I think the importance of this posting is lost a bit in its brevity, but in my opinion this is primarily the reason why both US foreign policy and public school American History curriculum are so screwed up:
"According to George W. Bush, Egypt is making progress toward "greater political openness." That's, um, not true.
"I'm not sure there's very much the US government can or should do, in practice, to push Egypt into becoming a democracy. And, certainly, I grasp the pragmatic need to get along with governments willing to get along with us. But I don't really understand why this need is pragmatically construed as the need to lie and pretend to believe that Hosni Mubarak is moving his country toward democracy when everyone knows that he's cracking down on the opposition and trying to install his son as the next pharaoh. The schizophrenia of American policy -- invading Iraq to spread the flame of democracy, and then spinning on Mubarak's behalf in Cairo; between demonizing Hugo Chavez as a totalitarian menace and then hanging out with Saudi officials at the president's vacation home -- is really absurd.
"The idea that these tin pot dictators would somehow turn on us if we didn't kiss their assess doesn't hold much water. We need Saudi oil, and the Saudis need our money. We have interests that can be advanced through collaboration with the government of Egypt and the government of Egypt has interests that can be advanced through cooperation with our government. The pretense that every country we have a dispute with is run by the New Hitler while every country we opportunistically ally with is run by a Bold Reformer is incredibly dumb and something a grownup country ought to be able to move past."
I wish I could say that this complete inability to recognize mistakes and moral nuances was limited to Bush's reign but it's been endemic to the United States for some time. Now I can't say for sure whether or not other Democratic states have the same issues, but the idea of reworking history to fit a mold of "we good (always)" and "They bad (always)" seems Orwellian. Yet this is something we regularly do, whether it be inflating JFK's legacy because he was assassinated, or deflating the historical importance of our relationship with the French because they occasionally disagree with us on certain issues. And that's not even beginning to talk about the segued racial history of our country. It seems to me that one of the reasons we get consistently bogged down in mires like Iraq is because we reshape history to never prove us wrong, and thus never learn from our mistakes.
PS: Don't take the above to mean that I everyone suffers from this malady. Of course we don't, but much of our policy and policy shapers embrace this reductionist tendency, which screws things up further because by simplifying the issue it forces those that disagree to take the opposite view, thus polarizing the issue. For example, as Joseph J. Ellis writes in American Creation, a polarizing view makes us view the founding fathers as, "demigods who were permitted to glimpse the eternal truths...or a cast of villains who collectively comprise the deadest, whitest males in American history." These reductive narratives completely miss the pragmatic truth while at the same time cloud ones judgement.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"That's Not True Governor!"
Glad to see someone in the press is doing their job. And as to Mitt's point, if you're in on prep meetings, on the plane, and in the room, it seems to me that you're part of the campaign.
Liberal Hatred
Douthat gives a great write up about the debate over who's the biggest haters, Liberals or Conservatives. His conclusion is really worth thinking about, especially for liberals:
"That said, though, I do think that for smart liberals, the depth of conservative-hatred on the left ought to be at least the cause of some concern, even if they think it's possibly justified in the case of George W. Bush. As I suggested when Jon Chait's big netroots essay came out, there's a risk that the new "movement liberalism," having been forged in the crucible of Bush-hatred, will end up imitating contemporary conservatism's worst habits - which include, among others things, a difficulty engaging with the opposition save through vitriol and stereotype. To see this tendency in action, consider Matt Stoller's response to Barack Obama's expression of (mild, mild) sympathy for Ronald Reagan's 1970s critique of big government.
"It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power. Lots of people don't agree with this, of course, since it doesn't fit a coherent narrative of GOP ascendancy. Masking Reagan's true political underpinning principles is a central goal of the conservative movement ... if you think, as Obama does, that Reagan's rise to power was premised on a sunny optimism in contrast to an out of control government and a society rife with liberal excess, then you don't understand the conservative movement. Reagan tapped into greed and fear and tribalism, and those are powerful forces. Ignoring that isn't going to make them go away."
"I'm on the record expecting an era of liberal dominance in American politics. But there's no surer way to ensure that it's as brief as possible than for liberals to persuade themselves, with Stoller, that Ronald Reagan succeeded because he was e-e-e-vil, and that the entire conservative ascendancy boils down to nothing more that "greed and fear and tribalism" run amok."
As usual I look to comic books and science-fiction for a solution and nothing distills down this issue better than Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. At the end Luke is tempted with the dark side. "Strike me down!" The Emperor says. "Give in to your hate." But Luke is ultimately victorious because he turns away from his rage and embraces love. The moral: when you use your enemy's tactics you become your enemy. Which is, of course, why the US tortures people.
PS: By the way, did you know that Chris Dodd dated Carrie Fisher? Who'da thunk it?
Increasing Air Strikes in Iraq
Yglesias:
"Increased reliance on firepower as a substitute for adequate manpower strikes me as a classic COIN no-no, but Kahl seems to approve and even told USA Today last week that due to increased carefulness, the civil toll is being reduced: "You saw a lot more damage to the civilian population in 2004 than you're seeing now. Even though you have a huge uptick in offensive operations, it looks like the military is taking greater care not to harm civilians." Obviously, I hope that's right. It's my understanding, however, that the Defense Department still doesn't count civilian casualties so I don't really understand how they would know whether or not you're seeing a reduction in damage to the civilian population. In my book, the first step in "taking greater care" to avoid something is to measure what's happening."
Question: What targets are we bombing that like, need bombs? At least when Saddam was in power you had like radar stations and air strips, but unless the insurgency has reached COBRA status and are roaming around in Terrordomes, the only targets they could possibly have are small villages and houses. It seems counterproductive and inefficient, but I suppose we have to spend those defense dollars somehow.
"Increased reliance on firepower as a substitute for adequate manpower strikes me as a classic COIN no-no, but Kahl seems to approve and even told USA Today last week that due to increased carefulness, the civil toll is being reduced: "You saw a lot more damage to the civilian population in 2004 than you're seeing now. Even though you have a huge uptick in offensive operations, it looks like the military is taking greater care not to harm civilians." Obviously, I hope that's right. It's my understanding, however, that the Defense Department still doesn't count civilian casualties so I don't really understand how they would know whether or not you're seeing a reduction in damage to the civilian population. In my book, the first step in "taking greater care" to avoid something is to measure what's happening."
Question: What targets are we bombing that like, need bombs? At least when Saddam was in power you had like radar stations and air strips, but unless the insurgency has reached COBRA status and are roaming around in Terrordomes, the only targets they could possibly have are small villages and houses. It seems counterproductive and inefficient, but I suppose we have to spend those defense dollars somehow.
Quote of the Day
From Ken Levine:
"Summer Glau (pictured above) plays a “good” Terminator, assigned to protect teenager John Connor from the “bad” Terminators who are trying to whack him before he can grow up and save the world. Scientologists believe the same is true of the Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes baby. The Terminator legend is more grounded."
Side Note: For some reason this is the ONLY Sci-fi show my wife likes. We were browsing channels one night and I came upon it, so we decided to check it out. Watched it till commerical, got bored and was about to change when my wife said, "Wait, I wanna see what happens." This presented an interesting dilemma. I wasn't really enthralled with this, but it did have guns and hot chicks, and considering that my wife likes travel shows and PBS documentaries on the origins of cheese...well let's just say that The Chronicles found itself a fan.
Question
If Huckabee wins the election and is somehow able to rewrite the Constitution to conform to 'God's word', would it be because he was more persuasive, or because History teachers didn't do their job? I think it would be the latter.
Former GOP Congressman Charged With Funding Terror
Wow. I can't even get a handle on this one. I mean it's not exactly news that Republican's are corrupt but this goes above and beyond the call of sleaze. Not only that, but the guy was a born again Christian who wore "Jesus First" buttons while he campaigned and claimed that he was elected because, "God wanted me in". Then again was it his Christian zealotry that led to his downfall? Sully has some insight here, but I think you can more directly see the link if you watch the section in the movie Jesus Camp when a Christian camp counselor praises fundamentalist Islamics for indoctrinating their children in the Koran from an early age. These born-agains admire Islamic fundamentalists' methods, and probably hope that an Al-Qaeda victory will be the spark that ignites their holy war and brings them closer to the Rapture.
You know, all during high school I wanted to get closer to the Rapture too, but I didn't think Jesus had anything to do with it.
You know, all during high school I wanted to get closer to the Rapture too, but I didn't think Jesus had anything to do with it.
A Obama - Gore Ticket?
Aaaaah...yeah. But would Gore leave his life of stardom to play Obama's second fiddle? I doubt it.
You can still bank on him endorsing Obama, if only to piss off Hilary.
You can still bank on him endorsing Obama, if only to piss off Hilary.
The Final Nail in Huckabee's Coffin?
Talk about writing checks that your body can't cash, Huckabee vows to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants.
Does he think we're that stupid? Probably.
Does he think we're that stupid? Probably.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Worth A Second Look
I mentioned it in passing, but it's really worth reading Yglesias' atomic power kick of Tim Russert. Don't just think of it as dissing Russert, think of it as dissing the media in general.
Pumped...
For Cloverfield. I'm sure it's not going to be in the same quality zip code as No Country and There Will Be Blood, but ever since I saw the trailer before The Transformers I've been dying to check it out. It's got a good review over at MSNBC.COM, but Rottentomatos.com is only giving it a 56%. Eh, who cares? I'd go see the next Republican debate if the Statue of Liberty's head rolled through the stage.
One thing though...who was the genius that decided to name it 'Cloverfield'? I mean you could have called it 'Big F'ing Monster' and it would have been better. Hell 'Mary J. Blige Shoots Steroids in Her Ass' is a better title, and probably would have made more sense then Mary J. Blige shooting steroids in her ass. I swear to God if that monster comes out and calls itself Cloverfield! I'm going to vomit on the front row.
The Heart of Juno
I think Chris Orr gets it:
"One of Juno's sharpest elements is its treatment of the Lorings. When we first meet them, we are obviously intended to like hip, ironic, artistic Mark and to find reliable, earnest, domestic Vanessa annoying and/or pitiable. What's impressive is the way the film gradually reverses our early affections, but does so without ever really changing either character. Instead it merely shifts our perspective, showing that the guy you want to swap mix tapes and spend afternoons watching horror movies with is probably not the guy you want to be a father for your child. In Knocked Up, the former abruptly, quasi-magically becomes the latter, allowing viewers to have their cake and eat it, too. In Juno (and, I think, real life), one not infrequently has to choose between the fun guy (or gal) and the responsible one, and it's a choice Juno does not hesitate to make."
In a tangential fashion I think this is exactly the reason why people have a hard time watching Bill Clinton on the stump for Hilary. He's still a 'cool' guy, but we realize that he turned out to be a sorta irresponsible prick, and, it looks like he's asking us for the car keys again through his wife. This puts Hilary supporters and liberals in general in an awkward spot.
PS: Just realized that if you haven't seen the movie this whole post probably doesn't make any sense to you. Well do yourself a favor and go see it. It's a lot of fun.
"One of Juno's sharpest elements is its treatment of the Lorings. When we first meet them, we are obviously intended to like hip, ironic, artistic Mark and to find reliable, earnest, domestic Vanessa annoying and/or pitiable. What's impressive is the way the film gradually reverses our early affections, but does so without ever really changing either character. Instead it merely shifts our perspective, showing that the guy you want to swap mix tapes and spend afternoons watching horror movies with is probably not the guy you want to be a father for your child. In Knocked Up, the former abruptly, quasi-magically becomes the latter, allowing viewers to have their cake and eat it, too. In Juno (and, I think, real life), one not infrequently has to choose between the fun guy (or gal) and the responsible one, and it's a choice Juno does not hesitate to make."
In a tangential fashion I think this is exactly the reason why people have a hard time watching Bill Clinton on the stump for Hilary. He's still a 'cool' guy, but we realize that he turned out to be a sorta irresponsible prick, and, it looks like he's asking us for the car keys again through his wife. This puts Hilary supporters and liberals in general in an awkward spot.
PS: Just realized that if you haven't seen the movie this whole post probably doesn't make any sense to you. Well do yourself a favor and go see it. It's a lot of fun.
Justice League, Legion of Doom
Among pundits there seems to be this attitude, and attitude that I share, that the GOP primary is more interesting that the Democratic, and I think this attitude stems from a point I made in this post where I said: "Considering that the policies of the Dems as compared to their GOP opponents are so cut and dry, what they're really running on, in these primaries, are their intangibles (likability, personality, etc) and narratives that they're trying to establish: Obama the unifier, Edwards the Fighter, Hilary the Experienced. "
The GOP group is more interesting not because their individual narratives are more interesting than the Dems' individual narratives, but their group dynamic is more explosive. The Dems are like the Justice League, pooling their unique powers to "do good", while the Legion, in that anonymous swamp where they reside (Where is that? The Everglades? New Jersey?), Lex Luthor, Brainaic, Captain Cold, et al are all focused on their own agendas, teaming up only because they share a common enemy. This intergroup tension leads to greater drama, which is much more fascinating. So why does it seem like the Democrats get more airtime? Simple--in real life you don't want the Legion to win. After all, we've seen what a President Luthor can do.
Cool Thing
If you happen to be a gamer I suggest Gamefly.com. It's like Netflix, but for games, and they deliver at the same rate. With the price of games being how they are it's a great deal.Tell 'em Teethwriter sent ya, and they'll say, 'who?'
PS: Believe it or not--this is not a paid advertisement.
Decision Hip-Hop
A nice discussion over at Allhiphop.com regarding where Hip-hop, and African-Americans stand on the Democratic candidates. Worth the read.
Oh, on a side note, I'll be starting a weekly run down of politics over there starting next week Monday.
Oh, on a side note, I'll be starting a weekly run down of politics over there starting next week Monday.
The Mystery Heckler Last Night
In case you were wondering what could make three politicians and two 'journalists' shut up:
"The first twenty minutes of Tuesday's Democratic showdown in Las Vegas passed without a single substantive question, as the NBC moderators busied themselves prodding the soft spots of identity politics. Barack Obama was asked if New Hampshire whites didn't vote for him because he was black. Hillary Clinton was asked how race had become such a big factor in the election. John Edwards was asked, "What is a white male to do?" That was actually the question.
"Then some guy started shouting from the back of the auditorium. "Will you stop all these race-based questions?" he hollered. There was an awkward pause around the big table where everyone sat. The moderators, Tim Russert and Brian Williams, looked guilty and confused."
"The first twenty minutes of Tuesday's Democratic showdown in Las Vegas passed without a single substantive question, as the NBC moderators busied themselves prodding the soft spots of identity politics. Barack Obama was asked if New Hampshire whites didn't vote for him because he was black. Hillary Clinton was asked how race had become such a big factor in the election. John Edwards was asked, "What is a white male to do?" That was actually the question.
"Then some guy started shouting from the back of the auditorium. "Will you stop all these race-based questions?" he hollered. There was an awkward pause around the big table where everyone sat. The moderators, Tim Russert and Brian Williams, looked guilty and confused."
The Most Dangerous Words Ever?
Huckabee:
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards..."
Hey Iran did it, and look how well it works for them!
"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards..."
Hey Iran did it, and look how well it works for them!
The Long Haul
As usual, Yglesias gives a great breakdown of Dem debate last night commenting as I did that, for the most part, the proceedings were civil. However I disagree a bit with his final paragraph:
"Few big disagreements about big ideas are in play on the Democratic field. For now, most liberals find that consensus heartening, but we may come to regret it if it means that the eventual winner emerges into the field of battle without having really tested his or her arguments against a candidate willing to draw sharp lines of contrast."
I think MY fails to take into account that this race is going the distance and that these debates are turning into weekly recaps, summarizing and capping the overall political attitude of the moment. In that case, what you saw from the Dems last night was a lull in their warfare, attempting to ease the racial tensions of the last week, which was a negative for everyone. Considering that the policies of the Dems as compared to their GOP opponents are so cut and dry, what they're really running on, in these primaries, are their intangibles (likability, personality, etc) and narratives that they're trying to establish: Obama the unifier, Edwards the Fighter, Hilary the Experienced. To that end I think they did a decent job in their rhetoric, but they just lacked the enthusiasm to get us to hear it.
Oh, by the way, am I the only one getting tired of having Tim Russert moderate these debates? He's enough to put anyone to sleep.
"Few big disagreements about big ideas are in play on the Democratic field. For now, most liberals find that consensus heartening, but we may come to regret it if it means that the eventual winner emerges into the field of battle without having really tested his or her arguments against a candidate willing to draw sharp lines of contrast."
I think MY fails to take into account that this race is going the distance and that these debates are turning into weekly recaps, summarizing and capping the overall political attitude of the moment. In that case, what you saw from the Dems last night was a lull in their warfare, attempting to ease the racial tensions of the last week, which was a negative for everyone. Considering that the policies of the Dems as compared to their GOP opponents are so cut and dry, what they're really running on, in these primaries, are their intangibles (likability, personality, etc) and narratives that they're trying to establish: Obama the unifier, Edwards the Fighter, Hilary the Experienced. To that end I think they did a decent job in their rhetoric, but they just lacked the enthusiasm to get us to hear it.
Oh, by the way, am I the only one getting tired of having Tim Russert moderate these debates? He's enough to put anyone to sleep.
Inappropriate?
For the most part the Democratic debate in Nevada last night was civil as the three main contenders chose to mostly focus on their strengths and attack Bush. Clinton and Obama pretty much dominated the conversation, with Edwards trying mostly to build his populist rep while creating a sense of uniqueness. On this point he didn't succeed as he repeatedly went to his stump no matter what question was asked of him. One odd moment that I think escaped most was something that Edwards said at the very end of the debate, long after the audience passed out. The NY Times has the full transcript here, but I draw your attention to the very end:
"RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, on the conduct of foreign policy, after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, you made a phone call to General Musharraf in Pakistan. He called you back quickly. Close to half the people in Pakistan believe the government of Musharraf or allies were involved in the assassination of Miss Bhutto.
EDWARDS: Yes.
RUSSERT: Was it appropriate for you to talk to Musharraf at that time, perhaps give him cover at a time when he needed legitimacy?
EDWARDS: It was absolutely appropriate, and I didn't actually speak -- place a call to President Musharraf. I placed a call to the Pakistani ambassador in the United States and told him that I knew Musharraf, we had met in Islamabad years ago and talked about some of the problems in Pakistan at that time and that I had some things I wanted to say to him.
Now, the things I had to say to him were tough. And they were exactly the things that the president of the Untied States should say to a President Musharraf under these circumstances.
First, I said to him, you have to continue on the march to democratization in South Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto, who I was with in Abu Dhabi in the Middle East just a few years ago, I heard her talk about the path to democratization being baptized in blood in Pakistan. She put her life at risk for that path to democratization. What I said to Musharraf is: You have to stay on that path. Now, he said he would. That needs to be taken with great cynicism and a huge grain of salt, given his history. Second, I said you must allow international investigators in to determine what happened, because no one is going to trust some internal investigation that you conduct. Actually, they have now allowed Scotland Yard investigators into Pakistan to at least conduct some investigation. And then, third, I said these elections that are scheduled have to take place as soon as possible, but they need to be real. They have to be open, fair. The opposition parties need to be represented. They have to be secure.And those are the points I wanted to make to him. And those are exactly the points I would make to him as president of the United States."
I understand no one really had the time to follow up on this one (there was about one minute left to the debate) but as soon as I heard his response I was a bit shocked, after all it seems to me completely inappropriate for Edwards to speak to Musharraf about this issue, especially in the tone that Edwards claims he spoke. He's not an elected official, so what is he giving Musharraf orders for? And that paternal arrogant attitude that reminds me of Bollinger introducing Ahmadinejad at Columbia University doesn't grease the wheels of friendship and is completely counterproductive coming from a former Senator. I mean, what the hell is Musharraf going to say, "Oh well now that John Edwards told me I need to have to open elections I better do it." or is he going to say, "Wow, John Edwards is a tool." Either way I don't think any unelected candidate should be doing international relations unless it's for a personal reason using the most conciliatory tone possible. (And yes, I think Obama can talk to Kenya considering he has family there and he's an elected official. In fact I couldn't imagine any one in his position not pulling a few strings to help out.)
I still have a great respect for Edwards, but in his desire to establish a hard foreign policy rep I think he stepped over the line here.
"RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, on the conduct of foreign policy, after Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, you made a phone call to General Musharraf in Pakistan. He called you back quickly. Close to half the people in Pakistan believe the government of Musharraf or allies were involved in the assassination of Miss Bhutto.
EDWARDS: Yes.
RUSSERT: Was it appropriate for you to talk to Musharraf at that time, perhaps give him cover at a time when he needed legitimacy?
EDWARDS: It was absolutely appropriate, and I didn't actually speak -- place a call to President Musharraf. I placed a call to the Pakistani ambassador in the United States and told him that I knew Musharraf, we had met in Islamabad years ago and talked about some of the problems in Pakistan at that time and that I had some things I wanted to say to him.
Now, the things I had to say to him were tough. And they were exactly the things that the president of the Untied States should say to a President Musharraf under these circumstances.
First, I said to him, you have to continue on the march to democratization in South Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto, who I was with in Abu Dhabi in the Middle East just a few years ago, I heard her talk about the path to democratization being baptized in blood in Pakistan. She put her life at risk for that path to democratization. What I said to Musharraf is: You have to stay on that path. Now, he said he would. That needs to be taken with great cynicism and a huge grain of salt, given his history. Second, I said you must allow international investigators in to determine what happened, because no one is going to trust some internal investigation that you conduct. Actually, they have now allowed Scotland Yard investigators into Pakistan to at least conduct some investigation. And then, third, I said these elections that are scheduled have to take place as soon as possible, but they need to be real. They have to be open, fair. The opposition parties need to be represented. They have to be secure.And those are the points I wanted to make to him. And those are exactly the points I would make to him as president of the United States."
I understand no one really had the time to follow up on this one (there was about one minute left to the debate) but as soon as I heard his response I was a bit shocked, after all it seems to me completely inappropriate for Edwards to speak to Musharraf about this issue, especially in the tone that Edwards claims he spoke. He's not an elected official, so what is he giving Musharraf orders for? And that paternal arrogant attitude that reminds me of Bollinger introducing Ahmadinejad at Columbia University doesn't grease the wheels of friendship and is completely counterproductive coming from a former Senator. I mean, what the hell is Musharraf going to say, "Oh well now that John Edwards told me I need to have to open elections I better do it." or is he going to say, "Wow, John Edwards is a tool." Either way I don't think any unelected candidate should be doing international relations unless it's for a personal reason using the most conciliatory tone possible. (And yes, I think Obama can talk to Kenya considering he has family there and he's an elected official. In fact I couldn't imagine any one in his position not pulling a few strings to help out.)
I still have a great respect for Edwards, but in his desire to establish a hard foreign policy rep I think he stepped over the line here.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Tom Cruise Wants to Help You
Here's your daily dose of freak.
Honestly, he could get nominated for this one. Much better than his performance in Minority Report, but not as good as A Few Good Men.
Honestly, he could get nominated for this one. Much better than his performance in Minority Report, but not as good as A Few Good Men.
More on Cohen's Hit Job
Sully echoes my sentiment:
"If Obama has to disown a man he has never had anything to do with and a man whose toxic racist politics Obama has consistently and continuously opposed with all his might, then every black candidate is forced to jump through Cohen's petty little racist litmus test. They're all guilty of anti-Semitism until proved innocent. And Cohen's transparent disavowals of such an insinuation make it worse not better."
But it makes for great reading.
"If Obama has to disown a man he has never had anything to do with and a man whose toxic racist politics Obama has consistently and continuously opposed with all his might, then every black candidate is forced to jump through Cohen's petty little racist litmus test. They're all guilty of anti-Semitism until proved innocent. And Cohen's transparent disavowals of such an insinuation make it worse not better."
But it makes for great reading.
The Latest Hit Piece
Richard Cohen at Wapo asks why Obama doesn't get 'outraged' that his minister gave Louis Farrakhan an award, although he admits Obama's never shown an ounce of anti-semitism:
"It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.
"Fine. But where I differ with Axelrod and, I assume, Obama is that praise for an anti-Semitic demagogue is not a minor difference or an intrachurch issue. The Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter. It was not Obama's church that made the award but a magazine. This is a distinction without much of a difference. And given who the parishioner is, the obligation to speak out is all the greater. He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage?"
Get it? No? Neither do I. Does Cohen mean that Obama's responsible for every jerk thing that happens or just the ones related to his church, or dare I say, his faith? If every parishioner in every church, regardless of denomination, had to get 'outraged' over what their minister said or did, well, we'd be a world of pissed off people.
Of course, when you read between the lines, you see that this is really all about Obama's race. This is Cohen's little way of reminding us that a) Obama's black, and b) Some black people don't like white people, ergo, Obama probably doesn't like white people, especially if he 'doesn't get outraged.' Think I'm wrong, well replace every instance of 'Obama' the above article with your favorite white politician, substitute 'Farrakhan' with 'Jena 6', and then talk about that white politician's 'lack of outrage' and see if you don't find the thought that maybe that white politician's a racist crossing your mind. It's a miserable hit piece disguised as journalism, so don't be surprised if it's on the news for the rest of the week.
"It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.
"Fine. But where I differ with Axelrod and, I assume, Obama is that praise for an anti-Semitic demagogue is not a minor difference or an intrachurch issue. The Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter. It was not Obama's church that made the award but a magazine. This is a distinction without much of a difference. And given who the parishioner is, the obligation to speak out is all the greater. He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage?"
Get it? No? Neither do I. Does Cohen mean that Obama's responsible for every jerk thing that happens or just the ones related to his church, or dare I say, his faith? If every parishioner in every church, regardless of denomination, had to get 'outraged' over what their minister said or did, well, we'd be a world of pissed off people.
Of course, when you read between the lines, you see that this is really all about Obama's race. This is Cohen's little way of reminding us that a) Obama's black, and b) Some black people don't like white people, ergo, Obama probably doesn't like white people, especially if he 'doesn't get outraged.' Think I'm wrong, well replace every instance of 'Obama' the above article with your favorite white politician, substitute 'Farrakhan' with 'Jena 6', and then talk about that white politician's 'lack of outrage' and see if you don't find the thought that maybe that white politician's a racist crossing your mind. It's a miserable hit piece disguised as journalism, so don't be surprised if it's on the news for the rest of the week.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Obama, Hilary, and MLK
So here's the rundown on that MLK thing going on between Hil and Obama, as I see it. Somewhere in the middle of this race someone likened Obama to JFK and MLK, and for some reason this pissed off Hilary who said that it was really LBJ that had more to do with the civil rights movement then MLK. Some black dude agreed and some other black dude disagreed and then Hil went on MTP and Tim Russert asked some dumb question about it and Hil said MLK was wack, leading some white woman to say that Tiger Woods should get lynched, which then led Tony Romo to take Jessica Simpson to Cabo which led to the Cowboys getting beaten by the Giants which then made Terrell Owens to cry and Mary J. Blige to take some steroids. Well then this got so many cameras running that the Earth heated up and Antarctica melted.
So, in short, John McCain became the next president of a giant ice cube.
Weeee! Set a new record on most links in one post! I am the man!
Say What?
Ok, it's not surprising that several people in the entertainment world have taken steroids. And it's not surprising that several people in hip-hop have taken steroids. After all what would rock stars be if they didn't dip into illegal drugs. But Mary J. Blige? MARY FRIGGIN J. BLIGE? What the hell does she need steroids for? She pitching for the Yankees this year? What the hell? I mean who's next? Stephen Colbert? Huey from the Boondocks? Or that skinny kid from Superbad? Am I taking steroids? What was in that cream? Oh Jezz.
Hit Jobs
Seems to me we all know what kind of dirty tricks Hil and her posse are capable of, I'm just wondering, does she really want to get into the ring with, not Barack, but Michelle regarding old news? Mrs. Obama doesn't seem like the type of woman who's capable of standing on the sidelines while her husband gets eviserated, and with the amount of baggage that the Clinton's bring to the table, combined with her backing by Chris Rock, she could put on a whole HBO special. That would be totally awesome.
See What Hil Set Off
Now Terrell Owens is weeping:
In other news, Terrell Owens just won the Texas Democratic primary.
In other news, Terrell Owens just won the Texas Democratic primary.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
More Delegate Foolishness
Sorry it's not Sanjaya, it's really Ricky the Dragon Steamboat.
Oh and give yourself a pat on the back if you remember Ricky the Dragon Steamboat. Then change your Depends.
Oh and give yourself a pat on the back if you remember Ricky the Dragon Steamboat. Then change your Depends.
A Bloomberg Candidacy
Yes, that's how he dresses for work every day.
Seriously though, there's been a lot of discussion regarding a potential presidential bid by Mayor Mike. Many pundits, including myself, have questioned the viability of his potential run, the largest criticism being that as an independent agent of change Bloomy wouldn't be unique considering the alternatives of Edwards and Obama. This has led many to write him off. However Bloomy continues forward and being that is the case one needs to see what he'll bring to the table when he runs.
First off, rumors have spread of Mike's willingness to spend up to one billion of his own fortune to run. That's a one and a LOT of zeroes. Anyone with a billion dollars to spend instantly becomes a viable candidate. If I had a billion dollars to run I'd be a viable candidate. So would Ron Paul for that matter. That kind of wealth automatically gets you a seat at the table. Furthermore, he can use that independent wealth to make the case that he's not in the pockets of lobbyists, a direct challenge to Edwards' platform. Of course, it's also hard to say you're not for the boss if you're the boss yourself, but that didn't stop Ross Perot from running a darn good populist campaign.
Really though, the most frightening aspect of a Bloomberg campaign for the Democratic contenders is his aura of competency and financial savvy. There is no doubt that Bloomberg fiscally changed around NYC, and he runs this city like a well oiled machine without using the fascist tactics employed by the former mayor who's name rhymes with Assholeani. (Not really, but New Yorkers will get my point). He's a living testament that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and when you can do that in the biggest city in the world it, like Rommey's pitch, makes the case for having executive experience that eclipses senatorial experience.
Bloomberg's biggest challenge though is coalescing that into a workable pitch. No one can run on competency alone. (Here's the slogan, "A Technocrat for a Better Tomorrow". Sounds like Mike Dukakis in '88) There must be a 'bigger picture' that he can sell to the populace in which his business and managerial skill is a method for making this 'picture' come alive. It may be sad, but a the country would rather go for the dream than the reality even if that dream is but a dream. Bloomy is a work horse, but if he wants to become president he needs to transform himself into a stallion.
How Do You Stop Tiger?
By lynching him, of course:
Honestly, I don't know if she should be fired or not. It doesn't look as if her intent was to be racist, and Tiger has forgiven her, but what a DUMB thing to say. That's like saying Cory Pavin can be stopped if you dropped him in an oven. (He's Jewish by the way).
Funny note: Turns out lynching Tiger IS the only way to stop him. Go figure.
Honestly, I don't know if she should be fired or not. It doesn't look as if her intent was to be racist, and Tiger has forgiven her, but what a DUMB thing to say. That's like saying Cory Pavin can be stopped if you dropped him in an oven. (He's Jewish by the way).
Funny note: Turns out lynching Tiger IS the only way to stop him. Go figure.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Why People Get Pissed Off About Primary Politics
In reading this Yglesias post, I did my own searching and discovered that Obama, while losing the NH popular vote somehow won more delegates than Hil and is leading the Dems in overall delegates.
At this rate Sanjaya will get the nomination come Summer.
At this rate Sanjaya will get the nomination come Summer.
Pole Jockey of the Day
Andrew Sullivan (and no, it's not a gay joke) for riding John-Let's go bomb Iran-while we stay in Iraq for 100 years-McCain's decrepit tip. With quotes like:
"If it's McCain versus Clinton this fall, he'll be very hard to beat."
And,
"If it's McCain versus Clinton, I start looking to support the Republican again. I'm not the only one."
It makes you wonder if he was supporting Obama because of (as he mentioned on his Colbert show appearance), "Obama's opposition to the war, and his transparency" or if it was because he looks good in a bathing suit (and that is a gay joke).
Random Thoughts on the NH Primary
1) First off, I was way, way too bitter regarding Hilary. Congratulations to Hil on a well run campaign that surprised all the pundits and polls. She deserved it.
2) I am WAY too invested in an Obama win. While I do believe that Obama would be the best choice in the 08 Election (Because of a) His ability to work with opposition and b) his transparency) that doesn't mean that Edwards or Hil wouldn't make suitable candidates or Presidents.
3) Furthermore, after listening to Chris Matthews talk about the endurance of the McCain's campaign (and he did it without talking about McCain's 'manly musk', yeah, I'm surprised too). I wonder if a loss in NH for Obama isn't a good thing for his supporters and America. After all, Obama really hasn't faced loss and knowing how a candidate can take defeat and whether they have endurance is important in knowing what type of leader they can be. And Lord knows, as President you'll take A LOT of losses (Unless you're Bush after 9/11, then you get handed the keys to the tank).
4) One also has to remember that Obama outspent Hil by 2 million in Iowa, and didn't spend as much time in NH as Clinton. Obama backers have to remember that this election isn't going to be a cakewalk greased by Obama's eloquence. There's going to be more struggle ahead, and a hell of a lot more dirty tricks. This thing is far from over.
5) What's up with girls names Fatima? Who puts the word 'fat' in a girls name?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Bitter, Bitter Thought of the Night
I know it's too close to call, and I don't want to jinx it, but should Clinton win in N.H then my bitter thought is:
All she has to do is cry 48 more times and she'll have the nomination in the bag.
You should see how I am when I actually lose. I literally bleed on myself.
All she has to do is cry 48 more times and she'll have the nomination in the bag.
You should see how I am when I actually lose. I literally bleed on myself.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Obama Wins in Iowa
I really don't wanna go a wet one like Chris Matthews, nor do I want to inflate the significance to this moment like Sully, but it's apparent that what we saw in Iowa last night was historic and shows an incredible shift in both race relations and the direction that America wants to follow. Watch the video above. I used to think that the only way a black man could get a crowd of aged whites around him like that is if he had a ball or bible in his hand or a noose around his neck. But not only has Obama made this possible but he's doing it by running a perfect campaign and staying on message. I can't help thinking that when I see him now I'm seeing what it must have been like to watch JFK and RFK run, and if he can keep up this kind of momentum he really can be President of the United States.
Congrats also to Edwards, with his strong showing, (Obama-Edwards ticket? Only if you want Christ Matthews to explode in his pants) the entire Iowa Democratic party for it's turnout and strong registration drive, and to the other ten republicans who voted for their minister, er, I mean candidate.
Monday, December 17, 2007
I'm Back
Sorry for the long delay. But the GRE's are over, I've just about handed in all my grades, and all applications are submitted. Let the blogging begin!
Sully Endorses Paul
Talk about a 180--from supporting Bush to this:
"But the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.
"He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds. And in a primary campaign where the very future of conservatism is at stake, that cannot be ignored. In fact, it demands support.
"Go Ron Paul!"
I can't deny it--I'm feeling the Paul spirit myself.
"But the deeper reason to support Ron Paul is a simple one. The great forgotten principles of the current Republican party are freedom and toleration. Paul's federalism, his deep suspicion of Washington power, his resistance to government spending, debt and inflation, his ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble, least of all by government: these are principles that made me a conservative in the first place. No one in the current field articulates them as clearly and understands them as deeply as Paul. He is a man of faith who nonetheless sees a clear line between religion and politics. More than all this, he has somehow ignited a new movement of those who love freedom and want to rescue it from the do-gooding bromides of the left and the Christianist meddling of the right. The Paulites' enthusiasm for liberty, their unapologetic defense of core conservative principles, their awareness that in the new millennium, these principles of small government, self-reliance, cultural pluralism, and a humble foreign policy are more necessary than ever - no lover of liberty can stand by and not join them.
"He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds. And in a primary campaign where the very future of conservatism is at stake, that cannot be ignored. In fact, it demands support.
"Go Ron Paul!"
I can't deny it--I'm feeling the Paul spirit myself.
Doing Their Job
Chris Dodd this week is actually campaigning by doing a strange thing--his job:
"With the Iowa caucuses just two and a half weeks away, the candidates have pretty much taken up residence in the state, with one conspicuous exception. This morning will find Senator Chris Dodd on the Senate floor, where he plans to be staging a filibuster against the telcom immunity provision in the FISA bill. As we've written here before, Dodd's opposition has won him much love from the netroots. But it's not exactly the best timing from a conventional political perspective. (Dodd, after all, moved his family to Iowa in October.)
"A campaign official tells me: "He understands that he should probably be in Iowa campaigning, but the Constituion and the rule of law are Dodd's passion. He has a deep history with it and fundamentally believes that we decrease our standing in the world when we don't live up to our values. And when that happens we weaken our national security.""
That scores some points with me.
"With the Iowa caucuses just two and a half weeks away, the candidates have pretty much taken up residence in the state, with one conspicuous exception. This morning will find Senator Chris Dodd on the Senate floor, where he plans to be staging a filibuster against the telcom immunity provision in the FISA bill. As we've written here before, Dodd's opposition has won him much love from the netroots. But it's not exactly the best timing from a conventional political perspective. (Dodd, after all, moved his family to Iowa in October.)
"A campaign official tells me: "He understands that he should probably be in Iowa campaigning, but the Constituion and the rule of law are Dodd's passion. He has a deep history with it and fundamentally believes that we decrease our standing in the world when we don't live up to our values. And when that happens we weaken our national security.""
That scores some points with me.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Just Thinking
If the Hil bomber really wanted to kill himself, he should have gone to Guiliani's HQ. Guiliani would have killed him...and then swallowed his soul.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Kucinich on Tucker
Watch our Congressman screw this cocky son-of-a-bitch:
Yeah Tucker, the VP really does nothing. Did someone got their degree from a Cracker Jack box? Or was he busy doing something else?
Yeah Tucker, the VP really does nothing. Did someone got their degree from a Cracker Jack box? Or was he busy doing something else?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
The RAPEX!
Yes, the wave of the future, the anti-rape device:
"Later this month, South African women will be able to purchase the Rapex device, marketed as the "anti-rape condom." The rapex, shaped like a female condom, is worn internally and equipped with 25 teeth in its lining.
"The inventor of Rapex, South African Sonette Ehler, a former medical technician, got the idea when a traumatized rape victim lamented to her, "If only I had teeth down there.""
I think it's a good idea, but I wonder--it looks sort of big. What if your attacker has a really, really, tiny penis?
Steve Carell has Bigger Balls then the Democrats
No literally...he does. From Kos:
"One of the first shows to shut down production because of the WGA strike was The Office. One of the reasons? WGA member Steve Carell refused to cross the picket line, with what, if the rumor is true, would have to be one of the great reasons of all time:
"Additionally, I've been told that Steve Carell informed NBC he is unable to report to work because he is suffering from “enlarged balls.” Not just enlarged, I'd say, but brass ones. The source on this one adds, "We wish him a happy, slow recovery.""
Now if Steve Carell can walk away from a multi-million dollar a year job why can't the Democrats impeach a VP with the lowest, or close to the lowest approval ratings ever? Did politicians' brains go on strike too?
There's a Reason Why There's a 'Man' in Olbermann
Too bad you couldn't put a "The" in there as well.
Last night he addressed the impeachment catastrophe as his number 5 pick on The Countdown. Video below:
I still don't think I've received a satisfactory reason why the Democrats folded, but the discussion is highly appreciated.
Last night he addressed the impeachment catastrophe as his number 5 pick on The Countdown. Video below:
I still don't think I've received a satisfactory reason why the Democrats folded, but the discussion is highly appreciated.
Supporting the Troops
1 in 4 homeless are veterans:
"Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.
And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans. Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job."
"Veterans make up one in four homeless people in the United States, though they are only 11 percent of the general adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday.
And homelessness is not just a problem among middle-age and elderly veterans. Younger veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are trickling into shelters and soup kitchens seeking services, treatment or help with finding a job."
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Conyers says "Impeachment is off the table"
More disappointment:
"The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of their victory is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today said that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."
"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."
Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance.""
You want to know the worse part of this? Hearing the heartbreak in my Dad's voice as he watches the Democratic party fall apart before his eyes. I'm equally disgusted.
"The latest Democrat "saviour" to flip flop 180 degrees in light of their victory is Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. Presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, Conyers today said that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."
"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."
Conyers seems to have forgotten that last December he laid out the grounds for impeachment in a 350 page long report called "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Cover-ups in the Iraq War" and later updated to add "illegal domestic surveillance.""
You want to know the worse part of this? Hearing the heartbreak in my Dad's voice as he watches the Democratic party fall apart before his eyes. I'm equally disgusted.
Bizzaro World
Sigh...I don my fedora with my purely symbolic Press pass stuck in the brim wearily. As you may have noticed I haven't posted in about a month, not because there hasn't been news, but because I am extremely burdened down with work, GREs, marriage, yadda, yadda, yadda; and, frankly, I wasn't planning another post until the new year. But yesterday something so insane happened that I thought I was in bizzaro world. I had to log in again.
What you probably don't know: Dennis Kucinich, Congressman from Ohio and long shot presidential candidate, had submitted a resolution calling for the impeachment of VP Dick Cheney in April, and yesterday it came to the house floor. What happened next, was mind boggling:
"House Republicans on Tuesday prevented Democratic leaders from blocking a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. [Yeah, you read that right]
"The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.
After more than an hour of waiting for the vote to close, the motion to table the resolution failed by a vote of 162-251 after Democratic leaders failed to convince a group of liberal caucus members to side with them."
So are you following this? Kucinich's bill, thought to be an easy kill, was then supported by the GOP and nearly killed by Democrats, who were then forced to push the resolution into the Democratic controlled Judicary Committee, where it will be used by Nancy Pelosi as scratch paper for her to doodle new ways to fold to the Bush administration.
Oh but wait, it gets worse.
I wake up today figuring that they'll be some coverage on it either in the M$M or the indie left blogs. I mean the impeachment of a Vice-President, just that alone sounds like news, not counting the Machiavellian maneuvers that kept it alive. You'd figure they're be something right?
Wrong.
Instead there was nada. Nothing. Squat-diddly. I've heard feathers land on pillows that make more noise. The only substantial response I received to this monumental news was from Sully, who, sadly, sums up my feelings perfectly:
"A great idea. [Impeachment] The man is a war criminal, and has done more to undermine our Constitutional balance than any man since Richard Nixon. Secretive, incompetent, belligerent, contemptuous of the rule of law, there is barely a bad decision this president has made that doesn't have Cheney's fingerprints on it. Of course, the Democrats are scared of taking on this man. But they are, by and large, a bunch of empty suits (and one botoxed empty pant-suit). I'm delighted the Congress is finally tackling the issue of the vice-president's attack on the constitution. If done right, it could help air the fundamental indecency that Cheney represents. But, of course, it won't be done right. Which is why I remain someone who, abandoned by the current Republicans, still can't even think of identifying as a Democrat."
But I might even go farther--fear can no longer be an issue for Democrats, because fear implies that there is a substantial chance for reprisal. On all the issues that the Democrats claim they stand for: ending the war, ending torture, curtailing the patriot act, and restoring habeus corpus, the public supports them. Furthermore, there are significant cries for impeaching both Bush and Cheney. If anything, a public debate and investigation into these men will hem up the widening gaps in our Constitution and prevent politicians from taking advantage of the public again. So why wouldn't the Democrats want to have this discussion? I fear a much sinister purpose, that I'm hesitant to put forth; so, rather, I'll state it in more philosophical terms. When the opposition party no longer opposes, it becomes time for those who support them to look to other leaders. Now I'm not saying I'm abandoning the Democrats, because with Giuilani in the race the devil I know is definitely worse than the devil I don't know, and I'm still tempted by the candidacy of Obama. But yesterday was a low point, for not just the Democrats, but really for the entire left wing, who, through their silence, were just as acquiescent about their representatives' wrongs as conservatives, like Sully, who were silent when Bush began to trample on the Constitution. Frustration and anger will breed strange bedfellows.
PS: Yeah, yeah, I know Me + Sully = "strange bedfellows", purely metaphoric. Or is it... :)
What you probably don't know: Dennis Kucinich, Congressman from Ohio and long shot presidential candidate, had submitted a resolution calling for the impeachment of VP Dick Cheney in April, and yesterday it came to the house floor. What happened next, was mind boggling:
"House Republicans on Tuesday prevented Democratic leaders from blocking a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. [Yeah, you read that right]
"The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad.
After more than an hour of waiting for the vote to close, the motion to table the resolution failed by a vote of 162-251 after Democratic leaders failed to convince a group of liberal caucus members to side with them."
So are you following this? Kucinich's bill, thought to be an easy kill, was then supported by the GOP and nearly killed by Democrats, who were then forced to push the resolution into the Democratic controlled Judicary Committee, where it will be used by Nancy Pelosi as scratch paper for her to doodle new ways to fold to the Bush administration.
Oh but wait, it gets worse.
I wake up today figuring that they'll be some coverage on it either in the M$M or the indie left blogs. I mean the impeachment of a Vice-President, just that alone sounds like news, not counting the Machiavellian maneuvers that kept it alive. You'd figure they're be something right?
Wrong.
Instead there was nada. Nothing. Squat-diddly. I've heard feathers land on pillows that make more noise. The only substantial response I received to this monumental news was from Sully, who, sadly, sums up my feelings perfectly:
"A great idea. [Impeachment] The man is a war criminal, and has done more to undermine our Constitutional balance than any man since Richard Nixon. Secretive, incompetent, belligerent, contemptuous of the rule of law, there is barely a bad decision this president has made that doesn't have Cheney's fingerprints on it. Of course, the Democrats are scared of taking on this man. But they are, by and large, a bunch of empty suits (and one botoxed empty pant-suit). I'm delighted the Congress is finally tackling the issue of the vice-president's attack on the constitution. If done right, it could help air the fundamental indecency that Cheney represents. But, of course, it won't be done right. Which is why I remain someone who, abandoned by the current Republicans, still can't even think of identifying as a Democrat."
But I might even go farther--fear can no longer be an issue for Democrats, because fear implies that there is a substantial chance for reprisal. On all the issues that the Democrats claim they stand for: ending the war, ending torture, curtailing the patriot act, and restoring habeus corpus, the public supports them. Furthermore, there are significant cries for impeaching both Bush and Cheney. If anything, a public debate and investigation into these men will hem up the widening gaps in our Constitution and prevent politicians from taking advantage of the public again. So why wouldn't the Democrats want to have this discussion? I fear a much sinister purpose, that I'm hesitant to put forth; so, rather, I'll state it in more philosophical terms. When the opposition party no longer opposes, it becomes time for those who support them to look to other leaders. Now I'm not saying I'm abandoning the Democrats, because with Giuilani in the race the devil I know is definitely worse than the devil I don't know, and I'm still tempted by the candidacy of Obama. But yesterday was a low point, for not just the Democrats, but really for the entire left wing, who, through their silence, were just as acquiescent about their representatives' wrongs as conservatives, like Sully, who were silent when Bush began to trample on the Constitution. Frustration and anger will breed strange bedfellows.
PS: Yeah, yeah, I know Me + Sully = "strange bedfellows", purely metaphoric. Or is it... :)
Monday, October 01, 2007
Blackwater on Blackwater
This isn't madness, this-is-AMERICA!
And yes, that pressure you feel in your chest is, in fact, President Bush kicking you in the chest.
And yes, that pressure you feel in your chest is, in fact, President Bush kicking you in the chest.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Why I'm Glad I Don't Live In Jena Right Now
Or really any other time, but now that the white supremacists are coming to town it's really time to run. And blacks have been running for a LOONNGGG time:
"No sooner did tens of thousands of African-American demonstrators depart the racially tense town of Jena, La., last week after protesting perceived injustices than white supremacists flooded in behind them.First a neo-Nazi Web site posted the names, addresses and phone numbers of some of the six black teenagers and their families at the center of the Jena 6 case and urged followers to find them and "drag them out of the house," prompting an investigation by the FBI.Then the leader of a white supremacist group in Mississippi published interviews that he conducted with the mayor of Jena and the white teenager who was attacked and beaten, allegedly by the six black youths. In those interviews, the mayor, Murphy McMillin, praised efforts by pro-white groups to organize counter demonstrations; the teenager, Justin Barker, urged white readers to "realize what is going on, speak up and speak their mind."
Hat Tip: Mithras
"No sooner did tens of thousands of African-American demonstrators depart the racially tense town of Jena, La., last week after protesting perceived injustices than white supremacists flooded in behind them.First a neo-Nazi Web site posted the names, addresses and phone numbers of some of the six black teenagers and their families at the center of the Jena 6 case and urged followers to find them and "drag them out of the house," prompting an investigation by the FBI.Then the leader of a white supremacist group in Mississippi published interviews that he conducted with the mayor of Jena and the white teenager who was attacked and beaten, allegedly by the six black youths. In those interviews, the mayor, Murphy McMillin, praised efforts by pro-white groups to organize counter demonstrations; the teenager, Justin Barker, urged white readers to "realize what is going on, speak up and speak their mind."
Hat Tip: Mithras
The Man Who Saved The World
I'm a day late, but it seems to me that the story of Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov should be told:
"The story begins on September 1st, 1983, when Soviet jet interceptors shot down a Korean Air Lines civilian airliner after the aircraft crossed into Soviet airspace and then, for reasons still unknown, failed to respond to radio hails. 269 passengers and crew died, including US Congressman Lawrence McDonald. Ronald Reagan called it "barbarism", "inhuman brutality", "a crime against humanity that must never be forgotten". Note that this was already a very, very poor time for US/USSR relations. Andropov, the ailing Soviet leader, was half-convinced the US was planning a first strike. The KGB sent a flash message to its operatives warning them to prepare for possible nuclear war.
"On September 26th, 1983, Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov was the officer on duty when the warning system reported a US missile launch. Petrov kept calm, suspecting a computer error.
Then the system reported another US missile launch.
And another, and another, and another.
What had actually happened, investigators later determined, was sunlight on high-altitude clouds aligning with the satellite view on a US missile base.
In the command post there were beeping signals, flashing lights, and officers screaming at people to remain calm. According to several accounts I've read, there was a large flashing screen from the automated computer system saying simply "START" (presumably in Russian). Afterward, when investigators asked Petrov why he hadn't written everything down in the logbook, Petrov replied,"Because I had a phone in one hand and the intercom in the other, and I don't have a third hand."
The policy of the Soviet Union called for launch on warning. The Soviet Union's land radar could not detect missiles over the horizon, and waiting for positive identification would limit the response time to minutes. Petrov's report would be relayed to his military superiors, who would decide whether to start a nuclear war.
Petrov decided that, all else being equal, he would prefer not to destroy the world. He sent messages declaring the launch detection a false alarm, based solely on his personal belief that the US did not seem likely to start an attack using only five missiles.
Petrov was first congratulated, then extensively interrogated, then reprimanded for failing to follow procedure. He resigned in poor health from the military several months later. According to Wikipedia, he is spending his retirement in relative poverty in the town of Fryazino, on a pension of $200/month. In 2004, the Association of World Citizens gave Petrov a trophy and $1000. There is also a movie scheduled for release in 2008, entitled The Red Button and the Man Who Saved the World."
Hat Tip: Megan
"The story begins on September 1st, 1983, when Soviet jet interceptors shot down a Korean Air Lines civilian airliner after the aircraft crossed into Soviet airspace and then, for reasons still unknown, failed to respond to radio hails. 269 passengers and crew died, including US Congressman Lawrence McDonald. Ronald Reagan called it "barbarism", "inhuman brutality", "a crime against humanity that must never be forgotten". Note that this was already a very, very poor time for US/USSR relations. Andropov, the ailing Soviet leader, was half-convinced the US was planning a first strike. The KGB sent a flash message to its operatives warning them to prepare for possible nuclear war.
"On September 26th, 1983, Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov was the officer on duty when the warning system reported a US missile launch. Petrov kept calm, suspecting a computer error.
Then the system reported another US missile launch.
And another, and another, and another.
What had actually happened, investigators later determined, was sunlight on high-altitude clouds aligning with the satellite view on a US missile base.
In the command post there were beeping signals, flashing lights, and officers screaming at people to remain calm. According to several accounts I've read, there was a large flashing screen from the automated computer system saying simply "START" (presumably in Russian). Afterward, when investigators asked Petrov why he hadn't written everything down in the logbook, Petrov replied,"Because I had a phone in one hand and the intercom in the other, and I don't have a third hand."
The policy of the Soviet Union called for launch on warning. The Soviet Union's land radar could not detect missiles over the horizon, and waiting for positive identification would limit the response time to minutes. Petrov's report would be relayed to his military superiors, who would decide whether to start a nuclear war.
Petrov decided that, all else being equal, he would prefer not to destroy the world. He sent messages declaring the launch detection a false alarm, based solely on his personal belief that the US did not seem likely to start an attack using only five missiles.
Petrov was first congratulated, then extensively interrogated, then reprimanded for failing to follow procedure. He resigned in poor health from the military several months later. According to Wikipedia, he is spending his retirement in relative poverty in the town of Fryazino, on a pension of $200/month. In 2004, the Association of World Citizens gave Petrov a trophy and $1000. There is also a movie scheduled for release in 2008, entitled The Red Button and the Man Who Saved the World."
Hat Tip: Megan
The Burma Situation
Blow-by-blow found here.
Time has the write up, quote:
"By 12:30 p.m., hundreds of monks, students, and other Rangoon residents approached the police, stood in the road and began to pray. Then the soldiers and police began pulling monks from the crowd, targeting the leaders, striking both monks and ordinary people with canes. Several smoke bombs exploded and the riot police charged. The monks and others fought back with sticks and rocks. Many others ran, perhaps four or five of them bleeding from minor head wounds. A car was set alight — by the soldiers, some protesters claimed — and then there was the unmistakable crack of live ammunition: the soldiers were shooting into the air.
"They are not Buddhists," cried one student, who clutched half a brick in his hand, running from the smoke. "They are not humans. We were praying peacefully and they beat us. They beat the monks, even the old ones." An 80-year-old monk stood with the student, bleeding from a baton gash on his shaven head.
"However, after this confrontation, the monks regrouped and surged forward again. Shops along the road were shuttered, but people threw down water bottles from their balconies to aide the protesters. Minutes later, the arc of a tear-gas canister looped through the air toward the pagoda's east entrance. The air was full of dense black clouds from a burning car and motorbike. Running monks retreated through the smoke, many armed with clubs of scavenged wood, one armed with a riot shield snatched from the police. They were shaking and incandescent with rage. "The United Nations must know about this!" cried one. "They beat the nuns too," cried another. "
I know this is going to sound completely quixotic and naive but...what's up with beating up monks and nuns? I mean, they're friggin monks man! Looks like some more people bought themselves an first class flight to Hell. That's getting to be a pretty packed flight.
Hat Tip: Sully
Time has the write up, quote:
"By 12:30 p.m., hundreds of monks, students, and other Rangoon residents approached the police, stood in the road and began to pray. Then the soldiers and police began pulling monks from the crowd, targeting the leaders, striking both monks and ordinary people with canes. Several smoke bombs exploded and the riot police charged. The monks and others fought back with sticks and rocks. Many others ran, perhaps four or five of them bleeding from minor head wounds. A car was set alight — by the soldiers, some protesters claimed — and then there was the unmistakable crack of live ammunition: the soldiers were shooting into the air.
"They are not Buddhists," cried one student, who clutched half a brick in his hand, running from the smoke. "They are not humans. We were praying peacefully and they beat us. They beat the monks, even the old ones." An 80-year-old monk stood with the student, bleeding from a baton gash on his shaven head.
"However, after this confrontation, the monks regrouped and surged forward again. Shops along the road were shuttered, but people threw down water bottles from their balconies to aide the protesters. Minutes later, the arc of a tear-gas canister looped through the air toward the pagoda's east entrance. The air was full of dense black clouds from a burning car and motorbike. Running monks retreated through the smoke, many armed with clubs of scavenged wood, one armed with a riot shield snatched from the police. They were shaking and incandescent with rage. "The United Nations must know about this!" cried one. "They beat the nuns too," cried another. "
I know this is going to sound completely quixotic and naive but...what's up with beating up monks and nuns? I mean, they're friggin monks man! Looks like some more people bought themselves an first class flight to Hell. That's getting to be a pretty packed flight.
Hat Tip: Sully
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Meanwhile, Over at All Hip-Hop
I discuss why Bill O'Dumbass' realization means more than you might think...
Saturday, September 22, 2007
BlackWater Probed
But not for killing Iraqis, cause like, they don't matter I guess:
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.
"...Officials with knowledge of the case said it is active, although at an early stage. They spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, which has heightened since 11 Iraqis were killed Sunday in a shooting involving Blackwater contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad."
Maybe they just wanted to give Iraqis guns to shoot back at them; you know, like a big game of cops and robbers. Oh wait, that's what they play with Bush and Cheney.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.
"...Officials with knowledge of the case said it is active, although at an early stage. They spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter, which has heightened since 11 Iraqis were killed Sunday in a shooting involving Blackwater contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad."
Maybe they just wanted to give Iraqis guns to shoot back at them; you know, like a big game of cops and robbers. Oh wait, that's what they play with Bush and Cheney.
I Have An Idea
Why the hell haven't we sent Britney to Iraq? I mean Bush is ready to send everything not nailed down over there but we haven't sent this waste of air yet? And whatever happened to the USO? I mean I remember growing up watching all those Bob Hope specials of him traveling the American Empi--I mean the globe to entertain the troops, but now that we're actually in a war (sorta) the well's dried up? I mean you can't even get Carrot Top and Andy Dick over there?
Seriously, send Britney. These guys haven't seen a woman in make up and a thong in years. You see how hard up they are. And the worse that could happen? She gets shot and Bush gives her a medal posthumously. And the best? When she gets into a car accident she might hit a IED. Britney Spears--saving lives.
Seriously, send Britney. These guys haven't seen a woman in make up and a thong in years. You see how hard up they are. And the worse that could happen? She gets shot and Bush gives her a medal posthumously. And the best? When she gets into a car accident she might hit a IED. Britney Spears--saving lives.
Free The Jena 6
I can't really say why I haven't written about the Jena 6; but, looking at the picture across, I get some idea. It's a painful reminder of how slow racial attitudes change. Not only that but the Jena 6 situation is nothing new. I've grown numb from discussing racial issues. From Sean Bell, to Diallo, to friends who consistently get pulled over for DWB, every day some black or person of color faces discrimination in some form or another.
Megan gives a pretty good run down of the situation here, but I actually wanted to post up a comment which was left under her post. It's long but it's worth the read:
"Woo! There has been a LOT of heat on this topic.
I have a very libertarian attitude towards most issues, and I am a strong proponent of the right of self defense.
So here comes the radical part of my opinion: it is POSSIBLE that those 6 black youths should be COMMENDED and THANKED for showing REMARKABLE RESTRAINT under the circumstances.
"What", you ask, "is this guy a NUTCASE?"
Well, my wife may think so, but let me give you a "devil's advocate" argument.
This is the SOUTH we are talking about. Blacks were held as slaves there for hundreds of years, and white-on-black lynchings were both prevalent and accepted for most of the 20th century. A noose is not only a symbol of grotesque and horrific oppression and murder, it is also a WEAPON. And it is a weapon that has been used to DEADLY effect against thousands of innocent blacks across the South, for decades, even centuries.
When those kids hung a noose fom that tree, it was no different than if a bunch of Nazi skinheads in Germany held up swastica flags, waved around full canisters of Zyclon-B gas, and threatened to release it into a Jewish Highschool.
The black students at the school waited patiently for the wheels of justice to turn, and for the white students involved to be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to PRISON time (3 to 5 years each?) for assault. The justice system failed them UTTERLY.
Now, they were faced with a situation where they had been credibly threatened with murder, in a jurisdiction where the murder of blacks by whites was a socially acceptable hobby within living memory, and the forces of law enforcement had refused to either offer them protection or prosecute the offenders.
Individuals have a right to be secure in their persons. If the police refuse to do the job, then the individual if morally obligated to protect himself BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
I say that white kid got of lightly. I am Jewish. I am married with 4 children. If a Neo-Nazi ever threatened my wife or one of my children, he'd be lucky if all I did was kill him."
I have a very libertarian attitude towards most issues, and I am a strong proponent of the right of self defense.
So here comes the radical part of my opinion: it is POSSIBLE that those 6 black youths should be COMMENDED and THANKED for showing REMARKABLE RESTRAINT under the circumstances.
"What", you ask, "is this guy a NUTCASE?"
Well, my wife may think so, but let me give you a "devil's advocate" argument.
This is the SOUTH we are talking about. Blacks were held as slaves there for hundreds of years, and white-on-black lynchings were both prevalent and accepted for most of the 20th century. A noose is not only a symbol of grotesque and horrific oppression and murder, it is also a WEAPON. And it is a weapon that has been used to DEADLY effect against thousands of innocent blacks across the South, for decades, even centuries.
When those kids hung a noose fom that tree, it was no different than if a bunch of Nazi skinheads in Germany held up swastica flags, waved around full canisters of Zyclon-B gas, and threatened to release it into a Jewish Highschool.
The black students at the school waited patiently for the wheels of justice to turn, and for the white students involved to be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to PRISON time (3 to 5 years each?) for assault. The justice system failed them UTTERLY.
Now, they were faced with a situation where they had been credibly threatened with murder, in a jurisdiction where the murder of blacks by whites was a socially acceptable hobby within living memory, and the forces of law enforcement had refused to either offer them protection or prosecute the offenders.
Individuals have a right to be secure in their persons. If the police refuse to do the job, then the individual if morally obligated to protect himself BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
I say that white kid got of lightly. I am Jewish. I am married with 4 children. If a Neo-Nazi ever threatened my wife or one of my children, he'd be lucky if all I did was kill him."
Of course, this dude took heat because many people said that at the moment that the 6 assaulted the white student they were "secure in their persons". This is right and wrong at the same time. There's something that most white Americans, and really Americans can't and don't want to understand, and that is that many, many, many blacks and people of color live under constant fear for their life. As a black man living in the most liberal city in America (and maybe on the planet), I live in constant fear for my life. I have a feeling, which I keep hidden, mostly to maintain my sanity, that if a police officer, or really any white person wishes to do me harm they can do so at their whim. Let me repeat that: I feel that any white person can kill me and get away with it like their name was Scooter Libby. It doesn't matter if it was done in front of a crowd, or caught on video tape, if they wanna kill me they will and then go home to their house and eat a wholesome dinner with their family. And why do I feel this? Because the law is not applied equally. Some people want to throw up there hands and be apathetic, others claim that the inequity doesn't exist, but it does, and when injustice comes for you it doesn't care whether you see it approaching or not.
Maybe that's the main reason I am why I am. Maybe that's the reason why I rail off at Bush and his administration, or go bonkers when war profiteers who swindle the American public get off scot free, and yes, even when the Newsom murders are ignored in the media. Because when every one of those crimes go unpunished and ignored I feel a little less safe, and I feel that we get a tiny bit closer to a state of anarchy. Yes, if all things were equal then one could say that the Jena 6 were "secure" before their assault, but when the law isn't equally dispersed then one must become a vigilante and take their defense in their own hands. If I, feeling the way I do in NY, lived down there, I probably would have done the same thing, driven out of my mind with fear and rage. Terror is a powerful force, and not all of it comes from the Middle East.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A Nuclear Iran
Matt doesn't think it's a problem:
"Retired General and former CENTCOM CINC John Abizaid argues that we could live with a nuclear Iran. And, indeed, we could. Iran getting a nuclear bomb wouldn't be a threat to the United States and wouldn't even be an especially serious problem for Israel or any aspects of American power projections in the region.
"Somewhat ironically, I think getting clearer about this might make it easier to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Acting in an unduly paranoid manner about the Iranian nuclear program suggests to Iranians that there are some large gains that might accrue to their country from developing nuclear weapons. In fact, a nuclear weapons program would be a largely useless waste of money. The United States has good reason to worry about nuclear proliferation in general and, therefore, to worry about the Iranian program as an instance of the general phenomenon. But Iranian nuclear weapons, as such, aren't a big problem for us."
Sounds right to me. But try to convince McCain of it.
"Retired General and former CENTCOM CINC John Abizaid argues that we could live with a nuclear Iran. And, indeed, we could. Iran getting a nuclear bomb wouldn't be a threat to the United States and wouldn't even be an especially serious problem for Israel or any aspects of American power projections in the region.
"Somewhat ironically, I think getting clearer about this might make it easier to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Acting in an unduly paranoid manner about the Iranian nuclear program suggests to Iranians that there are some large gains that might accrue to their country from developing nuclear weapons. In fact, a nuclear weapons program would be a largely useless waste of money. The United States has good reason to worry about nuclear proliferation in general and, therefore, to worry about the Iranian program as an instance of the general phenomenon. But Iranian nuclear weapons, as such, aren't a big problem for us."
Sounds right to me. But try to convince McCain of it.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Must Read For Today
AL asks a question that is at the center of everything: Who are we fighting in Iraq?
Maybe I'm Being Sensitive But...
Not sure how many people heard about this story but on Long Island yesterday it was reported that one of the contestants on the TV show Top Chef, Josie Smith-Malave, who happens to be a lesbian, was beaten by a pack of thugs who screamed epithets at her and her friends while beating them up. Here's how the story was reported in the Post yesterday.
But today the follow up report was under this headline: Arrest in TV Chef's "Gay Bash". Ok, maybe I'm being sensitive (Fox News tells me that liberals have a tendency to be this way) but what's up with the quotation marks around Gay Bash? I mean, were the suspects quoted screaming "Gay bash!" as they beat her? Or was someone at the Post trying to be witty and make a pun on Chef? If so, the comedy was inappropriate, and just not funny. Or, worse yet, is the author trying to throw doubt as to whether the woman was gay-bashed at all? I've seen the quotation marks used in that manner. Either way it seems sort of offensive to me considering the subject matter. I mean how would it look if they published these headlines:
US Marine "murdered" in Iraq.
Woman gets "gang-raped" by twenty men.
Suspects in terror get "tortured". (Oh wait, they use that one in City Journal).
Anyway, you get the point. Maybe I am being sensitive, but well, whatever. Sue me.
But today the follow up report was under this headline: Arrest in TV Chef's "Gay Bash". Ok, maybe I'm being sensitive (Fox News tells me that liberals have a tendency to be this way) but what's up with the quotation marks around Gay Bash? I mean, were the suspects quoted screaming "Gay bash!" as they beat her? Or was someone at the Post trying to be witty and make a pun on Chef? If so, the comedy was inappropriate, and just not funny. Or, worse yet, is the author trying to throw doubt as to whether the woman was gay-bashed at all? I've seen the quotation marks used in that manner. Either way it seems sort of offensive to me considering the subject matter. I mean how would it look if they published these headlines:
US Marine "murdered" in Iraq.
Woman gets "gang-raped" by twenty men.
Suspects in terror get "tortured". (Oh wait, they use that one in City Journal).
Anyway, you get the point. Maybe I am being sensitive, but well, whatever. Sue me.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
On Another Side Note
I noticed that Masi Oka is up for an Emmy for his work on Heroes, but how don't you nominate the dude who played Sylar (Zachary Quinto)?
Except alot of brainless corpses to be lining that red carpet.
In any event, I'm pulling for William Shatner who's also up for an emmy in the same category.
Say What?
Putin dissolves Russian government:
"MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed his long-serving prime minister Wednesday and nominated little-known Cabinet official Victor Zubkov to replace him in a surprise move that could put Zubkov in the running to replace Putin next year.
After dismissing Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov -- triggering the government's automatic dissolution -- Putin explained the shakeup was required to "prepare the country" for forthcoming elections.
Legislative elections are to be held December 2, and presidential elections are expected three months later."
Business as usual in Russia. Note to Bush, probably not a great time to push the NATO missile shield.
"MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin dismissed his long-serving prime minister Wednesday and nominated little-known Cabinet official Victor Zubkov to replace him in a surprise move that could put Zubkov in the running to replace Putin next year.
After dismissing Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov -- triggering the government's automatic dissolution -- Putin explained the shakeup was required to "prepare the country" for forthcoming elections.
Legislative elections are to be held December 2, and presidential elections are expected three months later."
Business as usual in Russia. Note to Bush, probably not a great time to push the NATO missile shield.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Something Even More Tastless than Kayne?
How about vandalizing the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on 9/11?
Someone just bought a first class ticket to hell.
Someone just bought a first class ticket to hell.
Telling
Exchange between Petraeus and Warner:
""He [Warner] then asked Petraeus a pointed question: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?
Petraeus paused before responding. He then said: "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
That was, of course, a non-answer. And Warner wasn't going to let the general dodge the bullet. He repeated the question: "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"
Petraeus replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.""
My take? I think Petraeus has gotten a bad rap this last couple of weeks, especially with the farther left questioning his loyalty to the country, a charge that's both unwarranted and counterproductive. However his obstinate adherence to misleading statistics, his appearance on Fox News, and his robotic and ideological abstractions of the Iraq conflict lead me to believe that he's more interested in somehow figuring out a military solution as a academic exercise than looking at the problem in terms of the bigger picture of America and terrorism. Is he yet another talking head of the Bush administration? To me the court is still out on that, but that's really irrelevant anyway. We had more than enough info to decide to pull out before Petraeus delivered his report, and his presentation isn't convincing enough to change our minds. Maybe if he'd held up a vial of anthrax...oh, mah bad.
""He [Warner] then asked Petraeus a pointed question: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?
Petraeus paused before responding. He then said: "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
That was, of course, a non-answer. And Warner wasn't going to let the general dodge the bullet. He repeated the question: "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"
Petraeus replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.""
My take? I think Petraeus has gotten a bad rap this last couple of weeks, especially with the farther left questioning his loyalty to the country, a charge that's both unwarranted and counterproductive. However his obstinate adherence to misleading statistics, his appearance on Fox News, and his robotic and ideological abstractions of the Iraq conflict lead me to believe that he's more interested in somehow figuring out a military solution as a academic exercise than looking at the problem in terms of the bigger picture of America and terrorism. Is he yet another talking head of the Bush administration? To me the court is still out on that, but that's really irrelevant anyway. We had more than enough info to decide to pull out before Petraeus delivered his report, and his presentation isn't convincing enough to change our minds. Maybe if he'd held up a vial of anthrax...oh, mah bad.
Next Step--GI Joe
Edwards proposes a multilateral Counterterrorism organization:
"Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world."
I'm down, especially if it gets us closer to catching Cobra Commander--er, I mean Bin Laden.
Hat Tip: MY
"Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world."
I'm down, especially if it gets us closer to catching Cobra Commander--er, I mean Bin Laden.
Hat Tip: MY
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
When Good Friends Go Bad
Methinks Sully's shooting from the hip when he criticizes Matt's observation that US doctors overtreat patients:
"According to Matt, it's over-treatment. Yep: they're making us too healthy, those fee-based doctors. Can't have that, can we?"
The problem here is Sully's statement that they're making us 'too healthy' completely misconstrues Matt's observation:
"...I don't see any politicians wanting to tackle -- the fact that doctors frequently overtreat patients in ways that are sometimes directly harmful and even when not harmful per se, contribute to a terrible maldistribution of health care resources. That's not to say that America has "too much health care," but rather that at the same time as many Americans have too little health care other Americans are, in fact, getting too much. Doctors are, in essence, prescribing all the treatment that will get paid for -- which means too much treatment for people with a large ability to pay, and too little for people with little ability to pay."
Of course, that doesn't stop Sully from using his fallacious reasoning as a jump off to diss the entire idea of universal/ socialized/ any other type of health care policy other than what we have now:
"And who would be paying their salaries? The government of course, in some form or another, looking over doctors' and patients' shoulders to make sure they don't behave incorrectly, by over-prescribing, or prescribing one of those new, expensive drugs that actually cure or treat diseases. (Of course, if Matt and liberal Democrats have their way, there will be far far fewer new expensive drugs anyway.) It's often clarifying to see the leftist mind at work: we know best; the profit-motive is inherently suspect; doctors and patients cannot be trusted with their ow health decisions. Yes, I know insurance companies and HMOs make similar decisions. But if you think they're callous and irrational, wait till you give the same powers to Washington D.C."
Ooo the bogeyman! Watch out! Because the government can't be trusted with anything! Especially war, er I mean health care. Sure glad the government doesn't oversee the foods we eat or the cars or drive or anything like that--oh wait, they do? Damn you government! Damn you to hell!
(Short story: I have a friend who's had a drinking problem. He went to a doctor who sent him to AA and, after over a year of him not drinking still prescribes him nine different psychotropic medications. Now his hands shake worse than when he was withdrawing and he can barely formulate a sentence. But he leaves his faith in his doctors because, well they're doctors and they know best. Meanwhile he can't hold down a job. Now has he gotten better or worse? Overtreatment can be a problem, and even if it's not because of the influence and greed of the pharmaceutical industry, human arrogance can be just as dangerous.)
"According to Matt, it's over-treatment. Yep: they're making us too healthy, those fee-based doctors. Can't have that, can we?"
The problem here is Sully's statement that they're making us 'too healthy' completely misconstrues Matt's observation:
"...I don't see any politicians wanting to tackle -- the fact that doctors frequently overtreat patients in ways that are sometimes directly harmful and even when not harmful per se, contribute to a terrible maldistribution of health care resources. That's not to say that America has "too much health care," but rather that at the same time as many Americans have too little health care other Americans are, in fact, getting too much. Doctors are, in essence, prescribing all the treatment that will get paid for -- which means too much treatment for people with a large ability to pay, and too little for people with little ability to pay."
Of course, that doesn't stop Sully from using his fallacious reasoning as a jump off to diss the entire idea of universal/ socialized/ any other type of health care policy other than what we have now:
"And who would be paying their salaries? The government of course, in some form or another, looking over doctors' and patients' shoulders to make sure they don't behave incorrectly, by over-prescribing, or prescribing one of those new, expensive drugs that actually cure or treat diseases. (Of course, if Matt and liberal Democrats have their way, there will be far far fewer new expensive drugs anyway.) It's often clarifying to see the leftist mind at work: we know best; the profit-motive is inherently suspect; doctors and patients cannot be trusted with their ow health decisions. Yes, I know insurance companies and HMOs make similar decisions. But if you think they're callous and irrational, wait till you give the same powers to Washington D.C."
Ooo the bogeyman! Watch out! Because the government can't be trusted with anything! Especially war, er I mean health care. Sure glad the government doesn't oversee the foods we eat or the cars or drive or anything like that--oh wait, they do? Damn you government! Damn you to hell!
(Short story: I have a friend who's had a drinking problem. He went to a doctor who sent him to AA and, after over a year of him not drinking still prescribes him nine different psychotropic medications. Now his hands shake worse than when he was withdrawing and he can barely formulate a sentence. But he leaves his faith in his doctors because, well they're doctors and they know best. Meanwhile he can't hold down a job. Now has he gotten better or worse? Overtreatment can be a problem, and even if it's not because of the influence and greed of the pharmaceutical industry, human arrogance can be just as dangerous.)
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Heart Warming
A little lesson in the power of non-violent protest:
"Saturday May 26th the VNN Vanguard Nazi/KKK group attempted to host a hate rally to try to take advantage of the brutal murder of a white couple for media and recruitment purposes. Unfortunately for them the 100th ARA (Anti Racist Action) clown block came and handed them their asses by making them appear like the asses they were.Alex Linder the founder of VNN and the lead organizer of the rally kicked off events by rushing the clowns in a fit of rage, and was promptly arrested by 4 Knoxville police officers who dropped him to the ground when he resisted and dragged him off past the red shiny shoes of the clowns.
“White Power!” the Nazi’s shouted, “White Flour?” the clowns yelled back running in circles throwing flour in the air and raising separate letters which spelt “White Flour”.“White Power!” the Nazi’s angrily shouted once more, “White flowers?” the clowns cheers and threw white flowers in the air and danced about merrily.“White Power!” the Nazi’s tried once again in a doomed and somewhat funny attempt to clarify their message, “ohhhhhh!” the clowns yelled “Tight Shower!” and held a solar shower in the air and all tried to crowd under to get clean as per the Klan’s directions.
At this point several of the Nazi’s and Klan members began clutching their hearts as if they were about to have a heart attack. Their beady eyes bulged, and the veins in their tiny narrow foreheads beat in rage. One last time they screamed “White Power!”The clown women thought they finally understood what the Klan was trying to say. “Ohhhhh…” the women clowns said. “Now we understand…”, “WIFE POWER!” they lifted the letters up in the air, grabbed the nearest male clowns and lifted them in their arms and ran about merrily chanting “WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER! WIFE POWER!”
Maybe we haven't gone to hell just yet.Hat Tip: Digby
50 Cent is an Idiot
Says of Bush, "...is incredible… A gangsta. I wanna meet George Bush, just shake his hand and tell him how much of me I see in him."
Bush immediately made 50 Cent Attorney General.
Dear God, I hope Kenny Chesney whips his ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
