[hana-flv-player
video="http://whatsnew-dc.com/wp-content/plugins/hana-flv-player/Grandparents25thAnniversary.f4v"
width="400"
height="320"
description="Celebration of my grandparents 25th anniversary"
clickurl="http://whatsnew-dc.com/"
clicktarget="_blank"
player="4"
autoplay="false"
loop="false"
autorewind="true"
splashimage="" /]
Saturday, July 14, 2012
My Grandparents 25th Anniversary
This won't play for the public because of the copyrighted music. That's why it's here:
Monday, February 20, 2012
Happy Prez Day!
I stole the title and the subject from Mark Meyer's indispensable Jazz Wax blog. If you're a fan of jazz, there is no better place to hang out. Today Mark pays tribute to Lester Young ('The Prez') by embedding this fabulous short film from 1944 featuring Lester, called Jammin' The Blues. It is hot, steamy, and scabrous. Midway through the second number you understand fully why much of white America found this music threatening.
[youtube]2v_Y3Pbiims[/youtube]
[youtube]2v_Y3Pbiims[/youtube]
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Will 2012 Be Like 1980?
A friend sent me this Ed Morrisey column from Hot Air which argues that it is far to early in the election cycle for doom and gloom to set in among GOP voters:
My friend sent the column because he is well aware of my own opinion regarding the November election: it is likely that Barack Obama will be reelected. He argues that with so many obstacles to overcome and with high gas prices, continued poor economic performance, and the many possible external problems that could make things worse (an Isreali attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, a European collapse over the Greek debt crisis, etc.) it is unlikely Obama will be reelected. Thus he is gladdend by Morrisey's citing of a poll showing how far underwater Obama is (42% approval, 47% disapproval) in a Democratic-friendly state like Washington:
I agree these numbers look good for the GOP. How can Obama win the swing states (Florida, North Carolina, Virgina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada) he needs to be reelected when he is struggling in friendly states like Washington?
Here is how (my emailed response to my friend follows, slightly amended):
I disagree that this is like any other cycle with an open primary. This is not 1980. In 1980 Carter was weakened by a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy. Also, the parties are much more polarized now than they were then. The Jay Cost column I sent you yesterday shows how the party-gap has widened:
There is simply a smaller group to sway now than 30 years ago. In 1980 there was a large group of people called "Reagan Democrats" who had voted for Carter in 1976 but switched to Reagan in 1980. Such a species may still exist but in far fewer numbers. Also, in 1980, the GOP nominee was Ronald Reagan. In 2012 it will be Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. Morrisey mentions the misgivings GOP voters had about Reagan early in the 1980 election cycle, and he's right. But Reagan was able to turn those misgivings around during the general election through his genial personality and his ability to communicate his vision. Who among us thinks Romney or Santorum can do the same thing? If either has the ability to do so, I hope they unvail it soon because they haven't so far.
Morrisey ends the column by saying "Republicans need to have more faith in their agenda." What agenda does he mean? Which of the two possible nominees is articulating a clear agenda right now, one that tells the American people how they differ from Obama and what their plan is to improve the economy and our standing in the world? Mitt Romney's 59 point plan? The first two items are:
Wow, that's got me excited. Have either of these guys given anyone a reason to vote for them? Or are we just relying on the anti-Obama vote? I love the poll numbers Morrisey cites. They show that with the right candidate we could win going away. But with Romney or Santorum we risk losing because they may not be able to sway the much smaller middle, which is no longer made up of Reagan Democrats but the kind of people who thought it would be cool to vote for Barack Obama in 2008. If Obama loses it won't be because the Romney or Santorum has given the American people a reason to vote for them but because they have rejected Obama. That may be enough but I am not very confident it will be.
....my perception is that this is no different than any other cycle with an open primary — no different than, say, 1980 — when Democrats had a weak incumbent and the GOP had several candidates with all sorts of perceived weaknesses in the running, including Ronald Reagan, who was considered early in the cycle to be too conservative (and too old) to appeal to a broad enough swath of voters to prevent a second Jimmy Carter term.
My friend sent the column because he is well aware of my own opinion regarding the November election: it is likely that Barack Obama will be reelected. He argues that with so many obstacles to overcome and with high gas prices, continued poor economic performance, and the many possible external problems that could make things worse (an Isreali attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, a European collapse over the Greek debt crisis, etc.) it is unlikely Obama will be reelected. Thus he is gladdend by Morrisey's citing of a poll showing how far underwater Obama is (42% approval, 47% disapproval) in a Democratic-friendly state like Washington:
Why is this important? Obama won the state of Washington by seventeen points in 2008, and it is a bastion of Democratic strength and enthusiasm....if Obama is at a -19 on the economy, a -20 on health care, and a -26 on the deficit in such a safe Democratic state like Washington, how well do people think he’s playing in swing states in the Rust Belt and the Midwest, where Republicans are more competitive?
I agree these numbers look good for the GOP. How can Obama win the swing states (Florida, North Carolina, Virgina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada) he needs to be reelected when he is struggling in friendly states like Washington?
Here is how (my emailed response to my friend follows, slightly amended):
I disagree that this is like any other cycle with an open primary. This is not 1980. In 1980 Carter was weakened by a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy. Also, the parties are much more polarized now than they were then. The Jay Cost column I sent you yesterday shows how the party-gap has widened:
Obama won 89 percent of Democrats and 9 percent of Republicans in 2008, for a party gap of 80 points; the party gap for Bush in 2004 was 82 points. This is a stark shift from relatively recent political history. Richard Nixon’s party gap in 1972 was 54 points; Jimmy Carter’s in 1976 was 69 points; Ronald Reagan’s in 1984 was 67 points; and even Bill Clinton’s in 1996 was 71 points.
There is simply a smaller group to sway now than 30 years ago. In 1980 there was a large group of people called "Reagan Democrats" who had voted for Carter in 1976 but switched to Reagan in 1980. Such a species may still exist but in far fewer numbers. Also, in 1980, the GOP nominee was Ronald Reagan. In 2012 it will be Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum. Morrisey mentions the misgivings GOP voters had about Reagan early in the 1980 election cycle, and he's right. But Reagan was able to turn those misgivings around during the general election through his genial personality and his ability to communicate his vision. Who among us thinks Romney or Santorum can do the same thing? If either has the ability to do so, I hope they unvail it soon because they haven't so far.
Morrisey ends the column by saying "Republicans need to have more faith in their agenda." What agenda does he mean? Which of the two possible nominees is articulating a clear agenda right now, one that tells the American people how they differ from Obama and what their plan is to improve the economy and our standing in the world? Mitt Romney's 59 point plan? The first two items are:
- Maintain current tax rates on personal income.
- Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gain.
Wow, that's got me excited. Have either of these guys given anyone a reason to vote for them? Or are we just relying on the anti-Obama vote? I love the poll numbers Morrisey cites. They show that with the right candidate we could win going away. But with Romney or Santorum we risk losing because they may not be able to sway the much smaller middle, which is no longer made up of Reagan Democrats but the kind of people who thought it would be cool to vote for Barack Obama in 2008. If Obama loses it won't be because the Romney or Santorum has given the American people a reason to vote for them but because they have rejected Obama. That may be enough but I am not very confident it will be.
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Late Quartets
I don't blog much anymore and I'm not sure that is going to change, at leasy anytime soon. I still have the inclination; the problem is I just don't have the time. The older I get the more I get the feeling that time is running out and there are a million things I still need to know, still want to learn. And, of course, the more you know the more you realize how much there is you don't know, so things keep piling up. So I spend my time doing that instead of this. Even now, I've got two books right next to me that I'm in the middle of; three movies out from Netflix I want to watch, with dozens more in my instant queue and three additional I've DVR'd; plus, my wife and I are in the middle of an art course from The Great Courses, and I could be boning up on that. There are podcasts to listen to, television shows to watch (this is the best show on TV right now.) I'd like to put together another 8tracks mix today, something I enjoy. It's fun putting songs together in a way that makes sense and satisfying when others listen them and like, comment, and follow. I feel like I help fill a niche over there with my classical, jazz, and songbook mixes, something different from the thousands of modern pop mixes that dominate the site. Anyhow, I've always got something to do and not enough time to do it.
My musical obsession right now are Beethoven's late string quartets, which I've been listening to pretty much daily for a couple of months. I know lots of Beethoven from the middle period but I'd put off learning the late quartets - I was a little scared of them, given their reputation as innovative and difficult. Now I wish I hadn't waited so long, as they are so....what? How does one describe these transcendent masterpieces? Normal superlatives won't do. They are unearthly, heavenly in the most literal meaning of the word, in that they seem inspired by God. They invoke in the listener (this one anyway) a profound peace, a perfect joy, a quiet reconcilliation. And yet they are full of drama and energy. They soar and soothe at the same time. I never feel closer to God than when listening to Bach, but most of Bach's work was explicitly religous, joyful offerings to his God. The late quartets of Beethoven are secular music and offer something slightly different: a coming to terms, a reconcilliation with his God. The late quartets were the last music Beethoven wrote before his death and by then his deafness was near total. That he gave us these quartets, music of such depth and beauty, gives one hope they reflect not just a musical solace, but a personal one, a respite from the torment, at last. Franz Schubert, who would follow Beethoven to the grave within a year, asked that the C Sharp Minor quartet, Opus 131, be played as he slipped away. I can think of no more appropriate music to be playing as The Distinguished Thing nears than the late quartets, as they seem to occupy a realm somewhere between earth and heaven.
The Cavatina from the B Flat Quartet, Opus 130, played by The Guaneri Quartet:
[youtube]oO1ianfHOyk[/youtube]
My musical obsession right now are Beethoven's late string quartets, which I've been listening to pretty much daily for a couple of months. I know lots of Beethoven from the middle period but I'd put off learning the late quartets - I was a little scared of them, given their reputation as innovative and difficult. Now I wish I hadn't waited so long, as they are so....what? How does one describe these transcendent masterpieces? Normal superlatives won't do. They are unearthly, heavenly in the most literal meaning of the word, in that they seem inspired by God. They invoke in the listener (this one anyway) a profound peace, a perfect joy, a quiet reconcilliation. And yet they are full of drama and energy. They soar and soothe at the same time. I never feel closer to God than when listening to Bach, but most of Bach's work was explicitly religous, joyful offerings to his God. The late quartets of Beethoven are secular music and offer something slightly different: a coming to terms, a reconcilliation with his God. The late quartets were the last music Beethoven wrote before his death and by then his deafness was near total. That he gave us these quartets, music of such depth and beauty, gives one hope they reflect not just a musical solace, but a personal one, a respite from the torment, at last. Franz Schubert, who would follow Beethoven to the grave within a year, asked that the C Sharp Minor quartet, Opus 131, be played as he slipped away. I can think of no more appropriate music to be playing as The Distinguished Thing nears than the late quartets, as they seem to occupy a realm somewhere between earth and heaven.
The Cavatina from the B Flat Quartet, Opus 130, played by The Guaneri Quartet:
[youtube]oO1ianfHOyk[/youtube]
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Too Marvelous For Words - The Songs of Johnny Mercer
Readers of this blog are familiar with my love for Johnny Mercer's music. He is the greatest lyricist America has ever produced. My latest 8tracks mix is dedicated to him:
Friday, January 27, 2012
Is This The End Of Newt?
Last night's debate in Jacksonville may mark the end of Newt Gingrich's chance at the GOP nomination. Mitt Romney beat him, hands down. Romney himself took a very large (and well-deserved) shot from Rick Santorum on RomneyCare but other than that Romney was impressive - as confident and self-assured as I've ever seen him - and Newt wasn't. Newt was already fading in the pre-debate Florida polls and I expect him to fade further after such a lousy debate performance. I would not be surprised if Romney defeated Newt in Florida by at least as much as Newt defeated Romney is South Carolina. Newt has already come back from the dead twice. I don't expect it will happen a third time. He is genuinely angry at Romney's negative, and mostly true, advertising and it's not bringing out the best in him. Perhaps it's just me but I don't think he wears well. What seemed like riteous indignation in earlier debates now seems like arrogance and prickliness. His schtick is pretty well known now and the more we get to know him the less impressive he seems. And that makes sense - the people who know him best all seem to despise him.
So is Romney the nominee? Probably, though that is still not certain. Santorum was great last night, his best debate by far. He has far more substance than Romney or Gingrich and, perhaps more importantly, he delivered his message without the whininess we've come to expect from him. When he got angry is wasn't petulant. He, rather than Newt, was the righteously angry one, especially when he nailed Romney on RomneyCare. He seemed confident and (almost) presidential. While I despise his brand of "compassionate conservatism" and don't think he'll do what is necessary regarding the debt (massive and comprehensive entitlement reform, ) I do think he'd be at least as fiscally responsible as Romney or Gingrich.
Can any of these guys beat Obama? That is far from clear. I have never bought into the notion that we need to select Romney as the nominee because he's the most "electable." Where is the evidence for that? The guy has won one election in his life. He won a couple of primaries in 2008 and one of three in 2012 against a very weak field. So the electability case does not lie with Mitt's proven ability to win elections. Apparently it's that Romney is non-threatening to the independents who will decide this race. Perhaps, but it is far from certain he can swing enough of them to his side against Obama in the general. He has the image of a hollow man with no fixed beliefs other than that he should be the president (I stole that description from this great Mark Steyn post over at The Corner.) As Santorum stated so well last night, if Romney is the nominee the issue of ObamaCare is largely moot in the general. Romney also had a great opportunity to make a case for capitalism when his career at Bain Capital became an issue but he has largely blown that. If he is unable to make the capitalist case in the general and is unable to change the "hollow man" impression, how will he win against a well-funded incumbent? So far Romney has not shown me that he can win but his performance last night - minus the Santorum delivered RomneyCare episode - gives one hope.
Newt would get slaughtered by Obama in the general. The idea that Newt should be the nominee because he could win a debate against Obama is nonsense - the debates in the general matter little (except perhaps Reagan's first debate against Carter when he delivered the "there you go again" line.) Last night showed how easy it would be to put Newt on the defensive during a debate. And with expectations so high that Newt would thump Obama in debate, all Obama would have to do is fairly well to defeat those expectations. I expect a Newt/Obama debate would help Obama and possibly do Newt great harm.
Another point on Newt as the nominee. My buddy Mike and I have paid close attention to Obama's approval ratings for a year now, figuring anyone with an approval of only 43-44% cannot win the general election. We failed to take into account the approval rating of his opponent. Newt's approval ratings are much lower than Obama's, I think around 30%. No candidate can win with approvals that low. So let's forget about Newt Gingrich as our nominee right now.
Santorum? I don't think so. Last night was the first time he has seemed even semi-presidential. Usually he seems a bit sheepish and schoolboy-ish, the kind of schoolboy who runs to the teacher to tell on you. That may be unfair but that's always been my impression of him. Even if he can gain confidence and start appealing to people as a man of substance, he'd have trouble in the general. While he speaks thoughtfully and forcefully on the issue of faith, which appeals to many on the right including myself, the Obama folks and the mainstream media (that's a redundancy, I know) would paint him in the general as a Christian wacko who hates gays, will take away your contraception and your right to abortion, and will force prayer in schools. That he is only arguing that faith is a cornerstone of our laws and traditions and should not be barred from the public square will not matter.
So here we are, at a moment of national crisis, stuck with three candidates who all seem like losers. Re-reading what I wrote above, I guess Romney is the best choice. So I guess I'll bite down hard on the bullet and support him. Why? Defeating Obama in November is imperative. But so is keeping the House and possibly gaining the Senate. Romney seems like the guy least likely to damage to the bottom of the ticket. If Obama does win, we need a Congress that will keep him in line. And if Romney somehow pulls it out, he'll have something to work with.
So is Romney the nominee? Probably, though that is still not certain. Santorum was great last night, his best debate by far. He has far more substance than Romney or Gingrich and, perhaps more importantly, he delivered his message without the whininess we've come to expect from him. When he got angry is wasn't petulant. He, rather than Newt, was the righteously angry one, especially when he nailed Romney on RomneyCare. He seemed confident and (almost) presidential. While I despise his brand of "compassionate conservatism" and don't think he'll do what is necessary regarding the debt (massive and comprehensive entitlement reform, ) I do think he'd be at least as fiscally responsible as Romney or Gingrich.
Can any of these guys beat Obama? That is far from clear. I have never bought into the notion that we need to select Romney as the nominee because he's the most "electable." Where is the evidence for that? The guy has won one election in his life. He won a couple of primaries in 2008 and one of three in 2012 against a very weak field. So the electability case does not lie with Mitt's proven ability to win elections. Apparently it's that Romney is non-threatening to the independents who will decide this race. Perhaps, but it is far from certain he can swing enough of them to his side against Obama in the general. He has the image of a hollow man with no fixed beliefs other than that he should be the president (I stole that description from this great Mark Steyn post over at The Corner.) As Santorum stated so well last night, if Romney is the nominee the issue of ObamaCare is largely moot in the general. Romney also had a great opportunity to make a case for capitalism when his career at Bain Capital became an issue but he has largely blown that. If he is unable to make the capitalist case in the general and is unable to change the "hollow man" impression, how will he win against a well-funded incumbent? So far Romney has not shown me that he can win but his performance last night - minus the Santorum delivered RomneyCare episode - gives one hope.
Newt would get slaughtered by Obama in the general. The idea that Newt should be the nominee because he could win a debate against Obama is nonsense - the debates in the general matter little (except perhaps Reagan's first debate against Carter when he delivered the "there you go again" line.) Last night showed how easy it would be to put Newt on the defensive during a debate. And with expectations so high that Newt would thump Obama in debate, all Obama would have to do is fairly well to defeat those expectations. I expect a Newt/Obama debate would help Obama and possibly do Newt great harm.
Another point on Newt as the nominee. My buddy Mike and I have paid close attention to Obama's approval ratings for a year now, figuring anyone with an approval of only 43-44% cannot win the general election. We failed to take into account the approval rating of his opponent. Newt's approval ratings are much lower than Obama's, I think around 30%. No candidate can win with approvals that low. So let's forget about Newt Gingrich as our nominee right now.
Santorum? I don't think so. Last night was the first time he has seemed even semi-presidential. Usually he seems a bit sheepish and schoolboy-ish, the kind of schoolboy who runs to the teacher to tell on you. That may be unfair but that's always been my impression of him. Even if he can gain confidence and start appealing to people as a man of substance, he'd have trouble in the general. While he speaks thoughtfully and forcefully on the issue of faith, which appeals to many on the right including myself, the Obama folks and the mainstream media (that's a redundancy, I know) would paint him in the general as a Christian wacko who hates gays, will take away your contraception and your right to abortion, and will force prayer in schools. That he is only arguing that faith is a cornerstone of our laws and traditions and should not be barred from the public square will not matter.
So here we are, at a moment of national crisis, stuck with three candidates who all seem like losers. Re-reading what I wrote above, I guess Romney is the best choice. So I guess I'll bite down hard on the bullet and support him. Why? Defeating Obama in November is imperative. But so is keeping the House and possibly gaining the Senate. Romney seems like the guy least likely to damage to the bottom of the ticket. If Obama does win, we need a Congress that will keep him in line. And if Romney somehow pulls it out, he'll have something to work with.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Billy and Joanne
I think that was her name. Anyhow, attempting to post an FLV file on my blog with this new plugin:
[hana-flv-player
video="http://whatsnew-dc.com/wp-content/plugins/hana-flv-player/BillyandJoanne.flv"
width="400"
height="320"
description="Some celebration with Billy and his first wife"
clickurl="http://whatsnew-dc.com/"
clicktarget="_blank"
player="4"
autoplay="false"
loop="false"
autorewind="true"
splashimage="" /]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)