Ladies And Gentlemen: Start Your Engines

The onslaught of fans and traffic has been going on here in Indy, for a couple of days now. It's affected many things here where I live. One thing is the increase in traffic congestion, on and off the road. On the road is expected, but the newer thing is the increased hi-speed internet traffic that my local internet service provider has had to accommodate. So, as a result, my service is slower than usual and if I can get this post out before I throw something at the monitor, it'll be a minor miracle.

I'd like to take a moment and share a couple of things about the race, you may or may not know about this year's and past races.

The first thing to note deals with this year. There will be three women starting this year's race. I won't bore you with details, but you can read more about it in the Indy Star.

The second thing deals with the past and present. An interesting piece can be found here, from yesterday's Star.

Tony George has lived most of his life in Indianapolis, but he also feels like he is at home in this city, where he occasionally works in his late grandfather's Hulman & Co. downtown office.

Terre Haute has long been regarded as part of the Indianapolis 500's extended family.

The connection forms the backbone of Indianapolis Motor Speedway, which will host the 500 on Sunday for the 91st time. It shows in the Speedway's employees, their backgrounds and their influences, past and present.

In a rare moment of self-disclosure, I recently wrote a post that chronicled a portion of my life and world, with Terre Haute being mentioned as one of the many stops. Hulman and Company was one of the companies I worked for, while I was at that stop.

Hopefully they will get the race in today, it's raining at the track right now. If they do get it in and you are planning to watch "The Greatest Spectacle In Racing", enjoy it for me. It's blacked out here and I am in no mood to fight drunken crowds at my age.

Another Blast From The Past

One hit wonders are the subject of this week's "Blast From The Past" post. Everyone has a favorite, here are a few of mine:

Whenever I hear this one-hit wonder, I think back to the time when one of my best friends in the world and I used to hang out in his poster-filled room, pondering the various things of the universe, as only a teenager would. Here is King Harvest's, Dancing in The Moonlight from 1973:



The next one-hit wonder was one that came from a Dutch band, The Shocking Blue. Here is their one big hit, Venus:



In the late 70s, Europe's music scene was certainly a unique experience. And when I listen to Driver's Seat by Sniff 'N' The Tears, it takes me back to those days when I lived and worked in what was then, West Germany:



And finally, who could forget this classic In The Year 2525, by Zager & Evans:



Enjoy.


Addendum: For a couple of other obscure tunes from the past, check out AC's Fore Left.

Haste Makes Waste

There's an old saying that goes: Marry in haste, repent at leisure.

Marriage is a decision that too many take lightly today and when rushed without giving the consequences an adequate amount of thought, the aftermath can be disastrous. In fact, there are other important decisions made today that carry with them, grave consequences if not thought out rationally and intelligently. Voting to send troops to war is one of them. So if I may, allow me to modify this old saying a bit to: Vote for war in haste, repent at leisure.

Today, we see two prominent candidates for the Democratic nomination for President doing what I feel is just that.

John Edwards, who voted for the decision to go to war twice (once in Afghanistan and once in Iraq), has said the following today:

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

There is no war on Islam. President Bush has made this clear from the very beginning. Never have those terms been used to describe this conflict. In my view, this is a gross misconception being advanced by Mr. Edwards, for nothing more than political purposes. The truth of the matter is, we are in a war against a radical ideology that seeks to destroy those that do not bow to the will of those, who wish to advance that radical ideology.

But even more importantly, the former senator has reversed his stance on a vote that he obviously did not think through, at the time it was being debated. I have said before and I will not back down on this one iota- the time to debate the validity and usefulness of this war was before the votes were cast. It's easy to stick your finger into the wind (after the fact) and determine that popular support for the Iraq campaign has dwindled. But to be one that voted in haste and now wishes to repent at leisure, significantly waters down his argument greatly.

The next candidate we have guilty of this action is Hillary Clinton. She voted for both resolutions, as well. (You can click on the previous links to the votes, if you have any doubts.) But now, she feels the need to reverse herself in the midst of the storm and really hopes that Americans will buy into her sudden change of heart, right alongside Mr. Edwards. Today, it is being reported that she has written a letter to Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates demanding that he put together a plan for withdrawal.

That's fine, I suppose it is her right to voice her opinion and she should not be condemned for that. But how far does that get her, when she also voted in haste and is now repenting at leisure? How far does it get her, when we now see that the next troop funding bill will not include language for a specific timetable, for withdrawal?

Now, I know, one can always say they were wrong and certainly has the right to change their mind (which is often done in marriage). But when we take a good look at the real situation here, what I see is plain and obvious.

Both Sen. Clinton and Mr. Edwards voted for both measures to use force, because it was politically expedient to do so at that point in time. The same can be said for Sen. Kerry and a host of others, now pressing for withdrawal. But in my view, they now are looking at the political winds that have obviously shifted and are willing to throw away their votes, as if they never meant them. Had they only known the fallout, I am sure they would have voted against these measures back then. But they didn't. But now they claim to have the answer and their version of the answer is to wash their hands of the entire situation with no thought to the potential fallout.

Look, if someone was against the war(s) from the beginning, that's one thing. I feel they and they alone have an argument. But if they voted for the war and now seek to quit without thinking through the potentially grave consequences of doing so, how much sense does that make?

Sure, if that were to happen and the whole Middle East plunges into a violent conflict as a result, it will be easy to blame it all on George Bush. In fact, that's been the MO from the beginning. And do not get me wrong here, it was his administration that was responsible for bringing it to Congress. But if there were any misgivings of misunderstandings about what it meant, the time to air them was then. By doing all of this now after the fact, is highly counterproductive.

To repent at leisure now, will certainly render the deaths of the soldiers and marines that have been killed during these two conflicts for naught, and they too will be easily blamed on George Bush. But what about those that didn't use their check and balance, at the time the troops were in Kuwait? How much should they escape when the blame is passed around?

Here's the point I am trying to make:

If you want to escape the unintended consequences of your decisions, the only way to avoid it is to make better decisions when they are presented to you. Making poor decisions in haste, because it is a popular thing to do at the time, is a sure way of making a mess of things down the road. And once you have made a commitment to that poor decision, you owe it to yourself to see it through, when it involves the lives of so many people. To say, "I quit", then take your ball and go home, will not solve the problem of your bad decision.

The Dems in Congress are in a position of authority now. They are on a co-equal basis with the GOP and the Administration. They are not in a position to dictate terms to the President. But instead of that, they should be pressing for specific solutions that can speed up the process sufficiently enough that a safe and honorable withdrawal can be done. Threatening, demanding, and repenting in leisure over a vote they made in haste, will not solve anything. It will not tame the violence, it will not get the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security, and it will not bring more peace to the world.

President Sarkozy Sounding Like He Means Business

It's been no real secret how I felt about former President Jacques Chirac. (See: Here and here , if you are new or unsure.) Imagine now just how I feel about the new French President, who realizes the seriousness of the Iran nuclear situation and is willing to make his views emphatically known.

From the Jerusalem Post comes an article, which gives us all a strong indication of just how serious he considers Iran's program to be:

French President Nicholas Sarkozy called Wednesday for sanctions on Iran to be tightened if the country does not adhere to the West's demands to cease its nuclear agenda.

If Iran attains nuclear weapons, Sarkozy warned, a road to an arms race will be paved that could endanger Israel and southeast Europe, he said during an interview with a German magazine.

Now, contrast that with the flip-flopping, waffling, and downright obstinate nature of the former French leader and you'll see just why I was so hard on past French policy. From the IHT comes this article which demonstrates clearly, just how utterly incompetent Chirac really was in the world arena:

President Jacques Chirac said in an interview that an Iran that possessed one or two nuclear weapons would not pose much of a danger, adding that if Iran were ever to launch a nuclear weapon against a country like Israel, it would lead to the immediate destruction of Tehran.

What M. Chirac failed to understand is quite simple, if you put in terms of how to best deal with a child. If you send mixed signals to a child, you risk having no consistency and therefore, setting clear-cut boundaries will be next to impossible to enforce.

Later, from the same article we see what I mean here:

Chirac said repeatedly during the second interview that he had spoken casually and quickly the day before because he had believed he was talking about Iran off the record. Finally, he admitted that he had made a mistake. "It is I who was wrong and I do not want to contest it," he said. "I should have paid better attention to what I was saying and understood that perhaps I was on the record."

Even later in the same article:

Chirac explained that it would be an act of self-destruction for Iran to use a nuclear weapon against another country. "Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel?" Chirac asked. "It would not have gone off 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground."

When quizzed further about this last remark here's what he had to say:

In the second interview, Chirac retracted his comment that Tehran would be destroyed if Iran launched a nuclear weapon. "I take it back of course when I said, 'One is going to raze Tehran,'" he said. "It was of course a manner of speaking."

Are you dizzy yet? I know I am.

Thankfully, we now know where the French leadership stands on this issue. I know I couldn't take much more of the Chirac Open Tennis Tournament, without risking serious damage to my neck muscles.

Is Ethanol The Answer?

Much of the emphasis in the energy sector these days is directed towards getting out from under the thumb of Middle Eastern oil sheiks, who seem to enjoy the lavish lifestyles at the expense of the world's dependency on oil. Add to that the environmentalists and their desire to see carbon emissions drop and you see the stage being set for a new and innovative fuel source that can be found right here in the Midwest, ethanol.

Sounds like a win-win, doesn't it?

But not so fast.

A couple of months ago, a post by Mustang at Social Sense addressed this very subject with some startling findings that many in the energy sector are not taking into consideration. You can read it here. And today, we see another convincing "not so fast", The Many Myths of Ethanol written by ABC's John Stossel.

If you read these two pieces and are still not convinced that ethanol is a bad idea, allow me to throw one more fly into your ointment:

If you want to see a major disaster here and elsewhere in the world, just watch what is likely to happen in the corn belt, this year. All of the signs are pointing towards a drought. And if we as a nation (or we as a world) are dependent on a fuel source that is dependent on the weather, think of the potentially catastrophic repercussions a poor crop of corn would have on the economy, in any given year.

As much as I would love to see us out from under the oppressive grips of ME oil barons and guys like Hugo Chavez, I would highly caution people to think this thing through before jumping on the bandwagon of the environmentalists' latest cause, too soon.

Back From Nashville

Well, we survived the Nashville scene without too much difficulty. The main purpose of the trip was to attend the wedding of Mrs. Sunsett's youngest nephew.

Somehow, originally, we had been given the impression that the wedding would take place across the street in an art museum. So I did some research and found that the Frist Center For The Visual Arts was, in fact, located across the street from the hotel. As luck would have it, I love art museums. So naturally, I was very excited and began looking forward to it almost immediately. I even looked up the museum's website to see what exhibits would be there. Being a huge fan of paintings, I was immediately drawn to the one marked Matisse, Picasso, and the School of Paris.

"Brilliant", I thought to myself. (I am more of a fan of Impressionism than I am of Fauvism or Cubism. But nevertheless, I was still excited.)

The wedding was on Sunday, but we arrived on Saturday afternoon. The plan was to find someplace to eat with a local flavor, and then find a night club with some up and coming wannabe country band, after we made an appearance in the rehearsal reception in my sister-in-law's suite. The wedding party was to have dinner, first. In the meantime, we thought we'd eat while they were eating

We decided to go to a longtime, well-praised and liked, Nashville staple called Jack's Bar-B-Que (a few blocks away) for some authentic Tennessee BBQ. It was supposed be one of the best BBQ joints in the land.

It wasn't.

Then came the news that the rehearsal dinner was running late, so the 8:30 reception in the suite was moved back, to 10:00 or so. When we finally got to the reception, we learned the disappointing news that the wedding was NOT going to be at the Frist Center, but at a local art gallery three miles away.

"Okay", I thought. Maybe this was going to be a pleasant little gallery in a nice atmosphere, with a local avant-garde touch of style.

Wrong again.

The art gallery was okay, not much creativity from where I sat. The neighborhood was dilapidated and the gallery was housed in what looked to be an old body shop. The wedding was held in the back of the gallery (where all of the paint cans, easels and many other art supplies and equipment were stored).

So to summarize the chain of events of the weekend (which has been officially categorized as a "comedy of errors") :

The dinner at Jack's was highly disappointing, we had no time to check out a local honky-tonk, I didn't get to see the Frist Center (with the fine exhibits that it had to offer), and the wedding was held in a garage in 80 degree heat.

But all was not lost, I suppose. I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express that night.

Another Blast From The Past

Well, the Mrs. and I are heading down to Nashville for the weekend. So to celebrate the trip, here's a minor hit from the 60s band The Lovin' Spoonful, Nashville Cats. (As an added bonus, Flatts and Scruggs do their version after the "Spoonful" do theirs. So be sure to listen to both for a contrast in musical styles of both songs.)




If bluegrass happens to be your cup of tea, I'll throw in Foggy Mountain Breakdown for good measure (absolutely free).



He's not from Nashville, but there's never a bad time for Willie Nelson. Country is not my favorite genre, to be sure. But I love Willie, and especially this tune here, Angel Flying To Close The Ground:



Enjoy.

Another Blogroll Addition

I am in one of my periodic busy stretches again, but I want to take a moment and welcome a long time regular here at PYY to the blogosphere. Mary Ellen and I have had some passionate arguments over the last year on many of the political issues of the day. But, just because we disagree on almost everything, does not mean we are bitter enemies. Not in the least.

So, I ask my readers to meander on over to her new site, The Divine Dem and give her a look when you get a moment. (Maybe you can even leave her a comment so she'll know you were there.) If you are a liberal Democrat, you'll find a lot to agree with. If you are not, you will find much to debate about. But no matter your political persuasion, you will find her sincere in what she believes in.

Give her a look, will you?

$2.9 Trillion, For What?

WARNING: Foul Mood Diatribe Ahead



$2,900,000,000,000

Intriguing, isn't it? But that's the figure the Democrats in Congress have agreed on. 2.9 trillion dollars of the people's money being spent with only one thing in mind, buying votes.

During the last election campaign I seem to remember deficit spending by the GOP being an enormous issue (as it should have been). I know, they say that this will eliminate the deficit and even create a surplus by 2012. And on the surface, this is good.

But here, we see a record budget being discussed and nothing offered to Social Security, nothing to Medicare either. All these years, they have been taking SS taxes out of my checks But yet today with this budget, we are no closer to fixing a problem which is only going to get worse, especially as the baby boomer generation (of which I am a part of) gets ready for retirement.

No, Congress raided the SS funds a long time ago and this current group sees no reason to put the damned money back, so I can have a little of it when I am ready for it. To me, that's extortion.

Before you get all worked up on this, rest assured that I don't expect to live off SS, I am not an idiot. I have seen this coming for years and so have many others. Mrs Sunsett and I have other things in place. Plus, I have skills that I can use to work until I drop dead if I have to. But in true governmental fashion, they have found it quite practical to ignore the coming crisis, thinking that if they ignore it, it will go away.

Well, it won't.

If you are a young person, what do you care, right? You probably haven't paid into the system nearly what I have, so I wouldn't expect you to give a piper's damn about any of this. But let me break this down for you.

1. Be prepared for your parents to come and live with you because they cannot afford to live on their own. So, when you are shopping for a house, make damned sure you have a spare bedroom (or two, if your parents are divorced), so that guys like me can have a place to live during the golden years of our lives.

2. Be prepared for us to sit in your house, eat your food, and tell you how to run your lives and raise your kids, because that's what we do when we live with you.

3. Be prepared to pay for our medical bills because the illegal immigrants have thoroughly drained the healthcare system by then, and not paid a dime towards it in the process. (Have you checked your out of pocket expenses on your plan lately? Whew. Imagine what that's going to look like when we get too old to afford medical care.)

If you do not want to see these things come to pass in your lifetime, too bad. If this is not want you want, I'd highly suggest you get ready to lobby your elected representatives and threaten them with termination. Or, prepare to have your taxes increased to European rates in order to pay for the millions like me that were merely hoping to buy a few groceries and a few pills, with the paltry sums of return that we have expected to receive from a failed and depleted system. Prepare for that to be your lot in life, just so your elected officials can throw it all away, like it's candy being thrown at you at a parade.

And while I am venting my feelings here, consider this article from the Politico.

Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.

So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

On Wednesday, Democrats suggested changing the House rules to limit the minority's right to offer motions to recommit bills back to committee -- violating a protection that has been in place since 1822.

We all know just how important Murtha's projects are, don't we? Mr. "Dodge-The-Abscam-Indictment", himself, is the king of pork barrel spending and we wouldn't want him to not get his, would we? But that's not the half of it. To tell you the truth, I expect this from a guy like Jack. He was cut in the mold of Dan Rostenkowski and Jim Wright, two guys that paid heavily for their crimes. But, Jack gets off scott-free because of his stance on the war.

No, what really gets my goat is the hypocrisy of it all. Remember this one?

House Democrats' anger at heavy-handed Republican tactics reached a new level yesterday, with the chamber's top Democrat asking the House speaker to embrace a "Bill of Rights" for the minority, regardless which party it is.

And later in the same article we read:

Pelosi's document, which she vows to honor if Democrats regain the majority, says: "Too often, incivility and the heavy hand of the majority" have silenced Democrats and choked off "thoughtful debate." She called on the majority to let the minority offer meaningful amendments and substitutes to important bills; to limit roll-call votes to the normal 15 minutes rather than keeping them open to round up needed votes; and to let all appointees to House-Senate conference committees participate in meetings and decisions.

"When we are shut out, they are shutting out the great diversity of America," Pelosi said in an interview. "We want a return to civility; we want to set a higher standard."

And while we are it, what about this one right after the election?

With their votes, the American people asked for change. They cast their ballots in favor of a New Direction.

They called for greater integrity in Washington, and Democrats pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.

The American people called for greater civility in how Congress conducts its work, and Democrats pledge to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship, and to act in partnership - not partisanship - with the president and Republicans in Congress.

.............We will honor that trust, and we will not disappoint.

How's that for hypocrisy? How's that for lying right to the faces of the American electorate and then doing whatever the hell they want, in spite of the fact that they made the promises. How's that for the media and the American electorate letting them get away with it?

Mark my words, here. There's a damned good reason the most recent Gallup Poll shows Congressional approval ratings below that of the President. And what you are reading here in this post is not even half of it.

Way to go Nancy, that's showing us how it's supposed to be done. Enjoy the barbecue, we are paying for. And tell Jack to go easy on the sausage, I worry about his health.


Anyway, thanks for reading, have a good day, and I promise I will try to be in a better mood tomorrow.

Welcome To The PYY Blogroll

I have been remiss in adding to the PYY blogroll as of late, so I would like to introduce my readers to some new blogs recently added to the exclusive PYY Blogroll.

Many times new blogs start up with a ball of fire and yet, they manage to fizzle out after a short time. But this blog looks like it's going to make it. It's a team blog with three different writers. They are thinkers and good writers of what they think. Please visit Praesidium Respublicae and leave a comment or two, if you so desire. I think they will appreciate it greatly.

Now that the French election is over, gone is French Election 2007. But not to fear, the same blogmeister is now running his new blog called, Politique. It centers on French politics from an American perspective. It is not a French-bashing site (or else I would not bother to link to it). It is informative and well-written. Check it out, when you get a moment.

Last but certainly not least is a blog that centers on life in one of the former Soviet Republics, Belarus. In addition, it chronicles a harrowing experience by the administrator five years ago, in Poland. If you get the time read the experience and the other posts contained within. It's run by an American ex-patriot who used to comment here on PYY frequently and we all wish he'd come back soon. Check out Being Had.

And as always, thanks you all so much for reading PYY.