http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/veepbeat-caroli.html
Looking at this article indicates three things. 1. Obama coming home this weekend. 2. Caroline Kennedy coming to Washington for a fundraiser. 3. This is the big one, Patti Solis Doyle (chief of staff for the VP) is reporting that her hires come to work on that day.
This indicates an announcement is imminent, and I would not be surprised if it were this week.
Thoughts?
Here's the article, which seems to be based upon an interview John McCain did with Don Imus in 2006. Anyone know where to find full transcripts for Imus interviews?
I thought it was interesting since this was after things went from bad to worse in Iraq following the al-Askari Mosque bombing. Here are some choice quotes from the interview. I think we need a crowd-sourced effort to find more examples of how John McCain has been wrong about Iraq. Add your own below.
Asked if he envisioned a day when there
would be absolutely no American soldiers in Iraq, McCain told radio
host Don Imus: "Sure. When [the Iraqis] are able to govern themselves
and to take care of their own security responsibilities - which I don't
think that's way far off."
Its a tough time to be a Republican and it appears targeted GOP Senate candidates have little desire being photographed walking past Larry Craig's favorite restroom.
Among those who will not attend [the GOP nominating convention Saint Paul] are Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who is not close to presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who is a McCain loyalist. Stevens and Collins will use the convention week to focus on their campaigns.
Also sending regrets is former Rep. Bob Schaffer of Colorado, running for the seat being vacated by retiring GOP Sen. Wayne Allard.
Six others -- Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Gordon Smith of Oregon and challengers John Kennedy of Louisiana and Rep. Steve Pearce
of New Mexico are still on the fence. Their spokesman offered responses
ranging from "there are no plans yet" to "no decisions have been made."
This should be an interesting 100 days or so as we head into the conventions and the general election. Democrats have a lot of work to do between now and then, but it's a worthy exercise to remind ourselves now and again that although things may not appear to be going as we might like: it could be worse. Now is not the time to do our best Chicken Little impressions because hard work, perseverance and a firm commitment to our candidates will see us through the final push.
Now go make a contribution to your favorite Democrat, have a shot of good tequila, and keep the faith My Friends. (Oh shit, I think my McCainia is kicking in!)
Is this thing on? You know folks, I guess I love a good McCain joke as much as the next guy.
How many Senators does it take to work a John McCain puppet?
Two. Lindsay Graham in up to his elbows to work the arms and Joe Lieberman yanking on the "lever" to control the mouth.
How many aides does it take to work Cindy McCain?
None. She's just for show.
How do you know you've got genuine McCain puppet?
When it talks, it sounds just like George Bush.
What's worse torture than waterboarding?
Listening to a John McCain speech.
How do you know when your McCain puppet is broken?
When it starts making sense.
How high can a McCain puppet count?
Just up to 9, 11.
What does a McCain puppet say after taking Viagra?
The surge is working!
What's the difference between John McCain and Benito Mussolini?
Mussolini believed in timetables. (Oh come on, people... Mussolini made the trains run on time... oh please... they're not funny if I have to explain them to you.)
How can you tell John McCain just saw a black person?
He turns whiter than a KKK sheet.
What do John McCain and Peter Pan have in common?
They both wish they knew how to fly.
What do you call George Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain the day after the election?
Unemployed, Mr. President-elect and Old Fart.
What do you call John McCain's Veep choice?
His walking mate. Get it? Walking!!!!!
That's my set. Who's up next? Please tip your bartenders and waitstaff.
Hi there, come on in. Good to see you, how was your day? No, that's fine, just put it over there. Can I get you something? Sure, no problem. Grab a seat, I think you might be able to find one on the sofa. I'll be right back. Sox, will you please get down - yes they love you but ... fine, then. No, it's not OK, she's spoiled enough already!
It occurs to me that this may be my one month anniversary. I think I've been bothering you good people for 30 days with nightly posts. Been around longer than that, but started this nightly improbable blog about that long ago. Gosh. I took a bit of time to reflect and have to say I'm so impressed. I've heard from so many different folks, some have become regular friends, some have passed through with a thought or two. Some of the thoughts have been remarkable. Amazing. Thoughtful, insightful, personal, loving and absolutely incredible. Each and every one appreciated more than the participants can ever know. I sincerely thank you all.
Before I continue to occupy my little nightly piece of TPMCafe space, I feel the need to ask something. Please, be honest or the question has no worth. I'm not asking for praise just as I usually don't ask for (or want) recommends. Just what I always get from you great people; truth. Straight up.
Should I stop this?
John McCain has become increasingly negative and uncouth this election season.
The newest McCain attack ad, hitting Barack Obama for having the gall to follow instructions from the Department of Defense, is the nadir (to this point) for the McCain campaign.
However, I'm here to spread the good news about McCain's latest strategery. Folks, Obama's been through this before.
The better news? It's going to collapse under the weight of its own stupidity - just like before, too.
I know we've seen plenty of negative campaign ads before, and we've certainly seen a negative campaign with a consistent message win elections (see: 2004 Presidential election).
But there's always been a good, reliable counter to those ads: tell the truth, and stay on your own positive message.
The problem is that no candidate (in my recollection, anyway) has been really willing to stay above the mudslinging and instead hold up a mirror to the opponent's falsehoods and blunders.
This is exactly what Obama is doing this election season. And, despite the desire to give a "Chicken Little" clamor for some scathing response to McCain's sophistry, I'm now fully convinced that his campaign, by electing not to venture into the Republican gutter, is absolutely distinguishing itself from McCain. It is that distinction which will be most telling in the fall.
Remember, the whole Obama concept isn't about standing around, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya". The Obama concept is about elevating the political discourse beyond typical partisan sniping.
For all the complaints about Obama being a flip-flopper, he's been remarkably consistent about this. That consistency showed throughout the spring, and throughout the summer to this point.
Yes, Reichwingers will eat the ad up. But those were votes Obama wouldn't ever get anyway.
The only reason to do a response ad, therefore, is to reassure moderate and undecided voters. Of course, Obama can do that with a statement and a few supporting statements from other lawmakers.
McCain's ad is unworthy of a similar response. Remember: Never argue with a fool; otherwise, they'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
I, for one, have watched over 20 years of "bait-and-bitch" politics determine the course of our country's leadership. Now, I get to watch a candidate reject that tired old model (and its tired old candidate).
I have faith that Obama's new "aikido" approach to combating smears and lies will continue to be effective. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be the presumptive nominee.
I say, let McCain go negative as much as he wants. Obama will turn his lies and invective against him, using the truth, supported by easily produced displays of fact. The contrast between their approaches and levels of decorum will be vivid - and McCain's death knell.
So we're all familiar with McCain's infamous mix up of Sunnis and Shiites at this point. He stated that it was well documented that Al Qaeda from Iraq was traveling to Iran to receive training and then returning to Iraq, which is clearly impossible, unless the Sunnis and the Shiites have miraculously solved their age-old dispute.
What is most troubling to me isn't even that John McCain, self proclaimed foreign policy expert, mixed up very basic knowledge about the Middle East. What's most troubling to me is that in this mix up it's undeniably clear that McCain was trying to mislead the public. Obviously, he knew that it wasn't well documented in the media that Al Qaeda in Iraq was traveling to Iran. But he didn't know that his statement was an impossibility, meaning that the MSM could not have possibly documented it. So, he thought he could get away with saying that it was well documented in order to sway the public to his candidacy. Little did he know, he would be shown for the deceiver that he is.
Well it looks like the AP is calling it "all over but the shouting" in Iraq.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_an/iraq_winning_the_war
I have no idea if the story is true, but given the AP's record recently of being nakedly in the tank for McCain, (commenters: examples please!) I'm far from convinced.
And, of course, even if it is true, at what cost has this "fragile peace" come around five-and-a-half years later?
At least a million dead. 4K-plus American troops. A bill for the whole thing in the trillions.
And the biggest thing to remember is that we will be looking over our shoulders for several generations after this mess, even if all the best-case scenarios take place.
In Ken Kesey's last novel, "Sailor Song," (ealy 90s) he was fond of quoting the maxim, "After forty years the bedouin took his revenge."
Talking about the relative success of this mess after so many have been killed or displaced will once again turn the narrative, I'm afraid.
The story said the war "seemed lost" until recently. When did it seem lost? Sure the colossal blunders made it take years too long, but was there ever any doubt?
When this crime of a war started, there was a constant stream of coworkers going in to watch the TV that was set up specially for the purpose, for watching in between tasks.
A coworker said to me, "I heard we're bombing their Navy."
I said, "What is it, a bunch of rowboats?"
The fact that this has taken so long is an embarrassment, but nowhere near the embarrassment of the invasion taking place to begin with. Or the embarrassment of Colin Powell's UN presentation, for that matter.
And it is much more than embarrassment, isn't it? It's good, old fashioned shame. And it should be, for what has been wrought in our name.
But not to worry, according to the AP. The plucky underdogs managed to have an amazing reversal of fortune! McCain was right!
Ending (or at least slowing down) the slaughter of innocents is always something to be celebrated. But the context matters. And millions of malnourished, injured, maimed, psychologically damaged, and just plain exhausted Iraqi citizens later, McCain and Bush's victory seems immanent.
And what for, again? I seem to have forgotten.
No real mention of it in the AP story.
If you just want to start a playing WoW, the first thing you should do is to buy wow cd key.there are many diffirent places you can get the world of warcraft cd key, you are supposed to choose those they are professional, such as IGE,Item4u. they always provide in time and in a fair price.
This is the TOP Ranked Sites to Buy Rohan Gold!
Looking for the best places to buy Rohan gold? I have listed what I consider the best places to Rohan crone. I have used most of these companies for a long time in other games and these are good places to get in game currency and powerleveling. Companies that do not continue to perform well are removed from my list below.
As the game has just been released I have picked places that have gold or services available now and that have a good reputation in the MMO currency marketplace already. The best places are to buy Rohan crone may change a bit as I get feed back from visitors about these sites and recomendations for others. A few sites that I consider very good do are not setup to sell for Rohan at this time. When they are ready to sell I will be including them on the list below.
www.item4u.com
Considered one of the new kids on the block in comparison to IGE and Itembay ,Item4u begain its existance in 2006 and already offers online currency and services for many MMO games. Item4u claims it offers the best price, best service and fastest delivery. As we know not everyone can claim to offer the best prices in the market and have the best service so don't buy from them without checking the prices elsewhere.Item4u does seem to be making a lot of effort to improve itself and move up in the MMO marketplace. Definately check them out before you Rohan gold.
This is a letter of a marketplace site for aoc,i post this letter here in order to give these who wanna get aoc gold to get well known about the trade of aoc.
To all customers:
Thank you very much for your great support for our web such a long time. we are working harder and harder , and try to satisfy every customers to buy age of conan gold. At the same time, we also need your good suggestions for making our web better and better.. ^^
Important note for your security
After the delivery the age of conan gold, we will never take any refunds and also never ask for your password with any reasons. Please don't trust any one who ask you to give back the gp or password in the game! Long term trade based on the fair and safe environment.
We will verification your orders for age of conan gold. After payment is verified, orders will be delivered within 10 minutes of purchase. Please feel free to contact our customer service via our live chat system. Also, we will contact you by phone , email and live chat to arrange the delivery.
Buy online age of conan gold as low Pirce! We never rest so that we can offer you the best. We're here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Get the most out of your game time and lvl with the best!
For those who are inexperienced with purchasing the age of conan gold, age of conan Accounts and age of conan Powerleveling from The age of conan gold sellers, there are many The gold sellers that are frauds and scams that cannot be removed from the internet. Firstly, reviews of the age of conan gold sellers and hearing out what other customers have to say can be very helpful. Secondly, be sure to know the The age of conan gold sellers' policy, whether they offer any type of refunds, guarantees and where their the age of conan gold is obtained and etc. If the the age of conan gold is duped, you may be at risk of losing The age of conan gold or even getting your account banned. The refund policy also has an important role to judge the honesty of the age of conan gold seller.You can buy age of conan gold from our website. And if you have any question in your shopping process, please contact our online support asap. We should try our best to service you a happy shopping here.
Congressman King raised an objection at a House Judiciary hearing into the President's power, prompting us to understand the issues driving his objection: Iraq WMD, imminent threats, and war crimes.
Vincent Bugliosi was providing testimony to the House Judiciary Committee reviewing the President's abuse of power. Bugliosi is the author of the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.
The double talk in Washington was that this was a "review of power," when it sounded more like a discussion of the reasons to prosecute and/or impeach the President for war crimes.
The DoD emails show the shell game on Geneva was sophisticated.Bugliosi, when interrupted, said the intelligence community concluded in the National Intelligence Estimate that there was no imminent threat from Iraq.The propaganda focused on the possibility of mushroom clouds to
distract attention from no imminent threat of
mushroom clouds.
At 3:10 Congressman King interrupted Bugliosi, saying:
"The Gentleman is talking about classified information in this meeting."The NIE and an analysis of the dissents are declassified.
Lee wanted to know whether the deleted dissents were presented to the United Nations. Bugliosi said the dissents were not presented to the UN.
An analysis of the differences between the classified NIE and the white paper says:
"The Intelligence Community's elimination of the caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their judgments to the public"The National Security Archive summary of the analysis says
"Large sections of blacked-out discussion following the Committee's Conclusions . . . left out the caveats, hedged language, and dissents in the underlying intelligence. . ."This is a red herring. A close reading of the deleted text would not arrive at a different conclusion about the imminence of Iraq's military threat. The real issue isn't that the NIE language was or wasn't deleted or accurate. Rather, the United States government was indirectly providing its own intelligence community unreliable information, which others repeated as if fact.
The DoD emails show US-crafted propaganda was fed into the
intelligence community, then to Congress and the public. The inaccurate
information was given credibility merely because of its claimed
classification, not because it was accurate or a bonafide secret.
Feith revealed his (indirect) role in spreading information with this language, which does not expressly deny he was routing information through military analysts:
"Nor did the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy ever approve or adopt any of the draft opinions or conclusions in any of the resulting documents as OUSD(P) positions, views or conclusions." 13 of 53Feith's hedging is very similar to Rove's.
The real issue is not whether the NIE text was or wasn't accurate; but how the US government sidestepped the "imminent threat" requirement and used propaganda to mobilize the nation for illegal warfare.
Although the hearing was in the House, the problem extends into the
Senate. A casual review of the Senate Phase II highlights the problem.
We rejected the Senate version of the WMD intelligence analysis because of the convoluted investigation.
Congress is confused because it refuses to take time to sort through
the propaganda with a needed public impeachment investigation.
Evidence there was no imminent threat means the President could be
prosecuted for war crimes. The Geneva requires an imminent threat
before a nation may take pre-emptive military action.
Whether it be Campaign Finance commitments, speeches on foreign soil, incessant calls of flip-flopping, laughable charges of Media bias, or Senatorial voting records on troop support, John McCain has made it a policy to throw stones at campaign headquarters - a building made entirely of glass!
It gets even better (worse).
After last weeks U.S. Congressional Delegation, of which Sen. Obama was a part of, finished it's business in the Middle East, the senator took his campaign to Europe, to meet with the leadership in several countries, in an attempt to boost his Commander-in-Chief credentials.
During the latter part of the trip, visits to two Military bases were canceled. The campaign, in adherence to DoD policy, stated it wished to avoid any appearance of politicizing U.S. soldiers serving overseas. The trip was paid for with campaign dollars.
That didn't stop Camp McCain from attacking the senator for what it would likely characterize as Sen. Obama's disdain for the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces.
The only not so funny part about this is: Sen. McCain was well aware of the DoD policy and campaign etiquette that compels such a decision; so well in fact, that the senator himself canceled a similar trip just months earlier, citing a similar reason.
Facts aside, the McCain campaign has released a new video (not included for obvious reasons) attacking Sen. Obama on this issue.
The HuffingtonPost has done a fine job detailing this farce here.
Or here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-cancels-military-ba_n_114804.html
The surge <em>has not worked</em>. You are allowing McCain to frame the issue as if the point of the surge was reduction of violence.
You are allowing McCain to get away with the fact that the surge has gone on three times as long as it was supposed to.
You are allowing McCain to get away with the fact that to support the surge, the soldiers have been asked to give more and more with extended tours and recalls and that their families are bearing the burden for it.
You are allowing McCain to get away with the fact that troops are still being killed.
You are allowing McCain to get away with saying we need to "win" in Iraq without asking what "winning" is, every single time.
But most importantly, you are allowing McCain to get away with the fact that the entire point of the surge, facilitating political reconciliation, has not transpired! I think we are still well under half of the "benchmarks" set for <em>a year ago</em>.
The surge, which McCain pretends to have been his accomplishment, is a miserable failure.
Unfortunately got it from fox and now I have to take a shower.. but
The Urgent Queue...From Our Desk To Yours
Send news tip to FOXNews.com
if (subsection_id == 428) {
document.write('');
}
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > THE URGENT QUEUE...FROM OUR DESK TO YOURS
#minor{display:none;}
#breadcrumbs{display:none;}
//var RSSJSloc = "http://urgentqueue.tpa.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/";
RSSJSloc = "http://urgentq.foxnews.com/";
window.dhtmlHistory.create();
var yourListener = function(newLocation, historyData) {
checkHash();
}
window.onload = function() {
dhtmlHistory.initialize();
dhtmlHistory.addListener(yourListener);
checkHash();
};
{"DhtmlHistory_pageLoaded":true}
Obama campaign response to McCain's latest ad
Saturday, Jul. 26 2008
Obama campaign response to Senator McCains latest attack ad:
John McCain is an honorable man who is running an increasingly dishonorable campaign. Senator McCain knows full well that Senator Obama strongly supports and honors our troops, which is what makes this attack so disingenuous. Senator Obama was honored to meet with our men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan this week and has visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed numerous times. This politicization of our soldiers is exactly what Senator Obama sought to avoid, and it's not worthy of Senator McCain or the 'civil' campaign he claimed he would run, said Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor.
FLASHBACK - Senator McCain in 2007: How can we possibly find honor in using the fate of our servicemen to score political advantage in Washington? There is no pride to be had in such efforts. We are at war, a hard and challenging war, and we do no service for the best of us-those who fight and risk all on our behalf-by playing politics with their service. [Congressional Record, 5/24/07]
MCCAIN TROOPS ADWATCH
More Headlines
A Different Reality: The Right Dodges the Point, Again.
New Wall Street Journal/ Washington Post Poll: …You’ll Never Guess!
McCain Flips, or Flops (Depending on how you look at it!) Endorses 16 mo. Timeline: Winning Is Everything!
Dali Lama: “Sen. McCain’s Stance on War and Peace Matters a Bit Unenlightened.”
McCain on Dali Lama: “Peace? Yeah, Look How Far That Has Gotten Him.”
Karl Rove, allegedly a traitor and complicit with war crimes planning and election fraud, was the target of another citizen's arrest in Iowa. Rove is alleged to have been complicit with Nuremberg-like war crimes planning, illegal retaliation against prosecutors, and illegal domestic propaganda.
In written responses to the House Judiciary Committee, Rove provided incomplete denials to questions about his alleged complicity with illegal prosecutions. Rove's legal counsel are members of the President's domestic military analyst program.
DOJ OLC memos reminded civilian policy makers and advisors they could be subject to war crimes indictments. If convicted of these alleged war crimes, Rove could be sentenced to the death penalty.
In Rife, he Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the applicable Iowa statute:
"Iowa Code section 804.9 governs the arrest of persons by private individuals. . . .A citizen may make an arrest for any public offense if the offense is "committed or attempted in the [citizen's] presence." . . .Earlier, in May 2008, Rove's arrest warrant was referred to as a "Citizen's Arrest Complaint" and specifically mentioned allegations of treason, fraud, and conspiracy. The written complaint had a typographical error, citing the US Code, calling it 19.371, instead of 18 USC 371.
However, if the public offense is a felony, a less stringent standard
is imposed. If the offense constitutes a felony, the citizen must only
possess reasonable grounds to believe the person to be arrested
committed the felony." (Rife v. Corner,641 N.W.2d 761, Iowa Supreme Court, Filed 2002)
In our heart of hearts, we know the media narrative of this election has little to do with the media's infatuation with John McCain. It goes much deeper than that. If Rudy Giuliani had won the republican nomination, rather than McCain, the media would be feeding us a constant stream of how Giuliani is a hero and America's mayor. Or if Mitt Romney had won, we would be hearing repeatedly how unlike Barack Obama, Romney was a governor, thus prepared with executive experience to handle the economic crisis. Even if Fred Thompson were the republican nominee, the media would be hailing Thompson's steady hand and experience. The reality is that whoever became the republican nominee, they would now be receiving the adoration and cover from the media. The narrative would change slightly, but the goal and purpose would remain the same. All that McCain's nomination does is make it easier for the media, because they've been covering for him for decades.
As the McCain Campaign train wreck lumbers on, thoughts are turning to just who John McCain will pick as his vice presidential running mate.
Names are being bandied about like Bobby Jindal, the excorcist governor of Louisiana, Rudy Giuliani, a very long shot, Joe Lieberman, not gonna happen as he votes democrat on every domestic issue and he cannot deliver CT or the Jewish vote, Mitt Romney, another long shot as he can't deliver MA and Southern voters despise him, choosing instead to cast their vote for Mike Huckabee, who is another non-starter as VP, as he is basically a populist on domestic issues and an unknown on foreign policy, a consideration for all vp's as big mac is one beat away from the grave with that temper of his and the stress of the job...
So who do we have? Crist is in the running and would be a safe bet as he may be able to deliver FL and has solid conservative credentials, at least viewed through the lens of the RNC. However, his foreign policy credentials are also suspect and he'll work hard to deliver FL anyway, if not as hard.
There's Fiorini, the RNC Chair from Missouri, who may help deliver MO another must win for McCain, but also brings little else to the table.
Condi Rice you say? Highly doubtful as she is viewed primarily as a Bush enabler and bears much responsibility for the poor conduct of the war. She's black and a woman, but, I would venture to say she's not all that popular with blacks or women. Another non-starter.
Which brings us to Tim Pawlenty, governonr of Minnesota, another must win state for McCain but a pick who would deliver nothing else nationally, and former DHS head Tom Ridge.
Ridge largely survived with his reputation intact from his tenure in the Bush administration. He has national stature, and though he doesn't have the campaign apparatus to deliver a key state, like the governors, he brings much needed experience which should soothe the lingering concerns voters will have over the imminence of a McCain death.
So, by way of process of elimination, I am pleased to go on record with my prediction that McCain's VP pick will be Tom Ridge.
It is important to remember that McCain needs to make a very solid choice because there are reasonable assumptions he will die in office. He also has to make a pick that will actually help him get votes, because he needs every vote he can get. Obama can carry the ticket no matter who he picks. McDepends Underpants can't. It ain't fair, but it's true.
Recall that part of McCain's charm to independents is he is perceived as a "maverick" republican. this helps because the republican brand has become toxic. mccain may be able to distance himself from the republican party, but, will his VP pick be able to do the same.
In this election year, two republicans are worse than one.*
*Tom Ridge again is useful in this respect as he is Republican of national stature with a thin veneer of competence. That alone is enough to offer some insulation from the fact that he is republican.
Here are my picks for election music: songs about politics, peace, rights, the media, and other election-related things. If you have any political music favorites on your iPod or Victrola, would appreciate your countersuggestions.
10. Heaven 17, “(We Don’t Need This) Fascist Groove Thang”, Penthouse and Pavement (1981). The best little-known New Wave album of the early New Wave. Asks “Have you heard it on the news/about this fascist groove thing/evil men with racist views/spreading all across the land” and warns that “Reegan’s President-elect/fascist god in motion.” Plus, it’s got a good beat, and you can dance to it.
9. Green Day, “Basket Case,” Dookie (1994). “Do you have the time/to listen to me whine/about nothing and everything all at once/I am one of those/melodramatic fools/neurotic to the bone no doubt about it/sometimes I give myself the creeps/sometimes my mind plays tricks on me/it all keeps adding up/I think I’m cracking up/am I just paranoid?” Who knew they were writing songs about the liberal blogosphere in 1994? Amazing.
8. Don Henley, “Dirty Laundry,” I Can’t Stand Still (1982). Is there a more pointed critique of the media in a cool song? “We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing/when it’s said and done we haven’t told you a thing/we all know that crap is king/give us dirty laundry.” Maybe in Elvis Costello’s “Brilliant Mistake” from King of America (1986): “She said that she was working for the ABC News/It was as much of the alphabet/as she knew how to use…” Nah, sticking with Henley.
7. Carly Simon, “You’re So Vain,” No Secrets (1972). When asked during an early 2008 debate about his decision to run for President, Barack acknowledged that there’s certainly an element of vanity in politics. This of course is true. I dig the song, it’s a sensually delivered, bitter rant, kind of like an opulent red wine. Or whine.
6. 10,000 Maniacs, “Peace Train,” In My Tribe (1987). Brilliant cover of the Cat Stevens song, but removed from In My Tribe in 1989 when Stevens supported Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Those later events aside, this is a seriously cool track, since made available on the 2004 compilation Campfire Songs.
5. Goldfrapp, “Ooh La La,” Supernature (2005). More infectious than I Am Legend and 28 Days Later combined. Great loud car song, to enjoy your $4 a gallon 2008 gasoline as you cruise and kick back.
4. They Might Be Giants, “James K. Polk,” Istanbul (Not Constantinople) EP (1990). How can you not like a song that frankly begins, “In 1844, the Democrats were split/with three nominees for their Presidential candidate” and ends with “in four short years he met his every goal/he seized the whole southwest from Mexico/made sure the tariffs fell/and made the English sell/the Oregon Territory/he built an independent treasury/having done all this he sought no second term.” But then, my monicker Articleman is drawn from TMBG’s Particle Man (“what’s he like/it’s not important/Particle Man”) so I’m biased.
3. Moby & Public Enemy, “Make Love Fuck War,” (2004). A postmodern Give Peace a Chance, with a pleasant grind. “Make love, fuck war, peace will save us.” This is wicked dance floor material, even better for workouts. It got me through the Pennsylvania primary season every day at 6 a.m.
2. The Clash, “Know Your Rights,” Combat Rock (1984). “Know your rights. All three of them!” Which the Clash then list helpfully for you. “Number 3: You have the right/to free speech/as long as you’re not dumb enough/to actually try it.” If there is a better anthem for civil libertarians, I have never heard it.
1. Public Enemy, “Fight the Power,” Fear of a Black Planet (1989). “Yet our best trained, best equipped, best prepared troops refused to fight. In fact, it’s safe to say that they would rather switch! Than fight.” One of the most influential rap songs ever recorded, hot, nasty, timeless. Get ready for August 28, the 45th anniversary of I Have a Dream, and fighting the power every day through November 4.
This thread shares ideas to support Jane Hamsher. She and others hope to remove from office Member of
Congress who are complicit with this President on FISA violations. This government remains a growing threat to our rights.
Members of Congress cannot be trusted and should be voted out of office. The effort to unseat Members of Congress crosses political lines. Members of Congress have refused to respond to a public demand for impeachment.
The public must discuss removing Pelosi as Speaker, and directly electing the Speaker to ensure accountability. Regardless Congressional inaction, this sitting President must be prosecuted outside impeachment, outside Congress.
The Congress has failed to defend the Constitution, and has engaged in treason. Our duty as citizens is to criticize America, it's government, and its leadership when, as now, it loses its way.
Every member of Congress must support impeachment and checks and balances; or they must be voted out of office.Private citizens, especially when illegally held to account for exercising
"Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance"American citizens cannot silently accept or tolerate this reckless
The Headlines You Wish You Saw
McCain: “Yeah But, This Election Isn’t About Me!”
Metaphor Schmetaphor: Don’t Mistake ‘One Worldness’ with Strong, Cooperating International Allegiances.
Election 2008: Arrogance Vs. Incompetence – You Decide!
McCain Campaign Makes Its Case: If You Disagree, You’re a Traitor!
A Cranky Sen. McCain to Address Press After Nap
Nationwide, Americans Wonder Why Karl Rove is Still Talking.
Poll Shows 99% of Americans Unhappy With Today’s Economy, Other 1% Too Rich To Care.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) plans to introduce legislation to give tomato growers and shippers $100 million in compensation for their losses due to the recent salmonella outbreak.
The WSJ states that the FDA has listed its ban on the tainted vegetable, while the CDC says that there still may be more cases not yet reported which resulted from tomatoes. More than 1200 people were sickened in this latest produce disaster.
Congress has scheduled several hearings next week concerning the salmonella outbreak and why thee was such a lengthy delay in determining the cause.
The sought-after amount is based on an estimate from Florida growers and includes crops abandoned in the field, products thrown out by retailers and tomatoes forced to be sold as low as $5 a box, compared with as much as $20 in a normal market, said Reggie Brown, executive vice president of the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, a cooperative of tomato farmers. The Agriculture Department hasn't released a firm estimate of the cost to farmers or distributors.Call me crazy, but shouldn't we try to figure out exactly what happened first, before we opt to shovel $100 million dollars to any industry? Especially one which may be at fault?
Consumer advocates oppose the bill. Sarah Klein, a staff attorney at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the food-industry lobby over the years has weakened federal food-safety oversight, and consumers shouldn't foot the bill now. "We'd like to see the industry focusing on how to prevent these outbreaks for the future to protect consumers and their bottom line," she said.Gee, you don't say?
As if all open mikes lead to gaffes, the AP story, headlined "Caught on tape: Obama privately discusses a need for time to think when in the White House," covers it as if were a flub for the candidate. They suggest this because in response to a question about time off from David Cameron, Conservative MP in the UK, he was heard saying that, yes, he plans to take a week off in August. Obama adds, in response to further comments from Cameron, that based on the experience of earlier presidents, he is sure he'll crave "chunks" of time to think if he makes it to the White House.
I am amazed that from these largely innocuous remarks, a gaffe by Obama is conflated.
This attitude, though, is really becoming typical of the AP, under Ron Fournier with his noticeable tilt toward the Republicans. Readers will recall his email w/Karl Rove exchange where Fournier sucked up to Rove, and weirdly praised Pat Tillman in a creepy way.
Hmm, maybe Fournier should have done some reporting on the cover-up of Tillman's friendly fire killing,
instead of praising Rove about it.
Philip Turner
It is not my kind of America. Should Gotalife's hate speech be even allowed?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/meet-his-brother.php
Some Times' columnists I simply loathe (Maureen Dowd). Some I have mixed feelings about. Bob Herbert is one of those. At times, he seems to overreact, and, to echo conventional wisdom.
Today, though, his column on John McCain is a must-read.
He summarizes, in a single column, everything that voters should be deeply worried about with respect to a McCain presidency. He lists the persistent slip-ups with respect to foreign policy, describing the gaffe about Iran training al Qaeda like this:
"Mr. McCain has had trouble in his public comments distinguishing Sunnis from Shiites and had to be corrected in one stunningly embarrassing moment by his good friend Joe LiebermanMr. McCain has had trouble in his public comments distinguishing Sunnis from Shiites and had to be corrected in one stunningly embarrassing moment by his good friend Joe Liebermanv"
All the slip-ups are there.
Most importantly, however, is the fact that Herbert focuses on the one thing that should send shivers up people's spines: his temper. Pete Domenice is quoted as saying he decided he didn't want McCain near any trigger.
The entire column is a devastating critique of John McCain. Hopefully, some of it will stick in the minds of the voters. I highly recommend reading it, and e-mailing it to as many people as you can.
I don't know how to do links in blog posts, so I'll just include the address here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Today’s topic: How a reSURGEnt economy IS WORKING for you
Managing a robust economy like the one we enjoy here in the United States is like brain SURGEry. For it to be SUCCESSFUL it must be left in the hands of professionals.
To the non-economist or non-Presidential candidate, soaring gaS prices, a failing hoUsing market, Rising unemployment fiGurEs And bearish stock market might JUST seem like a CAUSE for alarm. As we’ve tried to point out in the past, this is all in your head.
So it is with Some URGEncy that I ask you all to STOP THINKING negatively. Our next President, John Sidney McCain, has a plan. FOCUS ON getting him elected and THE economy, like the sun, will rise GLORIOUS and reSURGEnt once again, as God as ordained.
Recently I’ve made comments about the increasing trivialization of politics. My examples were the Nation magazine’s sex column and TMZ, a syndicated celebrity show, which had mused about coming to Washington to chase around the nation’s political class, which pretty much means getting into politicians’ sex life.
Well, an epiphany occurred to me while listening to the Diane Rehm Show’s “Friday News Roundup” sextion, uh, section. (DRS Hour 1 Fri 07-25-2008)
One of the panel’s commentators, Tony Blankley, referred to the media "fellatus coverage" of Obama’s overseas jaunt. Fellatus is the polite Latinate form of the male specie's most favorite sex act after the old in-out, in-out. You know, head.
Well, maybe there is something to this sex and politics business. After all, the McCain campaign had released a video critical of the media called “Obama Love.”
Obama truly unnerves the GOP and the broader conservative movement. That Obama, often called the rock star of American politics, attracts large, adoring, worshipful crowds and has a formidable political apparatus has caused some on the right side of the political aisle to quiver.
This is truly an interesting stretch of logic, given how often Obama is cited as the most liberal member of the Senate. Yet one should not be too surprised about that given how Jonah Goldberg has uniquely cited the rise of, the instinct for fascism on the left.
Media Matters has often noted this comparison, how various conservative chatter-heads have invoked a comparison between Obama and Hitler, or how his crowds of admirers echo the Nazi rallies.
Blankley’s consciously contemptuous characterization of the media may have unconsciously disclosed something else.
What truly unnerves conservatives about Obama is that he, like the conservatives’ favor iconic politician, Ronald Reagan, gives good head. You listen and observe, and, to some degree, Obama either tells you what you want to hear, or you hear what you want to believe.
It’s a seduction; and, to borrow from Prince, morning, noon and night, he gives you head. The next day, you wake up and say, “Yes, I can.”
In others words, Obama is a master communicator, giving people food for thought, talking to them as if they were adults (the only people who are sanctioned to receive head).
To be blunt and crude: he gives them a good mental fuck, rather than fucking with their minds.
What he says, to varying degrees, makes sense to people. People listen to his words and hear something that they like about the man. He gives good head, good intellectual head, as well as food for the heart and soul.
Republicans, the conservatives, have always argued that ideas do matter, and the only way for ideas to be received is through one's head. Obama’s basic idea is that we ought to come together as a nation--regardless of race and ideology, sex and gender--to solve some basic American problems.
There hasn’t been a master communicator like this since Reagan (and Bill Clinton), and that’s what scares the Republicans. They know that any meaningful political realignment in American politics, such as FDR’s “New Deal” or the “Reagan revolution,” requires a masterful articulator who inspires and explains to people his agenda.
Obama is a man who gives hope as well as good head; good, intellectual, soulful head.
"Bernard converted to Islam 18 years ago. The dad of one said: “I’m a Muslim, I don’t deny it. My father was raised a Muslim.
“But it’s not an issue. I don’t know what all the hullabaloo is about.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/the_real_american_idol/article1472877.ece
Well, the numbers who think BO is a Muslim will increase dramatically after the conventions.
The corporate media will turn on him and the old guy will win.
There are no Muslims or radical spiritual advisers in her family and she is the same candidate you know from the primary.
Oh well, in the next cycle , dems may want to win this time and nominate her.
John McCain is breaking up with the media. He spent the last decade flirting and cultivating that relationship, but the media has found a younger and more attractive focus of its affection... and McCain is pissed. 10 years of being the most frequent political guest on the Sunday talk shows... wasted. The same media that he has called his "base" is flirting with someone else. That relationship, that books have been written about, seems to be coming unglued. Like many spited lovers, McCain first tried to avoid his partner. Then he made fun of the new relationship. When that didn't work, he turned to scorn... calling his traveling press the JV squad and giving them snarky luggage tags. Let's hope he doesn't become a bunny boiler.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING POST CONTAINS EXTENSIVE SPOILERS OF THE DARK KNIGHT. DO NOT READ ANY MORE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MOVIE.
I hope that warning is sufficient, but let me reiterate, I will be discussing the film candidly and completely without any attempt to conceal what occurs at any point, including the end. Let me say also that this is not a review of the movie but an analysis of its politics. My review of The Dark Knight needs only two words: Absolutely brilliant. I highly recommend it. With that in mind, let's turn to the politics.
The Dark Knight has already garnered a lot of attention. From Heath Ledger's death, to his performance, to its record breaking opening weekend, the movie was always going to create debate and discussion. And since it opened, the discussion has predictably turned to its politics
A commentator in the Wall Street Journal appears to be the first person to assert that Batman is represents President Bush. Despite the stupid superficiality of the argument in the WSJ, the argument has been adopted even by some left leaning commentators, including Open Left and Matt Yglesias. Even at Slate, their culture critics have called the film's politics "incoherent."
I disagree. The film is coherent and Batman does not represent George Bush.
I realize that it may be easy to make the mistake so many other commentators have made because the movie clearly does have something to say about our current politics and the war on terror. Simplistic interpretations are going to be advanced first, and that is what we are dealing with right now.
The WSJ's argument goes like this:
Batman represents Bush because Batman is willing to go outside the law to meet terrorists "on their own terms." Batman, the character, realizes that a free society sometimes must fight those who would destroy it through means that it normally finds unacceptable. Batman is a vigilante who operates without concern for civil rights or civil liberties in order to stop the plots of dangerous terrorists like the Joker.
Before we go any further, it is important to note that the commentator at the WSJ does nothing to justify this interpretation of the film through reference to the film itself. There is no analysis of the events in the movie or explanation for why this interpretation is appropriate to the plot. Thus, one's initial position on this interpretation should be one of skepticism
In order to develop a more serious understanding of the film, there are three significant points that must inform our interpretation. First, this is a movie that draws on a long and well established Batman mythology, and this mythology goes beyond the film. Second, the film itself is a creative work with its own story that is comprehensible without reference to politics. Third, nonetheless, this film is trying to say something about our politics and the war on terror.
Most commentators do not appear willing to allow these three interpretive principles, but each is crucial. I think many people are led astray on the second point, so let me explain its significance.
There are many movies that are transparently about the war on terror. These include things like "Rendition," "Lions for Lambs," and "Redacted." These movies have addressed the war on terror directly, and generally have failed to gain any popular attention or critical praise.
At the WSJ, the commentator argues that these are unsuccessful because
they are left leaning movies that attempt to establish moral
equivalence between the United States and Islamic terrorists.
However, this point is disproven by another set of left leaning movies like "Children of Men" and "Pan's Labyrinth," and TV shows like "Battlestar Galactica." All of these movies talk about the war on terror, take left leaning positions and have been generally very successful and received critical praise.
The reason is that these movies tell a story within an independent artistic framework. Although they address the war on terror, they do so while also telling a story that is unrelated to the war on terror.
This is important because it will often ensure that the filmmakers do not fall into common political positions. It is very easy to simply repeat the political debates we have on a daily basis in a movie that is about events mimicking those that occur on a daily basis. A story that is about something else, however, offers the opportunity to develop a different perspective on those debates. And a different perspective allows us to reassess, reinterpret, and refine our beliefs.
The Dark Knight is this sort of movie. It has a story to tell about superheroes and villains in a sprawling city. That story is not about terrorism, and its elements simply do not map cleanly onto the aspects of the war on terrorism.
In order to see that we must now turn to the film itself. So, let me once again reiterate:
SPOILERS FOLLOW. DO NOT READ MORE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN THE DARK KNIGHT. THERE WILL BE NO MORE WARNINGS.
In the broad strokes, The Dark Knight is a story about Batman's struggle to bring the Joker to justice. I hope that I can convince you of my position through reference to the movie. Thus, I am going to begin by discussing some of the characters and then move on to specific plot points. I will finish with some general thoughts on the movie as a whole and on the other political interpretations.
Batman, of course, is Bruce Wayne, multi-billionaire playboy industrialist. From the Batman mythology, and the previous film, we know that his parents were killed by criminals when he was a child and this has led him to seek revenge through vigilantism. He has extensive martial arts training, but he is also a detective, using forensics as much as brute force to catch criminals. We know that he does not kill indiscriminately, but rather incapacitates criminals and turns them over to the police. The real villains often end up in Arkham Asylum.
This allows the first departure from the Bush-is-Batman argument. The WSJ argument in part maintains that Bush is Batman because both go outside the law in order to fight terrorism. There are two reasons this analogy does not function. First, as others have noted, as a private person, Batman is not bound by the same laws as government officials. This is a simple argument and I assume it is accepted.
Second, and more importantly, Batman does not have the same relationship with the law as Bush, or to put it another way, their motivations are different. Bush has chosen to go outside the law because he believes the law to be unnecessarily constraining--that the actual terms of the law do not allow him to fight terrorism effectively. It should be noted, of course, that instead of changing the law, Bush has chosen to just violate it.
Batman, however, must go outside the law not because the law is unnecessarily constraining, but because the police and officials responsible for enforcing the law are themselves corrupt and criminal. They cannot be trusted because they are only pursuing their own interests.
Although this point derives from the pre-existing Batman mythology, it is repeatedly made in the film. Bruce Wayne/Batman works with Jim Gordon because he knows he is clean and can trust him. In the film, Batman/Wayne works to find out if he can trust Harvey Dent, the new district attorney. Bruce Wayne can see a time when he can stop being Batman, because he believes that Harvey Dent will be a public hero who upholds the law honestly. Later in the movie when Batman catches Dent about to torture one of Joker's henchmen, he stops Dent and explains that everything would be lost if anyone had seen Dent.
This is all a way of showing that Batman actually believes in the law. He believes in the goodness of society and decent order. But criminals--corrupt officials--undermine that goodness and destroy the order. This is not Bush's view of the law, and it is not his motivation in breaking it. Batman is fighting to restore the power of the law. Bush has struggled to weaken it.
The Joker is an anarchistic criminal who appears without warning to
wreak havoc on Gotham first by taking over the criminal underworld and
later through random killings and attempts at mass murder. The Joker
is not just unknown
but unknowable. He has no fingerprints, his clothes don't even have
tags, and he never tells a true story about himself. Without
explanation, the Joker simply is.
He does not seek money or power, only disorder. The Joker exists to show that despite our pretensions to law and a liberal order, society is only inches away from collapse. This is why he offers public rewards for killing other characters, so that society will give up its own rules and turn on itself. This is why he plants bombs on the two ferries--to make people face horrible choices, and he hopes, to get them to make those choices.
So, the Joker is in some ways a fair approximation of Islamist terrorists. For we often cannot understand their motivations and they can seem bent on destroying us. But I hope it is also clear that this is not a clean match for terrorists either. Joker does not demand anything of society, he just wants to play games.
Harvey Dent is the good lawyer, the good official. He believes in the law, and if Batman has his way, Dent would be the symbol that brings Gotham back from the edge of collapse. Dent tries to clean up the city through the law and without fear. He faces down death threats, he indicts multiple mobsters on hundreds of criminal charges, and he places himself in direct danger to catch the Joker.
Who could he possibly represent in the Bush administration? Or in the war on terror? If we want to make a direct analogy to our current politics as the WSJ argument would have us do, then there is no explanation for Harvey Dent. Dent is not George Bush, he is not Alberto Gonzalez or John Ashcroft or Michael Mukasey. One might argue that he is part of the independent artistic project of the movie and thus can be ignored in a political interpretation. I will return to this argument later, but for now it is sufficient to say that it is mistaken.
Let's turn to some plot points beginning with Dent. Perhaps the most important aspect of Dent's story line is that he and his girlfriend, Rachel Dawes, are kidnapped by the Joker, and tied to bombs. Rachel is killed in an explosion, but Dent is burned on half his body and becomes Two-Face.
One might point out that this experience forces Dent to face the relentless reality of the Joker's terrorism, and that Dent spends the remainder of the movie ruthlessly killing the people, including police officers, who helped the Joker. In other words, Dent, the honest district attorney, sees the limits of the law and chooses to operate outside of it.
That is a fair interpretation, but it does not account for all relevant circumstances. Once again, it was corrupt cops who helped the Joker--public officials in part led to the creation of Two-Face. This reinforces the above point about the position of the law in the Batman universe. The law itself is good, but the people charged with enforcing it are corrupt.
Second, we must acknowledge that Batman stops Dent from torturing one of Joker's henchmen. In doing so, Batman tells Dent how important it is that he remain clean, that he still stand up for the law, and that he not treat the henchmen that way. Furthermore, Batman chides Dent for wanting to torture a man who is a paranoid schizophrenic--a man who wouldn't be able to provide any information even if he had it. This Batman is against torture.
The counterpoint is, of course, that later in the movie Batman actually beats Joker in order to get him to reveal whe
