Pictures Of Elvis Presley’s Graceland As Seen From A Plane

As we observe August 16, the day Elvis Presley died, I thought highlighting the site of James V. Roy might be the best way this year to remember the life and times of “The King Of Rock And Roll”.

Graceland was not the huge mansion that many superstars would have lived in.  But Elvis was always the simple country boy at heart, and so the tasteful, but smaller home in Memphis was perfect for his tastes and needs.  The pictures below come from Roy’s site linked above, and when you are at his sight these pictures are much larger and easier to see.

I joined my friends Brad and his his life partner, Ayesha, for a long wonderful Elvis/Memphis weekend in the early 1990’s.  There is nothing quite like going up to the doors of Graceland and entering into the home Elvis lived in.  And might I add that the folks in Memphis have so many ways to please you, that you are bound to like one of them.

In the picture above to the left is the jet “Lisa Marie” that Elvis owned.  In the center of the picture is Graceland.  Elvis and his family are buried to the south of the house.  (Again, on Roy’s site these pictures are so much larger, and therefore more detailed.)

This photo is Graceland looking east.

The is a picture of Graceland looking north.

And this is Graceland looking west.

And just to wet your taste for your own trip to Graceland, here is a picture of what if looks like soon after you enter the doors to Graceland.  The piano room is in the back, and not far from where the picture was taken is the impressive staircase that leads upstairs to Elvis’ bedroom.  As you can see the inside of Graceland is tasteful, but simple.  (The ‘jungle room’ can rightfully be argued to be the exception.)

Technorati Tags: , ,

Troops Deployed Abroad Give Money 6:1 To Barack Obama For President

Bet this is not on FAUX News.

During World War II, soldiers crouching in foxholes penned letters assuring their sweethearts that they’d be home soon. Now, between firefights in the Iraqi desert, some infantrymen have been sending a different kind of mail stateside: two or three hundred dollars — or whatever they can spare — towards a presidential election that could very well determine just how soon they come home.


According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain, and the fiercely anti-war Ron Paul, though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago, has received more than four times McCain’s haul.


Despite McCain’s status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall — whether stationed overseas or at home — are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

End Ban On Photos Of Returning Military Dead

This is needed.  I have long argued for this.

Americans should have the right to see the dreadful results of politicians such as President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney who start wars based on lies and false assumptions.  The flag draped coffins of dead American soldiers should not be sanitized for political purposes by those who are afraid that America might react to the images, and want to vote against those who needlessly start wars.

The Department of Defense would be required to grant journalists access to ceremonies honoring fallen military personnel under a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The legislation is significant because it would, for the first time since Vietnam, let photojournalists capture the powerful images of flag-draped caskets arriving on American soil during wartime.

The Fallen Hero Commemoration Act, or H.R. 6662, was introduced July 30 by Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.), a member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

The bill states: “The Secretary of Defense shall grant access to accredited members of the media at military commemoration ceremonies and memorial services conducted by the Armed Forces for members of the Armed Forces who have died on active duty and when the remains of members of the Armed Forces arrive at military installations in the United States.” It was referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Jones voted to authorize the Iraq war, but he later supported a timetable to withdrawal troops and opposed the troop surge in 2007. Jones has spoken frequently in support of veterans’ interests and displays a poster outside his office showing the photos of fallen service members from the Marine base in his district, according to his Web site.

His bill has six co-sponsors: Rep Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-Texas), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas), Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) and Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.).

Technorati Tags: , ,

Pat Buchanan Beats Up Neo-Cons Over Georgia-Russia Conflict

Pat Buchanan’s syndicated article this week took on the neo-con idea of an expanded NATO.  When Buchanan writes with passion no one can deny that he can lance a boil with his words.  Though I differ with him in this column over the needlessly aggressive role that Russia played in Georgia this past week, and to some degree about the merits of a more robust NATO, the facts as presented about getting in the face of Russia are ones that many have long argued.  The presentation here (in part) with strong points and powerful writing again proves why Buchanan is fun to read.

Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?

Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?

That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili’s provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia’s nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.

When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?

American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia’s doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.

Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin’s birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?

Technorati Tags: , , ,