Patriot Games

Someone used the word ‘boondoggle’ to describe the hubbub over the Patriot Act. I always support the use of ‘boondoggle’ to describe a hubbub…

Anyway, I was amused by the local Democrat party chairman, last week (and disappointed in my lack of response to much of what he rambled about, but he was so devoid of any logical flow that I found myself unable to adequately address him). We were both invited to speak to some students at Ball State. During the course of his “remarks” he said some things that have prompted me to look into the details of a few items, in an effort to provide a more direct response to his accusations.

The Patriot Act is one of those areas. He detailed how his son was detained at an airport and “almost strip searched”. The son had driven a girlfriend or sister or someone out west, and was flying back to Indiana. “He didn’t even have any bags with him”, he protested. Of course, both Cami and I have undergone the more detailed search at the security check point when we have flown one-way, with few bags. I believe, a male traveling alone, with a one-way ticket was, at one point, the primary trigger for a detailed search.

But this “violation of Civil Rights” constitutes a major injustice to my Democrat counter-part. (Can you imagine the look this would get from Dr. King? “Dr. King, I got searched at the airport. They violated my Civil Rights. Lets march on Washington!!!” I’m sorry, but in a world where people actually DO have their basic humanity taken away from them via abortion and euthanasia, having to take off your shoes to prove they aren’t bombs before boarding a plane isn’t that big of a deal…the terrorists just laugh and laugh when they see us struggling with these things…)

Back to my point: my political opponent called the Patriot Act “dangerous” and a “threat to all of our freedom” and said it promotes “things that just shouldn’t happen in these United States of America”.

I found this especially funny because it came right after he droned on and on about how the Republicans are the party of fear; that we blow threats out of proportion to try to scare them into voting for us. I wanted to say, “We’re the party of fear? You are the ones who, in EVERY ELECTION, go out of your way to frighten minorities (‘they want to end affirmative action’), the elderly (‘they want to take away your social security and Medicare’), people receiving government benefits (‘they want to take away your food stamps and welfare and health care’), students (‘they won’t feed you and they won’t pay for your college’), and anyone who will listen (‘they only help the wealthy and don’t want you to screw who you want and want you to have to have that baby and don’t want you to marry whoever you want or smoke whatever you want’).

That’s right, every single line of that old playbook was brought up within the 45 minutes we had with the students that day, and yet he called Republicans the party of fear.

So, without further ado, lets dive into some reading about the Patriot Act:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/

“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The internal watchdog of the Justice Department has found
34 new credible civil rights and civil liberties violations under the
anti-terrorism USA Patriot Act, according to a report released Monday. “

ahhh…34 violations!!! That got old John Conyers riled up (you poor people in Michigan…):

"This report shows there are more victims of John Ashcroft's war on the
Constitution," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan. "The attorney general appears
on television nearly every week claiming to protect us, while he simultaneously
dismantles our civil liberties and civil rights. Will the Justice Department
ever admit that it has gone too far?"

Some of the abuses: “verbal abuse by prison staff, rude treatment by immigration and naturalization inspectors.”

That Bastard Ashcroft! Why, no prison guard had ever been verbally abusive to inmates before the Patriot Act! And, can you imagine, immigration inspectors – FEDERAL EMPLOYEES – being RUDE before this most heinous legislation was conceived in the dark minds of that fascist Ashcroft?!? Haliburton is surely making money off of this deal!!!! (sorry, slipped into liberal rant mode…)

Of course, the other side of this story is this: until the Patriot Act, there was no provision for the Department of Justice to systematically investigate the reported abuses.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/news072203.htm

The House points out that the Patriot Act was the vehicle for the review of Civil Rights violations, not the subject of it. In other words, as stated above, the abuses reported were found because of the Patriot Act, and were not necessarily abuses caused solely BY the Patriot Act. Many news reports credited the complaints as “Patriot Act abuses” at least in their misleading headlines.

If one wanted to actually gauge the effect of the Patriot Act on our Civil Liberties, one would need to look at the rate of reported abuses and the rate of substantiated abuses prior to the passing of the act. The problem is, there is nothing to compare to, because until the Act was put in place, there was no system to respond to such abuses. You would think someone as eloquent as John Conyers would be able to draw the distinction. He could say, “look at this abuse, right here…that wouldn’t have happened if the Patriot Act (in sections x, y, and z) hadn’t given the government more power.” But I have yet to see such a specific charge.
I’ll let this guy speak for me a bit here:

http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/7/15/111734/863

Any "B" horror film director can tell you that monsters are always the
scariest when they're kept lurking in the darkness. At the end of January 2004,
the Justice Department's Inspector General completed its Patriot Act-mandated
six-month review of civil rights and civil liberties complaints levied against
actions conducted under the Patriot Act. The results were that out of 1266
complaints, the Inspector General found precisely zero abuses of the Patriot
Act. That's right, in the report by the agency Congress designated to
investigate allegations of abuse under the Act, the Patriot Act has been
responsible for violating the civil rights of exactly no one. If you are
surprised to hear this, it's no wonder. The major networks and major news papers
barely breathed a word of it.

It also doesn't match the hyperbolic statements that have been routinely
espoused from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union which has stated
the Patriot Act "expands the government's ability to search private property
without notice to the owner" and claimed that people's "library habits could
become the target of government surveillance...the secrecy that surrounds
section 215 leads us to a society where the thought police can target us for
what we choose to read." For nearly three years the ACLU has sounded like a
gaggle of hysterical old women - and I don't mean any offense to
hysterical old women.

The fact is that law enforcement has always been able to search private
property, with a search warrant approved by a judge, without notice to the
owner. (See the Supreme Court's Dalia v. U.S. (1979)). The Patriot Act does in
fact provide, that upon the issuance of a court order, a court can delay notice
of a search warrant's execution when the immediate notification may result in
death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence
tampering, or witness intimidation. This may be a good thing (I would
argue that it is) or it may be a bad thing, (What exactly is the
counter-argument?) but it certainly is not a new thing.

As for the ability to search library records under the infamous section
215, the fact is that any grand jury in the United States, yes, even the one
that convenes in the old courthouse in your town, can subpoena your library
records if you are suspected of criminal activity. That was actually one piece
of evidence leading to the capture of the Uni-bomber, years before there was
such a thing as the Patriot Act. The irony is the Patriot Act is actually
more protective of our privacy, as it requires approval by a judge, whereas
grand juries don't: they simply have to issue the subpoena themselves, without
any judicial review. Additionaly, grand juries don't have to make any
exception for material protected under the first amendment - unlike the
exception in the Patriot Act that prohibits the government from searching for
such materials. It is also undisputed, incidently, that section 215 of the
Patriot Act has never been used in the nearly three years since it has been
enacted. That's right: Never.

You can check out more about the Patriot Act “Myths” at this site:

http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm

I think a reassessment of the Patriot Act is needed. I support any effort on the part of the government to actually be accountable, and an honest look at the Patriot Act would be a great place to demonstrate how government SHOULD WORK.

I would love to see a measured debate which said, “hey, look, here’s an abuse that shouldn’t be allowed to go on, it acutally happened right here in this case...lets change the act to get rid of that power or at least restrict that power to extreme circumstances.” Then, the other side, if there is one in a particular case, could say, “you know, this power is really important in cases like x, y, and z…maybe we SHOULDN’T restrict this, maybe we should broaden it.” A discussion could ensue, and reasonable compromises could be worked out.

But, what am I thinking. This is Congress we are talking about here. It is hard to be reasonable with the John Conyers of the world…

Say Anything

I agree with John Kerry!!!!

Well, one of the John Kerrys running for president...though I'm not sure which one. John Kerry said: "And I also believe that those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President – or the credibility to be elected President."

Right on Brother!

But that was the John Kerry who was asleep today. I get the feeling this guy actually is two (or maybe three) identical candidates...kinda like the old children's book where the kid wishes for a twin who would go out and do all the chores and go to school while he reads comics and watches TV and stuff. Or, to be a bit more contemporary, like the Olsen twins: two different people playing the same lovable character among a cast of goof-offs.

I think there are several different John Kerrys, and the editor in charge of story consistency and integrity is asleep at the switch. How else can you explaing this:

Would Have Voted the Same Way With No WMDs:

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted
for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had
known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found. Taking up a challenge
from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts
senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the
authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I
would have used that authority effectively."

Maybe he would have funded it then...

On Funding for the Iraq War he Voted to Authorize

"I actually voted for [the funding] before I voted against it."

The Midnight Rant: (9/3/04)

"Worst of all, George Bush misled America when he took us to war in Iraq."

Ranting Continued: (9/7/04)

Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
And he would better demonstrate "the kind of statesmanship and leadership
that builds a true coalition to share the costs and share the burden."

Kerry’s foreign policy speech: (12/16/2003)

Saddam Hussein was a totalitarian who waged a reign of terror against his
people and repeatedly endangered the peace of the world. And no one can doubt
that we are safer – and Iraq is better – because Saddam Hussein is now behind
bars.

Iraq has been ground zero in that ideological tug of war, with difficult
decisions that had to be made, and complicated issues of national security that
had to be discussed with Americans honestly and responsibly.

When America needed leadership on Iraq, Howard Dean was all over the lot,
with a lot of slogans and a lot less solutions. One moment he supported
authorizing the use of force, the next he criticized those who did. He said
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, then he said he’d figured out
that he didn’t. He said he opposed the war all along, but less than a month
before it began he said that if the U.N. wouldn’t enforce its own mandates, then
‘unilateralism is a regrettable, but unavoidable choice.’

And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq
unless the UN Security council gave us authorization. That is a fundamental
misunderstanding of how a President protects the United States. I have said many
times I believe that America should have worked to get international backing
before going to war. Our diplomacy should have been as good as our soldiers. A
true international coalition would have been better for our troops, better for
our security, better for Iraq’s future. Perhaps it reflects inexperience, but
for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act not only
becomes little more than a pretext for doing nothing – it cedes our security and
presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else -- a profound
danger for both our national security and global stability.

I believe it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for violating UN
agreements. I believed then – and I believe now – authorizing force was the only
way to get inspectors in, and the only way ultimately to enforce Saddam
Hussein’s compliance with the mandate he had agreed to, knowing that as a last
resort war could become the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement
mechanism.

And I also believe that those who doubted whether Iraq or the world
would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not
safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President – or the
credibility to be elected President.

He didn't feel "misled" then, did he? He would have "done almost everything differently", but he seems pretty solid in a need to have done something in Iraq. In fact, he's been pro-military-intervention in Iraq since the first Gulf War. Unless there is a crowd that doesn't want to hear that, of course...

10 minute explaination of the Republican Party

I was asked to fill in at an event at Ball State this week - a round table (literally!) discussion of the three major political parties. I filled in for Kaye Whitehead who is our local Chairman of the Republican Party.

These are the prepared remarks which I had planned to give, but because none of the others took up the full 10 minutes they had asked us to speak, I self-edited as I went (poorly I might add...). Luckily (for me, anyway) there were only a hadful of folks to listen in, and it seemed that most of them already "knew" where they stood regarding political affiliation.

I figured since I spent the time putting this together, it might as well serve some purpose, so here it is:



I appreciate the chance to speak to you today.

I’ve been keeping up, a little, with the Republican National Convention this week, and as I started to think about what I would say here today, I came to realize that a lot of what I would say to you has been said by men and women more articulate than I am.

That being said, I would like to borrow from their words in my remarks to you today. The other resource I will refer you to is the official platform statement from both the National and Indiana State Republican Parties. All of the resources I’m using today can be found online, free of charge.

It isn’t easy to sum up any of the political parties in just a few words. Mayor Giuliani did a pretty good job of it on Monday night when he said, “From the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush, our party’s great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world.”

Freedom, both at home and throughout the world, is the key to understanding Republicanism.

The National Platform of the Republican Party puts it this way: “For 150 years, our Party has found its purpose in its principles. We confront big challenges instead of passing them on to future generations. We move forward with needed reforms to make the government work better for citizens. We fight important battles and champion freedom because by expanding liberty, we make our nation more secure.”

The most immediate and important threat to our freedom comes in the form of terrorists who wish to do nothing but destroy, tear down, and annihilate those who do not share their ideology.

The War on Terror is real. It is the result of years and years of appeasement of terrorists, and the change in perspective that came about after our country was directly effected in such a dramatic way in 2001.

What happened in New York and Washington triggered a series of decisions which dramatically changed America’s stance in reaction to terrorism. The paradigm has shifted, and because of that, we find ourselves in a dramatically different world today than we were in on September 10th, 2001. As the National Platform says, “Today, because America has acted, and because America has led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer.”

President Bush has adopted an actively offensive stance against terror, an approach “marked by a determination to challenge new threats, not ignore them, or simply wait for future tragedy…”

This is a necessary reality in a world where terrorism has been allowed to fester – and in some cases actually rewarded – by the international community. Obviously, we desire and welcome the participation of other nations in this battle, but even if we have to stand alone, the United States will protect herself. Even better, the United States will work to ensure democracy finds a foothold in previously repressed nations, so that freedom can take root and spread.

As Democrat Senator Zell Miller said in his address to the Republican convention: “Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.” Governor Schwarzenegger added to that thought when he said, “We are the America that sends out Peace Corps volunteers to teach village children. We’re the America that sends out missionaries and doctors to raise up the poor and the sick. We’re the America that gives more than any other country to fight AIDS in Africa and the developing world. And we’re the America that fights not for imperialism, but for human rights and democracy.”

Unlike the rhetoric of many in the Democrat Party, Republicans don’t view our America as the problem. As Senator Miller (a Democrat himself, I remind you) pointed out about the leadership of his own party: “In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.” Senator Miller sums up his thoughts shortly thereafter by saying, “They are wrong.”

Contrast that with the words of an Austrian immigrant, who came to America, unable to speak English, and is today the governor of a state which is bigger, more populated, and has a higher gross domestic product than many of the countries of the world: “We are still the lamp lighting the world, especially for those who struggle. No matter in what labor camp they slave, no matter in what injustice they are trapped – they hear our call…they see our light…and they feel the pull of our freedom. They come here as I did, because they believe. They believe in the United States.”

That brings me to the basic idea I want to suggest to you today: The thing that I think sets Republicans apart from our opponents is optimism. Not unwarranted optimism. Not naïve optimism. But a deep belief in the ability of the American people to tackle problems and continue to live the American Dream.

There are a lot of topics where we could spend 10 or 12 minutes talking about each specific issue, and I only have 10 minutes to give you an overview. So, let me quickly run through some of the areas where the Republican Party has set its agenda for this campaign, and the years that immediately follow:

· There are issues to be confronted as we move ahead in the War on Terror: our intelligence operations, proper armament and training of our troops, taking care of the men and women and families of our military, expanding freedom and democracy and prosperity to other countries, building strong, active, and effective coalitions to work – and fight if necessary – for peace, freedom, and economic growth throughout the world.
· There are many areas where the increased security I spoke of earlier touches each of us: from airport security to local first responders, firefighters, and police forces. These represent immediate needs for better training, equipment, and other tools necessary for these men and women who are on the front lines when a disaster strikes.
· There are important domestic issues including how we continue to grow an economy that had slipped into recession at the end of the previous president’s term and was rocked deeply by the terror attacks of 2001. We have recovered, but there is more to be done.
· We have to learn to limit our government spending, expecting the same thing from our government that is expected of any economically responsible citizen: Don’t spend more than you make!
· It is important to retain the tax cuts, promised and delivered by President Bush, as a part of our tax structure, in order to encourage growth and opportunity for every American wiling and able to work, and in order to assist an ever growing number of individuals who are owning homes for the first time, starting businesses, and sending their kids off to college as the first family member to attend an institution of higher learning.
· We have to continue to focus on increasing jobs and retooling our workforce to keep up with the modern world. “We recognize that America is the best place in the world to do business, and our workers and products are the best in the world.”
· At the same time, we must work to ensure that trade agreements are fair and that they advance economic goals while protecting American jobs. “To achieve this goal, we must act globally, regionally, and bilaterally to negotiate new trade agreements and enforce existing trade commitments.”
· We have to tackle the Social Security system which has been allowed to fester in inefficiency and mismanagement.
· There are needs to be addressed in our Energy plan, and we need to find ways to fix the healthcare system.
· Finally, we must work from the grassroots level up, strengthening our communities. By focusing locally on issues such as crime, homelessness, issues of addiction, poverty, and other challenges we face every day, right here in Muncie, we are progressively moving forward and providing the backbone of what makes America strong.

Most of these things are covered in various ways, in much more detail than I can share with you in my allotted time, on candidate and party web sites.

But, I end with another quote from Gov. Schwarzenegger, which I think is helpful for you. He addressed the questions I often hear: What is a Republican? How do I know if I’m a Republican? Some of this is addressed in the brochure I brought today, but I think the Governor did a better job of summing it all up.

He said, “If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government…then you are a Republican. If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group…if you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does…if you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children…if you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world…and, if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism…then you are a Republican!”

This is the choice we face: moving forward or looking back, reforming or settling for the status quo, producing results or playing politics. Republicans believe that true freedom comes when families and individuals have good schools, good health care, and affordable housing. We believe that freedom comes from having a good job and the economic opportunity to start a business or save for a major purchase. We believe that freedom is guaranteed best by working toward the ideal of a government big enough to protect us, but not big enough to repress us.

There is a three line creed we have up in our local Republican office, and we put it on all of our literature, not just to “say” it, but we publicize it so people will hold us accountable to it. The three points of that creed are what we say we stand for:
· Public Service, not self service.
· Excellence, not excuses.
· Performance, not just promises.




Bibliography:

National Platform: http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
State Platform: http://www.indgop.org/literature/2004Platform.pdf
Sen. Zell Miller (D. GA), speech to the 2004 Convention: http://www.gopconvention.com/cgi-data/speeches/files/ie65ay1zuai2r6ttb19uj6s2y6q7930j.shtml
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R. CA), speech to the 2004 Convention: http://www.gopconvention.com/cgi-data/speeches/files/2jl158h8hr9cm5t7e4d379jp6o186680.shtml
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R, NY), speech to the 2004 Convention: http://www.gopconvention.com/cgi-data/speeches/files/c9amag533wqt110276ixn2s44k2uxpyf.shtml

The Vice President Speaks

Overall I was underwhelmed by the Vice President's speech...mostly because it followed the fire-n-brimstone of Sen. Miller.

One line in Cheney's speech made it worth the trip though:

John Kerry says he sees two Americas. That makes the whole thing mutual: America is seeing two different John Kerrys.

Full Text Here (it will be better if you read it FIRST..hehe)

Agreeing With a Democrat

The words of Democrat United States Senator, Zell Miller, Georgia:

In the summer of 1940, I was an eight-year-old boy living in a remote
little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war but even we children
knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they
could. President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private
plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public
danger."

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.And there is no better
example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave
Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular
idea at the time.And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election
than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own
epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who
contributed to saving freedom", he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today? Where is the bi-partisanship in this
country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains
of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the
Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to
fight for freedom over tyranny. It was Democratic President Harry Truman who
pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists
threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin
by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and
Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not
today. Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's
Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And
nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers
rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin
Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers. Tell that to the lower half
of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army
of liberators, not occupiers. Tell that to the half a billion men, women and
children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to
Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not
occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the
freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our
soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at
home.

Full Text Here

WYAT(t)

If I were broadcasting a radio signal on WYAT today (KYAT for those of you west of the mighty Mississip) this would have been the playlist for the first 50 songs:

1. Various Artists/Tribute to Mississipi John Hurt - Mark Selby / Make Me A Pallet (4:12)
2. Tonio K - What a Way to Live (7:52)
3. Van Morrison - The Lonesome Road (3:16)
4. Patty Griffin - Kite Song (3:09)
5. The Notorious Cherry Bombs - On The Road To Ruin (3:27)
6. Daniel Amos - Rice Paper Wings (2:39)
7. Daniel Amos - Nobody Will (2:50)
8. Mark Heard - Jericho (4:33)
9. Eric Clapton - Have You Ever Loved A Woman (6:52)
10. Chantal Kreviazuk - Boot (3:49)
11. Patty Griffin - Long Road (3:33)
12. Vigilantes of Love - Babylon (3:58)
13. Over The Rhine - Within Without (rough mix) (4:33)
14. Gillian Welch - I Want to Sing That Rock and Roll (2:51)
15. Jewel - Fat Boy (2:56)
16. David Wilcox - Chet Baker's Unsung Swan Song (6:03)
17. Chantal Kreviazuk - God Made Me (3:11)
18. Ollabelle - Can't Nobody Do Me Like Jesus (4:23)
19. Patty Griffin - Nobody's Cryin (5:23)
20. Belew, Adrian - Sky Blue Red Bird Green House (3:03)
21. Nickel Creek - The Lighthouse's Tale (5:01)
22. David Wilcox - Last Chance Waltz (3:38)
23. David Wilcox - (You Were) Going Somewhere (4:09)
24. Eric Clapton - Hoodoo Man (5:40)
25. Vigilantes of Love - Only A Scratch (6:03)
26. Corrs, The - Only When I Sleep (4:23)
27. Vigilantes of Love - Bitter Price to Pay (2:26)
28. Jones, Norah - The Prettiest Thing (3:51)
29. Over the Rhine - Sister (4:32)
30. Whiskeytown - Sit & Listen to the Rain (4:05)
31. Patty Griffin - Every Little Bit (5:33)
32. Chantal Kreviazuk - Grace (3:50)
33. Uncle Tupelo - Whiskey Bottle (4:47)
34. 77s - I've Got (3:48)
35. Diana Krall - I Can't Give You Anything But (2:33)
36. Kelly Joe Phelps - Motherless Children (7:25)
37. Kelly Joe Phelps - Flash cards (5:51)
38. Otis Taylor - Ain't No Cowgirl (2:14)
39. Bill Mallonee - Postscript (Blister Soul out-t (3:50)
40. Lisa Loeb - Someone You Should Know (3:22)
41. Van Morrison - Into the Mystic (3:30)
42. Buddy Guy - Done Got Old (3:23)
43. Van Morrison - Big Time Operators (6:03)
44. Over the Rhine - If Nothing Else (4:57)4
5. Phil Keaggy - Theme (1:27)
46. Adrian Belew - return of the chicken (1:34)
47. Loretta Lynn - This Old House (1:57)
48. Kenny Wayne Shepherd Band - True Lies (5:48)
49. Journey - Separate Ways (Worlds Apart) (5:26)
50. Ani Difranco - Letter to a John (3:56)

Of course, if I was broadcasting a radio station, I would do more than just hit "random" on my Winamp/JetAudio/Realplayer, etc. I might actually put some thought into a few of the "back to back" songs, or just call it "two for tuseday" and get over it. Still, a pretty good mix. I only have about 1/3 of my CD collection mp3-ized, so there are some things missing (most of my Stevie Ray Vaughan, DA, the Choir, Mike Roe, etc for example), but still a pretty fine assortment of music.

New purchases this week/month include:
Ollabelle (5 stars)
Tiff Merrit (at least 3.5 stars, still listening)
Los Lonely Boys (4 stars, even though Heaven is getting overplayed)
the Subdudes (at least 3.5 stars)
Lisa Loeb (3 stars...i'm a little disappointed)
Bill Mallonee (3.5 stars, maybe 4 with some more time)
Notorious Cherry Bombs (4 stars, with a song or two cut)
Mutual Admiration Society (3.5 stars, though it is growing on me)
Loretta Lynne (4 stars)

These are all still relatively new and may change in ranking in the near future.

Imprinting, sometimes a bad thing

This is an interesting series of photos (not taken by me, fwiw)...One can hope the baby ducks were rescued, and that the mother didn't attempt the same route the following day.