The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American Statesman Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Monday Music "Billy Joel" Piano Man

  I  know that this was done on a Tuesday.. I was unable to get it up earlier....Work gets in the way...You believe that?   Jeez...My employer expects me to fix airplanes...
     I knew of billy Joel from the 1970's, but the first album I liked was his "Nylon Curtain" album, that one got a lot of airplay on MTV but because of the interest I started paying attention to his earlier stuff.  I considered Billy Joel one of the all time iconic singers in Rock history...and he plays piano too...!  I wanted to see Billy Joel perform, but was unable to.  When Billy and Elton ran a double billing...I really wanted to see them, but the price for the tickets were prohibitive and I didn't go.  What can I say...I have more important stuff to spend money on........But I have a lot of respect for Billy as a musician for the myriad of talents that be brings to the genre. 

"Piano Man" is the first single released by Billy Joel. It was released on November 2, 1973, and has been included on several subsequent albums. Billy Joel's first major hit and his signature song, the song peaked at #25 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart in April 1974

"Piano Man" is a fictionalized retelling of Joel's experience as a piano-lounge singer for six months in 1972 at the now defunct Executive Room bar in Los Angeles. Joel has stated that all of the characters depicted in the song were based on real people. "John at the bar" was really the bartender who worked during Joel's shift at the piano bar. "Paul is a real estate novelist" refers to a real estate agent named Paul who would sit at the bar each night working on what he believed would be the next great American novel. "The waitress is practicing politics" refers to Joel's first wife Elizabeth Weber, whom he met at The Executive Room. Joel had moved from New York to L.A. to record his first album, Cold Spring Harbor which was marred by a mastering error by the album's producers at Family Productions, the first label that signed Joel. After this bad experience, Joel wanted to leave his contract with Family Productions for Columbia Records, but the contract that he'd signed made this very difficult. So Joel stated that he was "hiding out" at the bar, performing under the name Bill Martin, while lawyers at Columbia Records tried to get him out of his first record deal.

      The verses of the song are sung from the point of view of a bar piano player who focuses mainly on everyone else at the bar: an old man, John the bartender, the waitress, businessmen, and bar regulars like "real estate novelist" Paul and US Navy sailor, Davy. Most of these characters have broken or unfulfilled dreams, and the pianist's job is to help them "forget about life for a while," as the lyrics state. The chorus, in bar-room sing-along style, comes from the bar patrons themselves, who say, "Sing us a song, / You're the piano man; / Sing us a song tonight. / Well, we're all in the mood for a melody, / And you've got us feeling all right." The song's style and subject are highly reminiscent of fellow Long Islander Harry Chapin's story-songs.
     Joel acknowledged on Inside the Actors Studio in 1999 that each of the characters in the song was based on a real person, either a friend of his or another stranger at the bar. For instance, Joel claimed that the waitress "practicing politics" was actually his first wife, Elizabeth Weber.
Original Video in 1973/1977  I couldn't get it closer than that.

     A first promo for this song was shot in 1977. It depicted Joel as a bar act (Bill Martin) performing the song, and shows a typical American bar as a setting. A new video was shot in 1985, with new extras, and was more or less the same as the original. The original video used an alternate take of the song (but it was at the same length as the album version), while the new one used the standard album version.

      1985 version
The single broke into the Billboard Top 40 in April 1974, but the single fell considerably short of the top 10 in the US (Billboard #25). "Piano Man" fared better in Canada, where it peaked at #10, and established Joel as a star there. (From 1975-80, every one of Joel's charting singles peaked higher in Canada than in the US, except for songs that reached #1 in both markets.)
Because "Piano Man" was at the time only a moderate hit in the US, the song was not played often on American radio during the next 3 or 4 years. However, after the 1977 release of Joel's album The Stranger and Joel's quick subsequent rise to superstardom, the song would soon become one of his most well-known and loved songs. It has been, since '77, a big "oldies" radio hit, and is considered Joel's signature song, partially due to its title. Today it remains popular, and ranks as Joel's #1 song on the iTunes Store as of February 2014. The song is so well known that during Joel's concerts, he usually lets the audience sing the chorus. In concert, Joel often performs "Piano Man" as a finale.
During the first Face to Face tour featuring Elton John and Joel, ads promoted the event as "Rocket Man meets Piano Man".

"Piano Man" was ranked #421 in the 2004 list of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

the second speech of Patrick Henry in 1788

     I am sorry about not blogging sooner, I have been working mega overtime, I would work, go home, sleep then go to work.  If I wasn't at work, I was in scouts or getting the kid to church group or something like that.  so I wasn't able to post. 

While learning about the more famous "Give me liberty or give me death speech" I ran across this one.  This one was discussed widely when they were debating the new U.S. Constitution and Patrick Henry was part of the "Anti-federalist" movement that feared the consolidation of power with the new central government proposed by the Federalist.  He was one of the people that was instrumental in the first 10 amendments called the bill of rights, to safeguard the rights of the individual against the state.   

     I was reading this speech and I have seen much of what Patrick Henry warned about has come to pass.  One thing to keep in mind was that his system of beliefs relied on an educated electorate.  And the only people that voted back then was landowners, they had "skin" in the game so any decisions that the government made did directly affect them and they made a point to be educated in the classics and of good governance.  Now today we have people voting that get direct benefits from the state, this was feared by the founders of old for it would pervert the purpose of the government and increase the power of the state and lessen the power of the individual.  When I read the part about the presidency being a ruler, I kept thinking of our petulant boy king and his rule by decree and the congress afraid to oppose them.  the royalty that was feared by then had arrived.

THIS, sir, is the language of democracy - that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority! If, then, gentlemen standing on this ground are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, I must submit; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive. I can not help thinking so. Perhaps it may be the result of my age. These may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone for ever.

We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practised in the House of Commons of England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body can not continue oppressions on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of the one-tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited – an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to Congress, also, in another part of this plan; they will therefore act as they think proper; all power will be in their own possession. You can not force them to receive their punishment: of what service would militia be to you, when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the State? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not furnish them.

The honorable gentleman then went on to the figure we make with foreign nations; the contemptible one we make in France and Holland, which, according to the substance of the notes, he attributes to the present feeble government. An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are contemptible people; the time has been when we were thought otherwise. Under the same despised government we commanded the respect of all Europe; wherefore are we now reckoned otherwise? The American spirit has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France in search of a splendid government, a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government--for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different; liberty, sir, was then the primary object.

We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors; by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, "we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble." Would this constitute happiness or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects.

Consider our situation, sir; go to the poor man and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society; you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce? They are out of sight of the common people; they can not foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people; it is for them I fear the adoption of this system. I fear I tire the patience of the committee, but I beg to be indulged with a few more observations.

When I thus profess myself an advocate for the liberty of the people, I shall be told I am a designing man, that I am to be a great man, that I am to be a demagog; and many similar illiberal insinuations will be thrown out; but, sir, conscious rectitude outweighs those things with me. I see great jeopardy in this new government. I see none from our present one. I hope some gentleman or other will bring forth, in full array, those dangers, if there be any, that we may see and touch them. I have said that I thought this a consolidated government; I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this government? Suppose it should prove oppressive, how can it be altered? Our Bill of Rights declares that "a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descendants be worthy the name of Americans they will preserve and hand down to their latest posterity the transactions of the present times; and tho I confess my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty, for I never will give up the power of direct taxation but for a scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally--that is, after non-compliance with requisitions. I will do more, sir, and what I hope will convince the most skeptical man that I am a lover of the American Union; that, in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the control of our customhouses and the whole regulation of trade shall be given to Congress, and that Virginia shall depend on Congress even for passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing and furnished the last soldier.

Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent; even that they should strike us out of the Union and take away from us all federal privileges till we comply with federal requisitions; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people. Were all the States, more terrible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir, the dissolution of the Union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this and you will find this State more particularly interested to support American liberty and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions; but I beseech gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation. The honorable gentleman has told us that these powers given to Congress are accompanied by a judiciary which will correct all. On examination you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed, your jury trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on Congress.

This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy, and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your president may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed to what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue for ever unchangeably this government, altho horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

If your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy is it for him to render himself absolute! The army is in his hands, and if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him, and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the first auspicious moment to accomplish his design, and, sir, will the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens? I would rather infinitely - and I am sure most of this Convention are of the same opinion - have a king, lords, and commons, than a government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them; but the president, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. I can not with patience think of this idea. If ever he violate the laws, one of two things will happen: he will come at the head of the army to carry everything before him, or he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne? Will not the immense difference between being master of everything an being ignominiously tried and punished powerfully excite him to make this bold push? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition? Away with your president! We shall have a king: the army will salute him monarch; your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you: and what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Patrick Henry famous speech and how it resonated today.

Yesterday, back in 1775 Patrick Henry gave his famous speech when the continental congress was debating whether to actually succeed from the British empire or just try to work out the differences inside the British system.  Blood has already been shed in this conflict, for the Boston Massacre had happened earlier and the feelings of succession was running hot.
       Patrick Henry would prove to be the rhetorical backbone of the American Revolution, crafting speeches on the spot, with no notes, that held equal amounts of verbal fire and reasoned accuracy.  His clear, concise cases for the necessity of the revolution and the primacy of individual liberty combined with his artful, inspiring method of delivery have made his speeches true American classics that endure to this day.  
     I keep on thinking that the present America, the government has done far worse than the British did and back then the people were concerned about freedom, life was a struggle to survive from the elements, disease, and the occasional Indian attack.   You live in the razors edge of life and you believed in your freedom to choose your destiny.  Many people had left England for a better life in the colonies and were very keen on the opportunities that were present here.  Now in this day  people are content, they get EBT, and other benefits, so they are not "hungry" in the spiritual sense for freedom.  They are more interested in keeping the benefits coming and will vote accordingly.  My how the mighty have fallen.  We that still believe in the dream of America are frequently shouted down by the ones that are content to suck off the government teat for their sustenance.  

St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia March 23, 1775.

NO man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery.  And in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of Heaven which I revere above all earthly kings.

     Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?  For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.

     I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house?  Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation - the last arguments to which kings resort.

     I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.  We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted?

     Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.  Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned - we have remonstrated - we have supplicated - we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.  Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne.

     In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.  There is no longer any room for hope.  If we wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

     They tell us, sir, that we are weak - unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of Hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? 

     Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.  The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged, their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable - and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

     It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Monday, March 23, 2015

Monday Music: Dr Hook "Sylvia's Mother"

I had this song show up on my collection of MP3's.  I remembered hearing the song in the early 70's and it did get some great airplay.  I always liked this song for several reasons, the pain in his voice was apparent, Every time I hear it I would think of some lone GI trying to call his girl before he deploys to Vietnam and the Mom would run interference. 

Dr. Hook & the Medicine Show, shortened in 1975 to Dr. Hook, was an American rock band, formed around Union City, New Jersey. They enjoyed considerable commercial success in the 1970s with hit singles including "Sylvia's Mother", "The Cover of Rolling Stone", "Sharing the Night Together", "A Little Bit More" and "When You're in Love with a Beautiful Woman". In addition to their own material, Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show performed songs written by the poet Shel Silverstein.
The band had eight years of regular chart hits, in both the U.S. and the UK, and greatest success with their later gentler material, as Dr. Hook.

     "Sylvia's Mother" was a 1972 single by Dr. Hook & The Medicine Show and the group's first hit song. It was written by Shel Silverstein and was highly successful in the United States, reaching #5 on the Billboard singles chart, as well as #1 in Ireland and #2 in the United Kingdom. It also spent 3 weeks at #1 on the Australian music charts, making it the 15th ranked single in Australia for 1972. It appeared on the group's first album, Doctor Hook.

"Sylvia's Mother" is autobiographical, with songwriter Shel Silverstein drawing upon his unsuccessful attempt to revive a failed relationship. Silverstein had been in love with a woman named Sylvia Pandolfi, but she would later be engaged to another man. Desperate to continue the relationship, Silverstein called Pandolfi's mother, Louisa, but she instead told him that the love had ended.
The lyrics tell the story in much the same way: A young man, despondent and near tears after learning that his ex-girlfriend (Sylvia Avery, with whom he had an earlier bad breakup) is leaving town, tries to telephone her to say one last good-bye, or at least try to get a suitable explanation as to why their relationship failed and maybe try to rekindle things. However, Sylvia's mother (Mrs. Avery) tells him that Sylvia is engaged to be married, and is trying to start a new life in Galveston. She asks the man not to say anything to her because she might start crying and want to stay. She tells the man Sylvia is hurrying to catch a 9 o'clock train. In an aside, she then tells Sylvia to take an umbrella ("cause Sylvie, it's starting to rain"). She then returns to the phone conversation, thanks the (unidentified) man for calling, and asks him to call back again ("And sir, won't you call back again"). The pathos lies in Sylvia's mother being aware of both conversations, but the lovers only "pass in the night". Throughout the phone conversation, an operator cuts in to ask for more money ("40 cents more for the next three minutes") to continue the call.


Saturday, March 21, 2015

A video "Why Anti-gunners think I own a Gun"

I don't have a lot of time today,  I spent today doing chores around the house and cutting the weeds grass.   I have to go to work Sunday for some Overtime$$$ so I can't do a proper post.  I have a video that explains the reasons for owning a firearm. 
  This is one of the video's that I have saved under my profile. 

Thursday, March 19, 2015

3 rules for not being in Poverty.

  I used to listen to a radio talk show host named Neil Boortz, until he retired a couple of years ago.  he used to talk many times on his show about the "3 rules for avoiding poverty".  He equated poverty with a mental illness, for barring a mental issue or physical disability you can avoid poverty by following 3 rules.

    Rule number 1. Get an education, any education...make an attempt to better yourself.  Learn all you can while you can, you will be surprised how far it will take you.  When you get an education, even at work, you are making an attempt to improve yourself and things like that are noticed by the bosses and it might open up opportunities.  Learning takes work and you would be surprised how many people are too lazy to continue learning, then they wonder why they no longer earn more and move up.  If you quit learning, you will stagnate and then move backwards because there are people coming up that are hungry and you will find yourself obsolete and unemployed and wondering what happened.

Rule Number 2.  Get a job, any job..work it until you find a better job.  While you are working your job, always look for opportunities to better yourself at work, learn how the process works, make the extra step to learn all facets of the job, become indispensable to your employer.  Or if you really don't like the job, work it hard, learn about it and look for a better job.  You keep working for the better job.  While you are at it, keep on learning so you don't become expendable and replaceable.  Form good work habits, always come to work a bit early.  it doesn't hurt to get ahead of the power curve for your job.  It also shows that you are enthusiastic about your work and that is noticeable. 

Rule Number 3  Don't get pregnant.  This rule applies to both girls and guys.  For girls, getting pregnant early unless they are lucky and have a great family structure in place, will be trapped in a cycle of poverty.  Sure they get benefits from the government, but the money they get is just enough to keep them trapped in a continuous cycle.  "Why work when I get money from Uncle Sugar." they sell their dreams and soul for an EBT card.  Once the baby arrives, it will be difficult to continue getting an education to improve themselves and they will be trapped where they are or even slide into a worse situation than they have now.  I remembered this girl in high school, she wanted to get into NASA, and become an astronaut.  She was brilliant and we could see her making it.  But she got pregnant and had to drop out in the 11th grade.  A few years later I was working at Domino's Pizza after graduating high school and a year of college then ran out of money.  I was delivering pizza as I was making ready to join the Army for the G.I. bill so I can go back to school.  Well I was delivering a pizza to a dilapidated trailer and this same girl came to the door.  I immediately recognized her and asked her how it was going.  She told me that she had her baby and was pregnant again.  I then asked her " where is your husband?"  She commented that he was probably at the bar getting drunk.  I continued to make small talk for a few minuted then I left.  I had an epiphany as I was leaving.  Where she is now is the highpoint of her existence.  It is a slide to grinding poverty from here and I was a bit bummed.   This rules also works with guys, if you get a girl pregnant, you also are responsible and you will have a 18 year commitment and if you and the girl break up, expect to have child support and possible garnishments to deal with.  Rather than going to school to get a higher education, you have to enter the work force at a lower paying job to make ends meet and your dreams are on hold perhaps indefinitely.

     If you follow these rules and apply a modicum of common sense, you should be able to avoid the lower  parts of the economic ladder. 


Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Monday Music...and some info

Hey y'all,

    My apologies for not posting in 6 days......I have been soo busy I was unable to.  We went camping this past weekend for the Order of the Arrow Ordeal.  My son was one of several kids from his troop that were nominated to go,  I was very proud.  I spent the entire weekend working and the internet is spotty normally down there on the best of days but it was down so I was unable to post.  We came back from camping Sunday early afternoon, and I immediately unloaded the gear, then switched vehicles to my bike and took her to a friends house that has a bike lift so I can do a complete service.  I did that then headed to the church to do the Financial Peace university by Dave Ramsey.  By the time it was done, I was home and going to bed because I get up early in the A.M to go to work,  Monday I got home kinda late, and slept in the recliner before Monday Scout meeting.  I could have blogged .....or took a nap.  Well my eyelids won.  

    I decided to go with Michael Jackson "Beat it".  I remember when this song came out.  It rocked, Like I said, I liked Michael Jackson before he got weird.  I definitely did not like his later stuff.  I will also add ""Weird Al" Yankovic version to this blog segment.

"Beat It" was composed by Michael Jackson for his Thriller album. Producer Quincy Jones had wanted to include a rock 'n' roll song in the vein of the Knack's "My Sharona", though Jackson reportedly had never previously shown an interest in the genre. Jackson later said of "Beat It", "I wanted to write a song, the type of song that I would buy if I were to buy a rock song... That is how I approached it and I wanted the children to really enjoy it—the school children as well as the college students." Upon hearing the first recorded vocals, Jones stated that it was exactly what he was looking for.The song begins with seven distinct synthesizer notes played on the Synclavier digital synthesizer. While Tom Bahler is credited with Synclavier performance on the song, the intro is taken note for note from a demo LP released the year before, called "The Incredible Sounds of Synclavier II" first published in 1981 by Denny Jaeger Creative Services, Inc and sold by New England Digital, makers of the Synclavier.

Eddie Van Halen, lead guitarist of hard rock band Van Halen, was asked to add a guitar solo.When initially contacted by Jones, Van Halen thought he was receiving a prank call. Having established that the call was genuine, Van Halen recorded his guitar solo free of any charge. "I did it as a favor", the musician later said. "I was a complete fool, according to the rest of the band, our manager and everyone else. I was not used. I knew what I was doing – I don't do something unless I want to do it." Van Halen recorded his contribution following Jones and Jackson arriving at the guitarist's house with a "skeleton version" of the song. Fellow guitarist Steve Lukather recalled, "Initially, we rocked it out as Eddie had played a good solo—but Quincy thought it was too tough. So I had to reduce the distorted guitar sound and that is what was released." The song was among the last four completed for Thriller; the others were "Human Nature", "P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)" and "The Lady in My Life".
On the record, right before Van Halen's guitar solo begins, a noise is heard that sounds like somebody knocking at a door. It is reported that the knock was a person walking into Eddie's recording studio. Another story has claimed that the sound was simply the musician knocking on his own guitar. The sound, however, is that of Jackson knocking on a drum case, as he is credited in the album's liner notes. The lyrics of "Beat It" are about defeat and courage, and have been described as a "sad commentary on human nature". The line "don't be a macho man" is said to express Jackson's dislike of violence, whilst also referring to the childhood abuse he faced at the hands of his father Joseph. The song is played in the key of D-sharp minor at a moderately fast tempo of 139 beats per minute, making it one of Jackson's fastest songs. In the song, Jackson's vocal range is A♯3 to C♯5.
Drums on the song were played by Toto co-founder Jeff Porcaro.
A remix of "2 Bad", is featured on Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix containing a sample of "Beat It" as well as a rap by John Forté and guitar solo by Wyclef Jean.

"Beat It" was released on February 14, 1983, following the successful chart performances of "The Girl Is Mine" and "Billie Jean". Frank DiLeo, the vice president of Epic Records, convinced Jackson to release "Beat It" whilst "Billie Jean" was heading towards No. 1. Dileo, who would later become the singer's manager, predicted that both singles would remain in the Top 10 at the same time. "Billie Jean" remained atop the Billboard Hot 100 for seven weeks, before being toppled by "Come On Eileen". The Dexys Midnight Runners' song stayed at No. 1 for a single week, before Jackson reclaimed the position with "Beat It".
"Billie Jean" and "Beat It" occupied Top 5 positions at the same time, a feat matched by very few artists. The single remained at the top of the Hot 100 for a total of three weeks. The song also charted at No. 1 on the US R&B singles chart and No. 14 on the Billboard Top Tracks chart in the US. Billboard ranked it at the No. 5 song for 1983. "Beat It" also claimed the top spot in Spain and The Netherlands, reached No. 3 in the UK, the Top 20 in Austria, Norway, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland, No. 31 in Denmark and No. 47 in France.
In a Rolling Stone review, Christopher Connelly describes "Beat It" as the best song on Thriller, adding that it "ain't no disco AOR track". He notes of the "nifty dance song", "Jackson's voice soars all over the melody, Eddie Van Halen checks in with a blistering guitar solo, you could build a convention center on the backbeat". Allmusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine states that the song is both "tough" and "scared". Robert Christgau claimed that the song, in which Eddie Van Halen "wends his night in the service of antimacho", is the "triumph and the thriller". Slant Magazine observed that the song was an "uncharacteristic dalliance with the rock idiom". Stylus expressed amazement that Van Halen performed a rock guitar solo on a R&B record. The track also won praise from Jackson biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli, who stated that the song was "rambunctious"
"Beat It" has been recognized with several awards. At the 1984 Grammy Awards, the song earned Jackson two of a record-eight awards: Record of the Year and Best Male Rock Vocal Performance. The track won the Billboard Music Award for favorite dance/disco 12" LP in 1983.The single was certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a few months after its release, for shipments of at least one million units. In 1989, the standard format single was re-certified platinum by the RIAA, based on the revised sales level of one million units for platinum singles. The total number of digital sales in the US, as of September 2010, stands at 1,649,000.

The music video for "Beat It" helped establish Jackson as an international pop icon. The video was Jackson's first treatment of black youth and the streets. Both "Beat It" and "Thriller" are notable for their "mass choreography" of synchronized dancers, a Jackson trademark.
The video, which cost Jackson $150,000 to create after CBS refused to finance it, was filmed on Los Angeles' Skid Row—mainly on locations on East 5th Street—around March 9, 1983. To add authenticity to the production but also to foster peace between them, Jackson had the idea to cast members of rival Los Angeles street gangs Crips and Bloods. In addition to around 80 genuine gang members,the video, which is noted for opening up many job opportunities for dancers in the US, also featured 18 professional dancers and four breakdancers. Besides Jackson, Peters and Vincent Paterson, the cast included Michael DeLorenzo, Stoney Jackson, Tracii Guns, Tony Fields, Peter Tramm, Rick Stone, and Cheryl Song.
The video was written and directed by Bob Giraldi, produced by Antony Payne and Mary M. Ensign through production company GASP. "Beat It" is the second video released for the Thriller album. Productions, and choreographed by Michael Peters who also performed, alongside Vincent Paterson, as one of the two lead dancers. Despite some sources claiming otherwise, Jackson was involved in creating some parts of the choreography. Jackson asked Giraldi, at the time already an established commercial director but who had never directed a music video,to come up with a concept for the "Beat It" video because he really liked a commercial Giraldi had directed for WLS-TV in Chicago about a married couple of two elderly blind people who instead of running from a run-down neighborhood all the other white people had fled from, chose to stay and throw a block party for all the young children in the area. Contrary to popular belief, the concept of the video was not based on the Broadway musical West Side Story; in reality Giraldi drew inspiration from his growing up in Paterson, New Jersey.
The video had its world premiere on MTV during prime time on March 31, 1983 though it should be noted that neither Beat It nor Billie Jean was, as is often claimed, the first music video by an African-American artist to be played on MTV. Soon after its premiere the video was also running on other video programs including BET's Video Soul, SuperStation WTBS's Night Tracks, and NBC's Friday Night Videos. In fact, Beat It was the first video shown on the latter's first ever telecast on July 29, 1983.
The video opens with the news of a fight circulating at a diner. This scene repeats itself at a pool hall, where gang members arrive via foot, forklift, and out of sewers, while the video's titular song begins to play. The camera cuts to a scene of Jackson lying on a bed, revealing he's the one singing contemplating the senseless violence. The singer notices rival gangs and leaves. Michael Jackson dons a red leather J. Parks brand jacket, and dances his way towards the fight through the diner and pool hall. A knife fight is taking place between the two gang leaders in a warehouse. They dance battle for an interlude of music until M arrives; the singer breaks up the fight and launches into a dance routine. The video ends with the gang members joining him in the dance, agreeing that violence is not the solution to their problems.
The video received recognition through numerous awards. The American Music Awards named the short film their Favorite Pop/Rock Video and their Favorite Soul Video. The Black Gold Awards honored Jackson with the Best Video Performance award. The Billboard Video Awards recognised the video with 7 awards; Best Overall Video Clip, Best Performance by a Male Artist, Best Use of Video to Enhance a Song, Best Use of Video to Enhance an Artist's Image, Best Choreography, Best Overall Video and Best Dance/Disco 12". The short film was ranked by Rolling Stone as the No. 1 video, in both their critic's and reader's poll. The video was later inducted into the Music Video Producer's Hall of Fame.
The music video of the song appears on the video albums: Video Greatest Hits - HIStory, HIStory on Film, Volume II, Number Ones, on the bonus DVD of Thriller 25 and Michael Jackson's Vision.

"Eat It" is a 1984 song by comedy music artist "Weird Al" Yankovic. It is a parody of "Beat It" by Michael Jackson. The track was both a commercial and critical success, earning Yankovic a Grammy Award.
According to Yankovic, when he presented his lyrics to Jackson for review, he didn't know what kind of reaction he'd get. Jackson allegedly thought it was amusing, and agreed to allow the parody. On October 19, 1989, the RIAA certified "Eat It" as a gold single.

 The video for "Eat It" is styled as a shot-for-shot remake of Jackson's video for "Beat It", but with elements being parodied in various silly ways. For example, one man grabs his girlfriend by the head and swings her back to kiss her, and her head comes off; two rival gang members brandish a spoon and fork at one another during the song's bridge, then begin to fight over a rubber chicken as the solo guitarist's instrument explodes in his hands.

    Here is a side by side shot of both video's

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Musings, video's and ammo news.

I will be bouncing around like a frog on a hot rock..(Ain't southern-ism's great!)  Or a better explanation is this....

I will be bouncing on several topics today....the first one is the ammo one...Apparently the ATF backed off from the bidding of his master Barack Obama and decided not to pursue the ban on the popular green tip 62 grain 5.56 caliber ammo for the very popular AR-15 platform.
       I have been expecting the ATF to enforce the edict from the petulant boy king that wanted to stick it to the "bitter clingers who cling to their bibles and guns".   I always have ammo for the EBR plus some ammo for my other rifles and pistols.  Since Sandy hook I have been buying a box here and a box there.  My rifle will fire either .223 or 5.56.  I have been buying the cheap 55 grain 193 ball ammo.  I have also upgraded the rifle and bought some new magazines to move the old GI magazines to the reserve stack. 
    The 55 grain stuff has been killing people since 1965. I have been stocking up, when I go shooting, I use the .22 adapter for the AR-15.   
      The following info is compliments of "Wiki"
The .223 Remington is one of the most common rifle cartridges in use in the United States, being widely used in two types of rifles: (1) varmint rifles, most of which are bolt action and commonly have 1-in-12 rifling twist suitable for bullets between 38 to 55 grains (2.5 to 3.6 g), and (2) semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14, which are commonly found to have twist rates of 1-in-7, 1-in-9, or 1-in-8. (Most modern AR-15s use 1-in-9 which is suitable for bullets up to 69 grains or 4.5 grams or 1-in-7 which is suitable for slightly heavier bullets, but older M16's used 1-in-12 twist rates, making them suitable for use with bullets of 55 grains or 3.6 grams.) The semi-automatic rifle category is often used by law enforcement, for home defense, and for varmint hunting. Among the many popular modern centerfire rifle cartridges, .223 Remington ammunition is among the least expensive and is often used by a wide range of target shooters, particularly in the "service rifle" category or 3 gun matches. The .223 is also used in survival rifles.

.223 Remington versus 5.56×45mm NATO

Size comparison between .222 (left) and .223 (right)
The .223 Remington and 5.56×45mm NATO cartridges and chamberings are similar but not identical. While the cartridges are identical other than powder load, the chamber leade, i.e. the area where the rifling begins, is cut to a sharper angle on some .223 Remington commercial chambers. Because of this, a cartridge loaded to generate 5.56×45mm NATO pressures in a 5.56×45mm NATO chamber may develop pressures that exceed SAAMI limits when fired from a short-leade .223 Remington chamber.

Brass Case

The dimensional specifications of 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington commercial brass cases are identical. The cases tend to have similar case capacity when measured, with variations chiefly due to brand, not 5.56 vs .223 designation. The result of this is that there is no such thing as "5.56 brass" or ".223 brass", the differences in the cartridges lie in pressure ratings and in chamber lead length, not in the shape or thickness of the brass.


Size comparison between .222 Magnum (left) and .223 (right)
C.I.P. defines the maximum service and proof test pressures of the .223 Remington cartridge equal to the 5.56×45mm NATO, at 430 MPa (62,366 psi). This differs from the SAAMI maximum pressure specification for .223 Remington of 380 MPa (55,114 psi), due to CIP test protocols measuring pressure using a drilled case, rather than an intact case with a conformal piston, along with other differences. NATO uses NATO EPVAT pressure test protocols for their small arms ammunition specifications.
Because of these differences in methodology, the C.I.P. pressure of 430 MPa (62,366 psi) is the same as a SAAMI pressure of 380 MPa (55,114 psi), which is reflected in US Military specifications for 5.56×45mm NATO, which call for a mean maximum pressure of 55,000 PSI (when measured using a protocol similar to SAAMI).
These pressures are generated and measured using a chamber cut to 5.56×45mm NATO specifications, including the longer leade. Firing 5.56×45mm NATO from a chamber with a shorter .223 Remington leade can generate pressures in excess of SAAMI maximums.


The 5.56×45mm NATO chambering, known as a NATO or mil-spec chamber, has a longer leade, which is the distance between the mouth of the cartridge and the point at which the rifling engages the bullet. The .223 Remington chambering, known as SAAMI chamber, is allowed to have a shorter leade, and is only required to be proof tested to the lower SAAMI chamber pressure. To address these issues, various proprietary chambers exist, such as the Wylde chamber (Rock River Arms) or the ArmaLite chamber, which are designed to handle both 5.56×45mm NATO and .223 Remington equally well. The dimensions and leade of the .223 Remington minimum C.I.P. chamber also differ from the 5.56×45mm NATO chamber specification.
Using commercial .223 Remington cartridges in a 5.56×45mm NATO chambered rifle should work reliably, but until recently, it was believed this was less accurate than when fired from a .223 Remington chambered gun due to the longer leade. Although that may have been true in the early 1960s when the two rounds were developed, recent testing has shown that with today's ammunition, rifles chambered in 5.56 can also fire .223 ammunition every bit as accurately as rifles chambered in .223 Remington, and the 5.56 chamber has the additional advantage of being able to safely fire both calibers. Using 5.56×45mm NATO mil-spec cartridges (such as the M855) in a .223 Remington chambered rifle can lead to excessive wear and stress on the rifle and even be unsafe, and SAAMI recommends against the practice. Some commercial rifles marked as ".223 Remington" are in fact suited for 5.56×45mm NATO, such as many commercial AR-15 variants and the Ruger Mini-14 (marked ".223 cal"), but the manufacturer should always be consulted to verify that this is acceptable before attempting it, and signs of excessive pressure (such as flattening or gas staining of the primers) should be looked for in the initial testing with 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition.
It should also be noted that the upper receiver (to which the barrel with its chamber are attached) and the lower receiver are entirely separate parts in AR-15 style rifles. If the lower receiver has either .223 or 5.56 stamped on it, it does not guarantee the upper assembly is rated for the same caliber, because the upper and the lower receiver in the same rifle can, and frequently do, come from different manufacturers – particularly with rifles sold to civilians or second-hand rifles.
In more practical terms, as of 2010 most AR-15 parts suppliers engineer their complete upper assemblies (not to be confused with stripped uppers where the barrel is not included) to support both chamberings in order to satisfy market demand and prevent any potential problems.

Effects of barrel length on velocity

Barrel length helps determine a specific cartridges muzzle velocity. A longer barrel will typically yield a greater muzzle velocity, while a short barrel will yield a lower one. In the case of the 5.56 NATO, M193 ammunition loses or gains approximately 25.7 feet-per-second for each inch of barrel length, while M855 loses or gains 30.3 feet-per-second per inch of barrel length.

     Now some humor for us AR and AK fans.

  Apparently on a different note, Hillary gave a press conference to defend her use of her private server instead of using the .gov server.  Man the rules are different for the ruling class than for us plebes.  If we did what she did, we would be serving time in a federal supermax.  But with her, the rules are different.  I guess it is good to be the queen...

 On a different note, one of the guys at work was playing this video on "youtube" and it is NSFW unless you have headphones...the language is crude but this is an awesome video for those people that fly all the time there is humor and people will recognize it.

   the video is 4 minutes and 20 seconds long.

    It is based on indian flights..but from what I have seen, this is pretty accurate on all flights.

   Finally for those people that have been living under a rock...it is Girl Scout cookie season.  I bought another box of "Thin Mints" to feed the addiction...and then I discovered this..


That does explain much.....