The Real Pat Blair

Thanks to all who came out for Cinco de Moustache IV - it was a great success, and a great farewell to Saint Radar. Let me just say that, when the time comes for the Strangers, I want our last show to be exactly like Radar’s, just with less swearing.
If you missed the show, shame on you. Here’s some video.

So, for a (prompt) follow-up to my last posts: The Lone Strangers took 1st place in the Veishea Wildcard Round (second year in a row) and 2nd place in the overall Battle (up one step from 3rd last year), and played the best outdoors-in-the-snow set that we have ever done. It was a lot of fun, and we’re always glad to get a chance to play.
Here’s a video of the show at the M-Shop… wait through the first 2 bands to see a full performance of Let You Go.

Finally, Cinco de Moustache IV: Quatro, Cinco, ‘Stache. Details below. It is Saint Radar’s last show, so don’t miss out.

Some quick announcements via my rarely-used blog:
a) We are playing a free show at 7pm this Tuesday night, April 8, at the M-Shop in Ames, IA. This is part of the VEISHEA Battle of the Bands Wildcard competition. It has also traditionally been the site of the Strangers’ best show each year. Crowd participation is always a key factor for the judges, and this is always ton’s of fun, so don’t miss out. Schedule of Battle and Wildcard is here, and is also useful if you want to do a case-study in bending time for the purpose of successful event management. Or, it’s just plain funny (”Each band will still have a 30 minute set time including set up and tear down. The schedule is as follows: 5:00- Wild Card 1, 5:25- Wild Card 2, 5:50- Wild Card 3…”).
2) Cinco de Moustache IV: Quatro, Cinco, ‘Stache. This year, Cinco de Moustache is being observed on Saturday, May 3. The official celebration, as always, will take place at the Bali Satay House. Joining the Strangers will be Ames indie/blues sensations Radio Moscow (this is one of a few local stops for them between their European tour and their summer US tour - seriously), and, for their final show ever, Saint Radar. Between the rock and roll and the facial hair, this is going to be one great time, let me tell you.
D) The Lone Strangers - Live at Zeke’s is coming. Soon. I swear. Keep an eye out at the new Strangers Blog for updates and details.

Everybody ready for the big McCain v Clinton in ‘08 advertising and media blitz? Because that’s my prediction. Write it down, check for accuracy in 6 months.
A done deal? Hardly. I read an article from a respected pundit who opined that a strong showing from Fred Thompson in South Carolina, combined by the complete lack of a GOP front-runner, might be enough to propel Mr. Fred into the position of a unifying conservative leader that didn’t scare more than 50% of his own the party. There have been 3 major primaries and 3 different clear winners for the GOP.
On the Dem side, Hillary Clinton has already been crowned, dethroned, re-crowned, and barely eked out a victory over “undecided,” and that’s only in the last 2 weeks! Heck, there are even people who think that John Edwards is still relevant to the race. This is true, inasmuch as he is drawing votes away from the two candidates that have a chance, but, hey, there are also “experts” who think we evolved from single-celled organisms, so choose your sources wisely.
This source, however, sees McCain and Clinton as the eventual victors, and is looking forward to voting in November, if, for no other reason, than this 2-year spin-cycle will finally be over.
For an interesting breakdown on what the each of the potential races might look like, check out Kimberley A. Strassel’s Barack or Hillary? It’s a post that I was going to write, only she beat me to it, and probably did a much better job.

Note: if you skip this entire post, please at least watch the video at the bottom - it sums this all up in less than 2 minutes.

Put in a popular/rock CD that is 10 years old. Then listen to one from 5 years ago. Then listen to a brand new one. What is the first thing that you notice? Well, besides your fickle and slightly suspect taste in music? The difference in volume. It jumps out of your speakers. Literally. Well, it doesn’t jump, exactly, but you get my point. With the advent of the CD and subsequent digital mixing/mastering technology, music has gotten louder:

Levels have crept up over the last decade though, and alarmingly so. [Nirvana’s] Nevermind is 6-8dB quieter than, say, Hopes & Fears by Keane—to contextualise this, those 6-8dB will make Nevermind sound approximately half as loud… Keane should NOT be twice as loud as Nirvana.

So what does this mean to the average, untrained listener (you, for example)? Nothing initially. But has anyone ever got the feeling that music (or the world, in general) is just a little too… noisy?

Human brains have evolved to pay particular attention to loud noises, so compressed sounds initially seem more exciting. But the effect doesn’t last. “The excitement in music comes from variation in rhythm, timbre, pitch and loudness,” [Daniel] Levitin [professor of music and neuroscience] says. “If you hold one of those constant, it can seem monotonous.” After a few minutes, research shows, constant loudness grows fatiguing to the brain. Though few listeners realize this consciously, many feel an urge to skip to another song.

This is why older CDs, though you have to turn them up a little louder, often, when you pay attention, just sound GOOD (U2’s Joshua Tree). This is also why newer CDs, though the music, engineering, and technology are all better, don’t (U2’s How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb). This is also why the new Lone Strangers live album won’t be squished to death (though it will also probably be louder than Nevermind, which is just ridiculous).
The technical stuff will bore most of the people who usually read this blog, so I’ll skip it. If you’re interested, check out the Loudness War article on Wikipedia and this gem from Chicago Mastering Services, in addition to the other great articles that I’ve linked to. Most of you, though, are wondering how it affects you, and what difference it makes in terms of your daily listening experience.
The best example I can find is below. Even if you’ve skipped this entire blog, please WATCH THIS VIDEO! It says it all, and it will only take 102 seconds of your time.

Feel cheated? I do.

I know I’ve practically beaten the political horse to death, but I feel this is too important for me to not share:

More on stupid, digital things that are happening to music next week.

I vote Republican, and will caucus Republican, because I am conservative. I believe the Bible, and I believe in the US Constitution and lower taxes.
I believe that, regardless of your feelings on the war in Iraq, we can, from this point on, do one of three things: leave immediately (also known as “losing” - see: political expediency, Vietnam), continue to whine about it and do nothing, or stop listening to the polls, do what the generals say, and win the damn thing, even if it means troops will be there on some level for another 5, 10, or 20 years. Everyone wants the war to end and the troops to come home. The troops want to come home. But they darn sure don’t want to come home without taking care of business first.
I believe that abortion is wrong. A short, tactless summary for a complicated discussion. If you can tell me when life begins, I’ll agree to abortion prior to that point. Right now, no one is sure exactly when a fetus gets a soul, and I’d rather err on the side of caution than be accidentally killing babies. I can revisit this later, with more depth and diplomacy, if anyone would like, but it’s a make-or-break issue for me.
I believe that the best thing the government can do is get out of the way and let people achieve. This can be done through lower taxes, less programs, less laws, and less “nanny-state,” aka baby-sitting the American people out of the belief that they can’t take care of themselves.
Based on these things, as well as my previously discussed qualifications, here is the Republican field, organized by an unexplainable, but very scientific formula, factoring likelihood of winning and who you should actually vote for.

The Good Guys
Alan Keyes - Keyes is on his 3rd straight run. I love and admire the guy, but the Des Moines Register isn’t even listing him on the “Candidates” page. Sorry Alan.

Duncan Hunter - From California, has served in the house since 1981. After 27 years, has decided to try for a promotion. Hunter, besides being the OTHER Evangelical Christian in the race, has tried to build a 14-mile fence along the border with Mexico. While I agree with him on about everything else, this is pretty dumb, and will also not get you elected.

Rudy Giuliani - Rudy has more executive experience than many Governors (see: Huckabee). He is also pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, which is a tough sell in the GOP, especially in Iowa. I’ll vote for him in November if he gets the nod; the long-term judicial and foreign-policy impacts are too important to ignore. But not unless I absolutely have to.

Ron Paul - Ron is a practicing ob-gyn who has served as Representative from Texas from 77-85, 97-present, and happens to be insane. I think we should organize debates between Ron and Dennis Kucinich, just for the entertainment value. He is a great speaker, and has an incredible grass-roots campaign. He also has principals, upon which he bases his decisions, and sticks to them. He is socially and fiscally conservative, and this is why his supporters love him - there is absolutely 0 chance that he would suddenly decide to raise taxes and create government programs if he gets elected. There is also 0 chance that he will get elected.
He supports dismantling the IRS and Federal Reserve, which is great, but hard to sell on a national level. He supports states’ rights to a fault. He also thinks we should pull out of Iraq immediately, and have a (not isolationist, but) non-interventionist foreign-policy. This is, as I mentioned yesterday, retarded, no offense to the differently-abled.

Mike Huckabee - Mike Huckabee seems like a very nice guy. The problem is, I know lots of nice guys. In fact, I know lots of nice, Christian guys with great values and character - pastors, even - and most of them have no business being President. Let’s call it the Jimmy Carter factor. That said, here is why I am NOT a fan of Huckabee, and, in fact, am somewhat horrified by his rise:
He’s a liberal. He’s against vouchers and school choice. He thinks we should do foreign-policy by influence (including full diplomatic relations with Iran). He thinks that we don’t have a health care problem, but a “health problem;” his idea is to get Americans to stop smoking and start exercising, admirable goals, to be sure, but not ones that will solve the rising costs of health care. Furthermore, these are not things that a conservative would suggest the government involve itself with.
Huckabee is in favor of a carbon cap-and-tax plan to help save us from global warming, even though all evidence indicates that it would save us only from economic prosperity. He claims to cut taxes, but spending increased by 65% during the 8 years that he was governor of Arkansas. Yes, 65%. And he supported all kinds of tax hikes: sales tax, cigarettes, gasoline, and Internet taxes, for starters. This is allegedly a conservative, remember?
He has foot-in-mouth disease: in 1992, he advocated isolation/quarantine of people with HIV/AIDS. In 1992, I had been learning in public schools for at least 3 years that you couldn’t get AIDS from hugging, yet Huck says this? And believe that there’s more on the way: in 2007, only 4 of the 273 attack ads from the Democratic National Committee have focused on Huckabee. He’s an easy target, and they know it.
Finally, Huckabee is an ethical train-wreck:

In Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was investigated by the state ethics committee at least 14 times. Most of the complaints centered on what appears to be a serial disregard for government rules about gifts and outside financial compensation. He reported $112,000 worth of gifts in one year alone, nearly double his $67,000 salary…
One of these admonishments involved a $23,500 payment to Mr. Huckabee from an opaque organization called Action America that he helped found in 1994 while lieutenant governor, and that was designed to coordinate his speeches and supplement his income.
Mr. Huckabee caused an uproar when he used a $60,000 account intended to maintain the governor’s mansion for personal expenses, including restaurant meals, dry cleaning and boat supplies. He also faced a lawsuit over his assertion that $70,000 worth of furniture donated to the mansion was his to keep. Sprinkled among all this are complaints about the misuse of state planes and campaign funds, mistakes on financial disclosure forms, and fights over documents related to ethics investigations…
Most recent have been stories about his pardons and commutations, as well as the news that R.J. Reynolds contributed to Action America. Mr. Huckabee–who now wants a national smoking ban in public places–responded that he never knew he accepted tobacco money, which has inspired a former adviser to claim Mr. Huckabee is being “less than truthful.” What’s next?

This is a disproportionate amount of text for Huckabee, I realize. But I am aware that many who read this blog have become his fans. Perhaps I have a bias against ethically-challenged Baptist Arkansas governors who are running for president. But I think that Huckabee’s success is largely due to the fact that, in addition to being a Christian, he is not Mitt Romney (Morman), and he’s not Rudy Giuliani (pro-abortion). He attacks those who question his record as trying to silence the voice of the evangelicals; maybe I’m self-hating, here, but I think he is not very conservative, I think he lacks the executive and foreign-policy experience and expertise to get the job done, and I think his record is very clear on that.

Mitt Romney - Republican governor of super-liberal Massachusetts from 03-07, successful businessman, who, by the way, happens to be Mormon. This, unfortunately, has become a bigger liability for Romney than his dubious conservative credentials (formerly pro-abortion). I am impressed with Romney’s leadership skills and executive experience, am less worried about his apparently nominal Mormon beliefs, but am concerned with his nominal conservatism. I think he’d make a successful president and would pick conservative judges, but I’m not sure he’s the right guy.

John McCain - Since 2000, I have sworn I would never vote for McCain. He took contrary, moderate positions, seemingly because he liked seeing his name in the headlines (to the point where I have since diagnosed Chuck Hagel with “McCain-itis”), and the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform is an affront to the Constitution and voters. The man is a social conservative though, and appears, at least for the campaign, to have re-embraced low-tax conservatism.
Here’s the thing with McCain - he will take an unpopular stand on things like Iraq because, gosh darnit, he’s right. There are few candidates who make me feel better about our future in Iraq because he believes that we are there until we win. The end. Polls disagree? Tough.
In spite of the last decade of complaining about him, I feel more comfortable about President John McCain than all the guys before him on the list, and nearly as comfortable with those after him.

Fred Thompson - an attorney, Thomson has held a slew of governmental positions, including serving in the Senate from 94-02, but is best known for his stint on Law & Order from 02-07. He ran a great pre-campaign, declaring late and staying above the fray, but has yet to really connect with voters. My concern: his trial-lawyer ties. Plus side: strong on national security, abortion, judges, and limited government. He seems reasonable on immigration and taxes. He is also a policy wonk, which may hurt his ability to be a good campaigner. I think his chances are slim, but I also think he’s the best man for the job. Except for…

Newt Gingrich - Newt is not running, so it’s tough to caucus for him. But, seriously, has there ever been a more principled defender of conservatism? The man was so villainized in the media that he became practically unelectable, but does anyone remember why? Because he was a force of nature in the House. In 94, he ran an entire campaign on the Contract with America (READ IT!!!), a conservative manifesto, won, and then, small wonder, did everything that he said he was going to. He is bright, articulate, and clear in his beliefs. His personal life is a bit of a train-wreck, but the man can build a coalition and lead. Small government, good courts, the most reasonable, detailed immigration proposal I have seen - get it done!
It will never happen, but tell me it wouldn’t be worth it, just to see the Gingrich-Hillary debates. The would have to rate them TV-M for the bloodshed. Seriously, who doesn’t want to see this?

That said, reasonable people can and do disagree, and there has never been a more prime example than the 2008 campaign. I hope you have a candidate, and I hope you go caucus. But first, read this, reread my blog, and then go be a good citizen. Keep in mind, the biggest long-term impact a president has are his/her judicial nominees, and so, even if you hate both eventual candidates, there is a good reason to be informed, be involved, and vote.
Go Cyclones. Go America!

It’s no secret that I’m fairly conservative, so this is really just a handicapping of the Democrat field, and maybe some food for thought for those who will be participating with the Dems this Thursday. For simplicity’s sake, I’ve split the candidates into tiers.

Hell’s Snowball is Laughing at Your Chances
Mike Gravel - A 77 year-old former Alaska senator, out of office since 1981, and 2nd runner up for Dem VP nomination in 1972. Also known as, “Who?”
Chris Dodd - From Connecticut, elected to the House in 1975 and the Senate in 1980, where he has been ever since. Probably a victim of “wrong place, wrong time,” since he would earn at least VP talk in other years, but in ‘08, there are too many Dem rockstars to contend with. 33 years of a liberal voting record could be a tough one to overcome in the General election, too. Incidentally, Dodd’s Iowa campaign office is right across the street from my office, and, based on the size, appearance, and complete lack of activity, let me just say: trust me, he’s not winning Iowa.

A Vote for Comedy’s Sake
Dennis Kucinich - Absolutely nuts. Leave Iraq immediately, universal health care, hug the trees, etc. From the Des Moines register: “If Kucinich’s first run was a long shot, his second run is even more so.” A liberal’s liberal, Kucinich is becoming the Dem equivalent of Alan Keyes, except inarticulate and without intellectual consistency. I would love to see him spend more time on the national stage.

Tier Two: Sucks to Be You
Joe Biden - Delaware Senator since 1972 - see above. Also has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth. Bonus points: Biden is a foreign-policy wonk, and actually has articulated a clear Iraq plan. I’m not a big fan, but credit for actually offering a clear course of action instead of vague “plans.”
Bill Richardson - Governor of New Mexico, with a slew of committee and other leadership positions. He is the one Democrat with a proven executive record, which would make him my clear pick. The problem: due to being outshone by the 1st tier candidates, he has resorted to running commercials saying that he would pull out of Iraq immediately, which, in addition to being just retarded, also reeks of desperation. The top candidates have all started moderating their positions in the event that they actually have to defend them on a national scale. Good luck in the VP race, Bill.

The Rockstars
John Edwards - One-term senator, failed VP nominee in ‘04, and pretty-boy trial-lawyer. Absolutely pwned by Dick Cheney in the ‘04 debates - I was practically embarrassed for the guy. A uber-rich lawyer with a lavish lifestyle running on a platform of representing the poor is always good for a laugh, though.
Barack Obama - He’s young, black, good looking, clearly very bright, and a great public speaker. He has also been running for President since 2004, when he won his first national-level election, defeating Keyes for the Ill. Senate in a non-race (Wiki it if you’re that interested). That is probably his biggest disadvantage: he has, in reality, no experience on the national stage, and CERTAINLY no experience in terms of being an executive. Clinton & Co will absolutely murder him in a tight, 2- or 3-way campaign. It’s what they do best.
On the plus side, he has been anointed the Dem rockstar, and he’s got Oprah stumping for him. What more does a man need?
Hillary Clinton - Well, she lived in the White House for 8 years, and has spent 8 painstaking years in the Senate, trying to avoid taking any position that would not appear to be moderate. Unbiased review would indicate that Clinton has spent the past 28 years of her life (at least) in preparation for this moment, and no one plays the campaign game like the Clintons.
Downsides: the only thing she has ever led, executive-style, was the quickly aborted Hillary-Care health care reform. It was a train-wreck from the get-go, and was quickly swept under the rug. Perhaps, while toting national health care, she is hoping that we all forget this.
She also carries all of her husbands baggage, but none of his charm. This is never more glaringly apparent until they started campaigning side by side. Dem supporters are thrilled to see aw-shucks Bill, but his wife comes off, well, like a battle-ax. She isn’t able to talk herself out of trouble, which spells trouble when her record starts getting examined in the campaign.
Incidentally, 40% say they would never, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary for President. She may be popular with the lefties, but those are pretty tough negative numbers to overcome. That said, she’s the man… er, person to beat.

So who does Pat endorse? Biden, I guess. He seems the most qualified and prepared to be President. How’s that for glowing?
Really, it’s a shame they can’t all lose. On the other hand, I think each Dem is eminently beatable by whichever Republican gets the nod, which is about the only good thing I can say about the GOP field. More on that tomorrow.

It’s caucus time in Iowa again, or at least that’s what the media has been saying for the past 18 months. And since I know my many loyal readers see this blog as a beacon of political wisdom, or, at the very least, good for a chuckle, I think it’s time for me to dismantle and/or dismember the candidates currently running for their respective party’s nomination to be President of the United States.
Let me start out by saying this: the fact that every one of these candidates feels that the best way to accomplish this goal is by calling my house several times a day with recorded messages and endorsements does NOT bode well for the future of our country.
That being said, what, besides effective push-polling, should one look for in a prospective President? Toughness and confidence? Absolutely, if for no other reason than the brutality of the campaign trail, having your every move, past and present, dissected by the 24-hour media whores horde. And that’s BEFORE you get elected. Afterwards, you face daily threats to your safety, tirades from opposing leaders filled with violent personal attacks, questions about your ability govern, to lead, to spell – and THAT’S just from members of the opposing party. A strong spine and thick skin are important.
A good President also needs a good moral compass – they should know what they believe, why the believe it, and be able to communicate this to others. A weakness of our current president is that he fails at the latter. His predecessor consistently failed at the other two. I maintain that being unable to communicate your deeply held convictions is less of a sin than sticking your thumb to the wind, and then serving up a heap of sugar about why, even though you are a liberal, you now suddenly think that welfare reform and NAFTA are great ideas. But, hey, pick your poison. Not to romanticize Reagan, but he fearlessly communicated his deeply held ideas about the evils of communism, and look how that turned out.
Finally, to be a good President, one must be a good leader, and therefore, must be able to delegate. The jobs of President, CEO, and Head Coach have never been more similar. The ability to do is irrelevant; the ability to get others to do for you is what is important. This is why we so consistently elect Governors, as opposed to Senators, to the Executive office. A Senator picks an issue that is important to him, writes a bill, lobbies and negotiates with colleagues, makes necessary compromises, all with the end goal of reaching a strong enough consensus to make the bill a law. A Governor (President/CEO/etc) says, “Here is the outline of my energy policy. Flesh it out, write it down, make it better, and have it back to me by Wednesday. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to make sure that tax and foreign policies are ready to go, and then give a speech to rally the public behind my ideas.” Letting go to this extent is not an easy thing to do for an ego-maniacal control-freak, and since anyone who actually WANTS to be President must, by default, fit that description to some degree, I think that this trait, often overlooked, is probably one of the most important.
Over the next several days, I’ll examine each candidate, both Democrat and Republican, and then tell you who you should vote/caucus for. Here’s a little suspense: I bet not one of you can guess correctly.

After a nearly 5 month hiatus, I return. Thank you, loyal readers, for checking this site every day, as I know you have, in eager anticipation of a new post. Your 142 vigil has ended - you may now resume everyday life.
What was the cause of the lengthy pause? A number of things, including, but not limited to: new house, new job, lack of enthusiasm, my computer not remembering my password, me failing to adequately nag Matt to reset it, etc, etc. But that is not what’s important now; I am.
What, you might be asking (and if you’re not, you should be), is the catalyst for my triumphant return? Could it be the upcoming Iowa Caucasus? Will I share my wisdom and insight on who the next leader of this great country should be? Yeah, but that’s tomorrow. Today, a discovery so astounding that this blog, known for it’s integral role in the (mockery of the) scientific community, could not look the other direction. No, this landmark study will be commemorated, as so many others, here in these pages of the internet. To what am I referring?
Study Reveals Why Monkeys Shout During Sex
Because they like it? Because monkeys, as a rule, rarely whisper? Because they are mocking the humans that are ADMITTEDLY STUDYING this?

To see if yelling resulted from how vigorous the sex was, the scientists counted the number of pelvic thrusts males gave and timed when they happened…
Counting monkey pelvic thrusts is admittedly “quite weird, but it’s science,” researcher Dana Pfefferle, a behavioral scientist and primatologist at the German Primate Center, told LiveScience.

So you’re counting and timing the pelvic thrusts of monkeys, admitting that you are weird, then trying to brush it off in the name of science? Ladies and gentlemen: your tax dollars.
This is why I work in financial services.