Today I have for you a link to a special that was aired on Frontline in March. I watched it the other night and thought I would bring it to your attention. It is 54 minutes in length, but is worth watching, if you haven't done so already.
Marcus: "I read that the European Song Contest will air in the US this year. It's held in Stockholm this year and I remember PeteS commenting on it in the past."
Also airing in China, apparently. And Australia is participating for the first time. (Unlike Ireland, they got through last night's semi-finals). Speaking of which, Marcus, I wouldn't have known Sweden had a great sense of humour, but the performance of Måns Zelmerlöw and Petra Mede at the start of last night's show was nothing short of masterful ... and hilarious. It's still normal for the host nation to treat the competition seriously, even though nobody else has for years. Zelmerlöw and Mede managed to lampoon every aspect of the modern Eurovision (from Riverdance to gay-fest), in an act that looked like it was straight out of a Mel Brooks movie, while their listing of European languages reminded me of Tom Lehrer's Elements song. Sheer genius ...
Airing live at 3pm EST on Viacom's Logo channel ("the United States’ lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) cable network, is available in nearly 50 million homes"). How depressing! I presume the 200 million ESC viewers are not all gay, but you'd never guess it from the way it's promoted nowadays. It's streamed on the Internet too.
Pete: "Speaking of which, Marcus, I wouldn't have known Sweden had a great sense of humour, but the performance of Måns Zelmerlöw and Petra Mede at the start of last night's show was nothing short of masterful ... and hilarious."
I didn't watch it but I agree it was a really good opening piece.Kinda makes me wonder what they have saved for the finals tonight if they went with that before the semi finals.
Just watched the Saudi documentary. Begs the question: when are ya'll 'mericans gonna stop being the watchdog and armer for that vile regime? I mean we all know you've played that part for half a century, but when do you reckon enough is enough?
Pete: "I wouldn't have known Sweden had a great sense of humour,"
We do have that though. We just don't show it very often. It usually takes a concerted effort like a planned event like the Eurovison, or in other more spontaneous cases - Vodka.
You seem to have not been paying attention lately. as it certainly appears that Obama has reckoned it to be quite enough already, although Hillary seems to have a lot of old-school interventionist tendencies that the Saudi might prefer, so there may be some backsliding there come next administration.
Hmmm...well, it looks like that Eurovision Live thing is a no go. I don't have that cable channel and the live streaming through Eurovision TV or YouTube tells me it's not available in my region or country. I guess I'll just have to settle for the highlights after the fact.
when are ya'll 'mericans gonna stop being the watchdog and armer for that vile regime?
I suspect that many Americans would agree with you on this point, Marcus. That's probably one of the reasons the Saudis are a little nervous about their security.
Ukraine won the Eurovision final. Australia came in second and Russia third. I listened to all their performances in the semi-finals and Jamala's winning performance. I think I would agree with how the voting went. Both the first and second place finishers have stronger voices than the Russian. But the content of her song and the passion exhibited by Jamala in her performance deserve the first place finish.
[Lynnette]: " I think I would agree with how the voting went."
You may not have seen the voting detail. Up until 1998 voting was done by national juries of a few handpicked "music experts". From 1998 to 2008 it was done by popular vote -- the attraction of revenue for the organisers from telephone voting being too tantalising to refuse. The result was that the results became completely dominated by political allegiances and bloc voting. Germany with its large Turkish community would always vote for Turkey, Balkan countries voted for each other and for Russia, etc. etc. Since 2009 the vote has been split 50/50 between a jury and televoters.
Last night, the jury vote put Ukraine in second place, but Australia was out front by hundreds of points, making them seemingly unstoppable. Russia was well down in the bottom half of the running. The popular vote then lifted Russia to third place, and Ukraine to the winning spot.
The vote was completely political. Social media and online newspaper comments are divided between accusing Ukraine of entering a "Nazi song", versus sticking it up to Putin. Quite interesting what 200 million people will do when subjected to mostly banal musical fluff ;-)
Quite interesting what 200 million people will do when subjected to mostly banal musical fluff ;-)
Ahhh...but that's just it. I tend to agree that the Australian singer had a deeper, perhaps richer, voice than Jamala, but it was the content of her song that placed her second in my book. Granted, Jamala may have overacted a bit, but at least her song came from a place in the heart that seemed real. The others seemed far more contrived and, as you said, banal.
As for "Nazi song", that's just a load of b.s. fed to the uninformed by some would say, Russian propagandists. While the title "1944" referred to a past event it could apply to any number of events that have happened in the history of the world where you had people removed from their homes by force. That Russia should today be so sensitive may speak more to their understanding of how many in the world perceive their actions today. If the vote was political it was at least honest in people's views.
Btw, you kind of got the same results with "Dancing with the Stars" ( a show I don't watch anymore). You had the judges scores combined with call in voters. What you found was that, yes, people tended to vote for a popular figure, whether or not he/she was really good. So you ended up with some really inept people staying in the contest longer than they should have.
That made me want to look up the 1984 winner. Somehow I don't think they could have imagined back then how their song would be used in 2016. And somehow I'm thinking Daesh wouldn't be pleased either. But perhaps that's the point?
Lynnette, wonder if you've seen this rather lovely arrangement of Prince's "Nothing Compares 2 U", re-recorded in Minneapolis last month by the group for whom he originally wrote it. The late Clare Fischer (new to me) who arranged the strings is an interesting character in his own right. The strings remind me of Appalachian Spring, especially that "Copland chord" clearly heard at the end of the Prince piece.
Pete: "From 1998 to 2008 it was done by popular vote -- the attraction of revenue for the organisers from telephone voting being too tantalising to refuse. The result was that the results became completely dominated by political allegiances and bloc voting."
The politics in Eurovision isn't a result of the popular voting. In fact the jury groups are way, way worse at that.
Examples from this year:
1. The jury in Lithuania ranked (favourite) Russia in place 25 out of 25. Dead last. The people in Lithuania had it a #3. Who are more political?
2. The jury in Russia had (kinda favourite) Ukraine at place 24 out of 25. The people in Russia had it at #2. Who are more political?
And of course you have the swedish jury group who aren't that political but just mainstream corrupt. They had lousy Azerbajdzjan at 10 points and Malta at 7 points. Funny that the artists in the jury group work for the same label that produced the Azerbajdzjan and Maltese songs and shows. They voted for their collegues.
No toss out the corrupt jury groups and give the voting power to the people. If the Russian people can award Ukraine the second place even with all the conflict between the countries it's proof the people are better at leaving politics out of it than the corrupt jury groups. Be they "experts" or not.
Lynnette, wonder if you've seen this rather lovely arrangement of Prince's "Nothing Compares 2 U",...
No, I hadn't seen, or heard, that. It was lovely and very moving. Thank you for posting it.
It's strange, I was just talking to a co-worker, whose mother passed away not too long ago, about her mother's house and having to clear out the things she had left. Many of the things left are things that none of the family wanted, so they are having a company come in and clear out everything. It struck me as rather sad that the postscript of people's lives seems to be this clearing out of material possessions. It's as if that is all a life means for some. In the case of Prince he has left a legacy, not just of beautifully creative music, but of the respect and admiration of people whose lives he touched. While he died young he did really live.
I listened to the first couple minutes of the second link, "Appalachian Spring". It's longer, so I will have to listen later when I have more time.
I listened to "Appalachian Spring" last night and enjoyed it. It did remind me of spring, the beginning a slow awakening, the middle a gradual growth and the end a burst of color with the resurgence of life. It was relaxing.
An article in my paper about one city in Minnesota just about sums up many people's feelings about this election. The last comment was particularly accurate.
(You might have to click through a couple of ad screens.)
Lee: "Cruz isn't either, although it's not because he has character, but rather because he wants to run again in 2020 after Trump crashes and burns."
Do you think he has the idea that he would have gotten to be the GOP candidate if not for Trump AND that he would have had a decent chance to win the presidency?
I can think of several issues I would have with such an idea. First, even though he was the "last man standing" against Trump it might well have been that he only got there because Trump finished off several other contestors. And Cruz might not have won the primaries even without Trump in the race. Second I think Cruz might (probably would) have had an even lesser chance in the general election than Trump now has.
I wouldn't bet on Trump against Hillary today. But if I had to bet on either Trump or Cruz in a contest against Hillary I would rather bet on Trump.
A summary from a journalist who followed the Trump campaign for a long time, not from the beginning but from early on. Interesting, I thought, even if it didn't really revealed anything new.
You're right, Marcus, that was long, but interesting. It just reinforced my view of Trump as not being a good fit for President of the United States, though. It makes me depressed that he is actually polling slightly ahead of Hillary for the general election at this time.
Since the topic of this Blog post relates to Saudi Arabia I think this is very relevant (I would have posted it anyway but now I have even more reason to do so):
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36316117
I think I have said before that I long for the time when the USA takes its hand off the princes in Riyadh. Sooner or later it's bound to happen and the princes who thought their "security" was guaranteed will, like Saddam did, find out it was not really so.
This could be a first shot across the bow even if nothing more. But sooner or later I expect the US to attempt "regime change" in the KSA. Most likely in my lifetime so I will get to see it too.
An Egyptian plane went missing. It seems to have went down over water on its way from Paris to Cairo and the speculation is that it was a bomb. The timing would certainly lend itself to thinking it was some kind of attack, given that finding information in that situation is more difficult.
But sooner or later I expect the US to attempt "regime change" in the KSA.
I rather doubt that. While I think the article you linked to, regarding the bill proposed to allow US citizens to sue officials in KSA with respect to 9/11, is certainly a sign of frayed connections between the two countries I don't think we will be involving ourselves anytime soon in another Middle Eastern country to attempt regime change. Certainly not one who has, at least on the surface, been an ally with regards to other issues.
The Obama administration does have a certain point about diplomatic immunity being at risk if this law is passed, though. It will leave us open to the same types of treatment. That is something to at least give passing thought to, although I do understand people's anger and frustration with the thought that there might have been those in KSA who supported the 9/11 attacks, or even helped fund them.
I am not sure what actual proof there is to support that contention, other than one man's word. It may be difficult to prove in a court of law.
He does seem to be steam rolling over quite a bit of the opposition. But there is a long time until November and Teflon Trump may tarnish. At least that is my hope. Hillary may not be perfect, but Trump does not have the knowledge, experience, or temperament to make a good President. Not in my opinion.
That so many Americans are pissed off enough to consider him should be a sign to people in government today that they need to start buckling down and working together to make some changes that will positively move our economy and country forward (not backward). IMHO the income gap between the wealthy and the lower income tier of society needs to be decreased not increased. That is a huge factor in the discontent we are seeing today. A vibrant middle class helps stabilize a country.
"I am not sure what actual proof there is to support that contention, other than one man's word."
The 9/11 Commission went on to investigate those preliminary charges and found them to be unsupported by evidence (doesn't mean it wasn't true, just wasn't any proof and damn little circumstantial evidence). However that investigation came later and it's conclusions are not included in the 28 pages of unsupported charges that the right-wing crazies want publicized.
Rubio wants to run again, which is why he never came out and endorsed Cruz against Trump. He figures to run against Cruz again in the future, and wasn't gonna give Cruz that little prize to use against him.
(doesn't mean it wasn't true, just wasn't any proof and damn little circumstantial evidence).
That's just it. With all the gnashing of teeth and panic going on about that bill you would think that was the most critical issue to a successful lawsuit. But there still has to be actual evidence of wrongdoing by those accused. The families of the people killed on 9/11 who want to go forward with this could just be going through the pain of resurrecting what they went through for nothing.
I suspect that in the end justice will be served, with or without a lawsuit.
He figures to run against Cruz again in the future, and wasn't gonna give Cruz that little prize to use against him.
Rubio did quite well here in Minnesota. He might not be that far off the mark in thinking to run again. He just needs a little more seasoning. And, God forbid we get another dose of Ted Cruz!
Yes. Writing here is kind of like writing your feelings on a piece of paper, putting them in a bottle, and throwing it out into the ocean. Kind of cathartic, I guess.
I see Zeyad has been kind of quiet lately. I certainly hope he wasn't serious about visiting Iraq.
Politico.com has an analysis of the recent Trump ‘surge’ vis-à-vis Hillary Clinton. Short version--Trump is picking up traditional Republican voters by (somehow) getting them to start agreeing among themselves that Trump isn't really as nuts as he seems. Meanwhile traditional Democratic voters are in the ‘why not Bernie’ stage. None of this is surprising. And it don't improve Trump's chances in the fall. The Republicans were always gonna figure out a way to keep hating Hillary. But, a lot of those who supposedly ‘support’ Trump when a pollster asks aren't gonna be enthused enough to actually go out and vote for him come November. And, the Democrats are gonna fall in line behind Hillary just to stop Trump (Bernie longing be damned.)
Trump's gotta get the independents; just like it always was, and it ain't gonna happen. Odds still 70-30 Hillary's favor.
Trump's best day will come before Hillary gets the nomination, which will happen at the convention if Bernie pushes it that far. It's all downhill for Trump from there.
Right now the media has been focusing intensely on Trump and the Republican party and whether or not the leadership will get behind him. I don't think that when it comes to the rest of the electorate that they have given much consideration to how Trump's behavior plays.
Independents, or swing voters, may play a crucial role in who becomes President. What is rather interesting is that Trump is apparently going to try to focus on traditionally Democratic states, such as Minnesota, that have been hard for Republicans to win.
Lee: "Trump's best day will come before Hillary gets the nomination, which will happen at the convention if Bernie pushes it that far. It's all downhill for Trump from there."
OK, I guess that might be the case. I'm not convinced but I confesss you're more tuned in than I am, so it might well be so.
I still see the trajectory favouring Trump at ths point. But you have mentioned something (Bernie withdrawing) that could change the trajectory. We'll see, I guess, what real impact that will have.
Lynnette: "Independents, or swing voters, may play a crucial role in who becomes President. What is rather interesting is that Trump is apparently going to try to focus on traditionally Democratic states, such as Minnesota, that have been hard for Republicans to win."
Yes, that is very interesting and will probably decide the outcome. I think Trump needs to score a few victories in those states to win the presidency. Can he? Not so sure 'bout that.
My co-worker and I were talking about this the other day, what's really strange is those who believe that Trump will supply the "real" change people are looking for. What has seemed to be the standard is for "old, rich, white men" to become President. Her words. Which is what you get in Trump. Barack Obama was really a change in that mix, being young (although you couldn't tell that from his gray hair now) and black. I do feel that there is still a lot of racial bias in some people's opposition to him. But Obama is far more reflective of the mix of people in the United States now.
What Trump has been adept at doing, and I have said this in the past, is playing on people's fears. We are still not completely healed from the last economic crisis, and probably won't be until we face up to the fact that income redistribution needs to occur to allow everyone a share of the pot. That's not to say that I support a more socialist bent, like some, but only that we need to be careful in how we use capitalism.
The media focus on Daesh and the various attacks keeps the fear of some sort of major attack in the US on people's minds, lending weight to a more authoritarian type of personality to appeal in a candidate, aka Trump. One of the things that was in that CIA special last night, spoiler alert Lee, is the clip of Trump stating that he supports waterboarding and even more extreme measures against our enemies.
What Hillary will have to do is find a way to show that she is willing to upend some of the status quo in Washington as well as that she has the ability to keep us safe. She also needs to overcome that "crooked Hillary" soundbite Trump is working the room with.
I think that if it does come down to a Clinton/Trump race a debate between the two will be very interesting to watch.
Lynnette: "What has seemed to be the standard is for "old, rich, white men" to become President."
Well those old, rich, white men DID build your nation Lynnette, no? Are you entirely sure their kind is not best fit to rule it in the future? If not, then why?
Ahhh, that Fareed Zakaria special "Why they hate us" is supposed to air tomorrow, Monday, at 8pm Central time on CNN. I know you don't have cable, Lee, but perhaps there will be a link via the internet after it has aired. The clip they just showed is about Sayyid Qutb and his time in the States in the 40's. Apparently he was rather shocked by our "animal like mixing of the sexes" and believed that:
"The American is primitive in his artistic taste, both in what he enjoys as art and in his own artistic works. "Jazz" music is his music of choice. This is that music that the Negroes invented to satisfy their primitive inclinations, as well as their desire to be noisy on the one hand and to excite bestial tendencies on the other. The American's intoxication in "jazz" music does not reach its full completion until the music is accompanied by singing that is just as coarse and obnoxious as the music itself. Meanwhile, the noise of the instruments and the voices mounts, and it rings in the ears to an unbearable degree… The agitation of the multitude increases, and the voices of approval mount, and their palms ring out in vehement, continuous applause that all but deafens the ears."
Hmmm...so this is a reason to wage war against us? We'll see what else is in the special.
Well those old, rich, white men DID build your nation Lynnette, no?
No. Our nation was built by the collective effort of millions of people of all colors, races and religions. The "founding fathers" of the United States were not all old or all rich.
Are you entirely sure their kind is not best fit to rule it in the future? If not, then why?
There is no "rule" in the United States, we are not a monarchy, but a democracy. Those who serve in our government serve at the behest of the American people. It is when they forget that where we run into problems. Because the American people come from all walks of life and all have a voice. So those who govern do not necessarily have to be "old, rich or white". They just need to be capable and hopefully intelligent enough to understand that no one should be left out of the American dream.
Because if old, rich white men are so evil; then maybe you should elect a transgender, gay, black woman in her teens just for the hell of it?
None of those things matter to me except the one about being a teenager. A teenager would not have the maturity or life experience to govern as President. Someone's sexual preference, color or gender should not be a criteria.
"The clip they just showed is about Sayyid Qutb and his time in the States…"
I'm familiar with Q'tb and his journey to America (wrote a lot about his time in Colorado), and his "masterpiece" In the Shadow of the Q'uran in multiple volumes and his shorter jihadi guide Milestones. But it would be interesting to have Zakaria's take on it, Zakaria being a Muslim and all. If you find a link to the piece, be sure and let me know.
65 comments:
Weapons smuggling to radical islamists in Sweden:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6431774
That's the only english link I could find so far, but swedish media have pictures of RPG:s hand grenades and AK47:s
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/krim/article22811237.ab
It's unfortunately only a matter of time before we see an attack here.
Marcus: "I read that the European Song Contest will air in the US this year. It's held in Stockholm this year and I remember PeteS commenting on it in the past."
Also airing in China, apparently. And Australia is participating for the first time. (Unlike Ireland, they got through last night's semi-finals). Speaking of which, Marcus, I wouldn't have known Sweden had a great sense of humour, but the performance of Måns Zelmerlöw and Petra Mede at the start of last night's show was nothing short of masterful ... and hilarious. It's still normal for the host nation to treat the competition seriously, even though nobody else has for years. Zelmerlöw and Mede managed to lampoon every aspect of the modern Eurovision (from Riverdance to gay-fest), in an act that looked like it was straight out of a Mel Brooks movie, while their listing of European languages reminded me of Tom Lehrer's Elements song. Sheer genius ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6qSt8Qp9ck
I notice the Ukrainian entry got through. I still think it's gonna cause a political storm on Saturday night.
I'll have to check out the links a little later, got stuff to do.
Is the song contest airing here in the US Saturday too or is there a delay?
As they say, timing is everything.
As they also say, Google is your friend ;-)
Airing live at 3pm EST on Viacom's Logo channel ("the United States’ lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) cable network, is available in nearly 50 million homes"). How depressing! I presume the 200 million ESC viewers are not all gay, but you'd never guess it from the way it's promoted nowadays. It's streamed on the Internet too.
I notice the Ukrainian entry got through.
i haven't seen the other finalists, but she definitely earned it.
As they also say, Google is your friend ;-)
They're also talking it up on the CNN website. :)
Hmmm...3pm EST might be okay for me to catch. That would be 2pm Central Time. I'll just have to try to remember.
Pete: "Speaking of which, Marcus, I wouldn't have known Sweden had a great sense of humour, but the performance of Måns Zelmerlöw and Petra Mede at the start of last night's show was nothing short of masterful ... and hilarious."
I didn't watch it but I agree it was a really good opening piece.Kinda makes me wonder what they have saved for the finals tonight if they went with that before the semi finals.
Just watched the Saudi documentary. Begs the question: when are ya'll 'mericans gonna stop being the watchdog and armer for that vile regime? I mean we all know you've played that part for half a century, but when do you reckon enough is enough?
Pete: "I wouldn't have known Sweden had a great sense of humour,"
We do have that though. We just don't show it very often. It usually takes a concerted effort like a planned event like the Eurovison, or in other more spontaneous cases - Vodka.
"…but when do you reckon enough is enough?"
You seem to have not been paying attention lately. as it certainly appears that Obama has reckoned it to be quite enough already, although Hillary seems to have a lot of old-school interventionist tendencies that the Saudi might prefer, so there may be some backsliding there come next administration.
Hmmm...well, it looks like that Eurovision Live thing is a no go. I don't have that cable channel and the live streaming through Eurovision TV or YouTube tells me it's not available in my region or country. I guess I'll just have to settle for the highlights after the fact.
when are ya'll 'mericans gonna stop being the watchdog and armer for that vile regime?
I suspect that many Americans would agree with you on this point, Marcus. That's probably one of the reasons the Saudis are a little nervous about their security.
I suspect the Saudi are as much indignant at being obliged to cover their own bets as they are ‘nervous’.
Ukraine won the Eurovision final. Australia came in second and Russia third. I listened to all their performances in the semi-finals and Jamala's winning performance. I think I would agree with how the voting went. Both the first and second place finishers have stronger voices than the Russian. But the content of her song and the passion exhibited by Jamala in her performance deserve the first place finish.
Congratulations Ukraine!
I suspect the Saudi are as much indignant at being obliged to cover their own bets as they are ‘nervous’.
The behavior of spoiled children.
Possible chemical weapons used against the Kurdish area of Aleppo by other armed opposition groups.
[Lynnette]: " I think I would agree with how the voting went."
You may not have seen the voting detail. Up until 1998 voting was done by national juries of a few handpicked "music experts". From 1998 to 2008 it was done by popular vote -- the attraction of revenue for the organisers from telephone voting being too tantalising to refuse. The result was that the results became completely dominated by political allegiances and bloc voting. Germany with its large Turkish community would always vote for Turkey, Balkan countries voted for each other and for Russia, etc. etc. Since 2009 the vote has been split 50/50 between a jury and televoters.
Last night, the jury vote put Ukraine in second place, but Australia was out front by hundreds of points, making them seemingly unstoppable. Russia was well down in the bottom half of the running. The popular vote then lifted Russia to third place, and Ukraine to the winning spot.
The vote was completely political. Social media and online newspaper comments are divided between accusing Ukraine of entering a "Nazi song", versus sticking it up to Putin. Quite interesting what 200 million people will do when subjected to mostly banal musical fluff ;-)
Quite interesting what 200 million people will do when subjected to mostly banal musical fluff ;-)
Ahhh...but that's just it. I tend to agree that the Australian singer had a deeper, perhaps richer, voice than Jamala, but it was the content of her song that placed her second in my book. Granted, Jamala may have overacted a bit, but at least her song came from a place in the heart that seemed real. The others seemed far more contrived and, as you said, banal.
As for "Nazi song", that's just a load of b.s. fed to the uninformed by some would say, Russian propagandists. While the title "1944" referred to a past event it could apply to any number of events that have happened in the history of the world where you had people removed from their homes by force. That Russia should today be so sensitive may speak more to their understanding of how many in the world perceive their actions today. If the vote was political it was at least honest in people's views.
Btw, you kind of got the same results with "Dancing with the Stars" ( a show I don't watch anymore). You had the judges scores combined with call in voters. What you found was that, yes, people tended to vote for a popular figure, whether or not he/she was really good. So you ended up with some really inept people staying in the contest longer than they should have.
Israeli comedy group does a bit on the Eurovision:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEzDD0dZU8U&feature=youtu.be
The original melody is from a swedish song that won the Eurovision in 84.
lol!
That made me want to look up the 1984 winner. Somehow I don't think they could have imagined back then how their song would be used in 2016. And somehow I'm thinking Daesh wouldn't be pleased either. But perhaps that's the point?
Daesh seems to be comedy fodder for others as well.
Lynnette, wonder if you've seen this rather lovely arrangement of Prince's "Nothing Compares 2 U", re-recorded in Minneapolis last month by the group for whom he originally wrote it. The late Clare Fischer (new to me) who arranged the strings is an interesting character in his own right. The strings remind me of Appalachian Spring, especially that "Copland chord" clearly heard at the end of the Prince piece.
Pete: "From 1998 to 2008 it was done by popular vote -- the attraction of revenue for the organisers from telephone voting being too tantalising to refuse. The result was that the results became completely dominated by political allegiances and bloc voting."
The politics in Eurovision isn't a result of the popular voting. In fact the jury groups are way, way worse at that.
Examples from this year:
1. The jury in Lithuania ranked (favourite) Russia in place 25 out of 25. Dead last. The people in Lithuania had it a #3. Who are more political?
2. The jury in Russia had (kinda favourite) Ukraine at place 24 out of 25. The people in Russia had it at #2. Who are more political?
And of course you have the swedish jury group who aren't that political but just mainstream corrupt. They had lousy Azerbajdzjan at 10 points and Malta at 7 points. Funny that the artists in the jury group work for the same label that produced the Azerbajdzjan and Maltese songs and shows. They voted for their collegues.
No toss out the corrupt jury groups and give the voting power to the people. If the Russian people can award Ukraine the second place even with all the conflict between the countries it's proof the people are better at leaving politics out of it than the corrupt jury groups. Be they "experts" or not.
Lynnette, wonder if you've seen this rather lovely arrangement of Prince's "Nothing Compares 2 U",...
No, I hadn't seen, or heard, that. It was lovely and very moving. Thank you for posting it.
It's strange, I was just talking to a co-worker, whose mother passed away not too long ago, about her mother's house and having to clear out the things she had left. Many of the things left are things that none of the family wanted, so they are having a company come in and clear out everything. It struck me as rather sad that the postscript of people's lives seems to be this clearing out of material possessions. It's as if that is all a life means for some. In the case of Prince he has left a legacy, not just of beautifully creative music, but of the respect and admiration of people whose lives he touched. While he died young he did really live.
I listened to the first couple minutes of the second link, "Appalachian Spring". It's longer, so I will have to listen later when I have more time.
Kasich not rushing to endorse Trump
I knew he had some depth of character.
Cruz isn't either, although it's not because he has character, but rather because he wants to run again in 2020 after Trump crashes and burns.
I listened to "Appalachian Spring" last night and enjoyed it. It did remind me of spring, the beginning a slow awakening, the middle a gradual growth and the end a burst of color with the resurgence of life. It was relaxing.
Cruz isn't either, although it's not because he has character, but rather because he wants to run again in 2020 after Trump crashes and burns.
I will hope that there are better choices then.
An article in my paper about one city in Minnesota just about sums up many people's feelings about this election. The last comment was particularly accurate.
(You might have to click through a couple of ad screens.)
Lee: "Cruz isn't either, although it's not because he has character, but rather because he wants to run again in 2020 after Trump crashes and burns."
Do you think he has the idea that he would have gotten to be the GOP candidate if not for Trump AND that he would have had a decent chance to win the presidency?
I can think of several issues I would have with such an idea. First, even though he was the "last man standing" against Trump it might well have been that he only got there because Trump finished off several other contestors. And Cruz might not have won the primaries even without Trump in the race. Second I think Cruz might (probably would) have had an even lesser chance in the general election than Trump now has.
I wouldn't bet on Trump against Hillary today. But if I had to bet on either Trump or Cruz in a contest against Hillary I would rather bet on Trump.
This is really long:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/magazine/donald-trump-primary-win.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
A summary from a journalist who followed the Trump campaign for a long time, not from the beginning but from early on. Interesting, I thought, even if it didn't really revealed anything new.
You're right, Marcus, that was long, but interesting. It just reinforced my view of Trump as not being a good fit for President of the United States, though. It makes me depressed that he is actually polling slightly ahead of Hillary for the general election at this time.
Since the topic of this Blog post relates to Saudi Arabia I think this is very relevant (I would have posted it anyway but now I have even more reason to do so):
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36316117
I think I have said before that I long for the time when the USA takes its hand off the princes in Riyadh. Sooner or later it's bound to happen and the princes who thought their "security" was guaranteed will, like Saddam did, find out it was not really so.
This could be a first shot across the bow even if nothing more. But sooner or later I expect the US to attempt "regime change" in the KSA. Most likely in my lifetime so I will get to see it too.
BTW, I correct my previous statement that Trump VS Hillary is 30-70. I now would say it's 40-60.
I'm not yet on board with Pete who says Trump will be the new Preznit. I still believe Hillary is the safer bet.
That said, the trajectory favours Trump.
An Egyptian plane went missing. It seems to have went down over water on its way from Paris to Cairo and the speculation is that it was a bomb. The timing would certainly lend itself to thinking it was some kind of attack, given that finding information in that situation is more difficult.
But sooner or later I expect the US to attempt "regime change" in the KSA.
I rather doubt that. While I think the article you linked to, regarding the bill proposed to allow US citizens to sue officials in KSA with respect to 9/11, is certainly a sign of frayed connections between the two countries I don't think we will be involving ourselves anytime soon in another Middle Eastern country to attempt regime change. Certainly not one who has, at least on the surface, been an ally with regards to other issues.
The Obama administration does have a certain point about diplomatic immunity being at risk if this law is passed, though. It will leave us open to the same types of treatment. That is something to at least give passing thought to, although I do understand people's anger and frustration with the thought that there might have been those in KSA who supported the 9/11 attacks, or even helped fund them.
I am not sure what actual proof there is to support that contention, other than one man's word. It may be difficult to prove in a court of law.
That said, the trajectory favours Trump.
He does seem to be steam rolling over quite a bit of the opposition. But there is a long time until November and Teflon Trump may tarnish. At least that is my hope. Hillary may not be perfect, but Trump does not have the knowledge, experience, or temperament to make a good President. Not in my opinion.
That so many Americans are pissed off enough to consider him should be a sign to people in government today that they need to start buckling down and working together to make some changes that will positively move our economy and country forward (not backward). IMHO the income gap between the wealthy and the lower income tier of society needs to be decreased not increased. That is a huge factor in the discontent we are seeing today. A vibrant middle class helps stabilize a country.
"I am not sure what actual proof there is to support that contention,
other than one man's word."
The 9/11 Commission went on to investigate those preliminary charges and found them to be unsupported by evidence (doesn't mean it wasn't true, just wasn't any proof and damn little circumstantial evidence). However that investigation came later and it's conclusions are not included in the 28 pages of unsupported charges that the right-wing crazies want publicized.
"I will hope that there are better choices then."
Rubio wants to run again, which is why he never came out and endorsed Cruz against Trump. He figures to run against Cruz again in the future, and wasn't gonna give Cruz that little prize to use against him.
(doesn't mean it wasn't true, just wasn't any proof and damn little circumstantial evidence).
That's just it. With all the gnashing of teeth and panic going on about that bill you would think that was the most critical issue to a successful lawsuit. But there still has to be actual evidence of wrongdoing by those accused. The families of the people killed on 9/11 who want to go forward with this could just be going through the pain of resurrecting what they went through for nothing.
I suspect that in the end justice will be served, with or without a lawsuit.
He figures to run against Cruz again in the future, and wasn't gonna give Cruz that little prize to use against him.
Rubio did quite well here in Minnesota. He might not be that far off the mark in thinking to run again. He just needs a little more seasoning. And, God forbid we get another dose of Ted Cruz!
Debris found in the plane crash.
While I know they will never read this, I still want to offer my condolences to the family and friends of those aboard the plane.
"I know they will never read this,…"
It's the thought that counts?
Yes. Writing here is kind of like writing your feelings on a piece of paper, putting them in a bottle, and throwing it out into the ocean. Kind of cathartic, I guess.
I see Zeyad has been kind of quiet lately. I certainly hope he wasn't serious about visiting Iraq.
Hmm...it looks like Daesh is also concerned about digital security.
Politico.com has an analysis of the recent Trump ‘surge’ vis-à-vis Hillary Clinton. Short version--Trump is picking up traditional Republican voters by (somehow) getting them to start agreeing among themselves that Trump isn't really as nuts as he seems. Meanwhile traditional Democratic voters are in the ‘why not Bernie’ stage. None of this is surprising. And it don't improve Trump's chances in the fall. The Republicans were always gonna figure out a way to keep hating Hillary. But, a lot of those who supposedly ‘support’ Trump when a pollster asks aren't gonna be enthused enough to actually go out and vote for him come November. And, the Democrats are gonna fall in line behind Hillary just to stop Trump (Bernie longing be damned.)
Trump's gotta get the independents; just like it always was, and it ain't gonna happen. Odds still 70-30 Hillary's favor.
CBS is doing a two-hour piece on the CIA tonight; 8:00 Central Daylight Time. I'm gonna get the DVR set up to catch it before that happens.
Lee: "Trump's gotta get the independents; just like it always was, and it ain't gonna happen. Odds still 70-30 Hillary's favor."
I'm not sure at all 'bout that. I said 60-40 in favour of Hillary but am leaning more towards 50-50 than going back to 70-30.
I believe the distaste for Hillary herself might end up as THE deciding factor.
Trump's best day will come before Hillary gets the nomination, which will happen at the convention if Bernie pushes it that far. It's all downhill for Trump from there.
CBS is doing a two-hour piece on the CIA tonight; 8:00 Central Daylight Time
Dang! I didn't check the blog today so missed that. I was busy with yard work. I just turned it on so I can at least catch the last bit.
Right now the media has been focusing intensely on Trump and the Republican party and whether or not the leadership will get behind him. I don't think that when it comes to the rest of the electorate that they have given much consideration to how Trump's behavior plays.
Independents, or swing voters, may play a crucial role in who becomes President. What is rather interesting is that Trump is apparently going to try to focus on traditionally Democratic states, such as Minnesota, that have been hard for Republicans to win.
Ahhh, they're talking about the black sites now.
Lee: "Trump's best day will come before Hillary gets the nomination, which will happen at the convention if Bernie pushes it that far. It's all downhill for Trump from there."
OK, I guess that might be the case. I'm not convinced but I confesss you're more tuned in than I am, so it might well be so.
I still see the trajectory favouring Trump at ths point. But you have mentioned something (Bernie withdrawing) that could change the trajectory. We'll see, I guess, what real impact that will have.
Lynnette: "Independents, or swing voters, may play a crucial role in who becomes President. What is rather interesting is that Trump is apparently going to try to focus on traditionally Democratic states, such as Minnesota, that have been hard for Republicans to win."
Yes, that is very interesting and will probably decide the outcome. I think Trump needs to score a few victories in those states to win the presidency. Can he? Not so sure 'bout that.
My co-worker and I were talking about this the other day, what's really strange is those who believe that Trump will supply the "real" change people are looking for. What has seemed to be the standard is for "old, rich, white men" to become President. Her words. Which is what you get in Trump. Barack Obama was really a change in that mix, being young (although you couldn't tell that from his gray hair now) and black. I do feel that there is still a lot of racial bias in some people's opposition to him. But Obama is far more reflective of the mix of people in the United States now.
What Trump has been adept at doing, and I have said this in the past, is playing on people's fears. We are still not completely healed from the last economic crisis, and probably won't be until we face up to the fact that income redistribution needs to occur to allow everyone a share of the pot. That's not to say that I support a more socialist bent, like some, but only that we need to be careful in how we use capitalism.
The media focus on Daesh and the various attacks keeps the fear of some sort of major attack in the US on people's minds, lending weight to a more authoritarian type of personality to appeal in a candidate, aka Trump. One of the things that was in that CIA special last night, spoiler alert Lee, is the clip of Trump stating that he supports waterboarding and even more extreme measures against our enemies.
What Hillary will have to do is find a way to show that she is willing to upend some of the status quo in Washington as well as that she has the ability to keep us safe. She also needs to overcome that "crooked Hillary" soundbite Trump is working the room with.
I think that if it does come down to a Clinton/Trump race a debate between the two will be very interesting to watch.
I'm gonna play devils advocate here Lynette.
Lynnette: "What has seemed to be the standard is for "old, rich, white men" to become President."
Well those old, rich, white men DID build your nation Lynnette, no? Are you entirely sure their kind is not best fit to rule it in the future? If not, then why?
Because if old, rich white men are so evil; then maybe you should elect a transgender, gay, black woman in her teens just for the hell of it?
Ahhh, that Fareed Zakaria special "Why they hate us" is supposed to air tomorrow, Monday, at 8pm Central time on CNN. I know you don't have cable, Lee, but perhaps there will be a link via the internet after it has aired. The clip they just showed is about Sayyid Qutb and his time in the States in the 40's. Apparently he was rather shocked by our "animal like mixing of the sexes" and believed that:
"The American is primitive in his artistic taste, both in what he enjoys as art and in his own artistic works. "Jazz" music is his music of choice. This is that music that the Negroes invented to satisfy their primitive inclinations, as well as their desire to be noisy on the one hand and to excite bestial tendencies on the other. The American's intoxication in "jazz" music does not reach its full completion until the music is accompanied by singing that is just as coarse and obnoxious as the music itself. Meanwhile, the noise of the instruments and the voices mounts, and it rings in the ears to an unbearable degree… The agitation of the multitude increases, and the voices of approval mount, and their palms ring out in vehement, continuous applause that all but deafens the ears."
Hmmm...so this is a reason to wage war against us? We'll see what else is in the special.
Well those old, rich, white men DID build your nation Lynnette, no?
No. Our nation was built by the collective effort of millions of people of all colors, races and religions. The "founding fathers" of the United States were not all old or all rich.
Are you entirely sure their kind is not best fit to rule it in the future? If not, then why?
There is no "rule" in the United States, we are not a monarchy, but a democracy. Those who serve in our government serve at the behest of the American people. It is when they forget that where we run into problems. Because the American people come from all walks of life and all have a voice. So those who govern do not necessarily have to be "old, rich or white". They just need to be capable and hopefully intelligent enough to understand that no one should be left out of the American dream.
Because if old, rich white men are so evil; then maybe you should elect a transgender, gay, black woman in her teens just for the hell of it?
None of those things matter to me except the one about being a teenager. A teenager would not have the maturity or life experience to govern as President. Someone's sexual preference, color or gender should not be a criteria.
The Constitution establishes a minimum age requirement of 35 years. Been that way from the beginning, 1783, the original ratification.
Or. maybe it was 1787; I probably should look that up.
"The clip they just showed is about Sayyid Qutb and his time in the States…"
I'm familiar with Q'tb and his journey to America (wrote a lot about his time in Colorado), and his "masterpiece" In the Shadow of the Q'uran in multiple volumes and his shorter jihadi guide Milestones. But it would be interesting to have Zakaria's take on it, Zakaria being a Muslim and all.
If you find a link to the piece, be sure and let me know.
I'll do that, Lee.
Did you watch the "The Spymasters" yet?
I see the Iraqis are moving in on Fallujah in an effort to regain control of the city from Daesh.
I also see that it is confirmed that the Taliban leader targeted in that drone strike was killed.
"Did you watch the ‘The Spymasters’ yet?"
No, got it on the DVR, but ain't had time to look at it yet. (You're not the only one with outdoor work need to keep caught up on.)
(You're not the only one with outdoor work need to keep caught up on.)
Yeah, I kinda thought you might be busy with that too. It comes around every summer for many of us here in the States. :)
Post a Comment