The Vancouver Olympics -- Closing Night

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY -- SEE BELOW. (This post, for better or for worse, has turned into a live-blogging effort.)

The closing ceremonies got off to a great start with the fourth arm going up -- the one that didn't work during the lighting at the opening ceremonies, the malfunction that got all the overhyped buzz and took on a life of its own in the media -- and with Catriona Le May Doan finally getting to light it, and I enjoyed seeing the athletes come in, all the Canadians, with Joannie Rochette carrying the flag, Team Martin's golden curlers, and all the rest, and the others as well, athletes we've come to know the past two weeks...

But then it went downhill from there, with a pitifully bad musical performance by Nikki "I Believe" Yanofsky, and a couple of other meagerly talented young people. That was simply awful, the low point. (Let's face it, "I Believe" is a horrible, horrible song, the one serious embarrassment to Canada from these Games.)

Since then, it's been utterly interminable. The Greek national anthem, the Olympic anthem, the passing of the flag from Vancouver to Sochi. The whole up-with-Russia extravaganza was okay, I suppose, if far too long. And now it's the head of Vanoc, John Furlong, the head of the Games, going on and on and on, as he did at the opening ceremonies. (It's painful listening him try to speak/read French. Could he not have practised and improved?) And now it's IOC head Jacques Rogge...

Seriously, this is supposed to be a party? And there's supposed to be a sense of humour to the proceedings? I realize there are formalities to be observed, but come on.

Also, Canadian TV ignored the medal ceremony for the 50K cross-country race today. (NBC showed it.) It's only one of the premier events of the Winter Olympics. Bad move, CTV/TSN/Sportsnet.

And... they're over. The Vancouver Olympics, that is. Done. Officially closed.

Oh... Neil Young. Finally, a talented Canadian singer/musician, someone we should be showcasing for the world as one of our own. Okay, k.d. lang is pretty talented, too, and her performance of "Hallelujah" at the opening ceremonies was great. But that Bryan Adams/Nelly Furtado duet? Remember that? That was bad. Not as bad as Yanofsky et al., but not good.

How about Rush? Wouldn't it be awesome if they came out and broke into "Tom Sawyer"? Or maybe The Tragically Hip, the most Canadian of all rock bands? Couldn't they come out and perform, say, "Fireworks," not least after today's huge hockey win?

Just as long as Celine doesn't show up.

And those arms are going down... 

What time is it? 10:02 pm. This has been so dull.

********** 

10:03 pm -- Gotta love this. Canadian geese followed by William Shatner, a fellow Montrealer. This is fairly amusing. Not as funny as when he does "Rocket Man," but still. 

10:07 pm -- Catherine O'Hara. She's funny, this isn't. Alas.

10:10 pm -- I love Michael J. Fox. And this is fine. Too much reliance on stereotypes throughout these three so far, but I guess that's the point. 

10:13 pm -- Michael Buble. Not one of our greatest Canadians. Ugh. Seriously, where's Geddy Lee? This is awful. We need this shit at the Olympics?

10:17 pm -- This Mountie routine is a new challenger for low point of the evening. I get that it's supposed to show off our sense of humour about ourselves, and that it's all tongue-in-cheek, but it's boring. 

10:19 pm -- One of the commentators on Canadian TV, I can't remember her name, just said that Buble was the "perfect" person to charge up the crowd. Really? That's a challenger for stupidest comment of the entire Olympics. 

10:23 pm -- I just read that possible performers are Nickelback and Diana Krall. Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What are we trying to showcase, our musical awfulness? 

10:27 pm -- Nickelback. I'm officially embarrassed now. Terrrrrrrrrrrrible. Besides, these idiots are from Alberta, not Canada. (Yes, I did just write that. Yes, I'm kidding. Sort of.)

10:33 pm -- Avril Lavigne. I wish I were kidding. Here's an idea. The Tragically Hip does "Fireworks" and the men's hockey team comes out on stage. I should be running this emerging fiasco. At this point, I'd even settle for the Trailer Park Boys. 

10:36 pm -- Alanis. I saw her in concert years ago at Jones Beach in New York. The opening act? Radiohead. Seriously. I had a backstage pass, and I went back after the show, but she never came out. Bummer. But the Radiohead guys were hanging out. Too bad I didn't know who they were. (That was a younger and stupider time in my life.)

Anyway... Alanis is a vast improvement over the previous two, but she was a lot more relevant, like, 10-15 years ago. That was okay, a pretty good song, if slow and a bit of a show-stopper, bringing it down when it needs to be brought up. 

10:42 pm -- Is it bad that I don't know who Simple Plan is? No. Because they're derivative and redundant. Canadian music sucks. Bring back Neil Young!

10:46 pm -- Hedley. It really sucks. I can barely believe the country that put on such a great show, and that did so well, and that aroused such national pride, produces such crap.

Hey, here's an idea. How about a Bare Naked Ladies reunion? I'd go for that. They're proudly and distinctly Canadian. Maybe they could change the lyrics to "If I had $1000000" just for the Olympics.

Have I mentioned that I should be in charge? 

10:49 pm -- And now, from Montreal... wait... who? Mary May? What? Does my ignorance reflect central Canadian bias? Not my own, of course, but the English media's. Are we too dismissive here in Anglo-Canada? Oh, it's Marie-Mai, or something. Whatever. Maybe she's big in Quebec. It's not bias, she's just not very good. Or even just good. Still, this sounds like something Europeans would like. (Update: A commenter says Marie-Mai is indeed big in Quebec. Okay. But shouldn't we be going for bigger names?)

10:52 pm -- k-os. Great. I only know who this person is from iTunes. No, that's not true. He's popular, and I've heard of him, well, I don't know where, just out in the ether. But there's a reason I don't know any of his music... it's gargage. And he's representing Toronto? Again, I can only hope the foreigners think this is cool. I can only add it to my list of embarrassments.

Is it over yet?

10:58 pm -- Percussionists?

Wait... that was it? It's over? That's the best we could do? That was hardly a "bang," as Canadian television commentator James Duffy put it. That was more like a loud whimper at the end of a long line of farts.

Again, why not Rush or the Hip to close it out? Something really big, something really Canadian, something truly memorable?

James Duffy's fellow commentator, whatever her name is, just called the closing ceremonies "spectacular." Wrong. They stunk.

And now we go back to Brian Williams, presumably to sum it all up with all the usual platitudes.

**********

You know, I really got into the Vancouver Games. All the hype leading up to them annoyed me, as I wrote that first night, but I followed them closely from the start. In terms of medals, the first week was pretty rough for Canada, but we picked it up in the second and ended up doing incredibly well. And, overall, despite those early gaffes and glitches (the arm that wouldn't rise, the ice at the speedskating oval, etc.), the lack of snow (and, generally, winter weather), and the bad policies (the fence around the cauldron), it was, overall, a truly amazing event.

I say that from afar, from here in Toronto, but that's how it seemed, and it sure seemed like the people of Vancouver, Whistler, and British Columbia generally, enjoyed themselves. I know many of us did all across this great country. The Games really brought us together -- not because we won a lot, picking up a record number of gold medals, or because we "owned" the podium," or not, but because they made us all proud to be Canadian, and they allowed us to show ourselves and our beloved country off to the world in a way we don't often get to.

And I'll miss not having them on TV. It's been a wonderful two-plus weeks, with some wonderful moments. When we won the hockey gold today, I jumped off the couch and celebrated like I rarely do for anything. I can't remember ever being that excited for a sporting event. Maybe when the Steelers won the Super Bowl last year, but not even that matched today. That win was the highlight, along with the men's curling win, but I found myself cheering on my fellow Canadians -- and genuinely appreciating the athletes from all the countries -- frequently. Whatever it was -- short-track speedskating or skeleton, even figure staking -- I was there, and I was united with the rest of Canada, urging our men and women on.

It's hard to believe, actually, that the Olympics could mean this much to me, or to Canadians generally, but they did, and now they're over, and hopefully some of that togetherness will persist.

There's a reason this is the greatest country in the world. And it was on full display these past couple of weeks.

Canada-United States 2010

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED BELOW.

Well, we're just a few minutes away from the start of the game.

This is probably the biggest sporting event for this country since, well, ever maybe. The 1972 Canada-Soviet Union Summit Series was big, as were some of the Canada Cup series, notably 1987, but this is the Olympics, at home, and hockey is much more competitive internationally now. I cannot even describe how much this game means to this country, how important it is, and how, from coast to coast, Canadians are stopping everything this afternoon to watch.

And I'm worried. Canada is the better team on paper, but the U.S. has been the surprise team in Vancouver. I expected them to have trouble making the semis, but they swept through the round-robin, beating us 5-3, then edging Switzerland in the quarters before destroying Finland in the first period of the semis, winning that game 6-1. And they have Ryan Miller in net, the best goaltender in the tournament. He stole the last game against. Will he do the same now?

Here we go...

I'll be back with some comments, and I'll also be on Twitter.

**********

Oh, a couple of advantages for the U.S.:

-- It's a day game. It's Canada's first day game at the Olympics, whereas the U.S. has played several, including the semifinal game against Finland on Friday.

-- The U.S. gets last change as the higher-ranked team (based on earlier performance in the tournament). This means Canada will have to change on the fly to match lines.

**********

All I can say is, Canada needs to play with the relentless pressure and aggression it brought to the first two periods against Russia. If we play like we did in the third period against Slovakia, running around, chasing, lazy and disorganized, we're in big, big trouble.

And we need Sidney Crosby to step up. He's had solid moments in Vancouver, but he hasn't played like one of the supposedly best players in the world.

**********

This U.S. team continues to impress me. A lot of youth, but they're fast, scrappy, and opportunistic. You can't let down against them. Canada dominated the first game against them, but they scored early, defended well, got amazing goaltending, and took advantage of mistakes.

**********

Almost five minutes done in the first...

**********

Well, that was a fairly even period. 1-0 Canada, but it could just as easily have been the other way.

Still nothing from Crosby, who really needs to pick up his game and make something happen. I said it before and I'll say it again. The Americans are young, tough, and fast. They may not be a team of NHL all-stars -- a few of them are, but not all that many -- but they seem to click together. Watch out for Kane and Parise, with the speed and stick-handling, but it's Kesler who really impresses me. And I wonder if Kessel, who plays for the Toronto Maple Leafs, will break out. Anyway, there's a lot of talent there. I figured before the tournament started that they had a chance, and I thought they were grossly underrated, but they're still much better than I thought.

As for Canada... Niedermayer's been a rock on D. After a rough start to the tournament, especially against the U.S., he's taken over as our top defenceman again, though the Keith-Doughty combo is also excellent.

Where's the San Jose line? I like that we're getting production from Getzlaf-Perry-Morrow and from Toews-Richards-Nash, but our top two lines need to lead.

**********

Well, 2-1 Canada after two. Another fairly even period, though the U.S. really picked it up after Perry made it 2-0. Another thing to worry about: Canada's awful on face-offs, especially in the defensive zone, where a couple of U.S. wins led to scoring chances.

It's the energy the U.S. brings that concerns me most, though. When the U.S. has the puck in our zone, we do a lot of running around and chasing. When we have the puck in their zone, they're all over us. I haven't seen the hits stat, but the Americans just seem a bit more physical, a bit more aggressive, faster.

But it's fairly even overall, and it's been a game of momentum shifts. Canada can't play cute, can't try to make the perfect, pretty play. To beat Miller, it has to be about shots, rebounds, and crashing the net. Because the Americans are playing really, really well defensively and don't give up many openings.

And where the hell's Crosby?! Ultimately, if we're going to win this, we need our supposedly top players, the veterans, to pick their game up: Iginla, Nash, Thornton, Heatley, Marleau, Staal.

**********

Well, what to say? 2-2. Canada had the game, but the relentless U.S. pressure won out, and we looked a bit disorganized there at the end. All it would have taken was a last clear of the zone.

Now? Who knows? It's sudden-death OT. It could go either way. It just concerns me that Canada didn't have many scoring chances in the the third. The U.S. clearly has the momentum.

**********

It never should have come to that. Ultimately, the first two periods against Russia aside, this has been a fairly disappointing effort by Canada. Not just today, I mean though the entire tournament. We're just not getting anything from the guys who need to score, who need to take over the game.

Bob Mackenzie's right: Canada was playing not to lose, not to win. And, I add, when you play not to lose, you often end up losing, especially against such pressure.

And now... 4 on 4. So whatever. All I know is, Miller has the advantage over Luongo, and that could make all the difference here.

Canada has to come out strong and take the play right into the U.S. zone. Otherwise, the Americans will use their speed and forechecking to win.

I'm slowly resigning myself to defeat. This sucks.

**********

Oh, there's Crosby.

Gooooooooaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**********

We did it. 3-2 in OT. Wow.

What an amazing game. I suppose we were the better team, by a bit, though we sat back again near the end and let the U.S. tie it up. In the end, an OT victory was only fitting.

And it was Crosby, after doing so little else of note during the tournament, who scored, assisted by Iginla. After Henderson's goal in '72 and Lemieux's goal in '87, is that now the third most famous goal in Canadian hockey history?

**********

Full credit to the U.S., though. They proved themselves to be one of the world's best, ahead even of Sweden and Finland, far surpassing expectations. They have a bright future. (I would have liked to have seen a U.S.-Russia game along the way.)

**********

A friend of mine e-mailed me a while ago calling this the defining sports moment/event of our generation. In terms of international competition, and from a hockey perspective -- and, more significantly, in terms of what it means for this country -- it probably is. It's our '72 Summit Series win, our Canada Cup '87 win. It seems so much more meaningful than our win over the U.S. in Salt Lake City eight years ago. That was fantastic, of course, but this is transcendent.

**********

And what an Olympics for us! Aside from the fact that Vancouver put on a great Games, a few glitches aside, we ended up with 26 medals, two more than in Turin four years ago. And 14 of them were gold, a record for the Winter Olympics. (For more on this, and on our "Own the Podium" program, see my post from last night.) And we almost had a 27th in the men's 50K mass start race today, the marathon of the Winter Games. Sure, we could have had more, and there were a number of disappointments, with some expected medalists falling short, but that's the Olympics. It's agony, and it's agonizing, and it doesn't usually go as planned.

But, in the end, we did astoundingly well. We deserve to be proud, Canada, we really do. We put on a great event for the world, and we performed at the highest level.

It's been awesome.

Truth in Comics

By Creature

If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.

Canada sweeps to gold in Olympic men's curling

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Who is Canada's greatest Olympian? How about Kevin Martin?

I'm serious. He should carry the flag at the closing ceremonies tomorrow.

Martin's men's curling team, from Edmonton, just beat Norway, the team with the strange pants, 6-3 to finish off an undefeated run in Vancouver, sweeping through the round-robin matches and dominating the playoffs.

(Update: It's just after midnight. One of our three Olympic broadcast networks is reshowing the match. Yes, I'm rewatching it. Yes, it's still exciting. And enjoyable, without all the stress. I'm looking forward to Martin's final shot and seeing the reactions again.)

He captured silver eight years ago, losing to Norway. Today, he and his rink of John Morris, Marc Kennedy, and Ben Hebert put Canada on top of the curling world again, just as Brad Gushue did four years ago.

It was an incredible run in Vancouver -- and it's been an incredible run for Martin the past few years, since he overhauled his team for the '06-'07 season, winning the Briar, Canada's incredibly competitive men's championship, in '08 and '09, as well as the World Championship in '08 (narrowly losing to Scotland in '09), and then, with two great victories over rival Glenn Howard, Canada's 2009 Olympic Curling Trials.

He's my favourite curler and has been for years. While he has done incredibly well here in Canada, success at the international level has often eluded him. That silver in '02 hurt. But there he is atop the podium, with a huge smile. The man's awesome curler, and a great Olympian.

And there they are, as I write, the best curling team in the world, Team Martin, receiving their gold medals, of which they are so deserving, smiling and singing O Canada. What a moment.

Along with our hockey win over Russia the other day, this is the highlight of the Olympics so far for me. And it means a 25th medal for Canada, putting us third.

But it also means a 13th gold medal, putting us on top by a wide margin, Germany second with 10, the U.S. third with nine. With that, we tie Norway (2002) and the Soviet Union (1976) for the most golds ever at the Winter Olympics (and the most by a host country).

We play for a 14th gold in men's hockey tomorrow against the U.S., the capstone to the Vancouver Games. For that, the anticipation across this country is immense. As for me, my nerves can't take much more.

But even if we lose tomorrow, this has been an incredibly successful Games for us. Forget the medals. Forget the early concerns about weather (and lack of snow). Forget the few overhyped glitches. It seems to me, as I watch from afar, that the Games themselves have been a wonderful event: great competition, great drama, and a beautiful host city putting on a great show for the world.

The medals are a bonus. There has been much ridicule in this country, as well as abroad, over our "Own the Podium" program. And perhaps deservedly so, to some extent. Why should we "own" the podium. Is that all that it's about? I get that more and better funding is needed, but the optics of that push for medals have been, in a way, embarrassing.

During the first week of these Games, there was a good deal of woeful, self-pitying hand-wringing as we appeared to be falling well short of expectations. We weren't going to finish with the most medals, which never should have been the goal (as it was completely unrealistic), and we weren't even going to match the haul in Turin in '06.

And then a funny thing happened: we started winning. Last Sunday, culminating in our spirit-draining loss to the U.S. in men's hockey, was a disaster, but, since then, it's been day after day of amazing performances. In fact, looking back, it's hard not to see how the Vancouver Olympics, at least in terms of winning and losing, have been a towering achievement for us.

Sure, there have been some tough, bitter disappointments, with expected medalists coming close but not reaching the podium, but there have been disappointments for every other major country as well. It's the Olympics. It happens. Even some of  the best athletes in the world fall agonizingly short on the largest stage in the world.

We won 24 medals in Turin. We have 25 in Vancouver -- and we'll have 26 after tomorrow hockey final. Could there have been more? Of course. But to do so well, on home soil, winning the most golds, what an awesome showing for this great country.

And, tonight, as we celebrate that, and as we deal with immense hockey-related anxiety, it seems only fitting that Kevin Martin swept to victory on home ice, the greatest curler in the world finally winning gold after all these years.

Latina chupando verga por primera vez

Un buen polvo amateur en el baño

Llega la hora de la ducha caliente

Video porno en HD de Jazy Berlin

Video porno amateur HD de pelirroja cachonda

Video de las tetudas Sara Stone y Brandy Tailor en HD

Nuevo video porno en HD de Bridgette B.

Worst Democrat of the Day: Ben Nelson, quasi-Republican

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Hill:

Democrats may have to abandon their effort for comprehensive healthcare legislation in favor of a piecemeal approach, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Friday.

Nelson, a centrist Democrat whose vote is critical to the fate of healthcare reform in the Senate, said that while he's inclined to support a majority-vote maneuver to pass a bill, he's unsure Senate Democrats will be able to do so.

"I don't know if we can get a comprehensive bill through," Nelson said during an interview on KLIN radio in Nebraska. "Honestly, I just don't know."

"We may be forced to doing healthcare -- to use my analogy -- by making a pie a piece at a time, which is typically not the preferred way to handle legislation," the senator added.

TNR's Jonathan Cohn says "[t]his seems to be his way of doing business. He'll grumble a lot, particularly when addressing his more conservative constituents, but that doesn't always foretell how he'll vote."

And, of course, Democrats don't necessarily need his vote. (The Hill's post is misleading, if not downright wrong.)

Still, when he's not an outright obstacle, he's a real nuisance, not least when he just seems to be regurgitating Republican talking points.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Tim Pawlenty

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a veep contender in '08 and a possible Republican presidential nominee down the road, told Fox News's Greta Van Susteren the other day that hospital emergency rooms should be able to turn people away:

Well, for one thing you could do is change the federal law so that not every ER is required to treat everybody who comes in the door, even if they have a minor condition. They should be -- if you have a minor condition, instead of being at the really expensive ER, you should be at the primary care clinic.

Even Van Susteren thought that was nuts (which is really saying something): What if what's deemed to be "minor" -- say, chest pains, which could suggest indigestion or something much worse -- isn't?

Furthermore, what if you don't have adequate insurance coverage to pay for a clinic? What then? Do you get no treatment at all?

Aren't Republicans just so wonderful? And this is one of their stars!

(h/t: C&L, which has the video)

The end of David Paterson

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard, New York Gov. David Paterson has announced that he will not seek re-election. (Or, rather, will not seek election. He was, after all, not elected to the office of governor but appointed, by succession, following Spitzer's scandal-fueled resignation.) He pulled out, following a good deal of justifiable speculation in the New York media, "amid crumbling support from his party and an uproar over his administration's intervention in a domestic violence case involving a close aide."

It is not clear what he did or didn't do in the matter of that "close aide," David Johnson. State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, himself with designs on the governor's mansion in Albany, will investigate.

And it could very well be that LG&M's Scott Lemieux is right:

One thing worth noting is that, while it will get much less attention (especially nationally), the scandal that seems to have ended Paterson's political career would in any rational world be considered much more serious than those that have presumably ended the political careers of the likes of Mark Sanford or John Edwards. (Or, although the commercial transaction makes it slightly trickier, Elliot Spitzer.) Without getting in to moral comparisons, abusing the powers of your office to protect a domestic abuser strikes me as much worse than consensual adultery from the standpoint of one's fitness to stand in office.

Again, there's a lot we don't know yet. And I'm not so sure the moral/ethical distance between Paterson and Sanford is all that great, given that the latter lied about his whereabouts and used state resources to conduct his, er, affairs. Still, Paterson almost makes Spitzer look good, in retrospect -- at least Spitzer, after all, knew what he was doing, was a compelling figure (and remains one today), and didn't seem thoroughly incompetent, and worse.

(Retro) Quote of the Day: Judd Gregg on reconciliation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's the New Hampshire senator, a Republican, in 2005 (when Republicans had a majority in the Senate):

We are using the rules of the Senate here. That's what they are, Senator. Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this, on numerous occasions. The fact is, that all this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation... Now, is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so.

If you've got 51 votes for your position, you win.

Pretty simple, huh? Pretty democratic.

Ezra Klein notes that, at the time, Democrats were against reconciliation, "a terrible abuse of power." And so, yes, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. But Republicans, who are now against it, went ahead with it, as Democrats should now.

What has been appalling, though, has been the Republican-friendly Beltway media coverage and "analysis," heavy on GOP talking points, portraying reconciliation as some sort of indefensibly anti-democratic and even anti-American partisan trick. It isn't, and, far from subverting democracy, it actually allows the majority party to cut through a Senate rule that paralyzes the legislative process and, with it, democracy itself -- namely, the filibuster.

Hey, if it's good enough for Judd Gregg...

Canada-Slovakia 2010

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The semifinal match between Canada and Slovakia is underway. The winner gets the U.S., which smashed Finland 6-1 this afternoon, all six goals scored in the first period.

Strangely enough, this may actually be tougher for Canada than the Russia game. I expect Slovakia to play cautiously, wait for openings, and rely on their excellent special teams play.

If Slovakia can keep the game close, the way the Swiss did against Canada in round-robin play, they have a shot, not least given all their experience up front (Gaborik, Palffy, Stumpel, Hossa, Zednik, Handzus, etc.), one of the best defencemen in the world back on the blue line (Chara), and an excellent young goalie (Halak, who's the #1 backstop for my beloved Habs).

It's just over seven minutes into the game. Canada's had some good chances, but it's still 0-0.

It's unlikely we'll be able to dominate the play the way we did in the first two periods against the Russians, but we need to keep pushing and pushing aggressively like we did in that game. It was that relentless offense, with great forechecking and cycling, that kept the Russians on their heels, and we can't let up here. (Alhough we also need to watch for, and avoid, broken plays and giveaways/takeaways that lead to rushes the other way. That's what hurt us against the Swiss and the Americans. We certainly don't want to be playing from behind against a hot goalie and a team that collapses into a trapping, stymieing D.)

Now under eight minutes left in the first. A stat just came up showing only four hits by Canada so far. Not good. Not good at all. We had something like 16 in the first against Russia.

Scored! Patrick Marleau! 1-0 Canada -- unless it was a high stick? Looks okay... They're going to video review... And it's a goal. Excellent. 

Okay, I'll be back with more comments later. In the meantime, as always, you can follow me on Twitter. I posted quite a few tweets during Canada's appalling loss to the Swedes in women's curling. I'll tweet a bit during this game, too.

**********

Well. That was intense. And way, way, way too close for comfort. After a strong first period and a solid second one, the third was almost a disaster for Canada. We were lazy, disorganized, and far too relaxed, and we ended up chasing the puck around, and tripping ourselves up, when the speedy, talented Slovaks finally asserted themselves. We're in big trouble against the U.S. if we play like that. (And we need to get a lot more from Sidney Crosby, who was invisible at times tonight. Indeed, other than Getzlaf, Toews, and Morrow, I can't think of another forward who did all that much.)

But. We did what we needed to do, and let's give credit where it's due: this Slovak team is pretty good, and it helps that they have a lot of experience playing together, and they really stepped up in the third period, almost tying it up in the dying seconds.

Ultimately, I'll take the 3-2 victory, but Canada needs to get back to what worked against Russia if it wants to put away the speedy, talented Americans.

We shall see. On Sunday.

"Tough shit"

By Creature

Your GOP:

As Democratic senators asked again and again for unanimous consent for a vote on a 30-day extension Thursday night, Bunning refused to go along.

And when Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-Ore.) begged him to drop his objection, Politico reports, Bunning replied: "Tough shit."

It's not like people are suffering, or anything. What an ass.

**********

For today, let's annoint him our Worst Human Being in the World. HuffPo has more. -- MJWS

Thoughts on the Summit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm late getting to this, but, well, you know, the Olympics.

Our women's hockey team shut out the U.S. for a third straight gold, our men's and women's curlers both won their semifinal matches, and Joannie Rochette, a lovely and courageous young woman, skated to the bronze in women's figure skating, with all of Canada behind her, just days after her mother's death.

Yesterday was a pretty good day.

The Vancouver Games have done a lot to unite this country, to allow us to think about what it means to be Canadian, and the pride I feel as a Canadian is immense. (We'll see how I feel after tonight's hockey game against Slovakia, though.)

**********

The Beltway media, as usual, are all about winners and losers, but I thought it was, overall, a fairly impressive and thoughtful discussion of one of the leading issues of the day -- a rarity in Washington.

But while I will admit that the Republicans did fairly well, mainly because they kept their far-right proclivities to a minimum, successfully hiding them from public view, and that it's still not clear what the Democrats are doing, I think it was President Obama who came out on top, if I may put it simply, hearing out Republicans respectfully and yet putting them in their place when that was called for, which was often. And I think Greg Sargent is right:

Obama listened politely for six hours, with occasional flashes of temper, but in the end, the message was clear: It's over. We're moving forward without Republicans.

Whether Obama and Dems will succeed in passing reform on their own is anything but assured, to put it mildly. But there's virtually no doubt anymore that they are going to try -- starting as early as [today].

That was the subtle but unmistakable message of Obama's closing argument. After hours of hearing Republicans repeat again and again that only an incremental approach to reform is acceptable to them, Obama rejected that out of hand.

And he continues:

To clarify, this was a call to Dems, perhaps more than anyone else, that the time has come for them to stiffen their spines and move forward with reconciliation, which Republicans, and even some nonpartisan observers, have repeatedly characterized as akin to marching off a cliff.

Also: This summit was always about laying the groundwork for Dems to go forward alone, barring a major capitulation from Republicans. As noted here repeatedly, Dems will find themselves in exactly the same position tomorrow as they did yesterday: Confronting the enormously difficult task of passing ambitious reform on their own.

For a long while now, Republicans have shown us what they're made of, and where they stand, which is against genuine reform, and against dealing with the very real crisis that afflicts the country's health-care system and that makes life miserable, and even unbearable, for tens of millions of Americans.

It's now time for Democrats to stand up and be counted.

GOP slander and misdirection

By Creature

Krugman on the big Health Care Summit:

If we’re lucky, Thursday’s summit will turn out to have been the last act in the great health reform debate, the prologue to passage of an imperfect but nonetheless history-making bill. If so, the debate will have ended as it began: with Democrats offering moderate plans that draw heavily on past Republican ideas, and Republicans responding with slander and misdirection.

At least Republicans stuck to what they do best.

Do Dems have the votes for the public option?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He isn't a Democrat, but Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont certainly thinks so.

I think we do have 50 votes in the Senate for a public option and frankly I don't know why the president has not put it in and I hope that we can inject it. I think it's a very important part of healthcare reform.

This is in direct opposition to the White House's claim that the votes just aren't there.

I'm torn, I must admit. While I would like to see a bill with a public option be signed into law -- it would, after all, make for much more meaningful reform -- I understand Obama's preference that the House pass the Senate bill as is (that is, without a public option) and then that modifications (but not the addition of a public option) be made through reconciliation.

And I repeat what I wrote the other day:

Or maybe they are, or at least could be with enough prodding, but maybe securing them, in both the House and Senate, would take too much time, and require too much prodding, too much additional compromise, too much playing off of competing Democratic interests, not least in a challenging mid-term election year.

And maybe the White House thinks that pushing through a more robust reform bill, one with a public option, by way of reconciliation would undermine the president's ability to sell reform as something other than a solo partisan effort. We all know what the public thinks of partisanship. We also know what it thinks of reform -- unpopular within the context of legislative sausage-making, much more popular when the specifics are known. And we know that the media are spinning reconciliation as a dirty word. So how would passing a reform bill, even one with a popular public option, through what is perceived to be partisan trickery benefit Obama, not least given how Republicans would undoubtedly propagandize against both the process and the substance? And how would it benefit Democrats running for re-election in November?

At this point, in other words, it may just be a matter of brutal political calculation. In a perfect world, maybe Obama would have pushed vigorously for the public option and would be demanding it now. But it's hardly perfect in Washington, and the key is get this done as soon as possible so that what would be major historic achievement could be communicated to the public well ahead of the midterms and so that Congress, and the Democrats specifically, could move on.

Don't get me wrong. This is not what I want. It's just what I think is realistically possible in the short term -- and what would benefit Democrats without excessive risk of the whole thing unravelling.

And part of the problem is that the situation in Congress is so unclear. Sanders says the votes are there, but Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa says they're probably not: "I hate to say it, but I am not certain we're going to be able to get a public option in this bill."

But if now is not the time, the time will come. Harkin:

That doesn't mean we stop trying... I keep reminding people that this bill is not written in stone, like the Ten Commandments, for ever and ever. This is a law, it's a bill, we change laws all the time around here -- that's what we do.

And so, whatever happens now:

At some point, we're going to revisit the public option, I can assure you of that.

Which is what many of us have been saying all along. Indeed, I have often referred to this admittedly flawed bill as a possible thin end of the wedge that could lead to significant supplementary reform down the road, if not in the very near future.

As Chris Bowers puts it: "To strengthen your negotiating position, and to prepare for future fights, it is important to round up as much support as possible."

Those fights are coming, whether Republicans like it or not, and I suspect there will continue to be significant and perhaps increasing popular support for the public option going forward.

And so while the push for the public option must continue, and while the temperature of the Senate must be taken, the current political reality both in Washington and across the country must not be ignored. Given that reality, what needs to be done is for Democrats to get this done now.

Morena parecida a Nuria Bermudez

Summit win

By Creature

Regardless of how this is spun, I think this was a win for the president and for HCR. It showed his seriousness. His knowledge. It knocked down many, many GOP lies (even though John Boehner tried to pack as many as he could in one lie-loaded mouthfull). And, hopefully, it moved the needle with the public. Overall, I think it was a very worthy exercise. Now, Democrats, get it done.

Update: Here's just one example of Obama win:

Bet You Didn't Realize This

By Carl

One big reason why your health insurance bills, as well as your medical bills, have been skyrocketing is...lack of competition!

The House voted Wednesday to strip health insurance companies of their exemption from federal antitrust laws, a Democratic measure that could resonate with public concerns about insurers but that has an uncertain future in the Senate.

The provision passed on a 406 to 19 vote, with most Republicans joining all the House Democrats in voting for the measure.

President Obama has said he favors the idea of repealing the exemption, and House Democrats say doing so would add scrutiny to the practices of health insurers. "The American people want and need this protection," said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.)

Basically, the regulation and oversight of insurance companies was done on a state-by-state basis after a 1945 anti-trust exemption was passed. Nominally, this was supposed to avoid collusion, price manipulation, and other lovely outcomes of monopolization.

Except...well, when you have major corporations who can talk to each other about what they're doing in New York as opposed to Montana, and yet, Montana and New York's attorneys general do not or cannot talk to each other on how to handle it...I said it the other day: in confusion, the more powerful force will manipulate the situation to aggregate more power.

A state or two is not as powerful as a multinational insurer with lobbyists in Congress.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office believes this repeal will do little to lower insurance premiums. I disagree. That might be true short term. It will take a while for Congress to bone up on insurance and monopolies. Long term, however, I think this will dampen increases and perhaps even lay the groundwork for lower rates.

If. We. Have. A. Public. Option.

It's funny how Republicans seem so scared of free enterprise. They don't seem to mind the anti-capitalist conglomerates that fund their campaigns, but they mind someone bigger coming along to bully them.

Weird, that.

(Cross-posted from Simply Left Behind.)

Sensational summit spin

By Creature

Thanks, media. Why bother talking substance when you can talk about the big Obama/McCain dust-up. It's no wonder the public has no clue what HCR is all about.

Stanley Fish is a moron

Guest post by Jeffrey Shallitt

Jeffrey O. Shallitt is Professor of Mathematics in the School of Computer Science at the University of Waterloo (Waterloo, Ontario). He is the vice president and treasurer of Electronic Frontier Canada and the author of the blog Recursivity, where this post first appeared.

Ed. note: This is Jeffrey's first guest post at The Reaction. I first discovered his blog, and learned about him, when I recently tracked back a link to my post last December on the idiocy of Stanley Fish (for an appallingly bad review of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue). As his Wikipedia entry explains, he is "a noted advocate for civil liberties on the Internet." I recommend his blog highly. -- MJWS

**********

Stanley Fish is a moron.

Yes, I know he's a "literary theorist" and "legal scholar" and has a Ph.D. and has written ten books and has a lecture series named after him. But he's still a moron.

Want proof? Read this column in The New York Times. There, Professor Fish, favorably quoting a book by Steven Smith, tells us that "secularism" is completely incapable of answering any "real" questions: "...there are no secular reasons, at least not reasons of the kind that could justify a decision to take one course of action rather than another."

So what does Fish think provides these reasons? Why, religion of course.

This argument is so stupid that I find it hard to accept that Fish really believes it. So either he's dishonest (which wouldn't surprise me), or he's a moron. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the latter option is more palatable.

"Secular" analysis just means thinking about things without relying on religious dogma. When Muslims outlaw interest because their holy book forbids "usury," secular thinkers can point to economic analysis that is noncontroversial outside religious communities: that having money today has value over money ten years from now. When Jehovah's Witnesses prevent their children from having blood transfusions that would save their children's lives because of their interpretation of the Christian bible, secular thinkers can point to the safety of the procedure and the likelihood the child will die without it.

Social science research can reveal aspects of the human character that suggest some ways of structuring our society are better than others. By "better" I mean that they result in happier, prosperous, and freer people, and a more just society. Fish may answer that my devotion to these principles is not "secular." But it clearly is -- it is driven by my own self-interest and by principles that are generally accepted, without any reliance on religion or "notions about a purposive cosmos, or a teleological nature." And evolutionary psychology can help explain why people think and act they way they do.

"Secular" analysis doesn't mean all secularists will agree on everything. Some may think (as I do) that a woman's right to autonomy over her own body clearly trumps the right of an embryo to come to term, while others may disagree. But neither do all theists agree: Christians can't even agree on the most basic fact about Christianity, whether good works or faith alone gets you into their heaven. So advancing religion as the answer to ethical quandaries is not in the least helpful.

"Secular" analysis has one big advantage that religion doesn't have: it can appeal to people of all faiths (and of no faith). If I argue that repealing Sunday blue laws will help the economy, that argument has an appeal for everyone, an appeal that is quite different from one relying on a particular interpretation of a particular holy book that Sunday is "God's day." Similarly, if I argue that not repealing Sunday blue laws is better because it gives small business owners a respite from having to run their business seven days a week, that argument is accessible to everyone. But arguments that depend on one particular dogma and implicitly demand that I take the dogma seriously or at least "respect" it, fail by their very nature to have universal appeal.

The Obama Code

By Capt. Fogg

What's black and white and red all over? What about proof that Barack Obama has a Muslim agenda?

The "Conservative blogosphere" as Raw Story calls that big ball of slime, is "abuzz" with much sound and fury now that the "Conservative" Drudge Report has identified the new logo of the Missile Defense Agency as a secretly coded message that Barack Obama is going to make the USA a Muslim country through the use of anti-ballistic lasers and missiles.

This fits in with my theory that because the US flag has red stripes and stars, Betsy Ross was a Chinese Communist.

"New Missile Defense Agency Logo Causes Online Commotion,"

says the Drudge Report. I'm sure he'd like that to be true and perhaps he will be able to create commotion amongst the large proportion of his readers with fewer working synapses than a jar of mayonnaise. Perhaps there are other mental midgets so terribly desperate for more absurd calumny to be flung at the White House they'll willfully suspend the kind of disbelief that would inhibit a normal person, but we'll see just how far the "conservatives" can pull that anti-American bandwagon before the clowns themselves jump off and the mules run away giggling.

Yes, it's red, white and blue and looks, if you're astigmatic, vaguely like the President's campaign logo based on the US flag. It has some curved lines perhaps to suggest missile trajectories and orbiting satellites. There's a point of light indicating a missile hit with a laser, which if you're trying hard might suggest a star and as everyone knows, the flag of Turkey, a predominantly Muslim secular democracy has a crescent moon, a red background and a star, and so does the American based Nation of Islam which has had known terrorist members like Mohammad Ali and Michael Jackson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and John Coltrane, so how can we avoid that hidden message shouting at us? Thorazine or some heavy anti-psychotic drugs perhaps?

Drudge packer Frank Gaffney, writing at BigGovernment.com, a Web site run by the well known "conservative" blogger Andrew Breitbart, says the new logo may be a sign that the Obama administration has "nefarious" plans for US defense. No, really. You couldn't make this up or at least you couldn't try to sell it while keeping a straight face, even to an idiot -- or to American "conservatives" whichever is stupider and more demented.

Hey, have you ever noticed that the Capitol building has a dome? Like the Dome of the Rock maybe? And the Washington monument looks a lot like a minaret - and don't you hear those voices?

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Quote of the Day: Bernie Sanders on global warming deniers

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case you missed it, this is what the independent Vermont senator said at a Senate hearing on Tuesday:

It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s. During that period of Nazism and fascism's growth -- a real danger to the United States and democratic countries around the world -- there were people in this country and in the British parliament who said "don't worry! Hitler's not real! It'll disappear!"

Well, we know how that turned out, don't we?

Sanders is being accused of hyperbole, of course, and worse, but to those of who live in reality and understand that, in EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's words, "[t]he science behind climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming," his words ring true.

Given the possibility, and indeed likelihood, if nothing or not enough is done to curb climate change, of massive global catastrophe, including the deaths of millions and millions of people as the seas rise, freakish and destructive weather becomes more common, and civil society collapses in some of the most unstable parts of the planet, those who deny global warming, or who are euphemistically called "skeptics," are nothing more than enablers of future genocide.

Obviously, there is a qualitative difference between Hitler and the Nazis on the one hand and global warming on the other. But the denying, the refusal not just to do anything about but even to recognize the great danger that threatens us, is common to both situations.

And we will pay for it again, and on an even greater scale.

Olbermann: "What is this country for, if not to take care of its people?"

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Today is the health-care summit at Blair House. Everyone who participates in it, and every American -- and, indeed, everyone -- should watch this. It is one of the most amazing things I have ever seen. And if it doesn't move you, you're just not a human being.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

LARA STONE - Interview Magazine 2010

Not really sure why all the top models are doing full frontal nudity with S&M bondage themes, but my knowledge of fashion and photography is limited , so who am I to judge?..I just know what I like !








- All Rights Reserved 2010 - The Niles Lesh Project
Follow NILES LESH / MIENFOKS on TWITTER !

Quote of the Day: Anthony Weiner on the GOP

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Democratic Rep. from New York's 9th District, speaking on the House floor yesterday:

The Republican Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of an insurance industry.

Yes, yes, yes. It's nice to hear someone actually speak the truth, however much Republicans may object to it, in a world of partisan truthiness. Watch it: