From Colin Cowherd. I won't give it away. Those of you with young kids will relate. Take the 20 seconds to download it and the minute and a half it takes to hear the story. Once again I highly recommend
When I was working on the original
I am still working (yes, this is work) on a post with all the Obama hump and dump allies but in the meantime enjoy this ad that takes at a shot at Governor Rod Blagojevich . Yes I am calling him a cohort because Chicago politics does not have the best reputation and Obama wants you to believe he was a saint among the sinners. Well as a former Democrat President once said , you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Ed
.
Brought to my attention by
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/8338
A Chicago-area furniture store, LeatherCreations, took out a quarter-page ad in the Chicago Tribune on Thursday. While that in itself isn't the slightest bit peculiar, even amidst the decline of ad sales in the newspaper industry, the unique marketing angle they took captured attention.
"We sell more seats than the Governor! ... and our Senate seat only costs $1,999 (Plus this sofa lasts much longer than 6 years)."
Hey, maybe Rod Blagojevich has some career prospects after all, a post-politics career in endorsements!
Ran Across This Story---
Tom Cruise Proposes Homosexual Census in U.S. (Will go over big in Hollywood)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2154908/posts?page=51
You can Google it yourself. Was going to post it but I did some research. Then I found out it was not true. So research is important. Here are the videos of the actual interview where this allegedly happened. Guess he is just a magnet for this stuff since he is already perceived as Wacko. Glad that I follow my own advice when it comes to these crazy stories.
I watched the whole interview and not only does he not say what was reported. He does not even come close.
Research is important.
Ed
mmmmmm Chocolate .m4v
So it's safe to say my source is not MSNBC Pravda. Thanks to http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com
for having the guts to go against the liberal grain and alerting me to things mainstream media will not. George W. may not be perfect but most media outlets have absolutely nothing good to say about him and blame him for everything. He can't be perfectly awful can he? Media bias is always to the left. Which is OK if you sympathize with the left. A little something about me, my major was Communications and I was about 3 courses shy of a minor in Sociology. Both very left leaning faculties so it's not like I know nothing of that side of the political fence.
Ed
George W Bush: winning the war on terror
Europe's political elites are no doubt salivating at the prospect of George W. Bush departing the White House in January.
By Nile Gardiner
Last Updated: 6:23PM GMT 26 Dec 2008
Comments 12 | Comment on this article
George W Bush
Criticism of George W Bush is often driven by a dislike of his personality, not analysis of his achievements Photo: EPA
On much of the world stage, President Bush has been widely reviled as one of the worst U.S. leaders of modern times, and it is hard to think of an American president who has received a worse press since Richard Nixon.
To his critics, who are legion on both sides of the Atlantic, the war in Iraq has been a monumental disaster, at a cost of more than 4,000 American lives and at least $500 billion. They see the war on terror, with the notorious Guantanamo prison camp as its symbol, as a catalyst for radicalizing tens of millions of Muslims that has made the United States a pariah in the Middle East.
The war in Afghanistan, they argue, is going badly in the face of a resurgent Taliban, the cost of Washington pouring most of its resources into Iraq. Bush, the theory goes, failed to keep his eye on the ball, weakening the fight against al-Qaeda through his supposed obsession with Iraq. He is also accused of undermining America's standing in the world, adopting a unilateralist foreign policy and refusing to work with its Allies.
Some of the criticism of Bush's foreign policy is fair. The early stages of the occupation of Iraq were poorly handled and there was a distinct lack of post-war planning. America's public diplomacy efforts have been poor or even non-existent, with little serious attempt to combat the stunning rise of anti-Americanism. More recently, Washington's failure to stand up more aggressively to Moscow after its invasion of Georgia projected weakness and indecision.
Much of the condemnation of his policies though is driven by a venomous hatred of Bush's personality and leadership style, rather than an objective assessment of his achievements. Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush's actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America's 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to have been a masterstroke. Today the world is witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic state in the Middle East outside of Israel. Over eight million voted in Iraq's parliamentary elections in 2005, and the region's first free Muslim society may become a reality. Iraq might not be Turkey, but it is a powerful demonstration that freedom can flourish in the embers of the most brutal and barbaric of dictatorships.
The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. The West's most feared enemy suffered thousands of losses in Iraq, including many of their most senior commanders, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Abu Qaswarah. It was the most successful counter-insurgency operation anywhere in the world since the British victory in Malaya in 1960.
The broader war against Islamist terrorism has also been a success. There has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and for all the global condemnation of pre-emptive strikes, Guantanamo and the use of rendition against terror suspects, the fact remains that Bush's aggressive strategy actually worked.
Significantly, there have been no successful terrorist attacks in Europe since the July 2005 London bombings, in large part due to the cooperation between U.S., British and other Western intelligence agencies. American intelligence has proved vital in helping prevent an array of planned terror attacks in the UK, a striking demonstration of the value to Britain of its close ties to Washington.
President Bush, in contrast to both his father, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton before him, had a crystal clear, instinctive understanding of the importance of the Anglo-American Special Relationship. Tony Blair may well have been labeled Bush's "poodle" over his support for the war in Iraq, but his partnership with George W. Bush marked the high point of the Anglo-American alliance since the heady days of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
The decision by Bush, with Blair's support, to sweep the Taliban out of Afghanistan was a brilliant move, one that not all U.S. presidents would have taken. A weaker leader would have gone to the United Nations Security Council and sought a negotiated settlement with Kabul. It was a risky gambit that was vindicated by a stunning military victory in the space of a month, with a small number of U.S. ground forces involved.
Bush also made a firm commitment to defending the fledgling Afghan government, and succeeded in building a 41-nation NATO-led coalition. The notion that the resurgence of the Taliban is America's failure is nonsense. The U.S. has more than 30,000 troops in the country under U.S. or NATO command, making up over half of all Allied forces there. Continental European allies have simply failed to step up to the plate with more troops, with almost the entire war-fighting burden placed on the U.S., UK and other English-speaking countries. Afghanistan is not a failure of American leadership, it is a damning indictment of an increasingly pacifist Europe that simply will not fight.
President Bush also recognized the importance of re-shaping the NATO alliance for the 21st Century, backing an ambitious program of NATO expansion, culminating in the addition of seven new members in 2004. He also had the foresight to support the development of a missile defence system in Europe, successfully negotiating deals with both Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush was right to back the eventual inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, and both would be well on their way to membership today were it not for the feckless decision of France and Germany to side with Russia in blocking their path to entry.
Bush began his presidency primarily as a domestic leader. He ends it as a war leader who has left a huge imprint internationally. His greatest legacy, the global war against Islamist terror, has left the world a safer place, and his decision to project global power and military might against America's enemies has made it harder for Islamist terrorists to strike against London, Paris or Berlin.
Bush's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power will make it less likely that rogue regimes, Iran and North Korea included, will seek to militarily challenge American power. The memory of the invasion of Iraq and the unequivocal message that sent is by far the most effective deterrent to Tehran developing a nuclear weapon.
If superpowers do not demonstrate an ability and a willingness to wield power (as Britain did on numerous occasions at the height of the Empire) their hegemony will be increasingly challenged. President Bush exercised U.S. military power to stunning effect in both Iraq and Afghanistan, an important reminder that America was still a force to be reckoned with after the 1990s humiliation of Somalia and the half-hearted missile strikes against Bin Laden in Sudan. In an age of growing threats and challenges, the projection of hard power matters, and America's next president would be wise to take heed.
Nile Gardiner is Director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/george-w-bush-liberator-who-saved.html
I ran across this headline in Yahoo today and it made me think of one of the great paradoxes that exist.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081225/ap_en_tv/sopranos_actor_suicide
Which is this time of year is known for causing depression. Well, I am no expert but I have some links below for those of you who may know someone who thinks "it's just them". Of course any reason to talk about the Sopranos again and all the events that occur within the show and to the cast themselves. Still the ultimate message here is if you know of anyone depressed, get them help before it's too late.
Ed
http://www.medicinenet.com/holiday_depression_and_stress/article.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stress/MH00030
This is a bit late. Got on a roll with those other entries. Sorry but media was there when it happened. We have to take it at face value. Here is my perspective. I was working in the Ayayla stock exchange when Erap was at his height and when he started slipping. Hard to believe with all I saw and all the clamoring going on around me it was a mistake.
Foreigners with money thought we were a joke because Estrada himself was a joke. It was if Andy Capp was running a country. Although I don't recall Andy "spreading his seed" the way Erap did . Anyway this is what Sorry Cory is sorry about.
Special thanks to Chris Malveda at work who helped my creative juices flow when I come with alliteration fueled capsule of the still on going story of the man with more kids than IQ points.
Popular- uneducated movie screen king
Politician- mayor/ Senator. Vice president
President- landslide victory totally indicative of the country's electorate.
Puppet - by many unscrupulous forces while in office.
People Power- enough of an uprising convinced significant players to abandon him
Purged - on a Saturday Afternoon left Malacanang on a barge.
Prison in house- house arrest
Prosecuted - charged
Plunder- charge that is supposed to be punishable by death
Pronounced Guilty
Pardoned- by another questionable president GMA.
Presidential Wishes- He will either be King or King Maker based on what he projects.
Actors in this country love FPJ/ Erap.
Hollywood loves who ? (see a connection?)
Cory if for a second you are serious that it was a mistake ousting this clown from office in 2001 then add this "P" to the list
Prostitute.
You are a bigger whore than your daughter.
Ed
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/12/22/08/cory-tells-erap-sorry-edsa-dos
video
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?ArticleId=426412&publicationSubCategoryId=63
Cory apology to Erap dismays EDSA players
By Aurea Calica And Delon Porcalla Updated December 24, 2008 12:00 AM
Former President Corazon Aquino, a global people power icon who helped unseat a dictator as well as a corrupt but hugely popular leader, has drawn mild rebuke and outright scorn – mostly from political allies – for voicing contrition for her role in ousting Joseph Estrada from the presidency in 2001.
A belated clarification from Mrs. Aquino’s son Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, that the apology was meant as a joke, helped little to silence critics. Mrs. Aquino could not be reached for comment yesterday.
For Sen. Richard Gordon, Mrs. Aquino earned the moniker “Sorry Aquino” for her surprise apology.
“I am quite disappointed. I don’t agree with the fact that you have to say sorry to him. I really feel for Cory because she is sick right now, but I think she overstated the point,” Gordon said. Mrs. Aquino has colon cancer.
Gordon said Mrs. Aquino’s apology might sow confusion, especially among the young.
He said leaders should set an example by showing resolve and dignity, and by speaking up and saying “what is wrong or what is right even if it would hurt other people.”
“I have nothing against the former president (Aquino)” but that “when we are leaders, we must be called upon to teach our people.”
“Leaders teach. Leaders must form a face for our country, what we stand for,” Gordon said.
“We must be upright and we must be able and not be afraid to say in front of other people what we think of them if they had done wrong,” he said. “I do not want to confuse the public where we must stand. We must stand for the right thing.”
He stressed that while he could still be friends with Estrada, the senator said he would never apologize to the ousted president who was convicted of plunder in 2007 or six years after his ouster in a popular revolt. Then vice president Gloria Arroyo took over from Estrada.
“I have no qualms in saying that I didn’t agree with the way he (Estrada) was handling the government. Erap did some good things and I acknowledge that. He did many good things but he also did a lot of bad things,” Gordon said.
“Mr. Estrada has committed wrongs in our country and he has already been forgiven. I’m part of those who removed him and I have no regrets about that,” he added.
As for Palawan Rep. Abraham Mitra, son of the late Speaker Ramon Mitra, Mrs. Aquino’s apology reflected a flawed attitude.
His father, a 1992 presidential candidate, was Mrs. Aquino’s ally in the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino. But it was former military chief Fidel Ramos who got anointed by then President Aquino in the 1992 elections. Ramos won the elections.
“Sana hindi tayo nagkaganito kung sumunod lang siya sa (LDP) convention (We could not have ended up like this had she followed what had been agreed upon in the LDP convention),” the senior House member said, referring to the party decision choosing Mitra as the standard-bearer.
Negros Occidental Rep. Iggy Arroyo said the apology was unnecessary. “Her apology is her own prerogative but she must realize that the Sandiganbayan already found him (Erap) guilty. Surveys also indicate that most Filipinos believe he was guilty.”
Rep. Joel Villanueva of the Citizens Battle Against Corruption said he couldn’t understand why Mrs. Aquino apologized. “I just honestly don’t understand where the apology came from, on whose behalf, and for whatever reason.”
“Maybe she’s just so disappointed with this administration, just like the overwhelming majority of our people,” he said. “Presidents serve the people. Their decisions are based on what will be good for the people and the country.”
Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) founding chairman Dante Jimenez slammed Mrs. Aquino for her apology to Estrada, saying she has “lost her nerve.”
“It’s very highly suspicious considering that she is now allying herself with a former president convicted beyond reasonable doubt (of plunder) by the Sandiganbayan,” he said in a statement.
“EDSA 2 actually is not Cory Aquino, EDSA 2 is against a corrupt president who tolerated jueteng and all those things,” he told The STAR.
“We should never be regretful of EDSA 2. I think the only problem now is the tolerance. If people will not learn from the lessons, it would be very difficult to reach that EDSA spirit, unless the people will rally and go for good governance and non-tolerance of all the bad things in government,” he stressed.
Jimenez said Mrs. Aquino “has lost the touch” and advised her to help look for the mastermind of the killing of her husband, former senator Benigno Aquino Jr.
“If she wants the truth, unahin natin ’yan (take care of that first),” he said.
“It is unfair and unjust for Cory to say sorry as if she represents all of us when we joined the EDSA 2 revolt against a corrupt president,” Jimenez said.
Softer on Cory
“Cory is entitled to her own opinion,” militant Rep. Teddy Casiño of Bayan Muna said. Left-wing groups were also instrumental in the ouster of Estrada.
But independent Rep. Edno Joson of Nueva Ecija said “at least Cory was sincere” when she apologized, unlike President Arroyo whose apology at the height of the “Hello, Garci” controversy smacked of hypocrisy.
An Waray Rep. Florencio “Bem” Noel said he fully understood Mrs. Aquino. “I respect her opinion on that. Maybe that was her human reaction during that time. Maybe that was what she felt during that time.”
Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz bewailed Mrs. Aquino’s apology to Estrada but said EDSA 2 would not have happened if people had an idea of how the Arroyo administration would turn out.
“If I knew that Mrs. Arroyo would be like this, there would not have been an EDSA 2,” Cruz said.
“Everybody or anyone who feels that they have offended a person can ask for forgiveness. That is standard. But in the case of EDSA 2, I don’t know how many thousands or millions of people were involved in that,” he said.
“If they feel that they made a mistake versus Erap, then they should apologize,” he said. “But not all feel that they have done anything wrong.”
When asked if he would apologize, he said, “No. I don’t think that I have made an error in judgment. But the human act or judgment is only good at the time it is made. You do not look back afterwards.”
Cruz, former president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), said that while he disliked the womanizing, gambling and midnight Cabinet meetings of Estrada, “compared to President Arroyo, he is much better.”
The prelate is the founder of the anti-gambling civic group Krusadang Bayan Laban sa Jueteng.
He did not discount the possibility that some religious groups would follow in Aquino’s footsteps.
“That is possible – if they (religious) are truly convinced that they committed a mistake against Estrada,” he said. But he ruled out an apology from the CBCP despite the prominent role played by many prelates in Estrada’s ouster.
He said he could not recall anyway if the CBCP issued a statement supporting Estrada’s ouster. “But if the CBCP issued it and if it feels that it made an error in judgment, then it should apologize. But you cannot ask apology from other people, if they do not think that they have done anything wrong,” he pointed out.
“Personally, I feel that the mea culpa statements or a realization of the same were much too late, the event having occurred in early 2001 and we are soon entering 2009,” Speaker Prospero Nograles said in a text message to The STAR.
The Speaker was also at the book launching of former speaker Jose de Venecia Jr., where Ms. Aquino made the impromptu remarks, to the surprise of many.
“Many of those who participated in that event do not agree with Tita Cory. Perhaps it is best to respect each other’s opinion on that matter,” Nograles said.
‘Act of reconciliation’
It was an act of reconciliation that was no different from Mrs. Arroyo’s grant of pardon to Estrada, Press Secretary Jesus Dureza said of Mrs. Aquino’s apology.
He pointed out that as far as reconciliation with Estrada is concerned, President Arroyo was a step ahead of Mrs. Aquino as she granted the request for pardon of Mr. Estrada last year.
“Let us not forget that President Arroyo herself early on had made the greatest, supreme reconciliatory move by exercising the presidential prerogative of pardon on former President Erap Estrada,” Dureza said at a briefing at Malacañang yesterday.
Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno, who is considered as one of the political advisers of Mrs. Arroyo, said that any effort made towards unification by contending political groups should be seen as something good for the country.
“I think we should all make an effort to reconcile with one another even as we are approaching the period of elections. Unity rather than division should be the order of the day,” Puno said.
“I think that the gesture of former President Aquino shows that maybe the people are the ones that are going to decide this in the future and previous differences are not going to have a very large role in the politics of the future, and I hope that will be an all pervasive thing,” Puno said.
“All politics should be geared towards unification and development of the country,” he added.
Puno said Mrs. Aquino deserves congratulations for her gesture.
Not serious
Senator Aquino stressed that his mother was not serious about making the controversial apology.
“Since (former president) Estrada was not castigating JDV (de Venecia), my mother replied in the same token. I think the context was misinterpreted. The light and humorous atmosphere (of the occasion) was not taken into consideration,” Sen. Aquino said.
“Why would her reply be serious when (Estrada was being humorous?),” the senator said. – With Evelyn Macairan, Marvin Sy, Jose Rodel
Bet you didn't know this. You know I don't endorse this. In fact the guy is a sellout and I suspect that the fact that he planned and performed this reveals himself for what he truly is. Because my suspicion is no truly self confident man would resort to this truly sappy not realistic tale of fiction as a blueprint for his love.
Ed
At a midnight screening in Texarkana, Texas, Nov. 27, 2008, a gentleman dropped to his knee with a ring as the credits rolled. To the delight of the screaming crowd, he asked his girlfriend if theirs might be as enduring and unconditional a love as the one shared by Edward and Bella.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099212/trivia
kilig: kilig: shiver (from Armando A.B. Regala www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/4059/diction.html) Tagalog: kilig English: shiver Edit kilig, mangkilig, kiligin: Word: kilig
Active Verb: mangkilig
Passive Verb: kiligin
English Definition: (verb) to shudder, to shiver, to chill
Examples: Malamig sa labas, baka ka kiligin. (It is cold outside, you might shiver.)
Source: http://www.seasite.niu.edu/Tagalog/ Tagalog: kilig, mangkilig, kiligin English: shudder, shiver,
http://new.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=12953
Who is more sick? The idiot 47 year old or the parents who would give away their 8 year old like this. For whatever reason? I just remember when I was 8.What I was like, what other 8 year olds are like. I am publishing this so you may be aware. The more aware people there are , then we closer to getting this stupid practice stopped. I heard this Christmas Eve listening to CNN and was horrified. Hope you are all too. As ridiculous as the comic reads. It's true, follow the link.
Ed
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/23/saudi.arabia.child.marriage/index.html
From Mohammed Jamjoom and Saad Abedine
CNN
(CNN) -- A Saudi judge recently refused to annul a marriage between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man -- a union apparently arranged by the girl's father to settle his debts -- a lawyer in the case told CNN.
On Saturday, the judge, Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib, dismissed a petition brought by the girl's mother because she "is not the legal guardian of the girl," the woman's lawyer Abdullah al-Jutaili said.
"Therefore, she cannot represent her daughter in these proceedings," al-Jutaili said.
Her parents are separated, he said.
According to the lawyer, the girl's father arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, who is "a close friend" of his.
The judge did ask for a pledge from the husband, who was in court, not to consummate the marriage until the girl reaches puberty, according to al-Jutaili.
The judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court, the lawyer said.
Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, said his organization has heard many other cases of child marriages.
"We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke said.
Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Human Rights Commission, a Saudi government-run human rights group, said his organization is fighting against child marriages.
advertisement
"The Human Rights Commission opposes child marriages in Saudi Arabia," al-Harithi said. "Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed."
The spokesman said he did not have specific details about this case but his organization has been able to stop at least one other child marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UamNBfI5P8o&feature=PlayList&p=DB63CB0A7510E25A&index=0&playnext=1
Glad I was not convinced to go. I will let Doc take it. He says it way better than I could (assuming I ever saw movie).
Ed
http://worldofalbert.multiply.com/reviews/item/115/Twilight_Overhyped_And_Superficially_Juvenile
What is it about the Democrats with their Manifest Destiny? No Experience - No Problem. Learn It , Live It, Love It. It didn't stop Obama so let's trot along Sweet Caroline. Yes the song was written about her. The title of this blog entry was lifted from the same song. Man, what is it about the Kennedys with Marilyn Monroe, Neil Diamond, Daryll Hannah? The fact very few question Caroline Kennedy proves that Filipinos do not have a monopoly on the concepts of nepotism and pakisama.
Ed
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/desperately-seeking-caroline/
Desperately Seeking Caroline
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Caroline Kennedy's Moment—A Sad Reflection of Our Times
The probable appointment of Caroline Kennedy, the 51-year-old daughter of former President John Kennedy, to fill Secretary-of-State nominee Hillary Clinton's New York Senate seat is both laughable and yet a parable for our bankrupt times.
Consider aristocratic entitlement. Ms. Kennedy apparently spends a great deal of her time divided between her Park Avenue Upper-East-Side Manhattan townhouse and her hereditary estate on Martha's Vineyard. She has had no real experience with the ordinary lives of New Yorkers, either a few dozen blocks away in Harlem (despite a sudden ad hoc lunch last week with the Rev. Sharpton at a soul food diner) or the state's rural towns to the north.
Ms. Kennedy is about as undiverse as one could imagine. She was educated at exclusively private schools among those of her like race and class. Her financial security is due to either inheritance or marriage; there is no evidence of a self-employed stellar legal or business career. But there is plenty of evidence that Ms. Kennedy reflects the current Democratic Party's obsession with celebrity and Hollywood-like imagery—as we see from the recent politicking of everyone from Oprah to Sean Penn, the Senate run of comedian Al Franken, and the messianic cult that surrounds Barack Obama, from his vero possumus Latin seal to his mass rallies with Greek temple backdrops.
Press reports suggest that the current political junkie Ms. Kennedy was an erratic voter in the past. In any case, her positions on both state and national issues are perhaps doctrinaire liberal in the Kenndyesque sense. But we can only assume, rather than know, that, since she has not in the past voiced any strong views about anything in any detail. Unlike dozens of veteran, hard-working and savvy New York state and federal office-holders in the Democratic Party, who would be both qualified and happy to serve out Sen. Clinton's term, Ms. Kennedy has never run for, or held, public office. Her only prerequisites for Senator are her pedigree from her father and her purported celebrity mystique passed on from her mother Jackie. She certainly has shown none of Hillary Clinton's grittiness, traipsing over the rural haunts of America in a bright blue pantsuit, quaffing boilermakers at biker bars and reinventing herself as a sort of Annie Oakley everywoman, clinging to guns and religion.
In 2007 Ms. Kennedy was, in fact, a strong Hillary Clinton donor and supporter, but jumped ship and joined Obama once he surged in the polls at the beginning of the year, when the national media and the fossilized icons of the Democratic Party underwent some sort of ecstatic catharsis and mass hysteria akin to what Euripides's Bacchants experienced on Mt. Kithairon.
That savvy metamorphosis into an Obamiac explains Ms. Kennedy's sudden me-too piggy-backing into national politics. Indeed, her current newfound political zeal seems predicated on the larger Obamania craze, a sort of brand name groupthink in which romantic liberals imagine a return of JFK's lost Camelot.
Her supporters shrug and in embarrassment cite the similar political dynasties of the Bushes or Clintons, and, mindlessly, point to other familial connections that helped jumpstart contemporary careers as diverse as those of Andrew Cuomo, Richard Daley, or Mitt Romney. But all of these scions of well-connected or famous fathers ran for office, met the public, endured the press corps, and for years lost and won elections—something that heretofore Ms. Kennedy has not yet attempted.
Then there is the problem of pretension. Kennedy's Harvard and Columbia educations are cited as proof of her qualifications, as well as her authorship of a variety of edited and co-authored books. But there is no reason to believe that her attendance at the Ivy League was any less facilitated by the powers that be than was the caricatured academic career of the similarly well-connected George Bush, likewise a child of a President. And so just as few in the media cited George Bush's Ivy League degrees as proof of his erudition, why should we do anything different with Ms. Kennedy about whom we know far less than the former successful two-term Texas Governor (who held his own with, or bested, in six televised debates Ivy Leaguers Al Gore and John Kerry?
None of the Kennedy books are works of real scholarship or originality; most instead draw on her family name and reflect insider connections within New York publishing. Her coauthored books with Ellen Alderman on the law are reminiscent of her father's Profiles in Courage—and the inordinate contributions of Theodore Sorensen in that murky shared endeavor.
Much is recently made of Barack Obama's evocation of the 'Best and Brightest' Kennedy coterie, as he draws heavily on so-called "smart" people from the Ivy League. But the media's current heavies in the financial meltdown—President George Bush, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, SEC head Chris Cox, former director of Fannie Mae Franklin Rains, and Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank all have in common only Harvard degrees, which apparently are requisites to have overseen financial disaster rather than tools to have prevented it.
Finally, there is the third charge of hypocrisy. George Bush, we were told ad nauseam was born on third base and thought he had hit a triple. But when it comes to Ms. Kennedy, her liberal lineage and assumed charisma weirdly nullified the same tired media charges of entitlement that have been customarily leveled against almost every affluent, well-connected Republican politician from Mitt Romney to George Bush.
There were also several liberal media complaints against Gov. Sarah Palin, most prominently three—that she lacked experience for high federal office; that she avoided the media whenever possible; and that she either would not or could not opine on world affairs.
But Gov. Palin had been an elected official for some sixteen years, winning and losing elections until assuming the governorship—always at odds with an entrenched male hierarchy that had run Alaska for years. Through it all, Palin mothered five children without either capital or connections. She endured at the very beginning of her national run a vicious press as interested in ridiculing her as a rube in fancy store-bought clothes as it is catching a glimpse of Caroline's glitzy labels.
We know in our hearts that Charles Gibson and Katie Couric, who mercilessly grilled pro-life, Christian Sarah Palin with the poor white twang, would pull in their talons—if given the chance to dialogue with Caroline. Yet there is no evidence that Caroline Kennedy knows any more about Waziristan than did Sarah Palin; there is a great deal of evidence that it is far more difficult for a nobody mom of five to make it through the electoral process into national politics from Alaska than it is for a Kennedy daughter of a President to be appointed from the Upper East Side to fill a liberal New York Senate Seat.
Caroline Kennedy is no doubt a fine individual who by all accounts has led an exemplary life. But her proposed appointment to the US Senate is a rare reflection of ourselves—the glittering of the aristocracy in the left's vision of an otherwise egalitarian America, the notion that blue-chip certification conveys status and wisdom rather than proven excellence through the life-school of hard knocks, and the ethical bankruptcy of the media that has no principled notion of disinterested inquiry, but now serves as an fawning appendage of the Left.
In short, appointing Caroline Kennedy to the Senate from New York tells us a lot more about ourselves than it does even her.
Warning: Only for basketball/sports fans
http://cornholiogogs.multiply.com/journal/item/417/I_totally_agree_with_him_ (related)
Call me cynical but this is a trial balloon or damage control. This is to give Cleveland fans that glimmer of hope then he will just shatter that in a year and a half. When it comes to ultra ambitious athletes who have no loyalty, I rather be cynical than naive. A similar local example (as Conrado De Quiros constantly reminds us) was when President Arroyo pre 2004 announced she will not run for election then ran anyway.
Ed
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-lebronjames-freeagent&prov=ap&type=lgns
Report: LeBron James may sign extension early
10 hours, 27 minutes ago
CLEVELAND (AP)—LeBron James said he’ll consider signing an extension with the Cleveland Cavaliers this summer, well before he enters the free-agent market in 2010.
“You play out the season of course; I will consider it,” James told The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer before the team practiced in Denver on Saturday. “The direction we are headed is everything I expected and more.”
James, under contract for two more seasons, can hit the free-agent market on July 1, 2010. There has long been speculation James will eventually end up in one of the NBA’s larger markets—particularly with the New York Knicks.
The Cavaliers (22-4) have the second-best record in the NBA.
“I definitely want to keep an open mind, I will look at everything,” James said. “(The extension) is a good point. I think me and my group have pretty much made good decisions so far and we’ll look at the options and go from there.”
James signed a three-year, $43 million deal with the Cavaliers in 2006. The deal includes a player option for 2010-11 worth $17.4 million.
Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Basketball '08. Get off the bench and register today.
http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-was-he-thinking.html
Some of my much younger rap loving cousins , attribute my dislike for so called contemporary music to my age. Well, I know what a good band is, I know what a good song writer is and I definitely know what a good album is. You can't tell me what is popular today or even five years ago is any of the three let alone all three. This again is an excellent reflection by Bob Lefsetz. Not only what things used to be but why they are not that way now. The younger kids don't know any better because their world is so small. If all they know is what has been "popular " the last ten or fifteen years. What from there has any really good playing? Do you guys look for good playing or do you even know what that is? Look at excellence at any human endeavor, as long as it's not done with the aid of a chemistry set (Olympic Track and Field, MLB home runs) then it is usually done with a lot of development. A lot of hard work and trial and error.
Development usually means work and lots of it. That's all Bob is saying. Artists evolve.I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Because are two entirely different songs. Because the creators were physically the same but evolved and developed . That is art. There is a difference between obsessed with being a musician and obsessed with being a celebrity.
Bob says it better than I can. I am just here to tell you that he speaks the truth. You can't really appreciate music till you can appreciate these three things: album, band, songwriters. Hate to break it you. Miley or Kanye West are neither of the three.
Ed
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2008/12/21/outliers/
Are today's bands any good?
The business is focused on these young "prodigies", like Britney Spears. The acts are getting ever younger, and the rationalization is that kids buy music, and that anyone over thirty, maybe even twenty five, is too old for the target demo to relate to. If you don't believe the Jonas Brothers are a great act, then you're an old fart.
But can anyone that young truly be great?
Maybe they've got innate talent, but has it been developed, are these young kids truly ready to bless us with their gifts?
According to Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers", no. Innate talent, pure desire, they're not enough. Sure, Mozart started writing music when he was six, but he didn't compose a masterwork until he was twenty one, after he'd put in 10,000 hours of practice.
How can you have accumulated 10,000 hours worth of practice if you're not even close to twenty one?
Turns out that's the rule. You've got to have 10,000 hours of practice under your belt to be truly great, to be world class. How many of today's acts have this kind of history? No wonder today's live acts rely on production, they've barely been on stage, never mind performing for 10,000 hours. Like the Beatles.
The Beatles went to Hamburg five times between 1960 and 1962. They played eight hours a night, seven days a week. Winning over an audience that didn't speak their language, that was more interested at first in the strippers. The Beatles gigged 270 nights total in Hamburg. By time "I Want To Hold Your Hand" broke in America, in January of 1964, the Beatles had performed live over 1,200 times. That's more times than many of our so-called stars have ever gigged.
Greatest guitarists of all time? How about Duane Allman. Not only did he practice while watching television, he even brought his guitar to the bathroom! Sure, you've got to have talent, but you've got to PRACTICE! How much practicing have today's musicians done?
Maybe that's why jam bands do so well on the road. You might not like their material, but they can play. Going to a Widespread Panic show is not like seeing Miley Cyrus. The band may not look pretty, but their music can stand alone. It draws people in. They developed over all those years, all those gigs.
How about Elton John? He didn't dream of being a star, he just wanted to be in the business. But he cut demos and wrote incessantly. To the point where he became incredibly good.
You might not like Diane Warren's songs, but the reason she has so much success is because of how dogged she's been. Knocking on doors when she was new and not that good, and working at her craft incessantly, year after year. Max Martin wrote "...Baby One More Time", Britney Spears just sang it. Michael Jackson's an incredible performer, but his great records were done with Quincy Jones, who'd spent so much time in the studio, never mind composing himself.
So, when you e-mail me the music of some new act and I don't respond, am I hearing something, or should I put that NOT hearing something? Kind of like Gladwell's book "Blink", I've been listening to music incessantly for years, I know what's great. And what you're sending me isn't. Because those acts want stardom, but they just haven't invested in their careers by practicing enough.
By time the Beatles left Hamburg they were so good, so tight, they could hold any audience. That's a skill you learn on stage, it can't be perfected in front of a mirror, not even in a garage with your buddies. There's a different charge at a gig, the energy, the distractions, the adrenaline, you've got to DELIVER! How many of today's acts truly deliver?
Those English musicians played American blues records again and again. Jimmy Page wasn't only in the Yardbirds, he'd played a ton of sessions before Led Zeppelin. And speaking of sessions, John Paul Jones was legendary for his work. Is it any wonder Zeppelin was so great? Or the Eagles... Glenn Frey and Don Henley played in bands before they backed up Linda Ronstadt on the road, they honed their chops in Aspen, they didn't compose their magnum opus "Hotel California" until five albums into their career!
Maybe today's acts just aren't good enough. Not because they lack talent, but they lack practice. That's what Gladwell says.
He quotes the study of K. Anders Ericsson of students at Berlin's Academy of Music in the 1990's. He found the world class soloists had practiced 10,000 hours by the age of twenty. But what is even more fascinating is that Ericsson couldn't find any "naturals", who were world class without practice, and he didn't find any "grinds", people who practiced yet weren't superior.
There are some amazing producers in today's music business. As well as great songwriters. They've honed their chops for decades. It's no wonder their compositions rule the charts. Because the acts they're writing for are relative newbies, they don't have the chops because they haven't put in the time.
But, it gets worse. Clive Davis has famously said he doesn't want his proteges to write. The business has focused on good-looking people, who might be able to sing. Then again, with today's studio wizardry/trickery, ANYBODY can sing. So, no one focuses on getting it perfect, even Mariah Carey doesn't sing live, and few focus on writing their own songs. Therefore it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...today's acts don't write their own material because it's not treasured by the industry and therefore it's the so-called hacks who have all the talent.
The public was rabid, for a sustained period of time, for the Beatles. People recognized greatness, developed over years of practice. Whereas today everybody's just a flash in the pan, because after their momentary hit written and produced by the usual suspects, there's nothing left. You go to hear the hit, you don't go to see the act. Maybe the public is much smarter than we give it credit for.
As for punk rock... The Ramones didn't rise from nowhere. They were one of the giggingest bands of all time. Most people didn't even know who they were until they'd recorded four albums. You learn a lot going back to the studio. How can we expect today's acts to be comfortable when they've barely ever recorded in professional circumstances, and furthermore the sessions weren't in their control!
Brian Wilson didn't write "Good Vibrations" for the first Beach Boys album.
Aretha Franklin sang gospel and had a string of albums on Columbia before she broke through on Atlantic.
The lasting successes, the ones cleaning up on the classic rock circuit, the acts people want to see over and over again, didn't arise overnight, they paid years of dues before they ever broke through.
I'm not saying you've got to be old to make it, maybe you just have to be doggedly focused. Not only on making it, but rehearsing, getting it right. The music industry has lobbied against this. It has not encouraged its stars to practice. It just wants people who are willing to be manipulated, who are willing to do anything to make it. This has nothing to do with musical talent.
Maybe the conventional wisdom is right, today's kids do have a short attention span. Then again, they play videogames for hours, they surf online for days on end. That's why your teenager is a computer expert, why he can run your machine at what appears to be light speed. Because it's second-nature to him.
But working hard, practicing playing music to make it is not second-nature. It has not been encouraged by our industry. We don't reward practice, we just reward desire and good genes. And Gladwell posits again and again that genes are not good enough.
What's the old saw? That Bruce Springsteen would have been dropped after his first album today? Same deal with Bonnie Raitt and so many of the legends? It took them years to hone their skills, to not only write and record great music, but perform it too. Actually, both of those acts developed on the road. Where are developing musicians supposed to play today?
The audience knows something the industry does not. That today's music just ain't got the same soul. Rather than being heartfelt confessions by professionals beholden to no one, tracks are cookie-cutter confections created by cynical journeymen beholden to the dollar.
Maybe the Net will allow acts to grow and develop on their own.
But don't ever confuse greatness with the kid who used his Mac to write songs and then post them on MySpace. MySpace is a great wasteland. Everybody can write, few do it well. What makes people think anyone with a computer can compose great music overnight?
I believe this media we are blessed with called the blog is so flexible that there are so many different things you can do with it.
I like what Mark Titus decided to do with it and a few others have too. Read the Yahoo sports review of it. To some sitting on the bench for games at a time can be torture if you are on a team but Mark makes the most of it and has since created fans who see what he does outside of the court. Goes to show you how much of "life" is online now.
Reminds me of Archie Moonlight Graham http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8423741/
Doc Graham was an interesting case. He really existed even if Field of Dreams was only a movie. His stat line made the author baseball junkie W.P. Kinsella curious about him to add him as a character in the book Shoeless Joe. Watch him in celluiod action below.
There are some people who do not equate fulfillment in life with time on the floor or the diamond. Life is not sports although sometimes you have a hard time believing it coming from me.
Ed
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=jn-titus121908&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
http://www.clubtrillion.blogspot.com/
(Mark's blog)
Original post
http://cornholiogogs.multiply.
Lito D's reaction
http://cornholiogogs.multiply.
Lito D's reaction
Posts
All Comments
