I saw this at the Late Show Web Site (Top Ten Archives) and thought it would be a good segue from the previous post. Kinda funny....
Top Ten Signs The Other Beatles Don't Like You:
10. Whenever you start talking, they say, "Let it be, Bonehead";
9. You're making less money from the reunion than Pete Best;
8. You find out you were the inspiration for "Nowhere Man";
7. If you didn't see it in T.V. Guide, you wouldn't have known about a reunion;
6. The only way you can get their attention is by eating Christmas ornaments (Cut to shot of Anton eating ornaments);
5. After you spent the week working on a painting for the cover, they decide to go with "The White Album";
4. They make you sit in the back of Air Force One;
3. When they hear you play, they say, "Wow -- you're even worse than Ringo!";
2. They won't stop singing "We hate you - yeah, yeah, yeah!";
1. Always trying to set you up with Yoko;
Monday, April 2, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Beatles Trivia Collage
Here are some interesting, funny and relatively wierd things I've picked up about the legendary Fab Four. I can't quite vouch for the veracity of every account, but still they do add some spice and flavor to a Beatle-maniac's appreciation of John, Paul, George and Ringo. Feel free to add, correct, or comment on any of the items listed below:
1. Ringo Starr is the oldest of the four, but he's also the shortest;
2. Decca Recording Co. actually had the first crack at the Beatles but rejected them stating that they "didn't like their sound" and that "guitars were on the way out". (Can anybody spell LOSER?);
3. Randolph Peter "Pete" Best, the Beatles' original drummer worked as a baker making £8 a week, after he was "fired" by the Fab Four;
4. The Beatles had their biggest sold-out performance at the Rizal Stadium in Manila, Philippines. The crowd estimate was 100,000. The open air sports arena (with an open field in the middle) was so packed that the Fab Four had to be flown in by helicopter, which landed in the middle of the field. Ironically, a day or so after the performance, the Beatles had their worst "send-off" when they were literally chased out of the country by an unruly ban of "nationalists" who were offended after the boys snubbed former First Lady Imelda Marcos' invitation to perform at the presidential residence. That was in 1966 and about 20 years after, it was the Marcoses turn to run for cover. During an ambush interview with the late George Harrison, the former lead guitarist recalled how he and the rest of the band believed that former President Ferdinand Marcos ("the old dweeb", in his words) tried to "have them killed";
5. Still in relation to the previous item, it is said that during the sell-out concert in Manila, an emmisary from the First Family tenaciously (and annoyingly) insisted that the Beatles do a private performance at Malacanang Palace (presidential residence). Finally, it was Paul McCartney who said "You tell those #$%&*^ at the palace that if they want to watch, buy a ticket" (or something to that effect);
6. There is an on-going (whacky) conspiracy theory which suggests that the murder of John Lennon was actually ordered by hard-line conservatives in the Republican Party. The plan was supposedly hatched by the likes of Richard Nixon and carried out by then President-elect Ronald Reagan. Here's the best part: the person who actually shot John Lennon was not Mark Chapman but....(drum roll)...Stephen King! They say chapman is but a look-alike patsy. (Now, somebody forgot to take their medication.);
7. Former Beatle and good friend of John Lennon, Stuart Sutcliffe died on April 10th, 1962. Exactly eight years after on April 10, 1970, the Beatles officially broke up;
8. The original title of the popular Beatles ballad "Yesterday" was "Scrambled Eggs". McCartney's original lyrics were, "Scrambled eggs, Oh, baby how I love your legs." ;
9. The song "Hey, Jude" was actually written as a "cheer-me-up", "feel-good" song for Julian Lennon. Paul McCartney wanted help John's young lad emotionally as he was going through his parents' divorce. Unfortunately, the song was briefly misinterpreted as an "Anti-Sematic", since Jews were often called "Jude";
10. With Beatles' steady rise to fame, Stuart Sutchcliffe unwittingly introduced the band's official "haircut": mop-top, never showing the forehead; hence the cardinal rule: FORGET THE HAIRCUTS. John Lennon was actually the first to breach this "sacred" precept when he was compelled to visit the barber in 1967 and in preparation for his role in the movie "How I Won the War". He played a role of an army lieutenant and somehow the mop-top look didn't quite fit the part and so....snip-snip...;
Once in a while, I'll try to post whatever facts, trivia, or even non-sense that I can pick up about those four lads from Liverpool.
1. Ringo Starr is the oldest of the four, but he's also the shortest;
2. Decca Recording Co. actually had the first crack at the Beatles but rejected them stating that they "didn't like their sound" and that "guitars were on the way out". (Can anybody spell LOSER?);
3. Randolph Peter "Pete" Best, the Beatles' original drummer worked as a baker making £8 a week, after he was "fired" by the Fab Four;
4. The Beatles had their biggest sold-out performance at the Rizal Stadium in Manila, Philippines. The crowd estimate was 100,000. The open air sports arena (with an open field in the middle) was so packed that the Fab Four had to be flown in by helicopter, which landed in the middle of the field. Ironically, a day or so after the performance, the Beatles had their worst "send-off" when they were literally chased out of the country by an unruly ban of "nationalists" who were offended after the boys snubbed former First Lady Imelda Marcos' invitation to perform at the presidential residence. That was in 1966 and about 20 years after, it was the Marcoses turn to run for cover. During an ambush interview with the late George Harrison, the former lead guitarist recalled how he and the rest of the band believed that former President Ferdinand Marcos ("the old dweeb", in his words) tried to "have them killed";
5. Still in relation to the previous item, it is said that during the sell-out concert in Manila, an emmisary from the First Family tenaciously (and annoyingly) insisted that the Beatles do a private performance at Malacanang Palace (presidential residence). Finally, it was Paul McCartney who said "You tell those #$%&*^ at the palace that if they want to watch, buy a ticket" (or something to that effect);
6. There is an on-going (whacky) conspiracy theory which suggests that the murder of John Lennon was actually ordered by hard-line conservatives in the Republican Party. The plan was supposedly hatched by the likes of Richard Nixon and carried out by then President-elect Ronald Reagan. Here's the best part: the person who actually shot John Lennon was not Mark Chapman but....(drum roll)...Stephen King! They say chapman is but a look-alike patsy. (Now, somebody forgot to take their medication.);
7. Former Beatle and good friend of John Lennon, Stuart Sutcliffe died on April 10th, 1962. Exactly eight years after on April 10, 1970, the Beatles officially broke up;
8. The original title of the popular Beatles ballad "Yesterday" was "Scrambled Eggs". McCartney's original lyrics were, "Scrambled eggs, Oh, baby how I love your legs." ;
9. The song "Hey, Jude" was actually written as a "cheer-me-up", "feel-good" song for Julian Lennon. Paul McCartney wanted help John's young lad emotionally as he was going through his parents' divorce. Unfortunately, the song was briefly misinterpreted as an "Anti-Sematic", since Jews were often called "Jude";
10. With Beatles' steady rise to fame, Stuart Sutchcliffe unwittingly introduced the band's official "haircut": mop-top, never showing the forehead; hence the cardinal rule: FORGET THE HAIRCUTS. John Lennon was actually the first to breach this "sacred" precept when he was compelled to visit the barber in 1967 and in preparation for his role in the movie "How I Won the War". He played a role of an army lieutenant and somehow the mop-top look didn't quite fit the part and so....snip-snip...;
Once in a while, I'll try to post whatever facts, trivia, or even non-sense that I can pick up about those four lads from Liverpool.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
On the Issues 2008 (part 3)
HEALTHCARE: Senator Barack Obama envisions a healthcare system that "works". As such, the promotion of affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care is a "high priority" In line with this, he has co-sponsored legislation which promotes patient safety initiatives (National MEDiC Act) and madates the use federal hospital quality reporting requirements for the purpose of informing and, thereby assisting would be patients and other consumers in making crucial decisions relative to their health care (Quality Report Card Act). To contain the potentially burdensome costs of the existing system of health care to government workers, Obama (along with Democratic Senator Harry Reid) introduced the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Efficiency Act, which apart from precluding sky-rocketing costs for health care, encourages the much needed development of healthcare information technology, which would, hopefully, translate to an efficient and effective system of settling the claims of the numerous beneficiaries.
Senator Clinton's pitch for affordable healthcare consists of supporting efforts to allow access to insurance and lower prices for healthcare services. For instance, she has gone on record to advocate (1) that families be allowed to buy into the State Children's Health Insurance Program and (2) the provision by small businesses of insurance to their employees through tax credits and large voluntary group purchases. In line with this, she has, along with Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, introduced legislation to restore access to health care for legal immigrant children and pregnant women, specifically by eliminating the existing five year waiting period before the federal government will reimburse states for providing Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) services to said people. Instead, the states are to be given the option of extending such appropriate health services to new legal immigrant children and pregnant women and, more importantly, allowing states to receive the corresponding federal reimbursement for these costs through Medicaid and S-CHIP. In order to address the rising prices of drug costs, Senator Hillary Clinton is moving to improve the Food and Drug Administration’s process for approving generic biologic drugs.
Arizona Sentaor John McCain's position on the issue of healthcare has been, on occasion, characterized and distinguished by his focus on patient rights. This is part and parcel of a full range of principles he intends to imbed in the existing system. The pertinent principles thereof, comprising, in effect, the reforms he envision, include (1) affordable healthcare and the increased accessibility thereto, (2) the right of the insured to meet the doctor of his/her choice, (3) access to emergency care, (4) continued coverage despite change in employment, (5) open and full communication between the doctor and patient and (6) the establishment of a grievance process that addressed to the HMO's concerned in the event that medical care is denied (inclusive of an unequivocal right to litigate on the same). His advocacy for patient rights are further high-lighted by his vote in favor of Patient's First Act of 2003, which, he believes would respond to a "broken" medical malpractice system. In connection with this, he laments the increasing polarization of the nation caused by intense and heated debate between two powerful and influential special interests groups, namely the medical/insurance industry and the trial lawyers. Under the said bill, while an aggrieved patient would be able to recover the full costs or medical expenses as well as current and future losses, a cap on the non-economic damages is imposed so as to control the cost of medical malpractice insurance. McCain likewise seeks to expand the coverage of healthcare to an estimated 11 Million uninsured children, while he acknowledges though that obtaining the necessary funds for this would require a certain amount of political will ("And I’ll tell you what: I have the guts to take the money where it shouldn’t be spent in Washington and put it where it should be spent, including 10 percent of the surplus.")
To specifically address the necessity of affordable medicine, McCain puts a premium on generic drugs and the best evidence to this would be no less than the Schumer-McCain legislation. The bill was actually re-introduced to the Senate on account of Senator McCain's desire to prescription drugs in its coverage and to assist millions of senior and uninsured Americans who find it difficult to purchase their much needed medication on a fixed income.
Governor Mitt Romney's postion on this issue is grounded on the notion that healthcare is a personal responsibility and hence, the individual should be responsible for securing his or her own sealthcare insurance. Inspired the success of his "universal" healthcare program during his stint as governor of Massachusetts, Romney seeks to replicate this in the national arena by undertaking some radical re-structuring of the financial system of the current healthcare program. This includes subsidizing low-income families purchasing private health insurance in lieu of the usual reimbursement of hospitals for treatment afforded to the uninsured. He likewise envisions the creation of an insurance exchange that would allow people to purchase health insurance before tax. Through such market reforms, he hopes to cut the cumbersome costs of healthcare and provide more opportunities to secure quality service. He also strongly advocates his subsidy program as a better alternative to requiring employers to contribute to healthcare plans of their employees.
From the positions discussed, the latter plan of Governor Mitt Romney would seem to be the boldest and most novel approach to addressing the age-long and highly contentious issue. Whether his success can trasncend to the federal level remains on his political will and how he would deal with Congress. This is, of course, after and assuming he secures the Republican nomination and goes on to win the elections.
Senator Clinton's pitch for affordable healthcare consists of supporting efforts to allow access to insurance and lower prices for healthcare services. For instance, she has gone on record to advocate (1) that families be allowed to buy into the State Children's Health Insurance Program and (2) the provision by small businesses of insurance to their employees through tax credits and large voluntary group purchases. In line with this, she has, along with Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, introduced legislation to restore access to health care for legal immigrant children and pregnant women, specifically by eliminating the existing five year waiting period before the federal government will reimburse states for providing Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) services to said people. Instead, the states are to be given the option of extending such appropriate health services to new legal immigrant children and pregnant women and, more importantly, allowing states to receive the corresponding federal reimbursement for these costs through Medicaid and S-CHIP. In order to address the rising prices of drug costs, Senator Hillary Clinton is moving to improve the Food and Drug Administration’s process for approving generic biologic drugs.
Arizona Sentaor John McCain's position on the issue of healthcare has been, on occasion, characterized and distinguished by his focus on patient rights. This is part and parcel of a full range of principles he intends to imbed in the existing system. The pertinent principles thereof, comprising, in effect, the reforms he envision, include (1) affordable healthcare and the increased accessibility thereto, (2) the right of the insured to meet the doctor of his/her choice, (3) access to emergency care, (4) continued coverage despite change in employment, (5) open and full communication between the doctor and patient and (6) the establishment of a grievance process that addressed to the HMO's concerned in the event that medical care is denied (inclusive of an unequivocal right to litigate on the same). His advocacy for patient rights are further high-lighted by his vote in favor of Patient's First Act of 2003, which, he believes would respond to a "broken" medical malpractice system. In connection with this, he laments the increasing polarization of the nation caused by intense and heated debate between two powerful and influential special interests groups, namely the medical/insurance industry and the trial lawyers. Under the said bill, while an aggrieved patient would be able to recover the full costs or medical expenses as well as current and future losses, a cap on the non-economic damages is imposed so as to control the cost of medical malpractice insurance. McCain likewise seeks to expand the coverage of healthcare to an estimated 11 Million uninsured children, while he acknowledges though that obtaining the necessary funds for this would require a certain amount of political will ("And I’ll tell you what: I have the guts to take the money where it shouldn’t be spent in Washington and put it where it should be spent, including 10 percent of the surplus.")
To specifically address the necessity of affordable medicine, McCain puts a premium on generic drugs and the best evidence to this would be no less than the Schumer-McCain legislation. The bill was actually re-introduced to the Senate on account of Senator McCain's desire to prescription drugs in its coverage and to assist millions of senior and uninsured Americans who find it difficult to purchase their much needed medication on a fixed income.
Governor Mitt Romney's postion on this issue is grounded on the notion that healthcare is a personal responsibility and hence, the individual should be responsible for securing his or her own sealthcare insurance. Inspired the success of his "universal" healthcare program during his stint as governor of Massachusetts, Romney seeks to replicate this in the national arena by undertaking some radical re-structuring of the financial system of the current healthcare program. This includes subsidizing low-income families purchasing private health insurance in lieu of the usual reimbursement of hospitals for treatment afforded to the uninsured. He likewise envisions the creation of an insurance exchange that would allow people to purchase health insurance before tax. Through such market reforms, he hopes to cut the cumbersome costs of healthcare and provide more opportunities to secure quality service. He also strongly advocates his subsidy program as a better alternative to requiring employers to contribute to healthcare plans of their employees.
From the positions discussed, the latter plan of Governor Mitt Romney would seem to be the boldest and most novel approach to addressing the age-long and highly contentious issue. Whether his success can trasncend to the federal level remains on his political will and how he would deal with Congress. This is, of course, after and assuming he secures the Republican nomination and goes on to win the elections.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Urgent Medical Bulletin
I got this Medical Bulletin from my sister-in-law. We have to be very careful, especially with the elections coming up and all that. Be advised that this applies to Filipinos and Americans alike.
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of Sexually Transmitted Disease.The disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim and is pronounced "gonna re-elect 'em."Many victims contracted it in 2004, after having been screwed for four years. Cognitive characteristics of individuals infected include:anti-social personality disorders, delusions of grandeur with messianic overtones, extreme cognitive dissonance, inability to incorporate new information, pronounced xenophobia and paranoia, inability to accept responsibility for one's own actions, cowardice masked by misplaced bravado, uncontrolled facial smirking, ignorance of geography and history, tendencies towards evangelical theocracy, and categorical all-or-nothing behavior.Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed at how this destructive disease originated only a few years ago from a Bush found in Texas.
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of Sexually Transmitted Disease.The disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim and is pronounced "gonna re-elect 'em."Many victims contracted it in 2004, after having been screwed for four years. Cognitive characteristics of individuals infected include:anti-social personality disorders, delusions of grandeur with messianic overtones, extreme cognitive dissonance, inability to incorporate new information, pronounced xenophobia and paranoia, inability to accept responsibility for one's own actions, cowardice masked by misplaced bravado, uncontrolled facial smirking, ignorance of geography and history, tendencies towards evangelical theocracy, and categorical all-or-nothing behavior.Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed at how this destructive disease originated only a few years ago from a Bush found in Texas.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Rudy Here, Rudy There...The Nuance of Rudy Giuliani
One of my favorite vegetable dishes is an American-Chinese concoction known as chop suey. It is essentially a stir-fried blend of bean sprouts, cabbage and celery laced in a starch-like sauce and oftentimes supplemented with either beef, chicken, pork or shrimps. What makes this highly relishing meal interesting is how the rather unorthodox mixture of various staple food items sumptuously caters to the heart (and appetite) of one's content.
Its not often that we see the appeal of such unconventional craftsmanship but so far former New York City Mayor Rodolph Guiliani has been successful in manuevering himself through the course of his political life, most of the time following a unique blend of his conservative and liberal beliefs. Yet the question remains whether this can be carried on past the Republican Party primaries, or beyond that, the 2008 Presidential Elections.
Concededly, Giuliani's success in battling the criminal elements of the Big Apple reflect his conservative side; "government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets". The same can be said with his view of government's role as well as that of the private sector; "The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way." However, these circumstances constitute a sharp and stark contrast to his "liberal" views on gay marriages, abortion rights and gun-control. In maverick-like fashion, Guiliani has defied several positions comprising basic Republican conservative ideologies.
Without being explicit so as to actually mention and eventually tolerate the ideal of "gay marriages", Giuliani goes on record to support the notion of giving the same legal status of married couples to unions of the same sex. Such "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" clearly don't fit well in the conservative Republican's blueprint of government. Neither will it make him more appealable to the Christian and social conservatives that traditionally take up the cudgels of the GOP (as if the numerous marriages and divorces weren't enough reason to stay away from him).
On the matter of abortion, its no secret that Rudy Giuliani supports what he calls, "women's right of choice" and would even go as far as to "fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise". As with his position on gay marriages, Giuliani's abortion stance is no less bad news for his conservative colleagues at the Republican party.
As for gun-control, its been suggested that his advocacy was brought about by the compelling need to deal with New York's crime menace. But for whatever reasons there were, the fact remains that he now finds himself yet again at the opposite side of the field, awkwardly polarized from his party, which stands as the proud bullwark of the Second Amendment.
Now a tough decision has to be made. Rudy Giuliani has all but officially declared his intention to seek the presidential nomination of the Republican party. And why not? After all, he has so far proven to be one of the most charismatic leaders in the GOP, or one, who some surmise, is capable of matching the "rock star" status of Barack Obama. Furthermore, his fatherly assuring image amongst New Yorkers during the dark hours of September 11, 2001, still resonates deep in the heart of a nation in search of alternative leadership. Along with this, his record of investigating and prosecuting cases against terrorist as well as his eviction of Yasser Arafat from New York in 1995 (for being a perceived terrorist) strike a positive chord among the citizens of a world power leading the War on Terror. Taken into consideration with his record of reducing and/or eliminating taxes during his stint at city hall, Giuliani's handlers hope to bring forth the image of an affable, or at least, a tolerable conservative. But the question is whether this would be sufficient to off-set indifference and growing hostility among the social and religious right and brewed by his seemingly unrelenting positions taken on gay marriages, abortion and gun-control. It would be noteworthy to consider that unlike Governor Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani has not taken any concrete steps towards reconsidering his said views on those issues. And it doesn't seem that the hard-line party conservatives, with their strong and sacred respect to life and the essence of marriage, will be ready to part with their ideals..., or their guns.
Like chop suey, Giuliani's mixture of conservative and liberal views may appeal to the political appetite of some of the voters out there. But whether or not this would as healthy to a hungry and consuming public remains to be seen.
Its not often that we see the appeal of such unconventional craftsmanship but so far former New York City Mayor Rodolph Guiliani has been successful in manuevering himself through the course of his political life, most of the time following a unique blend of his conservative and liberal beliefs. Yet the question remains whether this can be carried on past the Republican Party primaries, or beyond that, the 2008 Presidential Elections.
Concededly, Giuliani's success in battling the criminal elements of the Big Apple reflect his conservative side; "government exists above all to keep people safe in their homes and in the streets". The same can be said with his view of government's role as well as that of the private sector; "The private economy, not government, creates opportunity, government should just deliver basic services well and then get out of the private sector’s way." However, these circumstances constitute a sharp and stark contrast to his "liberal" views on gay marriages, abortion rights and gun-control. In maverick-like fashion, Guiliani has defied several positions comprising basic Republican conservative ideologies.
Without being explicit so as to actually mention and eventually tolerate the ideal of "gay marriages", Giuliani goes on record to support the notion of giving the same legal status of married couples to unions of the same sex. Such "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" clearly don't fit well in the conservative Republican's blueprint of government. Neither will it make him more appealable to the Christian and social conservatives that traditionally take up the cudgels of the GOP (as if the numerous marriages and divorces weren't enough reason to stay away from him).
On the matter of abortion, its no secret that Rudy Giuliani supports what he calls, "women's right of choice" and would even go as far as to "fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise". As with his position on gay marriages, Giuliani's abortion stance is no less bad news for his conservative colleagues at the Republican party.
As for gun-control, its been suggested that his advocacy was brought about by the compelling need to deal with New York's crime menace. But for whatever reasons there were, the fact remains that he now finds himself yet again at the opposite side of the field, awkwardly polarized from his party, which stands as the proud bullwark of the Second Amendment.
Now a tough decision has to be made. Rudy Giuliani has all but officially declared his intention to seek the presidential nomination of the Republican party. And why not? After all, he has so far proven to be one of the most charismatic leaders in the GOP, or one, who some surmise, is capable of matching the "rock star" status of Barack Obama. Furthermore, his fatherly assuring image amongst New Yorkers during the dark hours of September 11, 2001, still resonates deep in the heart of a nation in search of alternative leadership. Along with this, his record of investigating and prosecuting cases against terrorist as well as his eviction of Yasser Arafat from New York in 1995 (for being a perceived terrorist) strike a positive chord among the citizens of a world power leading the War on Terror. Taken into consideration with his record of reducing and/or eliminating taxes during his stint at city hall, Giuliani's handlers hope to bring forth the image of an affable, or at least, a tolerable conservative. But the question is whether this would be sufficient to off-set indifference and growing hostility among the social and religious right and brewed by his seemingly unrelenting positions taken on gay marriages, abortion and gun-control. It would be noteworthy to consider that unlike Governor Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani has not taken any concrete steps towards reconsidering his said views on those issues. And it doesn't seem that the hard-line party conservatives, with their strong and sacred respect to life and the essence of marriage, will be ready to part with their ideals..., or their guns.
Like chop suey, Giuliani's mixture of conservative and liberal views may appeal to the political appetite of some of the voters out there. But whether or not this would as healthy to a hungry and consuming public remains to be seen.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
My Take on The Philippine Senate
In a few months, we will once again cap this ordeal of a campaign with an election of a new batch of leaders including 12 characters who would constitute the Philippine Senate. Now, I've been dwelling deeply in the United States Presidential Elections which is more than a year away and I have yet to post an item under this blog which deals with something much closer to home. Shame on you, Mr. Kite! Where's your sense of nationalism? Why not give equal coverage to those "honorable" men and women who make up the alleged bastion of Philippine Democracy? Do something for your country. Be a patriot!
ALRIGHT!! Enough! Ok? I will accede to this annoying call of conscience and give you my take on the Philippine Senate. Here goes nothing....
On August 29, 1916, the United States Congress enacted "The Philppine Autonomy Act", otherwise known as the "Jones Law", which provided for the creation of a bicameral legislature, wherein the first Philippine Senate was created, slosgjhnoclndlhond,fyhdasllx adoaqeiflkholnfelhfldnflandlfjhaopdnfldjhfand,fanduhfeonrqLHEFNOalefnlfnfaldnflandflANDFLndflNLFllajfapjfal
sjeoutmenudmeofchbtpdhnroeygflwfloyuaehtr;waoefoiHWTR;prg;eufnanojhrefaqwrh1340aslgkhagfangf...
Oh, sorry. Dozed off a little bit. Oh shit, its almost 6:00 pm. Gotta hit the gym. See ya!
Hey, you can't say I didn't try.............
ALRIGHT!! Enough! Ok? I will accede to this annoying call of conscience and give you my take on the Philippine Senate. Here goes nothing....
On August 29, 1916, the United States Congress enacted "The Philppine Autonomy Act", otherwise known as the "Jones Law", which provided for the creation of a bicameral legislature, wherein the first Philippine Senate was created, slosgjhnoclndlhond,fyhdasllx adoaqeiflkholnfelhfldnflandlfjhaopdnfldjhfand,fanduhfeonrqLHEFNOalefnlfnfaldnflandflANDFLndflNLFllajfapjfal
sjeoutmenudmeofchbtpdhnroeygflwfloyuaehtr;waoefoiHWTR;prg;eufnanojhrefaqwrh1340aslgkhagfangf...
Oh, sorry. Dozed off a little bit. Oh shit, its almost 6:00 pm. Gotta hit the gym. See ya!
Hey, you can't say I didn't try.............
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
On the Issues 2008 (part 2)
EDUCATION: Republican Governor Mitt Romney and Democratic Senator Barack Obama take off from a common starting point by acknowledging that the current American school system needs to be reformed, given the number of failing students as well as the fact that schools have been lagging behind world standards. They both push for such urgent reforms if only to remain competitive on the global arena with countries like China and India, whose proven and growing strength in mathematics and science have highlighted their role of new world powers. The educational programs advocated by both candidates deal with, among others, the increase and/or innovation in teachers' pay, thereby recognizing their valuable role in uplifting the nation's educational standards as well as the need to reasonably compensate them for their priceless efforts. While Romney and Obama push for pay increases for teachers, said candidates give equal emphasis to thier quality performance as the country's primary educators.
The Democratic candidates are vocal in their support for early education and actively push for the full implementation and perpetuation of Head Start, a federally funded project that underscores the role of parents in their child's education. Hillary Clinton is firm in her support for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) and has gone to the extent of criticizing President George W. Bush for supposedly "breaking the promise" of the said law by limiting its funding under the 2007 budget. But like her Republican counterparts, she supports the idea of charter schools and boasts of introducing legislation which would creat "an innovative funding source to help build and expand charter schools". She is, however, strongly against any school voucher system that would "divert precious resources away from financially strapped public schools to private schools that are not subject to the same accountability standards". (Obama is reportedly also against the school vouchers.) Furthermore, she has legislated for funds to ensure school modernization, thereby recognizing this as a critical part in boosting student achievement. This, of course, says nothing of the fact that she has also introduced such legislation intended to help schools construct healthier and more energy efficient buildings.
As earlier implied, Barack Obama is determined to pour more money into education. His record on this score proves this without any equivocation. Consider that for his home state, apart from the purpose of recruiting and rewarding good teachers, Senator Obama has, on the national level, introduced legislation that calls for funding of a program that supports summer learning opportunities in favor of disadvantaged children through local schools or community organizations, otherwise known as Summer Term Education Programs for Upward Progress Act or STEP UP. Notably, Senator Obama recognizes the issue of education as both an individual and social responsibility and while he tirelessly pushes for additional funding, he enjoins deeper motivation and drive on the part of the students, parents and of course, the teachers.
Both Democratic candidates value opportunity for higher education and have their respective records to show for it. Clinton, for her part, introduced the Student Borrower Bill of Rights and has co-sponsored the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Act. In order to ensure a student's upward mobility after secondary education, Obama supports the idea of state-funded tuition and other fees for those students attending a public college or university and who maintain a "B" average. He is also introduced, as his first piece of legislation in the United States Senate, the HOPE Act which, among others, increases financial aid under the existing Pell Grants.
Walking the conservative line, Senator John McCain supports the concept of unrestricted federal grants for education in favor of the states who would thereby decide on their own how the same should be spent to address their respective educational concerns. While the grant includes an amount ear-marked for the teacher's merit pay, he puts his full trust on the concerned state as to how the same should be disbursed for the said purpose. In other words, it is upon the state and not the federal government, to decide who are those teachers qualified to recieve the said sums of money. As with the other candidates, he supports higher pay for teachers and sees this as a means of attracting "the best and the brightest". According to him "good" teachers should earn more than "bad" lawyers.
Not surprisingly, John McCain, as with Mitt Romney, is a strong advocate of school vouchers. In line with this, he legislated the "Educating America's Children Today" or the ED-ACT, under which an eligible child would be entitled to $2,000 every year for three years, for private or religious school tuition, including transportation costs as well as other supplementary educational assistance, while attending either a private or public school. In his own words, "Vouchers encourage public and private schools, communities and parents to all work together to raise the level of education for all students." As with the unrestricted federal block grants for educational purposes, John McCain pushes for federally financed vouchers but with the states deciding on their own whether or not to use standardized tests to determine who would be qualified to receive the same.
Mitt Romney likewise supports vouchers for both public and private schools. He is similarly supportive of the position that matters of education are best controlled and decided, at the state level and not by the federal government. In fact, the Governor from Massachusets believes that any reforms on education should be directly undertaken at the lowest levels of government, closer to the community, the schools and the family. He is also known to be a strong advocate calling for the abolition of the federal Department of Education.
Finally, both Republican candidates believe in integrating values and virtues in the classroom. However, while Senator McCain has voted to require all schools to allow voluntary prayer by the students, Governor Romney religion should be kept out of and not endorsed by the schools.
The basic distinctions between the educational platforms of the two parties lies mainly in their support or opposition to school vouchers as well as the role the federal government should play in matters pertaining to education. This, of course, is reflective of the traditional ideological divide subsisting between the two political parties, or in a looser sense, the "Big Government" vs. "Small Government" debate. Given the sanctity of the issue and how close it is to the hearts of the voters, it should be interesting to see how the candidates creatively argue their platforms and market the same for the primaries and eventually the elections next year.
The Democratic candidates are vocal in their support for early education and actively push for the full implementation and perpetuation of Head Start, a federally funded project that underscores the role of parents in their child's education. Hillary Clinton is firm in her support for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA) and has gone to the extent of criticizing President George W. Bush for supposedly "breaking the promise" of the said law by limiting its funding under the 2007 budget. But like her Republican counterparts, she supports the idea of charter schools and boasts of introducing legislation which would creat "an innovative funding source to help build and expand charter schools". She is, however, strongly against any school voucher system that would "divert precious resources away from financially strapped public schools to private schools that are not subject to the same accountability standards". (Obama is reportedly also against the school vouchers.) Furthermore, she has legislated for funds to ensure school modernization, thereby recognizing this as a critical part in boosting student achievement. This, of course, says nothing of the fact that she has also introduced such legislation intended to help schools construct healthier and more energy efficient buildings.
As earlier implied, Barack Obama is determined to pour more money into education. His record on this score proves this without any equivocation. Consider that for his home state, apart from the purpose of recruiting and rewarding good teachers, Senator Obama has, on the national level, introduced legislation that calls for funding of a program that supports summer learning opportunities in favor of disadvantaged children through local schools or community organizations, otherwise known as Summer Term Education Programs for Upward Progress Act or STEP UP. Notably, Senator Obama recognizes the issue of education as both an individual and social responsibility and while he tirelessly pushes for additional funding, he enjoins deeper motivation and drive on the part of the students, parents and of course, the teachers.
Both Democratic candidates value opportunity for higher education and have their respective records to show for it. Clinton, for her part, introduced the Student Borrower Bill of Rights and has co-sponsored the College Quality, Affordability and Diversity Act. In order to ensure a student's upward mobility after secondary education, Obama supports the idea of state-funded tuition and other fees for those students attending a public college or university and who maintain a "B" average. He is also introduced, as his first piece of legislation in the United States Senate, the HOPE Act which, among others, increases financial aid under the existing Pell Grants.
Walking the conservative line, Senator John McCain supports the concept of unrestricted federal grants for education in favor of the states who would thereby decide on their own how the same should be spent to address their respective educational concerns. While the grant includes an amount ear-marked for the teacher's merit pay, he puts his full trust on the concerned state as to how the same should be disbursed for the said purpose. In other words, it is upon the state and not the federal government, to decide who are those teachers qualified to recieve the said sums of money. As with the other candidates, he supports higher pay for teachers and sees this as a means of attracting "the best and the brightest". According to him "good" teachers should earn more than "bad" lawyers.
Not surprisingly, John McCain, as with Mitt Romney, is a strong advocate of school vouchers. In line with this, he legislated the "Educating America's Children Today" or the ED-ACT, under which an eligible child would be entitled to $2,000 every year for three years, for private or religious school tuition, including transportation costs as well as other supplementary educational assistance, while attending either a private or public school. In his own words, "Vouchers encourage public and private schools, communities and parents to all work together to raise the level of education for all students." As with the unrestricted federal block grants for educational purposes, John McCain pushes for federally financed vouchers but with the states deciding on their own whether or not to use standardized tests to determine who would be qualified to receive the same.
Mitt Romney likewise supports vouchers for both public and private schools. He is similarly supportive of the position that matters of education are best controlled and decided, at the state level and not by the federal government. In fact, the Governor from Massachusets believes that any reforms on education should be directly undertaken at the lowest levels of government, closer to the community, the schools and the family. He is also known to be a strong advocate calling for the abolition of the federal Department of Education.
Finally, both Republican candidates believe in integrating values and virtues in the classroom. However, while Senator McCain has voted to require all schools to allow voluntary prayer by the students, Governor Romney religion should be kept out of and not endorsed by the schools.
The basic distinctions between the educational platforms of the two parties lies mainly in their support or opposition to school vouchers as well as the role the federal government should play in matters pertaining to education. This, of course, is reflective of the traditional ideological divide subsisting between the two political parties, or in a looser sense, the "Big Government" vs. "Small Government" debate. Given the sanctity of the issue and how close it is to the hearts of the voters, it should be interesting to see how the candidates creatively argue their platforms and market the same for the primaries and eventually the elections next year.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
On the Issues 2008 (part 1)
Senators Hillary R. Clinton and Barack Obama are the top two contenders for the Democratic Party Presidential Nomination. On the other side of the political fence, at the elephant's lair, Senators John McCain and Governor Mitt Romney figure prominently this early. While it would be imprudently premature to count out the likes of Governors Tom Vilsack and Mike Huckabee, or Senators Joe Biden, John Edwards or even Mayor Rudy Guiliani, an early comparison on how they stand vis-a-vis the important issues may be interesting. In a series of posts, I hope to maybe discuss the candidates' position on the issues and thereby paint a clearer picture of the political dynamics that would characterize what should prove to be one of the more interesting campaigns in the history of the United States.
IRAQ: Its no secret that both Clinton and Obama strongly disagree with the present course of action taken by President George W. Bush on Iraq. The differences between the two of them on the alternative courses to be taken, should he/she be elected President, are minimal. Clinton outlines a phased "redeployment" of troops out of Iraq that would, according to her, enable the President to end the War and still save face. Obama's position, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that the Iraq War was "wrong in its inception" and hence, a "rash" war or even a "dumb" war. In limited contrast to what Clinton is suggesting, Obama is looking to get out as soon as possible and thus, his March 2008 deadline for the removal of all combat brigades. Clinton gives no such definite time-table, but like Obama, recognizes the necessity of international participation as well as a more pro-active and positive role played by the Iraqi government in dealing with grave local concerns, more particularly the ensuing sectarian violence subequent to the American invasion. Obviously, both candidates have marched to the drumbeat of the bipartisan opposition to troop escalation in Iraq, as recently called for by President Bush.
Relative to this issue, I believe that the report submitted by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group has emboldened both candidates to further amplify where they stand on this issue and thus, its underlying significance to the campaign. This is evidenced no less than the fact that both legislators have apparently lifted the salient points of the said report fitting them nicely in their respective platforms. Note that Senator Obama's choice of March 2008 as the target date for total troop withdrawal is consistent with the group's recommendations while Senator Clinton has gone on record to herald her call to the President for "a dramatic change of course in Iraq", on the basis of the said report.
This works especially well for Senator Clinton who for awhile had to tip-toe past this issue, lest she fall and sink into the same quicksand that debilitated Sentaor John Kerry's run for the presidency in 2004. Previously, through the confluence of events and circumstances, such as the then recent memory of the Septemer 11, 2001 attacks, the spin pre-dominantly articulated by Republican hawks and more importantly, the corresponding graveyard-like silence and reticence from the Democratic party, any criticism of the war Iraq was generally viewed as un-patriotic and deemed an insult to the memory of American soldiers who gave their lives fighting the War on Terror. With the growing unpopularity of the War in Iraq, the Democrats have extricated themselves from that constricting cage of absolutes, thereby allowing them to be more vocal on the issue. More importantly, and with the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrats present a more united force, confidently speaking out against the Bush Administration on how it has perceivably failed in Iraq.
Hence, the report by the Iraq Study Group, being as it is, diametrically opposed to the present road map followed by the Bush Administration, conveniently serves the Democrats' political agenda, especially coming out of a rosy mid-term election that centered on the heavily perceived missteps of Republican leadership. Hence, it would not be surprising to see other presidential aspirants from the Democratic Party adopting the same recommendations as an alternative to the seeminly ill-fated post-invasion plan of President Bush. The results of the recent mid-term elections only serve to validate this new found precept and with the issue now arguably in their favor, the prospects of a Democratic presidency come 2008 seems more and more likely.
It can be reasonably ascretained that Democrats would now want to fully optimize their recent political gains by, among others, finally ushering in their refined policy on National Security, which includes the War in Iraq. Perhaps, while drawing inspiration from the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, they envison a policy that re-froms, re-establishes and re-strenghthens international alliances that may yet prove to be the key in bringing about that elusive regional stability, particularly in the Middle East.
Notwithstanding the results of the mid-term elections and their political implications, Republican candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain aren't about to abandon their unequivocally hawkish stand on the Iraq War. Apparently ready to "bite the bullet" on this issue, both candidates are openly advocating President Bush's message of "staying the course". Both candidates strongly support increasing American troop presence in Iraq while acknowleding the problems brough about by the insurgents and sectarian violence. Stated simply, they believe that that such concerns should be addressed, in no small part, by military action. Senator McCain goes as far as saying that the additional troops sought by President Bush "is crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development" of Iraq.
Logically, both candidates are in no real hurry to get out of Iraq. This early in the campaign, they probably see the necessity of securing support from the Republican base by appealing to those influential hard-line conservatives who strongly advocate and support the War on Terror.
Senator McCain's position is anchored on his strong belief that America cannot fail in Iraq. Taking the cue from the incumbent Republican chief executive, he stresses that such failure would "endanger America for generations to come". Governor Romney, who is explicit in his drive of "Defeating the Jihadists", is not far behind. While recognizing that the United States was not "ready for the post major conflict period", he remains steadfast in his support for additional troops to Iraq and boldly predicts an almost immediate success for this plan ("...within months").
Incidental to the issue on the War in Iraq, specifically on the role of regional doplomacy and/or participation, both candidates find common ground on the Issue of how to deal with the likes of Iran and Syria. In stark contrast to the Democratic candidates (who openly advocate engaging both states in diplomatic dialogue along with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.), McCain and Romney opt to turn up the pressure on Iran and Syria. Senator McCain argues that both states have contributed to the violence in Iraq thereby hampering the United States' efforts in bringing peace and stability to the region. Governor Romney, meanwhile, fits the call for pressure on Iran and Syria, right smack in the middle of his battle cry against the Jihadist radicals, thereby underscoring the said states' connections to terrorists organizations and activities.
Apparently, both candidates, along with probably a great number of Republicans, are pinning their hopes on the possible last minute crunchtime success in Iraq. Its a big gamble considering where they stand at the moment in the perception game. But this gamble can reap an abundance of political gains should President Bush end up succeeding in his efforts just in time for the next presidential elections. Perhaps too, for both McCain and Romney, the United States is at war and good news are often times scarce. They probably hope that, as it was in World War II, the existing restlessness and frustration will slowly evaporate, and after all the heated passions and emotions subside, history would ultimately judge their positions as the right course of action taken.
IRAQ: Its no secret that both Clinton and Obama strongly disagree with the present course of action taken by President George W. Bush on Iraq. The differences between the two of them on the alternative courses to be taken, should he/she be elected President, are minimal. Clinton outlines a phased "redeployment" of troops out of Iraq that would, according to her, enable the President to end the War and still save face. Obama's position, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that the Iraq War was "wrong in its inception" and hence, a "rash" war or even a "dumb" war. In limited contrast to what Clinton is suggesting, Obama is looking to get out as soon as possible and thus, his March 2008 deadline for the removal of all combat brigades. Clinton gives no such definite time-table, but like Obama, recognizes the necessity of international participation as well as a more pro-active and positive role played by the Iraqi government in dealing with grave local concerns, more particularly the ensuing sectarian violence subequent to the American invasion. Obviously, both candidates have marched to the drumbeat of the bipartisan opposition to troop escalation in Iraq, as recently called for by President Bush.
Relative to this issue, I believe that the report submitted by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group has emboldened both candidates to further amplify where they stand on this issue and thus, its underlying significance to the campaign. This is evidenced no less than the fact that both legislators have apparently lifted the salient points of the said report fitting them nicely in their respective platforms. Note that Senator Obama's choice of March 2008 as the target date for total troop withdrawal is consistent with the group's recommendations while Senator Clinton has gone on record to herald her call to the President for "a dramatic change of course in Iraq", on the basis of the said report.
This works especially well for Senator Clinton who for awhile had to tip-toe past this issue, lest she fall and sink into the same quicksand that debilitated Sentaor John Kerry's run for the presidency in 2004. Previously, through the confluence of events and circumstances, such as the then recent memory of the Septemer 11, 2001 attacks, the spin pre-dominantly articulated by Republican hawks and more importantly, the corresponding graveyard-like silence and reticence from the Democratic party, any criticism of the war Iraq was generally viewed as un-patriotic and deemed an insult to the memory of American soldiers who gave their lives fighting the War on Terror. With the growing unpopularity of the War in Iraq, the Democrats have extricated themselves from that constricting cage of absolutes, thereby allowing them to be more vocal on the issue. More importantly, and with the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrats present a more united force, confidently speaking out against the Bush Administration on how it has perceivably failed in Iraq.
Hence, the report by the Iraq Study Group, being as it is, diametrically opposed to the present road map followed by the Bush Administration, conveniently serves the Democrats' political agenda, especially coming out of a rosy mid-term election that centered on the heavily perceived missteps of Republican leadership. Hence, it would not be surprising to see other presidential aspirants from the Democratic Party adopting the same recommendations as an alternative to the seeminly ill-fated post-invasion plan of President Bush. The results of the recent mid-term elections only serve to validate this new found precept and with the issue now arguably in their favor, the prospects of a Democratic presidency come 2008 seems more and more likely.
It can be reasonably ascretained that Democrats would now want to fully optimize their recent political gains by, among others, finally ushering in their refined policy on National Security, which includes the War in Iraq. Perhaps, while drawing inspiration from the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, they envison a policy that re-froms, re-establishes and re-strenghthens international alliances that may yet prove to be the key in bringing about that elusive regional stability, particularly in the Middle East.
Notwithstanding the results of the mid-term elections and their political implications, Republican candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain aren't about to abandon their unequivocally hawkish stand on the Iraq War. Apparently ready to "bite the bullet" on this issue, both candidates are openly advocating President Bush's message of "staying the course". Both candidates strongly support increasing American troop presence in Iraq while acknowleding the problems brough about by the insurgents and sectarian violence. Stated simply, they believe that that such concerns should be addressed, in no small part, by military action. Senator McCain goes as far as saying that the additional troops sought by President Bush "is crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development" of Iraq.
Logically, both candidates are in no real hurry to get out of Iraq. This early in the campaign, they probably see the necessity of securing support from the Republican base by appealing to those influential hard-line conservatives who strongly advocate and support the War on Terror.
Senator McCain's position is anchored on his strong belief that America cannot fail in Iraq. Taking the cue from the incumbent Republican chief executive, he stresses that such failure would "endanger America for generations to come". Governor Romney, who is explicit in his drive of "Defeating the Jihadists", is not far behind. While recognizing that the United States was not "ready for the post major conflict period", he remains steadfast in his support for additional troops to Iraq and boldly predicts an almost immediate success for this plan ("...within months").
Incidental to the issue on the War in Iraq, specifically on the role of regional doplomacy and/or participation, both candidates find common ground on the Issue of how to deal with the likes of Iran and Syria. In stark contrast to the Democratic candidates (who openly advocate engaging both states in diplomatic dialogue along with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.), McCain and Romney opt to turn up the pressure on Iran and Syria. Senator McCain argues that both states have contributed to the violence in Iraq thereby hampering the United States' efforts in bringing peace and stability to the region. Governor Romney, meanwhile, fits the call for pressure on Iran and Syria, right smack in the middle of his battle cry against the Jihadist radicals, thereby underscoring the said states' connections to terrorists organizations and activities.
Apparently, both candidates, along with probably a great number of Republicans, are pinning their hopes on the possible last minute crunchtime success in Iraq. Its a big gamble considering where they stand at the moment in the perception game. But this gamble can reap an abundance of political gains should President Bush end up succeeding in his efforts just in time for the next presidential elections. Perhaps too, for both McCain and Romney, the United States is at war and good news are often times scarce. They probably hope that, as it was in World War II, the existing restlessness and frustration will slowly evaporate, and after all the heated passions and emotions subside, history would ultimately judge their positions as the right course of action taken.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
One Step Back...Two Steps Forward
While being usually gung-ho about how we deal with IF, we prudently decided to temproarily "hold our positions" for this cycle on the basis of the "field reports" given by Dr. N. As explained by Baby Blue, follicles weren't cooperative and we felt that going through with IUI #3 would have been pushing it. But we don't see this as a surrender. I see it more as a "tactical retreat" in order to prepare for the next cycle, where hopefully the "battlefield" would be more conducive for victory.
If you were to ask me how I felt about this aborted cycle. I'd admit that a part of me was once again sighing in frustration. But generally, I've got my spirits up. I'm ready to try again, ready to move on and do what I have to do for the next round. Taking the cue from my alma mater, I'm willing to go forward and give it "ONE BIG FIGHT!"
So folks, worry not and be assured...we're still in the thick of the fight! I said it before and I'll say it again....WE WILL BE STRONGER!
Thank you, again for being with us.
If you were to ask me how I felt about this aborted cycle. I'd admit that a part of me was once again sighing in frustration. But generally, I've got my spirits up. I'm ready to try again, ready to move on and do what I have to do for the next round. Taking the cue from my alma mater, I'm willing to go forward and give it "ONE BIG FIGHT!"
So folks, worry not and be assured...we're still in the thick of the fight! I said it before and I'll say it again....WE WILL BE STRONGER!
Thank you, again for being with us.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Strumming Away With My Blue Guitar......
The eve of Valentine's saw my beloved Baby Blue purchase me a neat blue guitar, thus eliciting thoughts of the 1937 poem by Wallace Stevens“The Man with the Blue Guitar” (http://wings.buffalo.edu/cas/english/faculty/conte/syllabi/377/Wallace_Stevens.html), which in turn was supposed to have been inspired by the 1903 Picasso painting "The Old Guitarist". In essence, the poem takes off from Picasso's depiction of an an ordinary and common man undertaking the seemingly simple activity of making music with his guitar. In a write-up by James E. Miller, Jr., (ADE Bulletin 043, November 1974; http://www.mla.org/ade/bulletin/n043/043038.htm), the poem (with frequent reference to, and parallelism with the said artwork), is deemed to portray everyman's creative instinct through words, expressions and ideas. Simply put, every person is a a guitarist and his guitar...his or her language. According to Miller the man strumming his guitar is man's (and woman's) expression....more importantly, his creation.
In light of the foregoing premise, the interplay between my wife's purchase of the blue guitar and her success in drawing me to the "blogosphere", cannot easily be ignored. As I one day hope to create and express some thoughts and feelings while strumming the blue guitar, I set forth my ideas from deep within me through the power of language in my blogs, something I know all "bloggers" envisioned with their own writings. Through these blogs, we create and articulate our thoughts and feelings, which according to Miller, shapes both our inner and outer realities. In essence, we all have our respective blue guitars and we all strum away, as we gradually discover, structure, cope with and most of all....create our lives. And thus, we learn to appreciate even more the fledging power of language in each of us.
(*interesting side note/personal trivia: "The Man with the Blue Guitar" was published on October 4, 1937....or exactly 34 years before I was born).
We all have our realities to face and which, at times, prove to be too overwhelming to bare. Disappointments, frustrations, sorrow, anger and fear are commonplace in the "real" world we live in today. Whether it be infertility, illness, disease or other physical handicaps, or whether it be stress at work, unpaid bills, rising costs or living, economic and fininacial woes, or whether it be politicially or socially induced, say maybe war, poverty, corruption, crime.....these realities are present. And according to Miller, our imagination or creative instincts (in language, or otherwise) does not live independently of the real world. But with our constant strumming of our own blue guitars, we contribute in shaping, structuring and creating this "real" world, and which helps us comprehend it's initially intractable and impenetrable essence. By engaging the world with our creative instincts we learn to cope and deal with our respective realities. Further quoting Miller: "This is the imagination in its continuous creative process as it encounters and structures reality". The way I see it, we don't have to stop strumming our blue guitars just because we got our daily dosage of reality.
Hence, I become so eternally greatful to Baby Blue who has, in her own way, helped me tap into my creative instincts. With my new blue guitar, I hope to become Wallace Stevens' man "playing the things they are" and "upon the blue guitar", hoping to create and play beautiful music, helping us face the difficult realities we both encounter, and hopefully one day, as we shape our own inner and outer realties, we discover and create....A NEW LIFE.
I wish you all the best this Valentine's Day and hope to see and hear you continue strumming your creative thoughts.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
lyrics and some trivia
For those who may be curious about the song from which the title of this blog was lifted, I am posting the lyrics here:
"For the benefit of Mr. Kite there will be a show tonight on trampoline The Hendersons will all be there late of Pablo Fanques'fair, what a scene Over men and horses hoops and garters and lastly through a hogshead of real fire In this way Mr. K will challenge the world
The celebrated Mr. K performs his feats on Saturday at Bishopsgate The Hendersons will dance and sing as Mr. Kite flies through the ring, don't be late
Messers K. and H. assure the public their production will be second to none And of course Henry the Horse dances the waltz
The band begins at ten to six when Mr. K performs his tricks without a sound And Mr. H will demonstrate ten somersets he'll undertake on solid ground
Having been some days in preparation a splendid time is guaranteed for all And tonight Mr. Kite is topping the bill "
All this inspired by an old poster for a circus that chief beatle John Lennon discovered. He saw it at an old antique shop near a hotel that The Beatles were lodged in, somewhere in Sevenoaks. He bought the poster which is supposedly now in the possession of Sean Lennon, John's son with Yoko Ono. Smart kid. He keeps it a few more years than auctions it off and just maybe he bags a cool million out of those seemingly mundane items.
"For the benefit of Mr. Kite there will be a show tonight on trampoline The Hendersons will all be there late of Pablo Fanques'fair, what a scene Over men and horses hoops and garters and lastly through a hogshead of real fire In this way Mr. K will challenge the world
The celebrated Mr. K performs his feats on Saturday at Bishopsgate The Hendersons will dance and sing as Mr. Kite flies through the ring, don't be late
Messers K. and H. assure the public their production will be second to none And of course Henry the Horse dances the waltz
The band begins at ten to six when Mr. K performs his tricks without a sound And Mr. H will demonstrate ten somersets he'll undertake on solid ground
Having been some days in preparation a splendid time is guaranteed for all And tonight Mr. Kite is topping the bill "
All this inspired by an old poster for a circus that chief beatle John Lennon discovered. He saw it at an old antique shop near a hotel that The Beatles were lodged in, somewhere in Sevenoaks. He bought the poster which is supposedly now in the possession of Sean Lennon, John's son with Yoko Ono. Smart kid. He keeps it a few more years than auctions it off and just maybe he bags a cool million out of those seemingly mundane items.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Audaciously Hoping
Once, while walking past an open basketball court, I saw this guy throw a basketball up in the air and then..swooosh...nothing but net. Standing right under the goal was his son, probably no more than four years old and barely four feet high. "Do it again, daddy!", said the child eagerly waiting to see his father score another field goal. Now judging from the way that the guy dribbled and released the ball, I'd honestly say and firmly believe that I could have taken him "one-on-one". The score might be close but with a little nudge here and there while on defense, I'd declare victory at the sound of the buzzer. If anyone was taking note of the stats for that game, the records would unequivocally reflect that I'd beat him in all categories: points, rebounds, blocked shots, steals...heck, I could have probably passed the ball to myself several times and chalk up some assists (Yes, folks. The guy was that bad.) But no matter how bad I'd beat him, regardless of what the score board read after the game, in the eyes of that child, I would never amount to anything close to what his father is to him.
This left me once again wrestling with those lingering thoughts, those disquieting and cumbersome questions: When am I going to be a father? For over two years, I've been putting up a brave front and valiantly coasting along the life of being childless. Along with my loving wife, we faced disappointment, fear, frustration, bitterness, anger and sorrow in dealing with this circumstance. We've shed tears and, at times, locked horns just to get by. Yet, here we are...still hoping, praying and trying. I've asked myself a lot of time: What do I have to do to become a father? (APART FROM THE OBVIOUS! -- to any smart alecks out there)
Now there's a whole laundry list of advise and suggestions given to us. Some from the applicable medical field and quite a lot from others who have been through this struggle before. But I also have heeded the sound advise from within me. That enlightening voice of conscience that, during these trying time, funnels in words of wisdom, helping me up after being once again knocked out by evaporated hopes and unanswered prayers. The message is simple: I have to be strong for myself and my wife. We're on a new cycle and again we'll cloth ourselves with that cautious confidence and carry that flicker of hope on this journey. We'll be stronger this time. And just maybe, I'd be scoring those baskets, this time to the delight of my own child.
Again, I'd like to express my most sincerest gratitude to Baby Blue's support group. You have no idea how significant your thoughts and prayers are during these trying times. From what I've read, you have your own battles to fight and win, your own difficulties and disappointments to deal with, and yet you find the time to reach out to us, just to let us know that you were thinking of us. Your virtual presence reminds me of something I picked up from the TV series "The West Wing" Here it goes:
We're all down here in this hole. I say we help each other find the way out.
This left me once again wrestling with those lingering thoughts, those disquieting and cumbersome questions: When am I going to be a father? For over two years, I've been putting up a brave front and valiantly coasting along the life of being childless. Along with my loving wife, we faced disappointment, fear, frustration, bitterness, anger and sorrow in dealing with this circumstance. We've shed tears and, at times, locked horns just to get by. Yet, here we are...still hoping, praying and trying. I've asked myself a lot of time: What do I have to do to become a father? (APART FROM THE OBVIOUS! -- to any smart alecks out there)
Now there's a whole laundry list of advise and suggestions given to us. Some from the applicable medical field and quite a lot from others who have been through this struggle before. But I also have heeded the sound advise from within me. That enlightening voice of conscience that, during these trying time, funnels in words of wisdom, helping me up after being once again knocked out by evaporated hopes and unanswered prayers. The message is simple: I have to be strong for myself and my wife. We're on a new cycle and again we'll cloth ourselves with that cautious confidence and carry that flicker of hope on this journey. We'll be stronger this time. And just maybe, I'd be scoring those baskets, this time to the delight of my own child.
Again, I'd like to express my most sincerest gratitude to Baby Blue's support group. You have no idea how significant your thoughts and prayers are during these trying times. From what I've read, you have your own battles to fight and win, your own difficulties and disappointments to deal with, and yet you find the time to reach out to us, just to let us know that you were thinking of us. Your virtual presence reminds me of something I picked up from the TV series "The West Wing" Here it goes:
"This guy's walking down the street when he falls in a hole. The walls are so steep he can't get out. A doctor passes by, and the guy shouts up, "Hey, you, can you help me out?" The doctor writes a prescription, throws it down in the hole and moves on. Then a priest comes along, and the guy shouts up, "Father, I'm down in this hole. Can you help me out?" The priest writes a prayer, throws it down in the hole and moves on. Then a friend walks by. Hey, Joe, it's me. Can you help me out" And the friend jumps in the hole. Our guy says, "Are you nuts? Now we're both down here." The friend says, "Yeah, but I've been down here before - and I know the way out."
We're all down here in this hole. I say we help each other find the way out.
Thursday, February 1, 2007
O-bambi, O-bomb-a, O-bubba...Oh Bummer!
So, he announces that he's forming a presidential exploratory committee, or taking the virtual first step on a long and arduous journey to the White House. A journey which, many before him have taken, and none of whom have returned unscathed. Hey, he's been living and working in Washington for about two years, you'd think that by now, he'd realize that the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue isn't paved with rose petals. No sir, this is the "mother of all political battles", the race to be "the most powerful man in the world" (a political distinction, of course), the quest to be the "leader of the free world".
The sound bytes of his announcement have yet subsided and already Barack Obama has been at the receiving end of various political flak, most of which are primarily intended to give him hard time and let him know that despite his "rock star" status and charming demeanor, the presidency of the United States isn't going to be handed to him on a silver platter. This early in the season Sen. Obama of Illinois has already had to deal with certain "issues" or should I say stereotypes which, while trivial at best, can be unscrupulously capitalized by his adversaries, or anyone, whether Democrats or Republicans, who's not too comfortable having an African-American (with a name rhyming with "Osama") occupy the Oval Office.
The 45 year old Obama is pictured by the skeptics as the greenhorn among the handful of politicians who have expressed their willingness to take a shot at the presidency. The image that's being painted isn't that of a "show-boating" Kobe Bryant dazzling the Los Angeles Community with his reverse jams during his rookie season. Neither is it reminiscent of the young Annakin Skywalker eager to prove to the snobby Jedi council that he's worthy to be one of them. They're talking more on the lines of a "doe-eyed" little boy falling, stumbling and tumbling over just about everything, as he moves about on his quest of discovering the world as we know it. Hence, the monicker...Obambi. Their assessment of the distinguished gentleman from Illinois...he's not ready. He's lacks the experience. And because of this, they would argue that he isn't quite one of those constituting what Alexander Hamilton refers to as "characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue".
Recently, some of the more "resourceful" anti-Barack hit-men have decided to turn-up the heat on the junior senator by suggesting that he spent a good part of his early life studying in an Indonesian Madrassa, which allegedly espoused Wahhabism, a form of radical Islam. We all know were this is headed. Its every spin-doctors' dream. I can hear the sound bytes already: "Do you really want a disciple of radical Islam (with, not to mention, a last name that rhymes with America's Most Wanted Terrorist) to sit in the Oval Office?" Or something like" "Keep the bombers (O-bomb-a) out of Washington!"
Then, of course, there's a toned down and more civilized suggestion that our hero is really nothing more than a reflection of a recent White House occupant, whose wife ironically remains to be the front runner or the top nominee of the Democratic party. That's right, folks. He's still very much around. C'mon, his term bears a lot of significance to the the present political landscape and its gonna take a lot more than a cigar and a "kiss-and-tell" intern to flush ol' Bubba down the forgotten annals of contemporary American politics. That brand of politics practiced by President William Jefferson Clinton can be (to the utter dismay of the Republicans) revived given the growing clamor for change in how things are being handled in Washington. Interestingly, though, the torch bearer this time around would not be the good lady senator from New York, but that "new kid" from Illinois. Senator Obama, like President Clinton has a seeming knack and maybe the impressive ability to steer himself towards the center (and maybe a little bit to the right) on a number of issues, thereby showing that he's not going to be restrained or severely debilitated by the ideological dictates of his party. And like the former President, Senator Obama has, so far, demonstrated his ability to connect and communicate with all sorts of people. The problem is that this makes him a very attractive target for anyone who despised President Clinton and everything he stood for. Aside from dealing with the flak that he'll be getting from these "sour-graping" Republicans, Senator Obama would be seemingly hard-pressed to see eye-to-eye with those within his own party who don't take to kindly to "centrist" swimmers or those who stray too "far to the right". Oh, Bubba, now look what you did? You're making life difficult for O-bambi . If I didn't know any better, I'd say Hillary put you up to this.
But really, what is it about this guy? Why all the hype? Exactly what did he do (or not do) to get that elusive X-Factor that every voter seems to be looking for. Well like many, I'm taking a closer look at him. I'm in the middle of reading his second novel "The Audacity of Hope" and....let's just say, he comes across you as something different. There's an aura of pleasantness. He seems to put you at ease by not forcing his views and beliefs down your throat. He'll tell you what he thinks but gives due credence and respect to the other side. I'm not an American and from where I come from, a politician who conducts himself this way is a most welcome change. (I'm serious, you're be better off searching for Blackbeard's hidden treasure than finding a gentleman in the Philippine Senate.) In the end, you may not agree with what Barack Obama says, but you're not going to hate him for it. He also seems pretty sure about his position. He doesn't at all sound overly confident about what he says and, in turn, you're comforted by the thought that he put a lot of work in studying and researching each and every issue. As one of his dissidents noted: "I may not agree with what you said, but you seem to know what you're talking about."
Will Barack Obama be the wise choice for the Democrats? Is he going to be the new Kennedy that will take back Camelot? I can't say just yet. But despite what's been said about him, I think he's worth a second look. So, despite your hang-ups about O-bambi, O-bomb-a or O-bubba...lets not be too hasty to judge the guy.
Let's talk about him more in the future.
The sound bytes of his announcement have yet subsided and already Barack Obama has been at the receiving end of various political flak, most of which are primarily intended to give him hard time and let him know that despite his "rock star" status and charming demeanor, the presidency of the United States isn't going to be handed to him on a silver platter. This early in the season Sen. Obama of Illinois has already had to deal with certain "issues" or should I say stereotypes which, while trivial at best, can be unscrupulously capitalized by his adversaries, or anyone, whether Democrats or Republicans, who's not too comfortable having an African-American (with a name rhyming with "Osama") occupy the Oval Office.
The 45 year old Obama is pictured by the skeptics as the greenhorn among the handful of politicians who have expressed their willingness to take a shot at the presidency. The image that's being painted isn't that of a "show-boating" Kobe Bryant dazzling the Los Angeles Community with his reverse jams during his rookie season. Neither is it reminiscent of the young Annakin Skywalker eager to prove to the snobby Jedi council that he's worthy to be one of them. They're talking more on the lines of a "doe-eyed" little boy falling, stumbling and tumbling over just about everything, as he moves about on his quest of discovering the world as we know it. Hence, the monicker...Obambi. Their assessment of the distinguished gentleman from Illinois...he's not ready. He's lacks the experience. And because of this, they would argue that he isn't quite one of those constituting what Alexander Hamilton refers to as "characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue".
Recently, some of the more "resourceful" anti-Barack hit-men have decided to turn-up the heat on the junior senator by suggesting that he spent a good part of his early life studying in an Indonesian Madrassa, which allegedly espoused Wahhabism, a form of radical Islam. We all know were this is headed. Its every spin-doctors' dream. I can hear the sound bytes already: "Do you really want a disciple of radical Islam (with, not to mention, a last name that rhymes with America's Most Wanted Terrorist) to sit in the Oval Office?" Or something like" "Keep the bombers (O-bomb-a) out of Washington!"
Then, of course, there's a toned down and more civilized suggestion that our hero is really nothing more than a reflection of a recent White House occupant, whose wife ironically remains to be the front runner or the top nominee of the Democratic party. That's right, folks. He's still very much around. C'mon, his term bears a lot of significance to the the present political landscape and its gonna take a lot more than a cigar and a "kiss-and-tell" intern to flush ol' Bubba down the forgotten annals of contemporary American politics. That brand of politics practiced by President William Jefferson Clinton can be (to the utter dismay of the Republicans) revived given the growing clamor for change in how things are being handled in Washington. Interestingly, though, the torch bearer this time around would not be the good lady senator from New York, but that "new kid" from Illinois. Senator Obama, like President Clinton has a seeming knack and maybe the impressive ability to steer himself towards the center (and maybe a little bit to the right) on a number of issues, thereby showing that he's not going to be restrained or severely debilitated by the ideological dictates of his party. And like the former President, Senator Obama has, so far, demonstrated his ability to connect and communicate with all sorts of people. The problem is that this makes him a very attractive target for anyone who despised President Clinton and everything he stood for. Aside from dealing with the flak that he'll be getting from these "sour-graping" Republicans, Senator Obama would be seemingly hard-pressed to see eye-to-eye with those within his own party who don't take to kindly to "centrist" swimmers or those who stray too "far to the right". Oh, Bubba, now look what you did? You're making life difficult for O-bambi . If I didn't know any better, I'd say Hillary put you up to this.
But really, what is it about this guy? Why all the hype? Exactly what did he do (or not do) to get that elusive X-Factor that every voter seems to be looking for. Well like many, I'm taking a closer look at him. I'm in the middle of reading his second novel "The Audacity of Hope" and....let's just say, he comes across you as something different. There's an aura of pleasantness. He seems to put you at ease by not forcing his views and beliefs down your throat. He'll tell you what he thinks but gives due credence and respect to the other side. I'm not an American and from where I come from, a politician who conducts himself this way is a most welcome change. (I'm serious, you're be better off searching for Blackbeard's hidden treasure than finding a gentleman in the Philippine Senate.) In the end, you may not agree with what Barack Obama says, but you're not going to hate him for it. He also seems pretty sure about his position. He doesn't at all sound overly confident about what he says and, in turn, you're comforted by the thought that he put a lot of work in studying and researching each and every issue. As one of his dissidents noted: "I may not agree with what you said, but you seem to know what you're talking about."
Will Barack Obama be the wise choice for the Democrats? Is he going to be the new Kennedy that will take back Camelot? I can't say just yet. But despite what's been said about him, I think he's worth a second look. So, despite your hang-ups about O-bambi, O-bomb-a or O-bubba...lets not be too hasty to judge the guy.
Let's talk about him more in the future.
Pilot Post
Yes, the title of this newly created blog was lifted from, and inspired by the 1967 Beatles song (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album). A little research done on the said song tells me that Mr. Kite was supposedly an all-around performer who had worked for Pablo Fanque's Circus from 1843 to 1845. In commencing this endeavour, I hope to initiate and undertake an all-around discussion on just about anything under the sun. And perhaps, like the real Mr. Kite, I just may succeed in entertaining some people out there.
From time to time, I hope to post some of my thoughts on various topics ranging from politics, entertainment, sports, my personal life and well....just about anything.
Just a little note: While I may be a certified beatlemaniac, the song bearing semblance with the title of this blog really isn't one of my favorite hits by the fab four. Just one of those that left me thinking....now how the heck did they come up with something like that?
By the way, my loving wife is Baby Blues. She's got her own blog and a growing support group. I wish to convey my thanks to her new found friends for all the wonderful thoughts, prayers and all the inspiring words of wisdom you have extended to her ever since. Check out http://babybluebabbles.blogspot.com/
From time to time, I hope to post some of my thoughts on various topics ranging from politics, entertainment, sports, my personal life and well....just about anything.
Just a little note: While I may be a certified beatlemaniac, the song bearing semblance with the title of this blog really isn't one of my favorite hits by the fab four. Just one of those that left me thinking....now how the heck did they come up with something like that?
By the way, my loving wife is Baby Blues. She's got her own blog and a growing support group. I wish to convey my thanks to her new found friends for all the wonderful thoughts, prayers and all the inspiring words of wisdom you have extended to her ever since. Check out http://babybluebabbles.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)