I don't think the "white man in a black man's skin" lyric is 'over the top' at all. Given the high-jinx of Shrub's administration, it is warranted. I think it likely refers to Condie Rice or Colin Powell, and not President Obama.

Yeah that's completely over the top. Bill already admitted he hasn't really heard a good protest song since the 70s so why play this 'not acting black enough' racist trash? There are plenty of better ways to get your point out there.

"...and a white man hidden in a black man's skin." I guess racism is ok when directed at a Republican.

I was describing what I felt we SHOULD be doing. I agree that we have made the diplomatic mistake of propping up dictators and thugs in the name of stability and it is biting us in the ass. As for your question about gas-guzzlers, I drive a pickup truck like any good redneck southern boy would. You know us red staters.

Glad we finally found some common ground -- John Lennon's Imagine is a great tune! I am not arguing that the United Nations is without problems. But I wonder what you would propose as an alternative to it? It seems to me that the U.N. has successfully brokered a large number of peaceful solutions in its 50-plus years, and, contrary to your belief, it has become much more active-- and beneficial-- since the end of the Cold War. I see it, like international law itself, as evolving. Did the U.N. intervene in Rwanda? No. Has it intervened in the Sudan? No. But neither has the United States, nor, for that matter, anyone else. Somewhat disingenuous for us to claim we intervened in Iraq primarily to free the Iraqis from Saddam (I think we are down to that as the primary reason); if we do have such an altruistic interest, why were we not interested in saving the lives of those who were massacred in Rwanda or interested in saving the lives of those being killed now in the Sudan? It has not been just theocracies and dictatorships that have not voted with us on Iraq (by the way, the U.S. has had a history of being quite "chummy" with many dictators; heck, much of our foreign policy in Central and South America during the Cold War was to align ourselves with anti-communist dictators). Some of our staunchest allies disagree with us. Kind of difficult to have a "global war on terrorism" without having most of the world on your side!

Bolstering democracies like we did in Chile and Guatemala? Like we did in Iran when we helped overthrow an elected government and pave the way for the Shah -- and the Islamic fundamentalism that came after? As for Saudi Arabia -- I trust you're opposed to driving the gas-guzzlers that help fund their very fundamental anti-democracy tendencies?

I was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve with John Kerry! j/k From the time I was 13 I wanted to go to the Naval Academy. One grandfather joined the Navy at 17 and served on a boat in the Pacific and my other grandfather flew C-46s into the Philippines. I had my heart set on flying off carriers. I applied for the Navy ROTC. They gave me a physical, and lets just say, I am not in the Navy. I guess that makes me a coward in your book. But that is the great thing about a volunteer army is they willingly signed up. And the thing that probably amazes you is they are continuing to sign up. And more amazing to you still, they overwhelmingly support Bush.

The United Nations has never been more corrupt. We have just scratched the surface of the "oil for food" fiasco. Countries like Syria head human rights committees. Give me a break. I have never understood how a country like Syria shares the same voting privileges in the United Nations as a country like Spain. Dictatorship countries in a democratic organization just don't mix. The United Nations does nothing when millions are killed in Rwanda, and now Sudan. The United Nations had meetings about the murders in the Balkans while people died. The United Nations took bribes from Saddam while children starved. Yeah, lets bolster that institution! I am not an isolationist by any means. The Pat Buchanans of the world live in an age where oceans protect us. I think we should be bolstering democracies and shunning theocracies and dictatorships. And yes that includes Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And my view of humanity is not dim. Just realistic. And I love John Lennon's Imagine. Great tune!

Au contraire! I disagree with your total disregard for international law. Although it often lacks teeth, it operates in the same way that peer pressure works. Most countries do not want to be seen by the rest of the world as unlawful pariahs. The United Nations has never been more vital than it has been in the last decade or so (deployment of peacekeeping forces; employing sanctions). This is a critical time for international law, and, if the United States truly is the leader of the free world, it should be seeking to bolster the credibility of the United Nations as an institution. Instead, we often behave like a miffed, spoiled child on the playground who takes his ball and goes home (These ungrateful countries are voting against our position! Why should we continue to support an organization that votes against us?). International law needs to be nurtured, not trashed. Your position smacks of isolationism. You seem to be suggesting that we should only be concerned with our own national interests, and act upon them without giving any thought to how our interests might diverge from those of other nations. Of course, all other nations would do the same. God help us all, if you are right. But this really is not the forum for this debate. So, I’ll turn it back to music. You appear to have a pretty dim view of humanity. I would suggest listening to John Lennon’s Imagine!

Bossdawg: Tell us about your military service -- when you volunteered, where you willingly fought a pre-emptive war on behalf of leaders who'd never seen a battle, etc. Obviously, you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, and we'd be curious to hear about it.

If I oversimplified, it is because I think the issue is simply, well, simple. You and I both know that international law is a fairytale. The U.S. should never concede its sovereignty or foreign policy to an international body that routinely has interests outside of our own. Would it be nice if everyone played by a set of rules? Of course. Will that EVER happen? Of course not. Caring what a group of bloated bureaucrats whose main goal is to pad their Swiss bank accounts is ill conceived at best. But, if you wanted to stick to the international law principle, there is always the case to be made that Iraq was "legally" invaded for not living up to its agreements after the first Gulf War. But opponents of this war really don't have a problem with the legality of the war or they would have spoken up during our attacks in the Balkans. It is just a convenient canard that is slightly more legitimate than the “blood for oil” tediousness.

I think you have oversimplified the argument. Preemptive attacks are not in accordance with prevailing norms of international law, especially when dealing with matters of sovereignty (invading another country to depose a dangerous leader still qualifies as an affront to that principle). Although many have violated international law, that alone does not justify doing the same. The problem with the Bush administration doctrine of preemptive attacks is who decides when it is justified as a means of eliminating a threat? Did we not intervene to stop the Serbs from wiping out the Kosovars? Could the Serbs have maintained they were conducting a legitimate preemptive attack against an enemy? How about the Israelis and Palestinians? In sum, we want to be able to conduct preemptive attacks when we believe it to be necessary, but we want others to observe the standard princpIes of international law. In this sense, we want different rules for the United States. We are undermining the precepts of international law, and that is the danger. Geez, this song really brings out the geopolitical rhetorical flourishes. I apologize for falling into the trap! Please excuse my rambling.

Of course, Spanish Fascism, Hitler Nazism and Soviet Communism all came to power as a result of war, and the resultant chaos it creates. The problem at this moment in human history/evolution is that war cannot be an instrument of policy -- whether by nations or deluded fundamentalists -- if the species is to survive in any kind of thriving manner. The weapons are too good, and the stakes are too high. It will be an evolutionary choice, simple as that. And as for "pre-emptive" wars based on untruths coming from unelected Presidents -- which is what Highway 9, specifically sings about -- well, those make lousy offensive and defensive wars, both, as far as the best interests of the country. And again, if war is so terrific, how come its loudest current advocates have all made sure they didn't come anywhere close to serving in battle?

Of course they still exist. But can you not understand that these forces would run unopposed without righteous opposition? Can you negotiate with these forces or do you crush them with a force of your own? Somehow I don't think a peace pipe and diplomacy would have stopped American slavery, Italian or Spanish fascism, Soviet communism, Hitler nazism, or Bosnian genocide. Where was your indignation when the U.S. bombed in the Balkans? You people live in a fantasy world. Yeah, I would love to live in a world that you envision, but I don't delude myself into thinking we live in such a world.

Uh I’m pretty sure that slavery, fascism, communism, nazism and genocide still exist, war does not solve these problems one bit, it just distracts attention from the problems, relocates them elsewhere, and/or causes new ones.

God please no. I listen to RP for the music, not for the rants from "artists" who think they have a say in politics. I understand the fact that music is often a forum for that kind of thing and that's fine as long as its in small doses. When I hear too much of it though, it just sounds like mindless rhetoric that makes me roll my eyes and listen to something else.

War has never solved anything! Well, except for ending slavery, fascism, communism, nazism and genocide. But other than that NOTHING.

War has never solved anything! Well, except for ending slavery, fascism, communism, nazism and genocide. But other than that NOTHING.

War has never solved anything! Well, except for ending slavery, fascism, communism, nazism and genocide. But other than that NOTHING.

Well, most of my friends who are over there right now (and I have quite a few, as a service academy graduate) are a little busy not getting killed. They check their email pretty regularly, but chatting on the Radio Paradise forum isn't too high on the priority list.

...This songs causes me to turn RP off because of the ignorance and self deception that it reveals.

But, curiously, I have yet to hear from a single serviceperson in the Gulf. During the Kosovo mess I heard from plenty of US military personel there - but it looks like giving the troops decent Internet access is a pretty low priority. After all, that'd just encourage the free flow of information - can't have that in the New American Century...

What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?!?!?! (Is that too political??)

Well put!!! Agree completely.

God please no. I listen to RP for the music, not for the rants from "artists" who think they have a say in politics. I understand the fact that music is often a forum for that kind of thing and that's fine as long as its in small doses. When I hear too much of it though, it just sounds like mindless rhetoric that makes me roll my eyes and listen to something else.

Well, that's kind of the point. This is music - an expression of the artist, not journalism.

Indeed. Brilliantly put. However I have a problem with even the "small doses" as they are usually extremely single sided.

... but it looks like giving the troops decent Internet access is a pretty low priority. After all, that'd just encourage the free flow of information - can't have that in the New American Century...

God please no. I listen to RP for the music, not for the rants from "artists" who think they have a say in politics. I understand the fact that music is often a forum for that kind of thing and that's fine as long as its in small doses. When I hear too much of it though, it just sounds like mindless rhetoric that makes me roll my eyes and listen to something else.

While I admire the sentiment, I haven't heard an engaging "cause song" polemic since the 70's. That's why Petty's Last DJ was such a drag.

Personally, I hope this place becomes nothing buy anti-Bush music by November. I'm thinking of uploading that entire anti-Bush album that just came out.

He didn't make the stuff up, he's just reporting the facts.

LOL ! Ooh... and that lying, sniveling socialist is really a trustworthy source....

Brilliant. I hope it's on the soundtrack for Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 911' movie. Supposedly his movie is going to tell about the Bush - Bin Laden business ties, among other transgressions against U.S. citizens.

Time to switch over to am....I think Rush Limbaugh is comin on.

Time to switch over to am....I think $%8*"£f)+ is comin on.

WOW! Highway 9 is the first critical song that I have heard on the war on Iraq. Well written and scored, and thoughtful. This is why I listen to RP...diversity in the music that matters!