I don't think we have any Neil Diamond CDs in our music collection, though I wouldn't mind having some.  The kids would probably groove to some of his songs.

But now that Diamond has acknowledged that he was inspired to write the music and lyrics to "Sweet Caroline" by a very young Caroline Kennedy, I'm a little bit creeped out.  Maybe I'm reading this entirely the wrong way, and it's not in any way Nabokovian, but here's the relevant portion of the news story from Breitbart.com:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Neil Diamond held onto the secret for decades, but he has finally revealed that President Kennedy's daughter was the inspiration for his smash hit "Sweet Caroline."

"I've never discussed it with anybody before—intentionally," the 66- year-old singer-songwriter told The Associated Press on Monday during a break from recording. "I thought maybe I would tell it to Caroline when I met her someday."

He got his chance last week when he performed the song via satellite at Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's 50th birthday party.

Diamond was a "young, broke songwriter" when a photo of the president's daughter in a news magazine caught his eye.

"It was a picture of a little girl dressed to the nines in her riding gear, next to her pony," Diamond recalled. "It was such an innocent, wonderful picture, I immediately felt there was a song in there."

Years later, holed up in a hotel in Memphis, he would write the words and music in less an hour

[snip]

The tune's return to the charts leaves Diamond "speechless," he said: "That song was written 40 years ago...

Ok, so I see from Wikipedia that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg was born in November, 1957.  That makes sense given the story above and reference to her upcoming 50th birthday.  Happy Birthday to her, yada, yada, yada.

Now here are the lyrics to the song:

Where it began
I can't begin to knowin'
But then I know it's growing strong

Was in the spring
And spring became the summer
Who'd have believed you'd come along?

Hands, touchin' hands
Reaching out
Touching me
Touching you

Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so good
I've been inclined
To believe it never would
But now I

Look at the night
And it don't seem so lonely
We fill it up with only two
And when I hurt
Hurtin' runs off my shoulders
How can I hurt when holding you

Warm, touchin' warm
Reachin' out
Touching me
Touching you

Sweet Caroline
Good times never seem so good
I've been inclined
To believe they never would
Oh, no, no

Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so good
Sweet Caroline
I believed they never could
Sweet Caroline

Again, maybe I'm completely off base in how I have heard this song.  I recall from the movie "Beautiful Girls" that it was performed as essentially a love song to a beautiful woman.  Makes sense.  But would you write a love song to a little girl that says things like:

Look at the night
And it don't seem so lonely
We fill it up with only two

and:

Warm, touchin' warm
Reachin' out
Touching me
Touching you

to a little girl between the ages of 5 and 10?  The page linked to above for the lyrics notes as follows:  "This song appears on the album "Love Songs (Remastered) (2002)" by Neil Diamond", so I guess old Neil intended it as a love song.

I'm just guessing on the math and numbers, but the news story indicates Diamond remembered a picture of Caroline Kennedy taken as a little girl wearing riding clothes and standing by her pony.  The photo apparently was published several years before Diamond wrote the song.  Diamond then tells us the song was written 40 years ago, so around the time Caroline Kennedy was 10, and the photo was from several years before that.

Puts me off my feed a little.

All right, I've held off for several hours in posting this.  I had it all set to go, and hesitated because I thought maybe I was just completely off base in thinking it vaguely wrong to dedicate this song to a young girl.  But after having received a form of confirmation that it's kind of creepy, I'm letting this one go into the ether.

   

From the AP story on Google News:

The 14th annual "City Crime Rankings: Crime in Metropolitan America" was published by CQ Press, a unit of Congressional Quarterly Inc. It is based on the FBI's Sept. 24 crime statistics report.

The report looked at 378 cities with at least 75,000 people based on per-capita rates for homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and auto theft. Each crime category was considered separately and weighted based on its seriousness, CQ Press said.

Last year's crime leader, St. Louis, fell to No. 2. Another Michigan city, Flint, ranked third, followed by Oakland Calif.; Camden, N.J.; Birmingham, Ala.; North Charleston, S.C.; Memphis, Tenn.; Richmond, Calif.; and Cleveland.

The study ranked Mission Viejo, Calif., as the safest U.S. city, followed by Clarkstown, N.Y.; Brick Township, N.J.; Amherst, N.Y.; and Sugar Land, Texas.

I have to conclude from the Feds wasting 4 years dorking around investigating whether a steroid-taking baseball player lied about whether he knew he was taking steroids that crime in Northern California has been completely eradicated for some time now.  So there's no way Oakland can be on this list.  Simliarly, it is impossible for the only city in California to be in the "safest" group to be located way down south of LA.

The only possible explanation is that the crime statistics include non-federal jurisdiction crimes so that the FBI and U.S. District Attorneys wouldn't actually be involved, they're just reporting general numbers.

this link and photo from Golf Magazine online probably need review by a decent editor.  It's an interesting picture of golfers on a glacier.  Here's the caption:

At the Drambuie World Ice Golf Championship in Uummannaq, Greenland, the temperature can fall below 50° C.

My lovely wife is the scientist in the family, but even I know that you won't find too much snow and ice if the temperature is 50 degrees centigrade.  They surely mean that temperatures "can fall to minus 50 degrees C."

Guess I shouldn't expect too much from a CNN-affiliated "news" source.

I thought Saturday Night Live stopped doing shows about 15 years ago, but apparently they are still around.  Though I see from this story from Fox News that they managed to do a live show last night despite the ongoing writer's strike:

NEW YORK  —  It wasn't live from New York as usual.

About 150 audience members in a tiny Manhattan theater were the only folks in the world to witness a totally new "Saturday Night Live" episode starring guest host Michael Cera and musical guest Yo La Tengo.

Anyone who tuned into NBC was subjected to a two-week-old rerun featuring Brian Williams and Feist, thanks to an ongoing Writers Guild of America labor strike.

I guess it would have been poor form to point out that the number of audience members in the Manhattan theater were approximately equal to the number of households nationwide that tuned into NBC for the rerun.

Interesting post from Gregory Sullivan over at Pajamas Media.  Here's a taste, but I recommend reading the whole thing:

Hillary Clinton’s big idea is to think the government can run a vertically integrated version of Medicine. I have my doubts. Bad managers like vertical integration because they are immune to outside pressure to perform. There are no upstream producers giving you things before you’re ready to process them, and no downstream vendors selling things before you’re ready to supply them. And vertically integrated monopolies run by the government don’t even have to worry about the customers. No one can go to another vendor. And the opposition party cannot offer an alternative other than the destruction of what been cobbled together, which is like asking if you’d like your ration card torn up during a famine once the thing gets going. The beast will never die once Igor pulls the switch, until it collapses under the weight of its own bureaucracy.

While Notre Dame is clearly out of its depth against football powerhouses like Air Force and Navy, you have to give some credit to their athletic department administrators for their forward thinking.  How else to explain their decision to dump Northwestern, another program that would have crushed the Irish this season, from the schedule and slip Duke into the mix.  They were even smart enough to slot Duke for their final home game to ensure the seniors didn't go out with a winless record this year for the home crowd.  Well played.

From Sports Illustrated online this morning:

Dara Torres broke the U.S. record in the women's 50-meter freestyle by swimming a 23.87 in her heat. The 40-year-old broke the mark of 24.21 Kara Lynn set on March 18, 2004.

I hope this story is "real," but, given everything that seems to be going on in big-time athletics, let's just say I need to buy more salt at the grocery today.

Breitbart.com has an update on the Homeland Security Halloween party fiasco that resulted in charges of insensitivity after an employee with dreadlocks, darkened skin, and a prison costume was awarded a prize for his costume.  From this morning's update:

Costume Flap Imperils Immigration Post

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just when it appeared Julie Myers had cleared every hurdle in her quest to officially become the nation's top immigration official, a dreadlocked wig and a prisoner's outfit could cost her the job.

Myers, director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ran into trouble earlier this month after she and two other agency managers gave the "most original" costume award to a white employee who came to the agency's Halloween party dressed as an escaped prisoner with dreadlocks and darkened skin.

...

Myers has apologized repeatedly for the costume incident, saying she was "shocked and horrified" to learn the employee had altered his skin color and conceding "it was inappropriate for me to recognize any individual wearing an escaped prisoner costume."

So let me make sure I understand this.  We want the person in CHARGE of Immigration Enforcement to not be able to recognize when one of her own employees has put on makeup as a disguise?  That explains a lot about the government's complete inability and unwillingness to close the borders.  I need to go get some whiskey for my coffee and a case of Tums...

As the father of 2 small kids, ages 6 (almost 7) and 3 (almost 4), I find myself amazed at how difficult it seems to be to find socks that fit their feet properly.  My lovely wife thinks I'm insane for continually coming home with socks from different stores, trying to find ones that both fit their feet, and stay up on their calves but without being too restrictive.

We've picked up socks at Gymboree, Children's Place, Kids' Gap, Old Navy, Target and Walmart (sorry Mom & Dad).  At this point, I've had the most luck recently with some Gold Toe product that Target is selling for girls.  Even with our daughter's notoriously finicky foot behavior, where her socks have to go on JUST so, with no bumps or things she can feel anywhere, which generally entails a process of well over a minute to put on a single sock, somehow I've hit paydirt the past few times I've grabbed socks from Target that I figured were in the right color schemes, and would hopefully fit.

I have not had as much success with socks for our son, on the other hand.  Much to my wife's dismay, I picked up a couple of different multi-sock packages from different stores in the past couple of months.  The first pack was for boys ages 4-6.  With a 4th birthday on the distant horizon of late February, I figured those would work fine.  Looked a bit large as an initial fit, but I figured with washing and drying, they'd wind up pretty much right where he'd like them.

Wrong.  They're still huge on him.  So, after repeated complaints from my lovely wife about how ridiculous these socks were, I bought a different multi-pack.  They're better, but seem rather tight through the ribbed portion of the sock that goes over the lower leg.  (There's probably some sock terminology to specifically identify and describe this portion of the sock, but I don't know what it is.  That will have to wait for another day.)  I guess at this point they'll have to do.

One final oddity that I noticed with both of the multi-packs of socks for my son, as well as the pack of socks I bought for myself recently, is that the packages are re-sealable plastic bags.  Like the kind of Ziploc bags you put leftovers in for storage.  And this is even pointed out on the bags as a selling point.  Why?  Are people storing their socks in re-sealable plastic bags in a dresser drawer for some reason?  Are they emptying out the socks and using the bag to store leftover food items?  I don't understand this marketing gimmick.  I would have bought the socks whether the bag was re-sealable or not.  What is the benefit I am getting out of this?

Maybe I should go do an online search for "re-sealable sweat sock packages" and see if there is some deep answer to this mystery.

Patrick Ruffini has a post on Hugh Hewitt's blog discussing the changing nature of media as it relates to political campaigns.  Here's the first part of his post, which I've clipped off to end at the part that made me curious (and I have highlighted the pertinent sections):

Let me throw out a counterfactual.

If we had had blogs when Bill Clinton was President, he would have been a lot less effective and his approval ratings lower.

Bloggers, who shape more and more of the coverage, deal largely in the printed word. Until YouTube, video was utterly irrelevant to our commentary. Even now, a well-informed blogger can go through an entire day without turning on the TV and watching the speech for him or herself.

On the whole, this will tend to devalue eloquence, smooth-talk, whatever you want to call it. It will reward the politician who is clear, direct, and succinct, whose words make sense in 12-point Times New Roman.

I think this is part of why Mitt Romney is having a hard time escaping the flip-flopper charge, something that also dogged Bill Clinton. Yes, he’s a Republican, so he doesn’t get media brownie points. There are also the YouTube-style ambushes you just wouldn’t have seen in 1992. (There was an amusing scene in The War Room in which Carville et al. were debating whether to use footage of Bush signs being made in Brazil that some volunteer taped off a college public access channel. That wouldn’t be up for discussion in 2008. Someone would have YouTubed it.)

But an overlooked point is that we now have an entire class of opinion leaders that look to the text-driven Internet, not television, to shape their coverage. To a large degree, these opinion leaders will be immune from the charms of a Clinton or a Romney. ...

Specifically with respect to Romney, I found this interesting.  More to the point, I listened to a podcast recently where Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, and John Podhoretz, columnist with the NY Post and I think now part of Commentary's online editorial team, were interviewed about the ongoing presidential campaigns.  Prof. Reynolds I think refers to himself as libertarian leaning, though he is also I believe widely perceived by those on the political left as being very conservative.  Mr. Podhoretz is, I think, a political conservative.  He was a long-time poster on National Review Online's The Corner.

In any event, what struck me in reading Mr. Ruffini's post was my recollection of the comments both Prof. Reynolds and Mr. Podhoretz made in assessing Romney's candidacy.  Both viewed Romney as the kind of candidate that became more UNattractive the more they were exposed to him, via ads, campaign appearances, etc.  I believe Prof. Reynolds even referred to Romney as having a certain "oily" quality that was off-putting the more he saw of the candidate.

I have certainly seen photos of Romney, and am vaguely familiar with his history, but I have never actually seen Romney give a speech or perform in a debate.  I have heard him interviewed on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and based only on knowing his general background and hearing him talk to Mr. Hewitt, Romney seemed like a pretty reasonable guy.

It just seemed surprising to me to hear two opinion leaders like Prof. Reynolds and Mr. Podhoretz, who I expect have seen a lot more of Romney in action than I have, both react with increasing dislike for him the more they see him.  And that seems to kind of contradict Mr. Ruffini's view that television exposure is to Romney's benefit.

I guess I don't have a real point here, just something that made me stop and wonder where a conversation between Ruffini, Reynolds and Podhoretz may go on this topic.

Richard Rubin has an opinion piece in today's New York Times.  It's not a lengthy item, but it is well worth the time to read it.  Here's the setup:

BY any conceivable measure, Frank Buckles has led an extraordinary life. Born on a farm in Missouri in February 1901, he saw his first automobile in his hometown in 1905, and his first airplane at the Illinois State Fair in 1907. At 15 he moved on his own to Oklahoma and went to work in a bank; in the 1940s, he spent more than three years as a Japanese prisoner of war. When he returned to the United States, he married, had a daughter and bought a farm near Charles Town, W. Va., where he lives to this day. He drove a tractor until he was 104.

But even more significant than the remarkable details of Mr. Buckles’s life is what he represents: Of the two million soldiers the United States sent to France in World War I, he is the only one left.

From Sports Illustrated online:

WNBA club wants woman, not Rodman, to coach

Ron Terwilliger, the owner of the new WNBA team in Atlanta, wants his coach to be a woman -- not just dress like one. The ex-Chicago Bulls forward, who made headlines a few years back by dressing as a drag queen, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution he is interested in a WNBA coaching job.

You would think a team from Atlanta, home of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would be more open-minded in judging a coaching candidate by the content of his character rather than the content of his BVDs.

So now we get the latest lie from Bill Clinton:

Former President Clinton said Thursday that he is to blame for his administration’s failed health care plan, not his wife, who spearheaded the effort.

Um.  Ok.  Whatever.  As I noted back in September on the never-ending topic of the Clinton's holiday from the truth:

Imagine my surprise in skimming through the Chicago Sun Times profile from June 2007 of Patti Solis Doyle, where near the end of the article it states:

Doyle said her toughest time while working in the White House was not the impeachment of President Clinton but the failure of Hillary Clinton's health reform plan in 1994, "because for me that was truly her thing and it was a tough time having to regroup."

Why in the world would one of George Gipp's relatives agree to have the Gipper's remains exhumed for DNA testing to answer a question of paternity?  From the story (emphasis added):

Mike Bynum, an Alabama sports author who is researching a book on Gipp, said he came across an Internet posting several years ago by a woman who believed she was a descendant of the football great. She was a granddaughter of Eva Bright, a South Bend, Ind., woman Gipp had dated for about a year before his death, Bynum said.

Bynum said he helped put the woman in touch with Frueh and other Gipp relatives. Eventually, Frueh decided to have the body exhumed. Gipp's right femur was removed and the other remains reburied, Bynum said in a telephone interview.

The DNA testing of the bone was conducted at a laboratory in Dallas. Results this week showed no link between Gipp and Bright, Bynum said.

In a statement, Frueh said he had no regrets about the exhumation and felt it had been important to learn whether Bright's descendants were part of the Gipp family.

"Helping family is the strongest act of love that we can offer each other. And if it happened again, our response would be the same," Frueh said.

Helping family?  Something tells me there must have been a money angle in here somewhere.  Earlier in the story, it is explained that Frueh's decision made some of his ACTUAL family members angry.  I think I can understand that.  After all, Gipp has been dead for over 85 years.  It's not like there is some pressing need to get to the bottom of this paternity rumor now.

Of course, I suppose there's always at least the possibility this whole story is a ruse to cover up Notre Dame's  desperate attempt to clone Gipp in hopes of getting a quality team back on the field.

Imagine your employer has a Halloween party and one of the white employees shows up with make-up to darken his skin, wearing a prison uniform, and hair in dreadlocks.  Problem?  Sure.

But now imagine it's the Department of Homeland Security having the Halloween party and this happens.  From the story:

WASHINGTON —  A top immigration official has apologized after awarding "most original costume" to a Homeland Security Department employee who dressed in prison stripes, dreadlocks and dark makeup for a Halloween gathering at the agency.

Julie Myers, assistant secretary overseeing Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement division, was part of a three-judge panel that lauded the costume, worn by a white employee, last Wednesday. ...

...

The photo of Myers with the employee and any others taken by the official photographer showing the costume were discarded, Nantel said.

...

Even among the supposed Neanderthal conservatives at Fox News, the headline focuses on the offensiveness of the particular costume described.

I guess I'm just continually out of step with the news judgment of the mainstream media.  I'm much more bothered by the fact that the Department of Homeland Security would even have a Halloween party, presumably during the workday.  And I'm rather blown away by the fact that they had an official photographer at the event.

Runaway illegal immigration?  Ongoing threat of terrorism from Islamic fanatics?  Who cares!?  It's Halloween, and Homeland Security has to make sure to celebrate it, in a politically correct way, rather than keep its eye on the ball.  They'll have no one but themselves to blame when this kind of thing gets dragged back into public view after the next big terrorist attack in the U.S.