Monday, December 21, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
what goes around lies down medicine
[Keene utters something short of a threat, actually: "I'm not going to hit you but I'd like to, because you deserve it," in a calm voice. Seems to me a perfectly appropriate locution, commensurate with the degree of assholishness exhibited by Ziegler. You're not allowed to hit people in civilized society; and when you go around acting like an asshole, it's like hitting people, or polluting, or worse. ]
In his movie "Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted," Ziegler went after the mainstream media for perceived liberal bias and slights against the Alaska governor. This weekend at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference (WCPAC), Ziegler went after a target closer to home: David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. In the end, the documentarian gets cursed at and kicked out of the conference. In response he's put video of the entire encounter on Mediaite.
Read more
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 05, 2009
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
paleography
HuffPo
What happened, you ask? I'll tell you what happened, even if you didn't ask: digitization. Look it up. It will rock you to your very foundation, and put your petty, trivial concerns in perspective. And while you're perusing your online dictionary, try these terms; "disruptive technology", "disintermediation", and the one nearest though not dearest to me: "dinosaur".
more
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
transitioning
I find it kind of comical that Craig Crawford says that the upshot of the Sotomayor hearings is that Obama is now free to go "hard left" in his next Supreme Court appointment. But the rest of his post is actually right on target.
"Racially-tinged inferences, snide liberal bashing and the shameless pandering to anti-intellectual sentiment that once won the day for Republicans are now falling flat," he writes.
Indeed, the attacks have "showcased just how narrow and out of touch their political base has become."
This is actually a very acute takeaway from this entire drama.
Consider that probably as much as 50% of the Republican attack on Sotomayor has been about this 'wise Latina' comment, in essence an overwhelmingly white and (in terms of elected officials) overwhelmingly male party accusing a Hispanic woman of bringing racism into the public square.
This is one of those cases where a discussion of the actual situation is apparently verboten.
I doubt anyone thinks that Sotomayor believes or ever believed that Hispanic women are inherently superior at legal reasoning than white men. I take it that a comment like this is a bit of hyperbole in response to decades and longer in which the mentalities and reasoning power of marginalized groups like Hispanic women were taken to be too limited and parochial to achieve the kind of disinterest and breadth required to administer the rule of law. That, and perhaps a sense that not only are they good enough but have particular experiences to bring to the job that these traditional worthies do not. ...
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Daily Show Takes On Lenny Dykstra, Jim Cramer (VIDEO)
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Lenny Dykstra's Financial Career | ||||
| ||||
Monday, June 22, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Clear the Channel
Barney Frank (~ 2:22)
... I'm sorry, please stop interrupting me. Alright, excuse me ... do you want to lose me? Do you want to lose ... excuse me.
... I apologize but this interview is over. I got three different questions, different angles; I try to respond; you want to interrupt because you don't like what I'm saying, then you can find someone else to interview.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Perspective
HuffPo
... I am so shocked and dismayed over the debilitating pathology that has gripped much of the organized Jewish community today--particularly those of my friends who proudly call themselves 'pro-Israel.'
What was once a proud, smart, intelligent, nuanced, and diverse movement has devolved into a combination cult-booster club championed by a handful of amazing people who lead a throng of angry, paranoid, one-issue folks with tunnel vision who often blur the difference between being a player and a fan.
more ...
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Pants on Fire
2003.9.16 Boston Globe
2003.9.18 Commondreams.org
2004.6.18 CNN
2009.5.21 McClatchy
2009.6.5 Andrea Mitchell
Torture Apologia Chart
It can be difficult keeping up with all the torture apologist appearances and their BS du jour. Generally, they rotate through the same old long-debunked arguments, although occasionally they try out new lines of defense and attack. Some, like Clifford May on The Daily Show, try the "shotgun" approach combined with the style of a pushy car salesman – don't stop talking, talk over everybody else, change the subject if challenged, you-don't-buy-that-well-how-about-this, what can I do today to get you in the seat of amnesty for war criminals, friend?
Typical of torture apologists, it's a disingenuous performance that makes much more sense if one realizes he's arguing from a conclusion, not larger principles - don't prosecute or investigate any of the culprits. Because of this, torture apologists frequently offer extremely convoluted and even contradictory arguments. As I've written before, their defenses normally fit into a pattern of descending denials: We did not torture; waterboarding is not torture; even if it is torture, it was legal; even if it was illegal, it was necessary; even if it was unnecessary, it was not our fault.
... [M]any fine sites have offered detailed debunks of individual arguments in the past, and I've given my shot in "Torture Versus Freedom" (This is also in part a companion to an earlier piece, The Torture Flowchart.) Regardless, if you like visual aids to dissect your daily dose of hackery - and somewhat busy, low-res charts - here ya go.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Oy Vadersmir
tpm | zachary roth
The Washington Post reports today that, during 2005, Dick Cheney sat in on several of those CIA torture briefings, in an effort to persuade wavering lawmakers to keep backing the torture program.
The news doesn't really come as a shock -- indeed, some close observers had already guessed that the then-veep was involved in the briefings. But it does add to the picture of Cheney embarking during the middle years of the Bush administration on a focused, stealthy campaign to make sure the US didn't give up what he saw as its right to torture.
There's evidence that Cheney's efforts paid off by keeping GOP members in line on torture. For instance, according to the Post, the first briefing in which Cheney was involved occurred in March 2005 -- two days after the New York Times ran a detailed report on harsh interrogation techniques. One of the lawmakers briefed, Senate Intelligence chair Pat Roberts, had at the time been indicating he might support calls for an investigation of the techniques used on high-level detainees. But it looks like just two days after sitting down with the veep, Roberts announced his opposition to such a probe.
And at another briefing, this one in October 2005, Cheney tried to persuade Sen. John McCain to back off an amendment that aimed to ban practices like waterboarding, and that had broad support in the Senate. (In the end, the measure passed, though in a weakened form.)
This all jibes with what we know about those classified CIA memos which Cheney claims will, if declassified, show that harsh interrogation techniques produced intelligence that saved lives. Those memos, we now know, were dated July 13, 2004, and June 1, 2005.
As former TPMmuckraker Spencer Ackerman has pointed out, those dates are significant.
OK, July 13, 2004. What had happened then? Two important developments. First, in May, CIA Inspector General John Helgerson had completed his review of how the interrogation program worked in practice, a still-classified document that appears to have found the agency had exceeded the boundaries demarcated for it by the 2002 Office of Legal Counsel memo that gave the program legal sanction. And second, in June, the new OLC chief, Jack Goldsmith, revoked that 2002 memoranda, which sent Cheney legal adviser David Addington into a sputtering rage.
And:
Next, June 1, 2005. No, not merely a birthday present for me. That's the day after new OLC chief Steven Bradbury had released the final of his three May 2005 memos that reauthorized the CIA's interrogation program -- rulings that found, among other things, that waterboarding (which the CIA says it had not performed since 2003) did not cause "severe physical pain." All the memos, taken together, determined the CIA's interrogation program was, in every material respect, legal. But it's likely that Cheney recognized this wouldn't be the end of the debate on torture -- either internally, or with Congress and the Courts. Having material from the CIA -- especially a CIA helmed by his ally, Porter Goss -- arguing for the need for the program's continuation would be powerful ammunition for any bureaucratic fight.
In other words, the evidence suggests that Cheney commissioned those memos at specific times in order to bolster his position in fighting efforts to crack down on torture. And today's report in the Post suggests another element of Cheney's campaign -- directly lobbying key lawmakers, at critical times, about what he saw as the vital importance of the program.
Of course, Senators Carl Levin and Russ Feingold have both said they've seen the CIA memos at issue, and that they don't support Cheney's claim that enhanced interrogation got results. Rather, said Levin, they discuss the program for high-value detainees as a whole, which included harsh techniques but also other methods.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Jesse Ventura body slams Sean Hannity
Thanks to all the Media Monitors who highlighted last night's entertaining tilt between Sean Hannity and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura. Hannity, didn't "want to go down the old road" last night with Ventura, who's made his antipathy for the Bush administration abundantly clear. So the Fox host instead pitched a segment of "new questions" to Ventura. And then, within seconds, the conversation immediately shifted to teleprompters. Jeezy creezy. Have you heard about how our monster president became the first person to ever employ this Satanic device of Pure Fraudulence?
This is new: "George Bush inherited the negative impact of 9/11." That's apparently a new counter to the old refrain about how Obama "inherited" all sorts of turd sandwiches from his predecessor. I suppose I'm supposed to accept the premise that a President can "inherit" the fallout of an event that happens nine months into their term.
Jesse Ventura, I like the way his mind works! Hannity attempts a weird a rambling case about the Clinton administration's inattention to terrorists, and just as I am imagining the obvious rebuttal, Ventura calmly enunciates it:
HANNITY: There were a group of radicals that were at war with the United States and we weren't at war with them. We saw the first Trade Center bombing, the Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and we think radicals that think God is going to reward them in Heaven with virgins. Jesse, how do you stop them.Things get pretty much awesome from there. And a little weird. And yet very "Minnesota nice!" The conversation basically has it all: Ross Perot shout outs, Monica Lewinsky weighed against 9/11, bin Laden conspiracy theories, and Ventura refusing to accept that the interview is over. But the best moment comes toward the end when Hannity basically presents LOVING REAGAN as some sort of personal accomplishment, earned through diligence and sweat, only to have Ventura shoot him a withering "so what?" face.
VENTURA: Well, you pay attention to memos on August 6 that tell you exactly what bin Laden's gonna do.
[WATCH]
Jesse vs. Brian Kilmeade 5.19.2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
heartened
by Josh Marshall
That's also one of the things that would be so healthy -- and if I can be allowed some guilty pleasure, entertaining -- about a full and detailed airing of all of Cheney's role.
Cheney's conceit is that he's tough enough, perhaps best to say, icy enough to make the trip to what he calls 'the dark side' to protect America. But the picture emerging even from his own comments is very different. It's of a small and paranoid man, a half-comic character off the pages of mid-20th century anti-totalitarian fiction, with a seemingly inordinate protectiveness for torture practices that seem to have been only marginally effective at best. And yet here he is with the classified memo he keeps in a special folder in his desk making the case for his torture policies. Here he is at another moment metaphorically tightening the screws on this or that detainee trying to get confessions about the fairytale al Qaida-Iraq link, though it's worth wondering whether he's really sure it's there or is open to getting false confessions that can then be leaked to this or that journo at the Washington Times or, sad to say, The New York Times.
You start to get the sense that just as Cheney committed his historic goof of launching off into Iraq while forgetting about dealing with al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan he was doing something similar getting all wrapped up in the tough guy porn of torture that he remained ignorant of or just plain ignored the actual nuts and bolts of taking down or disabling terrorist organizations.
So by all means let him keep talking. As TPM Reader BH notes, he seems unable to maintain his famed self-discipline and indifference to public opinion as his own sorry record dribbles into the public record. The more that comes out about him, the more pathetic he seems. Paranoia, serial poor judgment, inability to distinguish desires from facts and an almost adolescent inability not to get drawn into the thrill of the 'dark side'.
. . .. ... .. . .
David Corn 5.14.2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Rope-a-Dope
So Obama plays defense on torture, urging that we move forward, while releasing crucial information and letting others use up the vacuum. Cheney blunders in ... and even Lieberman has to take up arms against him. This is how this president operates. After Clinton and McCain, Cheney is the latest victim. And by demanding more and more transparency, the former vice-president slowly exposes ... himself.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Saturday, May 02, 2009
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News | Comedy Central
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Official Website | Current Events & Pop Culture, Comedy & Fake News | Comedy Central
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
timeline
John Lopresti noted that it might be helpful to have a timeline of all the torture documents released in the last several weeks. And you know I can't resist requests for timelines. So here goes:
April 6: NYRB posts the Red Cross report on high value detainees
April 9: CIA Director Leon Panetta bans contractors from conducting interrogations
April 16: Obama statement on memo release, torture memos released:
- August 1, 2002: Memo from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA
- May 10, 2005: Memo from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA ["Techniques"]
- May 10, 2005: Memo from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA ["Combined"]
- May 30, 2005: Memo from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA
April 21: Senate Armed Services Committee releases declassified Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in US Custody
April 22: Senate Intelligence Committee releases declassified Narrative Describing the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel's Opinions on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program(Jello Jay's statement on the release)
April 23: Ali Soufan, FBI interrogator, publishes NYT op-ed describing early interrogation of Abu Zubaydah
April 23: DOJ announces it will release a number of photos showing detainee abuse that had previously been FOIAed, along with thousands more
April 24: Greg Sargent gets a copy of Cheney's request for two documents to make his "efficacy" case
April 24: In ACLU FOIA case, Judge Hellerstein orders a more expansive response on torture tape documents from CIA
April 24: WaPo releases JPRA memo--which had been circulated among the torture architects--using the word "torture" and warning that torture will beget false information
Friday, April 17, 2009
tortured interpretations
TPM By Zachary Roth - April 17, 2009, 2:03PM
A British professor whose research on sleep was cited in one of the just-released Bush administration torture memos has expressed outrage that his work was used to justify extreme sleep deprivation, including keeping subjects awake for up to 11 days.
In an interview with TPMmuckraker, James Horne, a leading authority in the field of sleep research, said he was "surprised and saddened" to see Bush officials "misrepresent" his research to argue that such sleep deprivation does not cause serious harm to its subjects.
In one of the Office of Legal Counsel memos released yesterday, authored in May 2005, DOJ official Steven Bradbury wrote:
We understand from OMS, and from our review of the literature on the physiology of sleep, that even very extended sleep deprivation does not cause physical pain, let alone severe physical pain. "The longest studies of sleep deprivation in humans ... involved volunteers [who] were deprived of sleep for 8-11 days ... Surprisingly little seemed to go wrong with the subjects physically. The main effects lay with sleepiness and impaired brain functioning, but even these were no great cause for concern." James Horne, Why We Sleep: The Functions Of Sleep in Humans and Other Mammals 23-24 (1988).
Bradbury continues, quoting Horne again:
We note that there are important differences between sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique used by the CIA and the controlled experiments documented in the literature. The subjects of the experiments were free to move about and engage in normal activities and often led a "tranquil existence" with "plenty of time for relaxation" ... whereas a detainee in CIA custody would be shackled and prevented from moving freely. Moreover, the subjects in the experiments often increased their food consumption during periods of extended sleep loss ... whereas the detainee undergoing interrogation may be placed on a reduced-calorie diet, as discussed above. Nevertheless, we understand that experts who have studied sleep deprivation have concluded that "the most plausible reason for the uneventful physical findings with these human beings is that ... sleep loss is not particularly harmful."
Informed by TPMmuckraker that his work had been put to this use, Horne -- who heads the Sleep Research Centre, at Loughborough University in Leicestershire, U.K. -- was indignant. He explained the crucial difference between his controlled experiments, in which subjects were under no additional stress, and the CIA's use of sleep deprivation on interrogation subjects.
"As soon as you add in any other stress, any other psychological stress, then the sleep deprivation feeds on that, and the two compound each other to make things far worse. I made that very, very clear," he said. "And there's been a lot of research by others since then to show that this is the case."
As for whether such stress could be considered "harmful," Horne was unequivocal. "I thought it was totally inappropriate to cite my book as being evidence that you can do this and there's not much harm. With additional stress, these people are suffering. It's obviously traumatic," he said. "I just find it absurd."
Further, Horne continued, sleep-deprived subjects become so confused that they're highly unlikely to offer useful intelligence. "I don't understand what you're going to get out of it," he said. "You can no longer think rationally, you just become more of an automaton ... These people will just be spewing nonsense anyway. It's pointless!"
In sum, said Horne, he feels "saddened" that the memo's author "didn't fully interpret what I actually wrote." The memo "distorts what I really meant, and I never meant for it to be, in any way, indicative that you could start torturing people in this way. That was not the intention at all."
Bradbury did not respond to an email from TPMmuckraker requesting comment.
* * * *
Maddow:
Monday, April 06, 2009
Odyssey in Reverse
Bob Dylan, on Obama:
He's like a fictional character, but he's real. First off, his mother was a Kansas girl. Never lived in Kansas though, but with deep roots. You know, like Kansas bloody Kansas. John Brown the insurrectionist. Jesse James and Quantrill. Bushwhackers, Guerillas. Wizard of Oz Kansas. I think Barack has Jefferson Davis back there in his ancestry someplace. And then his father. An African intellectual. Bantu, Masai, Griot type heritage - cattle raiders, lion killers. I mean it's just so incongruous that these two people would meet and fall in love. You kind of get past that though. And then you're into his story. Like an odyssey except in reverse.
but see Sullivan
... Barack Obama Sr was of the Luo tribe .... Luos primarily fish for a living and fish is a major part of their diet and the stereotype about them is that due to this high consumption of fish, they are very intelligent. Any health manual today correctly links high Omega-3 consumption with a boost in brain power. Luos do not raise cattle or kill lions, the Maasai do that. ...
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Sources: Obama Plays Peacemaker in French-Chinese Smackdown Over Tax Havens - Political Punch
"But Mr. Obama, according to this account, stepped between the two men, urging them to try to find consensus, and giving them a 'pep talk' about the importance of working together.
The senior adminstration official said that Mr. Obama pulled Mr. Sarkozy aside, took him to a corner, 'and discussed possible alternatives,' the senior official said.
Once they arrived at one, President Obama 'sent a message to the Chinese' that a counter-offer was on the table. The Chinese spent some time considering the offer. But they took a few minutes.
So Mr. Obama, with the assistance of translators, suggested that he and Mr. Hu have a conversation as well. They, too went to the corner to talk. After a few minutes, Mr. Obama called upon Mr. Sarkozy to join them.
'Translators and sherpas in tow, they reached an agreement,' the official said. 'There was a multiple shaking of hands.'
The agreement: the final G-20 document would state that the G-20 nations 'stand ready to deploy sanctions to protect our public finances and financial systems. The era of banking secrecy is over. We note that the OECD has today published a list of countries assessed by the Global Forum against the international standard for exchange of tax information.'"
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Multiplication by Zero
The Post's Shailagh Murray has apparently 
decided that it's so hard keeping track of all of Norm Coleman's lawyers nonsensical arguments about why he shouldn't have to leave the senate that the only reasonable answer is just to hold a whole new vote. Now, bear in mind, that's not me saying they're nonsensical. It's mainly the judges shooting him down right and left.
Here's Murray from an online chat today at WaPo.com (via Balloon-Juice) ...
Baltimore, Md.: Speaking of junior senators, do you see Al Franken being seated anytime before 2010?Shailagh Murray: Perhaps, but it seems more and more likely that the Minnesota race will wind up as a re-vote. At this point it seems like the quickest way to resolve the situation.
For what it's worth, there is vanishingly little evidence that there will ever be a revote of this race because Franken was certified (*) the winner after the recount and Coleman's suit to overturn that result is going badly. Even if it went well, it would almost certainly lead to reopening the recount rather than having a revote.
Asked later what she was talking about, she continued ...
I don't have a revote "theory." I'm just wondering how long this is going to sit in the court system. If Coleman looks desperate, why not just hold another election and beat him handily? But there's a process in place here, and we can only assume both parties will abide by it.
So if [Coleman]'s really flailing so badly in his court case, why not just hold a new election?
(ed.note: * -- certification, in this context, has a particular meaning under Minnesota law. As the term is normally understood, the canvassing board certified Franken's election. But under Minnesota law, a certificate of election cannot be issued until all legal challenges have been exhausted. So, because Coleman still had the right to appeal the result, no certificate was issued.)
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Happy Buddy Hollyday
On February 3, 1959, a small plane crashed in a corn field in Iowa, killing three rock and roll stars - Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. Richardson, known as "The Big Bopper".
 |
| Statue of Buddy Holly in Lubbock, Texas |
Charles Hardin Holley, known to his family and friends as Buddy, was only 22 years old when he died, but he had by that time created a guitar-driven rock and roll style that would live on among rock bands around the world.
In only a few years, the Lubbock native created hit songs that are still played today - classics like "That'll be the Day," inspired by a line John Wayne spoke in the western movie "The Searchers".
Holly rocked his fans with songs like "Peggy Sue" and "Maybe Baby" and then soothed them with ballads like "Everyday".
The song marked the first use in pop music of a celesta - an instrument mainly associated with classical music performances.
Fans say Holly's music still relevant
Holly's style and musical experimentation appealed to many up-and-coming musicians, especially in Britain, where he has many fans even among people born long after his death.
 |
| Phil and Caroline Jenkins |
"The Beatles and the Rolling Stones - they all credit Buddy as being a major influence," Jenkins said. "It seems that you get more in England than you do here. He is bigger there than he is here. You know, he is bigger there than he is here. Lots of people here we talk to go, 'Who?' They don't know the name."
Jessica Camacho helps run the Buddy Holly Center in Lubbock, which is holding panel discussions and special events to commemorate Holly's death.
 |
| Jessica Camacho |
"I don't know how many younger people realize what kind of influence Buddy Holly had even on the music that they hear today that they love. I think his influence was far reaching," Camacho said.
Friend says Holly strove for recognition
There are still many people living here in Lubbock who knew Buddy Holly well. Among them is former musician and disc jockey Jack Neal, who was Buddy Holly's first musical partner on a local radio show. He sat in on jam sessions with Holly and a young rock singer from Memphis, Tennessee named Elvis Presley, just months before Elvis went on to become a legend himself.
 |
| Jack Neal |
Neal knew Buddy Holly as a close friend as well as an artist, and he misses him still. He recalls one of his last conversations with him, not long before he died.
"He was in town and we were at one of the drive-ins and it was just before he left to go on that last tour and he said he wanted people to know Buddy Holly," Neal recalled. "He wanted them to know the name. He said the money was nice, but he wanted people to know the name. And so that was his goal and that is exactly what he did."
The fatal plane crash in Iowa was commemorated in 1973 by singer/songwriter Don McLean in his hit song, "American Pie," which spoke of "the day the music died." But most Buddy Holly fans say his music never died and that it lives on in the rock and roll he helped create.
