I am reminded of the successful effort by our founder Steve Milloy, to get George Lundberg–a big creep–fired as editor of Journal of the AMA (JAMA) for dredging up a junk science social studies report on oral sex, to cover for the big Arkansas Duuufus during his Monica travails. Before that George had proven he was a political hack imitating a medical journal editor.
This essayiest Neumayr, who writes about religious and moral issues for AMSPEC, caught my attention today.
He said: To paraphrase Yeats, the conservatives lack all conviction while the liberals are full of passionate intensity.
That describes the problem.
This essay says quite a bit about why some singers are good and pleasing to listen to compared to others.
I listen to a lot of performances of the national anthem, and the quality is all over the lot. Way too many who try too many vocal tricks for their big event. Melisma is too often on display–because too many people want to sound like Aaron Neville.
So the question is what’s the secret? This essay explains–sort of, but I would suggest and emphasize that a good singer has a good ear–and then makes the voice produce that good sound. A bad singer doesn’t have that ear–so they don’t create the appealing sound.
I had a friend over one time and he had been taking some singing lessons. I played the piano and he sang, not badly, he was in tune and had plenty of volume, but he didn’t have the timbre, the subtle voice skills of a good singer.
Have you every looked at the scope (its like an oscilloscope) representation of the vibrato of great singers like Domingo, Carreras, Pavorotti–quite different and distnctive, as you might expect. The difference in timbre is created by character of sound and the vibrato, essential to the good timbre, any horn player has to learn to produce vibrato to sound good–same with the voice. The sound needs those things so it won’t be flat and colorless.
[British Medical Journal]
After revelations that the CDC is receiving some funding from industry, Jeanne Lenzer investigates how it might have affected the organisation’s decisions
Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.
Industry funding of the CDC has taken many doctors, even some who worked for CDC, by surprise. Philip Lederer, an infectious diseases fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and a former CDC epidemic intelligence service officer, told The BMJ he was “saddened” to learn of industry funding.
– Keep in mind that industry and other third party money doesn’t mean that there “is” influence at play, but it certainly means that recommendations by CDC (and other groups, of course) need to be scrutinized carefully…
rest of article: http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362
Anzio was a major screw up that resulted in a blood bath, and this retelling focuses on the apology made to the dead by the field commander of the 3rd ID.