Give Me Back My Love by Maywood and Other Great Songs : Late at Night, Rio, I’m in Love for the Very First Time : Dynamic Music Sung in Fabulous Voice

We heard the wonderful song Give Me Back My Love on the radio this week for the first time ever, listening by chance to a schmalzy station that we generally ignore (SWR4 Rheinland-Pfalz), and were knocked over by the music and the voice of this fantastic song.

How great was our astonishment to find out that Give Me Back My Love by the group Maywood in the album Maywood was recorded way back in 1980 (see the lyrics at their site under Discography, World Wide, Germany, Maywood, Label CNR, Catalogue no. 0030.354.)

Why had we never heard this song anywhere before?

As we read in the biography at the official Maywood website, Maywood’s Give Me Back My Love hit gold status in the Netherlands and Sweden but somehow escaped greater fame.

We definitely would put this song on our all-time Top Ten list of songs.
Absolutely fabulous.
Take a listen….

And, after some research, here is another song, by both Maywoods. Spectacularly good.
Maybe even better, at least optically for sure, than the first….
Late at Night….

Listen, Maywood…is superb, superb!

Update: OK, I’m hooked on these ladies. How about this vibrant song Rio (1981):

and, what can you say about this heart-to-heart song …
I’m in Love for the Very First Time

For us, it is an Alice May and Caren Wood revival. MayWood. Beautiful.

Advertisements

Obama Clinton McCain : President and Senators : Not Everyone is a Natural Leader : Barack Obama IS : Hillary Clinton IS NOT : John McCain IS NOT

David Brooks at the New York Times has it right at The Obama-Clinton Issue.

A President is different than a Senator. Great leaders are not groupies.

Almost everyone who views the world realistically, and especially people with any kind of experience in organizations, will surely agree with our observation that leadership potential varies among human beings. Some people have natural leadership talents and are well suited to be “number one”, whereas others are best suited to be “number two” or to work together in groups, or, indeed, to work independently. This does not mean that one type of person is better or worse than the other, but it has a great deal to say about who should be where in the organizational state of things.

We shifted our support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama because Obama has natural leadership talents and because Hillary Clinton, as became clear early in the Presidential campaign, does not have these natural leadership talents. Nor is this surprising. It would be remarkable in a marriage if both partners were natural-born leaders. Such people do not often marry each other. In this case, regardless of whatever strengths or weaknesses he may have had as President of the United States, Bill Clinton was a natural born leader, even from his youngest days, but his wife was not. Without Bill, Hillary would never be politically where she is today. She is still riding on Bill’s coattails.

A similar difficulty exists with the Presidency of George W. Bush, whose election would have been unthinkable without the previous Presidency of father George H.W. Bush, a natural-born leader, who held all manner of leadership positions from his youngest days, something that can not be said for his son. George W. is still riding on his father’s coattails.

John McCain has a similar critical flaw as a Presidential candidate. His status as a war hero and Senator does not make him a natural leader, and he has in fact not shown many leadership traits in his life, outside of war, either as a young man, or now in his older years, although his political skills have definitely improved with age, no question about that.

None of this is to say that George W. Bush is not a fine man (he might be our choice for a golfing buddy), or that Hillary Clinton is not a fine woman (she might be our choice as an intellectual chat buddy) or that John McCain is not a fine man (he might be our choice as a drinking buddy), but being a fine man or woman is not a sufficient qualification by itself for leading a great country forward into better times than it is now experiencing. There has to be more.

Contrary to some opinions, it is also quite clear that leadership ability is something conceptually different than experience, otherwise we could just always select people with the most experience to run things, but that is not the way the world works.

Take a look at these definitions of leadership at Google.

Which candidate best fits those definitions? and remember that the answer has little to do with race, religion, gender or political party. It has to do with ability.

Be honest, which Presidential candidate has those leadership qualifications?
We think in this election that the answer is clear.

Globalization, The Changing World and Legal Order, Private International Law, Territorial Legal Systems, Cyberspace, Choice of Law

Conflict of Laws blog, in association with the Journal of Private International Law and sponsored by Clifford Chance LLP, carries a short article on Reshaping Private International Law in a Changing World by Horatia Muir-Watt, Professor of Private International and Comparative Law at the University of Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne).

This atricle raises important issues regarding globalization and the changing modern legal world. Muir-Watt touches upon three main areas:

1. Choice of law and economic due process
2. The “new unilateralism”

3. Conflicts of public law.

She writes in the first paragraph of her article:

“The past few decades have witnessed profound changes in the world order – changes affecting the nature of sovereignty or the significance of territory – which require measuring the methodological impact of political and technological transformations on traditional ways of thinking about allocation of prescriptive and adjudicatory authority as between states. Myriads of issues arise in this respect within the new global environment, such as the extraterritorial reach of regulatory law, the decline of the private/public divide in the international field, the renewed foundations of adjudicatory jurisdiction (particularly in cyberspace), the implications of individual and collective access to justice in the international sphere, the impact of fundamental rights on choice of law, the ability of parties to cross regulatory frontiers and the subsequent transformation of the relationship between law and market. Indeed, one of the most important issues raised by globalization from a private international law perspective is the extent to which private economic actors are now achieving “lift-off” from the sway of territorial legal systems. To some extent, traditional rules on jurisdiction, choice of law and recognition/enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards have favored the undermining of law’s (geographical) empire, which is already threatened by the increasing transparency of national barriers to cross-border trade and investment. Party mobility through choice of law and forum induces a worldwide supply and demand for legal products. When such a market is unregulated, the consequences of such legislative competition may be disastrous.

Read the entire article here
.

Hat tip to EU Law Blog.

Who in America really wants "more of the same"? 19%

In a recent post at LawPundit we wrote:

Who in America really wants “more of the same”? Surely not the majority.

Just two days later, on April 4 2008, the New York Times carried an article by David Leonhardt and Marjorie Connelly the title of which says it all:

81% in Poll Say Nation Is Headed on Wrong Track

What that means is that the vast majority of the American nation, even those who voted for Clinton or McCain in the primaries, confirm that Obama’s message of change is ringing loud and true. Leonhardt and Connelly write inter alia:

Americans are more dissatisfied with the country’s direction than at any time since the New York Times/CBS News poll began asking about the subject in the early 1990s, according to the latest poll.

In the poll, 81 percent of respondents said they believed “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track,” up from 69 percent a year ago and 35 percent in early 2002….

A majority of nearly every demographic and political group — Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and rural areas, college graduates and those who finished only high school — say the United States is headed in the wrong direction. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said the country was worse off than five years ago; just 4 percent said it was better off.“

In terms of the Presidential election, it is hard to understand that McCain is campaigning on a platform of “more of the same”, a nostalgic political position totally at odds with reality.

The Phenomenal Impact of Barack Obama on America’s Youth

The current Presidential election campaign is already an event without precedent, as Barack Obama, win or lose, is exerting an incredibly positive influence on the youth of the country, which will last far beyond this election, with surely unforseeable but beneficial consequences for the United States and the rest of the world. Take a look at this video of high school students in the Bronx (one of America’s toughest neighborhoods) talking about Barack Obama and the impact he is having on them. It is really all quite astounding and shows how important role models are for motivating young people. As one young man states in the video, representative for millions, he really has the feeling that Obama is speaking to HIM personally, and indeed, he is:

Where do the Poor People Live? Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket Likely : John McCain Unlikely to Win because of State of U.S. Economy

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have toned down their campaigns against each other, which we think is a sign that a Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton presidential ticket is in the offing, which would heal the acrimonious party division caused by the primary campaigns, and which would virtually guarantee the Democrats the election – and that after all, is the main thing, recovering government power and making the changes that need to be made.

One can tell by watching John McCain that he is having the time of his life running for President, profiling his own personal war life, and so on, which is understandable, but sorry to say for the presumptive if nostalgic Republican Presidential nominee, history shows that he has very little chance of winning the upcoming Presidential Election, given the rather desolate state of the U.S. economy, a situation which generally favors the challenging party in Presidential elections.

Who in America really wants “more of the same”? Surely not the majority. As written at Rasmussen Reports:

Forty-two percent (42%) say the economy is the top voting issue of Election 2008. That figure includes 51% of Democrats and 35% of Republicans. Just 17% rate the U.S. economy as good or excellent. Thirty-seven percent (37%) rate the economy as fair while a plurality of 44% say the current state of the economy is poor. Ten percent (10%) say the economy is getting better while 64% say it is getting worse. Nationally, the Rasmussen Consumer Index shows that consumer and investor confidence is near the lowest levels of the past seven years….

and here further:

Rasmussen Markets data shows that the Democratic candidate is currently given a 59.5 % chance of winning the White House in November. Visit the Rasmussen Reports home page for the most current polling data on all topics.

McCain may draw the votes of those who have money in the US, the traditional stronghold of the Republican Party, but it is a dwindling few, and of those even many are so unwilling to share their wealth that McCain has had trouble financing his campaign. Greed is not healed by politics.

Poverty is widespread in the United States and growing. There are now nearly 30 million people on food stamps. David Osborne in New York writing for the Independent has labelled the situation USA 2008: The Great Depression:

Emblematic of the downturn until now has been the parades of houses seized in foreclosure all across the country, and myriad families separated from their homes. But now the crisis is starting to hit the country in its gut. Getting food on the table is a challenge many Americans are finding harder to meet. As a barometer of the country’s economic health, food stamp usage may not be perfect, but can certainly tell a story.

30 million people are nearly 10% of the population – a massive army of downtrodden – created in part by the faulty economic policies of the current administration, whose tax cuts benefit the rich without any corresponding benefit to the nation or the mass of its people and whose economic policies have greatly weakened the middle classes. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the divide is getting bigger than ever. As Daniel Gross writes at Slate:

The distinction between the performance of the Dow and that of the other market indices is a perfect metaphor for the economy under Bush. Assume the stock market represents America. The Dow components—the tiny minority of the richest—are putting up record numbers, while the masses are struggling to do as well as they did in the late 1990s.

The discrepancy in wealth between the top and the bottom is system-induced and system-supported. One of the things in Germany that has astounded some of our visitors is the somewhat better distribution of wealth here, something which marks most of Northern Europe. As one guest here in Germany for the first time asked us: “where do the poor people live?” We had to answer that there were no poor in Germany in the same impoverished sense that one finds in the USA.

A class of poor only exists because the economic system has created that particular economic class without implementing the necessary measures of corrective wealth distribution. When, as the current administration did, you take a large financial government surplus and give it back to taxpayers pro rata for the amount of taxes paid, that is simple wealth redistribution to the rich, who did not complain about their windfall. Most people, even those on the right who claim to be against wealth redistribution in principle, accept such redistribution without complaint. It just depends on who is getting the money. As for the effectiveness of the tax cuts made, 61% of Americans have said the tax cuts did not help them or their families.

Moreover, as we recently stated to someone complaining about his taxes, the last persons who should complain about high taxes are the wealthy, because they are the main benefactors of those taxes, which go primarily to sustain the entire structure of the political and economic system that permits them to become and stay wealthy in the first place, while at the same time keeping the “have nots” in their places.

In the legal sphere, thousands of patent examiners, for example, are not being paid to protect the rights of the average citizen, rather they are being paid to protect the rights of that small elite minority of patent holders, mostly corporations, whose tax-financed and government-protected monopolies allow them to accumulate great amounts of wealth, often through no real work at all. It is a government gift, operating as wealth redistribution on a gigantic scale, financed by the tax monies of citizens.

LawPundit Link at the New York Times brings New Visitors to LawPundit

We greet all new visitors from the New York Times.

Over at The Caucus, the New York Times politics blog, LawPundit is linked at From Around the Web at the blog posting Clinton Bowls Over Media, and this is bringing some new visitors to LawPundit.

Enjoy.