When you see headlines and stories like the following, you start thinking: a) where the heck are these guys getting their funding from, and b) I sure hope it isn’t coming out of my hard-earned tax dollars. Of course, we all know that c) it probably is. So, what mysteries of the universe are these hard-working researchers trying to unlock?

Item: From the University of Massachusetts Amherst: This study finds married women do about one less hour of housework per week for every $7,500 they earn as full-time workers outside the home, regardless of the husband’s income. Duh, ya think?

Item: From the University of Washington Business School in Seattle: This study finds that having a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts. Brilliant.

Item: From the University of Missouri-Columbia: Excessive non-activity can lead to greater health risks. Well blow me over with a feather!

And here’s my favorite:

Item: From Duke University: Extreme optimists tend to splurge. Well of course they do – if your an optimist you never stop to thinking that no matter what happens things will work out in the end. Unbelievable.

Item: From The Great White Shank: Studies that end up showing the obvious and the inane are a waste of time.

Here at Goodboys Nation weblog, I try to just tell things the way I see ’em. You may not always agree with me, but whenever I write about things that end up happening, well, you can never say I didn’t warn you.

Evidence: In yesterday’s post, I wrote that were I a Democratic candidate sharing the stage with Hillary Clinton on Thursday night and found out the debate had been packed by CNN with Clinton hacks and flacks, I’d be pissed. Well lookee here at this, from Barack Obama’s campaign:

I want to comment on a couple of issues relating to the Debate because I feel it is important to speak out about it. I have had some inside information about how this debate was conducted and I think that CNN and those who organized this debate have a responsiblity to answer for the way it was conducted. You may have noticed that there was an obvious audience bias in favor of Sen. Hillary Clinton and often times a audience bias against Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama. It was clear when Clinton gave her answers the audience was sreaming and clapping, but on several occasions Barack Obama, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich were actually booed and interupted by protesters. There is actually a logical reason for this kind of not-so-subtle bias in the audience and in the moderators, and I have some inside information about what occured just in the last 24 hours that changed the dynamics of this debate.

I was really shocked to see that the audience was yelling and booing and clapping and that the CNN Moderators did not try to prevent it in any way. I think it was very unfair to the candidates to allow people to disrupt the Debate and to allow people to show approval and disapproval of the candidates. This format was specifically designed to not allow candidates to answer the questions fully and without interruption. The CNN Moderators did not stop protesters from interupting Sen. Obama, and did not allow several of the candidates to fully answer the question after being interupted by the protesters.

This kind of format used by CNN is not only not fair to the Candidates, it is not fair to the voters who are watching the debate looking for answers without “editorial comment” by the audience through their booing, clapping or protesting.

All Hillary would have had to do is show up Thursday night, be confident and firm in her responses to questions, and she would have put all the flailing around of the previous two weeks behind her. But her campaign (whether she had a part in any of the Thursday night shenanigans is uncertain) and the Clinton flacks at CNN obviously didn’t have enough confidence in her being able to do that, so they packed the event in her favor.

As I also mentioned in that post, the benefits of Thursday night’s debate to the Clinton campaign will be shortlived and end up producing the exact opposite effect they were seeking – something that just now is starting to happen. Back in the old days, when the mainstream dino-media controlled the information people were getting, a candidate could get away with tactics like this. But now, with the new media and the scrutiny of the Internet and weblogs, this kind of thing is no longer possible.

The problem with the Clintons (and Democrats in general, as far as I’m concerned) is that they don’t understand the concept of moderation and when enough is enough. It happened at the Wellstone memorial service debacle, it was evidenced by Bill’s philanderin’ even while in the Oval Office, and it is happening now in his wife’s campaign. People are right to be suspicious when a candidate wants the office they are seeking just a little too much, and the Clinton campaign’s behavior since its inception has made that obviously clear. Her husband, with his natural personality, charisma, and political wiles, didn’t need props and “help” like this. His wife doesn’t, and controversies like this will only end up revealing her obvious weaknesses and character flaws.

So listen to Nostradamus and mark my words: this story is going to have some serious legs in the coming days and weeks. It has already started. CNN is going to look like a bunch of idiots with some serious ‘splainin’ to do, and between this and this story, the Clinton campaign is about to be set back on its heels again.

Believe it or not, I actually watched the Dems Thursday night debate on CNN. To say that the overall quality of the event – questions, responses, and participants on both sides of the stage – left something to be desired is to understate the partisan (and often juvenile) atmosphere that often prevailed.

First of all, it was blatantly obvious from the start that CNN – a.k.a. the “Clinton News Network” – set the proceedings up to paint front-runner Hillary Clinton in the best possible light from the start. Moderators Wolf Blitzer and Campbell Brown – two shills for the liberal left if there ever were – tossed Madame President softballs all evening. And the audience seemed full of Clinton partisans: anytime anyone would try and criticize Hillary! they were met with catcalls, boos, and (in the case of poor Barack Obama, who had a dreadful night) even a heckler. But did Wolfie chastise anyone? No. Did Wolfie press Hillary! on any question she either dodged or double-spoke a response to? No.

Then, to make matters worse, eliminating any remaining shred of credibility the network might have still had, it filled its post-debate roundtable with former Clinton White House (and, in the case of James Carville) current Clinton campaign advisors!

Just how much of a sham was the debate? Turns out several of the audience questioners were hardly “average citizens” (that is, unless you call Democratic Party operatives from, of all places, Arkansas! average citizens). And, come to find out, the network not only pre-approved every question that was asked (including that inane ‘diamonds or pearls’ question that closed the night), but may have also had a hand in hand-picking the audience as well.

So much for hard-hitting journalism for you! (Hat tips: Instapundit and Drudge)

Look,as far as I’m concerned, the Democrats can debate wherever they want. CNN is a cable network, and people can choose to watch or not watch as they wish. And if they want to show their obvious preference to one candidate to the detriment of their journalistic credibility, that’s up to them. But if I were any of the other Democratic candidates for President attending that event, I’d be pissed.

While today the Clinton campaign is trumpeting their candidate’s performance and saying she’s back on track after a rough two weeks following the previous Philadelphia debate, in the end I believe this debate does not work to Hillary’s advantage – in fact, it might even make things tougher for her; for two reasons: 1) even if people prefer a particular candidate, they don’t like having one candidate given preference above all others, and they will resent her being shoved down their throats, especially in a place like Iowa; 2) these debates do little to prepare Clinton for the rough-and-tumble of a national campaign and the spotlight that will be on her in one-on-one debates with her Republican challenger. She’ll get her lunch fed to her.

Problem for today…so I have these two milk crates of record albums left over from the late ’60s and the ’70s. Lots of Beatles, Beach Boys, Fleetwood Mac, Herb Alpert, Doors, Gordon Lightfoot, etc. – just a whole cross-section of pop music from that era. What I really don’t feel like doing is going through all of them and developing an inventory based on title artist, condition, etc. That would take me more than a day to do. I doubt there are collector’s items in there, and I’m not foolish enough to believe the collection is worth hundreds of dollars or anything. Any thoughts out there on the best way to go about getting rid of them?

Thanks to my new friend Antonio Jesus Reyes from ‘across the pond’ in England, who discovered this little site while looking for Beach Boys / SMiLE album material, the wheels finally went into gear and forced me to burn some copies of my own SMiLE album mix for a few special friends.

(Oh, don’t worry, you policemen of the Internet, I’m not making a dime off it and don’t want to – in fact, I even paid the postage simply for the pleasure of spreading this unfinished 1967 masterpiece of Brian Wilson and Van Dyke Parks to others!)

Just for the record, I thought it would nice to let everyone know how my final – and yes, this will indeed be my FINAL – mix of SMiLE was configured:

————————-

(What would have been) SIDE 1:

1. Prayer – Originally recorded in 1966, additional vocals by Carl and Dennis Wilson added in 1968 on the 20/20 album.

2-4. Heroes And Villains – Combines original recordings from 1966-67 with Brian’s version from his 2004 “Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE” release.

5. Do You Like Worms? – From Brian’s 2004 SMiLE release (“Roll Plymouth Rock”); arrangement faithfully replicated from a 1966 recording with vocals added in 2004.

6. Barnyard – From Brian’s 2004 SMiLE release; originally included on Brian’s 1966 list of intended SMiLE tracks, but only he knows what the original might have sounded like.

7. The Old Master Painter/You Are My Sunshine – From Brian’s 2004 SMiLE release; faithfully reproduced from original 1966 recording; Dennis Wilson sang original vocal.

8-10. Wonderful – Combination of original 1966 recordings (the “With Me Tonight” insert is just a guess, we only know that Brian intended something to be inserted between the 2nd and 3rd verses, but it’s anyone’s guess as to what it was…)

11-12. Child Is The Father To The Man – From Brian’s SMiLE 2004 release; arrangment faithfully reproduced from original 1966 recording with vocals (and missing lyrics) added in 2004.

13-15. Heroes And Villains (Reprise) – Mix of original recordings from 1966-67.

16. Cabin Essence – Originally recorded in 1966, additional vocals by Carl and Dennis Wilson added in 1968 for the 20/20 album.

(What would have been) SIDE 2:

17. Good Vibrations – The original 1966 45 RPM release.

18. I’m In Great Shape – From Brian’s 2004 SMiLE release; originally included on Brian’s 1966 submitted list of intended SMiLE tracks, but only he knows what the original recording must have sounded like.

19-20. Vega-Tables – Combination of original 1966-67 recordings, obviously not the intended final version, but close I think.

(The next tracks serve as “The Elements” suite, which is the great unknown: the intended part of SMiLE that Brian conceived, but was never finished. No one knows what the finished version would have sounded like, as by mid-1967 and the release of The Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper” album Brian knew he would never be able to pull the SMiLE project together. Here’s my attempt, though…)

21. On A Holiday – From Brian’s 2004 SMiLE release; arrangement faithfully reproduced from an original 1966 recording called “Tones”; 2004 lyrics added by Van Dyke Parks. Could it have been the original “earth” section?

22. Wind Chimes – From Brian’s 2004 SMiLE release; faithfully reproduced from an original 1966 recording. Included here as the “air” section.

23. Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow – From Brian’s 2004 SMiLE release; faithfully reproduced from an original 1966 recording (believe it or not!). Originally conceived as the “fire” section. (Note: The most incredible piece of music I’ve ever heard.)

24. I Wanna Be Around – From Brian’s 2004 SMiLE release. Back in 1966 Brian said “I Wanna Be Around” was to follow “Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow” as a way to compare and simulate the rebuilding of a relationship after its end with what would take place after a fire. Why it was placed where it was on the 2004 release is anyone’s guess…

25. In Blue Hawaii – From Brian’s 2004 SMiLE release; arrangement faithfully reproduced from an original 1967 recording (called “I Love To Say Da Da”). Lyrics added in 2004 by Van Dyke Parks. Originally planned as the “water” section.

26. Surf’s Up – From The Beach Boys’ 1971 “Surf’s Up” album; arrangement is from an original 1966 recording with lead vocals by Carl (first section) and Brian (third section) added in 1971; in the second section, Brian’s vocal is from the original 1966 recording, augmented with Carl’s vocal in 1971.

27. Heroes And Villains – Remixed original A side from 1967; The first 45 RPM single release intended out of SMiLE.

28. You’re Welcome – original B side from the 1967 45 RPM single release.

———————-

As the back cover of the SMiLE replacement album, “Smiley Smile” reads (and attributes to ‘Indian wisdom’) – “The smile that you send out returns to you.” Well, here’s hoping there’s a few smiles generated by my special mix.

Was thinking today how much I miss talking with one of my old Goodboys friends, Jay “Crusher” Spielberg. I hope he’s doin’ OK, but I don’t have his number. So, with that in mind, here’s a couple of other Jays that help make up for that – at least a little bit.

First, here’s a great post from Jay Adkins, talking about those who consider themselves athiests – a topic I’ve posted on before at this humble spot. From his post:

To say categorically, “There is no God,” is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don’t know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

A great post from Jay, it’s well worth reading in its entirety.

And then there’s Jay Severin, a talk-show host on Boston’s WTTK (96.9 FM). While I don’t always agree with him, a recent rant he gave on the Clintons was absolutely spot-on. You can find the text here (thanks, Free Republic!), and from there you can click on the audio. It is, as they say, priceless.

And how could you not have a “Jay” discussion without talking about the Toronto Ble Jays? Seems they’d be willing to listen to trade offers for starter A.J. Burnett. I’ve always liked his arm and would love to have him in Boston, but there’s no way the Blue Jays would allow him to go to another team in their division.

…BTW, I’ve always loved The Beatles’ song “Blue Jay Way” off of their Magical Mystery Tour album…

One of the things I dislike most about being out here in Arizona is its incessently pleasant weather. Especially in the fall, when an endless stream of perfect days roll in one after another, like the waves on a surfer’s dream beach. You see, there’s a very melancholy side of me that likes – even needs – the dreariness, chill, and dampness of a New England November; in fact, it’s the month when I miss my home the most.

I think the perfect weather out here does the locals a great disservice – for those who live here year-round, there’s something about the environs being too perfect: kinda makes you think life itself reflects the weather, and maybe you come to expect too much from it. For the snowbirds, it’s a means of escape – escape from the cold, escape from the snow, escape from the tests and travails of life, if only for a season or two.

Well, I need those. In fact, there’s a part of me that thirsts for inclement weather and the inclemencies of life. Maybe because it’s part of my Newfoundland heritage. Maybe it’s out of the sheer weariness every day brings after everything I’ve been through spiritually over the past fifteen years. Or, maybe it’s out of some deep inner sense of guilt from having lived way too fortunate a life as compared to the majority of the other inhabitants on this planet – who knows? Either way, these inclemencies (in whatever form they take) force you out of your comfort zone and require you to live, not just to simply exist like some hamster on a wheel in a numbingly-same routine and environment day in and day out, like I think most people around here do.

…But I digress on the point of this post. Exhausted after a trip to the dentist (Ed. note: whenever I have a trip to the dentist scheduled, I never sleep well the night before, and there’s something about novocaine that absolutely wipes me out following the appointment], I woke up with the late Randy Vanwarmer‘s hit tune from 1979, “Just When I Needed You Most” in my head, and for some reason, it made me lonely and sad, to the point of tears.

Now everyone has their own tastes and feelings when it comes to music – what touches one may not another in the same way – but to me, the thing I always liked about this particular song is that it wasn’t wimpy, like some drivel Barry Manilow or The Carpenters might sing. No, neither artist would ever be able to even graze the picture of sheer despair, desperation, and resignation Vanwarmer paints here. You can tell his song comes from personal experience (writing it while living in damp and dreary Cornwall, England, he was quoted as saying, “the song is really about the weather. It’s not hard to write a really sad song in the winter in Cornwall”), not from any attempt to blatantly write something that would sell.

You packed in the morning, and I
stared out the window and I
struggled for something to say.
You left in the rain without closing the door
I didnt stand in your way
Now I miss you more than I
missed you before and now,
where I’ll find comfort, God knows…
‘Cause you left me
just when I needed you most
Yes, you left me
just when I needed you most

Now most every morning I
stare out the window and I
think about where you might be
I’ve written you letters that I’d like to send
if you’d just send one to me
‘Cause I need you more than I
needed before and now,
where I’ll find comfort, God knows
‘Cause you left me
just when I needed you most
Yes, you left me
just when I needed you most

You packed in the morning, and I
stared out the window and I
struggled for something to say.
You left in the rain without closing the door
I didnt stand in your way
Now I miss you more than I
missed you before and now,
where I’ll find comfort, God knows…
‘Cause you left me
just when I needed you most
Yes, you left me
just when I needed you most

Whenever I hear Vanwarmer’s song, I relive the way I felt amidst the ashes of a couple of failed relationships in my past, and it’s all brought back to the present, as if I were living those times all over again. And you know, there’s something inherently precious about that – something personal, something intimate you would never share with anyone else; something you know you’ll take with you to your grave. As the late Dennis Wilson once sang, “loneliness is a very special place; to forget is something that I’ve never done…” Indeed.

I think we all need sad lonely songs that touch our hearts and our souls from time to time, even when they bring us to the point of tears. You see, that’s one of the gifts God has given us through music – the ability to be touched and be moved, whether it be to joy or sadness, when all around us and within us suggests, perhaps even screams, otherwise.

News item: Just the development of a new bunker-buster could affect U.S.-Iran relations. Yes, it’s true:

Longer than a Humvee and weighing more than two elephants, the latest and largest bunker-busting bomb is an attention-getter.

The $88 million request last month to speed up the operational ability of the MOP, or Massive Ordnance Penetrator, was noticed by some in Congress who saw a signal that Washington was on track for a war with Iran.

Presumably, its listing as an “urgent operational need from theater commanders” was noticed, as well, by Iran’s leadership.

The 15-ton weapon would be most tailored to blast away at deeply buried nuclear facilities. Defense analysts have predicted any attack on Iran would involve the B-2 stealth bomber using its radar-dodging ways to slip past Tehran’s air defenses and drop bunker busters on places like Natanz, where nuclear facilities hum away 100 feet below the surface.

I love this particular line: “This is a powerful stick,” said Thomas Henriksen, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. “It could be helpful if it creates a willingness of the Iranians to suspend their drive for nuclear weapons.”

File this headline under: Obvious.

Hat tip: Free Republic.com

On this special day where we remember all those who have served, fought, and died not just for our own nation’s freedom, but that of so many others, a special thank you from a most unusual source – that’s right, the French! Can you believe it, the freakin’ French! Here is what French President President Nicolas Sarkozy had to say in his speech to Congress this past Wednesday. Pretty amazing stuff:

Ladies and Gentlemen,
The men and women of my generation heard their grandparents talk about how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it had reached the final limits of its strength, which it had exhausted in the most absurd and bloodiest of wars.

The men and women of my generation heard their parents talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it.

Fathers took their sons to see the vast cemeteries where, under thousands of white crosses so far from home, thousands of young American soldiers lay who had fallen not to defend their own freedom but the freedom of all others, not to defend their own families, their own homeland, but to defend humanity as a whole.

Fathers took their sons to the beaches where the young men of America had so heroically landed. They read them the admirable letters of farewell that those 20-year-old soldiers had written to their families before the battle to tell them: “We don’t consider ourselves heroes. We want this war to be over. But however much dread we may feel, you can count on us.” Before they landed, Eisenhower told them: “The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.”

And as they listened to their fathers, watched movies, read history books and the letters of soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy and Provence, as they visited the cemeteries where the star-spangled banner flies, the children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.

To those 20-year-old heroes who gave us everything, to the families of those who never returned, to the children who mourned fathers they barely got a chance to know, I want to express France’s eternal gratitude.

On behalf of my generation, which did not experience war but knows how much it owes to their courage and their sacrifice; on behalf of our children, who must never forget; to all the veterans who are here today and, notably the seven I had the honor to decorate yesterday evening, one of whom, Senator Inouye, belongs to your Congress, I want to express the deep, sincere gratitude of the French people. I want to tell you that whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American army did for France. I think of them and I am sad, as one is sad to lose a member of one’s family.

(Hat tip: National Review Online’s Corner Blog)

President Sarkozy, you sir, are a breath of fresh air, and I congrulate you and offer my thanks. Great stuff.

Happy Veteran’s Day to all who have served this country with courage and honor.

Look, anyone can have a bad week. I know I just did – lots of hours and not a lot accomplished to show for it. But at least I’m not running for President of the U.S. I mean, consider Hillary Clinton’s week:

* The fallout from her poor debate performance the other week has revealed far more about the candidate than her inability to answer clearly a question about giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. The fact that her campaign has now circled the wagons and gone into pure defense mode has revealed that Ms. Clinton can’t take criticism very well and a campaign operation that has trouble rolling with the punches. Not a good sign.

Make no mistake about it – this was an occasion where Hillary could have shown her supposedly legendary “toughness” and “cool” (what a joke!), and her campaign’s ability to shake off the kind of minor missteps that are common in a lengthy Presidential campaign. But she hasn’t been able to do it, and the polls are just now beginning to reflect the vulnerability her candidacy has always had (even while invisible to people who just assumed she would be coronated President a year from now). And, regardless of what anyone thinks, the fact that her philandering, impeached husband has suddenly appeared from out of nowhere to defend her everywhere is NOT a sign of strength. In fact, as I’ve pointed out before, it does her a great disservice because it suggests she can’t stand on her own two female feet, and needs a man to come to her rescue. Another bad sign.

* The story of the Clinton campaign playing cheapskate and not leaving a tip at an Iowa diner (as reported by NPR, no less!) continues to dog the campaign. One can only imagine how a multi-millionaire running for President as a “champion of the middle class” (gag me with a spoon!) stiffing waitresses at a local diner is playing with Iowa voters.

* And then you had publication of a national Quinnipiac College poll that show Hillary’s negatives have not dropped one iota with all the campaigning she has done. National party operatives have to know that, while she might still get the party’s nomination for President, with negatives that high she is virtually unelectable in a general election.

* And now the latest controversy: seems her campaign has been caught planting questions at press conferences.

Is it any wonder that Democrats may now be starting to feel a little unease about Madame President and her cheatin’ impeached husband, who, BTW, has already predicted a Hillary landslide?