An old friend of mine just surfaced, Ron Blustein. We were friends from residency days in the late 60's at SF General. In those days a bunch of us collected most nights at our house in the Mission District to listen to and make music.
Ron is a musical prodigy. He could pick up almost any instrument and play it with proficiency. Back then Indian music was all the rage. Ron got a sitar from somewhere and played it like Ravi Shankar. He could do anything.
We lost contact for t...he most part but Ron through the years has turned composer. He's done all sorts of stuff which can be played on a synthesizer, but most notably he has done a collection of 24 preludes and fugues in every key that are astounding to me. Of course famously Bach started this with the Well Tempered Clavier, but Chopin and Shostakovich also did it and now Blustein! Of course Bach did it twice.
For anyone interested I added a link to a sample.
Saturday, July 30, 2016
Ron Blustein's Well Tempered Clavier Synthesizer
Friday, July 29, 2016
Hillary is not the problem. It is the Democrats!
I wouldn't call Hillary dangerous and sinister as the Dems are referring to Trump. It's more that she is consumed by ambition and will go to any length to achieve her goal. And like her boss, Obama I think she is smart enough but incompetent. But Hillary is not the problem for me, it is the modern Democrat party which has embraced big government.
I agree with our founder's idea of government as a necessity which must be kept limited. You think government is compassionate? It is not. It is collection of politicians and bureaucrats, each with their own interests. It is for the most part impersonal, inhumane and wasteful.
We all have our own experiences but I have seen what government can do from the inside. I started in medicine just before Medicare and have watched the whole sorry mess develop, decade by decade. Government regulation and policy has virtually destroyed medical practice. Don't think that this is just your doctor's problem. If you're concerned about the high cost, inefficiency and maldistribution of medical care look to the government takeover.
For those of you who think that doctors are dropping Medicare because of greed, think again. It's not an easy decision to let go of a large portion of your paying customers. It's what you have to do to get paid that's the problem. For those of you who don't care to have your doctor sitting in front of a computer entering data instead of taking the time to listen to you, join the club. Your doctor hates it too.
Now I'm not against regulation per se. Life without it would be chaos. But what we've got now has gone far, far beyond all common sense. So for those who are satisfied with the government's fingers in every part of your life, and want more of it in the future, and want to give your hard earned money to pay for it to boot, vote for Hillary. For my part I'll take a chance on Trump. He isn't your standard politician and that's fine with me.
For those of you who think that doctors are dropping Medicare because of greed, think again. It's not an easy decision to let go of a large portion of your paying customers. It's what you have to do to get paid that's the problem. For those of you who don't care to have your doctor sitting in front of a computer entering data instead of taking the time to listen to you, join the club. Your doctor hates it too.
Now I'm not against regulation per se. Life without it would be chaos. But what we've got now has gone far, far beyond all common sense. So for those who are satisfied with the government's fingers in every part of your life, and want more of it in the future, and want to give your hard earned money to pay for it to boot, vote for Hillary. For my part I'll take a chance on Trump. He isn't your standard politician and that's fine with me.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Trump, the Emails and the Russians
The Democrats are telling us to pay no attention to the DNC's hacked emails. The important thing is that the Russians did it.
Yesterday Trump joked that since the Russians are hacking things that they might be able to supply us with Hillary's deleted emails. The Democrats and the media were aghast. I heard one accuse him of treason.
You see when they asked Hillary to turn in her emails she didn't want to bother everyone with silly stuff about Chelsea's wedding and her yoga classes, so she deleted a whole bunch of that personal business. But she didn't delete her emails like you and I would by pressing the delete button. She got rid of them so that even the FBI forensic experts couldn't retreive them.
So some of us are curious about what other little things were in those emails. If the Russians really hacked her servers then they have those emails and us Americans don't. I don't think it's really treason to ask the Russians that if they have the emails to share them with us. That's only fair.
The liberal news media might give us their spin on the story, but I think the regular guys and gals are going to figure this one out.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Let's Make a Deal. The Terror Watch List and the No Fly List.
Trump apparantly is going to meet with the NRA about selling guns to those on the Terror Watch List or the No Fly List. This will be an interesting test of his deal making ability.
The NRA has stated emphatically that it opposes selling guns to terrorists. Who in their right mind wouldn't have that same opinion. Obama and Clinton love to beat that straw horse as if the 2nd amendment supporters want terrorists to have guns.
The problem is in the details. I looked up the No Fly List on Wikipedia and the article is full of Kafkaesque stories about people being mistakenly on the list who didn't know they were on it, were unable to find out why they were on it, and had to go through all sorts of hoops to get off it. The ACLU has won lawsuits against it. The Orlando shooter was on it but was taken off it in 2013 so was able to buy his guns. How did this failure happen. I'm sure it's not that easy but do we just say it can't be helped?
So what about these lists. How do you get on them? How do you know if you're on them and why? If there's a mistake how do you get off them? It seems to me that in this era of jihadists going after "soft targets" the general public has to get involved. In our society we can't criminalize someone who hasn't yet committed a crime or for speech or beliefs but we should be able to know who among us is sympathetic to the jihadists so we can keep an eye on them.
So instead of the President and Hillary angrily berating their political opponents about their supposed callousness, why didn't they use their time in office to address these problems and work out a "deal" that everyone can agree about. It'll be interesting to see what Trump comes up with.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Trump and Pocahontas
So some liberal Indians and the RINO's think "Pocahontas" is an insult. No Dummies, Pocahontas is an early American legend. Trump OBVIOUSLY is using the term as shorthand to remind us that Lizzie claimed she was a minority to gain status and that Harvard publicized her claim to proved they had a "diverse" faculty. Trump is not putting down Indians, he's if anything respecting them by calling out a fraudulent claim to be one.
ANYTHING Trump says will be construed as racist by the liberals. Republicans should not be buying into their racist cant. SHAME on Mitt Romney and his friends. I used to think he was a nice man, but he has a screw loose in his brain.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Trump's Opinion about Gonzalo Curiel is not Racism
Trump is saying that Curiel has personal animosity for him based on his widely known political stance regarding illegal immigration.
He has this opinion based on his impression that the rulings by the judge against him are not reasonable based on the facts of the case. His description of the facts of the case are obviously one-sided but if they are as described by Trump one would wonder what justifies continuing the trial. Trump feels that the judge does not like him personally and that the obvious reason has to do with the judge's own political leanings.
The fact that these arguments have to do with opinions and feelings about illegal immigration is not "racism". If anything one might say that Judge Curiel is being accused of this fault. But that also would be untrue since his personal feelings would be based on Trump's political policy regarding illegal immigration rather than racial prejudice.
What is the truth in this matter? We know Trump's opinion since he expresses it forthrightly, political correctness be damned. It is high time that the press interviewed Judge Curiel to ask him expressly whether he has personal animosity against Trump based on his political policies. If so he should remove himself from the case.
The accusation of "racism" is a cancer in this country that must be eliminated. It is clear as day that the circumstances here do not justify making it a racial issue. (Why are we making "Hispanic" a race anyway --- it isn't one). The Democrats jump to the epithet. It is their stock in trade. But even Trump's supporters are aghast. It is like an electrified third rail. The press talks of nothing else and immediately make the "racist" assumption. How Trump can break through this argument and turn it around will take all his political skill. Simply ignoring the matter will leave it to fester. It will be interesting to see if he can do it.
He has this opinion based on his impression that the rulings by the judge against him are not reasonable based on the facts of the case. His description of the facts of the case are obviously one-sided but if they are as described by Trump one would wonder what justifies continuing the trial. Trump feels that the judge does not like him personally and that the obvious reason has to do with the judge's own political leanings.
The fact that these arguments have to do with opinions and feelings about illegal immigration is not "racism". If anything one might say that Judge Curiel is being accused of this fault. But that also would be untrue since his personal feelings would be based on Trump's political policy regarding illegal immigration rather than racial prejudice.
What is the truth in this matter? We know Trump's opinion since he expresses it forthrightly, political correctness be damned. It is high time that the press interviewed Judge Curiel to ask him expressly whether he has personal animosity against Trump based on his political policies. If so he should remove himself from the case.
The accusation of "racism" is a cancer in this country that must be eliminated. It is clear as day that the circumstances here do not justify making it a racial issue. (Why are we making "Hispanic" a race anyway --- it isn't one). The Democrats jump to the epithet. It is their stock in trade. But even Trump's supporters are aghast. It is like an electrified third rail. The press talks of nothing else and immediately make the "racist" assumption. How Trump can break through this argument and turn it around will take all his political skill. Simply ignoring the matter will leave it to fester. It will be interesting to see if he can do it.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
In Support of Trump
Trump is giving us the big picture of what he'd like to do. Finally, finally get illegal immigration controlled. Restore American strength and respect. Change foreign policy by realigning our relations with friends and antagonists, and resetting policy on use of our military. Diplomatic agreements must be straightforward and generally agreeable to our citizenry. Work on trade policy - yes we want free trade but all must abide by the rules. These are all sensible goals and perfectly appropriate executive functions in accordance with our constitution. His track record in business, tough but practical with many international ventures suggest that he has the ability to be successful in many of these efforts. He certainly has far more experience and proven ability in making agreements than B.O. or Hillary or Cruz.
His domestic ideas are reasonable and would be largely acceptable to the citizenry. His big concerns are our debt and the stagnant, failing economic plight of the middle class. He approaches this by a strong emphasis on jobs and not income redistribution. Yes, he does not rail against big government but nothing in his statements suggest an emphasis on the federal government as a panacea but clearly he favors the private sector. His policy prescriptions are not detailed, although his policy speeches so far are well within the range of acceptability. Those who want detailed domestic policies are forgetting that our constitution relegates that function primarily to congress. We have Paul Ryan who is well positioned to restore the proper balance. Trump expresses his desire to work with congress and his business record gives every indication that he would do so. Cruz, on the other hand, has proved himself in his relations with others to be ideological, inflexible and antagonistic to those whose cooperation he needs.
Trump has given us his ideas on who his supreme court nominees would be and these should be very acceptable to conservatives and constitutionalists. He states that he will reveal a list of names from which he will select his nominees before the election.
What is it exactly that makes Trump so bitterly opposed by the majority of intellectual conservatives. Is it his lack of ideological purity or his brash, impolite and politically incorrect mannerisms? These qualities actually make him appealing to many in our present day free-wheeling society. But are these reasons so cogent that they would accept a third term of far left liberal policies and multiple liberal supreme court picks. Do they fear that Trump will lose? I don't foresee that but even so there was no similar reaction to Dole, McCain or Romney. But that reason makes no sense if they would prefer to accept Hillary over the primary voter's chosen candidate.
Personally I think it is a herd mentality among an intellectual group who all know, communicate and socialize with each other, similar to what goes on among liberals in NYC or SF.
His domestic ideas are reasonable and would be largely acceptable to the citizenry. His big concerns are our debt and the stagnant, failing economic plight of the middle class. He approaches this by a strong emphasis on jobs and not income redistribution. Yes, he does not rail against big government but nothing in his statements suggest an emphasis on the federal government as a panacea but clearly he favors the private sector. His policy prescriptions are not detailed, although his policy speeches so far are well within the range of acceptability. Those who want detailed domestic policies are forgetting that our constitution relegates that function primarily to congress. We have Paul Ryan who is well positioned to restore the proper balance. Trump expresses his desire to work with congress and his business record gives every indication that he would do so. Cruz, on the other hand, has proved himself in his relations with others to be ideological, inflexible and antagonistic to those whose cooperation he needs.
Trump has given us his ideas on who his supreme court nominees would be and these should be very acceptable to conservatives and constitutionalists. He states that he will reveal a list of names from which he will select his nominees before the election.
What is it exactly that makes Trump so bitterly opposed by the majority of intellectual conservatives. Is it his lack of ideological purity or his brash, impolite and politically incorrect mannerisms? These qualities actually make him appealing to many in our present day free-wheeling society. But are these reasons so cogent that they would accept a third term of far left liberal policies and multiple liberal supreme court picks. Do they fear that Trump will lose? I don't foresee that but even so there was no similar reaction to Dole, McCain or Romney. But that reason makes no sense if they would prefer to accept Hillary over the primary voter's chosen candidate.
Personally I think it is a herd mentality among an intellectual group who all know, communicate and socialize with each other, similar to what goes on among liberals in NYC or SF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)