Singing in that good ol' harmony

I've been using Pandora at work lately to provide some background music, but I haven't been able to take any one station for long before needing a change. Yesterday, however, I created a station around acapella mens groups, and found it kept me going my entire shift.

Do Wop, Vocal Jazz, barbershop--whatever you call it, it covers a lot of ground; from the King's Singers to Boyz II Men, and some amazing groups I'd never heard of, like Tonic Sol Fa. There are covers of old chestnuts to jaw-dropping arrangements of familiar tunes to original works that left me speechless. The King's Singers' cover of Billy Joel's "And So It Goes" about left me in tears. If I had money for it I would have bought at least two or three albums yesterday.

In high school and college I was privileged to sing in several acapella groups. There is nothing quite like singing tight harmonies and energized rhythms with a group of guys that blend well. I've almost always enjoyed making music in a group over solo work, and I miss it.

I remember back before I moved to Boise coming over here for the River Festival any time I heard the Nylons were performing. I remember riding a shuttle bus home from one concert, my brother and I being completely unable to contain ourselves and breaking into song. I'm still a bit surprised we did it, but by golly if we didn't soon have a majority of the passengers joining in. We sang everything we thought people would know, including patriotic songs. That was probably the most enjoyable bus ride I've ever taken, and I still get chills thinking about it.

I think I disappointed my mother when I didn't become a music teacher. I don't regret that decision, but I do sometimes wish I'd tried some other ways to make music pay. I think the unbounded opportunity to make music was one of the main reasons I had a hard time getting out of college.

Right now my life is necessarily focused on supporting and raising a young family. But someday I will find my way back to performing. I don't think I'll be entirely whole until I do.

Is the Left inherently violent?

I watched a segment of MSNBC's Morning Joe today that really made my skin crawl. It started out fair enough, raising the idea that political violence is perhaps evenly matched on both sides of the political spectrum. I can accept that, even though their immediate examples seem a bit lop-sided to me: A racial epithet and a case of spitting on the Right side vs. death threats against a Republican senator and his family on the Left.

But then the segment took a quick turn into "yes, but" mode by making the apparent claim that the Right's violence is somehow worse because there are Right-leaning pundits on talk radio that incite rage against the government. They placed the burden of proof on Pat Buchanan that the Left is just as bad, then continually discounted his examples because there was no single voice advocating those acts. (I beg to differ; there are incitements aplenty from the Left, including from the Chief Executive himself.)

Think about that for a second. If there is a similar amount of political violence, and such violence from the Right is incited by a few self-proclaimed spokesmen, while such violence from the Left is unorganized and organic, does that not imply that people on the Left are inherently violent? People on the Right have to be stirred up to violence, but people on the Left just commit violence without instigation? Is that really what they want to say, regardless of whether it true?

Is that what amounts to a defense? It's in effect sending a note to the teacher saying "Please forgive Johnny for hitting Suzie yesterday at school. This is not something he learned from TV or from watching us, he's just a naturally violent kid and will sometimes hit others without provocation. But please forgive that, because Seth is also violent at school because of things he learns on Television and from his parents."

Violence is violence, regardless of impetus. The Right continually apologizes for it, condemns it, and warns against it, while the left refuses to even acknowledge it. As any behavioral specialist can tell you, recognizing you have a problem is the first step to overcoming it. In that case, the Right is the more mature, responsible side. The Left is still in denial.

Violence and politics...plenty to go around

The media is quick to jump on any cases of reported violence against Democrats and their offices, forgetting far too easily that liberals have advocated and engaged in more than their of politically motivated violence. I mean really, has there ever been a WTO conference that didn't include mob violence by protesters?

If there is anything remarkable about the supposed violence against Democrats it's that it's occurring at all. But the way they've been acting lately, it's just as likely that the violence is perpetrated by liberals as it is by conservatives. This administration has managed to tick off just about everyone, so they should only be surprised that it's not worse!

You do not regularly and contemptuously ignore the will of the people without reaping retribution. I do not advocate violence, but to whine and cry about it is just ridiculous. What did you expect? You crammed a bill through that the majority did not want using tactics the majority found reprehensible. Ye reap what ye sow.

Racists under every rock

The effort to spin America's dislike of the Health Care Bill has begun, using the same old tune: If you disagree with it you're a racist. They're starting to sound like a broken record.

But there are a few glaring holes in that thinking. First off, polls show that over 59% of Americans oppose the Health Care Bill. If they oppose it because of racism, then how did Obama get elected in the first place? At least 10% of those people had to have voted for Obama for him to win.

Secondly, this erroneously assumes that everyone associates the Health Care Bill with Obama. This is not true. I suspect most people associate this bill with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I know I do. This is their bill, even though it was Obama who requested it. I blame them fully for this mess. But I'm white and they are white. Can I be racist against "my own kind?"

Actually, I am racist. I'm bitterly against the politician race. They're certainly not the same species as the rest of us. They are a vile, nasty lot who should never be let near power. This latest fiasco proves it. So if I'm a racist it's because they're making me that way.

And the fact that they immediately assume that opposition to their work is because of racism...well, that's just because they're racist. They hate the American race.

"Health Reform" passes. Remember this in November.

The House just passed the "Sit Down and Shut Up, America, We're Going to Fix This Even If it Kills You!" Bill, otherwise known as Health Care Reform. It's interesting to note that the MSNBC.com Poll currently shows 59% of voters feel this bill is a bad idea that will screw things up for a long time, compared with only 29% who think it's a good idea. MSNBC polls tend to run liberal, from what I've seen.

What scares me is that the Democrats won't stop here. Now that they know how to ram-rod things through effectively they're not going to be able to resist doing it again and again before November. They know they just signed their political death warrants, so they've got nothing to lose. Scuttle the Ship of State and grab all the gold service pieces they can pocket on the way to the lifeboats.

I am so disgusted with our "representatives" I don't even know where to begin.

Television is bad for you? Who'd have thought!

MSNBC.com has an article today citing five different ways that television is bad for you. In a nutshell, television:
- Increases your chances of heart disease
- Makes you drink more
- Increases the odds of teenage pregnancy
- Weakens your bones
- Makes parents interact with their kids less

But I'm sure they still maintain it's just the act of watching TV that's bad for you, not the programming they show you.

Democrats throwing Obama under the bus?

With very interesting timing, the Democrats are now starting to talk about how Obama should be listening to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel:

But a contrarian narrative is emerging: Emanuel is a force of political reason within the White House and could have helped the administration avoid its current bind if the president had heeded his advice on some of the most sensitive subjects of the year: health-care reform, jobs and trying alleged terrorists in civilian courts.

It's been a long-held opinion of those opposed to Obama's agenda that either Obama failed to recruit the right people for his staff, or that he simply refuses to listen to them. It looks like the Democrats feel there is political capital to be gained by claiming the latter.

A fascinating development, to be sure. I'm sure this is just the beginning of...something. I wonder where this is headed.

International Conflict

Today the USA hockey team plays the Finnish team in the semi-finals. As I've mentioned before, we're a mixed-nationality house. But all things considered, I hope you'll all understand if I cheer for Finland to win. I mean, come on. Team USA has dominated the medals. Finland has three--and no golds.

I'm cheering for Finland.

Segregation based on health care?

Where I work they have the president's health care summit on the television. I can't see it, but I can hear it.

Some genius is going on and on about how we eliminated segregation based on gender, disability, and other factors, and now he wants to eliminate segregation based on health care.

This worries me when the people leading this country don't even know the meaning of a simple word. Since when are we setting up "premium coverage only" sections on buses? Where is the "insured only" drinking fountains? Where are the "uninsured" high schools?

Perhaps he knew full well he was using the wrong word, but used it anyway because of it's emotional connotation. Even so, it's probably a good thing I don't know who that was. I lost all respect for him.

Men only do bad things?

Here's an interesting YouTube video about the disappearance of men and the rise of misanthropy.

Interesting video, but I will take one exception to it. The narrator claims that misandry is a word. Not according to Websters. Misanthropy is the word he may be looking for, and it is accepted by spell-check.

EDIT: I checked in the Oxford English Dictionary, and "misandry" is a word in the British English. But since it's evidently not a word in American English, and MS Word is made by an American company, I wouldn't place too much stock in that particular argument.

If Vonn is drawing all the attention it's not her fault

It seems US Skier Julia Mancuso is annoyed by teammate Lindsey Vonn's popularity. While her remarks may be true, it's the nature of the sport. And with me, at least, Vonn's popularity is perhaps more deserved.

I admit my opinion is based only on a single medals ceremony; one of the first, when Vonn won gold and Mancuso won silver. Mancuso was wearing, of course, her trademark tiara. And when she took the winners podium she had to add a saucy dance to her waving. Vonn was much more staid, pumping her fists a few times, but otherwise keeping it more dignified. To be fair, both women placed their hands over their hearts for the National Anthem, and it appeared as if Mancuso were even singing along. But the podium dance rubbed me the wrong way. It's a small difference, but Mancuso seemed to be about "look at me", while Vonn seemed to be more about "look at this moment." What can I say? I prefer my winners dignified and a little awed at their success.

Certainly it's Vonn who has the media's attention, and no, it's not fair. But she could have it for all the wrong reasons, too. Ask Bodie Miller what that's like. It's not like Vonn did anything particular to become the media's Face de Olympique. I doubt she would feel at all bothered if the attention were elsewhere.

Mancuso's remarks also belie a predisposition to attention-seeking. The reality for most of us in the viewing audience is that women's skiing gets but a small percentage of the overall attention. Lindsey Vonn is no more important than, say, Apolo Ohno, Evan Lysacek, or Lindsey Jacobellis (how'd you like that kind of attention, Julia?). To assume that America is focused on Lindsey Vonn is untrue at best, delusional at worst.

Relax, Julia. There's enough limelight for everyone. You've already had more of it than I'm likely to ever have. Try to make sure it's not the wrong kind of attention.

Will we turn a blind eye to antisemitism this time too?

Sweden, where Jews were once given refuge during WWII, is now becoming a hotbed of antisemitism. Does this mean that for all our supposed intellectual and moral progress we're no better today than we were seventy years ago?

I hope not.

Glenn Reynolds on why spirituality is more popular than religion

Citing a Pew Research Forum report, which cites young people as being spiritual, but not religious, Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit had this to say:

Well, that’s because religion often tells you to do things you don’t want to do, or to refrain from doing things you want to do, while spirituality is usually more . . . flexible.

I'm not sure if he considers that a bug of a feature, but he hits the nail on the head. Far too much of the so-called spirituality today centers around the idea of God wanting our attention, but little more. The idea that God may actually expect certain things of us beyond a generic, flexible "being good" is inconvenient at best.

No, the inconvenient truth is that God has a plan for us, and that plan calls for us to meet certain standards of behavior. Attempts to water it down so that we can feel better about ourselves with less effort will not work out well for us in the end. I mean seriously, do you really think you can tell the creator of the universe that "I'm sure you didn't mean all that 'thou shalt/shalt not' business. Here, let me show you what I am willing to do for you, though."?

Good luck with that.

I envy the Dalai Lama

When recently asked for his opinion on the Tiger Woods situation the Dalai Lama admitted that he did not know who that was. Boy do I wish I could say that.

Once it was explained to him he added:

“Whether you call it Buddhism or another religion, self-discipline, that’s important,” he said. “Self-discipline with awareness of consequences.”

I can't argue with that.

Multi-national households and the Olympics

My wife is Finnish. Not that American television shows that many competitions where the Finns are competing (unless, of course, there's an American with a good chance of winning competing), but it does make it fun to have more than one nation to cheer for.

Am I glad that Shaun White won the Half-pipe gold? Sure. Am I thrilled that a Finn got second? You bet! With the Finnish ski-jump team not quite living up to its usual powerhouse status so far, I'm all for Finland developing some depth in other areas, too (4 of the top twelve snowboarders going into the final round were Finns).

I'm also backing the Finnish hockey team, just so you know. I want them to beat the Swedes first and foremost, but if they go on to beat Team USA, I'm fine with that. I love my country, but I don't believe can't do with a little humbling from time to time. And if someone's got to do it, why not my adopted country?

Go Finland! Hyää Suomi!

How not to make a sale

My business partner and I had a conference call from someone who had promised to show us some things that would improve our business. The presentation was light on details, heavy on sales pitch. We were okay with that.

But then he went into full "used-car salesman" mode. When we wouldn't commit to a sale right away he decided to do us a "favor" and go talk to his supervisor. Sure enough, he came back with a wonderful new offer about a third lower than the first one--if we acted right away. We were not about to act right away. We needed time to think about it.

But time was one thing he absolutely did not want to give us. Every time we would tell him we wanted to think about it he would keep countering with various reasons why we didn't need to. Some lovely gems:

- If we didn't like charging the amount to our credit cards he could always set us up a business account so it would be charged to the business. This, frankly, was an insult to our intelligence. Debt is debt, whether it is owed by us or by the company we own. If we aren't sure we can afford it on our personal credit cards we are not going to be any more able to afford it if we charge it to the business. It's real money, regardless of where we charge it.

- When we asked for a couple of days to think it over he initially agreed, but then countered by asking what could possibly change in two days? He added that all that was likely to happen in two days was that we'd talk ourselves out of it. I can't argue with that. He hadn't really made that strong of a case for his company's services. If he had, we'd still feel good about it after a couple of days.

The bottom line was that no matter what we said he wanted us to decided right then and there. People like that annoy me. They obviously do not have faith in their product. They do NOT want you to think about it, which is always a red flag to me that you should do plenty of thinking.

My partner was much nicer than I was. I gave up about 2/3rds of the way into the conversation and walked away. Had it been my phone I would have hung up on the guy. I don't have time for jerks like that. I've got plenty of fly-by-night shysters calling me now that I have a registered business. I don't have that much time to waste on them. I hope to never hear from that one again.

Why I like Country music

Lately I've become bored with the classical music station when I'm out driving, and the Lite Rock station plays obnoxious trash more often than not, so I once again checked out the Country station. Within a few minutes I heard:

- A song in which the subject acknowledged God's place in their life.
- A song reminding us that our life here on Earth is temporary, and so shouldn't we all do more to help one another along the way?
- A song about how wonderful the singer's wife is.
- A song extolling the virtues of hard work, family, and simple living.

I do like some of today's pop music. But very little of it has to do with me. I'm not in that lifestyle anymore--if I ever was. I'm in a lifestyle that seems to only find its voice in Country music. Not that all Country is that way by any means. There's still plenty of heartache songs, total lust songs, mad at the world songs, etc. to go around. But all in all, Country music is the only genre left that still respects and cherishes the things I respect and cherish.

As I get older I find the message is becoming more important than the medium, and I can overlook the nasal voices, drawls, and twangy guitars that still characterize much of Country music because of its message. If you're looking for sophisticated music you'll probably want to look elsewhere (but then again, you'll also discount much of the music world in any genre). But if you're looking for music that isn't ashamed to stand up for hard work, honesty, religion, fidelity, family, loyalty, patriotism, and traditional values, Country is pretty much it.

I thank God I'm a country boy.

Societal Confusion Over Sex

Last night I watched "The Proposal" with Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, in which Bullock's nasty New York editor character blackmails Reynold's executive assistant character into pretending to be engaged to her so she can avoid deportation. In contemplating the movie afterward I realized that there was a major, glaring hole in the movie--other than the other obvious ones called the plot.

Hollywood is the current champion of free love. They would have us believe that sex is just another past-time like walking the dog or eating chocolate ice cream. They laugh at traditional Christian morality that holds sex to a higher standard. It's as natural as breathing, they would have us think, and there is no reason why anyone shouldn't have sex with anyone under any circumstances, at any time. Love--even familiarity or cordiality--has nothing to do with it.

So why is it that these two characters, while visiting his home, sleep separately? She gets the bed while he gets the floor. These two are going to be pretending to be married for awhile. So why don't they at least share the bed, even if they can't stand each other enough to have sex? It's not like the movie can't go to elaborate, near-Rube-Goldber-ian lengths to get the two to bump into one another stark naked. Why should they have any trouble sharing a bed?

Because this is a romantic comedy. These two character who can't stand one another are destined to fall in love by the end of the movie. Therefore they must NOT under ANY circumstances have sex before they at least realize they are in love. No matter how much Hollywood would like us to think sex and love have nothing to do one another, the viewing audience still cannot separate the two--at least not the female viewing audience, the main consumers of rom-coms.

No, the intended target of this movie still thinks it's romantic that these two obviously are falling for one another, and yet are still denying themselves a little physical gratification. It is sexual tension, not consummation that drives romantic comedies.

The movies just don't work any other way. Can you imagine such a movie about two people who are sleeping together purely for the satisfaction who slowly start to realize they are actually in love? Nope. It doesn't work, does it. The viewing public may have tossed out the notion of saving oneself for marriage, but they can't quite toss out the notion of sex without love.

Oh, I'm sure there may be one or two such movies, but they probably didn't do well, or weren't really romantic comedies.

Perhaps there is hope for America yet.

Obama, the State of the Union, and the Bully Pulpit

Is there anyone Obama didn't attack? He continues to pummel away at the financial sector, as if they weren't a large part of the key to getting the economy back on track. He took a stab at the Supreme Court, eliciting a mouthed "not true" from Justice Alito.

He blasts Washington, seemingly without realizing that he is Washington now. He controls Washington. He took a stab at "climate change deniers" even while the IPCC is falling apart from its own bad science. He took an off-handed swipe at middle-America for not being smart enough to recognize how wonderful his health care reform was. And he sends a warning to Congress members who are starting to think that listening to their constituents instead of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi might be a good idea after all.

He continues to insult our intelligence by promising more of the same, tired "we will go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year" rhetoric. He spent $700 billion on a questionable Recovery Act, and he expects us to get excited about $20 billion? We're not stupid. We have been paying attention.

Oh yeah, and he takes a stab at the oil companies. Of course there's the obligatory attack on "the right" using staw men and subverted logic. He continues to blame Bush for everything, as expected.

Oh, this was a good line: "Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense."

In short, he wants to undo the last year of his administration while making it all sound like someone else's fault. He wants to hang on to his horrible ideas for America because that's what he was elected on, regardless of how people feel about his policies now. In short, he's still not listening.

Ah, and of course he punches the lobbyist button. That's like only blaming the drug dealers, Mr. President. It takes politicians who allow themselves to be bought to make lobbying worthwhile. I seem to remember Nancy Pelosi promising to clean up that swamp when the Democrats took over three years ago. You know, the last three years of the eight years that supposedly brought us where we are today? You'd like us to think that you've only had a year to undo the past eight, but the reality is your team was at bat when the problems began. Some could even say you helped cause it.

And why are you so bent on making lobbyists disclose everything when you and your party have not only NOT kept your campaign promise of greater visibility, but actually gone the opposite direction? You promised us no legislation going to a vote without being published online five days before the vote. Secret debates and secret guest lists is what we got. Thousand-page bills voted on after mere hours is what we got. You want to keep your faith with the people who got you there? That's a good place to start. Open sesame, Mr. President!

Another gem: "Now, I am not naïve. I never thought the mere fact of my election would usher in peace, harmony, and some post-partisan era." Really? So that's why you rubbed the Republicans' nose in it with the "We won" Crack? That's how you work to bring about post-partisanship? You let your Congressional leaders exclude the Republicans time and again and call that working toward peace and harmony? No sir, you either expected exactly what you say you didn't, or you simply didn't think you needed the other side's cooperation. Not give up on changing tone? No sir, you have not even begun. Get to work already.

Ah nice, he blames all our cynicism and disappointment on business, media, and lobbyists. The finger always points everywhere but at himself. It's our cynicism that's the problem, not his bad policies. If we weren't so cynical we'd see how wonderful his policies are! Stupid people!

Well, I didn't expect much, and I didn't get much. He intends to keep hammering away at the same ol' same ol'. Heaven help us all because he knows better than all of us what we want.

I think Chris Muir puts it best: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/012610.jpg

I'm Still Standing...Yeah Yeah Yeah

There is much I would have liked to have blogged about in the past few weeks, not the least of which the interesting little development in Massachusetts. It's an interesting little bit of trivia that the first major victory for the Tea Party came in the very state in which the event for which it is named occurred. But I'll leave it at that for now.

I mainly just want to say I'm still here. And that starting a business of any kind--brick-n-mortar or online--is work! Work WORK WORK!!!! Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.

But I am making progress. You can see the results at www.kitchenriches.com, where we sell food dehydrators, vacuum sealers, and ice cream makers. And right now we're having a sale. There's free shipping on orders over $100! Check it out!

The idea behind the site is that with the economy being what it is, everyone is looking for new ways to cut costs while still being able to connect with family and friends over food. One way is to buy food in bulk, preferably in season when it's cheaper, and preserve it through dehydration or freezing (or both!) And the ice cream makers? Well, they're just for fun! We all need a little fun now and then! And ours will make ice cream without having to use ice or salt!

Anyway, I'm still here, and I'm trying to get on top of things enough to post more. See you around!