From the White House Blog, we find some disturbing information. Speaking of changes being made to the process of restricting influence toward the Administration, here is one of the more critical points raised:
...we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.
Another disturbing bit of information can be found here. According to the report, a Tea Party organizer was visited by the FBI after being turned in by a Democratic U.S. Senator, as a possible domestic terrorist. (Hat Tip on this one: Carol)
Loved and revered by the Left, the Obama Administration and his supporters in the federal legislature are attempting to chisel small pieces of freedom away, unnoticed. These are the same people that cried out for dissent when they were the minority and Bush sat in the White House.
Let's take a walk back down memory lane and review what the current Secretary of State once said during the Bush Administration:
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic and we should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration..."
Listen to it here for yourself:
She was right. Despite the fact her voice cuts right into my spinal cord, that statement resonated with truth back then. And it still does today.
Also loved and revered by the Left is Noam Chomsky, whom I disagree with about 85% of the time on most topics. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and so does a Leftist get it right occasionally. He is credited with this quote:
If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.
The Left is forever quoting this man. Let's just see how often this quote gets used during the time this Administration and Democratic Congress are firmly in power.
While Mustang often criticizes my musical tastes as primarily drug induced and communist in nature, maybe he will change his mind when he hears this week's line-up. Unless he thinks the entire world is on drugs, after hearing these, even he will admit openly that all things musical are cyclical and evolutionary (except for rap and metal, which are de-evolutionary.)
In this edition of ABFTP, we have some keyboard instrumentals that are rooted in earlier styles and fashion. I like them and I hope you will too.
First up is this little tune from 1972:
True musical aficionados will recognize the last melody. It is the same as this next one and originally composed by Bach. The only differences between the two styles lie within the influence(s) of technology. Listen to it and you will see, the only thing that separates these two presentations is in the instrumentation.
The first one was electric, this one isn't:
Next up is a great synthesizer experience.
Hot Butter recorded it in 1972, and made it a hit. But it was composed and originally recorded in 1969 by Gershon Kingsley. It hints of a subtle combination of classical and jazz roots, which usually attracts a strong European appeal.
From the album, Music to Moog By, here is (IMO) the better of the two versions:
Not only does modern rock get influences from classical and/or jazz styles, there have been some great rock tunes which had roots in the American sub-genre of ragtime jazz; Billy Joel is one modern artist who comes to mind when thinking of this blend. This one is an instrumental from 1978 and showcases Mr. Joel's incredible musical talent..
If you haven't heard this one, you need to give it a listen. I think most who follow this weekly musical feature will be at least mildly pleased with it
Older readers may remember this bit, done by the great Bill Cosby. One time recently, my 21-year old college student son was home and I got him watching this special that was released in 1981, called Bill Cosby: Himself. He had never seen it, but loved it.
The humor is clean and timeless. Here is the part I now can identify with most:
Anyone who knows a little about European history may recall that in pre-Mussolini Italy, workers took over factories (by force) and ran them into the ground. Throughout history, workers have proven to not be the best business people. There is much more to running a business than taking orders and counting the money. Workers are workers. They are skilled-unskilled, union-non-union, but they are workers. They are there to work. They own a resource, but are not the entire entity.
This is not to say that worker ownership is always a bad thing. Many times it comes to pass that workers are offered stock options as part of a incentive plan, but that doesn't mean they are in control of day to day operations. There have been successful worker cooperatives, which can be quite problematic to run with so many cooks in the kitchen. The reason it is difficult? As it is in government, direct democracy is a very difficult process. Thus, using this model in the business world can (and does) bog down the decision-making process, which is quite vital to the maintenance and growth of a company.
The 1920s Italian situation was serious, in that the seizures were involuntary and workers were not trained properly to assume control of such an entity. The owners who put up the capital for the company were not compensated for their investments, and were completely cut out of the loop. In addition to all of this, they were demonized as greedy and insensitive to the cause and plight of the Italian workers who toiled in sweat in their plants and shops.
A government-brokered deal between struggling U.S. automaker Chrysler and Italian automaker Fiat moved another step closer Monday, when United Auto Workers Union negotiators reached an agreement to accept concessions in exchange for what could eventually become majority ownership of Chrysler.
The Wall Street Journal reports, "The United Auto Workers union would eventually own 55% of the stock in a restructured Chrysler LLC under the deal reached by the union and the auto maker." Fiat's stake in Chrysler would be capped at 35 percent, "and the U.S. government and Chrysler's secured lenders together will end up owning 10% of the company once it is reorganized."
Today, we see much of the same script.
The unsecured investors (workers) are being given preferential treatment over the secured investors (stock and bond holders). Those who invested their money into the company are being cut out of the loop here, while the workers are being given sweat equity. In the interim, the legitimate investors are being demonized as greedy. If this holds true to the form of 1920s Italy, it will only be a few years (maybe even months) before things really tank out in the car industry.
Knowing what we know about the outcome of 1920s Progressive movement, how is it we are letting the same conditions arise unchecked? We see these things, along with a government that wants to print money. This will only result in hyperinflation, like we saw back in the 1920s. It did not buy them out of that mess then, it will not buy us out of this mess today.
I know it's slippery slope, but we've been down that slope before. It would seem that there would be enough people smart enough to see it. I am convinced there are many, many people who do understand this and agree with my claims. But unfortunately, they are not in a position to do much about it. The same held true back then, that is until a man named Mussolini came along and made the trains run on time.
If we do not want this to repeat itself, it would be a good idea to stop this madness now. It would be smart to do it while there is time to reverse this course. Wait too long and it will be too late.
Among the liberal elitists, there is this gross misconception that the function of the judicial system is to make laws, make policies, etc.. Most of them will not come right out and admit it, but that's the way they view it. But now, we have a SCOTUS nominee who finally admits it publicly:
Note how she says this, then instantly knows she has screwed up and tries to retract it. What brilliance!!
Look, I have no problem with Obama replacing a liberal justice with another. In fact, I expect it. But do we need someone who has no understanding, no comprehension that the judicial system's primary function is to INTERPRET the law, not make it?
As we may surmise, this will not be enough to prevent her from taking her place on the bench. In fact, it would not surprise me to learn that she has cheated on her taxes. This seems to be a prerequisite in the Obama led government. Why should this be any different?
Let's just say it will be interesting to see what kind of secrets the Right will dig up, during the vetting process. Obama's team doesn't seem to do a very good job of screening their nominees very well. So for now, just being an idiot will not be enough to disqualify her. (Case In Point: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.)
The bottom line here is, she has a story. She came from humble beginnings, in the Bronx. Her daddy died when she was nine, her mother worked two jobs, blah, blah, blah.
That's impressive, to be sure. But that still doesn't tell me she is the best person for the job. My parents worked their asses off too, my father was a decorated soldier and airman from two wars. Mom worked evenings, to make ends meet. But that doesn't mean I am qualified. Does it?
In spite of the fact that I have no background in law (other than when I had to testify in Federal Court for the State of Indiana, once upon a time), I do know the function of the courts and would never make such a bonehead statement as she did in this seminar with her peers. But that's just me.
Time for another venture into the old mailbag, to help some poor soul in his/her afflictions. Here's one I ran across:
Dear LA,
I am having trouble with my neighbor again.
Awhile back I wrote you, thinking you would have an answer. As luck would have it, things did quiet down a bit and I thought everything was going to be okay. But now the noise is getting worse.
Why, just the other day, we felt explosions underground and watched as huge fireworks were sent up into the sky. Every time we try to talk to these people about this noise, they do not want to listen. It keeps us up at night, wondering what they are going to do next.
The little dude always looks half-crazed along with his uniformed body-guards. I just don't think they can be trusted right now.
What can we do?
South Korea
Dear SK,
Don't do a damned thing, just wait this thing out like you have been.
There is no need to jump the gun and get carried away. After all, the explosion that you heard was just a small nuke, about the size of the Hiroshima bomb. Small potatoes, if you ask me.
But don't you worry or fret, help is on the way. The UN is going to issue a strongly worded statement soon and most of the world leaders have already condemned this action. That'll show them a thing, or two.
I ran across this poem recently, it is credited to a Jimmy Fortune and John Rimel. Although I have heard of neither, these words gave me some cause to think:
Name On The Wall
by Jimmy Fortune and John Rimel
I saw her from a distance as she walked up to the wall She laid a wreath of flowers, then her tears began to fall
She took out pen and paper, as to trace her memories She looked up to the heavens, and the words she said were these:
"Lord, my boy was special, and he meant so much to me And though I'd love to have him, just one more time to see
All I have are memories, and monuments recall So Lord, let me know he's not just a name upon a wall"
"He's really missed by family, being home on Christmas day He died for God and Country, in a place so far away
I remember just a little boy, playing war when he was three But this time it's for real. He wont be coming home to me"
"You know my boy was special, and he meant so much to me And though I'd love to have him here, I know that this can't be
So thank you for the memories, and the moments I recall And please just tell him he is more than a name upon a wall"
On Memorial Day, we take time to remember those who sacrificed their lives that we may live free. But in our holiday events and ceremonies, all too often we look past those people whom the brave men and women left on this earth.
This year, maybe we can take the time to thank one of their loved ones who remain with us. Each man and woman, whose name appears on a monument or wall, had a life somewhere. In the giving of their lives, they left someone they loved dearly and in turn, loved them.
5) Open rebuke is better than secret love. 6) Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
Open rebuke, put together, these two words speak for themselves. In other words, there are times when something needs to be said to someone who is about to do something wrong, or about to make a big mistake of some kind. Just as there are times when a parent needs to say something to a child, some people need some correction in a matter.
Secret love is when a person says nothing because they believe it's not their place. They take the stand that it is none or their business and whatever happens, happens. They are not going to get involved. They may harbor thoughts that their friend is not doing the right thing, but they stay silent anyway.
Faithful are the wounds of a friend means that sometimes in the course of corrective action, there are some hurt feelings that could be interpreted as wounds. This scripture states that these kinds of wounds are faithful, because they are not malicious and they will in time heal. They are the kind of wounds that help save the other person from doing something which could cause great harm to him/herself, if left unchecked.
True friends will help their friends in these kinds of instances. They will say something because they do not want to see their friends suffer more greatly in the future, as a result of something that can be prevented now.
Enemies kiss deceitfully, because they care nothing for others. I have to question those who put their approval on something stupid, so as not to lose their friendship or because they secretly want to see a (so-called) friend screw up.
Saying something does not come without risk. It may come down to a loss of friendship. But we must ask ourselves, is that friendship worth a compromising of our principles?
This week's musical theme somehow deals with the month of May, either by the name being in the title or dealing with an event.
Mustang is not an easy individual to please, either in musical selections, in recreational activities, or general discussions. He hates most good rock music as well as all bad rock music. He says they are a bunch of Communist heathens. He hates sports of all kind, he's jealous of the salaries. So discussing that with him is not possible either.
If you want to see his eyes light up you can always discuss bombs and other kinds of military ordinance. He will also show a great affinity for risque art forms. So if there is one song on this post he will enjoy, it'll be this number from Camelot called The Lusty Month Of May:
Here is a song about some buddies who got in way over their head for some fast cash, sometime during the last days of May:
Here in Indianapolis, the month of May is devoted to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. In fact, the field is set and final preparations are being made for the annual running of "Greatest Spectacle in Racing".
Racing, by nature, is an inherently dangerous competition. Throughout history, the Speedway has been unforgiving to some that have dared to drive its circuit in an "airplane with wheels", otherwise known as an Indy Car. In just the years I have been alive, there have been many safety features added to the cars and the walls that surround the IMS. Still, it's never a given that you will walk away from a wreck here.
Here is a video that shows some of the more famous crashes. Some of them killed some one-time famous names, but not all. So skip this one if you are at all not inclined to see this kind of thing:
Next week, many schools systems will be letting out for the summer and the little darlings will be out an about all day, every day. This final tune was always on the radio right at the time we let out on that last day:
Anyone who has ever worked in a major medical center situated in a large metropolitan area knows about the dreaded "outside hospital". This is a feeder hospital, which either has an agreement with or is owned by the major urban hospital. Anyone who has ever dealt with patients from outside hospitals can appreciate the challenges faced by permanent staff.
Also frustrating for staff at major medical centers is dealing with young snotty-nosed interns, residents, and fellows during the process. Every medical service in a large facility has them. Many of them can't diagnose the day of the week when they get there and yet think they know everything.
Occasionally, you run across a group of young doctors who are pleasant to work with, eager to learn, and have incredible senses of humor. I cannot attest to how good they are at learning or how easy they are to work with. But this first video bears out the humor part...
But before you watch it, let's understand a little more background first.
Many times, tertiary care facilities are teaching hospitals. Many times, they get the stuff that the little outlying facilities are not equipped to deal with. This (within itself) is not so ironic. What is, however, is the fact that most of them have cardiologists who cath patients, but do not intervene with balloons, stents, or offer bypass surgery. Basically, this means they can diagnose but cannot treat. What's the use?
ER staffs are notorious for warped senses of humor. I wonder who is working triage here while they are filming this:
Barney Frank doesn't look like he's doing well these days. It seems he is usually on the defensive, usually angry, and most always deflecting criticism from himself (for his deeds and stances) to others. Most of the time, this involves blaming Bush for everything.
Recently, he had a debate with Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on Lou Dobbs's show. Note how Ms. Bachmann maintains a cool head and stays on message throughout the entire interview, while Frank looks like the blabbering angry fool that he is:
Frank uses all top three levels of defense mechanisms, as described by Vaillant, to make his argument for why he cannot sign onto policing groups that are indicted for voter fraud, keeping them from federal money.
Vaillant called Level I defense mechanisms psychotic in nature, Level II as immature defenses, and Level III as neurotic. In this video, Frank pretty much hits them all. During his tirades in this interview, I spotted the following:
L-I: Denial, distortion, and delsusional projection. L-2: Projection and acting out. L-3: Displacement and rationalization.
Anyway, that's my take on the entire thing. Watch it and see if you can find any that I missed.
I have the utmost respect for Dr. Martin Luther King and what he stood for.
At a time when his voice was needed, it rang out and resonated. It dispatched a message that was sorely needed at the time, he told us all of a better way. Facing steep odds, he paved the way for justice and equality to be available to all citizens, regardless of race or national origin. He did this at a time when there was very little justice, in this regard. He spoke of the need for equal opportunity for everyone.
It is my opinion this story should be kept alive, but only if it can be told in the context of truth. He deserves an accurate portrayal, without deifying or demonizing him. I feel it would do his legacy the proper justice, because it would show how a mere mortal being with the usual human faults and shortcomings could rise above them. It would show how he projected a true hope and painted a real attainable vision.
Sounds easy, right? Just get Spielberg to produce a major motion picture. Right?
DreamWorks plans the first big-screen portrayal of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s life, the studio announced Tuesday, but two of King's children immediately threatened legal action because the film deal was brokered without their blessing.
Either it was without their blessing or they wanted to get a cut out of it.
To some, this might smell like a shakedown. To others, it may look like a greedy brother trying to pull a fast one on the sibs. Who can really say except for them, and their attorneys?
It's not uncommon for these family members to argue and fight, they have been doing it since the death of their mother. It's just another one of those tragic stories where brothers and sisters split and position themselves apart after the parents are gone, usually over the will.
At one time, at one moment, Martin Luther King had a dream, Since then, he has left us a legacy that should be preserved. But I would not imagine part of that dream included his children, his flesh and blood, acting like total fools with each other. If I were all of the parties involved here, I would be utterly ashamed of myself.
I lost my brother when he was but sixteen and I was twenty. What wouldn't I give to have him around to argue with, right now?
I think that if the story is accurately portrayed, there is a definite benefit for all to see. It will show just how those who followed him have altered his message to one of monetary gain, and spent the bulk of their time justifying their own existences. Maybe the only way to stop the kids from fighting is to throw the story of the sibs, after the death of Coretta, into the mix. People sometimes straighten up when under the microscope, certainly it may worth a try. Maybe then, with the prospect of the world seeing how silly they are, they will act like they have some damned sense.
I seldom agree with Mr. Greenwald. But once in a blue moon, he gets it right.
Maureen Dowd's wholesale, uncredited copying of a paragraph written by Josh Marshall (an act Dowd has now admitted) -- for what I yesterday called her "uncharacteristically cogent and substantive column"-- highlights a point I've been meaning to make for awhile. One of the favorite accusations that many journalists spout, especially now that they're searching for reasons why newspapers and print magazines are dying, is that bloggers and other online writers are "parasites" on their work -- that their organizations bear the cost of producing content and others (bloggers and companies such as Google) then unfairly exploit it for free.
The Dowd plagiarism incident has brought to light why the traditional print press is not overly enthused with bloggers. The irony is that many in that profession have called bloggers parasites, while it is they who have all too often used bloggers without crediting them. It's just not overly noticeable unless someone uses exact quotes, like Dowd did.
Ideas and concepts can always be reworded to make the traditional journalist look like the brain and with the traditional platform. I have suspected this here at PYY in the past. The difference between some bloggers and myself is, I don't care. I do not do this for monetary gain or for notoriety, therefore I care little what people do unless they are doing it in a wholesale fashion so as to take hits away from me.
Here at PYY, I have taken pride in using original thoughts, generated from reading stories or other opinion pieces. I link to those articles frequently and take no credit for what is said in them. But many times I do expound on them, adding to the mix. I also call something BS, when I feel it is warranted. All of this is covered under my right to freedom of speech.
In her first work called Adam Bede, Mary Anne Evans (George Eliot) told us of someone who was like a rooster, who thought the sun always rose in the morning to hear him crow. He did it without any consideration that the sun was there long before he was, and would be there long after he was gone.
This is known as egocentrism, something that is very often seen in children and even some adults who fail to mature in a timely manner. Many of those adults will eventually pass through this stage of development. Those who do not outgrow this trait tend to transition into narcissism and they will seldom develop any real respect for others.
Egocentrism is often comprised of arrogance and selfishness, but other components may include anger and a sense of inadequacy. In other words, someone may try to compensate for deficits by making every issue about them and what they want. But more than anything it is a lack of maturity.
I have noticed a sharp increase of people who fail to outgrow it. I think a lot of it may generational. Those of us who have raised children may very well be to blame for some of it, but certainly not all of it.
Specifically, I mean there are some of my generation who tried to keep our kids from learning about disappointment, from feeling pain. In some sense, we thought parenting had advanced far enough that we could manage negative feelings with intellectual explanations and controlling the children's environments. Like Dr. Spock, we thought all of this could be done without spanking and without raising our voices. We thought we could all be Ward Cleaver.
We got them through some of it. But as they grew, it became more apparent that many of the kids were not well-equipped to deal with adversity. To put it more plainly, they had no problem solving skills.
Some have had a hard time dealing with life and it's curves at first, but through perseverance and patience they came to realize that some things were bigger than Mom and Dad; they soon learned they would need to gain control of their own lives, before they could learn how to seek a lasting inner peace and some sense of happiness. Others still expect their parents to solve their problems and get angry when they cannot or will not.
The more I look back and the longer I think about it, I now see the error of my ways. Although I am far from a perfect human being without any reproach, I now see that my parents may have had it right in their approach to child-rearing. My dad would have gone to jail had he lived in this day and age of parenting, he was not a "spare the rod" kind of guy.
But all of this is hindsight. We are now faced with a generation of egocentric adults who lack sufficient coping and problem-solving skills to navigate this thing we call life. And even when they do humble themselves to ask parents what they should do in a specific instance or certain scenario, they are not prepared to follow through with the advice because they think the parents are archaic, which translates to stupid.
So it all comes down to one thing and one thing only: I say, let them figure it out for themselves. "The earlier the better" is the preferred method. My kids are pretty much grown now and when they tell me something (about anything), as if to solicit some kind of response, I say what I think. When they shoot it down, I simply say okay, do what you want. I cannot tell you how many times, it has come back to haunt them that they didn't. Oh well, silly them.
But beyond all of this, I think the real message of this post can be found back in the opening stages, where the rooster thought the world revolved around him. We are here but for a short time on this earth and I would hate to miss the world because I was so self-absorbed with myself that I could not experience what others had to offer. Even at my age, I still learn much from others.
The world was here before me and will exist long after I am gone. It rotates in front of and revolves around the sun, not me.
My favorite part of life is giving back to those who have given so much to me. If they have left this life and are not here, I pay it forward. If all I ever thought about was myself, I would be a lonely man devoid of any companionship or friendship.
As it stands now, I am now the patriarch of the family. This is the scary part. Because now that I am, the weight of being right is squarely on my shoulders. Should my family ever need to solicit advice and then promptly disregard it, I am here for them.
And they do solicit. It's just that sometimes, it involves a piece of paper with Jackson's portrait on it.
This week I have selected three rock classics that transition very well to classical. I think they are outstanding covers, certainly worthy to fill this week's edition of ABFTP.
The first one is originally from Clapton-- everyone (except Mustang) knows it:
Hands down, this is my favorite Zeppelin song in the entire world. I don't know who these people are, but they certainly do this song a great amount of justice. Makes me want to get a ticket to LA, to stroll on Capistrano Beach:
Anyone that has listened to Side 2 of Abbey Road will not be disappointed in this next tune. The depth of the music in this famous medley can be felt deep inside a music lover's spirit:
On a sad note, former basketball star turned smooth jazz bass performer Wayman Tisdale died at age 44, yesterday. He spent some time on the Indiana Pacers in the lean years (when they may have stunk badly at times, but didn't shoot up the town because of anger issues).
For those of you who never heard of him, here is a live cut:
1. One of the things I do when I run across a good new blog is peruse the archives. Four years ago, I ran into Mustang's Social Sense merely by chance. Before I left a comment, I checked out some older posts of his and this is one I found. It told me, I could hang out with this guy.
We all know Nancy Pelosi is a liar and a poor one, at that. Reading the account of her latest attempt to make an already unbelievable account believable, we have to wonder something. Who is she trying to convince? Is it we the people -- or herself?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her eyes wide, her hands gesticulating wildly, on Thursday laid out a third version of what she knew and when she knew it on the Bush administration's interrogation policies, edging ever closer to debating what the meaning of the word "is" is.
With her own second-in-command now demanding more answers, the California Democrat, her voice barely audible at times, read a rambling statement at her weekly press briefing about her prior knowledge of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (EITs) employed by under President Bush, asserting that she was not told in a September 2002 briefing that the U.S. government used waterboarding.
Minutes later, though, she acknowledged for the first time that her top security adviser was part of a February 2003 briefing in which he learned that American interrogators were in fact waterboarding suspected terrorists.
"My statement is clear, and let me read it again. Let me read it again. I'm sorry. I have to find the page," said a flustered Mrs. Pelosi, shuffling through papers, her hands quivering a bit, as she sought to stick to her prepared text.
"When — when — when my staff person — I'm sorry, the page is out of order — five months later, my staff person told me that there had been a briefing — informing that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing; I was just informed that the briefing had taken place," she said.
Anyone can write the account, maybe it would be best to see it for ourselves:
I don't know what your experiences are, but I have seen liars long before this episode. I have been lied to by the best liars in the world; so much so, I could write a book and sell it on Amazon. So, let me tell you about lying liars and the lies they tell.
Liars often forget which lies they have told, and to whom. That's why you will likely trip them up if you keep asking them run through it again. That is why detectives will often employ this kind of strategy, when they think someone is lying.. How many times have we heard a cop in a cop show say, "alright now, let's take it from the top again"? (I doubt that's how they say it in real life, but it's what they do.)
In this instance, we have several different accounts of how this entire scenario has unfolded, several different stories told by Madame Speaker. The fact that she has a prepared text and still cannot keep it in proper order plainly tells me, she knows she's been caught red-handed. She knows that she must use a prepared text to reduce the risk of getting caught in more lies. Even at that, she still cannot do it right.
Think about it. When you tell the truth, there is no hesitation, no trepidation, and no need for deliberation. There is no need to use statements prepared for you, by your staffers. You know and it flows naturally, without signs of anxiety or nervousness.
Truth resonates and is a stabilizer.
This video clearly shows Pelosi in a destabilized state. She knows she is under the gun and there is a distinct possibility that she may lose her speakership over this. This is where others (from her own party) may desert her, like they did Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski.
But rest assured, it is likely that she will not learn anything from this and you can be equally sure, she'll remain a denying liar until her dying day. If she gains nothing else from this pitiful performance, she might learn the "Six P's": Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Had she planned her lies better, the average idiot might have believed her.
Not surprising. Logistics make it hard sometimes, when troops are moving. But there really has to be a better way to coordinate this in the information age. E-mails, text messages and faxes are all real time communications, it seems ridiculous that this is even an issue.
Not that this would have made a lot of difference in the Presidential race, but may have had some effect on some congressional races.
In a reversal, President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he would fight the release of dozens of photographs showing the abuse of terrorism suspects, over concern the images could ignite a backlash against U.S. troops.
Unlike the Bush Derangement Syndromers did with Bush, I said when Obama took office that I would give him credit when he did something right. In this case he did. The BDS crowd can just move on and find something else to harp on, it's a done deal. Nothing good can come from releasing these pictures now. Maybe in 20 years they will, but not now.
The mayor of Providence wants to slap a $150-per-semester tax on the 25,000 full-time students at Brown University and three other private colleges in the city, saying they use resources and should help ease the burden on struggling taxpayers.
That's about $7.5 million per year that can be raised. But that's not the ironic part. If you read the entire article, you will see that is doesn't set well with students. These are people who generally want the federal government to tax rich people inordinately, for expensive social programs hatched up in some university, which generally do not work.
The American dream almost always involves owning a home. There's nothing wrong with it. I think it's not too unreasonable to expect to have a place a person can call home, if they can afford it.
Some of you may remember this little snippet from the election campaign last year:
Minorities gained the most but now have lost the most from a historic homeownership boom that turned to a bust.
The number of Americans who own their homes rose to 69 percent in 2004 from 64 percent in 1994, the fastest growth since just after World War II.
During that recent housing boom, "minorities and immigrants were key parts of the story line," chipping away at long-standing racial and ethnic housing disparities, said Rakesh Kochhar, a researcher with the Pew Hispanic Center.
But as the economic crisis caused homeownership rates to drop back down to 67.8 since 2004, African-Americans and native-born Latinos were the hardest hit, eroding some but not all of the gains they made in the past 15 years, according to a report released Tuesday by the center.
And it's not just minorities who are losing their homes. According to Bloomberg, the overall rate has just hit a record for the second straight month.
Foreclosure filings in the U.S. rose to a record for the second consecutive month in April as banks increased efforts to seize homes from delinquent borrowers.
A total of 342,038 properties received a default or auction notice or were seized last month, RealtyTrac Inc. of Irvine, California, said today in a statement. One in 374 households got a filing, the highest monthly rate since the property data service began issuing such reports in 2005.
“What you’re seeing is the inevitable result of severe job losses,” Nicolas Retsinas, director of housing studies at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview. “Until we stem the job losses, we can expect to see continuing foreclosures.”
Now that it has been over 100 days, since the man who was to save the nation from default (and deliver the people from certain disaster) took office, I wonder how many of those people voted for him based on the misconception that they would not lose their home? I wonder, how many people really are better off today than they were in November?
We are all aware that Blacks are a minority and that about 95% voted for Obama. This means the minority of Blacks who voted against him were about 5%. I am pretty sure the guy who authors this blog was among that minority of the minority. It's called The Black Sphere and I have recently run across it and have been checking it out on a semi-regular basis.
I have deemed it good enough to place on the PYY Blogroll and hope that you will check it out and visit it, as often as you have time. This is a post of his you will not want to miss.
We all know the story of Nancy Pelosi lie, saying she had never known about waterboarding. Then, the WaPo article from 2007 was recalled, which emphatically stated she had attended a briefing in 2002 -- where she was informed of this procedure. Basically, she was caught red-handed.
This was not the usual politician half-truth or exaggeration, but a bold-faced lie to cover her ass for years of criticizing the Bush Administration, complaining that waterboarding was torture.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi learned in early 2003 that the Bush administration was waterboarding terror detainees but didn’t protest directly out of respect for “appropriate” legislative channels, a person familiar with the situation said Monday.
The Pelosi camp’s version of events is intended to answer two key questions posed by her critics: When, precisely, did she first learn about waterboarding? And why didn’t she do more to stop it?
More lies from the U.S. House Speaker.
The more she speaks, the more she lies. She's caught red-handed.
Pelosi had no problems criticizing Bush for anything. Why should you or I believe that she lacked any authority (moral or otherwise) to speak out at the time, if she really had concerns.
It seems to me Pelosi is a chameleon. She has no natural color, no natural inherent principled beliefs. Whatever her background is, that's what she is.
She is the worst kind of politician in the world. I can have more respect for those leftists that stick with their principles, as flawed as I may think they may be. I can have no respect for pols like Pelosi, who are worse than a used car salesman.
And if Bush Administration officials are prosecuted, then politicians like Nancy Pelosi should face charges for being complicit in this entire situation.
Jordanian clerics expressed disappointment that Pope Benedict XVI in an address to Muslim leaders on Saturday failed to offer a new apology for remarks seen as targeting Islam.
"We wanted him to clearly apologise," Sheikh Yusef Abu Hussein, mufti of the southern city of Karak, told AFP after the pope's address in Amman's huge Al-Hussein Mosque.
"What the pope said (in 2006) about the Prophet Mohammed is untrue. Islam did not spread through the power of sword. It's a religion of tolerance and faith," Hussein said.
You talk about holding a grudge, these damned people are the chiefest of the unforgiving class. The Pope said he respects Islam, which is something I never would have said. What more do they expect?
I'll tell you what, I will call for the Pope to apologize, when someone with some authority in Islam apologizes for:
1. Radical jihadis who kill innocents.
2. Radicals who call for the annihilation of Israel.
3. Palestinian Mickey Mouse characters teaching kids to hate Jews.
4. Calling America the Great Satan.
When someone with some prominence in Islam does this publicly for all to hear, then we'll talk. Until then, they can shut up and deal with it.
Women know the way to rear up children (to be just). They know a simple, merry, tender knack of tying sashes, fitting baby-shoes, and stringing pretty words that make no sense. And kissing full sense into empty words. -- Elizabeth Barrett Browning (from the poem, Aurora Leigh)
It's the little things that seemingly make a difference in a child's life. To kids, life is made up of these little things and we have no way of knowing which things they will remember, when they get older. Good mothers have known this from the beginning of time.
Good mothers have more than willingly assumed the role of nurturer and life-sustainer. It's not an easy job and at times, it may appear to be almost impossible.
But those who persevere will reap the many rewards that will certainly come, from doing the best job possible. To those of you who read PYY and have made (or are currently making) these sacrifices of which I speak, I hope one of those rewards comes today.
This weekend's featured artist's life and career were way too short. But before he was tragically struck down in the infancy of his stardom, Jim Croce left us some epic tunes that will be played throughout the ages.
His songs always had a way of putting the listener into some familiar settings or at least painted a vivid picture of the story he was telling. He was a consummate and quintessential balladeer.
Here are some of my favorites:
Here is a live performance on the Midnight Special:
This one is a grandiose tune that always puts a smile on my face. It's about dreaming big, despite living in the reality of the situation:
I don't speak for others here. But I must say, some things really amaze me.
I have had a fair share of discussions lately, with liberals I know. We have discussed the wisdom of borrowing money, to reward insolvency and bad business decisions. But as of yet, no one can intelligently explain why it is good policy to do so.
We have already thrown trillions at every last little thing that met the Democrats' approval and still nothing has happened. Jobs have still been lost. People are still defaulting on loans. Stocks have stopped bleeding for right now, but are nowhere near a bull market.
Well, maybe I shouldn't be given over to such hyperbole, because something has happened.
We have whetted the appetites of financial institutions with the aroma of fresh-cooked corporate welfare. Now we are being told, the banks still need more money despite the whopping sums they have already received.
Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and GMAC LLC are among the companies judged to need additional capital according to results of regulators’ stress tests on the 19 largest U.S. banks.
Nice, isn't it?
I think it's only natural to ask these kinds of questions , ones that center around throwing borrowed money around like it's magic dust. While we are at it, we might want to ask who is monitoring the money, who is providing oversight?
So just who's tracking that $787 billion in taxpayer money that President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress are doling out? You are. Or you're supposed to be, anyway.
"We are, in essence, deputizing the entire American citizenry to help with the oversight of this program," said Rep. Brad Miller, chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight.
So does this mean that if I see waste or mismanagement of federal dollars, I can report them? Does it mean I can make a citizen's arrest? I doubt the answer to either of these, is yes. These people did not listen to the American citizenry when the debate over these expenditures first arose, why would anyone think they would listen to any of us now?
As most of us know by now, Sen. Arlen Specter has changed parties.
Big whoop.
Without a doubt, it has caused a few jaws to drop. But I fail to see why anyone would be surprised. Along with RINOs Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins the Senators from Maine, he voted for the Obama shopping spree that effectively put my five-year old grandson into debt.
Specter has been left-leaning for longer than many people realize. He replaced a Rockefeller Republican named Richard Schweiker and like former U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker from Connecticut, he has historically voted moderate to liberal -- all the while retaining the Republican label.
So when Specter, Snowe and Collins all chose to vote for one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the United States of America, it validated what many have already believed to be true. It showed who they really were and confirmed that they are not to be counted on to uphold good fiscal policy.
Let me say, it doesn't irritate me that Specter changed parties. Others have done so before him, and I suspect that others will do so again in the future. But what does bother me is the way he went about it. He has tried to make it clear, by saying his change of heart is about principle, not politics. And that would be okay, if I thought he could be believed.
Here's why I don't believe him:
In a March 17th interview, he denied having any plans to change parties:
He claimed he was concerned about preserving the balance of power. But when he realized that he could not win a primary fight, he sold out his affiliation very quickly and seemingly did it without any regard for his previous statements and denials.
Another flashback tells the story of Specter. Some of you may remember that he was highly critical of Jim Jeffords for bailing out on the GOP, back in 2002.
Now that Arlen Specter has stunned Washington by switching parties, it's instructive to take a look back at Specter's own reaction with Sen. Jim Jeffords bolted from the GOP to give Democrats a majority in 2002.
Ironically, Specter proposed a rule change to prevent Jeffords' actions from being repeated.
"I intend to propose a rule change which would preclude a future recurrence of a Senator's change in parties, in mid-session, organizing with the opposition, to cause the upheaval which is now resulting," Specter said. "[I]t is my view that the organizational vote belongs to the party which supported the election of a particular Senator."
But similarly instructive is Specter's emotional response to Jeffords' decision, a response that indicates Specter was well aware of the damage he would do to his party with his own switch.
"For 13 years, Jim Jeffords has been one of my closest friends in the Senate and he still is," Specter said on the floor of the Senate. "We have had lunch together every Wednesday for years….He had never given any hint to me of such a move."
He wanted to change the rules after Jeffords left at such a critical juncture. But today, when it's he that wants to pull a stunt like this, he doesn't even blink an eye.
After putting the March interview alongside this little tidbit, it clearly shows me that he is no different than any other hypocrite I have ever seen, heard, or known. Why is hypocrisy such a despicable trait, in my book? Well, let's consider this little quote from the late Hannah Arendt:
What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.
Hits the nail hard, doesn't it? Because it demonstrates a motive, an intention, and a conscious decision. It's not a mistake in judgment, it comes from an impure mind and heart. It is greatly motivated by self-interest.
How about this one from Raisa Gorbachev?
Hypocrisy, the lie, is the true sister of evil, intolerance, and cruelty.
(Ouch.)
So if lies and other forms of deceit are by-products of hypocrisy, why do we tolerate such radically evil character (especially when it is demonstrated so openly)?
Who knows?
But the last laugh may yet be on Mr. Specter.
A Quinnipiac University poll shows Tom Ridge as a formidable candidate in the general election, before any campaigning starts. To which I can only say: Run Tom, run.
Time for another dig into the old mailbag. Here's one I just ran across:
Dear LA,
Man, these people be trippin. Ya see, I don't know where to turn. Some people be saying for me to write Aks LA, because the man has the answers. I sed, that's what I am talkin bout. I needs the answers. Right on?
Anyway, here's what's goin down. I am living in a FEMA trailer in the 9th Ward of NOLA (Thassss right, baby. Da Crescent Citty.) But now these people be sayin that I have to give up the crib. They be sayin that da guvment is takin my home away. It only be four years since Katrina and I can't get my act together cuz da man is holding me down.
What am I ever supposed to be doing to stop dis unjustice?
Right On,
Frustrated In Fematown.
Dear Frustrated,
You have a right to be upset. This current FEMA policy of setting an unreasonable May 1, 2009 deadline is racist. It's not even been a full four years yet.
I suggest you call your local media and whip the locals into a frenzy. Tell them how the current administration is trying to keep black people down, by causing extra suffering in addition to the suffering already imposed.
If that doesn't work, call Al Sharpton to come down and lead a march through the streets calling for Barack Obama's head. Let the President know that you will NOT tolerate the continuation of the racist policies of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the evil Karl Rove.
You must act to defend your rights. There is no reason for them to be putting this much pressure on you or your neighbors, so soon after this horrible disaster.
To put the world right in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must first put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must first cultivate our personal life; we must first set our hearts right. --Confucius
The hierarchy of sociological needs always begins with ourselves. No collection of people can exist without individuals.
Families are at peace, when the individuals of that family are at peace with themselves. Communities are at peace, when families are at peace. Once the family breaks down, the community is not far behind. If communities break down, society breaks down.
We can analyze this all day long, the bottom line is: It all begins with the individual.
The first movie I remember going to was Thunderball. I am sure we went to others, but this was just my dad and me, alone. No mom, no little brother, just us.
This weekend we will depart from the usual format just a bit, as we take a look at some James Bond 007 movie themes.
First up. From Russia With Love:
Shirley Bassey sings Goldfinger:
As well as Diamonds Are Forever:
My very favorite 007 theme was View To A Kill by Duran Duran (live version):
