Well, well. McCarthy actually acted for the good of the country

The offices are special because they are in the capitol instead of across the street in the office building for House rep offices. The Capitol was originally built big enough to hold all the offices but the House size kept growing as the population grew until they capped the number of reps in the House. So the House offices were moved across the street. The Senators still have offices in the Capitol. There were offices available in the Capitol that were assigned for House use but they kicked Pelosi and Hoyer out of their capitol offices instead of just moving them.

 

Sooo...will the House GOP elect Trump as Speaker? That would be about as appropriate as Caligula making his horse a Senator.

Apparently that story has no basis in historical fact. Too bad. Making Trump Speaker would therefore be a uniquely stupid thing to do.

 

It's not a "Speaker's office." Each Speaker handles these offices differently. Pelosi gave Hastert some really sweet digs, for example, but each situation is different. It's about courtesy and tradition. What makes this particularly low is that McCarthy gave her that space and now they're taking it away. Mid-term, no less.

 

^^^THAT!^^^

 

Yes, it would. No, they won't. Not because he's not a Member of the House. But because the job actually requires skill, experience, and and a willingness to actually do it.

As president, a zillion staffers could (mostly) cover for his failures in those areas. As Speaker, he would actually have to do it.

It would be wonderfully ironic, however, if the Republicans appointed a Speaker who literally has a gag order against him.

Oh, another reason: if the Speaker is convicted of a felony, he/she must step down. No questions. It's a House rule, so they'd have to change it before making him Speaker. Not. Gonna. Happen.

 

FYI, Spotify has it.

 

Speaking of which, the House has stayed the same size since 1913, while the population is some 3.5-times as big. We are woefully under-represented. Rectifying this would also return balance between small and large (population) states. North Dakota would gain 3 or 4 seats. California would gain about 150.

In the US, we have 435 representatives, one for every 760,000 people. In the UK, the House of Commons has an MP for every 92,000 people. It would be nice to have better representation. Of course a House that size might be a tad harder to manage!

 

Thanks, Rich.

...Then Judy Roderick's "Woman Blue," "Lightning Hopkins with His Brothers Joel and John Henry / with Barbara Dane (or any other Barbara Dane album) and Charlie Byrd's "House of the Rising Sun" are three good reasons to get on board with Spotify.

Charlie Byrd was a celebrated jazz musician who always played a nylon-string classical guitar (as does jazz great Earl Klugh).
Charlie's version of "House of the Rising Sun" was first released on "Charlie's Choice - Jazz at the Showboat," in 1960.

I have a full-length book devoted entirely to the history and myriad recordings of that song. The ONE version not mentioned? Charlie's -my favourite. I've often wondered why but I'm too lazy to follow it up.

 

Back in August 1979, I had the pleasure of seeing three great jazz guitarists: Charlie Byrd, Herb Ellis and Barney Kessel, sharing the same stage, at Artpark, Lewiston NY. Stellar performances by all three.

Unfortunately, they're gone, now: Charlie, in 1999, Barney, in 2004 and Herb, in 2010. They are loved and missed. Glad I got to see them. I can hardly believe it was 44 years ago...

 

This, of course, has the biggest impact on the electoral college. It's making the approximation of democracy, known as the electoral college, to become less and less accurate to the point that like almost half the time the electoral college winner did not win the popular vote.

 

Johann, as you well know, people can be passionate about music performance all out of proportion to the significance of a dispute. I don't know why. I can understand being driven in one's OWN performance or interpretation but insisting that OTHERS adhere to that standard seems odd to me. Yet the attitude is common.

My piano teacher studied with a group that included genuine Bach scholars. She tells me tales of actual fistfights breaking out over how to play a particular ornament. The real irony is, we don't actually know.

I am finishing one of the simpler Chopin Preludes. My teacher provided me with excerpts from letters by contemporaneous performers describing how to express various phrases. These people KNEW Chopin yet they don't agree.

So maybe Charlie Byrd's version is missing because someone REALLY DID NOT LIKE IT. I can't say this attitude makes sense to me but there's a lot of precedent for it is all I'm saying.

 

Doesn't make any sense to me either, especially in this particular case. In the book in question, I felt that the author was making an honest, scholarly attempt to document - and comment fairly on - all sources and recordings of this particular song. The book was well-written and seemed fastidiously thorough, except for this one anomaly - Charlie Byrd's version was missing. A stellar performance, by a well-known artist. I'm still wondering why. I think this author would have included it, even if he disliked it intensely -and he would have said as much - and explained why.

I'm thinking that, due completely to inadvertence, it may not have shown up in his otherwise excellent and comprehensive research. If you read the blurb, it has a good sense of what the book's all about. It may change your mind - or it may not. You be the judge - you are one, anyway, right?

Book is here: https://www.amazon.ca/Chasing-Rising-Sun-Journey-American/dp/0743278984

 

My final take: If "high lonesome" Roscoe Holcomb was in there - and he was - Charlie Byrd should have been. Two greats - and SO different! I celebrate them, both.

 

He kept voting "neigh" on everything.

 

"Floor" debates might get a little long.

 

“…aaand the horse you rode in on!”

 

“Inadvertent”? How? Seriously, how?