Thursday, January 17, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
