I’ve finally gotten around to editing the still pictures that I took at Thursday’s Drinking Liberally. There aren’t that many. Below, Liz Duarte and Ned. Liz was primarily responsible for getting Ned to come.
You can see the lot, and download any one you like, here.
I freely admit to being an amateur so far as jazz is concerned. It’s a big musical world out there, and I’ve really only explored the capital cities of jazz. (Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, etc.) This is by way of saying that I have no idea where Sidran stands among jazz aficionados. I stumbled on Sidran through my Iphone, courtesy of WunderRadio, on which I subscribed to an all jazz radio station in New Jersey. They played a cut from an album he recorded called Dylan Different, which I proceeded to buy myself for Christmas. There tends to be a certain sameness about his Dylan takes, but they still make enjoyable listening, at least in my opinion. I could only find two live videos from the album, Highway 61 Revisited and Tangled up in Blue, both of which follow. A couple of other cuts are better than these, but alas, are not available on youtube.
One wonders how much of this the supine Democratic Senate leaders expect those of us who pony up the campaign money to take:
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary “blanket hold” on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.
Shelby is trying to extort Obama into throwing money at his state for the earmarks Republicans are supposed to hate.
What I find mystifying (no, I really don’t find it mystifying) is that these Republican holds seem to have a vise like grip, while Reid never seems to have a problem giving the back of his hand to a hold from his own caucus. What I actually do find mystifying is the idea that there could possibly be an actual rule allowing such a hold, and if it’s only a custom, why on earth Reid and the rest would put up with this constant abuse.
As I’ve mentioned (repeatedly, actually) Ned was a guest at our Drinking Liberally meeting last night. Here’s video of his appearance. Due to youtube’s time limits, I’ve cut the video into two, splitting it at a rather arbitrary point. I got home late last night, so I really didn’t have the time for anything too sophisticated, not that I know much about video editing anyway. The lighting was not great, by the way, which accounts for the rather muddy video.
So, without further ado, part 1:
Part 2:
Ned was a big draw. My wife counted about 35 people while he was there, and some more drifted in after he left. That’s not to imply that he just spoke and left; he hung around quite a while, chatting with just about everyone there. Some folks just got there extremely late.
I took some still pictures, but haven’t had the time to deal with them. I told some folks there that I would post them, which I’ll do later, as an update to this post.
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
Let Justice Thomas illustrate:
Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.
“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.” (Emphasis added)
There is a new addition to my blogroll, to which I want to direct the attention of my hordes of faithful readers. It’s called WCubedBlog, the “WCubed” being derived from the fact that the three contributors all have last names beginning with “W”. It’s a very recent addition to the blogosphere.
One of them is my last born, the fruit of my loins, so to speak. All three of them are students of history, studying diligently for their advanced degrees at NYU, so they bring an interesting perspective to their writing. See if you can figure out which one’s my son.
Check it out, but make sure you come back here.
On an entirely different subject, my wife and I, along with a neighbor, are about to leave for Drinking Liberally. If you read this before 6:30, February 4th, and you are in the New London area, come join us and our very special guest, Ned Lamont, at the Bulkeley House on Bank Street.
One last reminder, that Ned Lamont will be joining us for Drinking Liberally, tomorrow at 6:30 (Ned may arrive closer to 7:00) at the Bulkeley House in New London. Come join us and meet Ned.
By the way, in response to a fellow who commented on the first announcement I made on this subject, we’d be more than happy to have Dan Malloy come join us sometime, or any of the plethora of candidates for state or national office.
I’m not sure about this. In the wake of Obama’s performance last week, in which he made the Republicans look bad by being reasonable and rational, a number of people are demanding the equivalent of the British Question Time here in the U.S.
It certainly would be good to institutionalize a procedure in which the president is forced to answer substantive questions, but you have to worry that by institutionalizing it we will inevitably make it into something that last week’s event was not: a forum for both sides to posture. I am a firm believer in the ability of politicians, especially Republicans, to drain substantive content out of anything. Remember, they were sort of ambushed last week. Obama’s people asked that it be televised, and they weren’t aware of what idiots they would look like. Republicans aren’t particularly smart, but they are quite adaptable and very disciplined, so you can be sure whatever we got would not resemble rational discourse.
Still, it might still be a marginal improvement over our current discourse. I only hope if it happens that the Congressional leadership, including the minority party leadership, has to stand up and justify itself as well.
There is a trick you can use on children, providing they’re young enough. It’s often called “reverse psychology”, and it consists of, for instance, offering an obstreperous youngster something you don’t want him to have, in the expectation that he will insist on the opposite. It’s often hard to manipulate anyone older than four with this method, but there are exceptions, and it looks like, perhaps, the minority leader of the House of Representatives might be among them:
House Minority Leader John Boehner said Sunday that defense spending should not be exempt from President Obama’s proposed spending freeze.
Now, when I find myself agreeing with John Boehner, I pinch myself. I did so this time; it hurt, and I found that I was indeed awake. I then played the scenario over in my mind. Suppose Obama had not proposed exempting defense from the freeze. What would the Republican reaction have been? Need we ask? Is it possible that Obama can get rational policy in this country simply by proposing something stupid, and then conceding to the Republicans when they reflexively propose the opposite? Certainly, at some point, they would have to figure it out, but who knows how much good could be accomplished before they do?
From a letter in this morning’s Day:
As nonresident taxpayers in Groton, we contact the town every fall to find out if there are any referendum items that would impact the general fund mill rate. We then make it a point to vote responsibly on the issue(s) come November.
To our surprise, we were told last fall that we are no longer eligible to vote. We contacted the mayor’s office, the Charter Revision chairman and an attorney for the town.
The answer to our query? It was an “unintended consequence of the last charter revision.”
Well, if it makes these folks feel any better, as a member of that Charter Revision Commission, I can say that, at least to my recollection, their sad plight was a fully intended consequence of the last charter revision. How sad that these folks, who live in Amelia Island, Florida, have been deprived of their right to “vote responsibly” on matters in which they have nothing but a financial stake. In this brave new world, however, they might consider going to the Supreme Court, along, perhaps, with Wal-Mart, to argue that they, along with our corporate property owners, should have the right to vote on the way in which our town is run, as I’m sure that responsible voting implies that they care, for example, that our kids have decent schools.
If it makes them feel even better, they might consider that things could be worse. My wife and I own a small piece of property in Vermont. As non-residents, our property taxes are approximately triple those we would pay were we residents. I’m not complaining. In fact, it’s something we might consider here.
