...I understand this is very serious stuff. And my magazine understands this is very serious stuff.
And we have really taken a lot of time with this story and couched it as carefully as we could and with all of the caveats, this is serious business.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Crooks and Liars » Seymour Hersh: Negroponte–Iran Contra—Funds–al Qaeda…Oh my!
Crooks and Liars » Seymour Hersh: Negroponte–Iran Contra—Funds–al Qaeda…Oh my!
...I understand this is very serious stuff. And my magazine understands this is very serious stuff.
And we have really taken a lot of time with this story and couched it as carefully as we could and with all of the caveats, this is serious business.
...I understand this is very serious stuff. And my magazine understands this is very serious stuff.
And we have really taken a lot of time with this story and couched it as carefully as we could and with all of the caveats, this is serious business.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
wfrv.com - On Video: Rats Invade NYC Fast Food Restaurant
wfrv.com - On Video: Rats Invade NYC Fast Food Restaurant
this is interesting because now every resturaunt has an army of Davids walking by...all with video cameras...and all able to upload their videos to Youtube
this is interesting because now every resturaunt has an army of Davids walking by...all with video cameras...and all able to upload their videos to Youtube
Friday, February 23, 2007
War is Peace-----Freedom is Slavery-----Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Much of this video "news" feels like it could have been produced by the Ministry of Information in 1984.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Much of this video "news" feels like it could have been produced by the Ministry of Information in 1984.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Indicting Dick
firedoglake
emptywheel
In my sixth post after Libby's indictment–just two days after the indictment–I wrote a post called Indicting Dick. After noting that one of the indictment descriptions–the strategy session aboard Air Force Two on July 12, 2003–was really about Cheney even though it didn't name him, I wrote,
emptywheel
In my sixth post after Libby's indictment–just two days after the indictment–I wrote a post called Indicting Dick. After noting that one of the indictment descriptions–the strategy session aboard Air Force Two on July 12, 2003–was really about Cheney even though it didn't name him, I wrote,
Tricky Fitzgerald!! He's been hiding Dick right in the middle of his Libby indictment.
I went on to list a whole bunch of details included in the indictment that might be references to Cheney. With all the evidence that has come out at the trial, I see I was right about several of these (but not that Cheney was a source for Martin of Plame's identity).
But we have learned far, far more about Cheney's personal involvement in the smear against Joe and Valerie Wilson. So it's time to gather it all into one chronology. If Fitzgerald wants to use this chronology to indict Cheney, he can be my guest.
By my reading, Cheney took his own notes on at least four documents pertaining to Wilson. It appears likely that, after learning that Plame worked at CIA from Libby or Martin, he went out and found out precisely where she worked, then he reported it back to Libby. Cheney directed Libby on at least three occasions (with Judy, with David Martin and Mitchell, and with Cooper et al) to personally intervene with journalists. And Cheney remained actively involved in crafting the response to Wilson all week during leak week. In addition, it seems clear that Cheney was pushing the Wilson attacks after the Novak article.
All this at a time when–according to Libby–they were obsessed with making sure they got Iraq right. It'd be funny how that worked out … if only it weren't so tragic.
Anyway, here's the chronology. I'm focusing on things directly touching Dick here–either things we know he was involved in, or things that clearly indicate a wide push to "get the whole story out." I will leave out some events tied more closely to others in the Admin, though we may well find out Dick has ties to that, too.Tuesday, February 20, 2007
David Corn: 'There is a cloud on the vice president
David Corn:
"'There is a cloud on the vice president,' Fitzgerald replied, explaining that Cheney had written notes indicating he was interested in the Valerie Wilson connection and that Cheney had sent Libby to the meeting with Judy Miller where Libby (according to Miller) told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
'And that cloud remains,' Fitzgerald declared, 'because this defendant obstructed justice....That cloud was there. It was not something we put there."
.
.
.
.
"There's a cloud over the White House as to what happened" in the leak affair, he told the jury. There were questions as to whether the law was broken when Valerie Wilson's CIA cover was blown and "what role the defendant played...what role the vice president played." Looking straight at the jury, Fitzgerald asked, "Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury is entitled to straight answers?" Instead, he said, Libby made up a story and obstructed justice. Echoing Wells' last lines, Fitzgerald declared of Libby, "He stole the truth from the judicial system. Give truth back." With that, Fitzgerald was done.
"'There is a cloud on the vice president,' Fitzgerald replied, explaining that Cheney had written notes indicating he was interested in the Valerie Wilson connection and that Cheney had sent Libby to the meeting with Judy Miller where Libby (according to Miller) told her that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
'And that cloud remains,' Fitzgerald declared, 'because this defendant obstructed justice....That cloud was there. It was not something we put there."
.
.
.
.
"There's a cloud over the White House as to what happened" in the leak affair, he told the jury. There were questions as to whether the law was broken when Valerie Wilson's CIA cover was blown and "what role the defendant played...what role the vice president played." Looking straight at the jury, Fitzgerald asked, "Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury is entitled to straight answers?" Instead, he said, Libby made up a story and obstructed justice. Echoing Wells' last lines, Fitzgerald declared of Libby, "He stole the truth from the judicial system. Give truth back." With that, Fitzgerald was done.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Smart Mobs: Payments by mobile phone
Smart Mobs: Payments by mobile phone:
"'Smart cards and mobile phones are quickly emerging as ways to pay with electronic cash,'this article in The Economist says.'Some of the hottest nightclubs have a new trick for checking the identity of their VIP guests: they send an entry pass in the form of a super barcode to their mobile phones. This is scanned by the large gentleman who lifts the velvet rope. Even those who must pay to get in may need their handsets: at a recent clubbers' night at London's Ministry of Sound, students were offered discounts if they used their mobile phones to buy electronic tickets.
Mobile phones are becoming an increasingly popular way to make all sorts of payments. In America fans of the Atlanta Hawks have been testing specially adapted Nokia handsets linked to their Visa cards to enter their local stadium and to buy refreshments. Elsewhere schemes are more advanced. You can already pass the day in Austria without carrying cash, credit or debit cards by paying for everything, including consumer goods, with a mobile phone, says Arthur D. Little, a firm of management consultants. It reckons worldwide payments using mobile phones will climb from just $3.2 billion in 2003 to more than $37 billion by 2008'. "
"'Smart cards and mobile phones are quickly emerging as ways to pay with electronic cash,'this article in The Economist says.'Some of the hottest nightclubs have a new trick for checking the identity of their VIP guests: they send an entry pass in the form of a super barcode to their mobile phones. This is scanned by the large gentleman who lifts the velvet rope. Even those who must pay to get in may need their handsets: at a recent clubbers' night at London's Ministry of Sound, students were offered discounts if they used their mobile phones to buy electronic tickets.
Mobile phones are becoming an increasingly popular way to make all sorts of payments. In America fans of the Atlanta Hawks have been testing specially adapted Nokia handsets linked to their Visa cards to enter their local stadium and to buy refreshments. Elsewhere schemes are more advanced. You can already pass the day in Austria without carrying cash, credit or debit cards by paying for everything, including consumer goods, with a mobile phone, says Arthur D. Little, a firm of management consultants. It reckons worldwide payments using mobile phones will climb from just $3.2 billion in 2003 to more than $37 billion by 2008'. "
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Pilot's Trick Allows Passengers To Burn, Beat Gun-Toting Hijacker Into Submission
via huffpo
Speaking to the gunman during the hijacking, the pilot realized the man did not understand French. So he used the plane's public address system to warn the passengers in French of the ploy he was going to try: slam on the brakes upon landing, then accelerate abruptly. The idea was to catch the hijacker off balance, and have crew members and men sitting in the front rows of the plane jump on him, the Spanish official said.
The pilot warned women and children to move to the back rows of the plane in preparation for the subterfuge, the official said.
It worked. As the plane landed on Gran Canaria, the man was standing in the middle aisle when the pilot carried out his maneuver, and he fell to the floor, dropping one of his two 7mm pistols. Flight attendants then threw boiling water in his face and at his chest, and some 10 people jumped on the man and beat him, the Spanish official said.
Speaking to the gunman during the hijacking, the pilot realized the man did not understand French. So he used the plane's public address system to warn the passengers in French of the ploy he was going to try: slam on the brakes upon landing, then accelerate abruptly. The idea was to catch the hijacker off balance, and have crew members and men sitting in the front rows of the plane jump on him, the Spanish official said.
The pilot warned women and children to move to the back rows of the plane in preparation for the subterfuge, the official said.
It worked. As the plane landed on Gran Canaria, the man was standing in the middle aisle when the pilot carried out his maneuver, and he fell to the floor, dropping one of his two 7mm pistols. Flight attendants then threw boiling water in his face and at his chest, and some 10 people jumped on the man and beat him, the Spanish official said.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
(Not so) Strange Bedfellows (as it turned out)
Huffington Post
So my old friend Al Franken has officially announced that he's running for the United States Senate in Minnesota. See his terrific announcement video here.
So my old friend Al Franken has officially announced that he's running for the United States Senate in Minnesota. See his terrific announcement video here.
This is great news. Al is smart, passionate, a terrific public speaker, and dedicated to carrying on the progressive ideals of his political hero -- and mine -- Paul Wellstone. What's more, as Frank Rich notes, Al getting into the race has already caused Norm Coleman to start running away from his rubber-stamp support of the White House on Iraq.
Which is why I'm so worried that I could possibly have a negative impact on Al's campaign.
I know that we live in the era of Gotcha Politics, a time when campaign opp research teams dig as furiously as they can, searching for even the slightest hint of personal indiscretion in their opponent's past that can be used in attack ads.
So, figuring that the truth will eventually come out, I've decided to come clean about me and Al. Better that it comes from me, rather than from Coleman or Al's Democratic rivals.
You see, back in the mid-90s, Al Franken and I shared a bed. Repeatedly. While we were both married. And, long before Pam and Tommy Lee or Paris Hilton, we always made sure we had a camera to record our liaisons.
Shocking but true. What can I say, we were young, we were passionate, and there was something between us that couldn't be denied. And the fact that it was being recorded for posterity only added to the frisson.
But the past has a way of bubbling up at the most opportune moment-- and ending up on YouTube. So I'm going to beat the Gotcha Gang to the punch and preemptively release the videos here and now... and hope the people of Minnesota will be able to look past them (as Al's wife Franni has). It would kill me if these videos were to become Al Franken's Macaca Moment.
P.S. Keep in mind, these were shot over a decade ago, so please forgive my hair... and my views. But I still have the lingerie!
P.P.S. If you want to see more, click here.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
techpresident.com
Talking Points Memo
[T]he Personal Democracy Forum has just opened a new site about the online politics of the 2008 presidential race -- techpresident.com.
[T]he Personal Democracy Forum has just opened a new site about the online politics of the 2008 presidential race -- techpresident.com.
Crooks and Liars » Daily Show: Douglas Feith Has Huge Balls
this is good except for the attempt at making it funny
Crooks and Liars » Daily Show: Douglas Feith Has Huge Balls
Crooks and Liars » Daily Show: Douglas Feith Has Huge Balls
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Former Walgreen Co. Chairman Charles R. Walgreen Jr. Dies at 100
In 1995, at age 89, he traveled to Antarctica, where a 1,000-mile shoreline identified on maps as the Walgreen Coast was named by Adm. Richard E. Byrd, a family friend, in honor of Mr. Walgreen Sr. The trip required Mr. Walgreen Jr. to grow a beard and train for a year, and it was one of the great disappointments of his life that, because of a mix-up over a doctor's orders, he was not allowed on the final flight from base camp to the Pole. However, he is believed to be the oldest adventurer ever to visit Antarctica.
He also kept an office at the company's Deerfield, Ill., headquarters, where he could be seen working two or three days a week into his 90s. Then, at age 95, he ordered construction of a new 127-foot yacht, the Sis W., and two years later he and his wife and a crew including a staff of nurses cruised to the East Coast, the Panama Canal and the Galapagos Islands.
He also kept an office at the company's Deerfield, Ill., headquarters, where he could be seen working two or three days a week into his 90s. Then, at age 95, he ordered construction of a new 127-foot yacht, the Sis W., and two years later he and his wife and a crew including a staff of nurses cruised to the East Coast, the Panama Canal and the Galapagos Islands.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Leading Experts Say Congress Must Stop An Attack on Iran Is That Constitutionally Possible?
from C&L
FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Leading Experts Say Congress Must Stop An Attack on Iran Is That Constitutionally Possible?
In a February 5 OpEd in the Los Angeles Times, Leon Weiss and Larry Diamond explained that they were uncertain whether President Bush's recent tough talk toward Iran was bully pulpit bluster, meant solely to control Iran's dangerous actions, or if the President was again on the road to war. (Weiss is a senior science fellow at the Center for International Security at Cooperation at Stanford University; Diamond is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.)
Accordingly, Weiss and Diamond called on Congress to find out which is the case, and, if the President's intention is indeed warlike, to take preventive action so that the President does not launch a war in Iran - given his performance in Iraq. They suggest sending the President what is, in effect, a veto-proof measure -- by placing the measure in an appropriations bill - advising the President that "Congress will not support a U.S. military strike on that country" unless authorized by Congress. If Bush were to violate such a law, they urged, Congress should file a lawsuit against him, and begin impeachment proceedings.
news230();
James Fallows expressed a similar concern about the Administration's actions in Iran in his recent Atlantic Monthly column. "If we could trust the Administration's ability to judge America's rational self-interest, there would be no need to constrain its threatening gestures toward Iran," Fallows suggested. Such trust, however, has not proven to be merited. Nevertheless, Fallows concluded, even if the Bush Administration has warlike intentions with respect to Iran, Congress can do nothing other than "draw the line. It can say that war with Iran is anathema to the interests of the United States and contrary to the will of its elected representative."
These commentators have raised the question of whether Congress can, in fact, prevent a president from taking the nation to war. This was the subject of a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing chaired by Senator Russ Feingold, where he sought to explore "not what Congress should do, but what can Congress do."
While the hearing was focused on Iraq, and Congressional power in general, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) specifically asked the panel of constitutional experts, during the questioning, about what legal restrictions might be placed on the president's going to war in Iran.
Because the constitutional experts submitted formal statements to the Committee, which are available online, and several of them are terrific briefs on the law and relevant history, I have linked those statements to their names. Rather than rely solely upon their own summaries of their positions, given during the hearing, I have instead cited from, and commented on, their prepared statements seeking to set forth the essence of their positions.
What is especially significant, in my eyes, is that the conclusion that Congress does indeed have power to significantly restrict the Administration in its plans for war, transcends politics: Even experts who have worked for Republican administrations have come to this conclusion.
Statements of Constitutional Experts
Professor David Barron from the Harvard Law School opened the testimony. Barron is a graduate of Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Reinhardt on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as well as for Associate Justice Stevens on the United States Supreme Court. He served as an attorney advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, before joining the faculty at Harvard Law School in 1999.
continue...
FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Leading Experts Say Congress Must Stop An Attack on Iran Is That Constitutionally Possible?
In a February 5 OpEd in the Los Angeles Times, Leon Weiss and Larry Diamond explained that they were uncertain whether President Bush's recent tough talk toward Iran was bully pulpit bluster, meant solely to control Iran's dangerous actions, or if the President was again on the road to war. (Weiss is a senior science fellow at the Center for International Security at Cooperation at Stanford University; Diamond is a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution.)
Accordingly, Weiss and Diamond called on Congress to find out which is the case, and, if the President's intention is indeed warlike, to take preventive action so that the President does not launch a war in Iran - given his performance in Iraq. They suggest sending the President what is, in effect, a veto-proof measure -- by placing the measure in an appropriations bill - advising the President that "Congress will not support a U.S. military strike on that country" unless authorized by Congress. If Bush were to violate such a law, they urged, Congress should file a lawsuit against him, and begin impeachment proceedings.
news230();
James Fallows expressed a similar concern about the Administration's actions in Iran in his recent Atlantic Monthly column. "If we could trust the Administration's ability to judge America's rational self-interest, there would be no need to constrain its threatening gestures toward Iran," Fallows suggested. Such trust, however, has not proven to be merited. Nevertheless, Fallows concluded, even if the Bush Administration has warlike intentions with respect to Iran, Congress can do nothing other than "draw the line. It can say that war with Iran is anathema to the interests of the United States and contrary to the will of its elected representative."
These commentators have raised the question of whether Congress can, in fact, prevent a president from taking the nation to war. This was the subject of a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing chaired by Senator Russ Feingold, where he sought to explore "not what Congress should do, but what can Congress do."
While the hearing was focused on Iraq, and Congressional power in general, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) specifically asked the panel of constitutional experts, during the questioning, about what legal restrictions might be placed on the president's going to war in Iran.
Because the constitutional experts submitted formal statements to the Committee, which are available online, and several of them are terrific briefs on the law and relevant history, I have linked those statements to their names. Rather than rely solely upon their own summaries of their positions, given during the hearing, I have instead cited from, and commented on, their prepared statements seeking to set forth the essence of their positions.
What is especially significant, in my eyes, is that the conclusion that Congress does indeed have power to significantly restrict the Administration in its plans for war, transcends politics: Even experts who have worked for Republican administrations have come to this conclusion.
Statements of Constitutional Experts
Professor David Barron from the Harvard Law School opened the testimony. Barron is a graduate of Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Reinhardt on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as well as for Associate Justice Stevens on the United States Supreme Court. He served as an attorney advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, before joining the faculty at Harvard Law School in 1999.
continue...
Secrecy's dangerous side effects
When legal settlements allow companies to hide their mistakes, what we don't know can hurt us.****
Courts have the power to grant protective orders only to limit the disclosure of highly personal information and legitimate trade secrets. But when all the lawyers in a case agree, judges often grant protection even if the trade secrets in question show how the product does not work, not how it does. Neither lawyers nor judges should ever be party to such agreements. It is simply unacceptable as a matter of public policy to permit secret deals that conceal evidence of dangers to the public.
In the Zyprexa cases, the documents eventually were exposed when Alaska attorney James B. Gottstein, working on an entirely unrelated case, subpoenaed the records of one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Gottstein not only used the documents in his lawsuit but, to his great credit, disclosed them to the New York Times and several healthcare groups. Gottstein was almost immediately ordered to return all the documents he had, but the train had left the station: The New York Times published articles about the dangers of Zyprexa, and excerpts from the documents began appearing on the Internet. Within two weeks, with much of the Zyprexa evidence now out in the open, Lilly settled the additional 18,000 cases. Negotiated secrecy, Lilly's primary goal, had become moot.
Some intrepid plaintiffs and their lawyers refuse to play the secrecy game. In Northern California, plaintiffs in dozens of Catholic Church sexual abuse cases have banded together and refused to keep the names and whereabouts of molesters secret. And recently, Eva Rowe, who lost her parents as the result of an explosion at a Texas oil refinery in 2005, refused to settle with BP unless the oil company agreed to release the millions of documents obtained as evidence. Rowe and her lawyer hope that the documents, which they say show how BP's under-funding and lackadaisical attitude created significant safety problems, will serve as an industry blueprint on how refinery safety should, and shouldn't, be handled.
Unfortunately, disclosure is still the exception. But we should have learned our lesson by now. From Zomax and Halcion in the 1980s to shredding Firestone tires and GM gas-tank fires in the 1990s, to Vioxx and Zyprexa today, when lawyers cut secret deals behind the public's back, what we don't know can and does hurt us. The civil justice system belongs to all of us, and no one should be allowed to use it to keep the public in the dark.
RICHARD ZITRIN practices law in San Francisco and teaches at UC Hastings College of the Law. He is also the founder of the Center for Applied Legal Ethics at the University of San Francisco.
Stars set to party at Grammys while sales slide | Entertainment | Entertainment News | Reuters.com
Stars set to party at Grammys while sales slide
Reuters.com
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The biggest stars of the music world are gathering in Los Angeles for Sunday's Grammy Awards, while the business slides deeper into the abyss.
Every day brings more bad news for the $21 billion industry, which cannot work out how to get fans to pay $18 for a CD instead of stealing music from the Web.
Just this week, Grammy-winning jazz singer Norah Jones' much-anticipated new album opened at No. 1 on the U.S. pop charts, but its sales were less than half those of its predecessor three years ago.
Reuters.com
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The biggest stars of the music world are gathering in Los Angeles for Sunday's Grammy Awards, while the business slides deeper into the abyss.
Every day brings more bad news for the $21 billion industry, which cannot work out how to get fans to pay $18 for a CD instead of stealing music from the Web.
Just this week, Grammy-winning jazz singer Norah Jones' much-anticipated new album opened at No. 1 on the U.S. pop charts, but its sales were less than half those of its predecessor three years ago.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Fair Shake Doctrine
also on the geebus
Bloggers, pointing to the sum of their writings, staring down the noise machine. The body of work is easily accessible to anybody. The burden of responsibility for pertinent information is shifting. Has shifted?
Anyone comfortable with the historical record can increasingly rest on the record. It is less and less necessary to do anything more affirmative than link to the record. There is less and less need to scramble to reconstitute pertinent portions of the record to rebut unfounded opinion.
The record (certainly in the case of issues surrounding bloggers' writings) is constituted and readily available to anyone with internet access -- timestamped, tagged, archived. And burgeoning. And linked across time and topic. Able to withstand the slings and arrows of disingenuous rhetorical diversionary tactics that seek to avoid discussion on the merits in one way or another.
This rant inspired by:
TPM Café
By Greg Sargent bio
The Edwards campaign just released statements from Edwards and the two bloggers in the thick of the controversy, and it looks as if the two won't be fired.
The statement says Edwards was "personally offended" by their writings, but that he also believes in "giving everyone a fair shake" and that he's "talked" to the bloggers, that they've assured him "that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith," and that he takes them "at their word." The statement doesn't directly address the firing question, but it appears that they're going to be okay. The statements follow.
Senator John Edwards:
Blogger Amanda Marcotte:
Blogger Melissa McEwen:
Bloggers, pointing to the sum of their writings, staring down the noise machine. The body of work is easily accessible to anybody. The burden of responsibility for pertinent information is shifting. Has shifted?
Anyone comfortable with the historical record can increasingly rest on the record. It is less and less necessary to do anything more affirmative than link to the record. There is less and less need to scramble to reconstitute pertinent portions of the record to rebut unfounded opinion.
The record (certainly in the case of issues surrounding bloggers' writings) is constituted and readily available to anyone with internet access -- timestamped, tagged, archived. And burgeoning. And linked across time and topic. Able to withstand the slings and arrows of disingenuous rhetorical diversionary tactics that seek to avoid discussion on the merits in one way or another.
oOo
This rant inspired by:
TPM Café
By Greg Sargent bio
The Edwards campaign just released statements from Edwards and the two bloggers in the thick of the controversy, and it looks as if the two won't be fired.
The statement says Edwards was "personally offended" by their writings, but that he also believes in "giving everyone a fair shake" and that he's "talked" to the bloggers, that they've assured him "that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith," and that he takes them "at their word." The statement doesn't directly address the firing question, but it appears that they're going to be okay. The statements follow.
Senator John Edwards:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
Blogger Amanda Marcotte:
My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.
Blogger Melissa McEwen:
Shakespeare's Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don't expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I've posted. We do, however, share many views - including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way.
Bottom-up Campaign
daily kos
by kos
Obama:
Barack, it already did. It was called Dean for America, and it happened in 2003-4. Everyone else is still playing catch-up.
I don't mean to sound snippy or negative. I'm genuinely psyched that others are playing catch-up. Just don't pretend you've stumbled onto something new.
But I like that you are acting surprised at all of this. Perhaps this world isn't as "predictable" as you may have thought.
by kos
Obama:
Obama, as do other candidates, wants to use the Internet to connect people and build support. But he also hinted at the possibility of letting such "net-citizens" play a role in running the campaign."Could reshape the political landscape"?
He said that after his DNC speech, he had gone to George Mason University where "these college kids had organized a rally without any involvement by our staff. We figured there would be a couple of hundred people there, and there were 3,500 people. They had just organized it through Facebook on the Internet."
Obama said letting outsiders run some aspects of his campaign might be worth it. "That kind of grassroots efforts can be scary, in that I think it is hard for any campaign to give up any kind of control and there is a tendency to try to do things top down," he said. "But I think we are in a moment where there is a possibility, not a certainty, but a possibility of bottom-up activism that I think could reshape the political landscape."
Barack, it already did. It was called Dean for America, and it happened in 2003-4. Everyone else is still playing catch-up.
I don't mean to sound snippy or negative. I'm genuinely psyched that others are playing catch-up. Just don't pretend you've stumbled onto something new.
But I like that you are acting surprised at all of this. Perhaps this world isn't as "predictable" as you may have thought.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Strong Middle
From Corn/Pinkerton on bh.tv 1/30/07
Pinkerton: Changes in the media over the past 5-10 years have broken down old media structures; made it possible for new ones (like bh.tv) to emerge; so, if Bloomberg or Hagel (or anybody w/ name id & money), can just jump in there and say, look, I've got a website, I've got a campaign, etc. [then maybe you can have a viable independent candidacy].
Pinkerton: Changes in the media over the past 5-10 years have broken down old media structures; made it possible for new ones (like bh.tv) to emerge; so, if Bloomberg or Hagel (or anybody w/ name id & money), can just jump in there and say, look, I've got a website, I've got a campaign, etc. [then maybe you can have a viable independent candidacy].
In other words, the strong middle, via netroots, new media, etc., transcends the conventional two-party doofus-fest.Corn: You're nuts!
Takes the point, but thinks that we're far away from that. Ultimately, Corn doesn't think that Hegel and Bloomberg are quite unconventional enough to be the pioneers and revolutionaries that one would have to be in order to take advantage of the new media / information age stuff.Offline bet; we'll check back in a year.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Right. But, ¿uth?
Huffington Post
Jim Steyer
Kids' Overuse of Media Now Seen as #1 Health Concern for Parents
But, ¿uth?
Uth. But the information age is news; and, duh, parents (etc.) have to understand it better. To quote the sage Rabbi, "What are we thinking when put an internet connection in a child's bedroom, so that she or he can close the door...." Which is also to quote the wise[] children in response,
Jim Steyer
Kids' Overuse of Media Now Seen as #1 Health Concern for Parents
[M]edia is a full-time job for the average kid, consuming 44.5 hours a week of their time, attention and imagination--and teens now spend 72 hours a week immersed in the media universe.Right.
And it's getting more complex. In an increasingly portable and convergent world, it's how kids communicate, learn, relax and express themselves. Media access is also changing at warp speed. As media devices become more portable and powerful, kids become increasingly and intimately wired into the media world.
But, ¿uth?
We're realizing that what kids put in their brains is as important as what they put in their bodies. Media needs to be recognized as a public health issue when it comes to kids.The ¿uth? is the conventional public-health-issue-bin thinking. Also, it's not news that what kids put in their brains is as important as what they put in their bodies. That gets an extra uth.
But there is good news. A serious conversation is finally starting to take place among parents, health professionals, educators, policymakers and media executives about the health of the new media-saturated generation. In the "Beyond Primetime" conference, held this week in New York on February 5 and 6, CEOs of major media companies, academics and health experts are coming together to explore, for the first time, the challenge of keeping kids mentally and physically healthy in a 24/7 media environment.
It's time for an honest, open discussion of these issues that are profoundly affecting kids and families--and for solutions. It's also time to acknowledge that we are all responsible for responsible media. As former Federal Communications Chairman Newton Minow put it in his legendary "Vast Wasteland" speech 45 years ago, is there anyone around who believes that we can't do better?
Uth. But the information age is news; and, duh, parents (etc.) have to understand it better. To quote the sage Rabbi, "What are we thinking when put an internet connection in a child's bedroom, so that she or he can close the door...." Which is also to quote the wise[] children in response,
The Rabbi seems to show a complete lack of understanding for the things he is criticizing. I'm not saying that some of his points aren't good ones, but without the proper perspective (i.e. understanding these things through the eyes of the children) his advice is dangerous and will backfire.
By saying "we are not perfect. But we do know a lot. We know what is right," he seems to suggest that parents have a perspective their children cannot, while at the same time he is illustrating how little perspective he has about children, the Internet and the world these children live in.
-g
I agree. His advice will send lots of parents crashing up against their kids in an obtuse and counterproductive fashion. Worse than the '60s maybe.
Some better advice would be, "Hey, parents, you'd better get a clue about the information age if you want to have half a chance of communicating with your digital native children (and if you succeed in acquiring a clue, maybe you can explain it to me, because I clearly don't understand this stuff well enough to be giving advice to hundreds of families on this subject)."
-t
David Corn
David Corn:
(The tapes and the transcripts will be released to the media and the public--over the objection of Libby's defense team--after all the tapes are played in court.)
(The tapes and the transcripts will be released to the media and the public--over the objection of Libby's defense team--after all the tapes are played in court.)
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
