By Michael J.W. Stickings
As I'm sure many of you have heard by now, the 2008 Minnesota Senate election is finally over. The state Supreme Court, which had become the locus on the ongoing fight, has ruled 5-0 in Franken's favour. And with Franken declared the winner, Coleman conceded.
While we covered the whole saga extensively here at The Reaction, -- including something like 15 updates on the recount -- I don't have much to add to what has already been said. What I will say is that I'm relieved, even if, to me, this outcome was not just long overdue but pretty much inevitable: Coleman may have "won" the first count, but Franken surged ahead during the recount, even if the margin of victory was astonishingly narrow, and it was just a matter of time until Coleman's legal challenge either ran out of steam or ran into a decisive decision against him.
And why did Coleman lose? Politico attempts to answer that question, explaining away his legal defeat by pointing to his "pocketbook," as well as to his "political future." But Politico's GOP/Coleman-friendly piece misses the crucial fact: Coleman lost because he didn't win as many votes as Franken did. All legal wrangling aside, that's all there was to it. Yes, yes, I know, it was all about those absentee ballots, about what ballots should have been counted, but it was clear that the recount was conducted fairly and that Coleman lost. This was confirmed by a unanimous ruling of the state Supreme Court.
And so, that's it. Once Franken is sworn in, the Democrats will have 60 senators -- and a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. But will it make a difference? Not really. The 60 includes the likes of Lieberman (a non-Democrat), Specter (a pseudo-Democrat), Bayh and Nelson (quasi-Democrats), and various others who don't, and won't, vote strictly along party lines, including on key issues like climate change, energy, health care, and the economy.
Still, I'd rather not let my pessimism get the better of me tonight. It does mean something that the Democrats have achieved that magical 60, and perhaps, just perhaps, Franken's victory will encourage them to pursue a more ambitious agenda. Even if not, though, at least the 2008 Minnesota Senate race turned out as so many of us had hoped.
Welcome, Senator Franken. It's good to have you aboard.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
A decision, a concession, a defection, an impression, and a question
By (O)CT(O)PUS
Nine months since the election, almost 3 million votes cast, after weeks of recounts and months of court appeals involving 10 judges, 142 witnesses, and over $13 million in legal fees, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided in favor of Al Franken and ordered that he be certified as winner of the election. Within moments after the decision, Norm Coleman offered his concession.
Minnesota finally gets its full complement of Congressional representation; and the Democrats, with Arlen Specter's recent defection, get a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
One would think the way is clear for a run of progressive legislation without Republican obstruction. But the Democrats are a fractious bunch, and Octopus is a pessimist.
Will the Dems mess up a golden opportunity? Will we finally get an alternative energy bill, new financial market regulation, universal healthcare, and more? Your thoughts.
(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)
Nine months since the election, almost 3 million votes cast, after weeks of recounts and months of court appeals involving 10 judges, 142 witnesses, and over $13 million in legal fees, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided in favor of Al Franken and ordered that he be certified as winner of the election. Within moments after the decision, Norm Coleman offered his concession.
Minnesota finally gets its full complement of Congressional representation; and the Democrats, with Arlen Specter's recent defection, get a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
One would think the way is clear for a run of progressive legislation without Republican obstruction. But the Democrats are a fractious bunch, and Octopus is a pessimist.
Will the Dems mess up a golden opportunity? Will we finally get an alternative energy bill, new financial market regulation, universal healthcare, and more? Your thoughts.
(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)
Fun for oil
By Carl
You might recall that, during the Bush administration, much was made about the invasion of Iraq (and to an extent, Afghanistan) and the connection to the oil reserves, how secret plans had been drawn up by Cheney's energy task force before the war to divvy up the fields, and how the oil fields would pay for the war.
What we hadn't considered was that a free and independent Iraq, sans Saddam Hussein, might feel a little differently about it's main natural resource:
How this worked was, Iraq set a minimum output for each of the fields (current production levels, which are minimal, were generally used). Output up to that level was free. After all, the government could do that now without help.
Beyond that level, companies were free to submit bids per barrel based on the amount of oil they predicted they could extract and sell to Iraq. Iraq would then sell to the lowest bidder.
But...
The catch was, Iraq also had a secret ceiling figure in mind of what it would pay for each field, effectively putting a cap on how much oil each contract could produce.
If the bid exceeded that figure, either due to too high a per barrel price or too many barrels predicted, Iraq would then offer it to other bidders.
As you can imagine, this knocked out of the pack any of the more rapacious... pardon me... *koffkoffkapitalistkoffkoff*... sorry, the more rapacious oil companies.
In lieu of this, what you now have is a few oil companies who would treat the Iraq fields as a hedge. Since the per barrel fee is fixed and not subject to the vagaries of the market, oil companies have both a guaranteed income stream from it, and can ramp up or reduce production as they see fit, to ameliorate their corporate income flows.
Making them a little less subject to the crazy pricing that we saw in 2007-2008, when oil was all over the map. The Iraq government is the one picking up all the risk on the commodity exchanges.
But note that the oil people of the Bush administration can still make out on the deal. After all, Iraq owes America a big debt of gratitude and so would not be in a position to march lockstep with OPEC on price increases and could even sell to us at a discount.
The greedy oil barons will still be greedy, but their greed will now be at the mercy of the Iraqi parliament.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
You might recall that, during the Bush administration, much was made about the invasion of Iraq (and to an extent, Afghanistan) and the connection to the oil reserves, how secret plans had been drawn up by Cheney's energy task force before the war to divvy up the fields, and how the oil fields would pay for the war.
What we hadn't considered was that a free and independent Iraq, sans Saddam Hussein, might feel a little differently about it's main natural resource:
Only one of the bidders for the eight contracts to run oil and gas fields in Iraq has accepted oil ministry terms.
Six oil fields and two gas fields were available in a televised auction that was the first big oil tender in Iraq since the invasion of 2003.
Iraq has asked the rest of the companies to consider resubmitting bids for the other seven contracts.
How this worked was, Iraq set a minimum output for each of the fields (current production levels, which are minimal, were generally used). Output up to that level was free. After all, the government could do that now without help.
Beyond that level, companies were free to submit bids per barrel based on the amount of oil they predicted they could extract and sell to Iraq. Iraq would then sell to the lowest bidder.
But...
The catch was, Iraq also had a secret ceiling figure in mind of what it would pay for each field, effectively putting a cap on how much oil each contract could produce.
If the bid exceeded that figure, either due to too high a per barrel price or too many barrels predicted, Iraq would then offer it to other bidders.
As you can imagine, this knocked out of the pack any of the more rapacious... pardon me... *koffkoffkapitalistkoffkoff*... sorry, the more rapacious oil companies.
In lieu of this, what you now have is a few oil companies who would treat the Iraq fields as a hedge. Since the per barrel fee is fixed and not subject to the vagaries of the market, oil companies have both a guaranteed income stream from it, and can ramp up or reduce production as they see fit, to ameliorate their corporate income flows.
Making them a little less subject to the crazy pricing that we saw in 2007-2008, when oil was all over the map. The Iraq government is the one picking up all the risk on the commodity exchanges.
But note that the oil people of the Bush administration can still make out on the deal. After all, Iraq owes America a big debt of gratitude and so would not be in a position to march lockstep with OPEC on price increases and could even sell to us at a discount.
The greedy oil barons will still be greedy, but their greed will now be at the mercy of the Iraqi parliament.
(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)
Today
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I apologize for the lack of posts today -- there's been just one, from Carol, that went up about an hour ago (it's one well worth reading, on the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill). I've been feeling unwell since yesterday and just haven't been able to muster the energy to blog.
Hopefully I'll be back at it in a bit.
-- Michael
I apologize for the lack of posts today -- there's been just one, from Carol, that went up about an hour ago (it's one well worth reading, on the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill). I've been feeling unwell since yesterday and just haven't been able to muster the energy to blog.
Hopefully I'll be back at it in a bit.
-- Michael
Congress makes first big step towards energy independence
By Carol Gee
Update -- (4:00 P.M) The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that Al Franken won the U.S. Senate seat. And, for dessert, Norm Coleman has finally conceded defeat. There's one more vote for the energy bill when it comes up in the Senate. It is high time.
We can feel cautiously optimistic about this sign of success. Anything we do will be a start, at least
Update -- (4:00 P.M) The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that Al Franken won the U.S. Senate seat. And, for dessert, Norm Coleman has finally conceded defeat. There's one more vote for the energy bill when it comes up in the Senate. It is high time.Energy bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives -- On June 26 the House of Representatives barely passed an energy-climate change bill (HR 2454), 219-212, with 8 Republicans voting for it and 44 Democrats voting against it. It took everything Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer could do to get the bill passed. President Obama had a Hawaiian luau at the White House on Thursday night to woo House members, including many recalcitrant Democrats. Republicans were almost unanimously against it and their Minority Leader, according to CQ Politics, made members wait to debate. To quote:
. . . a last-ditch effort by Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, to stall action, with what amounted to a rare House equivalent of a filibuster. Using his unlimited leadership time to circumvent the time limit for debate, Boehner spent about an hour going almost line-by-line through a 300-page substitute amendment filed early Friday morning, questioning individual provisions.
“I hate to do this to you, I really do,” Boehner told colleagues, eager to leave town for the holiday recess. “But when you file a 300-page amendment at 3:09 a.m., the American people have the right to know what’s in this bill. They have the right to know what we are voting on.”
Chairmen Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Ed Markey (D-Mass), the leading architects of the bill, had to make serious compromises to get the bill passed. The bill would remove the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions. And reductions in greenhouse emissions at first will fall short of those recommended by the scientific community. The government would give away most of the first round cap and trade credits, rather than forcing polluters to buy them. An important compromise was changing just one word, "finally" to "initially," in order to get the support of one of the coal-and oil-state Democrats, Rep. Rick Boucher (VA). To further quote Jeanne Cummings at Politico.com,
The initial Waxman-Markey draft exempted only those plants that had been through all the challenge phases of the permit process, including lawsuits. Those were considered “finally” permitted plants. In their vote hunt, the chairmen agreed to change the language to “initially” permitted plants, which means that about 100 plants that are in the various stages of the permit process could be built without meeting new emissions standards.
. . . Waxman defended his compromises, saying they will take the country through “a transition” period that gives the coal industry time to develop technologies to reduce carbon emissions.
“The approach is to be as cost-effective as possible in the transition period, to protect the consumers, the rate payers for electricity,” he said.
The Congressional Budget Office "estimated that the House legislation would cost households an average of $175 a year in 2020," CQ Politics reported. The publication also discussed plans in the Senate for next steps. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), to quote:
. . . are already working with moderate Democrats to craft a compromise.
Boxer plans to start marking up a bill soon after Congress returns from the Fourth of July recess, and Reid intends to bring it to the floor this fall. Reid has asked Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Chairman Tom Harkin , D-Iowa, to find out how to win support from his panel, in an attempt to head off the kind of opposition from farm state lawmakers that delayed the House bill.
President Obama's reaction -- According to John Broder of the New York Times (via Memeorandum 6/29/09), President Obama is "against a provision that would impose trade penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming polution." The President disagrees "with a tariff approach." And he predicted that it will be very difficult to get energy legislation through the senate, and could take months and many more compromises. Broder also reported, however, that the President is pleased with the bill, saying "I think it’s fair to say that over the first six months we’ve seen more action on shifting ourselves away from dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels than at any time in several decades."
Paul Krugman's NYT op-ed called it "Betraying the Planet." To quote:
So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.
And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.
We can feel cautiously optimistic about this sign of success. Anything we do will be a start, at least
(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)
Monday, June 29, 2009
A Madoff man
By Carl
UPDATE: Surprisingly, altho only mildly, Judge Chin agreed with the prosecution recommendation and sentenced Madoff to 150 years in prison, to be served somewhere in the Northeast.
The actual prison will be determined by the Federal Prisons Board, but under Chin's recommendation. That he specified the northeast tells me he wants Madoff to suffer in the winters and summers. No Miami Beach for him.
The transcript of the liveblog of the sentencing was interesting to read:
In other words, a shitty man dealt a shitty hand and got shit-canned.
(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)
The day of reckoning for Bernie Madoff is here.
The prosecutors have asked for 150 years, but the victims as well as the rest of society will not be satisfied unless they hear the word life come out of the judge's mouth.
In my opinion, it should. Madoff, through his unrelenting greed, took people's lives. Perhaps not as directly as taking a knife and stabbing them, but already two suicides have been reported linked to the Madoff scheme, and any number of charitable organizations have folded their tents and closed their doors, depriving innocent people of the help those charities would have provided, in a "thousand points of light" fashion.
The 150 year sentence pre-supposes that the judge agrees to consecutive sentences on the maximum term for anyone of the eleven counts, 15-20 years. The defense will ask for concurrent sentencing, meaning as he serves one term, he serves all terms, and Madoff could be out in less than a decade.
Given Judge Denny Chin's record, I do not think it is likely that Madoff will get off easily. I do not expect he will sentence Madoff to 150 years, either, and in this case, he has the option to go off the reservation and come up with a different sentence, although that could be an appealable error, dragging this case out, and keeping Madoff relatively free for years.
Madoff is only 71 and looks to be in reasonably good health. The people he robbed are not so lucky. Life would be a fair and just sentence, in my opinion.
UPDATE: Surprisingly, altho only mildly, Judge Chin agreed with the prosecution recommendation and sentenced Madoff to 150 years in prison, to be served somewhere in the Northeast.
The actual prison will be determined by the Federal Prisons Board, but under Chin's recommendation. That he specified the northeast tells me he wants Madoff to suffer in the winters and summers. No Miami Beach for him.
The transcript of the liveblog of the sentencing was interesting to read:
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE DENNY CHIN:In the end, while Madoff made a plea for leniency on his own behalf, Chin was unswayed, and mentioned the lack of supportive testimony and/or affadavits attesting to Madoff's character.
"Mr. Madoff's crimes were extraordinarily evil."
"The breach of trust was massive."
"I simply do not get the sense that Mr. Madoff has done all that he could or told all that he knows."
"By any of these monetary measures, the fraud here is unprecedented."
In other words, a shitty man dealt a shitty hand and got shit-canned.
(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)
150
By Creature
That's the number of years Bernie Madoff was sentenced to today. While Bernie will certainly go on to become the face of the great '08 economic meltdown, it's a shame the rest of the bloated banking industry will not be going to prison along with him. The only difference between Bernie's pyramid scheme and the investment banks own schemes is that Bernie's pyramid was smaller.
That's the number of years Bernie Madoff was sentenced to today. While Bernie will certainly go on to become the face of the great '08 economic meltdown, it's a shame the rest of the bloated banking industry will not be going to prison along with him. The only difference between Bernie's pyramid scheme and the investment banks own schemes is that Bernie's pyramid was smaller.
No hope for Bernie
By Capt. Fogg
Is there a lot of difference between 12 years, 20 years of 150 years to a 71 year old convict? Sure there is. Bernie Madoff's 150-year sentence deprives him of all hope, just like it is said on Dante's gates of Hell.
It may be true that you can't cheat an honest man, or at least one who isn't greedy, but even those who have lost everything to Bernie's lavish living, may have a bit more hope -- and that's as it should be.
Is there a lot of difference between 12 years, 20 years of 150 years to a 71 year old convict? Sure there is. Bernie Madoff's 150-year sentence deprives him of all hope, just like it is said on Dante's gates of Hell.
It may be true that you can't cheat an honest man, or at least one who isn't greedy, but even those who have lost everything to Bernie's lavish living, may have a bit more hope -- and that's as it should be.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Crazy week
By Michael J.W. Stickings
It's late Sunday night. Actually, it's already Monday morning here in the eastern time zone. And I'm tired.
I don't have anything new to blog about at the moment, nothing urgent, but I've been spending much of my time thinking back on the crazy week that was:
-- Iran;
-- Mark Sanford;
-- Michael Jackson;
-- Farrah Fawcett;
-- climate change;
-- health care.
Of course, there was a lot from Iran, including this, from Tehran: "An eerie stillness has settled over this normally frenetic city..."
And there was Honduras, on Sunday, where the army kicked out President Manuel Zelaya.
And there was Obama possibly pulling a Bush on the war on terror -- specifically, on the indefinite incarceration of terrorism suspects. (Read Greenwald.)
And there was the whole HuffPo thing, with Nico Pitney asking Obama a question from a real Iranian -- and the MSM going nuts. (It wasn't a planted question, it just upset the MSM's arrogant self-importance.)
And... well, now I'm just more tired. I'll be back later today with some new posts -- as, of course, will my great co-bloggers.
Good night. And stay tuned.
It's late Sunday night. Actually, it's already Monday morning here in the eastern time zone. And I'm tired.
I don't have anything new to blog about at the moment, nothing urgent, but I've been spending much of my time thinking back on the crazy week that was:
-- Iran;
-- Mark Sanford;
-- Michael Jackson;
-- Farrah Fawcett;
-- climate change;
-- health care.
Of course, there was a lot from Iran, including this, from Tehran: "An eerie stillness has settled over this normally frenetic city..."
And there was Honduras, on Sunday, where the army kicked out President Manuel Zelaya.
And there was Obama possibly pulling a Bush on the war on terror -- specifically, on the indefinite incarceration of terrorism suspects. (Read Greenwald.)
And there was the whole HuffPo thing, with Nico Pitney asking Obama a question from a real Iranian -- and the MSM going nuts. (It wasn't a planted question, it just upset the MSM's arrogant self-importance.)
And... well, now I'm just more tired. I'll be back later today with some new posts -- as, of course, will my great co-bloggers.
Good night. And stay tuned.
The Reaction in Review (June 28, 2009)
A weekend's Reactions that deserve a second look:
Sunday
By J. Thomas Duffy: "It's Kaboom-Time for Billy Mays" -- Duffy's unique "take" on the news again serves us well, as he ironically examines the unfortunate demise of TV's best pitchman, Billy Mayes.
By Carol Gee: "What to do, what to do... about Guantanamo?" -- This post explores the constitutional and political dilemmas the President faces with the decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
Saturday
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Exceptional circumstances: A Canadian couple and their premature baby, currently receiving care in the U.S., must be reunited ASAP" -- Michael's great post touched a nerve with readers who had lots of strong comments on the relative merits of health care in Canada and the U.S.
By Mustang Bobby: "Forgive and forget" -- Bobby's great piece compares and contrasts how Democrats and Republicans treat their sexual transgressors (includes good quotes from a Joe Conason essay at Salon.com).
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Emily Haines, Metric, and the joys of indie rock fusion" -- Michael says of the Canadian singer-songwriter, "Highly recommended. If you don't know Metric or the wonderful Emily Haines, give them a listen." (Includes video)
Sunday
By J. Thomas Duffy: "It's Kaboom-Time for Billy Mays" -- Duffy's unique "take" on the news again serves us well, as he ironically examines the unfortunate demise of TV's best pitchman, Billy Mayes.
By Carol Gee: "What to do, what to do... about Guantanamo?" -- This post explores the constitutional and political dilemmas the President faces with the decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
Saturday
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Exceptional circumstances: A Canadian couple and their premature baby, currently receiving care in the U.S., must be reunited ASAP" -- Michael's great post touched a nerve with readers who had lots of strong comments on the relative merits of health care in Canada and the U.S.
By Mustang Bobby: "Forgive and forget" -- Bobby's great piece compares and contrasts how Democrats and Republicans treat their sexual transgressors (includes good quotes from a Joe Conason essay at Salon.com).
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Emily Haines, Metric, and the joys of indie rock fusion" -- Michael says of the Canadian singer-songwriter, "Highly recommended. If you don't know Metric or the wonderful Emily Haines, give them a listen." (Includes video)
It's Kaboom-Time for Billy Mays
By J. Thomas Duffy
Well, they say that the Grim Reaper, death, comes in threes, and, after Farah Fawcett and the Unconvicted Child Molester last week, that third shoe (or airplane ceiling), appears to have dropped, claiming its victim.
The world of direct marketing, and infomercials, will never be the same.
Reports today are that the vociferous pitchman Billy Mays is dead.
Billy Mays dies at 50; boisterous TV pitchman
But wait!
We can't have a mega-celebrity death without some sort of titillating controversy, which those muckrakers from Hollywood provide the angle that will have lawyers running to Florida throughout the night;
FAA -- Billy Wasn't Wearing a Seat Belt on Plane
We had such plans for Billy Mays.
Just last November, The Garlic saw the perfect synergy for the frayed, tattered, falling-apart GOP and America's pinnacle pitchman;
The secret, of course, is Mays, and his "Mighty Mendit."
Sounds like U.S. Air could have used some of that Mighty Mendit.
**********
Bonus Billy Mays (Was) Here Riffs
CNN: Billy Mays, OxiClean pitchman, found dead
People: Informercial Pitchman Billy Mays Dies at 50
BayNews9: Billy Mays remembered as 'hardest working man in TV'
Barry Crimmins: De-electable
As Seen On TV: Top Ten Billy Mays Commercials
Kaboom!
(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)
Well, they say that the Grim Reaper, death, comes in threes, and, after Farah Fawcett and the Unconvicted Child Molester last week, that third shoe (or airplane ceiling), appears to have dropped, claiming its victim.
The world of direct marketing, and infomercials, will never be the same.
Reports today are that the vociferous pitchman Billy Mays is dead.
Billy Mays dies at 50; boisterous TV pitchman
Mays, 50, the emphatic and well-known hawker of the OxiClean stain remover, the Zorbeez super chamois, a sticky substance called Mighty Putty and many other items offered for an amazing low price, was found unresponsive in his Tampa, Fla., home Sunday morning. He was declared dead by a fire rescue crew at 7:45 a.m., according to Sgt. Christopher Ugles, a spokesman for the Tampa Police Department.
[snip]
Mays' surprising death came as he was enjoying an unlikely degree of fame and fortune as a practitioner of "direct-response advertising," the infomercial-style spots that drive a $150-billion industry. He and his sometimes-collaborator Anthony Sullivan have racked up more than $1 billion in combined sales, according to Fortune magazine. In April, the Discovery Channel began airing "Pitchmen," a reality TV show based on their exploits.
"I hate to say it, but the king is dead," Sullivan said in a statement Sunday. " . . . I'll always remember his booming voice -- him saying 'Hi, Billy Mays here.' He was the best friend a man could wish for. He was much more than people knew."
But wait!
We can't have a mega-celebrity death without some sort of titillating controversy, which those muckrakers from Hollywood provide the angle that will have lawyers running to Florida throughout the night;
FAA -- Billy Wasn't Wearing a Seat Belt on Plane
The FAA is already deflecting blame for the death of Billy Mays -- claiming the legendary TV pitchman wasn't wearing a seat belt when he took a shot to the head during a rough landing on a flight he was on yesterday.
Here's what we know -- Billy Mays was aboard US Airways Flight 1241 flying from Philadelphia, which landed roughly when the front tire blew out as it touched down. After the flight, Billy told FOX 13 in Tampa that something struck him in the head -- here's Billy's actual quote:
"All of a sudden as we hit you know it was just the hardest hit, all the things from the ceiling started dropping. It hit me on the head, but I got a hard head."
We had such plans for Billy Mays.
Just last November, The Garlic saw the perfect synergy for the frayed, tattered, falling-apart GOP and America's pinnacle pitchman;
Could This Be The Answer For The Torn GOP?
The secret, of course, is Mays, and his "Mighty Mendit."
Sounds like U.S. Air could have used some of that Mighty Mendit.
**********
Bonus Billy Mays (Was) Here Riffs
CNN: Billy Mays, OxiClean pitchman, found dead
People: Informercial Pitchman Billy Mays Dies at 50
BayNews9: Billy Mays remembered as 'hardest working man in TV'
Barry Crimmins: De-electable
As Seen On TV: Top Ten Billy Mays Commercials
Kaboom!
(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)
What to do, what to do... about Guantanamo?
By Carol Gee
Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will be one of the most difficult challenges of the Obama administration. His own staff has been divided on how to do it. FBI Director Robert Mueller worries about detainees in U.S. prisons. Michele Flournoy, number three at the Pentagon, maintains that the U.S. must set the right example before our allies will accept detainees for repatriation. Rendition has been another matter, entirely, in the past when the Bush administration implemented the practice of rendering U.S. prisoners overseas to other countries where they were interrogated under torture.
How other law abiding countries handle suspected violent extremists offers a contrasting picture of how it is managed by the United States. The legal fallout over this has sent cases to court (in particular the Jeppesen/ACLU case). The Obama DOJ has asked a federal appeals court to block the case, claiming "state secrets" necessitate throwing out the case, taking up the claim of the previous administration. On June 22, federal judge Richard Leon ordered Abd al Rahim Abdul Rassak, a Syrian held by the U.S. for years, released because he was a victim of torture by al-Qaida. He "emphatically rejected the government's claims against Rassak. . . adding that U.S. officials are taking a position that defies common sense."
How will the U.S. continue to handle violent extremists? Earlier this month Glenn Greenwald analyzed the current practices of many countries, contrasting them with the administration's probable call for indefinite detention by the U.S. He concluded that, "numerous other countries are, with their actions, adhering to the values and principles which we, with words, righteously claim to embody." Now the White House has drafted an executive order reasserting presidential authority to incarcerate suspects indefinitely, bypassing Congress, according to The Washington Post's Peter Finn and ProPublica's Dafna Linzer. To quote the lead:
Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will be one of the most difficult challenges of the Obama administration. His own staff has been divided on how to do it. FBI Director Robert Mueller worries about detainees in U.S. prisons. Michele Flournoy, number three at the Pentagon, maintains that the U.S. must set the right example before our allies will accept detainees for repatriation. Rendition has been another matter, entirely, in the past when the Bush administration implemented the practice of rendering U.S. prisoners overseas to other countries where they were interrogated under torture.How other law abiding countries handle suspected violent extremists offers a contrasting picture of how it is managed by the United States. The legal fallout over this has sent cases to court (in particular the Jeppesen/ACLU case). The Obama DOJ has asked a federal appeals court to block the case, claiming "state secrets" necessitate throwing out the case, taking up the claim of the previous administration. On June 22, federal judge Richard Leon ordered Abd al Rahim Abdul Rassak, a Syrian held by the U.S. for years, released because he was a victim of torture by al-Qaida. He "emphatically rejected the government's claims against Rassak. . . adding that U.S. officials are taking a position that defies common sense."
How will the U.S. continue to handle violent extremists? Earlier this month Glenn Greenwald analyzed the current practices of many countries, contrasting them with the administration's probable call for indefinite detention by the U.S. He concluded that, "numerous other countries are, with their actions, adhering to the values and principles which we, with words, righteously claim to embody." Now the White House has drafted an executive order reasserting presidential authority to incarcerate suspects indefinitely, bypassing Congress, according to The Washington Post's Peter Finn and ProPublica's Dafna Linzer. To quote the lead:
Such an order would embrace claims by former President George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.
After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president's January 2010 deadline.
Is Bush precedent Obama precedent? Zachary Roth at TPM Muckraker had this chilling conclusion to the news of the draft memo: "If the last eight years have taught us anything, it's that executive abuses, left to continue unchecked for many years, have a tendency to congeal into precedent." It need not be that way. The Constitution has been a powerful bulwark with plenty of capacity to sustain the rule of law, particularly with a president whose specialty has been Constitutional law.
(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Exceptional circumstances: A Canadian couple and their premature baby, currently receiving care in the U.S., must be reunited ASAP
By Michael J.W. Stickings
A sad, troubling, rage-inducing story from The Canadian Press:
I won't get into the relative merits of the American and Canadian health-care systems here. Suffice it to say that there obviously need to be more neo-natal intensive care unit beds up here. Thankfully -- and this doesn't mean that the American system is better (after all, at least the couple and their baby are guaranteed care up here, thanks to our public system, even if it's not perfect) -- there was an opening south of the border.
That aside -- now that the baby is in Buffalo -- isn't this a clear case where the law must allow for an exception? No, the parents don't have passports, which are now needed (a rule that recently came into effect), and, yes, the father has a criminal record (I don't know for what, but I doubt he's a threat to American society), but surely the demands of the moment, the exceptional circumstances of this individual case (and the need for the parents to be with their baby at this difficult time, with so much uncertain) trump all other considerations, including the unfeeling application of the law.
It is likely, I suppose, that the couple will get their emergency passports. But will the U.S. then let them in? And will they get there in time, should the baby take a turn for the worse?
This story is simply heartbreaking. The powers-that-be on both sides of the border ought to work something out, quickly, that makes this happen, passports or no passports, criminal record or no criminal record.
This family must be reunited. Now.
A sad, troubling, rage-inducing story from The Canadian Press:
A critically-ill premature-born baby from Hamilton is all alone in a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital after she was turned away for treatment at local facility and transferred across the border without her parents, who don't have passports.
Ava Stinson was born Thursday at St. Joseph's Hospital, 14 weeks premature.
A provincewide search for an open neonatal intensive care unit bed came up empty, leaving no choice but to send the two pound, four ounce baby to Buffalo.
Her parents Natalie Paquette and Richard Stinson couldn't follow their child because as of June 1, a passport is required to cross the border into the United States.
They're having to approve medical procedures over the phone and are terrified something will happen to their baby before they get there.
The Canadian Consulate in Buffalo is providing advice and guidance to the first-time parents, and their local MP, New Democrat David Christopherson, is working to arrange emergency passports.
But that will take until at least Monday afternoon and the situation is complicated by the fact the baby's dad has a criminal record.
"I just want to be with her," said Paquette.
"She only knows my heartbeat, my voice and her daddy's voice. It's all I can think about. I feel so helpless."
I won't get into the relative merits of the American and Canadian health-care systems here. Suffice it to say that there obviously need to be more neo-natal intensive care unit beds up here. Thankfully -- and this doesn't mean that the American system is better (after all, at least the couple and their baby are guaranteed care up here, thanks to our public system, even if it's not perfect) -- there was an opening south of the border.
That aside -- now that the baby is in Buffalo -- isn't this a clear case where the law must allow for an exception? No, the parents don't have passports, which are now needed (a rule that recently came into effect), and, yes, the father has a criminal record (I don't know for what, but I doubt he's a threat to American society), but surely the demands of the moment, the exceptional circumstances of this individual case (and the need for the parents to be with their baby at this difficult time, with so much uncertain) trump all other considerations, including the unfeeling application of the law.
It is likely, I suppose, that the couple will get their emergency passports. But will the U.S. then let them in? And will they get there in time, should the baby take a turn for the worse?
This story is simply heartbreaking. The powers-that-be on both sides of the border ought to work something out, quickly, that makes this happen, passports or no passports, criminal record or no criminal record.
This family must be reunited. Now.
Forgive and forget
By Mustang Bobby
When the news broke that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and then Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) had confessed to having extramarital affairs (and in the case of Mr. Vitter, engaged the services of a prostitute), the knee-jerk reaction among the conservatives was to respond with "Spitzer-Edwards-Clinton did it too!" even if no one had brought up the former Governor of New York, the former Senator from North Carolina and presidential candidate, or the former president. It was a preemptive attempt to inoculate them from accusations of hypocrisy by distraction. It's a juvenile response and it really doesn't work because a) it's irrelevant, and b) why would conservatives, who make a living bashing liberals or anyone who doesn't toe their line of granular morality, want to compare themselves to people they view as moral degenerates?
There are a couple of reasons I can think of. For one thing, the Republicans have branded themselves as the party of morality and personal responsibility and held up the Democrats as advocates of "divorce, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and pornography." And yet the Republicans have supplied us with ample examples of their own "moral degeneracy," as Joe Conason delineates in Salon.com:
That brings up another element in the equation. The conservatives are remarkably forgiving of their own transgressors. Mr. Vitter, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Sanford still have their jobs, and the idea of quitting -- at least voluntarily -- doesn't get much traction with them or with their party. (The one exception was Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), who, when caught e-mailing sexually explicit messages to teenage boys, was out of a job and out of town before sundown. The difference, of course, was that he is gay. Gov. Mark Sanford's e-mails to his mistress are the stuff of bad romance novels, but he still has a job. There are even double standards in incriminating evidence.) Democrats are not so lenient. Mr. Spitzer resigned his office (as did Gov. Jim McGreevy (D-NJ) when he came out of the closet and admitted to an affair with his driver) and Mr. Edwards will never hold political office again.
Why is that? You could probably chalk the Republicans' ability to forgive and forget up to their Christian charity, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that they're just big old hypocrites who hold everyone else up to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves up to. (Either that or if they ran out everyone in the party who was divorced or had a fling, there would be even fewer of them than there are now.) And you can also assume that they will find someone else to blame for their own failings; back when Newt Gingrich was going through his divorce, his allies blamed it on Bill Clinton's culture of permissiveness, and now Rush Limbaugh is blaming Mr. Sanford's fling on Barack Obama and the struggle he had with the South Carolina state legislature accepting federal stimulus funds (bringing a whole other meaning to the term "stimulus package," I guess). So much for the "personal responsibility" party.
Moral failings and human frailties are oblivious to party allegiance. We all have them. So trying to exploit someone else's while holding yourself up as the paragon of virtue is destined for epic failure. That's harder to forgive and forget.
(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)
When the news broke that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and then Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) had confessed to having extramarital affairs (and in the case of Mr. Vitter, engaged the services of a prostitute), the knee-jerk reaction among the conservatives was to respond with "Spitzer-Edwards-Clinton did it too!" even if no one had brought up the former Governor of New York, the former Senator from North Carolina and presidential candidate, or the former president. It was a preemptive attempt to inoculate them from accusations of hypocrisy by distraction. It's a juvenile response and it really doesn't work because a) it's irrelevant, and b) why would conservatives, who make a living bashing liberals or anyone who doesn't toe their line of granular morality, want to compare themselves to people they view as moral degenerates?
There are a couple of reasons I can think of. For one thing, the Republicans have branded themselves as the party of morality and personal responsibility and held up the Democrats as advocates of "divorce, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and pornography." And yet the Republicans have supplied us with ample examples of their own "moral degeneracy," as Joe Conason delineates in Salon.com:
The supposed depravity of the Democratic Party has long been a favorite theme of conservatives, dating back to the rise of Newt Gingrich, who distributed an official campaign lexicon to Republican congressional candidates that featured such defining insults as "decadent," "permissive," "sick," "selfish" and, of course, "liberal." Back then the Georgia Republican was on his second marriage and carrying on a clandestine affair with the young Capitol Hill clerk who would eventually become his third wife (after he converted to Catholicism and had his union with wife No. 2 annulled). In 2007, he admitted on James Dobson's radio show that he was cheating on wife No. 2 with future wife No. 3 while he was publicly chastising President Clinton for consorting with Monica Lewinsky. Gingrich has remained a consistent favorite among his pious comrades.
Today, in fact, Gingrich is fully rehabilitated as a party spokesman, still nurturing presidential ambitions. So why should any other Republican fear the wrath of the righteous? The disappointment in Sanford and Ensign among the devout must be particularly keen, since they have so rigorously aligned themselves with the most fervent elements of the religious right.
For more than a decade, Ensign lent his name to Promise Keepers, the all-male Christian prayer movement run by a former Colorado football coach, whose mass rallies highlighted men's integrity, purity and uncompromising domination of family life. Both he and Sanford have worked closely with the Family, a secretive Christian fellowship on Capitol Hill that maintains a brick townhouse where Ensign and other members of Congress have resided. Over the years both men have won the highest marks from the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition and the American Family Association -- and until the other day, Sanford was featured as an invited speaker at the Family Research Council's upcoming Values Voters Summit 2009. (As Pam Spaulding and Think Progress noted, however, the FRC removed his photo from the summit Web site immediately following his confessional press conference.)
Certainly there is considerable pressure for Sanford to resign in South Carolina, and perhaps he will surrender. But he might well ask whether that is fair when Ensign is hanging on and Vitter appears to be in the clear. For a while, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins had threatened to challenge Vitter in the Republican primary next year, but last March he announced that he won't run after all -- and instead endorsed Vitter for reelection. Amazingly, Perkins then hosted a radio broadcast with Vitter as his guest, where they tut-tutted over the alleged ethical problems of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Nobody had the poor taste to mention the infamous black books in which Vitter's friendly madams in Washington and New Orleans had inscribed his name and phone number.
That brings up another element in the equation. The conservatives are remarkably forgiving of their own transgressors. Mr. Vitter, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Sanford still have their jobs, and the idea of quitting -- at least voluntarily -- doesn't get much traction with them or with their party. (The one exception was Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), who, when caught e-mailing sexually explicit messages to teenage boys, was out of a job and out of town before sundown. The difference, of course, was that he is gay. Gov. Mark Sanford's e-mails to his mistress are the stuff of bad romance novels, but he still has a job. There are even double standards in incriminating evidence.) Democrats are not so lenient. Mr. Spitzer resigned his office (as did Gov. Jim McGreevy (D-NJ) when he came out of the closet and admitted to an affair with his driver) and Mr. Edwards will never hold political office again.
Why is that? You could probably chalk the Republicans' ability to forgive and forget up to their Christian charity, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that they're just big old hypocrites who hold everyone else up to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves up to. (Either that or if they ran out everyone in the party who was divorced or had a fling, there would be even fewer of them than there are now.) And you can also assume that they will find someone else to blame for their own failings; back when Newt Gingrich was going through his divorce, his allies blamed it on Bill Clinton's culture of permissiveness, and now Rush Limbaugh is blaming Mr. Sanford's fling on Barack Obama and the struggle he had with the South Carolina state legislature accepting federal stimulus funds (bringing a whole other meaning to the term "stimulus package," I guess). So much for the "personal responsibility" party.
Moral failings and human frailties are oblivious to party allegiance. We all have them. So trying to exploit someone else's while holding yourself up as the paragon of virtue is destined for epic failure. That's harder to forgive and forget.
(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)
Friday, June 26, 2009
Emily Haines, Metric, and the joys of indie rock fusion
By Michael J.W. Stickings
The album with the heaviest play on my iPod at the moment is Metric's marvellous Fantasies, released earlier this year. Fronted by Canadian singer-songwriter Emily Haines -- who has also done some impressive solo work (as Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton), and who, with guitarist and fellow songwriter James Shaw, is a member of Toronto's Broken Social Scene -- Metric is a sort of fusion indie rock band, New Wave synth pop combined brilliantly with guitar-oriented alt rock, with Fantasies leaning much more towards the latter than previous efforts.
Highly recommended. If you don't know Metric or the wonderful Emily Haines, give them a listen.
One of the real stand-outs on Fantasies is the opening track, "Help I'm Alive," a repetitive yet undeniably compelling, even hypnotic, song. Here is an accoustic version that, while not as good as the album version, conveys some of what makes it so good.
The second clip below is the video for another of Fantasies' best tracks, "Gimme Sympathy," with Haines in top form.
Enjoy.
The album with the heaviest play on my iPod at the moment is Metric's marvellous Fantasies, released earlier this year. Fronted by Canadian singer-songwriter Emily Haines -- who has also done some impressive solo work (as Emily Haines and the Soft Skeleton), and who, with guitarist and fellow songwriter James Shaw, is a member of Toronto's Broken Social Scene -- Metric is a sort of fusion indie rock band, New Wave synth pop combined brilliantly with guitar-oriented alt rock, with Fantasies leaning much more towards the latter than previous efforts.
Highly recommended. If you don't know Metric or the wonderful Emily Haines, give them a listen.
One of the real stand-outs on Fantasies is the opening track, "Help I'm Alive," a repetitive yet undeniably compelling, even hypnotic, song. Here is an accoustic version that, while not as good as the album version, conveys some of what makes it so good.
The second clip below is the video for another of Fantasies' best tracks, "Gimme Sympathy," with Haines in top form.
Enjoy.
The Reaction in Review (June 26, 2009)
A week's Reactions that deserve a second look:
Friday
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Craziest Conservative of the Day: Gary Schmitt (for attacking soccer)" -- To quote: ". . . this is just yet another example of the right's deluded view of American exceptionalism: Americans are different. They're winners. To make the case that soccer proves this point is just silly. . . "; Michael makes his own case, point by point.
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Michael Jackson (1958-2009)" -- This thoughtful and personal piece brings together all the contradiction, admiration, adulation, "embarrassing nostalgia" and downright sadness that was the man-child, Michael Jackson.
Thursday
By (O)CT(O)PUS: "Clownfish of the week: Gov Mark Sanford" -- Our Contributor intersperses song lyrics with his own take of the Sanford saga.
By Carol Gee: "A bit of perspective on Iran" -- A compilation of news items from foreign sources covering the Iranian government's election crisis.
By Hamid M. Khan: "A genuine Islamic revolution" -- One of our Truman Project guest authors provides very significant -- a must read -- set of clarifications of the history, theology and politics of the Iranian people's struggles against their dictatorial "Supreme Jurist," or "Supreme Leader," to us.
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "The humanity and hypocricy of Mark Sanford" -- Michael looks back at the week's coverage of the Sanford saga, with all its unanswered questions, and concludes with a wonderfully written, thoughtful and measured piece that reestablishes perspective on what the criticisms might need to be about.
Wednesday
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "The right side of history: Obama stands up for 'the courage and dignity of the Iranian people' " -- Michael lauds President Obama's press conference comments about the struggle of Iran's people against their repressive government (See also Real Mousavi, Conservative contradictions).
By J. Thomas Duffy: "Governor Gaucho" -- Duffy, as only he can, cleverly frames the Governor Mark Sanford story within a 1927 Douglas Fairbanks movie; includes lots of Duffy's famous Bonus Riffs.
By Carl: "Linkage" -- Carl's made a very interesting connection between a couple of Iranian news items, resulting in an intriguing speculation about what Obama, the poker player, may be doing , if anything, regarding possible covert operations.
Tuesday
By Carl: "Why gun laws must be made harsher" -- Carl takes on "greedy" gun dealers who are selling firearms to people on terrorist watch lists. (See this post's interesting comment thread and the other side of this argument by Capt. Fogg "If . . . McCarthy" below).
By Mustang Bobby: "It's not about us" -- Bobby's made a very thoughtful argument against the demands from the right "that President Obama 'do more' about the turmoil in Iran."
Monday
By Capt. Fogg: "If Joe McCarthy were a Democrat" -- Fogg takes on NJ Senator Lautenberg's introduction of legislation regarding people on terrorist watch lists (whether justified or not, with due process or not) "that would give the U.S. Attorney General 'authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists.'
By Anonymous (Guest post): "Who are Iran's security forces? And whose side are they on?" -- The author begins,"The regime's security apparatus is not a unified entity -- and each of its constituent parts has different responsibilities as well as different allegiances." [Michael's intro" The author, a Truman National Security Project fellow, travels regularly to Iran. For the sake of his/her security, his/her name cannot be revealed at this time.]
By Capt. Fogg: "We're so vain, we probably think Iran is about us" -- Fogg concludes, "when it comes to handling touchy and dangerous world affairs, Obama seems almost like a genius compared to the man the Republicans would have had as president, strutting about a stage like an overweight, underpowered Mick Jagger, singing 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.'"
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "The latest from Iran" -- Michael does a very useful roundup of what the leading news sources can report of the Iran election crisis, adding a few of his own reactions; several comments followed. See also Neda video.
Creature Feature: Who gets points? -- Jay Rockefeller, Arlen Specter, Time's Joe Klein on McCain, and The Big Picture's Barry Rithholtz on unemployment.
Friday
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Craziest Conservative of the Day: Gary Schmitt (for attacking soccer)" -- To quote: ". . . this is just yet another example of the right's deluded view of American exceptionalism: Americans are different. They're winners. To make the case that soccer proves this point is just silly. . . "; Michael makes his own case, point by point.
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Michael Jackson (1958-2009)" -- This thoughtful and personal piece brings together all the contradiction, admiration, adulation, "embarrassing nostalgia" and downright sadness that was the man-child, Michael Jackson.
Thursday
By (O)CT(O)PUS: "Clownfish of the week: Gov Mark Sanford" -- Our Contributor intersperses song lyrics with his own take of the Sanford saga.
By Carol Gee: "A bit of perspective on Iran" -- A compilation of news items from foreign sources covering the Iranian government's election crisis.
By Hamid M. Khan: "A genuine Islamic revolution" -- One of our Truman Project guest authors provides very significant -- a must read -- set of clarifications of the history, theology and politics of the Iranian people's struggles against their dictatorial "Supreme Jurist," or "Supreme Leader," to us.
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "The humanity and hypocricy of Mark Sanford" -- Michael looks back at the week's coverage of the Sanford saga, with all its unanswered questions, and concludes with a wonderfully written, thoughtful and measured piece that reestablishes perspective on what the criticisms might need to be about.
Wednesday
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "The right side of history: Obama stands up for 'the courage and dignity of the Iranian people' " -- Michael lauds President Obama's press conference comments about the struggle of Iran's people against their repressive government (See also Real Mousavi, Conservative contradictions).
By J. Thomas Duffy: "Governor Gaucho" -- Duffy, as only he can, cleverly frames the Governor Mark Sanford story within a 1927 Douglas Fairbanks movie; includes lots of Duffy's famous Bonus Riffs.
By Carl: "Linkage" -- Carl's made a very interesting connection between a couple of Iranian news items, resulting in an intriguing speculation about what Obama, the poker player, may be doing , if anything, regarding possible covert operations.
Tuesday
By Carl: "Why gun laws must be made harsher" -- Carl takes on "greedy" gun dealers who are selling firearms to people on terrorist watch lists. (See this post's interesting comment thread and the other side of this argument by Capt. Fogg "If . . . McCarthy" below).
By Mustang Bobby: "It's not about us" -- Bobby's made a very thoughtful argument against the demands from the right "that President Obama 'do more' about the turmoil in Iran."
Monday
By Capt. Fogg: "If Joe McCarthy were a Democrat" -- Fogg takes on NJ Senator Lautenberg's introduction of legislation regarding people on terrorist watch lists (whether justified or not, with due process or not) "that would give the U.S. Attorney General 'authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists.'
By Anonymous (Guest post): "Who are Iran's security forces? And whose side are they on?" -- The author begins,"The regime's security apparatus is not a unified entity -- and each of its constituent parts has different responsibilities as well as different allegiances." [Michael's intro" The author, a Truman National Security Project fellow, travels regularly to Iran. For the sake of his/her security, his/her name cannot be revealed at this time.]
By Capt. Fogg: "We're so vain, we probably think Iran is about us" -- Fogg concludes, "when it comes to handling touchy and dangerous world affairs, Obama seems almost like a genius compared to the man the Republicans would have had as president, strutting about a stage like an overweight, underpowered Mick Jagger, singing 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.'"
By Michael J.W. Stickings: "The latest from Iran" -- Michael does a very useful roundup of what the leading news sources can report of the Iran election crisis, adding a few of his own reactions; several comments followed. See also Neda video.
Creature Feature: Who gets points? -- Jay Rockefeller, Arlen Specter, Time's Joe Klein on McCain, and The Big Picture's Barry Rithholtz on unemployment.
Mark Sanford, you're no King David
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I haven't written anything on the Mark Sanford saga since Thursday morning, when I commented on his humanity and hypocrisy -- what he did was all-too-human, however bizarre the contortions of his trip to Argentina and the lies of those close to him, but also, given his conservative Republican moralism, deeply hypocritical as well.
Since then, more has come out. For example:
-- His wife, Jenny, now says she's known about the affair since January.
-- Fox News, hardly a media outlet to pass up sensationalism, whatever its partisan leanings, reported that the mistress, a 43-year old resident of Buenos Aires, is professional, passionate, and beautiful -- and a brunette.
-- Politico reported that Sanford had initially booked a 10-day trip.
-- TMZ.com found the bar Sanford and his mistress went to, the owner of which noted that the two were "all over each other," "kissing, holding hands and drinking wine."
-- The woman's name, apparently, is Maria Belen Chapur. And, apparently, she's hot.
-- And then there was Dear Leader Rush, once again proving himself to be a top blowhard among blowhards, and spewing his usual partisan venom, blamed Obama for Sanford's demise.
In that last post of mine, I said I felt sorry for Sanford -- and certainly more so for his family, especially his wife. Do I still? Yes, I suppose I do. I may not agree with him on, well, anything, but I am not without compassion. I recognize that what he has done is not just all-too-human but all-too-common, and maybe he truly is remorseful. I hope so.
But it's hard to feel sorry for him when he's comparing himself to King David.
Yes, that's right. King David:
I have been doing a lot of soul searching on that front. What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily, he fell in very very significant ways. But then picked up the pieces and built from there.
May I say it again?
Mark Sanford... you're no King David. (Not that I knew King David, but I think I'm right.)
Now, I realize that the Bible is full of fictional(ized) stories meant to be edifying. And I realize, though I am neither Jew nor Christian (nor anything else of the kind), that those stories are not without value to all of us. They can say a lot to us, if we keep our minds open, and we can learn from them, Jew or Christian or not.
But come on... King David? Really? Is that the best comparison to be making at this point?
Sanford is saying many of the right things, and following the standard script -- confession, apology, determination to heal, dismissal of the story, hope that it fades from the media's attention -- but this wasn't one of them.
Now, should he resign? Well, that's not for me to say... ultimately, Sanford is answerable to the people of South Carolina, not to the rest of us onlookers and commentators. And South Carolinians are divided. A poll that was conducted shortly after his Wednesday press conference has it 50-42 in favour of resignation.
But Mark Sanford, to Mark Sanford, is King David, and he's not about to resign. (One of his advisors has said that resignation is not an option. Of course, that's what they always say.)
We shall see.
I haven't written anything on the Mark Sanford saga since Thursday morning, when I commented on his humanity and hypocrisy -- what he did was all-too-human, however bizarre the contortions of his trip to Argentina and the lies of those close to him, but also, given his conservative Republican moralism, deeply hypocritical as well.
Since then, more has come out. For example:
-- His wife, Jenny, now says she's known about the affair since January.
-- Fox News, hardly a media outlet to pass up sensationalism, whatever its partisan leanings, reported that the mistress, a 43-year old resident of Buenos Aires, is professional, passionate, and beautiful -- and a brunette.
-- Politico reported that Sanford had initially booked a 10-day trip.
-- TMZ.com found the bar Sanford and his mistress went to, the owner of which noted that the two were "all over each other," "kissing, holding hands and drinking wine."
-- The woman's name, apparently, is Maria Belen Chapur. And, apparently, she's hot.
-- And then there was Dear Leader Rush, once again proving himself to be a top blowhard among blowhards, and spewing his usual partisan venom, blamed Obama for Sanford's demise.
In that last post of mine, I said I felt sorry for Sanford -- and certainly more so for his family, especially his wife. Do I still? Yes, I suppose I do. I may not agree with him on, well, anything, but I am not without compassion. I recognize that what he has done is not just all-too-human but all-too-common, and maybe he truly is remorseful. I hope so.
But it's hard to feel sorry for him when he's comparing himself to King David.
Yes, that's right. King David:
I have been doing a lot of soul searching on that front. What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily, he fell in very very significant ways. But then picked up the pieces and built from there.
May I say it again?
Mark Sanford... you're no King David. (Not that I knew King David, but I think I'm right.)
Now, I realize that the Bible is full of fictional(ized) stories meant to be edifying. And I realize, though I am neither Jew nor Christian (nor anything else of the kind), that those stories are not without value to all of us. They can say a lot to us, if we keep our minds open, and we can learn from them, Jew or Christian or not.
But come on... King David? Really? Is that the best comparison to be making at this point?
Sanford is saying many of the right things, and following the standard script -- confession, apology, determination to heal, dismissal of the story, hope that it fades from the media's attention -- but this wasn't one of them.
Now, should he resign? Well, that's not for me to say... ultimately, Sanford is answerable to the people of South Carolina, not to the rest of us onlookers and commentators. And South Carolinians are divided. A poll that was conducted shortly after his Wednesday press conference has it 50-42 in favour of resignation.
But Mark Sanford, to Mark Sanford, is King David, and he's not about to resign. (One of his advisors has said that resignation is not an option. Of course, that's what they always say.)
We shall see.
A New York minute
By Creature
On the streets today I saw a person wearing a white glove in honor of MJ and another person wearing a green arm band in honor of the Iranian uprising. I'm not sure of the societal significance of the juxtaposition but I'm sure there is one (and I'd say it's not good).
On the streets today I saw a person wearing a white glove in honor of MJ and another person wearing a green arm band in honor of the Iranian uprising. I'm not sure of the societal significance of the juxtaposition but I'm sure there is one (and I'd say it's not good).
Rockefeller gets serious points
By Creature
The Charleston Gazette [via Benen]:
The unfortunate part is that this should be obvious to all Democrats and it should be the mantra across the board (from the president on down). The public option is the point of reform. We need a big pool for the public to swim in together, otherwise we will continue to drown. If Republicans think the public pool is icky, and would rather swim with their exclusive, lobbyist friends, then they can stay out. We don't need them pissing in our pool any longer.
The Charleston Gazette [via Benen]:
On Thursday, Rockefeller admitted he expects little bipartisan support.
"There is a very small chance any Republicans will vote for this health-care plan. They were against Medicare and Medicaid [created in the 1960s]. They voted against children's health insurance.
"We have a moral choice. This is a classic case of the good guys versus the bad guys. I know it is not political for me to say that," Rockefeller added.
"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health- care plan? That is the choice."
The unfortunate part is that this should be obvious to all Democrats and it should be the mantra across the board (from the president on down). The public option is the point of reform. We need a big pool for the public to swim in together, otherwise we will continue to drown. If Republicans think the public pool is icky, and would rather swim with their exclusive, lobbyist friends, then they can stay out. We don't need them pissing in our pool any longer.
The Torturer of Tehran
By Capt. Fogg
Saaed Mortazavi is sometimes called the “Torturer of Tehran,” but probably not to his face. The man also known as “Butcher of the press” has been given authority by the Iranian government to "interrogate" people involved, or said to be involved, in the demonstrations in Tehran.
Mortazavi earned his nicknames for his role in the death of a Canadian-Iranian photographer who was tortured, beaten and raped during her detention in 2003, says the Times Online. The TOT was behind the detention of more than 20 bloggers and journalists in 2004, held for long periods of solitary confinement in secret prisons, where they were allegedly coerced into signing false confessions.
I expect to be hearing a great deal about how Iranian concern over the strange results of the recent election are the products of American propaganda and the protest sponsored, choreographed, and financed from Washington, DC.
Of course, such things are more effective in terrorizing the locals than in convincing them that these confessions don'e have more to do with cattle prods and genitals than with American interference, but isn't it too bad that the US has lost any ability to deplore enhanced interrogation? Isn't it too bad that the US must remain silent about starting wars and killing people based on information extracted by torture?
Thank you, George W. Bush and all the other cowards who dragged our proud country down to the level of these savages!
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Saaed Mortazavi is sometimes called the “Torturer of Tehran,” but probably not to his face. The man also known as “Butcher of the press” has been given authority by the Iranian government to "interrogate" people involved, or said to be involved, in the demonstrations in Tehran.
Mortazavi earned his nicknames for his role in the death of a Canadian-Iranian photographer who was tortured, beaten and raped during her detention in 2003, says the Times Online. The TOT was behind the detention of more than 20 bloggers and journalists in 2004, held for long periods of solitary confinement in secret prisons, where they were allegedly coerced into signing false confessions.
I expect to be hearing a great deal about how Iranian concern over the strange results of the recent election are the products of American propaganda and the protest sponsored, choreographed, and financed from Washington, DC.
Of course, such things are more effective in terrorizing the locals than in convincing them that these confessions don'e have more to do with cattle prods and genitals than with American interference, but isn't it too bad that the US has lost any ability to deplore enhanced interrogation? Isn't it too bad that the US must remain silent about starting wars and killing people based on information extracted by torture?
Thank you, George W. Bush and all the other cowards who dragged our proud country down to the level of these savages!
(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)
Craziest Conservative of the Day: Gary Schmitt (for attacking soccer)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
For this post at the American Enterprise Institute's blog attacking "the beautiful game," soccer. It includes this remarkably inane passage:
That's right. His case against soccer is that it rewards losers. This is why it's still so unpopular in the U.S., which conservatives like Schmitt think of as some brutally Darwinian playing field, and yet is so popular in Europe and Latin America, where, apparently, losers prevail.
Of course, on one level, this is just yet another example of the right's deluded view of American exceptionalism: Americans are different. They're winners. To make the case that soccer proves this point is just silly, and hardly worth a response.
But let me make a few points anyway:
First, even if you accept Schmitt's point that soccer is for losers, it is simply not the case that soccer is the only popular sport in Europe and Latin America. Track and field is also popular in Europe, much more so, relatively speaking, than in the U.S. Is being able to run faster, jump higher or further, and throw further simply for losers? Furthemore, rugby is highly popular in the U.K. and France, as well as in South Africa and Oceania. Is rugby a sport for the losers who live there? In short, Schmitt's claim that the huge popularity of soccer in other parts of the world allows us to judge those parts of the world, both relative to the U.S. and in absolute terms, just plain stupid. Yes, soccer can help explain the world, as TNR editor Franklin Foer explained in his wonderful book, but not in the way Schmitt imagines. It certainly doesn't explain a world in which it's America versus everyone else.
Second, contrary to Schmitt, soccer is hugely popular in the U.S. The MLS, the professional North American league, is growing, but where it is truly popular is not at the professional level but at the amateur one, especially with youth. Does this mean that America's children are losers?
Third, Schmitt obviously doesn't know soccer. (How can he "unquestioningly" conclude anything without ever having played himself?) It can be a sport that rewards defence -- consider, for example, Italy's success at the international level, in World Cup after World Cup -- but it is simply not the case that the team that dominates usually (or often) loses. What soccer has he been watching? Has he ever seen Brazil play? Or Spain? (Yes, I suppose he saw Spain lose to the U.S. at the Confederations Cup, a stunning victory for an outmatched U.S. squad, but in recent years Spain has been one of the most exciting and, yes, most dominant teams in the world. And is it not possible for a team to dominate with defence, or with a system, as Italy often does? The Steelers won the Super Bowl this year largely because their historically great defence made up for a mediocre offence. They were hardly a dominant team, yet they triumphed. Schmitt wants "excellence" to "prevail," but excellence comes in many forms, and there is certainly excellence in soccer, excellence that prevails, even if Schmitt is too (willfully) ignorant to understand the sport, or to emerge from the depths of his ideological prejudices.
And that is what comes through here: ignorance. There may be some smart conservatives out there -- George Will on baseball, for example -- but with this one atrocious post Gary Schmitt makes himself look like an idiot and the rest of them, who may or may not agree with him, look bad.
**********
For more on this, see Matthew Yglesias, as well as a fine rebuttal from Alex Massie (who makes the case that European sports leagues are actually more Darwinian than American ones).
For this post at the American Enterprise Institute's blog attacking "the beautiful game," soccer. It includes this remarkably inane passage:
As someone who didn't play soccer growing up, but had a dad who did and whose own kids played as well, I can say unquestionably that it is the sport in which the team that dominates loses more often than any other major sport I know of. Or, to put it more bluntly, the team that deserves to win doesn't. For some soccer-loving friends, this is perfectly okay. Indeed, they will argue that it's a healthy, conservative reminder of how justice does not always prevail in life.
Well, hooey on that. And, thankfully, Americans are not buying it.
That's right. His case against soccer is that it rewards losers. This is why it's still so unpopular in the U.S., which conservatives like Schmitt think of as some brutally Darwinian playing field, and yet is so popular in Europe and Latin America, where, apparently, losers prevail.
Of course, on one level, this is just yet another example of the right's deluded view of American exceptionalism: Americans are different. They're winners. To make the case that soccer proves this point is just silly, and hardly worth a response.
But let me make a few points anyway:
First, even if you accept Schmitt's point that soccer is for losers, it is simply not the case that soccer is the only popular sport in Europe and Latin America. Track and field is also popular in Europe, much more so, relatively speaking, than in the U.S. Is being able to run faster, jump higher or further, and throw further simply for losers? Furthemore, rugby is highly popular in the U.K. and France, as well as in South Africa and Oceania. Is rugby a sport for the losers who live there? In short, Schmitt's claim that the huge popularity of soccer in other parts of the world allows us to judge those parts of the world, both relative to the U.S. and in absolute terms, just plain stupid. Yes, soccer can help explain the world, as TNR editor Franklin Foer explained in his wonderful book, but not in the way Schmitt imagines. It certainly doesn't explain a world in which it's America versus everyone else.
Second, contrary to Schmitt, soccer is hugely popular in the U.S. The MLS, the professional North American league, is growing, but where it is truly popular is not at the professional level but at the amateur one, especially with youth. Does this mean that America's children are losers?
Third, Schmitt obviously doesn't know soccer. (How can he "unquestioningly" conclude anything without ever having played himself?) It can be a sport that rewards defence -- consider, for example, Italy's success at the international level, in World Cup after World Cup -- but it is simply not the case that the team that dominates usually (or often) loses. What soccer has he been watching? Has he ever seen Brazil play? Or Spain? (Yes, I suppose he saw Spain lose to the U.S. at the Confederations Cup, a stunning victory for an outmatched U.S. squad, but in recent years Spain has been one of the most exciting and, yes, most dominant teams in the world. And is it not possible for a team to dominate with defence, or with a system, as Italy often does? The Steelers won the Super Bowl this year largely because their historically great defence made up for a mediocre offence. They were hardly a dominant team, yet they triumphed. Schmitt wants "excellence" to "prevail," but excellence comes in many forms, and there is certainly excellence in soccer, excellence that prevails, even if Schmitt is too (willfully) ignorant to understand the sport, or to emerge from the depths of his ideological prejudices.
And that is what comes through here: ignorance. There may be some smart conservatives out there -- George Will on baseball, for example -- but with this one atrocious post Gary Schmitt makes himself look like an idiot and the rest of them, who may or may not agree with him, look bad.
**********
For more on this, see Matthew Yglesias, as well as a fine rebuttal from Alex Massie (who makes the case that European sports leagues are actually more Darwinian than American ones).
SANDRA BULLOCK on CRAIG FERGUSON SHOW
This is one of the best late night talk show interviews I have ever seen ! This is what they mean when they say there is chemistry between two people. This interview could be used in a talkshow interview 101 class titled "How to make people like you by being honest and charming" - The key here is Sandra Bullock's sense of humor and comic timing. HOT SAUCE !!!
Click here to see Sandra Bullock hilarious promo for "The Proposal"
THE NILES LESH PROJECT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2009
Click here to see Sandra Bullock hilarious promo for "The Proposal"
THE NILES LESH PROJECT - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Well, what more is there to say? One of the genuine icons of our time, which says a lot about our time (more for bad than for good, I would argue), has died at the age of 50.
Well, what more is there to say? One of the genuine icons of our time, which says a lot about our time (more for bad than for good, I would argue), has died at the age of 50.Like him or not, there is no denying Michael Jackson's significance in global popular culture. He was a star above stars, as outsized a celebrity as we have ever seen. He was an artist, I'll give him that, but he was so much more, and over the past twenty years or so his art, his music, receded further and further into the background, eclipsed by a life descending into sordid decay and the media frenzy that covered his salacious demise.
In this sense, he was one of the truly towering figures of our time -- and, speaking personally, one of the towering figures of my life. I was almost ten when Thriller came out -- and it was an event. I remember it well. It was right as I was growing up and into popular culture, as I was first listening to popular music in a serious way. The album was that touchstone that everyone needed to own, and I had my copy, and I listened to it, and loved it. "Beat It," "Billie Jean," "The Girl is Mine," "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" -- these were the soundtrack of my life for a time.
The love soon faded. In my Grade 6 class, a year later, everyone seemed to adore him but me. I had moved on, notably to The Police. For some reason, in my mind, you were either a fan of one or the other, and I preferred a far greater album, Synchronicity, to Thriller -- even now, Synchronicity holds up as some of the best music of the '80s, as music that transcends that musically appalling decade and continues to be relevant, whereas Thriller remains very much of that time, a remnant of a time that evokes embarrassing nostalgia, the '80s version of what the Bee Gees and Saturday Night Fever meant to the '70s.
Of course, Michael Jackson was far superior to the Bee Gees, and much of what he did was quite good -- even if I now find almost all of it to be awful. Thriller was solid, Bad had its moments (like "Man in the Mirror," "Dirty Diana," and "Smooth Criminal"), and there were what I thought were good songs elsewhere (like "Say Say Say," a duet with Paul McCartney that was once, I am almost ashamed to admit, one of my favourites.
Bad came out in 1987. By the time the terrible Dangerous came out -- and it was already his eighth solo album -- it was 1991, and he was already something of a joke, if not yet quite the freakshow that he would become. The rest, of course, is history, and it didn't go well. The music was nothing memorable, and it was Jackson's personal life, and alleged criminality, that took over. He was still an icon, bigger than ever, the mystery only heightening the appeal (to many, if certainly not to me), but he was an icon to be gawked at, sensationalist tabloid fodder, not to be admired.
I don't know what he did or didn't do, but what is clear, I think, is that he was, through it all, a child, a developmentally stunted human being. There was something he had lost as a child -- his innocence, perhaps, or even the entirety of a normal childhood -- and he was looking for it. It is easy to conclude that what he may have done was despicable -- and, again, who knows? -- and that he was a pathetic monster hiding behind a plastic mask and a life of abject weirdness, but, in the end, I think it just comes down to this: The life of Michael Jackson was a life of sadness, a life that evokes sadness (in me, at least, looking back, thinking about his decline and fall, and about the culture that enabled the arc of his star, from childhood stardom to global megastardom to final implosion).
And now it's over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
