Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktI don’t watch much in the way of television, especially what I consider Reality TV, but my daughter sent me this because she knows I love this song, I mean don’t we all? I guess this guy lost out to a female singer but I thought his rendition of “At Last” was both interesting and unusual. This vid is full of XFactor bullshit so skip ahead to 2:13 if you just want to hear the song…………………..I think it’s worth it.
And I’m so lame, I’ve only figured out how to put one video in a single post……………and then I can only add text above it (sounds like a New Year’s Resolution to me), so if anyone has any other great music to put up……………………..please just do it.
I posted three, LMS, – an iconic jazz band – Hall, Desmond, Baker, Gadd; Knopfler and his roots band Notting Hillbillies, and Katrina Dideriksen who does broadway stuff for a living and blues for fun – my step-niece.
Mark
from brian: what some minnesotans do in an unseasonably warm & snow-free december:
The Brightest Thing in Forty Miles from Leif Enger on Vimeo.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Since I have no clue how to embed a video, I'll just applaud your efforts, LMS and Mark.Happy silver anniversary to BroJS and his fabulous wife. The party will be New Year's Eve. If you're going to crash it, kindly dress well.
LikeLike
Thanks MarkYou're doing better than I am in the video department but I've got it all over you in formatting otherwise………haaaahaaaa. My girls talked me into doing a facebook page this weekend…………….yikes.I just can't wait for all my old high school and college buddies to find me.
LikeLike
If you like Katie, lemme know, please!
LikeLike
I liked your niece mark. It was a great song for her. My niece is an actress in New York, she's the one on my husband's side of the family. She hasn't done Broadway yet but has had a few off Broadway parts in musicals. We tease her because she always plays the floozy or the dumb blond. She doesn't have an amazing voice but can dance her way out of a paper bag exceptionally well and has comedy down pat.
LikeLike
Nice video bsimon, I love kites and it was fun to see everything from the kites perspective………….lol.This is from one of Bernstein's links from last night. For all the bluster no one seems to have a workable plan for the deficit, assuming they really care about it at all that is. Even progressives know it's a problem in the long term……………..sheesh.Not only is that true in this case, but almost all of the GOP presidential candidates are currently talking about plans that would make the deficit and debt situation worse even though they're labeled as deficit reduction.Second, as you'll see if you watch the interview, for comparison purposes I gave President Obama a C-. The administration still doesn't have a plan for dealing with the long-term deficit, but it does get credit for creating the Bowles-Simpson commission when the Senate failed to pass legislation that would have set up a congressional commission, for pushing House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to consider a "go-big" deficit reduction plan, and for being willing to compromise on budget -related when that was the only way to get something done.As for my GOP presidential candidate grades…Herman Cain: Dropped the courseJon Huntsman: Incomplete: He just hasn't said much of anything on the budgetMitt Romney- DRomney's says he will reduce spending to 20 percent of GDP by 2016, something that is likely to happen anyway if the economy picks up and current tax and spending laws stays in place. He's also talked about $500 billion in spending cuts without even hinting what they would be. He's also basing his estimates on a change in Medicare that is so unlikely to be adopted it has to be labeled fantasy.Newt Gingrich:- FThis one is easy. According to the Tax Policy Center, Gingrich's tax plan would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion in 2015 compared to what would occur under current law. To reduce the deficit, Gingrich relies on what he calls "deep" but completely unspecified spending cuts and higher economic growth.Ron Paul- FThis one is also easy. Paul says he wants to eliminate the income, estate and capital gains taxes. That would be fine if he also at least mentioned in passing that he'll also need to eliminate almost everything the federal government does to prevent the deficit and debt from rising. He doesn't.Rick Perry- FPerry says he'll balance the federal budget by 2020, that is, by the end of his second term as president. In other words, without actually admitting it, Perry is saying that there will be seven years of federal deficits if he's elected. Perry also says he wants to cap overall federal spending at 18 percent of GDP without saying how he's going to get it to fall that far below the historical average of between 20 and 21 percent during a period when, because of the Baby Boomers retiring and higher interest on the national debt, it will be rising.Michelle Bachmann- FBachmann doesn't have a deficit reduction plan unless you call refusing to raise the federal debt ceiling and increased Pentagon spending a way to reduce the deficit. Bachmann is committed to what she says will be "deep cuts in spending." She does not, of course, specify what they will be.Rick Santorum- FSantorum says he wants to cut $5 trillion in spending over five years. But other than ending federal spending on education, he doesn't say how. Santorum also doesn't say that $5 trillion would be a roughly 20 percent reduction in spending.
LikeLike
If everyone is failing, shouldn't we be grading on a curve?
LikeLike
Mark- Katie was great! I am a sucker for the blues though.
LikeLike
First, fair warning: 3 beers and 2 sheets to the wind!That being said, having caught a glimpse of a headline stating something about US drug policy being imposed globally…oh, LET THE RANT BEGIN!Am being subjected to pre-employment drug screening, since when is looking for as job PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH?Since when is corporate LAW ENFORCEMENT? Taking a little much on themselves, ain't they? A tad arrogant? Oh, but, why the hell not, they WRITE THE LAW IN THIS COUNTRY. In addition, this company may even do annual drug testing of their employees. Can you say, BIG BROTHA? Control freaks much? How about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfp2O9ADwGk? (not even a Cash fan) Don't care the consequence, don't care the debt, if they do annual drug testing, then next year this time, I will lodge a formal complaint and quit! Somebody has to stand up, and can't depend on the next guy, or the next, or the next….has to happen at some point, and if I am the point, SO BE IT. BRING IT ON.Also, women in Iowa? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/can-a-woman-win-iowa/2011/12/26/gIQAEGWOPP_allComments.html?ctab=all_&#comments)Grew up 5 miles south of that border, and although I can't really state truthfully that they are the cause of my general rebellion against society, they certainly re-inforced it! Hey, I was born in LA, come on. Just 'cause I haven't lived there since I was five…For real, they feel that women are supposed to be barefoot, pregnant, and where is supper!? It is so cute when they run for office.Better cut it off, there is plenty here for comment already. (big huge grin)
LikeLike
(big huge grin with LOTS of teeth)!
LikeLike
Taroya:Am being subjected to pre-employment drug screening, since when is looking for as job PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH?Porbably cause is irrelevant. You've volunteered to be "searched" by trying to get a job that requires drug-screening. If you don't want to be screened, you are free to walk away. No one will put you in jail and no one will make you take the drug test.Since when is corporate LAW ENFORCEMENT?Since never. I don't know exactly what the deal is with your employer, but I doubt you face the possibility of prosecution, so law enforcement has nothing to do with anything. You are being tested for employement, not proscecution. Not getting a job because of a failed drug test is much different than getting prosecuted for failing a drug test.
LikeLike
BAH! HUMBUG!Just for the record, I will pass with flying colors.They may be red, but they will be flying (grin).This is far more a comment on the idea that corporate thinks they are above the law, above the Constitution.I stated, in 1980'something (before I even graduated) that "trickle down economics" was bullcrap, that corporations would become our factual government, and that it was NOT A GOOD THING. There are ZERO checks and balances on big business, because they will become the ones that write the laws. Not the people.I have been proven correct.
LikeLike
BWT, 5 beers, 2.5 sheets to the wind. One more beer to go…If you ever wanted the truth of what I think…Now is the time to ask….I will so pay for this shortly…Y'all won't hold this against me, will you????
LikeLike
What? No one dares argue against me?QB?Kevin?Anybody?Is there anybody out there? (never listen to Pink Floyd).
LikeLike
Mmmm, no, not a lot of interest in arguing with a drunk lady, taroya. : ) But employer drug testing has zero to do with the Constitution. Re the X Factor, that show was such a joke. The best pure voice was the gal who won, but the best talents were Josh K and Drew whatever her name was, who was booted several weeks back, and it wasn't close. The idiot judges kicked out most of the better singers way back at the beginning, and three of them (those not Simon) kept a couple of complete no-talents in it to near the end. When they booted Drew over some phony R&B kid who couldn't hold a tune to save his life, we just laughed our heads off. Of all the contestants, Drew is likeliest to be a star, and Josh will be some kind of star although perhaps more of a niche star.The other really cool performer was an guy was 59 or 60, but you'd sear he was 45. Leroy was his name, I think. Those judges were complete frauds, outside of Simon Cowell.
LikeLike
Btw, Josh's original audition was even more spellbinding than that final version of At Last.
LikeLike
Zero to do with the Constitution? I majorly disagree!It is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment!Whose business is it, really, if I choose to smoke pot, or drink to excess, in the evenings, so long as it does not impinge upon my peformance in the workplace? (or so long as I don't have automobile accidents, were that my job?)If I call in sick, consistently, well, that doesn't even have a bearing. What if it was cancer? All of a sudden, the thinking changes."OMG, she has cancer. Should we mention it? Should we fire her? She can't maintain her quota.." "Oh, but we can't do that, that would be discrimination… Cancer wasn't her fault" (we will disregard the reality of cancer victim guilt, which is quite real, but tied with cigarette smoking).I think that it is a debatable concept… the same as say…torture of supposed terrorists? (tongue in cheek).
LikeLike
Alcohol. Terrible stuff.It is everyone's business should I choose to smoke pot. NOT if I drink to excess in the evening.That could be a debate by itself, but not the focus that I was looking for.
LikeLike
It is a direct violation of the 4thAmendment!The 4th Am (and the rest of the B of A) applies to the government, not private actors. End of story.It is everyone's business should I choose to smoke pot. NOT if I drink to excess in the evening.I haven't seen anyone make it their business, but you brought it up, not anyone else. I just said I am not interested in arguing with a drunk lady.
LikeLike
QB and Scott:The 4th amendment doesn't just "apply to government".It applies to each and every one of us. Hundreds of thousands died for that 4th Amendment.They did not fight and die for corporate rights.That is more than worthy for debate.
LikeLike
I don't really know why I am bothering, but, okay, you nailed me on loose wording.The restrictions imposed by the 4th Am and the rest of the B of R apply only to government and not private parties. Please just accept that this is bedrock constitutional law that no one anywhere on the political spectrum disputes. If you want to learn about it, you can probably start by googling "state action." I.e., the B of A only restricts state action.
LikeLike
I would say that if your buddies jumped off of a 500 foot cliff, would you do it because they did? Is it right?The 4th Amendment was written because the King George and friends could, and did, invade your home because they darn well felt like it. They did search, and they did seize, for no other reason than that they could, and they could even profit by it.Therefore, law enforcement cannot just waltz into your house, or search your person without a warrant, which, before the Patriot Act, could not be obtained without probable cause. Now, if an officer smelled pot outside your door, that could, and was, construed as probable cause.But you are trying to tell me that corporations are above the law. Since they now write them, you are right. They are. That doesn't make the action morally or ethically correct.
LikeLike
Let me just leave you with this suggestion about your situation.If this prospective employer is violating the Constitution by drug testing applicants and employees, then you will easily find an aggressive lawyer to sue them on your behalf and that of all other employees and applicants. Seriously. There are thousands of lawyers out there just dying to find cases like that. It won't cost you anything, because they will take your case on contingency, and you could get a lot of money for these gross violations of the 4th Amendment.First thing next week, make a couple of calls. If you are right, you'll do great. If not, don't say I didn't try to tell you.
LikeLike
I understand that you have an opinion. Is that not why we are here?I also see that you can't debate this. Or maybe you just think it isn't something to be debated. And yet, it is worthy to debate say, Wall Street regulation (or lack thereof), or the viability of torture?Why aren't you calling up congresspeople and asking them why they can't pass a budget? Surely there are many thousands of people that are just dying to know.But again, isn't that WHY YOU ARE HERE?What is the difference?
LikeLike
I have no idea what you are trying to get at now.It isn't my opinion that the 4th Am doesn't restrict a private employer's requirement for drug testing. That is as basic and undisputed a proposition of constitutional theory and structure as the propostion that the document begins with "We the people."To say that I can't "debate" this is like saying that I can't debate that white isn't black or up isn't down. But feel free, if you have any way to make the argument, to show us how the 4th prohibits your employer from drug testing. Is there some Supreme Court case that supports this? You've been beating this dead horse for a time now, but you've offered nary a shred of support for your position.
LikeLike
Okay. What do call pre-employment drug testing?Shouldn't that be reserved to law enforcement, as set out in the 4th?That is my stance.It is also my stance that corporations have taken far too much upon themselves. The global meltdown is the result of it.I also believe that we no longer have a government of the people by the people. It is a plutocracy.
LikeLike
Taroya:What do call pre-employment drug testing?A condition of employment, like being able to read, or having a college degree, or providing your social security number.
LikeLike
That isn't set out in the 4th. That's the whole point. Please go read it, and read basic constitutional law about the state action doctrine. The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to state governments until SCOTUS decided to start "incorporating" it into the 14th, and yet SCOTUS still holds to this day that, not only don't any of those restrictions apply to private actors, but Congress doesn't even have power to enforce them against private actors.Did you know that? This is why Congress and the Court decided to drive a Mack truck throught the Commerce Clause as a way to pass all the laws they wanted regulating private actors.I'm sorry, but what you are saying is like trying to tell a math prof that 1+1=7.5. I have no more time for this. It's a ridiculous argument. The ACLU doesn't like employer drug teting. They don't try to argue that it is unconstitutional, but go consult with them if you feel so strongly about it.
LikeLike