Monday, October 31, 2011

What a great way to honor your father.

Hat Tip: My wonderful Aunt Carla from St. Louis.  I congratulate her and all the St. Louis Cardinal fans for winning the 2011 World Championship in Major League Baseball.

Jack Buck (August 21, 1924 – June 18, 2002) was a great national sportscaster,  best known for his work announcing Major League Baseball games of the St. Louis Cardinals.  He became one of the top broadcasters for the playoffs in Major League Baseball.  Jack Buck who suffered from Parkinson's disease, diabetes and other ailments died in June of 2002. 

His son Joe Buck has followed in his footsteps as he has become one of the top sportscasters in America, especially, like his father, as the lead announcer on Fox Major League Baseball.

On October 26, 1991 Jack Buck was announcing the World Series game between the Minnesota Twins and the Atlanta Braves.  Atlanta was up 3 games to 2, so this was an elimination game for Minnesota.  So, Jack Buck got to call on national TV the game winning home run by Kirby Puckett of the Minnesota Twins, that sent that series to a 7th game; the same as his son, Joe Buck got to call David Freese's game winning home run that sent St. Louis to a 7th game almost 20 years later to the day.  You will see by this video how Joe Buck has honored his father with his call. 

I can't believe some sports talk show people are actually criticizing this great moment.   I  think it is outrageous for anyone to criticize a man for honoring his Dad.

As I think about my awesome Dad, Pop, who passed on December 9, 2007,  I want to honor Joe Buck for honoring his Dad.  That was a beautiful call Joe!

Pop this is for you:

Sunday, October 30, 2011

The most dramatic Mozart

Yesterday's post of Mozart's Coronation piano concerto in D Major emphasized the bright, happy Mozart.  Now in changing to the D minor key, Mozart can reveal his dramatic self.

Mozart's piano concerto #20 in D minor, may be the most dramatic of all Mozart's piano concerti. This great intense piece displays tension throughout.  I love this piano concerto.

Note: the Mozart cadenza usually played in the first movement of this piece is changed to one I have never heard, but still very good.  It might have been created by the pianist himself. Listen for this different cadenza [than the one usually played for this piece] from the 10:14-11:29 marks.

Mozart: Piano Concerto #20 in D minor, movement 1, allegro:

Friday, October 28, 2011

Congratulations to the 2011 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals

St. Louis Cardinals celebrate


Congratulations to the World Champion St. Louis Cardinals and the Texas Rangers for making this a great World Series.   Game 6 was one for the ages.  Amazing doesn't even begin to describe how awesome it was.  Here is a video from one of the fans at Busch Stadium in St. Louis from game 6.  This was the first of two times when the Cardinals were within one strike of elimination.  With runners on first and second, two outs and two strikes in the bottom of the ninth and the Cardinals down by two runs, home town kid David Freese comes to the plate:

Reality Check to Liberals: Do you really want to spread the wealth around?

Hat Tip: An e-mail sent to me from a great person, my sister in law, Jeannie.


A Father & Daughter Discussion


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very Liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that She was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people She knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends, because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, ' Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She Is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.' The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my
tail off!'


The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the (conservative) Republican party.'

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Republican Jewish Coalition: We Will Not Be Silenced on Israel

Hat Tip: The Republican Jewish Coalition Newsletter:


Washington, D.C. (October 24, 2011) -- The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) responded today to a call from the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, asking Jewish groups to pledge not to use Israel as a "political wedge issue" or, in the words of ADL's Abe Foxman, to "avoid polarizing debates" and refrain from questioning "the current administration's foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel".
_____________________________________________________
What? Refrain from questioning the Obama administration's foreign policy in regards to Israel. Why?  There is only one reason. The left leaning organizations, ADL and AJC, who don't even exhibit a pretense to be non partisan anymore, know that to talk about this administrations policy vis a vis Israel, will be damaging to them politically.   I just wonder if this were a Republican administration who was just as non supportive of Israel as this administration, would they have made the same call for such a pledge of restraint?   I doubt it.

Here is what Matt Brooks, the Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, stated in response:

 "An open and vigorous debate on the questions confronting our country is the cornerstone of the American electoral process. Allowing the American people to see where candidates stand, pro and con on critical issues, is the hallmark of our free and democratic political system. For this reason, the RJC will not be a signer to this pledge.


 "This effort to stifle debate on U.S. policy toward Israel runs counter to this American tradition. Accordingly, the RJC will not be silenced on this or any issue."
___________________________________________________________
I have a suggestion on how the ADL and AJC could better use their time. Go after the sickening anti semitism that is being displayed from too many of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators.  Oh, wait, I forgot, most of the Democrats and this administration support "OWS".  Forget that suggestion.

God Bless the Republican Jewish Coalition for standing up for free speech and pledging not to be silenced on such an important issue.

In full disclosure, I am a proud member of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

You do not need to be Jewish to join the Republican Jewish Coalition or get their free newsletter...It is really great.  For their web site click here.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

The "conservative" innovator and visionary, Steve Jobs

I have always admired the late Steve Jobs, even though I had always perceived him to be the quintessential liberal.  Now with the sad passing of Steve Jobs, it has been revealed last Thursday in The Huffington Post  that Steve Jobs sounded a lot more like Ronald Reagan than Barack Obama.

Look at these amazing blunt words that he told president Obama in an October 2010 meeting in the White House.  Jobs observations were captured in  an authorized biography, that has just been released, from author Walter Isaacson. 

Hat Tip: the TPM blog:


Jobs told Obama that his administration wasn’t friendly enough to business. He pointed to China as a model of a place without as many “regulations and unnecessary costs.”

He also had harsh words for America’s education system, which he deemed “crippled by union work rules,” a position he’s held for some time, since at least the mid-1990s. And he later told Issacson that he hated the President’s excuses for the gridlock in Washington and the inability to get things done.

Wow!  Steve Jobs has been so visionary in his whole life, I hope he is just as prophetic in the words he told president Obama.  Let us all hope, as Michele Bachmann says in every debate, that president Obama will be a one term president.

Monday, October 24, 2011

This is the thanks we get?

In a move that was obviously politically motivated, president Obama announced the withdrawal of all 33,000 surge forces in Afghanistan weeks before the 2012 elections.  But maybe Obama could counter we are leaving Afghanistan in the good  hands of Hamid Karzai. 

Maybe I missed it, but I did not hear one Sunday talk show host that interviewed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ask her about Karzai's following statement.

From Reuters on 10-22-11: Afghanistan would support Pakistan in case of military conflict between Pakistan and the United States, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview to a private Pakistani TV channel broadcast on Saturday.
The remarks were in sharp contrast to recent tension between the two neighbors over cross-border raids, and Afghan accusations that Pakistan was involved in killing the chief Afghan peace envoy, former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani, by a suicide bomber on September 20.

"God forbid, If ever there is a war between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan," he said in the interview to Geo television.

"If Pakistan is attacked and if the people of Pakistan needs Afghanistan's help, Afghanistan will be there with you."
__________________________________________________________
Well, there you have it.  I guess this is just Hamid Karzai's way of saying: "Thank you for your sacrifice America."

Sunday, October 23, 2011

I must have missed the announcement about the change of Press Secretary

I must have missed this announcement.   I didn't realize David Gregory of Meet the Press is now the Press Secretary for president Obama.  He sure sounded like Obama's press spokesman in his interview with Secretary of State Clinton on this Sunday's show.

Gregory tried to outdo himself  in moving from one softball question to the next in praising, I mean interviewing,  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  Gregory's practice made him perfect as the last question to Sec of State Clinton was the ultimate in dishing up a high hanging curve ball.  Gregory asked:  "With all of these successes by President Obama on foreign policy, do you think this makes the Republican candidates running for president vulnerable on this issue?"

Oh, my gosh, Mrs. Clinton must have been shaking in her boots at having to answer that one.  Sheesh!

If David Gregory isn't the new Press Secretary for president Obama, he should be.  That is, of course, only if Christiane Amanpour isn't available.

A dream that will last forever.

I featured two great composers yesterday, Mendelssohn and Bruch, and will continue today with Felix Mendelssohn and his great overture to "A Midsummer Night's Dream."  

Mendelssohn composed this piece at the age of 17 and one music historian called this "the greatest marvel of early maturity that the world has ever seen in music".

It was written as a concert overture, not associated with any performance of the play.  I think you will see why Mendelssohn is one of my favorite composers after listening to this beautiful piece.  

Also, to honor my daughter, Ebony, who got married April of this year, I will give you Mendelssohn's "Wedding March" from "A Midsummer Night's Dream."

Felix Mendelssohn: Overture to "A Midsummer Night's Dream.":





Felix Mendelssohn: Wedding March from "A Midsummer Night's Dream.":

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Scotch Anyone?

There are two great classical music pieces that come to mind when the country Scotland is mentioned.   Felix Mendelssohn's great Symphony #3, known as the Scottish symphony and Max Bruch's stirring piece for violin and orchestra,  the "Scottish Fantasy".

Felix Mendelssohn was 33 years old when he composed his 3rd symphony.  It is thought that a painting Mendelssohn saw on a trip he had made to Scotland inspired him to compose this symphony. This is heard in the opening theme of the first movement. Thus, this third symphony is known as the Scottish symphony.

Max Bruch was a great German Romantic composer and conductor of the late 19th and early 20th century.  Although Bruch never visited Scotland, he  pays homage to Scotland with his Scottish Fantasy.    He composed this piece in dedication  to the virtuoso violinist Pablo de Sarasate.  The Scottish Fantasy is one of Bruch's signature pieces.

So, today a double treat. The first movement of Mendelssohn's 3rd symphony and the finale of Bruch's Scottish Fantasy for violin and orchestra.


Felix Mendelssohn: Symphony #3 in c minor, The Scottish", movement 1,
andante con moto/allegro un poco agitato:





Max Bruch: Scottish Fantasy in E Flat Major, Movement 4-finale, allegro guerriero:

Friday, October 21, 2011

Powerline blog's great video. Welcome back Carter.

Thanks to Powerline blog for this ingenious video of Jimmy Obama or Barack O'Carter, take your pick.
Everyone please read one of my favorite blogs, one of the first sites I go to everyday: Powerlineblog
 
 

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Hugh Hewitt: Joe Biden is vice president bad choice

This following video shows why intelligent radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt calls Joe Biden "vice president bad choice".

Oh, dear God, please spare the United States of another four years with the campaigner/divider-in-chief and his partner in destruction, "bad choice".

According to "bad choice" any past and or future violent crimes are the result of the Republicans not passing president Obama's stimulus, errrr, jobs bill.   When listening to this, does the word kook come to any one's mind?

Stephen Moore:The easy fix for the 9-9-9 tax plan.

There has been something very interesting that has come out recently about GOP's Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan.   We find out that this was no half baked scheme pulled out of thin air.   We see now that the two main developers of the plan are two big economic heavy weights on the scene. Art Laffer and Stephen Moore. 

Art Laffer, is a renowned economist who gained prominence as a member of president Ronald Reagan's economic advisory board. 

Stephen Moore is a well known economic analyst who has been president of the Club for Growth from 1999 to 2004. He is currently a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.  Moore is an advocate for free-market policies and supply-side economics.

From the Journal of American Enterprise web site we find that Stephen Moore has soured on the idea of a national sales tax because of so much opposition from people on all sides of the aisle and an almost impossible task of convincing the American people that it is viable. He said in an interview with Laurence Kudlow there is an "easy fix".

From Stephen Moore's interview with Lawrence Kudlow: "He’s going to have to replace that national sales tax with a 9 percent payroll tax. And if you do that it’s a total winner. … I’m surprised how hostile people are to the sales tax. When we designed this plan, I thought people would go along with the 9 percent sales tax. But the point is they won’t. And why not just do a payroll tax." [instead of the national sales tax]
_______________________________________________________

Wow, what a very intriguing and interesting idea.   This will mollify those who are totally opposed to the introduction of a new revenue stream for the politicians in Washington to have, and  yet still add enough in revenue to make it revenue neutral.   Plus it would have the same advantages of tearing up the current tax code, making taxes simpler and flatter, and most importantly eliminate the capital gains tax and inheritance "death" tax.   The double taxation on ones wealth is ended and so will be the use of class warfare rhetoric that could be used by Democrats.   Also, if this actually passed, the idea of picking winners and losers by the politicians in Washington would be over.  

The original 9-9-9 plan I think is a non starter.  I just finished watching tonight's debate and  the idea of a new national sales tax  was attacked by every other Republican candidate, and I think effectively.

America should, though, give what could be a new and revised 9-9-9 plan, a close look. 

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

It's not Cain's 9-9-9 plan, but naivety on foreign policy that could stop his quest for the nomination.

Hat Tip: From the man who this blog's name came from, the great American patriot Hugh Hewitt.
As I always love to tweet: Hugh, the man!
____________________________________________________________

Wolf Blitzer interviewed Herman Cain today on CNN and he talked about Israel releasing over 1000 Palestinian prisoners for the young Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.  Cain gave a reasonable response to that while it seemed on the face of it, not a good deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu had all the facts that we don't have and made what he thought was a correct decision.  He wouldn't second guess Netanyahu.  That was a good answer and if the interview had stopped there, Cain would have been okay.

Then came Wolf's follow up question [Wolf said his final question of the day].  Cain's naive, weak response showed an unbelievable lack of knowledge on foreign policy issues.  It is this issue, not his 9-9-9 plan, that makes him a dubious choice for the GOP nomination.  Wolf Blitzer's question was: "If you were the president and Al Qaida demanded the release of all Guantanamo terrorists for the release of one American soldier held hostage for a long time by them, could you make that transfer?" 

“I could see myself authorizing that kind of transfer,” Cain told Wolf Blitzer   “I would make sure that I got all of the information, I got all of the input, considered all of the options. ...but as president  I could make that call if I had to.”

What? You could make that call?  No Mr. Cain you don't even think about releasing someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, not to mention all of the terrorists at Gitmo, for the release of a hostage, because Al Qaida demanded it.  Your answer should have been, hell no. America does not negotiate with terrorists and we sure don't listen to the demands of Al Qaida.  

Trust me, I am no foreign policy expert, but even I would not get this answer wrong.  Mr. Cain's response was scarily naive.  If he gives any more answers like this, his campaign is through.

During the debate on Tuesday night on CNN, Anderson Cooper asked Cain about his response. Cain tried to walk back his response saying he wouldn't negotiate with terrorists.  Cooper asked him if he was wrong in saying what he did to Wolf,  that he would consider making such a swap with Al Qaida.  Cain said he didn't take Wolf to mean Al Qaida demands.  Cooper assured him that was exactly what Wolf asked him. 

It is either disingenuous for Herman Cain to say that he didn't realize what Wolf was asking him or such a total lack of foreign policy knowledge to make him disqualified, I believe, to be president.

When Anderson Cooper interviewed Herman Cain after the debate, Mr. Cain finally admitted he misspoke and made a mistake in his answer.  He said he would never negotiate with terrorists and he just gave a wrong answer to Wolf Blitzer.  Thank you for that Herman Cain.  I know you are new to this and that  everyone makes mistakes, but you can afford no more like this or your campaign will be finished.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

The truth to CNN

On three occasions, on my lunch break at work, I have seen this segment on CNN  they call their truth o meter. This is when they put out comments by politicians and then have this "non biased" person determine if their statements are true or not.

The first two times I saw it [and it was like in two different weeks] they had the statements of two Republican politicians and one Democrat politician. On both occasions, their expert determined that the statements from the Republicans were not true and the statement from the Democrat politician was for the most part true. Surprise, surprise.

Now maybe that's not a good barometer as I only saw those two segments at random, and that it was just a coincidence that the segments I saw had the four Republicans not telling the truth [to them] and the two Democrats were telling the truth [to them]. So, I won't make too much of that.

Now on Monday [yesterday] I got to see another of CNN's "truth o meter" segment and it was about comments by Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney.  The reason they focused on those three is because CNN is having their Republican debate tonight and those are three of the leading contenders.  Well I will give you one wild guess as to what they found.  According to their expert, again all three of the GOP leaders statements were determined to be "somewhat" false.   I'm not saying there was a lot of spinning going around, but I was sure dizzy when I had to go back to work.

Well maybe you could say it was just one more coincidence.   Then came the comment from the host of that segment Juliane Malvieux after the results were revealed.  The non biased host said: "Let's hope we can hear "some" truth in the debate tomorrow." 

Well here is my opinion about Julianne Malvieux.  She is a biased liberal Democrat who hates Republicans.         And that's the real truth!

Direct and to the point.

Hat Tip: My great patriotic brother, Brad who sent this to me in an e-mail:

Dana Perrino, the former spokesman for President George W Bush and now with the Fox News Channel, described an interview she recently had with one of America's heroic Navy SEALS.

After discussing all the countries he had been sent to, she asked the Navy SEAL if he had to learn several languages.

His reply:    "Oh no ma'am, we don't go there to talk."

Monday, October 17, 2011

More Occupy Protest Anti Semitism

I had another post showing the anti semitic bigotry shown by some of the demonstators on Wall Street with my post of  The Occupy Wall Street Bigots.

Now we see more disgusting bigotry in Occupy Los Angeles.  This from a "lady" saying she works for the Los Angeles Unified School District.    If true, God help the children of Los Angeles.

And to think the president of the United States has doubled down on his support of the mobs.
I don't know about you, but is this the most unpresidential president of all time?

Romney Add: What's Obama Worried About?

Whether you are for Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination or someone else, you have to admit he has come up with some great, creative adds.  Here is another one.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Song without words

To go along with yesterday's post about the music techniques of legato and staccato, I will let you see the sheet music that so clearly indicates the beautiful singing legato of this piece.  It is one of Mendelssohn's "Song Without Words".   As it is called "song",  you will appropriately see that almost the entire piece is marked legato.  Except for the top of one page [if you follow the music closely] you will see the slur lines meaning play legato these phrases.  You won't see dots above the notes to be played staccato as you don't need to, since almost the entire piece is marked legato, the pianist knows that means those notes are to be played staccato.

This is a beautiful piece, a beautiful song without words.

Felix Mendelssohn: Song Without Words, op. 19, #1:

Saturday, October 15, 2011

The staccato speech vs the legato song.

One of the great things about going to my daughter Ebony's classical music piano lessons, when she was young, was learning so much about reading and understanding the sheet musical scores.  One of the first things in piano she had to learn was the difference between staccato [playing each note written separately in a pecking manner on the keys] and legato [connecting a group of notes without a break from one note to the next in a rolling of fingers  manner]. In the legato method the pianist rolls his finger on one note and doesn't release that note until he connects it with the next note that is rolled. This creates a singing sound of those notes played. You can tell when the composer wanted the pianist to play in a group of notes legato as there is a curved [slur] line over  those notes written to be played legato.     If the composer wants to make clear without a doubt that  a group of notes is played staccato, he will place a dot over those notes. The pianist will play staccato notes by bouncing down then up on each note separately. There will be a clear space from one note to the next.   Sometimes a composer will have a curved line over a group of notes with also  a dot also over each separate note.  While there is that curved line, you still play those notes staccato. That curved line is emphasizing that those notes constitute a phrase.  The dot over each note trumps the curved line meaning staccato is to be played.

If these were words instead of notes, you could say that the staccato sound is speaking each word distinctly and separately, while the legato sound would be singing those same words.

I have picked this wonderful piano sonata by Mozart to see if you can tell when legato is played and when staccato is used.   For example, look at the legato shown [in the right hand] between the 29-38 second marks versus the staccato you see in the 39-49 second marks.

I love this piece and think you will too.

W.A. Mozart: Piano Sonata #14 in C minor, movement 1, molto allegro:

Friday, October 14, 2011

The Occupy Wall Street Bigots

The Democrats have tried to pin the patriotic, pro American, tea party people on the Republicans. I guess they think they are demeaning the Republican party by making that link. As a conservative Republican, I say, thanks for the compliment.

On the other hand, we have President Obama, former speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz articulating their support for the ideals of the Occupy Wall Street 'pot party' people. 

Do the leaders of the Democrat party really want to hang their hats on this?

Hat Tip: The Emergency Committee for Israel web site:

Thursday, October 13, 2011

There he goes again, with the moral equivalency card.

With the overthrow of Mubarak, the Islamists have increased their fury against Egypt's Christians [known as the Copts].  The Coptic Christians have been trying to peacefully protest the attacks on them [and their churches] by the radical Muslims. Instead of getting help from the Egyptian army, the Copts were beaten and mowed over by the Egyptian tanks.  25 were killed and 300 injured during the protests. I had a previous post on this.

So, yesterday [Tuesday] White House spokesman Jay Carney, issued this statement:
“The president is deeply concerned about the violence in Egypt that has led to a tragic loss of life among demonstrators and security forces,” Carney said, expressing condolences to loved ones of the dead and injured.   “Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united Egypt".

What?  Restraint on all sides?  You have victims [Christians] being beaten, murdered, their churches destroyed, and they need to show restraint, the same as the attackers [Islamists]?

This moral equivalency, the same kind of moral equivalency this president always uses [especially in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute] is abhorrent to me. 

Mr. president, all situations don't involve equal participants in a dispute. Every dispute is not wrapped in shades of gray.  There are some situations where there is a right, moral side and a wrong, immoral side. There are many times when you have good vs. evil.

The Copts vs Islamists is one of those times.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Who says Obama doesn't have heart?

President Obama was at a fund raiser in Orlando, FL. on Tuesday.
THE PRESIDENT:  ........  "I have to say that backstage I had the chance to see Dwight Howard and Dwight is a great friend, and I told him I’m a little heartbroken that the NBA season is getting delayed here.    So I’m hoping those guys are back on the court soon." 

So, the cool, calm Obama shows his emotional side.  He is heart broken.  About the millions unemployed? The millions underemployed? The fact that this country is so divided now, with one group pitted against another. The housing disaster? The massacre of  the Copts in Egypt?--No. 

His heart is broken about the fact that the NBA players are having two weeks of games cancelled.  Ah, that sensitive man.  Go ahead, Barack. It's okay for a man to cry.

Well, I guess there are some millionaires who Obama doesn't consider evil. 

Debate Assessment: Romney Again.

In the last debate, a few weeks ago, I was hoping the governor of Texas would really come on strong with a good performance and be a major challenger to Mitt Romney, giving us two strong candidates to choose from to take on Obama.  That didn't happen.  In fact, Perry's performance was so weak that it just about took him out of the race.  In this debate last night, I was really hoping Herman Cain, who was already coming on like gang busters, would even shine more than he has already been in the debates. I really like Herman Cain. He did give a good performance but not quite as good as the last debate.

I will give my honest, and as objective as I can, assessment of each candidate in the debate.  I will give the candidates in the order of their performances.

 Warning: For all of my twitter friends who don't like Mitt Romney [for the GOP nomination], you may want to stop reading now.
________________________________________________________________

Mitt Romney:  The clear winner.  As in the other debates, Romney was confident, knowledgeable, and presidential.  You can see this man as the next president of the United States.  He gave the strongest defense yet of the difference between Romney care and Obama care and why his plan was right for his state and his state alone, but that Obama care is so wrong for the nation. This time he said he will not just give waivers to states on the first day he is in office to stop Obama care for their states, but then on the second day he will work to completely eliminate Obama care.  There was one other trait Romney showed, that he did not show in the other debates. He gave the appearance of the inevitable winner, and with his answers he is already looking toward the general election. 

Newt Gingrich: I am really liking Newt Gingrich in these debates and hoping he stays on no matter what his poll numbers are.  What I like most about Newt is that it seems like it is his mission to build up the rest of the candidates to make the GOP look strong no matter who the winner is.  He did not have one negative thing to say about any of the GOP candidates and focused all of his fury on president Obama.  I think you can tell the audience appreciated that.  Again, as in the other debates, Newt was the smartest man on the stage, and had the qualities that Romney had: confident, knowledgeable, and presidential.  The one trait he didn't project, that Romney did, was the aura of inevitability.
Hang in there Newt! You probably will not win the nomination, but you are a grand asset to the Republican field and the eventual nominee.

Herman Cain:  Another good performance by the most likable candidate, but not great.  I think he was nicked a little bit by all of the attacks on his 9-9-9 plan and for the first time showed a little defensiveness.  He makes a good strong defense of his plan, one that I originally was excited about.  He did give another good defense of his plan last night.  But, from the questioning last night, I now am a little worried about his plan.  I love completely removing the current tax code, having the low flat rates, and making sure everyone has some skin in the game. But a good point was made last night that the 9-9-9 plan, with an out of control congress, could become a 15-15-15 plan, or worse.   Herman Cain says that he would make sure it would take a two thirds vote in congress to change those numbers. But what could a future congress under Democrat control do.  Then Cain says anyway, if congress did change the numbers, he would veto it.  But Herman Cain wouldn't be president forever. Who knows what another president would do.
Also, Santorum hurt him, when he asked the audience, "how many of you would like a federal sales tax added to all of the goods you buy?"

Tie: Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann: Both were strong and attacking. Michele Bachmann was really strong starting off, but faded just a little as the debate went on.  Rick Santorum gave some good answers, but to me gave a bad appearance of being angry.  I think these probably were the strongest performances by both, but they didn't give you the aura of being winners, like Mitt, Newt and Herman projected.

Rick Perry:  It's over.  For someone who I was really excited about entering the race, I think this performance probably ended all hope of him winning the nomination.  For a long time in the debate, you forgot he was even on the stage.  He looked out of it, resigned to the fact that he will not win.  This is  probably just me, but in this debate it looked like he has thrown in the towel.

John Huntsman:  Maybe it's just me, but almost every answer he gives seems snarky to me. He makes good points in some of his answers, but it is hard for me to listen and not to turn him off.  I think this is the reason he is near the bottom of every poll.

Ron Paul: was Ron Paul    Sorry, I just do turn him off and don't consider him a serious GOP candidate.
____________________________________________________________
Last night Governor Johnson was not invited to the debate, and just the one less person made this better that the other debates. I think in the next debate they should eliminate John Huntsman and Ron Paul and then we can really have a great debate next time.

Out of this debate, unless something weird happens, I think we can say that Mitt Romney will be the GOP candidate and the next president of the United States.



Statements of hate

As long as Herman Cain was shown to be in the lower tier of the GOP nomination for president,  the left had been quiet about him.   Now with Herman Cain's great ascendancy in the race, the left is unloading with their typical race card bigotry.  This time the race card is being  played by liberal Democrat blacks against a conservative black man.

As long as Cain posed no real threat for the nomination, these liberals were able to hide their bigotry. Now their fear that a black man [who calls for self reliance, conservative principles, and American exceptionalism] might actually win, they can no longer keep quiet.

Herman Cain's message is an anathema to the left, especially to the leaders of the black community.  Herman Cain's message is that while racism still exists in America, this country affords great opportunity for blacks to rise economically. He feels blacks should not use race as an excuse for their failure to do so.

This has prompted professor Cornell West on CNN to call for Herman Cain to "get off the symbolic crack pipe" [can you imagine the outrage and cries of racism if a conservative told a liberal black man to get off the crack pipe]:



Harry  Belafonte, who was on the far left's Joy Behar show, went even further in hateful speech. He said Herman Cain was "denied intelligence", that "prayers weren't intended for him" and he called Cain a“bad apple” who has no authority to talk about the pride of people of color:



Does invoking the principles of conservatism deserve the kind of vitriolic hate speech that it has received from West and Belafonte?

My prediction: if  Herman Cain continues to gain traction and keeps rising in the polls, the outrageous comments against him on the left will multiply exponentially.
__________________________________________________________
Every time some individual or pastor on the right makes an outrageous and or bigoted comment, every single Republican that comes on the Sunday news shows are asked if they denounce those comments ...and asked "what does that say about Republicans....yadah, yadah, yadah."

So, in my dream of fairness by the main stream media,  my wish is that they would ask every Democrat candidate running in the next election, including president Obama, if they denounce the derogatory rhetoric by West and Belafonte.  Also, as they would do to a Republican candidate,  ask them 'what does it say about their party', that these Democrats would use such derogatory language about a black man.  

I am not holding my breath, as my dream for fairness and lack of a double standard by the main stream media is a nightmare for them.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Unusual, Illogical Analysis From Rush Limbaugh

I like to listen to Rush Limbaugh because he usually gives, insightful, a lot of times humorous, and sometimes even brilliant analysis of the political scene.   Today was not one of those days.

In writing this post I am just giving my analysis of Rush's faulty logic on today's topic and not endorsing or criticizing any of the GOP candidates for president.

I am very excited about watching tonight's GOP debate with an open mind.   [Go Herman Cain]  :)

Rush stated today that the White House has concluded the one person in the GOP field that they can beat is Mitt Romney. He said this many times on today's show.  He said the White House is convinced that if Romney is the nominee, it is a slam dunk win for Obama.

With that in mind, Rush also talked about a report coming out that says Romney's aides had many meetings in the White House about Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts and that one time they even met with president Obama to discuss how to establish Obamacare with those same ideas.  

Rush said this report is leaked by the White House so that Romney won't wrap up the nomination early and they want to cause chaos in the GOP nomination process, like Rush's "operation chaos" meant to cause chaos in the Hillary vs Obama match up.  This doesn't make any sense. If the Obama team is sure the one person they can beat is Mitt Romney, and that they would lose to any other conservative GOP candidate, then why would they try to cause chaos and derail Romney's chances at the GOP nomination.  They would want the one man they can beat [in their eyes] to wrap up the nomination as soon as possible and not take a chance on him not winning the GOP nomination.

Make no mistake, if this report is exactly true as the White House has leaked it, this would not just derail Romney's nomination, it would end it, because there is no way the GOP would elect a man who sent his aides in to help construct Obamacare.  The White House knows this.   Coming from the White House I am very dubious about this report.  I doubt  these were really key aides to Romney and I doubt that Romney knew anything about this and I also doubt that Obama used Romneycare to establish his Obamacare. 

It can't be both ways Rush.  If the White House really can't wait to run against Romney because they know he is the one man they can beat, they wouldn't be putting out a report that will end that chance of running against Romney.  On the other hand, they would be leaking such a report if they were trying to derail the Romney nomination, because they fear running against him. They would be putting out such a report  if they were convinced they could not beat Romney.

I love you Rush, but your analysis on this one didn't make any sense to me.  You're still 98.6% right on. :-)

Copts [Egyptian Christians] are massacred and the world is silent.

From Israeli Professor Rubin and his Rubin Reports    "...Egypt is home to millions of Christians .... that exceeds the populations of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia."

The native Egyptian Christians are known as the Coptic Christians or Copts. As a religious minority, the Copts are subject to significant discrimination in modern Egypt, and the target of attacks by militant Islamists.

There was always tension in Egypt between radical Muslims and Coptic Christians, but at least when Hosni Mubarak was leading Egypt, he tried to suppress the Islamists fury against the Christians.  Now with the so called Arab "spring" and the overthrow of Mubarak, the tension and violence and terror to the Coptic Christians has been unleashed.

This from Reuters:  "Egyptian Christians turned their fury against the army on Monday after at least 25 people were killed when troops crushed a protest using tactics that deepened public doubts about the military's ability to steer Egypt peacefully toward democracy.

In the worst violence since Hosni Mubarak was ousted, armored vehicles sped into a crowd late on Sunday to break up a protest near Cairo's state television. Online videos showed mangled bodies. Activists said corpses were crushed by wheels.

Tension between Muslims and minority Coptic Christians has simmered for years but has worsened since the anti-Mubarak revolt, which gave freer rein to Salafist and other strict Islamist groups that the former president had repressed."
______________________________________________________
The silence in the world of this terror that these Christians in Egypt face is deafening.  Everyone in the world should be horrified and trying to do everything they can to stop this religious bigotry and massacre. 

I always ask Jewish leaders, 'where are you in condemning president Obama's policies so damaging to Israel? Why aren't you speaking out?'

Now, in this situation,  I am wondering where are the Christian leaders and why aren't they speaking out strongly against this evil?   Leaders of every faith should be speaking out, but this is especially true for the Christian community.
________________________________________________________
Now we are beginning to see the reality of what the Arab "spring" has wrought in Egypt. The Islamists gaining strength [and maybe power], with the resulting danger to Israel and Christians.  Yes, Mubarak was a dictator, but at least he tried to tap down the violence against the Copts and tried to maintain the peace with Israel.  Now that seems to be going out the window with his overthrow.

I wish the Obama administration had been as anxious to support and defend the Iranian and Syrian uprisings, whose heroic demonstrators were mowed down in the street, as opposed to overthrowing the dictator in Egypt [who had been much friendlier to America and Israel].

Monday, October 10, 2011

Dennis Prager: NY Times Manipulative Headlines

Outside of a conference of Christian conservatives, Evangelical pastor,  Robert Jeffress of Dallas, called the Mormon Church a cult and stated that Mr. Romney “is not a Christian."    

The New York Times headlines in an article about this was: "Prominent Pastor Calls Mormon religion a cult."  He did say that, but as Dennis Prager on his radio show on Monday pointed out, the New York Times was being purposely deceptive in those headlines as it didn't highlight the real story. Prager pointed out that it is not news for an Evangelical pastor to say Mormons are not Christians.   For years, whether they are right or wrong, many Evangelicals have believed that Mormons are not Christians.  I am not knowledgeable enough on the theology of the Mormon religion or Christianity for that matter, to make a judgement on that.  To me, it did seem like the pastor was out of line to use the derogatory word cult in describing the Mormon religion. I think that was using unnecessary, inflammatory invective.   Dennis Prager said he has a loving friendship with  Evangelical Christians and Mormons and did not want to get involved in the theology difference of the two religions.

So, the New York Times used the 'dog bites man' non story, when, as Dennis Prager point out, near the end of the article was the real ['man bites dog'] story. Two of the last three paragraphs of  the article stated: "He also said that he believed Mr. Romney is a “good, moral person,” and that he would endorse him over the president".
"If it comes to that", he said, “I’m going to instruct, I’m going to advise people that it is much better to vote for a non-Christian who embraces biblical values than to vote for a professing Christian like Barack Obama who embraces un-biblical values.”

Prager calls that amazing and it was the real breaking news story of the piece.  I agree.  He said, the real news story should have been reflected in these headlines: "Evangelical pastor would support and endorse a Mormon for president."

Think about that. This pastor would not only support Romney, but he would advise and  instruct his parishioners to vote for him. That is not just a perfunctory statement of "holding his nose" and voting for him, but real support for the Mormon.

Of course those headlines, of the pastor supporting a Mormon, wouldn't fit the narrative of the New York Times trying to sow division between Republicans.

Dennis Prager pointed out that it comes down to the difference between theology and [biblical] values.  Prager said that theology was between man and God while values were between man and society.  I agree with Dennis that we should look to support a president who embraces our values, not our theology.

Bravo, Dennis Prager, on your insightful comments that cut through the New York Times non story headlines, to find the real story of the article.

David Gregory's misleading unemployment chart.

From The Bureau of labor Statistics, when President Obama took office in January 20, 2009 the unemployment rate was 7.6%    For the full month of January 2009, which is reported in the first week of February, the unemployment rate was 7.8%   I have seen a pattern here lately, by the desperate main stream media, of distorting that fact.

It happened again on Meet the Press with the swarmy David Gregory.  He is not alone, as I have seen this on other venues.

What Gregory did was show this graph to Rahm Emanuel displaying the unemployment rate during Obama's term. The first number on the graph was 8.2%. Then you saw the line rise to 10.1% back below to 8.8% and now back up to 9.1% and holding. By looking at the graph you would have thought the unemployment rate when Obama took office was 8.2%, not below 7.8% which it was on January 20, 2009.  That is a statistical fact.

Don't you remember how Obama said, if you passed his stimulus bill, unemployment would not reach 8%.    How could that statement have been true if the unemployment rate was over 8% when Obama took office? The main stream media is trying to revise history and make it seem like the unemployment rate was always above 8% when Obama took over and he was trying to bring it back down to 8% with his stimulus.

If David Gregory and the rest of the main stream media wants to make the argument that Obama couldn't be responsible for the unemployment figures the first few months he was in office, that is one thing.  But don't lie and say when Obama took over the unemployment rate was over 8%, when it was clearly under 8%.

Do not be hoodwinked by the distortions of the main stream media, that is desperately trying to re elect their guy.  Look at the stubborn facts that tell the real story.  

Sunday, October 9, 2011

The 5th's glorious finale.

Because of the Yom Kippur Holiday there was no classical post yesterday.  So, I will try to make up for it by posting the well known great masterpiece of Beethoven, his symphony #5.  Probably the most well known of all classical symphonies is Beethoven's 5th.  Especially, the opening movement's "fate knocking at the door" motif.

To me though, the 5th symphony's last movement's stirring triumph and glory theme is the one I like the most.  With it's prolonged exciting climax, the conclusion always brings concert goers to their feet with shouts of Bravo!

Turn up the sound, play in full screen and enjoy the conclusion of Beethoven's most well known masterpiece.

Ludwig Van Beethoven: Symphony #5 in c minor, movement 4, allegro:

Friday, October 7, 2011

The Holiest Day of the Year for Jews: Yom Kippur

For Jews this Sabbath, beginning Friday, October 7 at sundown and Saturday October 8, is a special one, as this is the holiday of Yom Kippur.

Yom Kippur is the Holiest Day of the year for Jews.  This is the Day of Atonement, where Jews fast and intensively pray to God. We acknowledge our wrong doings and broken committments to God and ask for his forgiveness. We commit to being a better person in the year ahead.

On Yom Kippur, before the regular evening Sabbath service,  the congregation gathers in the synagogue. The Ark is opened and all of the Torah scrolls are removed. They are usually dressed in white covers [as opposed to other colors for most days]. Leaders of the congregation are given the honor of holding the scrolls.  Then along with the cantor they recite:

"In the tribunal of Heaven and the tribunal of earth, by the permission of God — praised be He — and by the permission of this holy congregation, we hold it lawful to pray with transgressors."

The cantor then chants [sings] the passage beginning with the words Kol Nidre with its touching melodic phrases. The cantor singing of the Kol Nidre is very beautiful and moving.

When the Torah scrolls are replaced in the Ark, the regular evening service begins.
The evening services of Yom Kippur are referred to as the Kol Nidre services.

The day of Yom Kippur will have morning services and throughout the day. As sunset approaches Yom Kippur comes to an end with a recitation of Shema Yisrael and the blowing of the shofar, which marks the conclusion of the fast.
____________________________________________________________________
Here is a beautiful singing of the Kol Nidre by Perry Como.



Yom Kippur completes the annual period known in Judaism as the High Holy Days or "Days of Awe".

Yom Kippur occurs ten days after Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year.

This day, the holiest and most solemn in Judaism, is also among the most joyous, as it affords one the opportunity to rectify past wrongs and face the future with a slate wiped clean.


Thursday, October 6, 2011

Thanks for your standards, NFL?

On Monday on Fox and Friends, Hank Williams Jr., the 20 year voice introducing Monday Night Football with his famous "Are you ready for some football?" song, stupidly made a comparison of Obama to Hitler.  I've criticized all of the liberal Democrats who compared Bush with Hitler or the tea party with Nazis, etc., so I would be a hypocrite if I didn't criticize Hank Williams Jr. for his comparison. It was wrong and stupid to say.  He and his song was rightfully taken off the Monday Night Football game that night.  ESPN and the NFL certainly made the right decision.  Okay, that was Monday.

So, on Tuesday who did the NFL and NBC pick to perform at halftime of Superbowl XLVI in Indianapolis in Feb. 2012?     None other than Madonna.

In the campaign of president in 2008, Madonna kicked off her Sticky & Sweet Tour in the U.K. by comparing Republican presidential nominee John McCain to Adolf Hitler in a video montage during the show.

This from: Hollyscoop.com
During the song "Get Stupid," Madonna flashed images of McCain alongside photos of Hitler and brutal Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.

Am I missing something here?  Is it okay, or not okay to compare an American political figure to Hitler? Or does it matter who does the comparing and which political figure is the one being compared.

Thanks for clearing that up NFL.     

Maybe their argument is that Madonna's comparison was made a couple of years ago.    Wait, breaking news: Just announced for the 2014 Superbowl halftime show: Hank Williams Jr.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Steve Jobs: RIP!


                                               


                                                                          

Why don't you give your secretary this option, Mr. Buffett?

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary.  Of course, president Obama has gleaned on to Buffett's pronouncement by injecting his disgusting class warfare rhetoric.

Mr. Buffet, I have an idea how you can cure your guilt of not paying your fair share of taxes and also be fair to your secretary, all in one swoop.  For you, and all like you, who say that it is unfair the rate you pay as compared to your secretaries, give your secretary an option in the action you should take to be fair with her.  Would she like you to just pay more to the government when paying your income taxes, in the interest of fairness, or would your secretary like you to give that extra money to her in increased wages?   It would be her option.   Which option do you think she would take Mr. Buffett.   My bet on the option she would take: Show me the money!    [an aside: I am not being sexist here, as Mr. Buffett's secretary is a woman, I just did not assume that]

Think about it Mr. Buffett, it does not help your secretary one iota for you to pay more in taxes.  She would still  be getting the same measly wage you pay her now.  How the hell does that help her?  If you really want to be fair to your secretary; give her the money.  Trust me on this point Mr. Buffett.  If instead of paying the federal government more in taxes, you give that money to your secretary, she won't give a damn about how much you pay in taxes.   You will be able to release your guilt because you will have a happy secretary.

Oh, oh, I just thought of one problem though.  When you increase her salary in the same amount of the extra taxes you would have payed to the government, then that will  put your secretary in the higher income tax bracket.  That would mean, according to you and president Obama, your secretary then won't be paying her fair share.

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Our Hypocrite in Chief

Well, I guess it's back to the let's be civil tone again...oh, of course, that only applies to Republicans and conservatives.   With all of the unbelievable amount of hate speech coming from the left, our president, speaking at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign,  called  the GOP candidates "unpresidential for remaining silent" while [he said] "the audience [at GOP debate] booed a gay member of the military".

First of all that is a lie. Obama made it seem like the entire audience booed and that they were booing him because he was in the military and was gay.  There were only one or two boos out of the 5000 people in attendance.  Also, they weren't booing the military man because he was gay or because he was in the military. They only booed the question he asked.  I didn't like the booing but never thought it was because he was gay.  The fact that 99+% of the audience didn't boo, meant nothing to our liar in chief.  That didn't fit his narrative of trying to portray the Republican candidates as bigots.


President Obama told the crowd that he doesn't believe "in staying silent" when a young man in uniform is booed, adding that a Commander-in-chief would have stood up for this young man.

Oh, really Mister president, you don't believe in staying silent?   Well how about when you hear hate speech of your fellow Americans [whether or not they are in the military]?  Do you think it appropriate for the commander in chief  to stay silent then? 

From my previous post, does anyone remember this from Jimmy Hoffa, the man who introduced president Obama at a Labor Day Rally, and had said this just before Obama came on the stage:




After Jimmy Hoffa, president of the Teamsters Union called war on the tea party and Republicans, did our president remain silent or did he speak out against this kind of hate rhetoric?    I think I only have to give you one guess.  Not a word of condemnation.

Our divider in chief did say something about Hoffa after those remarks: From Big Government
The president welcomed Hoffa and said he was proud of him.    
I guess you told him, mister president.     Hypocrite.

Obama's tactics of dividing Americans for political gain [and by using the race card, the class warfare card and the gay card to do it] is the number one reason I do not want to see this man re elected.  A man who cares so little about his country that he is willing to inject ill will among fellow Americans and divide, not unite the country, does not deserve a second term as commander in chief.  



Saturday, October 1, 2011

Beethoven's "Emperor"

I always look forward in going to Jones Hall to hear the Houston symphony with the fetching Mrs. B. This Saturday night is one of those special concerts that I can't wait to attend.   It has three great pieces with two of my favorite composers, Ludwig Van Beethoven and Franz Schubert.   The concert starts out with Beethoven's Coriolan overture. The second piece will be the great "unfinished"
8th symphony of  Schubert.  After the intermission comes my favorite piano concerto of all time, Beethoven's fifth, known as "the Emperor."    What a great concert.  These three pieces would be good enough to make this concert special, but who the soloist is really makes this one special.

The legendary Andre Watts will be at the piano to play Beethoven's "Emperor".   I am getting excited just thinking about it.   We have seen the virtuoso Watts a few times in the past and he never disappoints.

Because this evening's concert will be special to Sheralyn and me, I will try to make this post special for you by playing all three movements of the Emperor.

I believe the second movement of Beethoven's fifth piano concerto is my favorite slow movement of any concerto. It is so beautiful and so moving, that if anyone has any doubts about the existence of God, those doubts should be dispelled by this God inspired second movement.

Here are a  couple of things to look for in the videos.  Because of the first movement's length, I was unable to find a video with the orchestra and pianist shown.  Still please listen as this is truly one of the great movements in the piano concerti repertoire. 

Also, in most classical concertos, in the first movement you hear a long introduction of the orchestra before the soloist comes in; but in Beethoven's Emperor concerto, after a loud chord by the orchestra, the  pianist immediately comes in with gusto [Beethoven is letting the orchestra know who is in charge of this concerto]. This happens three times before Beethoven finally allows the orchestra to give their long introduction [before the soloist comes in again].

In the last 30 seconds of the second movement, there will be a bridge leading into the third movement, as there is not the usual break between the second and third movements.

That bridge continues as you see the third video [which shows the third and final movement].  So the third movement will actually begin at the 30 second mark.

So, please turn up the volume, play in full screen the second and third movements and sit back and enjoy maybe the greatest piano concerto ever composed.
_______________________________________________________________

Beethoven Piano Concerto #5,  movement 1, Allegro:




Beethoven Piano Concerto #5 , 2nd movement, Adagio un poco mosso:



Beethoven Piano Concerto #5, movement 3, rondo, allegro ma non troppo: