Archive for December 2011

Video Overnight Thread- The Lawrence Welk Show: Auld Lang Syne


Happy 2012 everyone!!! Let's rock it hard (and don't miss the sideburns in the vid). Via Wikiipedia-

Auld Lang Syne" (Scots pronunciation: [ˈɔːld lɑŋˈsəin]: note "s" rather than "z")[1] is a Scots poem written by Robert Burns in 1788[2][3] and set to the tune of a traditional folk song (Roud # 6294). It is well known in many countries, especially (but far from exclusively) in the English-speaking world; its traditional use being to celebrate the start of the New Year at the stroke of midnight. By extension, it is also sung at funerals, graduations and as a farewell or ending to other occasions. The international Boy Scout youth movement, in many countries, uses it as a close to jamborees and other functions.

The song's Scots title may be translated into English literally as "old long since", or more idiomatically, "long long ago",[4] "days gone by" or "old times". Consequently "For auld lang syne", as it appears in the first line of the chorus, is loosely translated as "for (the sake of) old times".

The phrase "Auld Lang Syne" is also used in similar poems by Robert Ayton (1570–1638), Allan Ramsay (1686–1757), and James Watson (1711) as well as older folk songs predating Burns.[5] Matthew Fitt uses the phrase "In the days of auld lang syne" as the equivalent of "Once upon a time..." in his retelling of fairy tales in the Scots language.


Video- Mitt Romney Vows to Veto Dream Act if President


Via Think Progress.


Raw Video: Rick Santorum Glitter Bombed in Iowa



Quote-O'-The-Day: Hypocridiot edition


Via Taegan:

"Politics has become a really nasty, vicious, negative business and I think it's disgusting and I think it's dishonest."

-- Newt Gingrich, in an interview with ABC News.

Hypocridiot-O'-The-Day: Newton Leroy Gingrich.


Indiana bill could make it illegal to sing national anthem 'inappropriately'



According to a post in The Star Press, the National Anthem music was adapted from a British drinking song. So that means that drunk Brits sloshed their way through what is now The Star Spangled Banner; nowadays, if an Indiana bill passes, and a student were to sing it in a way "deemed inappropriate,", then they could be in deep legal doo-doo and have to fork out twenty-five bucks in fines.

Yes indeed, Republican State Sen. Vaneta Becker came up with a new funsy little bill that would require specific "performance standards" for singing and playing the song "at any event sponsored by public schools and state universities," plus private schools that get state or local scholarship money, including vouchers.

Good thing she's not a believer in big, intrusive government.

Performers would have to sign a contract agreeing to follow the guidelines. Musicians -- whether amateur or professional -- would be fined $25 if it were deemed they failed to meet the appropriate standards. ... What is and what is not "acceptable," according to Becker's bill, would be determined by the State Department of Education, with input from the Commission for Higher Education.

But hey, she only wants to punish kids who purposely change the song, not those unlucky vocalists who can't carry a tune any better than Jon Huntsman can carry a primary.

So tin-eared singers are safe. No telling what might have happened if a flat note were to pop out of some poor kid's mouth. Or Roseanne Barr's... or Hillary Clinton's:

I'm sure it will be a snap to follow the new rules. Nothing too complicated involved, how hard could this be?

The bill calls for schools to maintain audio recordings of all performances for two years and develop a procedure for dealing with complaints if a musician is alleged to have strayed from the approved lyrical or melodic guidelines.

"I don't think it would be very difficult for schools," Becker said. "You could record it on a lot of cellphones or like a small recording device (or) a CD."

"Record it on a lot of cell phones or like a small recording device...?" What could possibly be easier than that? Why, I can already picture the 3804034 audio files in the oh, so orderly school archives, because we all know how efficient school systems are.

Other states have their own rules about this, too. Follow the link for all the misdemeanory fun.

And remember: It's against the new rules if the audience has to do this:


VIDEO- Up with Chris Hayes: Iraq War players: Where are they now?


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The truth is a wonderful thing. The last two Where Are They Nows on the list are priceless:

"Doug Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense, who Geneal Tommy Franks once called 'the f'ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth,' is advising Rick Perry on foreign policy.

And finally, Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority who disbanded the Iraqi army, has moved to Vermont, where he now paints landscapes of pastoral New England scenes. You can buy his artwork at Bremer Enterprises .com."


President Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill


President Obama signed the Defense authorization bill, even though he had reservations about how terrorism suspects would be treated. This affects future presidents, too, of course, including, you know, Republican ones. Even they get elected (or selected) from time to time. How will they use this law?

I'm curious: What would Democratic supporters of this bill say if it were GW Bush who signed it into law?

Think Progress:

I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.

As Jason Leopold notes, "President Obama said, 'My admin will not authorize INDEFINITE MILITARY DETENTION' of US citizens, which is what all of us were saying FOR WEEKS!"

Via The National Journal:

Many Democrats and human-rights groups have decried the bill’s language that would allow indefinite detention for suspected terrorists without a trial--including Americans arrested in the United States. Supporters of the detainee provisions argue that the bill merely codifies existing law as it applies to Americans and legal resident aliens, as they retain the right to challenge their detention in court.