen will still get the kids and the regulars, but for real quality of music, Electric Picnic´s surprise basket – a festival for people who don´t like festivals - will win a lot more people over than I, for one, could have predicted.

www.electricpicnic.ie / www.oxegen.ie

Yesterday...

...was weird. A little hungover from spending the night in Lilies Bordello (don't ask) and then helping Sarah pack for tour produced a few funny chilled in wet Dublin moments and quotes.

"I used to tear the roof of my mouth off sucking those bad boys" - Jenny (talking about apple drops sweets)

"Saw this picture of Ratzinger holding his hands out. Looks like he's shooting lightening out of him or something" - Anthony, before collapsing in laughter at the image in his mind presumably

Sarah goes into a shop to buy a copy of Hotpress because she's in it, then hands it to me to put her change away;
Me looking at the front page: "cocksuckers"
Sarah, looking over at the cover to see who I'm referring to: "who?"
Me: "oh, just Hotpress"
Both collapse in laughter

Sarah packing: "do I need a hairdrier?"
Me: "yes, absolutely."
Sarah: "do I really though?"
Me: "yes"
Sarah: "no, I'll need the room in my bag for something else"
Takes out hairdrier from already bursting suitcase and proceeds to squeeze a stuffed Sponge Bob Square Pants into it instead.

Sarah screaming at the TV from the kitchen: "fuck off Nick and Jessica"

Elaine: "dude, I'm just after remembering those weird Italian chipper-owner dwarves we met outside Lilies"

Izzy (hungover) "Una, I just ate a rasher sandwich and now I feel sick and I rang Claire at work and sung happy birthday over the phone to her and then I realised her birthday wasn't til Sunday. Uggghhhhhhh"

Listening to: Laura Veirs - Ether Sings

NEW SONGS ME LIKE

The Coral – In The Morning
Last album was shite in comparison to their debut, but my, this is such a sweet song. Feel like I’ve known it for ages. Proof that the more members of a band, the better (Arcade Fire and Goldie Lookin Chain agree)

KT Tunstall – The Other Side Of The World
She’s successfully wiped off any edge that Black Horse And A Cherry Tree offered, but this is still a great melody. Guess what? I like Dido. Deal with it.

The Game feat. 50Cent – Hate It Or Love It
Maybe the best hip-hop track this year. Beautiful instrumental behind it all. 50 shows again how his singing voice somehow has an intense monotone depth. The Mary J Blige remix is a bit schmaltzy, stick with the original.

Mylo – In My Arms
A bit too scarily like The Sunset Strippers, but that’s probably why it’s so good. Laid back, 80’s power rock synths on Xanax. Yummy.

Foo Fighters – Best Of You
Ahhh, the Foos are 10 years old. That maketh me feel old, considering I was first in the queue to snap up their debut album. Their sound has gone back to The Colour And The Shape era, thank God, because I don’t rate their last two albums. This is getting back that loud but emotional sound, with Dave hottie Grohl screeching mournfully. ‘Ave it.

Do Me Bad Things – Time For Deliverance
Goth, metal, stomping pop, strange wah wah, nerd rock, wailing soul female vocals, hair rock guitar solos. This really is the band that has everything.

Red – Wake Up
Who are these guys? I like this song. Hmmm.

Lucky Stiff Orville – Cappuccino
Drunk rock pop. The riff sounds like All Apologies.

Obvious Rubber Sharks – Give Up The Gun
More rock music from some random unsigned band I found from Austria I think. This is so bad, it’s good.

Listening to: Sara Cox: BBC Radio 1

THE BRAVERY

BRAVE LITTLE INDIE-UNS

Tours with Ash, scraps with The Killers and the finest haircuts this side of George’s St, The Bravery have weathered the hype and are probably the biggest band this month has seen, ever. Una Mullally conversed with their bassist, Mike H.

“We’re in the desert, in Arizona. It looks hot outside, but I’m inside so I don’t know if it is. Maybe when I go outside I will know if it’s hot.” These are the kind of statements I’ve become accustomed to when interviewing American indie kids. Especially ones who are touring so excessively that the constant location changes seem to have created a vacuum that sucks any intelligent components from their brains. Even so, The Bravery aren’t you average indie newbies. Over the past six months, they’ve been subjected to a hype machine usually reserved for Star Wars prequels. They have delivered; climbing up the charts, showcasing the different angles of their haircuts in a fantastic first video and all the while maintaining a glum spray on jean coolness. Mike H is apparently the bands ‘wild child’, whose antics with fellow bass boy Mark Hamilton from Ash kept Jay-Z and LA Reid amused at The Bravery’s recent Bowery Ballroom gig. Ah, shallebrities.

I am decidedly undecided about The Bravery. Their breakthrough single ‘Honest Mistake’ is an excellent wedge of synths and guitars that switch from choppy to howling, lifted right out of the 80s. The album is more of that, prompting a delightfully one-sided slagging match from Killer’s front man Brandon Flowers. Flowers accused The Bravery of riding on the coattails of The Killers’ success, a sentiment the 80s would probably reiterate to Flowers if a decade could talk. “I wasn’t taken aback,” says Mike (whom the New York record exec connecting our call announced as “‘Dirt’ also known as ‘Mike H’”). “I’m not a fan of The Killers. I don’t really care. Whatever.” Mike H has a right to be testy. “I think people will see through them,” Brandon Flowers anticipated, after hearing rumours that The Bravery were manufactured by their record company, and that their front man was up until recently a dreadlocked ska singer. I stuck it to Mr. H, “well, Sam (Endicott – the lead singer) and John (Conway – synth man) were in a ska band in freshman year of college for fun. The music we’re playing now has nothing to do with them then.” I’ll take your word for it, Dirt.

Of course, the current musical climate has been very kind to The Bravery, who happened to catch the nu-nu-wave just in time to rise to the top rather than wipe out, “especially in America, we were very lucky,” says Mike, “we owe a lot to The Strokes,” he adds, quite inexplicably. “As to whether we would’ve broken through otherwise, it’s hard to say,” he finishes before documenting their succession of ‘breaks’ leading up to their ‘launch’; a month long residency in New York last May that saw them play every night, then Zane Lowe started to play their mp3 which gave them a large enough fan base to tour in the UK. The rest as they say…

Of course, The Bravery might be living what was recently described by The Guardian as a “firework career”(goes up fast, looks pretty and then falls out of sight), but Mike H is adamant that they’re here for a while, having written a lot of new material on tour already, “we don’t compromise on anything. We don’t slack off. Some people just want a record label to do their work. That’s how you end up with crappy videos and stuff.” As for the Oxegen gig, “there’s a good possibility I might be naked,” enthuses Mike, after an anecdote about how he “might die” from being on tour long-term thanks to “alcohol poisoning and um, other, related illnesses.” “Expect some in your face rock and roll and bring your dancing shoes,” he concludes chirpily, before wandering off into the desert to check the temperature.