No, I am NOT Finished!

"I have talked to you and talked to you till I'm blue in the face  and now I'm Done talking to you"

"Does that mean you're through spitting on me, too?"

"Shut up; I'm not Done Talking to You!"

To put it as tactfully as I know how, Chris Matthew's show was really off his game last night.  Last night Chris Matthews exhibited a singular lack of grace and tact in a lot of areas.  For one thing it's the way he savagely lit into John Edwards.  He said that it was shocking to have such a man be possibly a heart beat away from the Presidency in 2004.  He said John Edwards has never read a book in his life, and that when confronted with not being prepared for a debate- - that Edwards made a remark I'll bet you Edwards never said.  I think I know of Edwards well enough that if he - responded in a hostile manner to a campaign aid, the guy well deserved it.  But I can't prove it.  Next Chris Matthews joined the doom and gloom party as far as the latest economic statistics are concern wallowing around gleefully in the mud with all the other republican economic piggies.  Then there was the bit about gender bias in abortions.  Congress wanted to make abortion for gender selection illegal in the United States as it is in a lot of other words "liberal" civilized countries throughout the rest of the world  Chris Matthews would have none of it.  All he could say was "Well, I think this law is designed to target Chinese women for the culture they were raised up in".  Chris also said something similar to what the marijuana people say about "getting your foot in the door with this law".  I don't buy it in the case of the anti marijuana people and I am not buying it now, either.  And then there was going after President Clinton for things he said.  Hey, fool, Bill Clinton is on OUR side so enough of the circular firing squad.  He said that Clinton was being "soft" on Donald Trump because they were good friends in New York who played golf together.  We need MORE of that and not less of that- - you Fool!  No, I think that Chris must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or perhaps his horoscope today was exceptionally adverse or something.

I dispute the racial birth stastics of the government that claim over fifty percent minority births in the United States.  First of all they should call a "diluted" minority in a mixed marriage as half if we are going to be fair or some are concerned about the "genetic gene pool".  Both Pat Buchannon and Eleanor Clift says "this statistic means the death of the Republican Party, if it doesn't change".  If these statistics hold up it does indeed mean that eighty to ninety percent of the White population would simply have to vote Republican for any Republican to win, and this just is not the case.  No matter how many "college intellectuals" or people who have spent time in "civilized" places like Europe, or the gays or minorities, or feminists, or what have you- - none of this is keeping Mitt Romney from leading President Obama in the latest polls.  Clearly there is "something funny somewhere", but where?

What we need are more seconds, more follow-up.  Gloria has this tape of famous "seconds" to groups normally regarded as one hit wonders.  So this tape has "Never Go Home Any More" by the Shangra-las.  It has "Don't you ever leave me sad and blue" by the Dixie Cups, and a Brooklyn Brodge song I never heard before.  Of course on some of our albums we do seconds, but admittedly not these.  So we have held up as just important the follow up hits such as "Good Guys Don't Wear White" by the Standels, and "I Knew You When" by Billy Joe Royal.  How about thirds?  Do you remember "Tell Me Why" by the Beau Brumbles?  Do you remember "Summer Nights" by Maryanne Faithful?  I think we included that one somewhere.  Back in the late spring of 1981 I re-did the lyrics to a Del Shannon song "Little Country Church" in response to the original "Little Town Flirt".  And today too many people are culturally depraved - - - that's what Tommy Smuthers told me to say.  Personally I think the word is deprived.  For instance there are some songs that if you have not heard certain renditions of a particular song, you simply really have not heard the song.  For instance if your knowledge of "It Ain't Me, Babe" is confined to Bob Dylan, you really haven't heard the song untill you've heard the Turtles version.  Ditto for "Evening of the Day".  You simply have not "heard" this song untill you've heard the version with Maryanne Faithful.  Capish?

Dr. Levy of course exhibits a singular lack of any economic knowledge.  I'm hooked on that word "singular".  I guess I must be "thinking in German" again.  The German word is Einfach.  I could use the word "Peculurely" if that word makes you feel better.  It's funny how he says that "Basically I like rich people".  It's almost Holy Writ to a Tea Bagger to impute moral purity to the very rich.  They almost rewrite the axiom "Wealth is next to Godliness".  (Selah) Levy says, "I have found them to all be great men.  The one exception I would make is Donald Trump".  Now I'm puzzled.  He really loves people like the Koch Brothers, and Grover Norquist, and Rupert Merdoch, and Mitt Romney.  They're all fine.  But he doesn't like Donald Trump.  What are you - jealous of his hair or something?  A lot of people got to know what sort of man Donald Trump pretty well from watching the Apprentice.  He seems to me to be a fair and judicious man.  He's a guy who actually DID something with his money.  He built things.  He's right on getting touch with China.  And he is quite possibly right on the birther issue, too.  At least he hasn't conclusively been proven wrong.  And just between you and me, if it were a race between Trump, Pat Buchannon and Mitt Romney, my roster of choices for President would be as follows- - first Pat Buchannon, then Donald Trump - - - - and twenty lengths back bringing up the rear- - - Mitt Romney.  I think Romney finishes right in front of that pet iguana in that movie in 1964.

And as sure as the final movement of a symphonic movement in Classical music is a really fast one, we have what's becomming a trademark final paragraph on metaphysics.  I'd like to just clarify once more this whole idea that "thought waves" or just "thoughts" or "mental energy" or whatever is NOT transmitted through Ether Waves.  And also may I remind you that Albert Einstein never said that when you approach the speed of Light that "Mass turns into Pure Energy".  This is just another of those roomers that got started- - probably by psychics. You may ask "Well if this is not a light speed phenominon is it a Super light speed phenominnon?  We have spoken psychic transfer as Instantanious.   In other words it's zero space.  At least "distance" as we know it.  Others may well ask then "Are you reviving the tachion or faster than light particle theory?"  Not to employ Ayan Rand or anything but our theory is that if light speed is exceeded it's THAT IMAGE that disappears from this universe in terms of a "measureable entity" and not us.  Since THAT light "no longer exists" in a perverse sense that is light we CANNOT recon in "how fast we are going now".  Hence the idea of some "particle" that is specifically "designed to go faster than light" there is not even any NEED for in my current system.  Capish?  Another question you have is "Well- - how much of what we call Space, if any- - does an Idea or Thought "occupy"?  Another question you may have is "Is your new Space restricted to living things generating Ideas and Thoughts?  The answer to this last one is a big Negatory.  No.  We have always taught as per the Greeks such as Plato that "Ideas are real things - - in some realm".  Sacrates and Plato argue that the reality of an IDEA in fact EXCEEDS that of material things.  I don't know if we need go that far.   We view life from - - inside of - - something - - like our bodies.  I guess you'd have to say, as that Wickipedia article on particles verses strings that - - - whatever the Soul is - - it exists in the Zero dimension.  It's there like a point in an analytitic geometry class.  But it has no material existance.  Capish?   In concave space- - - thoughts and ideas are the coin of the realm, the things of "measurable value".  Mass is not.  One might say that LIFE connects these two realms of space.  But Mass or Substance is but an abstraction in this other world.  They are no doubt aware of it- - by the usual bodily sense organs to a degree - - but to them it's an alien world, much as the Mind is an alien world to us.  It can be argued since Ideas are not occupying space they don't "deal in space" any more than God "deals in Time".  Capish?  I guess it's fair to call it "creative energy" though I prefer the term "creative intelligence" better.  One might define our soul's relation with "The Material World" in the same way God relates to this Universe- - - if you set the whole Time question aside for now.  So I believe that things personally GOT HERE through some Intelligence.  That's only my belief.  We don't know WHERE the soul is but we strongly suspect it exists because we see the effects of it, and we are also sensient beings.  In the same way some of us Suspect- - God exists, but there is no easy way to quantify it.  So in the other world they well ask the opposite question we do.  Not "where is the soul located?" but rather "Where is the Mass or Materiality located?            This time the answer is not Zero but All or "Pan" as they would say in the Greek.  Everything is the substance?  You want to know how this is?  Well, in concave space- - - - were you to try and quantify mass as we know it- - - as we said- - - there would be as it were a Plasma or Vapor - - - {I know - like those old Sci Fi movies) - -  and to them the idea of their being anything more "massive" than the medium of ether- - would be AS HARD to fathom - - as a Camera lens we know is focused Beyond infinity- - - and it's focused om Something but where would that Something BE???  In other words here we appear to achieve the impossible with a formula (ie the camera lens) and the "solution" (or focus) lies outside Known existance.  This example alone invalidates the Ontological argument as one that can be used for the existance of God, who said that if we can Imagine it, then it HAS to exist.  Just read it again if you're confused.  THE BIG QUESTION is just the whole "mechanics" of these two realms interracting at all.  Yet we know they do.  Let's go back to the viewer vs thing analogy or the "inside - outside" view.  With an EYE as viewer something may appear all one color focused at "infinity".  But as a REAL image that can be objectively "seen" and not subjectly "viewed" (catch the nuance there) one derives an image out of singularity by changing his "frame of reference".  Today Dr. Levy talked about "re-framing" arguments.  (Selah)  So it's the nature of the particular space that "frames" our perception.  So is mass an abstractio or "hypothetical plasma filling up all of known creation?  Or is mass fixed and localized?  So how does IT happen?  That is consciousness or "sensience" as Captain Piccard says?  I am unable to answer that question - - yet. But we now do know that to change space is to entirely change perception.  Perhaps a helpful analogy is the roreshock ink blot test where you have to decide whether it's a black image on a white background - - or a white image on a black background - - - Just think about it.