Squirrel

I think we've done a top 10 or top 5 song thing before. Maybe it was in a game thread, though. I'd have to think on that though ... but off the top of my head I'd go with these to start: Over the Rainbow or this or this or even this La Vie en Rose or this one or the original Imagine (there is only one) Boheman Rhapsody O mio babbino caro (only with Callas, I mean ... sigh)

DiscGolfer drinks!

Wait, you go to cnn.com? Seriously ... I've wondered this, too. I only seem to have issues with TD ... major freezes, less so with Chrome these days, but, man, weird.

Plouffe and Zukes have this one ... you can go home now.

If you listen to and like a lot of jazz, those probably wouldn't be the best albums for you. But those two are ones I tell people who don't really know jazz and haven't listened to a lot to start there. Both are truly timeless, imo.

Another day, another baseball game. What could be better than that? For those of you off work today, not sure if you will be able to watch or listen to the game as I don't see any availability for TV or radio; maybe the Rays will have a radio broadcast you can tune into. Well, or you could watch Gameday ... I think I'll opt for the concert at work today ... Not sure I want to see/listen to how many errors Nunez will make today at short, but maybe if I don't watch/listen, he'll be perfect ... But Sano is athletic! DiscGolfer drinks! Not so sunny today in Port Charlotte, but it's warm ... 80 deg, cloudy, 15% chance of rain, winds from the S at 9mph. TWINS: Buxton CF Mauer 1B Sano RF Plouffe 3B Quentin DH Rosario LF Nunez SS Suzuki C Beresford 2B Santana P RAYS: Forsythe 2B Miller SS Longoria 3B Dickerson DH Guyer CF Loney 1B Souza RF Mahtook LF Canali C Smyly P

Okay ... removing the Brahms and adding John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman studio album. Then my fourth is Queen - Platinum Collection. It'd be easier if I could make a 'mixed CD' for that last one. So my four now are: Beatles Anthology complete John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman studio album Queen - Platinum Collection Bach Unaccompanied Cello Suites with Yo Yo Ma. And I'd listen to Bach in the mornings, Coltrane/Hartman at night and the other two mixed all throughout the day.

My two 'go to' jazz albums are Miles Davis: Kind of Blue and John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman Studio Album. Both I'd put in the 'soft and dreamy' category, and both are ... easily accessible. In fact, I might have to edit my four above. Sigh.

Just go with Queen - The Platinum Collection ... it's a 3-CD set ... I think ... or 4.

Heh ... I have bagpipes as my ring tone ... the unofficial Scottish National Anthem.

Yes, it's cheating.

There's no debate here. All one has to do is listen. It's very apparent.

Hmmm ... I do NOT like the cello playing in that version. The vibrato is weird and it just doesn't blend like others. I'd even take the Yo Yo/Ax version over that one.

Beatles Anothology complete Brahms Piano Trio No. 1 with Bashkirova, Vengerov and Pergamenschikow The 6 Unaccompanied Cello Suites (Yo Yo Ma) The 4th ... either 11 Classic Albums Collection (Doris Day) or The Queen Platinum Collection

Garry Shandling, today, age 66.

I only know the things we've recorded; some of it is only available on a download basis, some with CDs. There used to be a magazine that talked about new classical recordings, but I don't recall what it's called. Since I listen to live classical music just about every day at work, I'm less likely to purchase it.

Lots of new stuff out there. A lot of orchestra are doing downloads and whatnot these days rather than actual, physical CDs.

Yep ... have heard them a few times. Yo-yo, of course, is just an amazing person. I have a few good Yo-yo stories.

Hell ... 50! (Yes, I know)

Well, I'm a little torn by the nominating process. Part of me thinks its the party's decision whom to put forth in the general. And by 'party's decision' I'm referring to a vote of its membership, not the leadership making that decision. That's why I think closed primaries are the best. But then it leaves people out who don't want to be a member of any party, or declare themselves as such, but like a particular candidate and wants to vote for that person without allegiance to a party. Part of me says, well, so be it. Get involved and work for what you want. And if you don't want to be involved, then wait until the general election. If we had more parties maybe more people would feel compelled to be involved to the finest level. But we don't. This is part of the problem with Bernie vs Hillary. Part of me doesn't like Bernie because he has NEVER supported any party, has never been a member of any party, and joined the Democratic party last year for the sole purpose of running as a Democrat. While I believe he did so as to not split the party, knowing that in a two-party system, that's how it works. But part of me feels he's a bit of a hypocrite to want the support of that party and its members when he's spent a lifetime eschewing them. I get that it was mostly done to put forth an agenda he felt was not being addressed, but it still doesn't sit right with me.

If people voted maybe they'd have more power not less. But given only two options, if you don't like either, no power. I felt that way for the last two mayoral races here in Chicago. There were more than two choices, but I didn't like ANY of them. What then? I submitted a blank when it came to mayor.

The super delegate thing is more for state vs national 'control.' I don't know of a time when super delegates changed the outcome of the voters. It's more of a fall back in case. Not really sure if I agree with that or not, but it isn't going to affect the outcome of this election.

The caucus system should not be for choosing candidates, at all. They need to abolish caucuses in place of fair elections. Caucuses are the most disenfranchising system.

To add to what I just said, the influence/affect of super delegates would only come into to play if they felt someone would truly bring down the whole party, state by state. That's why the super delegates are comprised of state party leaders. But for them to do a 180 from what voters have said, I've yet to see that.

Do you know the history of super delegates? My mom remembers all the discussion about it when the party adopted these rules. There was a lot of stuff going on between the states and the national party. It was after the disastrous '84 election where Mondale lost every state but Minnesota. Many of the party leaders from individual states were enraged because the national ticket brought down the elections within the states. There were massive losses everywhere because of the Mondale ticket. And the states wanted more rights in choosing who would be on that ticket to try and avert such a landslide that would affect losses within the states. So super delegates were formed. Or something like that. And, actually, one of Bernie's advisors was among the group who came up with this plan. Given that, I don't know of a time where super delegates really changed the outcome of the primaries. Back in 2008 as I said above, many said they would be with Hillary until Obama showed that he could carry a lot of the voting. At that point many of them went with him because that's where the votes were going. Not sure I explained all of this quite right, but that's kind of how I understand it. And the delegate totals so far that is being reported is of pledged delegates ... delegates won from the primary elections and caucuses. So Berners are really off on how this process works. I also had a 'discussion' with a friend on FB who is passing around a survey to get Bernie to run as an independent if he doesn't win the nom, claiming that Bernie is actually winning the popular vote. I'm like ... 'What?' No, he's not. And if we'd abandon the caucus system entirely, which we should because it's a system that is disenfranchising and dates back to a time when only white men were able to vote, I'd guess that many of the caucus states would have a different or closer outcome.