To contact us Click HERE
Williams had a big hit in Can't Get Used To Losing You with its marvelous pizzicato introduction, but it was his smash cover of "Moon River" that led to his long-running NBC variety show.
Williams, who popularized the Osmonds on his TV show, got scandalous payback and collateral ridicule when his ex-wife, Claudine Longet, shot the ski instructor with whom she had been having an affair.
Below, Williams performs the filthiest pop hit of the 1950s, Lollipop, with the Chordettes, whose schtick was that they were basically a female barbershop quartet.
Yes, those were the Everly Brothers at the end of the clip, seemingly wishing they were anywhere else. Here they are, singing Love is Strange into the same microphone:
30 Eylül 2012 Pazar
The New Normal hits its stride
To contact us Click HERE
NBC's first-out-of-the gate gay-themed sitcom is already as much a hoot as the tartest of the Desperate Housewives episodes. Golden touch producer/director James Burrows' Tiffany Network counterpart, Partners, will have a high bar to clear, AKSARBENT thinks, to best this series. Good thing for CBS they're not opposite each other.
An excerpt from Tuesday's episode, which we saw on NBC's website (commercial free!):
An excerpt from Tuesday's episode, which we saw on NBC's website (commercial free!):
Vander Plaats' Trash-Justice-Wiggins Iowa bus tour outnumbered in Cedar Rapids 150-30 by detractors who jeered so loudly he was hardly heard
To contact us Click HERE
Reporters Trish Mehaffey and Dave Franzman said hecklers sympathizing with the pro-Wiggins Iowa Bar Association bus on the other side of Cedar Rapids' Greene Square Park were so boisterous that "It was difficult at times to hear Vander Plaats and others of the anti-retention group" because of boos and yells directed at the Iowa Family Leader's "NoWiggins" bus. Sample sentiments: "Vote Yes," "Who's paying for the bus?" and "It's about equal protection, Bob, read the constitution."
On Thursday, the two buses roll into Council Bluffs, the second most important stop on the tour. Although "CB," population 62,000, is only Iowa's seventh-biggest city, it is part of a metropolitan area which also includes the Nebraska cities of Omaha, Bellevue, Papillion, Ralston, and Millard — the largest population center in Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota, with TV, radio and print media that have tremendous reach into Western Iowa.
Below: Iowa Family Leader tries to persuade voters to dump Justice Wiggins via a Big Lie YouTube smear.
On Thursday, the two buses roll into Council Bluffs, the second most important stop on the tour. Although "CB," population 62,000, is only Iowa's seventh-biggest city, it is part of a metropolitan area which also includes the Nebraska cities of Omaha, Bellevue, Papillion, Ralston, and Millard — the largest population center in Nebraska, Iowa and South Dakota, with TV, radio and print media that have tremendous reach into Western Iowa.
Below: Iowa Family Leader tries to persuade voters to dump Justice Wiggins via a Big Lie YouTube smear.
Iowa Family Leader: where Iowa Nice goes to die
To contact us Click HERE
Like Hitler complaining about the rudeness of the French, here we have Tamara Scott in Bayliss Park in Council Bluffs complaining that lawyers and voters defending Justice David Wiggins against relentless character assassination by her No Wiggins campaign are getting "personal" — moments before her Trash-Wiggins road trip buddy, Bob Vander Plaats, ticked off a list of the nastiest anonymous Judicial Review comments about Judge Wiggins that he could find. (Props to a gay-friendly photographer who shall remain nameless.)
AKSARBENT took a little poetic license with the video editor, and if we went too far, we can only blame the bad influence of the Family Leader's example, namely that 15-word smear of Justice Wiggins plastered on their huge red bus (paid for with lots of out-of-state money from the secretive National Organization for Marriage) and repeated four or five times in their YouTube smear below
AKSARBENT took a little poetic license with the video editor, and if we went too far, we can only blame the bad influence of the Family Leader's example, namely that 15-word smear of Justice Wiggins plastered on their huge red bus (paid for with lots of out-of-state money from the secretive National Organization for Marriage) and repeated four or five times in their YouTube smear below
The Ruth Institute needs to hire this woman!
To contact us Click HERE
NSFW. Roger Ebert, who tweeted this video, notes that the "guest" is the speaker's mom and further noted that he "regarded this video in fascination and awe."
What AKSARBENT learned from this video
What AKSARBENT learned from this video
- All penises are not created equal
- Don't let every man hit the bottom of your vagina...
- (from Guest:) They don't know about the bottom...
- A woman can be screwed into slavery by a man using his penis as a weapon to break her ass down
- This can actually reduce her to a cum freak
- You don't want to let everybody spank you and talk to you all kind of ways
- Alexyss K. Taylor may not have a PhD and a master's degrees to put on her wall in academia, but she has "a master's degree in being used by men, being played by men"
- (from Guest) A girl ain't got a chance!
29 Eylül 2012 Cumartesi
Sderot, Israel - "Rocket City" opens new school
To contact us Click HERE
UPDATE: This morning, I read this headline:
Gaza rocket hits home in Sderot, causes damage to property
Qassam hits home in the the southern Israeli city, no one was wounded; rocket later lands in open field in Sha'ar Hanagev, no injuries or damage reported.
Sha'ar Haganev is the location of the new school complex. Are they specifically targeting a school?
 |
| New high school in Sderot |
Sderot, Israel - few people have ever heard of it. The new headlines are not focused on this - there are too many stories about all the other crises in the region. The only ones who take note of events in this small town on the Israel-Gaza border are those of us who closely follow events in the Middle East. We call it "rocket city."
Sderot sits within Qassam rocket range of the Gaza Strip - less than a mile from the Gaza border and about three miles from the favorite launch positions inside the Gaza Strip at Bayt Hanun. Rocket attacks are not unusual here - they have become a fact of life - since Israeli forces withdrew from the Gaza Strip on September 12, 2005. The rocket attacks began that very afternoon and have been almost daily occurrence since. They are measured not in the hundreds, but in the thousands. Almost 450 have been fired this year to date.
I visited Sderot in 2009 in the aftermath of the confrontation between Hamas and the Israeli armed forces early that year. Here are a series of my photos to give you an impression of life in a city that has experienced daily rocket attacks since the Israeli withdrawal. The residents have adapted their homes and schools - even their bus stops - to defend themselves against the rockets.
When the residents hear the loudspeakers announce in Hebrew tsevah adom (color red), they have as little as 15 seconds to get to a sheltered location. Their buildings reflect the need for immediate safety.
 |
| Looking into Gaza from Sderot The area by the trees is Bayt Hanun, favored for rocket launches |
 |
| Old school with anti-rocket add-ons |
 |
| Steel awning over school play area |
 |
| Reinforced bus stop/shelter |
 |
| Concrete bomb shelter in town |
 |
| IDF officer with typical homemade Qassam rocket |
The new $27.5 million school complex features concrete walls, reinforced windows and a layout designed to absorb and deflect rocket fire. When there is an "color red" announcement, the students no longer dash for bomb shelters - they now remain in their protected classrooms.
I applaud the city of Sderot for their dedication to their children to build a secure facility for their education. What parent would not support that effort? That said, perhaps a better solution would be "curing the disease instead of treating the symptoms."
The real issue should not be constructing armored school buildings to protect students. The real issue is to stop the Hamas-backed 'Izz al-Din al-Qassam (the cleric for whom the rockets are named) Brigades and Islamic Jihad from launching rockets into Sderot.
The Israelis tried in 2009 and stopped short of the goal. Why? World opinion - they felt that continued military operations in Gaza might turn public opinion against them. Maybe, maybe not. Many of us who have children do not want to have to build an armored school so our children can get an education.
At some point, the base issue will have to be addressed. Hopefully, that will be via diplomacy - both sides will sit down and decide that Palestinian children and Israeli children should attend school in peace.
Unfortunately, history is not on my side. Most of these situations eventually are resolved through force of arms. I, as a retired military officer, wish it were not so - I did this for a living - but I fear we will have another round of violence before the children of Sderot go to school free of rocket attacks.
Note to the Syrian opposition - take the airbases!
To contact us Click HERE
A few weeks ago, I wrote an article about the Syrian air force's effective use of the L-39 trainer/light attack aircraft (Syrian air force attacks - effective use of the aircraft). At the end of the article, I commented:
Someone at Syrian air force headquarters knows what he is doing. Given the nature of the threat and the type of fighting, the right aircraft are being used.
I may have spoken too soon. In the past month, the Syrian opposition, the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA), has downed several Syrian air force aircraft, including two MiG-23 fighters and at least two helicopters, and destroyed several dozen fighters and helicopters on the ground at several air bases.
 |
| Abu ad-Duhur air base |
In March, members of the FSA used an RPG to destroy a MiG-23 on the ground at Abu ad-Duhur air base (35 44N 37 06E). Just this week, the FSA shot down a MiG-23UB (FLOGGER C) two-seat trainer as it was taking off from the airfield. The FSA also claims to have attacked the air base and destroyed another 11 fighter aircraft on the ground.
If that is true, that effectively reduces the inventory of aircraft at Abu ad-Duhur by half. If you look at the airfield, you will see it is built in typical Syrian fashion, with a squadron area at each end of the runway. I would guess that the rebels attacked one squadron area and destroyed all the aircraft at one end of the runway.
 |
| Afis air base, Taftanaz |
The helicopter airfield at Taftanaz, also known as Afis air base (35 58N 36 47E) has come under attack by the rebels as well. Afis is home to two squadrons of Mi-8 (HIP) assault helicopters. You can see the layout of the airfield and two distinct squadron areas fanning out from the administrative area. Here is footage of an attack on Afis:
From the footage and the camera angle, it appears that this footage was shot from the farm to the north of the airfield. I have indicated the area being videotaped - the burning helicopter is sitting on one of the pads west of the hangar.
 |
| Afis air base - area of attack Note: North is to the right |
In addition to the attacks on Abu ad-Duhur and Afis/Taftanaz, there have been FSA attacks on 'Azaz airfield (also known as Minakh air base, 36 31N 37 02E) 25 miles north of Aleppo, and on Nayrab (the military ramp at Aleppo International airport, 36 11N 37 13E). The two bases have been used to launch air attacks - both fixed and rotary wing - on cities in northern Syria that are believed to be under the control of the FSA. The word used in the FSA reporting is 'ashwa'i (indiscriminate) bombing of residential areas of the cities. The footage seems to bear out their claims.
Here is where the Syrian air force needs to reassess their operations in the north. If they are going to use the bases in the local area of the attacks - some of these attacks are only a few miles from the airfields - they need to secure these bases from FSA attack. Airpower can be decisive, and it is taking a toll on the FSA - they admit that the airpower is what is hurting them the most. However, if you are going to have effective air strikes, you need secure bases from which to operate.
I wonder how the Syrian air force commanders are assigning targets to the pilots. Are they sending the pilots out to strike specific targets based on intelligence, or are they simply sending them to an area with instructions to engage anything they believe is hostile? If you believe the FSA, they are sent out simply to terrorize the populations of cities that support the uprising.
On the other side of the equation is the FSA. They know that the air strikes that have been so effective against them in the north are being launched from Minakh, Nayrab, Afis and Abu ad-Duhur air bases. Since they realize that they have limited air defense capabilities - the recent shootdowns have been more a matter of luck and are only a small percentage of the sorties flown by the Syrian air force - they have adopted the tactic of attacking the airfields in hopes of denying the Syrian regime secure bases from which to operate.
It shows a certain level of military thinking. They are getting better in their tactics, and the Syrian air force appears to be only the shadow of what it once was - an air force that trained to fight the Israeli air force. While it may work in the sort term, the Syrians can easily launch their attacks from bases further to the south and out of FSA reach.
President Obama and the "end" of two wars
To contact us Click HERE
 |
| The Biden-Kerry brain trust |
Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John Kerry - the former has never worn a uniform and the latter is ashamed of his - have both spoken at the Democratic National Convention in glowing terms about President Obama's handling of two wars. They claim that the President's performance merits his re-election. Some comments for you consideration on the wars.
I have tried to stay out of the political debate between the two parties - especially during the two campaign love-fest conventions - and try to focus on the actions of those in power. I was highly critical of President Bush for his conduct of the wars - they should both have been over and won years ago. I supported to decision to take military action and have been impressed with the performance of our troops, but I have real issues with the national-level decision in the prosecution of the wars.
That said, President Obama came to office and had the opportunity to honor his campaign promises to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan responsibly. By my analysis, he has failed on both fronts.
I must credit a friend and colleague, Dr. Walid Phares,* for some rationale analysis: "Kerry says Obama knows how to 'end wars,' but he never explains why Obama never 'wins' these wars... Getting out of Iraq while allowing Iran to seize it is no victory. Quitting Afghanistan to the Taliban is defeat." Dr. Phares is absolutely correct.
Let's look at Iraq first. When the Bush Administration negotiated the December 31, 2011 withdrawal date of U.S. forces from Iraq with the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, there was a provision for the presence of American troops past that date if warranted by the security situation, and with the agreement of both governments. During the negotiations, a sticking point arose of the immunity of American troops from arrest and prosection by Iraqi authorities.
There was a series of meetings to discuss the issue. I agree that we needed a provision in the agreement for immunity similar to status-of-forces agreements we have with many countries that host American troops. The Iraqis were surprised when the Americans abruptly halted the talks and walked out of the talks and announced the end of U.S. force presence as of December 31, 2011.
Afterwards, I came to realize the talks and subsequent walkout were merely a kabuki dance to make it look like the Obama Administration had actually the considered the security situation; the decision to depart had already been made. There was to be no agreement; continuing the talks risked an Iraqi compromise.
Bottom line in Iraq: President Obama did not end the war. He simply departed the war - he quit. The fighting in Iraq continues, al-Qa'idah in Iraq - virtually wiped out by American forces in the last years of our involvement - has re-emerged as a threat, and the country has grown much closer to the Shi'a-dominated Islamic Republic of Iran. That, Mr. Obama, is not a victory.
The mullahs in Tehran watched this happen at the hands of Barack Obama and judged him to be totally inept at foreign policy in this part of the world. That is part of the reason they do not take his threats seriously over the Iranian nuclear program. Again, President Obama did not end the war in Iraq - he ran from it, dishonoring those who sacrificed life and limb. That perfidy was not lost on the Iranians.
Afghanistan? Another foreign policy blunder, by both administrations. I have already addressed what I believe where the Bush Administration's failings in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let's focus on what the current Administration has done. If you listened to the convention speeches lauding Joe Biden's foreign policy prowess, you would have to wonder, what was his advice to the President about the war in Afghanistan? Biden, who does have 40 years of foreign policy experience - virtually all of it being proved wrong - has no clue about military operations.
Case in point - these two professional politicians with no understanding of military strategy - decided that it would be politically expedient to announce a deadline for the withdrawal of American troops from the country. Anyone who has attended any military staff college or heard a shot fired in anger will tell you that absolute last thing that you do when you have young men and women in harm's way is to telegraph your strategic, tactical or operational intentions to the enemy.
When the Administration announced the withdrawal deadline as the end of 2014, it in reality told the Taliban that all they had to do was survive until that date and they would win. Obama handed them victory. As soon as I heard the announcement, I knew we had lost.
The Taliban then began a classic guerrilla campaign aimed at killing individual American soldiers one by one, in places they felt safe. In this case, the Taliban recruited members - or inserted them into - the Afghan military and security forces to turn on their American allies in their workplaces. It is a morale killer, and only steels American public opinion against a continued military presence in the country.
To make matters worse, the President re-iterated:
"We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014."
Let me translate that into how that is viewed by military professionals, not politicians (although it seems some of our senior officers have drunk the kool-aid and now merely spout the party line). The President said, "We are quitting Afghanistan, we're leaving by the end of 2014 no matter the situation. To all parties, we have no interest in who emerges as the victors."
In the end, President Obama will have ended two wars. To be kind, I could say that he will have won neither. To be honest, I will say that he will have lost both.
____________
* Disclosure - Dr. Phares is an advisor to the Romney-Ryan campaign. He and I were analysts at MSNBC, often appearing together. In this article, I have taken numerous paragraphs to say what Walid said in four sentences....
Syrian civil war - and the children
To contact us Click HERE
This is an internet video that someone sent me for my interpretation of what is going on - a child in some sort of cape standing in front of the flag used by the Syrian opposition, wearing a headband of that same flag, obviously being coached by a man (I assume it is her father, uncle or another relative).
When I saw the opening, I thought, cute little girl, sweet voice (my translations):
"I am 'Amurah from Syria."
She continued (with coaching for each phrase):
"I am sending a special greeting to the revolutionaries in Dayr Az-Zawr, the revolutionaries in Homs, the revolutionaries in Idlib as they face death, and Dayr Az-Zawr as they face death."
Okay, maybe a bit much to have a child send greetings to revolutionaries.
Then:
"By God, leave, Bashar! Leave, Bashar!"
No real problem with that, but I think she's a bit young to be indoctrinated with this political rhetoric.
Then I think it crosses a line:
"The people want the execution of al-Asad."
It ends with the chant:
"Syria - freedom! Syria - freedom! Syria - freedom!"
The sign around her neck is a bit blurry in the video, but I think it reads, "Youth of the Syrian Revolution - to Victory of the Syrian Revolution."
The flag is not the official flag of Syria. This flag was the official flag of the Syrian Republic (as opposed to today's Syrian Arab Republic) from 1930 to 1958, when it was changed to the current flag to reflect the brief union with Egypt. The opposition refers to this flag as 'alm al-istiqlal, the Independence Flag.
I was struck by this video. I support the Syrian opposition. That said, my youngest granddaughter Alexa is about 'Amurah's age - Alexa is not touched by civil war. Too often, we forget the psychological stresses and impacts on the children in these crisis areas. Much the same, I guess, as on the children in the Israeli town of Sderot who live with rocket attacks virtually every day. (See my article, Sderot, Israel - "Rocket City" opens new school.)
Something to think about.
Obama and his military strategies
To contact us Click HERE
 |
| US Soldier in Afghanistan (US Army photo) |
As the United States prepares to decide who will be the commander in chief for the next four years, President Obama's performance in that role is under scrutiny. While the President is basing his military leadership prowess primarily on the killing of al-Qa'idah leader 'Usamah bin Ladin, perhaps it is more useful to examine the totality of his military strategy - or more correctly, strategies - over the last three and a half years.
This should be read in conjunction with my earlier analysis, President Obama and the "end" of two wars.
Iraq
In Iraq, the President pursued a strategy of basically quitting, declaring victory and going home. There was an agreement in effect, negotiated with the Iraqis by the Bush Administration, to withdraw U.S. troops by the end of 2011, with the possibility of extension based on the security situation at the time. Although the security situation was not conducive to a complete American withdrawal, the President opted to pull out the troops anyway.
While that premature withdrawal gives Mr. Obama the opportunity to claim that he kept a campaign promise to end the war in Iraq - I think he even added the word "responsibly" - all he did was pave the way for the resurgence of al-Qa'idah in the Sunni heartland and for increased Iranian influence in the Shi'a areas - not to mention increased Iranian influence in the Shi'a dominated government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. There has been an increase in bloodshed in the country since in the absence of American troops.
Libya
Possibly the defining military strategy of his Administration, his so-called "leading from behind" has become more of a joke than a serious serious strategy. The reason? You can't lead from behind. It was an attempt to downplay the U.S. role in the military operation that ultimately gave victory to the Libyan rebels. I am not sure why the President was reluctant to openly acknowledge the American role in the operation. Perhaps the left-wing of the Democratic Party - his power base - would not approve of his use of force, although that has not stopped the President's exponential increase in the use of armed drones to attack targets with increasing numbers of "collateral damage." That is a euphemism for civilian (innocent) casualties.
The problem with the Administration's use of the term "leadership from behind" is that the operation succeeded. It succeeded because of the superb efforts of American airmen to get the job done despite the absence of leadership from Washington.
Afghanistan
In addition to the strategies of quitting in Iraq and "leading from behind" in Libya, in Afghanistan we see yet another Obama strategy - warfare by timetable. The President has declared that the mission will be accomplished and we will withdraw our forces by the end of 2014. In the President's own words, "We are bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. And I've set a timetable. We will have them all out of there by 2014."
I have already expounded on the absolute idiocy of this policy (see the earlier article referenced above). Can you imagine President Roosevelt or Prime Minister Churchill announcing that World War II would end on a specific date in 1945? Ludicrous. You should fight wars until you win or achieve your objective. Specifying an end date merely tells the enemy when he wins.
Syria
Now we come to Syria. The strategy here seems to be "ignore the problem and maybe it will go away, as long as it does not affect my chances for re-election." Syria is fast turning into a humanitarian disaster. The world looks to the United States and the West for leadership, yet we seem to be paralyzed by the involvement of Iran and the unwillingness of Russia and China to rein in their favorite Middle Eastern tyrant-dictator.
I will call this strategy the "deer in the headlights" campaign. It fits in with the President's overall leadership doctrine of abdication. Why lead if you can re-elected without it?
28 Eylül 2012 Cuma
ONE COULD TWITTER ONE'S LIFE AWAY
To contact us Click HERE
@v@
0
@v@
0
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WHEN BILL CALLS TQ ANSWERS
To contact us Click HERE
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bill Clinton
Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Subject: Good morning
To: Terry Travers
From: Bill Clinton
Date: Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Subject: Good morning
To: Terry Travers
| I hope you'll pay attention, Terry. We're facing a big FEC fundraising deadline -- after this, there's only one more before Election Day. Here's why that matters: Your donation will go further now than it will next week. That's because it will immediately be put to use -- if your $5 (for example) goes toward hiring an organizer in Akron, Ohio, she'll have more time to do her job and reach more voters. And that's how elections are won. I hope you'll donate $5 or more before the September fundraising deadline: https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline-September Thanks for everything you do. Bill Clinton P.S. -- If you donate $5 or whatever you can today, you and a guest will be automatically entered to fly out to meet President Obama and me on the campaign trail. No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Contributing will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by September 28, 2012. You may enter by contributing to Obama for America here, by signing up for Quick Donate here, or click here to enter without contributing or signing up for Quick Donate. Two (2) winners will each receive the following prize package: round-trip tickets for winner and a guest from within the fifty U.S. States, DC, or Puerto Rico to a destination to be determined by Sponsor; hotel accommodations for winner and a guest; tickets for winner and a guest to two events of Sponsor; and the opportunity to meet with President Obama and President Clinton (approximate retail value of all prizes $3,200). Odds of winning depend on number of entries received. Promotion open only to U.S. citizens, or lawful permanent U.S. residents who are legal residents of 50 United States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and 18 or older (or age of majority under applicable law). Promotion subject to Official Rules and additional restrictions on eligibility. Sponsor: Obama for America, 130 E. Randolph St., Chicago, IL 60601.    |
 |
| Contributions or gifts to Obama for America are not tax deductible |
| This email was sent to: trrytrvrs@gmail.com. We believe that emails are a vital way for the campaign to stay in direct contact |
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)