Wednesday, December 31, 2008

More fun

This was sent to me by a friend:

The Mom Song from Northland Video on Vimeo.

Happy New Year Everyone!

I know, I know, I've been a slacker. What can I say. There's too much going on, and I've been on vacation. Went with a girlfriend to see "Cadillac Records" and it basically sucked despite great music and commendable performances by actors impersonating great musicians. Here are the main performers that were represented in the film, with some of the songs that were in the movie, some not:

Now that's the way to ring in the new year! Cheers to you all!

Friday, December 19, 2008

Friday odds and ends

Al Frankin's gonna win!

Blue Texan was reminded of Jeremiah Wright like I was, but said so much more eloquently. And Greenwald effectively points out that, however good or bad Obama's strategy of reaching out to the rightwing is, it is certainly anything BUT "new" or "Change". We've danced to this tune before.

And Donna's back! Yay!

And Karl Rove is certainly earning his pay at Faux News, isn't he.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Christmas with The Fam

Heydave sends a YouTube contribution. Thanks, HD!

"It's the indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime."

Greenwald actually has a hopeful column up today:
It's almost as though everyone's nose is now being rubbed in all of this: now that the culpability of our highest government officials is no longer hidden, but is increasingly all out in the open, who can still defend the notion that they should remain immune from consequences for their patent lawbreaking? As Law Professor Jonathan Turley said several weeks ago on The Rachel Maddow Show: "It's the indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime." And this week, Turley pointed out to Keith Olbermann that "ultimately it will depend on citizens, and whether they will remain silent in the face of a crime that has been committed in plain view. . . . It is equally immoral to stand silent in the face of a war crime and do nothing."
UPDATE: Our friend, Ruth, over at Cab Drollery has a great post on this subject, as does her co-blogger, Diane.

Here's an idea

Yeah, the Rick Warren idea was bad. WHAT is Obama thinking? I suggest he compensate for it by inviting Jeremiah Wright to do a dual service with him. Now that would be worth the price of admission.

UPDATE: Atrios suggests that those in attendance at the inauguration turn their backs on Rick Warren. Mahablog has some thoughts worth considering, as does digby. Will also link to Ruth when she gets her post done.

MORE UPDATES: Here's Ruth's post, and don't miss Greenwald's interview with Pam Spaulding. Steve Benen over at Washington Monthly posted Obama's response which, as he notes, sounds nice but is ultimately unpersuasive. Benen, however, says:
I'm reluctant to make too big a deal about this. As I argued this morning, it's a symbolic gesture, which will likely have no substantive effect whatsoever. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a mistake.
and I'm inclined to disagree with that. I think it might be substantively damaging indeed. "The Left" as I see it, is tired of being marginalized.

Monday, December 15, 2008

Never again?

Glenzilla asks the right question regarding the (non)response to the just-released Senate Armed Services Report on detainee abuse:
This Report was issued on Thursday. Not a single mention was made of it on any of the Sunday news talk shows, with the sole exception being when John McCain told George Stephanopoulos that it was "not his job" to opine on whether criminal prosecutions were warranted for the Bush officials whose policies led to these crimes. What really matters, explained McCain, was not that we get caught up in the past, but instead, that we ensure this never happens again -- yet, like everyone who makes this argument, he offered no explanation as to how we could possibly ensure that "it never happens again" if we simultaneously announce that our political leaders will be immunized, not prosecuted, when they commit war crimes. Doesn't that mindset, rather obviously, substantially increase the likelihood -- if not render inevitable -- that such behavior will occur again? Other than that brief exchange, this Senate Report was a non-entity on the Sunday shows.
The world is paying the price for our country's mistake of allowing Nixon to go unpunished in a court of law for his crime, which allowed his minions Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to return to power and engage in further - and much more egregious - lawbreaking. In the name of "post-partisanship" and "looking forward, not backward" we are about to do the same with George W. Bush and, again, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. How bad does it have to get for the citizens of this country to say Enough?

With regard to the now-infamous shoe-throwing incident over the weekend, I found this interview with Bush right afterwards to be especially revealing. The idiot treats the whole thing like a joke and never once loses that ubiquitous smirk, wisecracking that the reporter "just wanted to get on TV" and declares offhandedly, "I don't know what his beef is." Of course not, and he obviously couldn't care less. Someone should fill him in. But they won't, will they.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, one shouldn't miss this part of the above-mentioned interview. And something tells me that these reports will be effortlessly kept from our Chimp-in-Charge's view.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008


Earlier today Chris Matthews was running down a (very short) list that some wingnuts had put together about Bush's accomplishments. One of them was that he had maintained the honor and dignity of the white house.

I find that deeply offensive. Not only is the man speaking above clearly of embarrassing, substandard intellect and often exceedingly bad manners, he is, more importantly, profoundly immoral:

Risen charges that Tenet caved to Bush entirely on the torture of al-Qaeda detainees. After the 2002 capture of Abu Zubaydah, a bin Laden deputy, failed to yield much information due to his drowsiness from medical treatment, Bush allegedly told Tenet, "Who authorized putting him on pain medication?" Not only did Tenet get the message — brutality while questioning an enemy prisoner was no problem — but Tenet also never sought explicit White House approval for permissible interrogation techniques, contributing to what Risen speculates is an effort by senior officials "to insulate Bush and give him deniability" on torture...

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be....Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics...

Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?"

Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety — against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to" And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

Republicans, many of them good Christians I'm sure, consider such behavior to be a model of honor and integrity. And that is precisely the problem.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Compare and Contrast

First up, from the sterling minds on the editorial board of the San Antonio Express-News:

Terrorism is a clear and present danger. You know, I hate to admit it, but I am a sucker for those Tom Clancy-based movies like "Clear and Present Danger". Perhaps the author of this editorial should have watched it before assigning this title to his/her piece and thus invoking memories of this plot which, you know, is all about a President (who bears a striking resemblance in both appearance and character to Bush Sr.) who reacts emotionally and turns loose a rogue faction of his administration, resulting in lost American lives and all sorts of other bad things.

Then there's hilzoy:

Terrorism's Perverse Success?

And who could add to that?

Wednesday, December 3, 2008