By Michael J.W. Stickings
(Whoops. I missed this one last week. It's another racist doozy from the GOP.)
Last week, anti-tax fanatic and fantasist Grover Norquist told the L.A. Times that Obama is "John Kerry with a tan." (h/t: The Stump)
(Yeah, and if only all those Negroes hadn't spent so much time out in the sun, maybe there wouldn't have been that whole slavery thing.)
Now, Grover had all sorts of nice things to say about Lousiana Governor (and possible veep pick) Bobby Jindal, he of East Indian descent. I suppose it's okay to be a wannabe Ronald Reagan with a tan.
For Grover, it seems, money is thicker than race.
**********
Over to you, Johnny McBush: Now that you're best buddies with Grover and the crazies at Americans for Tax Reform -- flippin' and floppin' on Bush's plutocratic tax cuts aside -- would you care to respond?
Not that you're responsible for everything your supporters say, of course -- but perhaps you'd like to distance yourself a bit from such bigotry?
Or is it just part of the usual GOP smear campaign to you?
Monday, June 30, 2008
Bang the drum slowly
By Capt. Fogg
Barack Obama, we're told, rejects General Wesley Clark's opinion that John McCain's service in Vietnam, an important qualification for people who think dropping bombs is good presidential training, doesn't necessarily make for a good Commander-in-Chief. I agree.
Obama, of course can't say what he means, lest every word be twisted and used against him in the court of sleazy hyperbolic rhetoric and patriotism, but why would McCain's particular military experience teach him any of the many, many things a President should be expert in? Yes, it's a real military experience, unlike Bush's, but it didn't teach him all about the military industrial complex, the inner workings of the Pentagon and the other entities a president has to be able to work with and control. He is no expert on strategy, or policy or logistics or anything in fact other than the piloting of now obsolete aircraft to drop bombs on civilians.
Even if we insist that military command experience is a great teacher, John McCain is no Eisenhower and John McCain doesn't seem to have gained any real understanding of the problems of military personnel or veterans, at least far enough to have firm, clear and expressed opinions about things like the Geneva Conventions and the treatment of prisoners. He has little enough to impress us with and so we will hear more about the background he has and not about the background he should have had.
We were told years ago, when the simple mindedness of George W. Bush became apparent, that he would pick good advisers and so it didn't matter that he had no knowledge of world affairs, economics, history, and trivia such as constitutional law. He would pick good advisers. It's redundant in the extreme to repeat the results of his advisers' bad advice. Are we poised to repeat the same mistake by electing McCain? Who would his advisers be, TV evangelists? Defense contractor lobbyists?
I confess that my bias is toward intellect; toward people who ideas are relatively straightforward, but not simplistic and emotionally based. I prefer people who are actively learning rather than "taking a stand." I far prefer someone who speaks as the intellectual equal to the best of us and not just like the boys at VFW hall. If any presidency has demonstrated that "regular guyness" is not only insufficient but dangerous, it's our current one. Let's not do it again.
An old saw has it that to a carpenter, every problem is fixed with a hammer. Can our problems best be solved with bombs according to McCain's military training? Will our problems be solved by using powerful family connections, abandoning past commitments and getting into bed with someone wealthy the Way John solved his? Perhaps so. George Bush also tried to solve our problems, and the problems he created, according to his military background: that is to say, with lies, cover-ups, shredded records, invented stories and massive secrecy using the aid of powerful and wealthy allies. That's pretty much what he did during his brief and disastrous business adventure as well. Let's not do it again.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Barack Obama, we're told, rejects General Wesley Clark's opinion that John McCain's service in Vietnam, an important qualification for people who think dropping bombs is good presidential training, doesn't necessarily make for a good Commander-in-Chief. I agree.
Obama, of course can't say what he means, lest every word be twisted and used against him in the court of sleazy hyperbolic rhetoric and patriotism, but why would McCain's particular military experience teach him any of the many, many things a President should be expert in? Yes, it's a real military experience, unlike Bush's, but it didn't teach him all about the military industrial complex, the inner workings of the Pentagon and the other entities a president has to be able to work with and control. He is no expert on strategy, or policy or logistics or anything in fact other than the piloting of now obsolete aircraft to drop bombs on civilians.
Even if we insist that military command experience is a great teacher, John McCain is no Eisenhower and John McCain doesn't seem to have gained any real understanding of the problems of military personnel or veterans, at least far enough to have firm, clear and expressed opinions about things like the Geneva Conventions and the treatment of prisoners. He has little enough to impress us with and so we will hear more about the background he has and not about the background he should have had.
We were told years ago, when the simple mindedness of George W. Bush became apparent, that he would pick good advisers and so it didn't matter that he had no knowledge of world affairs, economics, history, and trivia such as constitutional law. He would pick good advisers. It's redundant in the extreme to repeat the results of his advisers' bad advice. Are we poised to repeat the same mistake by electing McCain? Who would his advisers be, TV evangelists? Defense contractor lobbyists?
I confess that my bias is toward intellect; toward people who ideas are relatively straightforward, but not simplistic and emotionally based. I prefer people who are actively learning rather than "taking a stand." I far prefer someone who speaks as the intellectual equal to the best of us and not just like the boys at VFW hall. If any presidency has demonstrated that "regular guyness" is not only insufficient but dangerous, it's our current one. Let's not do it again.
An old saw has it that to a carpenter, every problem is fixed with a hammer. Can our problems best be solved with bombs according to McCain's military training? Will our problems be solved by using powerful family connections, abandoning past commitments and getting into bed with someone wealthy the Way John solved his? Perhaps so. George Bush also tried to solve our problems, and the problems he created, according to his military background: that is to say, with lies, cover-ups, shredded records, invented stories and massive secrecy using the aid of powerful and wealthy allies. That's pretty much what he did during his brief and disastrous business adventure as well. Let's not do it again.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Monday's travel digest
By Carol Gee
What are traveling bloggers up to these days? Steve Clemons of The Washington Note is currently in China, staying at the "Beijing Friendship Hotel, built for Soviet technocrats." He writes "Some Initial China Trip Reactions" today. Grant McCracken, who writes This Blog sits at the: . . ., was in a hotel in Princeton a few days ago and posted very thoughtfully about "How Obama Speaks." He closes with this:
I think Obama has studied other oratorical exemplars. And I think he has made this a very careful and purposeful study. I leave it to someone with an ear better than mine to "reverse engineer" Obama's style speech and figure out what these influences are.
Traveling this summer has brought me some surprises. I have been surprised at the number of Recreational Vehicles on the road. I have been delightfully surprised to eat tomaotes again in Colorado and Wyoming. And I have been surprised at the gree, green grass gracing the plains. Ours has been a road trip, and the gas pump surprises have brought breathtaking costs. Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, according to Think Progress, says, "It doesn't matter that he does not know the price of gas." That is certainly no surprise. To quote:
McCain’s cluelessness about gas prices is compounded by the fact that he is clueless about what to do about it. He is promoting a gas tax holiday for drivers because he claims to understand Americans are hurting.” It will provide “a little psychological boost,” McCain said of his plan.
Tips aplenty -- The Independent Traveler.com gives "Ten Tips for Road Trips" that have been useful. You might also want to look at their "Summer Travel Preview 2008."
Send yourself to camp -- A bit of research on travel trends found five summer trends in "summer camps" for adults, according to Independent Traveler.com. They include Dog Training camps, Sports camps, Wine, Beer and Cooking camps, Rock 'n' Roll camps, Arts and Crafts camps, and Fitness camps. This website is a rich source of ideas and contacts for each of these specialized vacation possibilities.
Settling for a while -- I now have reached my destination and a working computer, so posting will be more regular for a while. Safe trips to all.
(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)
A decent strategy?
By Carl
Certainly, if any candidate can pull this off, it's Barack Obama:
The key here, of course, is turnout, something the GOP in states like Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama have long suppressed through various mechanisms, including misleading or even lying about election day, intimidation and harassment of black voters, and the denial of basic civil rights to people who have paid their debt to society.
Certainly, Obama's formula could work:
It could work. It's possible.
But it's risky, to be sure. So many factors could play into this strategy that it's impossible to be certain that it's a winning one, and that's not making any judgements on the strategy per se. Factors like the ones mentioned above, which we can now anticipate will see a skyrocketing number of voter purges in Southern states and challenges to voter's authenticity at the polls as Republicans attempt to bully voters away from the polls.
And then the strategy itself has some weaknesses: young voters are traditionally the least committed voters to the electoral process, so the "young white professional" vote that Obama is counting on could dissolve away with any October surprises. That would mean Obama would still have to pick up something on the order of 30% of the aggregate working class white voter, an order of magnitude he was barely able to accomplish when it was just Democratic white working class voters.
There is one last possibility: that this strategy has been planted by Obama as a challenge to McCain to defend turf he's already "won". Wars, which in this instance includes political campaigns, are not won by who has the most in his arsenal, but by whom can most effectively manage his resources to victory.
After all, Hillary Clinton had a commanding amount of money going into primary season and look where it got her!
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
Certainly, if any candidate can pull this off, it's Barack Obama:
Steve Hildebrand, the deputy campaign manager for Mr. Obama, said he saw “tremendous potential” in several Southern states.
“If you go in and look at the number of unregistered voters in demographic groups that are important to Barack’s candidacy — younger voters, African-American voters — the potential is just incredible,” Mr. Hildebrand said.
And yet since the South began to shift away from the Democrats in the 1960s, it has become one of the biggest and reddest of the Republican strongholds. In the last two presidential elections, the Democrats failed to carry any of the Southern states. Although recent Democratic nominees have typically gotten about 9 out of 10 of the votes of Southern blacks, they still need a substantial chunk of the white vote to prevail. Political scientists put that figure at close to 40 percent, though it depends on the state, and the Democrats have rarely gotten it.
The key here, of course, is turnout, something the GOP in states like Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama have long suppressed through various mechanisms, including misleading or even lying about election day, intimidation and harassment of black voters, and the denial of basic civil rights to people who have paid their debt to society.
Certainly, Obama's formula could work:
The only times since 1972 that the Democrats have carried more than a third of the Southern white vote, according to exit polls, were when Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton, both Southerners, were atop the ticket. In 1996, for example, Mr. Clinton got the votes of 36 percent of Southern whites and 87 percent of Southern blacks, and carried 5 of the 13 Southern states.
Mr. Obama’s Southern strategy relies on significantly increasing black registration and turnout, as he did in the primary season. Mr. Hildebrand said that by some estimates there are 600,000 unregistered black voters in Georgia alone. The higher the black share of the vote, the lower the requirement for garnering white votes. But the Obama camp argues that it can increase its share of the white vote as well by focusing on younger, more progressive whites.
It could work. It's possible.
But it's risky, to be sure. So many factors could play into this strategy that it's impossible to be certain that it's a winning one, and that's not making any judgements on the strategy per se. Factors like the ones mentioned above, which we can now anticipate will see a skyrocketing number of voter purges in Southern states and challenges to voter's authenticity at the polls as Republicans attempt to bully voters away from the polls.
And then the strategy itself has some weaknesses: young voters are traditionally the least committed voters to the electoral process, so the "young white professional" vote that Obama is counting on could dissolve away with any October surprises. That would mean Obama would still have to pick up something on the order of 30% of the aggregate working class white voter, an order of magnitude he was barely able to accomplish when it was just Democratic white working class voters.
There is one last possibility: that this strategy has been planted by Obama as a challenge to McCain to defend turf he's already "won". Wars, which in this instance includes political campaigns, are not won by who has the most in his arsenal, but by whom can most effectively manage his resources to victory.
After all, Hillary Clinton had a commanding amount of money going into primary season and look where it got her!
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
Headline of the Day (McCain SCOTUS edition)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
From yesterday's WaPo:
Huh, you think?
**********
It's obvious, yes, but it needs to be said. Many people still seem to regard McCain as some sort of moderate, a maverick moderate who isn't like most Republicans. While he's broken with his party in the past, though, he isn't nearly the maverick or moderate his media image would suggest he is, along with his various detractors on the far right and some of his admirers among the self-styled "centrist" crowd. On the contrary, he has a long, long record of conservatism on social issues to go along with worse-than-Bush neoconservatism on foreign and military issues and, more recently, a Bush-like conservatism on fiscal and economic issues (he now loves Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and has even made peace with Grover Norquist and the anti-tax crazies).
And so -- duh -- a McCain presidency would likely push an already conservative Supreme Court even further to the right. With the liberals much older than the conservatives -- Stevens, for example, is 88! -- President McCain (and how painful it is to write that) would be in a position to establish a solid conservative majority for decades to come... or at least for a long, long time to come, given that he would appoint the likes of Roberts and Alito to the court.
And just think what a solid conservative majority, with or without Kennedy, would have to say about abortion (so long, Roe)... and the death penalty (Old Testament justice)... and gun control (none)... and the environment (global warming? what global warming?)... and free speech (the First Amendment is overrated)... and habeas corpus (so quaint, so passé)... and executive power (Republican presidents are omnipotent gods)...
Anyone even flirting with voting for McCain -- and that means you self-styled centrists and independents, and you disgruntled Hillary supporters, and you so-called Reagan Democrats, and you Naderites and others on the left who think it doesn't make a difference whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House -- ought to think about this rather seriously before buying the whole maverick moderate myth.
McCain is nothing of the sort. And he'd make the judicial nominations, including to the highest court in the land, to prove it.
From yesterday's WaPo:
Huh, you think?
**********
It's obvious, yes, but it needs to be said. Many people still seem to regard McCain as some sort of moderate, a maverick moderate who isn't like most Republicans. While he's broken with his party in the past, though, he isn't nearly the maverick or moderate his media image would suggest he is, along with his various detractors on the far right and some of his admirers among the self-styled "centrist" crowd. On the contrary, he has a long, long record of conservatism on social issues to go along with worse-than-Bush neoconservatism on foreign and military issues and, more recently, a Bush-like conservatism on fiscal and economic issues (he now loves Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and has even made peace with Grover Norquist and the anti-tax crazies).
And so -- duh -- a McCain presidency would likely push an already conservative Supreme Court even further to the right. With the liberals much older than the conservatives -- Stevens, for example, is 88! -- President McCain (and how painful it is to write that) would be in a position to establish a solid conservative majority for decades to come... or at least for a long, long time to come, given that he would appoint the likes of Roberts and Alito to the court.
And just think what a solid conservative majority, with or without Kennedy, would have to say about abortion (so long, Roe)... and the death penalty (Old Testament justice)... and gun control (none)... and the environment (global warming? what global warming?)... and free speech (the First Amendment is overrated)... and habeas corpus (so quaint, so passé)... and executive power (Republican presidents are omnipotent gods)...
Anyone even flirting with voting for McCain -- and that means you self-styled centrists and independents, and you disgruntled Hillary supporters, and you so-called Reagan Democrats, and you Naderites and others on the left who think it doesn't make a difference whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House -- ought to think about this rather seriously before buying the whole maverick moderate myth.
McCain is nothing of the sort. And he'd make the judicial nominations, including to the highest court in the land, to prove it.
Bush's covert war on Iran
By Michael J.W. Stickings
According to The New Yorker's Sy Hersh -- whose latest piece, "Preparing the Battlefield," is yet another must-read -- the U.S. is already at war with Iran... more or less.
Appearing on CNN's Late Edition yesterday, he said this in response to host Candy Crowley's initial point that "[w]hile the Bush administration has been emphasizing tough diplomacy with Iran, it’s also been escalating covert U.S. military actions against the country" (via C&L, which has the video and the complete transcript):
Ah, yet another covert American war. And what fond memories we have of covert American wars past.
This one's against an anti-Israeli would-be nuclear power with close ties to terrorism in the heart of the Middle East, though, not some Marxist-affiliated crackpot dictatorship in, say, Central America.
But I'm sure Bush knows what he's doing and has taken all the complexities, contingencies, and consequences into consideration.
I mean, it's not like Iran could wreak havoc on Israel. Or destabilize an already unstable Iraq. Or funnel money and arms to terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Or drag the U.S. military into yet another quagmire.
And it's not like Iran has a budding democratic political culture that, at the popular level, is drawn to the West.
Or that U.S. military action against Iran would likely turn the generally nationalistic Iranians against America and the West and put a stop to that budding democratic political culture altogether.
Or that such military action would further erode America's miserable standing around the world and especially in the Middle East and within the Muslim world generally.
No, no, nothing like that. I'm sure it's all under control and will go swimmingly.
Just like I'm sure the U.S. will once again be greeted as a liberator.
What could possibly go wrong?
According to The New Yorker's Sy Hersh -- whose latest piece, "Preparing the Battlefield," is yet another must-read -- the U.S. is already at war with Iran... more or less.
Appearing on CNN's Late Edition yesterday, he said this in response to host Candy Crowley's initial point that "[w]hile the Bush administration has been emphasizing tough diplomacy with Iran, it’s also been escalating covert U.S. military actions against the country" (via C&L, which has the video and the complete transcript):
Well, one of the basic points is that, no matter what we say about diplomacy, you know, carrot and stick, the stick is working pretty hard and the stick is working overtime. This president did escalate the covert war, the secret war inside Iran.
We've been doing stuff inside Iran since '05 pretty much, pretty heavily, you know, looking at the nuclear facilities, collecting intelligence, trying to undermine the regime, et cetera, et cetera.
Ah, yet another covert American war. And what fond memories we have of covert American wars past.
This one's against an anti-Israeli would-be nuclear power with close ties to terrorism in the heart of the Middle East, though, not some Marxist-affiliated crackpot dictatorship in, say, Central America.
But I'm sure Bush knows what he's doing and has taken all the complexities, contingencies, and consequences into consideration.
I mean, it's not like Iran could wreak havoc on Israel. Or destabilize an already unstable Iraq. Or funnel money and arms to terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Or drag the U.S. military into yet another quagmire.
And it's not like Iran has a budding democratic political culture that, at the popular level, is drawn to the West.
Or that U.S. military action against Iran would likely turn the generally nationalistic Iranians against America and the West and put a stop to that budding democratic political culture altogether.
Or that such military action would further erode America's miserable standing around the world and especially in the Middle East and within the Muslim world generally.
No, no, nothing like that. I'm sure it's all under control and will go swimmingly.
Just like I'm sure the U.S. will once again be greeted as a liberator.
What could possibly go wrong?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
John McCain's word cannot be trusted
By Creature
John McCain's hypocrisy kills me. He says Obama's "word cannot be trusted." I need to know how in the fuck John McCain's word can be trusted? From torture to immigration the man is the definition of flip-flop. The man holds his finger up to the political wind so often I'm surprised it isn't worn to the bone. It's time for the media to stop eating the man's BBQ and pointing out that this so-called principled man is anything but.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
John McCain's hypocrisy kills me. He says Obama's "word cannot be trusted." I need to know how in the fuck John McCain's word can be trusted? From torture to immigration the man is the definition of flip-flop. The man holds his finger up to the political wind so often I'm surprised it isn't worn to the bone. It's time for the media to stop eating the man's BBQ and pointing out that this so-called principled man is anything but.
(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)
Crystal Klein in Blue strappy heels
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
One must marvel
By Carl
In this day and age of drug-enhanced athletes and money-grubbing hit-and-run phenoms, it's not only refreshing, but breath-taking, to hear of an athlete who is trying to push the envelope for the right reasons: to prove she can do it:
This is that "aging body":
Impressive, no?
As a former competitive swimmer (I was in contention for the 1980 Olympic team), I can admire the dedication it takes to achieve a certain level, and the energy one has to expend. That's just in your twenties. That doesn't take into account the ravages of age and time:
Hell, I still can barely lift my left arm above my shoulder from all the training!
Should Torres prevail at the Olympic Trials this week, she will attend her fifth Olympic games and will be the oldest female swimmer ever, as well as the older American Olympic swimmer, a title previously held by Rowdy Gaines who swam in 1996 at the age of 35.
Lest you think that her life has been all strawberries and cream, go read the article and get a glimpse of what someone has to give up to be that dedicated to competition.
Marvelous. Simply marvelous.
(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)
In this day and age of drug-enhanced athletes and money-grubbing hit-and-run phenoms, it's not only refreshing, but breath-taking, to hear of an athlete who is trying to push the envelope for the right reasons: to prove she can do it:
NEAR THE WARM-UP POOL AT THE Missouri Grand Prix swim meet, in Columbia, a crop of Olympic hopefuls lolled around in practice suits and towels on a Saturday morning in February. Fully clothed among them stood some relics of Olympics past: Scott Goldblatt, who won a gold medal in the 2004 Games, wore an aqua sport coat and a striped tie and was doing on-air commentary for Swimnetwork.com; Mel Stewart, who won two golds and a bronze in 1992, wore the same goofy get-up, working as Goldblatt’s sidekick. Meanwhile, Dara Torres, who won the first of her nine Olympic medals in 1984, a year before Michael Phelps was born, stripped off her baggy T-shirt and sweat pants, revealing a breathtaking body in a magenta Speedo. She pulled on a cap marked with her initials and prepared to swim. Torres is now 41 and the mother of a 2-year-old daughter, Tessa Grace. She broke her first of three world records in 1982, at 14, and she has retired from swimming and come back three times, her latest effort built on an obsessive attention to her aging body.
This is that "aging body":
Impressive, no?
As a former competitive swimmer (I was in contention for the 1980 Olympic team), I can admire the dedication it takes to achieve a certain level, and the energy one has to expend. That's just in your twenties. That doesn't take into account the ravages of age and time:
Last November in Germany, Torres clocked 23.82 seconds in the 50-meter freestyle short course, breaking the American record and making her one of only five women to swim the event in less than 24 seconds. The day after she got home to South Florida, she had a bone spur shaved out of her shoulder. In early January, she had another operation, to deal with a torn meniscus in her knee. Now just five weeks after the latest procedure, Torres looked great. She flashed her wide-open smile at Stewart and dove in the pool. Stewart retreated to Goldblatt and shrugged. “Hey, we’d all be in there if we could be winning,” he said.
Hell, I still can barely lift my left arm above my shoulder from all the training!
Should Torres prevail at the Olympic Trials this week, she will attend her fifth Olympic games and will be the oldest female swimmer ever, as well as the older American Olympic swimmer, a title previously held by Rowdy Gaines who swam in 1996 at the age of 35.
Lest you think that her life has been all strawberries and cream, go read the article and get a glimpse of what someone has to give up to be that dedicated to competition.
Marvelous. Simply marvelous.
(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)
Stiletto Girls
This website seems to have a fair deal of content but there are a few below par women and some very ordinary heels, I've pulled out a stand-out few.
http://sex-planet.net/galls/gcs/13/stil310508/
http://sex-planet.net/galls/gcs/13/stil390508/
http://sex-planet.net/galls/gcs/13/stil450508/
http://sex-planet.net/galls/gcs/13/stil470508/
http://sex-planet.net/galls/gcs/13/stil480508/
Saturday, June 28, 2008
What is The NILES LESH Project ???
Ya know for YOUTUBE / GOOGLE AD partners, these are fairly KICK ASS !!!
I especially enjoyed BLOGMONKEY and FEAROFGIRLS both HIlarious
If you like HollyWood Gossip you will like WHATTHEBUCK and POPCRUNCH
BARLEYPOLITICAL has some Poli - Sci humor
MIKEMOZART has an awesome Toy Review channel
The player will keep playing until you stop it, if you get bored with one show just click the arrow on the middle of the screen edge
Just look for the NILESLESH Project link on the right side of this blog
An ugly perversion of democracy (in Zimbabwe)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It isn't often that I have occasion to praise Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and our Conservative government, but they are doing and saying the right things in response to the current situation in Zimbabwe:
Harper is exactly right, but what is needed is not just pressure in support of a free and fair election but pressure to end the undemocratic rule of the authoritarian Mugabe and his brutal thugs.
That pressure likely won't come from Africa, which is soft on Mugabe and weak on democracy, and so it needs to come from the U.S., the U.K., and other mature democracies like Canada -- and preferably from the U.N. as well.
For now, though, it is good to see my country speaking out against the "violent, illegitimate sham," as opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai recently put it, that passes for Mugabe-enabling "democracy" in Zimbabwe.
(For my most recent posts on the situation in Zimbabwe, see here and here.)
It isn't often that I have occasion to praise Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and our Conservative government, but they are doing and saying the right things in response to the current situation in Zimbabwe:
OTTAWA — Canada was set to impose diplomatic sanctions against Zimbabwe after Prime Minister Stephen Harper condemned what he called a “corrupted vote” in the African nation.
The prime minister said Canada would add to international pressure on President Robert Mugabe and his regime to hold a free and democratic election.
“Our government has condemned the corrupt vote in the strongest possible terms,” Mr. Harper told a meeting of B'nai Brith International.
“And we are working with the international community to bring in strong measures to pressure the Mugabe regime which has illegitimately stolen the election.”
He called the election process in Zimbabwe “an ugly perversion of democracy.”
Harper is exactly right, but what is needed is not just pressure in support of a free and fair election but pressure to end the undemocratic rule of the authoritarian Mugabe and his brutal thugs.
That pressure likely won't come from Africa, which is soft on Mugabe and weak on democracy, and so it needs to come from the U.S., the U.K., and other mature democracies like Canada -- and preferably from the U.N. as well.
For now, though, it is good to see my country speaking out against the "violent, illegitimate sham," as opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai recently put it, that passes for Mugabe-enabling "democracy" in Zimbabwe.
(For my most recent posts on the situation in Zimbabwe, see here and here.)
Reunited again
By Libby Spencer
I didn't watch the live video of the Clinton-Obama Unity event, but it appears from the overview coverage that it was a smashing success. It was a well scripted, veritable lovefest and visually appealing right down to Obama's tie that perfectly matched Hilary's outfit.
If there is any remaining tension between the two, you couldn't see in Unity, NH. Obama proclaimed, "Hillary rocks!" Hillary urged her supporters to join the team and put Obama into the Oval Office. Any remaining bitterness on the part of Obama supporters over Hillary's campaign style should have been put to rest today. She kept her promise. She looked more shining and genuine than she ever has in the last year and a half.
The Caucus offered up a more intimate view of the proceedings both from the plane and on the field where they found a couple of die-hard Hillary holdouts. One supporter, a Denver delegate "came all the way from Colorado for the event, even though she didn’t believe in it, because she wanted to convey her support to Mrs. Clinton."
“As a politician, she’s got to try to bring the party together,” Ms. Lewis said. “But I have a gut feeling that something’s going to happen so that she becomes the nominee.” She said she would not vote for Mr. Obama and that when he spoke, she stuffed her ears with tissue.
Her friend, Freda Smith, 79, a former state representative from Salem, N.H., said Mr. Obama was “not qualified” to be president. “We don’t know anything about him,” she said. “He talks about change, but he never says exactly what he means.”
I guess old dreams die hard but I'm betting in the end, even these recalcitrant Democrats will realize that allowing McCain to win would be a grievous mistake. Certainly, for the many couples interviewed that had split their votes between the two, acceptance has already arrived and most seem to be glad to embrace the message.
I have to admit, although I mostly kept it to myself, I nursed some serious doubts that Hillary would put her heart into uniting behind Obama. It feels really good to have been so wrong and to have my respect for her restored.
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Top Ten Cloves: Things John McCain does on weekends, rather then campaigning
By J. Thomas Duffy
News Item: John McCain doesn't work weekends
10. Working on his own ideas, to build a new car battery, and win that $300-Million
9. Kicks back, playing a little shuffleboard
8. Hits the recycling plant to cash in all the beer bottles
7. Sits and stews, thinking of ways he can get Baby Alex
6. Spends time working on his comedy routine and his jokes
5. Puts away his Flash Cards for the week completed, and prepares his Flash Cards for the week ahead
4. It's not all rest and relaxation - Has to supervise Joe Lieberman, whose shining his shoes, doing the gardening, taking out the trash
3. Karaoke! (Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran)
2. Actually does a little campaign work - Studies old debate tapes of Bob Dole to sharpen up and prepare
1. Joins his wife in scouring the Internet for recipes
(Cross Posted at The Garlic)
News Item: John McCain doesn't work weekends
10. Working on his own ideas, to build a new car battery, and win that $300-Million
9. Kicks back, playing a little shuffleboard
8. Hits the recycling plant to cash in all the beer bottles
7. Sits and stews, thinking of ways he can get Baby Alex
6. Spends time working on his comedy routine and his jokes
5. Puts away his Flash Cards for the week completed, and prepares his Flash Cards for the week ahead
4. It's not all rest and relaxation - Has to supervise Joe Lieberman, whose shining his shoes, doing the gardening, taking out the trash
3. Karaoke! (Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran)
2. Actually does a little campaign work - Studies old debate tapes of Bob Dole to sharpen up and prepare
1. Joins his wife in scouring the Internet for recipes
(Cross Posted at The Garlic)
WORLDS BEST PIG TATOOS ???
Wim Delvoye has been tattooing pigs since the 1990s. In the early 21st century a tattooed pigs project was set up in the Art Farm in China, where there are fewer strictures regarding animal welfare than in most parts of the Western world. In 2005 his colleague, artist Danny Devos, spent several months at the farm, reorganizing, managing and rebuilding. He is a vegetarian.
Surrounded by winding dirt roads, Wim’s Wonderland is not easily found, and a guide is required to reach the main entrance. Within a narrow passageway, protected by two marble statues of pigs, there are four-meter high gates with a triumphant Art Farm logo in red and gold. As you cross the threshold of the property, an entourage of onlookers lead you into the courtyard, where a patch of grass holds the main attraction of this theme park, the stars of Wim's Art Farm: tattooed pigs.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Unity: "Today our hearts are set on the same destination for America."
By Michael J.W. Stickings
As many of you already know, I'm sure, Obama and Clinton appeared together today at a rally in Unity, New Hampshire. After a long and sometimes bitter campaign, one that drove a wedge into the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, one that was trumped up by the typical media sensationalism that drives the news cycles, it was a welcome display of what I take to be genuine friendship between these two towering figures in the party. The media are calling it "choreographed," but there was never much difference between Obama and Clinton -- and there was never as much disunity in the party as was often suggested.
There are lingering bad feelings, no doubt, notably among some of Clinton's supporters, but today's rally was a positive display of unity that should resonate among those still in doubt. What I took from the primary campaign was evidence of a strong party able to withstand a tough race, a strong party that was united throughout in terms of policy, a strong party that was prepared for the general election campaign and to take back the White House. The media wanted drama, and they got it, but the race ended as it should have, with the candidate with the most votes and the most delegates winning the nomination and with the candidate who came so close putting aside the bitterness of the past, withdrawing graciously, and, today, appearing alongside the nominee and offering nothing but the fullest support.
And it is just the beginning.
**********
The Obama campaign has posted a lengthy clip of the rally that you can watch here. Below is a shorter clip from TPM TV. Make sure to watch it.
As many of you already know, I'm sure, Obama and Clinton appeared together today at a rally in Unity, New Hampshire. After a long and sometimes bitter campaign, one that drove a wedge into the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, one that was trumped up by the typical media sensationalism that drives the news cycles, it was a welcome display of what I take to be genuine friendship between these two towering figures in the party. The media are calling it "choreographed," but there was never much difference between Obama and Clinton -- and there was never as much disunity in the party as was often suggested.
There are lingering bad feelings, no doubt, notably among some of Clinton's supporters, but today's rally was a positive display of unity that should resonate among those still in doubt. What I took from the primary campaign was evidence of a strong party able to withstand a tough race, a strong party that was united throughout in terms of policy, a strong party that was prepared for the general election campaign and to take back the White House. The media wanted drama, and they got it, but the race ended as it should have, with the candidate with the most votes and the most delegates winning the nomination and with the candidate who came so close putting aside the bitterness of the past, withdrawing graciously, and, today, appearing alongside the nominee and offering nothing but the fullest support.
And it is just the beginning.
**********
The Obama campaign has posted a lengthy clip of the rally that you can watch here. Below is a shorter clip from TPM TV. Make sure to watch it.
NOW they're worried about environmental impact?
By Libby Spencer
The same administration that is blithely pushing to tear up pristine wilderness in ANWR and urges endangering our beaches with rampant offshore drilling for oil and has studiously ignored and denied the effects of climate disruption caused the overconsumption of same, is suddenly concerned about the ecological harm of developing solar power alternatives?
The Bureau of Land Management is wringing its hands over the potential impact on wildlife, water usage and reclamation of the land after the power plants expire. Funny, I don't recall similar concerns about other fuels delivered by the huge corporate conglomerates. Could it be the real concern is about the mega-corps bottom line?
Well, that's really just a drop in the bucket of usage but the solar power industry is still in its infancy and the potential for growth is strong if the White House machinations don't kill it in the cradle.
It reminds me of the administration's equally sudden concern about regulating small organic farmers who threaten the bottom line of mega-monolith farms as the consumer demand for localvore products grows. A lot of them getting shut down by zealous enforcement while the mega-corps destructive mono-farms destroy the environment unchallenged by the fed regulators.
Meanwhile, in a related development, scientists are predicting we may, for the first time in recorded history, be seeing an ice free North Pole this year.
Coincidentally caused by that global warming, that the White House isn't sure exists and if it does exist, certainly couldn't be the fault of over-consumption of fossil fuels and their resultant emissions. Is it just me who is seeing a pattern here?
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
The same administration that is blithely pushing to tear up pristine wilderness in ANWR and urges endangering our beaches with rampant offshore drilling for oil and has studiously ignored and denied the effects of climate disruption caused the overconsumption of same, is suddenly concerned about the ecological harm of developing solar power alternatives?
DENVER — Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.
Much of the 119 million surface acres of federally administered land in the West is ideal for solar energy, particularly in Arizona, Nevada and Southern California, where sunlight drenches vast, flat desert tracts.
The Bureau of Land Management is wringing its hands over the potential impact on wildlife, water usage and reclamation of the land after the power plants expire. Funny, I don't recall similar concerns about other fuels delivered by the huge corporate conglomerates. Could it be the real concern is about the mega-corps bottom line?
According to the bureau, the applications, which cover more than one million acres, are for projects that have the potential to power more than 20 million homes.
Well, that's really just a drop in the bucket of usage but the solar power industry is still in its infancy and the potential for growth is strong if the White House machinations don't kill it in the cradle.
“The problem is that this is a very young industry, and the majority of us that are involved are young, struggling, hungry companies,” said Lee Wallach of Solel, a solar power company based in California that has filed numerous applications to build on public land and was considering filing more in the next two years. “This is a setback.”
It reminds me of the administration's equally sudden concern about regulating small organic farmers who threaten the bottom line of mega-monolith farms as the consumer demand for localvore products grows. A lot of them getting shut down by zealous enforcement while the mega-corps destructive mono-farms destroy the environment unchallenged by the fed regulators.
Meanwhile, in a related development, scientists are predicting we may, for the first time in recorded history, be seeing an ice free North Pole this year.
Seasoned polar scientists believe the chances of a totally icefreeNorth Pole this summer are greater than 50:50 because the normally thick ice formed over many years at the Pole has been blown away and replaced by hugeswathes of thinner ice formed over a single year.
Coincidentally caused by that global warming, that the White House isn't sure exists and if it does exist, certainly couldn't be the fault of over-consumption of fossil fuels and their resultant emissions. Is it just me who is seeing a pattern here?
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Late signs of surge failure
By Libby Spencer
Unless you prefer to call this a sign of success.
They bought the "Anbar Awakening" with bribes of guns and money. Looks like they didn't stay bought. And this is on top of the other two attacks this week.
The Pentagon claims it's the work of rogue Shia militants backed by Iran. The Iraqis on the scene say it was AQI. You know, the ones who were supposed to be vanquished. But in the end, outside of the fact that the White House is trying to use these attacks to gin up a case for bombing Iran, it doesn't matter who is doing the killing. The point is that the violence is ongoing and will rise and fall forever as long as we remain in occupation of the country. These people are being targeted for collaborating with us.
A year ago St. Pet told us the Iraqis were moments away from political reconciliation. They're still not even close. Baghdad was transformed from a thriving, ethnically mixed city into a restive metropolis of ethnically cleansed enclaves surrounded by concrete bunkers in order to 'keep the peace.' How much blood does it take before the serious pundits admit the surge success is a farce?
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Unless you prefer to call this a sign of success.
BAGHDAD — Two insurgent bomb blasts struck at pro-American Iraqi targets in Anbar province just west of Baghdad and in the northern city of Mosul on Thursday, and the police said at least 30 people were killed and 80 wounded.
Iraqi police officials said three American marines were among the dead in the Anbar attack, which came just as the American military command was preparing to hand control of the province, once considered the hotbed of the insurgency, over to Iraqi forces.
They bought the "Anbar Awakening" with bribes of guns and money. Looks like they didn't stay bought. And this is on top of the other two attacks this week.
The bombing in Mosul, which killed 18 people and wounded 61, occurred in a busy central area of the city, and was the second large bombing in the city in the past two days. One on Tuesday evening killed two people and wounded 73.
The Pentagon claims it's the work of rogue Shia militants backed by Iran. The Iraqis on the scene say it was AQI. You know, the ones who were supposed to be vanquished. But in the end, outside of the fact that the White House is trying to use these attacks to gin up a case for bombing Iran, it doesn't matter who is doing the killing. The point is that the violence is ongoing and will rise and fall forever as long as we remain in occupation of the country. These people are being targeted for collaborating with us.
A year ago St. Pet told us the Iraqis were moments away from political reconciliation. They're still not even close. Baghdad was transformed from a thriving, ethnically mixed city into a restive metropolis of ethnically cleansed enclaves surrounded by concrete bunkers in order to 'keep the peace.' How much blood does it take before the serious pundits admit the surge success is a farce?
(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)
Lara's song
By Capt. Fogg
"Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever. "
-- Lara Logan
I was never really conscious of Lara Logan's existence until The Daily Show had her as a guest recently. She made a well presented and credible claim that the news from Iraq was being toned down, under reported, redacted and sometimes ignored, and as someone who has been in the thick of it for years as the chief foreign correspondent for CBS, and who frequently has been in the midst of combat, she has a great deal of credibility. That network has been cutting back its staff in Baghdad and some critics say that the public perception of improvement in Iraq has a lot to do with the lack of coverage. Indeed, despite the constant emphasis on danger and terror, it's possible to sit through a very long period of broadcast news without a single story from Iraq.
she said to Jon Stewart.
It might be that she pushed the wrong buttons. Headlines and weblogs have begun to bleat about scandals in her private life, led by such liberal media as The National Enquirer and Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. Will Bunch at Philly.com has a provocative article today and a link to the Daily Show interview.
Backlashes against less than enthusiastic reportage of Bush's war began immediately after the initial enthusiasm. Networks refused to allow a reading of the names of casualties lest it be taken as criticism of George Bush or his invasion. I don't think it's far fetched at all to see this attempt to ruin a brilliant career as a continuation.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
"Five years into the war in Iraq and nearly seven years into the war in Afghanistan, getting news of the conflicts onto television is harder than ever. "
-- Lara Logan
I was never really conscious of Lara Logan's existence until The Daily Show had her as a guest recently. She made a well presented and credible claim that the news from Iraq was being toned down, under reported, redacted and sometimes ignored, and as someone who has been in the thick of it for years as the chief foreign correspondent for CBS, and who frequently has been in the midst of combat, she has a great deal of credibility. That network has been cutting back its staff in Baghdad and some critics say that the public perception of improvement in Iraq has a lot to do with the lack of coverage. Indeed, despite the constant emphasis on danger and terror, it's possible to sit through a very long period of broadcast news without a single story from Iraq.
If I were to watch the news that you hear here in the United States, I would just blow my brains out because it would drive me nuts,
she said to Jon Stewart.
It might be that she pushed the wrong buttons. Headlines and weblogs have begun to bleat about scandals in her private life, led by such liberal media as The National Enquirer and Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. Will Bunch at Philly.com has a provocative article today and a link to the Daily Show interview.
Backlashes against less than enthusiastic reportage of Bush's war began immediately after the initial enthusiasm. Networks refused to allow a reading of the names of casualties lest it be taken as criticism of George Bush or his invasion. I don't think it's far fetched at all to see this attempt to ruin a brilliant career as a continuation.
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
AYVEQ - BROOKLYN'S FAMOUS MASTRUBATING WALRUS - R I P
By Gersh Kuntzman
The Brooklyn Paper
Ayveq, the walrus whose bizarre, though oddly compelling, masturbation rituals made him an international sensation at the New York Aquarium, has died. He was 14.
Though well-liked long before he discovered the habit that would make him a star, Ayveq’s frequent public self-gratification made him the Coney Island institution’s singular attraction.
“We are all still in shock about it,” Aquarium Director Jon Forrest Dohlin said. “He was an absolute delight. He had a magnetism and a charm that was totally his own. He loved people and he knew how to work a crowd and entertain guests.
“And himself,” Dohlin added. “He did have a raffish charm, no doubt about it.”
THIS IS A RELATED AYVEQ EQUALLY CHARMING MATING STORY
The eyes of the world — well, at least the walrus-loving world — were on the New York Aquarium last week, where the new baby walrus made his debut.
But my eyes were on Ayveq, the Coney Island institution’s famously self-satisfying sea beast.
Readers of this column know that I have a long-established affection for Ayveq and his prodigious proclivities. So when I heard that Ayveq was the father of the new walrus calf — and that he had mated with his formerly frigid gal pal, Kulu — I rushed straight to the Aquarium for a tank-side interview.
The bad news: Ayveq is about as good a father as Bob Guccione. The good news: He’s still masturbating.
“Even as the photographers and the camera crews were shooting the new baby in the other tank, there he was, slapping away against the glass,” said Aquarium spokeswoman Fran Hackett, referring to Ayveq’s famous technique.
This was a great relief to me, given that this newspaper once called Ayveq one of the singular tourist attractions in the world (and not because of his dreamy red eyes, mind you!).
For years, I pestered Hackett to reveal to me (exclusively, of course!) the very moment when Ayveq got past that ultimate adolescent hump (no pun intended) and finally found a female worthy of his libido.
Hackett kept putting me off (she had apparently promised the exclusive to Walrus World magazine — those bastards!), so when she called me with the big birth announcement, I knew something was up (very up in Ayveq’s case): He was the father!
And not a good one. Even as Kulu nursed and bonded her new baby, Ayveq was in the tank — and bedding down — with Nuka, a 25-year-old cow with seductively wide flanks and bedroom whiskers.
Could it be that Ayveq had finally abandoned his self-love ways?
“No,” said the Aquarium’s senior keeper Jo Basinger. “He’s only 13, so he’s often too annoying to her for her to even deal with him.”
Annoying?
“His constant attempts to breed, you know,” Basinger said (oh, I know all about annoying females through over-aggressive courtship rituals — believe me, I know).
“When he gets that way, she just steers clear of him.”
So that’s when he takes matters into his own fins, right? Not exactly.
“Oh, he does that whenever,” Basinger said. “It has nothing to do with whether he’s mating or not.”
This was not only big news to fans of walrus wanking, but of anyone looking for solace about his own limited parenting skills.
“You have nothing to worry about,” Hackett told me, referring to how Ayveq will never even come in contact with his son (despite their vast age difference, he’d consider him competition for the females). And if they had mated in the wild, Ayveq would have abandoned Kulu months before the child was even born (where are the family values politicians in the walrus world, I ask you?).
But the spirit of Ayveq lives on in his still-unnamed newborn. An Aquarium source told me that the tot has already discovered Ayveq’s secret pleasure spot and has started to entertain himself, even though he’s just three-and-a-half-months old.
Like father, like son
GIANT PENIS DISTURBS GRADUATION CEREMONY ?
SARATOGA SPRINGS -- A 19-year-old man dressed as a penis was arrested for disturbing a high school graduation today at the Saratoga Performing Arts Center.
Calvin Morett of 337 Pyramid Pine Estates allegedly interrupted the Saratoga Springs High School graduation by marching across SPAC's stage in an inflatable 6-foot penis costume while diplomas were being given out, Saratoga Springs Police Sgt. Sean Briscoe said.
Morett purchased the full-body costume and sprayed parts of the 5,000 people in the crowd with Silly String, Briscoe said.
His motive? ``He thought it would be funny,'' Briscoe said.
Morett was ticketed for disorderly conduct, a violation, and will face the charges in City Court on Tuesday, Briscoe said.
Morett graduated from Saratoga Springs High School last year. He tried to streak away from law enforcement, but could not.
``Once I stopped laughing, he was pretty easy to catch because he was tripping on the lower portion of the costume,'' said Briscoe, who made the arrest.
HEY KID,IF YOU NEED A SUMMER JOB, MIENFOKS IS LOOKING FOR A GIANT INFLATABLE PROMOTIONAL PENIS FOR PUBLIC PROMOTIONAL PENIS PARTIES !
VERNE TROYER'S - $20 MILLION "MINI ME" SEX TAPE
Verne Troyer, who played the character in two "Austin Powers" films filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the gossip Web site TMZ.com and others for showing snippets of a private sex tape he made with his girlfriend.
Troyer, 30, is seeking more than $20 million in damages, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles.
In court papers, Troyer claims TMZ and Kevin Blatt, the man who distributed the "One Night in Paris" sex tape of socialite Paris Hilton, of violation of privacy, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, violation of right to publicity and misappropriation of name and likeness.
The tape was made within the last year and shows Troyer and his girlfriend engaged in a series of sex acts, according to court papers.
Troyer learned Wednesday that portions of the tape were shown on TMZ's Web site and television show. His "cease and desist" letters to TMZ were ignored, according to the lawsuit.
TMZ has also reported that Blatt "is entertaining a $100,000 offer from SugarDVD to distribute" the video, the lawsuit said. SugarDVD, an adult video distributor, is another defendant named in Troyer's lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks $20 million in damages, unspecified attorneys' fees as well as an injunction barring the defendants from displaying the video.
OMG IT MUST BE TRUE- HERE'S THE LINKAGE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
