Offshore Drilling in general...
I don't like it. It seems shortsighted. And what if there's a problem and oil starts spilling into the ocean? Will it really help all that much? Ugh - it seems dirty.
Also, wouldn't it help our economy to invest in lots of new technologies? I think we should stop putting money into a losing venture and start creating new ways of life. We would be on the cutting edge and once again lead the world with our strong economy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071401049.html
President Bush to Lift Executive Ban on Offshore Drilling
By William BraniginWashington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 14, 2008; 1:13 PM
The White House announced today that President Bush will lift an executive order banning offshore oil drilling, a move aimed at stepping up pressure on Congress to end the prohibition it imposed in 1981.
Bush "has decided to lift the executive ban on oil exploration in America's Outer Continental Shelf," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told a news briefing. She said Bush would explain the move in a Rose Garden statement at 1:30 p.m..
Perino acknowledged that the president's action by itself will not allow more oil drilling. Instead, she said, Bush hopes to prompt Congress to act on his call last month to lift its moratorium.
In a speech at the White House June 18, Bush urged lawmakers to lift a 27-year-old ban on drilling for oil and gas on the outer continental shelf, arguing that the country needs more domestic energy production to help reduce dependence on foreign oil and ease upward pressure on gasoline prices.
Bush said that if Congress removed its ban, he would lift an executive order that also prohibits drilling for oil and gas on the outer continental shelf. That executive order was issued in 1990 by Bush's father.
But Perino said today that Bush no longer wants to wait for Congress to act. "They haven't even held a single hearing," she told reporters. "So we are going to move forward, and hopefully that will spur action by the Congress."
The White House hopes that record crude oil prices and a national average price for regular unleaded gasoline of nearly $4.11 a gallon will weaken opposition to new drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic coastlines and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Among the opponents of offshore drilling are environmental groups, tourism interests, commercial fishermen and most Democrats in Congress.
The issue has seeped into the presidential race between Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain last month reversed his position by calling for the ban to be lifted, saying that new drilling is needed in view of current high gasoline prices. Obama remains strongly opposed, arguing that ending the ban would have negligible impact.
The congressional moratorium was imposed in 1981, when lawmakers from coastal states sought to block leases for oil and gas drilling off the coasts of Massachusetts and California. Congress has approved the moratorium every year since then.
A decade later, President George H.W. Bush issued a separate executive order banning offshore oil drilling. That prohibition was initially set to expire in 2002, but in 1998 President Bill Clinton extended it to 2012.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Who's Paying? Government bail out of Mortgage banks
I find it odd that the people who entered into mortgages they couldn't responsibly afford, encouraged to do so by investors who stupidly thought that housing prices would rise into infinity, are now going to bail out the companies via their taxes.
That's weird.
1. If the people don't have a lot of money to pay their mortgage, then they won't have a lot of money for taxes.
2. The rich people who invested aren't getting dinged much at all.
3. Doesn't anyone think the money will run out at some point? I can't believe how many times in this administration we've heard about bailouts and the government will take care of things - even when we're at war in two countries. I'm all for government being the personal safety net, but in order for that to happen we have to be realistic about other expenses. Stop the war would be number 1.
I don't know...this doesn't look good to me and it makes no sense. Too many band-aids are obscuring the fundamental problems, and people who work in and watch government and economy know that's true - but still nothing changes.
That's weird.
1. If the people don't have a lot of money to pay their mortgage, then they won't have a lot of money for taxes.
2. The rich people who invested aren't getting dinged much at all.
3. Doesn't anyone think the money will run out at some point? I can't believe how many times in this administration we've heard about bailouts and the government will take care of things - even when we're at war in two countries. I'm all for government being the personal safety net, but in order for that to happen we have to be realistic about other expenses. Stop the war would be number 1.
I don't know...this doesn't look good to me and it makes no sense. Too many band-aids are obscuring the fundamental problems, and people who work in and watch government and economy know that's true - but still nothing changes.
Ping Pong - Afghanistan to Iraq to Afghanistan to Iraq
Its likely that as the violence increases in Afghanistan, our focus will move there and we'll send more troops. After some period of time, it will clear up a bit. By then, however, the violence in Iraq will have escalated. The focus will shift and we'll send more troops. The insurgent/Al Qaeda crowd will have us jumping back and forth for who knows how long?
With Iran in the middle. This is not good.
At the risk of being dismissed as a naieve peacenik...war never solves anything. Its not as if World War II rid the world of dictators or genocide. Its not as if the borders we fight for are permanent.
Its the humanity of us - fear - that we need to resolve. Not as a country, but as a species.
With Iran in the middle. This is not good.
At the risk of being dismissed as a naieve peacenik...war never solves anything. Its not as if World War II rid the world of dictators or genocide. Its not as if the borders we fight for are permanent.
Its the humanity of us - fear - that we need to resolve. Not as a country, but as a species.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
New Yorker cover illustration of Michelle and Barack Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html
Wowza!
I get it. This is the picture the fear-mongers want us to believe is true - and yet, its so outrageous you must know it can't be true.
The problem is, I don't trust the people who WANT to believe in the fear to know this is addressed to THEM to show them how outrageous, ugly, and unlikely their fears are.
I think it was a mistake to put this on the cover. It should have been on the inside.
On the face of it, the cartoonist is making a point that's fine with me. On the other hand, is the cartoonist's valid point, a cover for a more devious agenda?
I suspect we'll have the same argument about this as we have about telling racial jokes - is it okay to tell race jokes if you are that race you're joking about? Some say yes, I say no. My reason for saying no has been that it appears you're giving the OK sign to tell racial jokes to people who don't understand the difference. Its an excuse for people who really are prejudiced to make jokes and then claim that so-and-so said it, so its okay.
I think this is similar because its the kind of censoring we do around other people who don't understand the nuances - not because they're dumb, or can't, but because they're either only vaguely interested and don't give issue their full attantion to see the nuances, or because they limit their channels of information so they don't hear the whole story.
Its also like supplying ammunition to the other side. Even if its wrong - they can use it.
This won't be fully understood by people who have't been paying attention to the election very much and who will only have a passing glance at the magazine cover. Of course the news will publish it and it will be part of talk shows and discussion boards. Nothing good can come of it. The original idea will be blurred and lost in the maelstrom. And you have to think the New Yorker knew it.
We've come to an odd time in our society when you have the right to say anything you want, but you have to know its going to be used by nefarious people to further their own agenda, even if your agenda is sincere.
That's the low level of corporate news media we have in the country right now.
Huffington Post, Rachel Sklar, July 13, 2008
Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.
The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?
Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign — all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."
The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:
"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."
Is it the New Yorker's job to write uniformly flattering profiles of Obama? Do they have a duty to avoid controversial imagery that plays off the most dogged and damaging campaign smears? Of course not. Still, as Tapper says, there are probably "some angry, angry people in Chicago right now." Not to mention Washington, New York, and maybe even Dubuque.
Update: Artist Barry Blitt defends the cover, saying that "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." See his full statement (and previous covers) here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/barry-blitt-addresses-his_n_112432.html
Wowza!
I get it. This is the picture the fear-mongers want us to believe is true - and yet, its so outrageous you must know it can't be true.
The problem is, I don't trust the people who WANT to believe in the fear to know this is addressed to THEM to show them how outrageous, ugly, and unlikely their fears are.
I think it was a mistake to put this on the cover. It should have been on the inside.
On the face of it, the cartoonist is making a point that's fine with me. On the other hand, is the cartoonist's valid point, a cover for a more devious agenda?
I suspect we'll have the same argument about this as we have about telling racial jokes - is it okay to tell race jokes if you are that race you're joking about? Some say yes, I say no. My reason for saying no has been that it appears you're giving the OK sign to tell racial jokes to people who don't understand the difference. Its an excuse for people who really are prejudiced to make jokes and then claim that so-and-so said it, so its okay.
I think this is similar because its the kind of censoring we do around other people who don't understand the nuances - not because they're dumb, or can't, but because they're either only vaguely interested and don't give issue their full attantion to see the nuances, or because they limit their channels of information so they don't hear the whole story.
Its also like supplying ammunition to the other side. Even if its wrong - they can use it.
This won't be fully understood by people who have't been paying attention to the election very much and who will only have a passing glance at the magazine cover. Of course the news will publish it and it will be part of talk shows and discussion boards. Nothing good can come of it. The original idea will be blurred and lost in the maelstrom. And you have to think the New Yorker knew it.
We've come to an odd time in our society when you have the right to say anything you want, but you have to know its going to be used by nefarious people to further their own agenda, even if your agenda is sincere.
That's the low level of corporate news media we have in the country right now.
Huffington Post, Rachel Sklar, July 13, 2008
Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque, but they sure aren't going to like it in Chicago: This week's New Yorker cover features an image of Michelle and Barack Obama that combines every smeary right-wing stereotype imaginable: An image of Obama in a turban and robes fist-bumping his be-afro'd wife, dressed in the military fatigues of a revolutionary and packing a machine gun and some serious ammo. Oh yes, this quaint little scene takes place in the Oval Office, under a picture of Osama bin Laden above a roaring fireplace, in which burns an American flag. All that's missing is a token sprig of arugula.
The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?
Presumably the New Yorker readership is sophisticated enough to get the joke, but still: this is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right: Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign — all in one handy illustration. Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here's your image.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."
The companion article by Ryan Lizza, who has written extensively about the campaign, traces Obama's early career and rise through Chicago politics. It's very long (18 pages!) and probably won't thrill a lot of Democratic party faithful, either, since it advances the image of Obama as a skilled and calculating politician who rose by becoming a master of the game:
"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."
Is it the New Yorker's job to write uniformly flattering profiles of Obama? Do they have a duty to avoid controversial imagery that plays off the most dogged and damaging campaign smears? Of course not. Still, as Tapper says, there are probably "some angry, angry people in Chicago right now." Not to mention Washington, New York, and maybe even Dubuque.
Update: Artist Barry Blitt defends the cover, saying that "It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." See his full statement (and previous covers) here.
Doctor Who Season Three Last of the Time Lords
Since I can't seem to fully shake my obsession with the last episode of Doctor Who Season Four, I've been reading other posts...today, on www.televisionwithoutpity.com
When I was rewatching Last of the Time Lords this morning, a lady's hand with red fingernail polish picked up the Master's ring from the ashes. I hadn't noticed in my first viewing (because of Sci-Fi Channel editing?)
In the last couple episodes of Season Four, Donna has a large ring on her hand that doesn't play any part in the episodes. And yet, even I noticed it at the time. I've seen other posters make note of it as well, thinking it might be important to Donna saving the universe in Journey's End.
It never was.
I don't want to expect Donna Noble to be part of the series in the future as a big surprise or anything. I don't want to be disappointed. The ring could be an idea that never worked out so it won't amount to anything. Or, it really could be a way to explain Donna reappearing. It would be nice -but again, I'll try not to expect anything.
When I was rewatching Last of the Time Lords this morning, a lady's hand with red fingernail polish picked up the Master's ring from the ashes. I hadn't noticed in my first viewing (because of Sci-Fi Channel editing?)
In the last couple episodes of Season Four, Donna has a large ring on her hand that doesn't play any part in the episodes. And yet, even I noticed it at the time. I've seen other posters make note of it as well, thinking it might be important to Donna saving the universe in Journey's End.
It never was.
I don't want to expect Donna Noble to be part of the series in the future as a big surprise or anything. I don't want to be disappointed. The ring could be an idea that never worked out so it won't amount to anything. Or, it really could be a way to explain Donna reappearing. It would be nice -but again, I'll try not to expect anything.
War is not safe for human beings and other living things...
A person can't know if they'll be affected by war until its too late.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2270614/US-Iraq-war-hero-Joseph-Dwyer-dies-of-apparent-drugs-overdose.html
Telegraph.co.uk
by Tom Leonard in New York July 9, 2008
The premature death of Joseph Dwyer at the age of 31 has highlighted the neglect many American veterans believe they face once they return home.
He was made famous by a photograph, taken in March 2003 during the first week of the war, in which he is seen running to a makeshift hospital.
In his arms, the soldier was cradling an injured Iraqi boy who he had rescued from crossfire.
The arresting image, held up by the war's supporters as the human face of the invasion, was reproduced around the world and Specialist Dwyer was hailed as a hero.
However, he was always uncomfortable with the media attention, attempting to deflect its focus on to his entire unit. He had done no more than any of the other soldiers in his unit, he told reporters.
It emerged that Mr Dwyer's post-war civilian life was also no different to that of many fellow veterans.
For years, he struggled against post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), drug abuse, unemployment and marital breakdown.
On June 28, Mr Dwyer, 31, called a taxi to take him to a hospital near his home in Pinehurst, North Carolina, after earlier taking presciption pills and inhaling fumes from a computer cleaner aerosol.
When the driver arrived, Mr Dwyer said he was too weak to open the door. Police had to kick it down and found he had collapsed. Within minutes, he had died.
Police in several states had been dealing with Mr Dwyer for several years as he suffered from violent delusions that he was being hunted by Iraqi soldiers.
He was in and out of psychiatric care, once being committed after he started firing at imagined attackers inside his home, leading to a three-hour police siege. He had also crashed his car several times after swerving to avoid imagined roadside bombs.
Mr Dwyer's family said he had also been struggling with depression and sleeplessness, symptoms associated with PTSD. He would spend nights hiding in a wardrobe clutching a knife, and started inhaling from aerosols to help him sleep.
His mother said the army could have done more to help him.
"He loved the picture, don't get me wrong. He just couldn't get over the war," said Maureen Dwyer.
"He just wasn't Joseph. Joseph never came home. Talking to him, he knew he was going to die."
His wife, Matina, said: "He was just never the same when he came back, because of all the things he saw.
"He tried to seek treatment, but it didn't work."
She said she hoped that her husband's death would bring more attention to PTSD issues.
A recent report by the RAND corporation, a US think tank, criticised as inadequate the treatment of the one in five American troops who exhibit symptoms of PTSD or depression following service in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Mr Dwyer, a New Yorker who enlisted after the September 11 terrorist attacks, got married just before leaving for Iraq. His unit, a squadron of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, was in the vanguard of the initial US thrust and involved in fighting almost every day for the first three weeks.
On the day before his famous photograph was taken, Mr Dwyer's Humvee vehicle had been hit by a rocket-propelled grenade - an event which his family said sparked his depression.
After seeing the village of Al Faysaliyah caught in the fighting, he grabbed a four-year-old boy from his father and rushed him to safety.
When he returned home after three months, he was exhibiting the symptoms associated with PTSD.
In restaurants, he would always sit with his back to the wall and he avoided crowds. At home, he would pile his furniture up against the walls, too.
As his marriage fell apart, he stayed away from friends, abused inhalants and got into frequent trouble with the police.
In 2005, he and his family gave an interview to try to help other veterans struggling with PTSD.
"I know I don't need to be carrying a weapon. And I'm scared of going home without having one, even though I know probably nobody's going to attack me," he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2270614/US-Iraq-war-hero-Joseph-Dwyer-dies-of-apparent-drugs-overdose.html
Telegraph.co.uk
by Tom Leonard in New York July 9, 2008
The premature death of Joseph Dwyer at the age of 31 has highlighted the neglect many American veterans believe they face once they return home.
He was made famous by a photograph, taken in March 2003 during the first week of the war, in which he is seen running to a makeshift hospital.
In his arms, the soldier was cradling an injured Iraqi boy who he had rescued from crossfire.
The arresting image, held up by the war's supporters as the human face of the invasion, was reproduced around the world and Specialist Dwyer was hailed as a hero.
However, he was always uncomfortable with the media attention, attempting to deflect its focus on to his entire unit. He had done no more than any of the other soldiers in his unit, he told reporters.
It emerged that Mr Dwyer's post-war civilian life was also no different to that of many fellow veterans.
For years, he struggled against post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), drug abuse, unemployment and marital breakdown.
On June 28, Mr Dwyer, 31, called a taxi to take him to a hospital near his home in Pinehurst, North Carolina, after earlier taking presciption pills and inhaling fumes from a computer cleaner aerosol.
When the driver arrived, Mr Dwyer said he was too weak to open the door. Police had to kick it down and found he had collapsed. Within minutes, he had died.
Police in several states had been dealing with Mr Dwyer for several years as he suffered from violent delusions that he was being hunted by Iraqi soldiers.
He was in and out of psychiatric care, once being committed after he started firing at imagined attackers inside his home, leading to a three-hour police siege. He had also crashed his car several times after swerving to avoid imagined roadside bombs.
Mr Dwyer's family said he had also been struggling with depression and sleeplessness, symptoms associated with PTSD. He would spend nights hiding in a wardrobe clutching a knife, and started inhaling from aerosols to help him sleep.
His mother said the army could have done more to help him.
"He loved the picture, don't get me wrong. He just couldn't get over the war," said Maureen Dwyer.
"He just wasn't Joseph. Joseph never came home. Talking to him, he knew he was going to die."
His wife, Matina, said: "He was just never the same when he came back, because of all the things he saw.
"He tried to seek treatment, but it didn't work."
She said she hoped that her husband's death would bring more attention to PTSD issues.
A recent report by the RAND corporation, a US think tank, criticised as inadequate the treatment of the one in five American troops who exhibit symptoms of PTSD or depression following service in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Mr Dwyer, a New Yorker who enlisted after the September 11 terrorist attacks, got married just before leaving for Iraq. His unit, a squadron of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, was in the vanguard of the initial US thrust and involved in fighting almost every day for the first three weeks.
On the day before his famous photograph was taken, Mr Dwyer's Humvee vehicle had been hit by a rocket-propelled grenade - an event which his family said sparked his depression.
After seeing the village of Al Faysaliyah caught in the fighting, he grabbed a four-year-old boy from his father and rushed him to safety.
When he returned home after three months, he was exhibiting the symptoms associated with PTSD.
In restaurants, he would always sit with his back to the wall and he avoided crowds. At home, he would pile his furniture up against the walls, too.
As his marriage fell apart, he stayed away from friends, abused inhalants and got into frequent trouble with the police.
In 2005, he and his family gave an interview to try to help other veterans struggling with PTSD.
"I know I don't need to be carrying a weapon. And I'm scared of going home without having one, even though I know probably nobody's going to attack me," he said.
Reality Bites
As of Friday (07/11/2008) at least 4118 members of the US military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003 according to the AP. 8 million civilians have been killed in action.
At least 3355 died as a result of hostile action according to the military.
There are 553 US military killed in Afghanistan. That number comes from http://www.icasualty.org/
At least 3355 died as a result of hostile action according to the military.
There are 553 US military killed in Afghanistan. That number comes from http://www.icasualty.org/
Aye Calypso, I sing to your spirit
I can't resist the allure of a good sing-along. I gave myself a smile this afternoon singing along with John Denver...
Take Me Home Country Roads
Rocky Mountain High
Annie's Song
Thank God I'm a Country Boy
Calypso
Which led to singing with Jim...Jim Croce
Bad, Bad Leroy Brown
You Don't Mess Around with Jim
Operator
I Have a Name
Now, back to Shuffle
Take Me Home Country Roads
Rocky Mountain High
Annie's Song
Thank God I'm a Country Boy
Calypso
Which led to singing with Jim...Jim Croce
Bad, Bad Leroy Brown
You Don't Mess Around with Jim
Operator
I Have a Name
Now, back to Shuffle
Doctor Who Season Three
I just finished rewatching Doctor Who Season Three.
I remembered enjoying the last three episodes, but thought it was a little goofy at the very end. However, this time, it worked for me. The parts that were improved with a second viewing and subtitles are when the Doctor dealt with The Master after he was young again, and when Martha left the Doctor.
I especially enjoy that it was Martha, on her own, who saved the universe! I don't think she gets enough credit for it. She walked all over the Earth telling people about the Doctor; she believed in him and trusted him without reservation.
And I love that Captain Jack told the Doctor he was the Face of Boe. The first time I watched the episode, I thought Captain Jack knew he would tell the Doctor "You Are Not Alone". But, how could he? That was when he died (unless he went to that time to see himself die). I think Captain Jack didn't realize he was saying anything so interesting in Cardiff.
The other thing I understand now is that Captain Jack was made immortal by Rose when she had the Time Vortex inside her. Ahhh...that's cool.
And yet - since he does eventually die, I guess he's not really immortal. How frustrating would that be for a swashbuckling person like Jack Harkness to become the big Face of Boe that doesn't have legs or arms?
Martha - when she left the Doctor, I liked it much better this time. I felt sorry for Martha the first time I saw this. But, she left with a lot of dignity and confidence. She let him know that she cared for him without making it seem like a bad thing that he didn't love her back. And, I forgot that she looked up Doctor Milligan.
Since my first viewing is on the Sci-Fi Channel with some seconds here and there cut out, I wonder if that's why I don't remember things or they don't make sense the first time?
Yeah - good season. I like it.
My only beef is that Martha Jones doesn't get more respect.
And Freema Agyeman maybe as well? I like her and I think she did a great job as Martha Jones.
Just like Christopher Eccleston, she's not a big part of the Special Features on the DVD's. Why? Does that mean there were hard feelings? I feel very protective of both of them. I'll never know.
I remembered enjoying the last three episodes, but thought it was a little goofy at the very end. However, this time, it worked for me. The parts that were improved with a second viewing and subtitles are when the Doctor dealt with The Master after he was young again, and when Martha left the Doctor.
I especially enjoy that it was Martha, on her own, who saved the universe! I don't think she gets enough credit for it. She walked all over the Earth telling people about the Doctor; she believed in him and trusted him without reservation.
And I love that Captain Jack told the Doctor he was the Face of Boe. The first time I watched the episode, I thought Captain Jack knew he would tell the Doctor "You Are Not Alone". But, how could he? That was when he died (unless he went to that time to see himself die). I think Captain Jack didn't realize he was saying anything so interesting in Cardiff.
The other thing I understand now is that Captain Jack was made immortal by Rose when she had the Time Vortex inside her. Ahhh...that's cool.
And yet - since he does eventually die, I guess he's not really immortal. How frustrating would that be for a swashbuckling person like Jack Harkness to become the big Face of Boe that doesn't have legs or arms?
Martha - when she left the Doctor, I liked it much better this time. I felt sorry for Martha the first time I saw this. But, she left with a lot of dignity and confidence. She let him know that she cared for him without making it seem like a bad thing that he didn't love her back. And, I forgot that she looked up Doctor Milligan.
Since my first viewing is on the Sci-Fi Channel with some seconds here and there cut out, I wonder if that's why I don't remember things or they don't make sense the first time?
Yeah - good season. I like it.
My only beef is that Martha Jones doesn't get more respect.
And Freema Agyeman maybe as well? I like her and I think she did a great job as Martha Jones.
Just like Christopher Eccleston, she's not a big part of the Special Features on the DVD's. Why? Does that mean there were hard feelings? I feel very protective of both of them. I'll never know.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Inspiration
http://abc.go.com/specials/hopkins/index
Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa on the ABC television show "Hopkins" on June 27, 2008
"I have failed at many things, but never in my ability to get up and try again."
I don't know if he's the originator of that statement, but its where I heard it.
He's a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins hospital. In 1987, he was an illegal immigrant farm worker from Mexico. Amazing journey.
Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa on the ABC television show "Hopkins" on June 27, 2008
"I have failed at many things, but never in my ability to get up and try again."
I don't know if he's the originator of that statement, but its where I heard it.
He's a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins hospital. In 1987, he was an illegal immigrant farm worker from Mexico. Amazing journey.
Iran's Missiles
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/video/
1. There's a widely held belief that if, before the election, a foreign country (Iran) is acting aggressively towards us, or imminently threatens us, it will favor John McCain.
I think the model from which that prediction is made is out of date; it applies to the old style conservatives. Pundits are so used to saying it, that they believe it must be true.
I'm not sure it is. Much of the country is aching for the United States to respond to an international crisis with different tactics than George Bush has used in the last 7 years. John McCain's ideas are similar to George Bush's.
If Iran becomes a campaign issue, Barack Obama has an opportunity to 'shift the paradigm'. If he can allay people's fears, while at the same time present options, he would make a good impression.
The only reason people could still like John McCain's foreign policy ideas is if they're scared and don't have hope. That's what I think anyway.
2. Iraq vs Iran as a campaign issue: Iraq is a quagmire and there aren't as many options anymore. Iran is new and provides opportunity to 'nip it in the bud' if its handled correctly.
(From Tom Gjelten on Washington Week)
3. From Tom Gjelten on Washington Week:
This was 'send a message' week in the Middle East. Early in the week, US and British warships were doing maneuvers in the Persian Gulf, then Iran fired its missiles, Rice assured the world that we'd defend our allies and our interests.
Could it be that all these messages are a precursor to serious negotiations? Posturing always accompanies preparations for negotiation.
In fact, next weekend Iran will be meeting with the P5 (5 permanent members of the UN Security Council) plus Germany to discuss sanctions and uranium enrichment. The countries will offer to have no sanctions if Iran stops enriching uranium.
To add some other leverage to the pot, French oil company Total (sp?) said it would not pursue natural gas development in Iran. But, Iran needs that - they need that deal done and taken care of.
We'll see.
1. There's a widely held belief that if, before the election, a foreign country (Iran) is acting aggressively towards us, or imminently threatens us, it will favor John McCain.
I think the model from which that prediction is made is out of date; it applies to the old style conservatives. Pundits are so used to saying it, that they believe it must be true.
I'm not sure it is. Much of the country is aching for the United States to respond to an international crisis with different tactics than George Bush has used in the last 7 years. John McCain's ideas are similar to George Bush's.
If Iran becomes a campaign issue, Barack Obama has an opportunity to 'shift the paradigm'. If he can allay people's fears, while at the same time present options, he would make a good impression.
The only reason people could still like John McCain's foreign policy ideas is if they're scared and don't have hope. That's what I think anyway.
2. Iraq vs Iran as a campaign issue: Iraq is a quagmire and there aren't as many options anymore. Iran is new and provides opportunity to 'nip it in the bud' if its handled correctly.
(From Tom Gjelten on Washington Week)
3. From Tom Gjelten on Washington Week:
This was 'send a message' week in the Middle East. Early in the week, US and British warships were doing maneuvers in the Persian Gulf, then Iran fired its missiles, Rice assured the world that we'd defend our allies and our interests.
Could it be that all these messages are a precursor to serious negotiations? Posturing always accompanies preparations for negotiation.
In fact, next weekend Iran will be meeting with the P5 (5 permanent members of the UN Security Council) plus Germany to discuss sanctions and uranium enrichment. The countries will offer to have no sanctions if Iran stops enriching uranium.
To add some other leverage to the pot, French oil company Total (sp?) said it would not pursue natural gas development in Iran. But, Iran needs that - they need that deal done and taken care of.
We'll see.
Obama moving to the center?
http://www.slate.com/
Slate's Political Gabfest today made some interesting points.
1. As Obama takes positions (or modifies positions) shifting to the right (withdrawing troops from Iraq, faith based initiatives, DC gun ban, voted for FISA bill that Bush supports) Is it a real shift, or political positioning?
a. From Lynette: Obama has presented himself as someone who's interested in walking down the middle of the aisle. In that, people have the expectation that to unite people, conservatives should become more liberatl. But, its just as true that liberals must become more conservative as well.
b. I add: These are the kind of things he'll have to do to win the election and also to govern in a way that gets things done. He's doing what he should do; he's demonstrating a governing style that will get results.
c. Emily thinks its okay in some cases that he shift, but she wants to know what his core issues are.
d. From Emily: He's taken some positions that are not down the line liberal positions (Faith based initiatives, supreme court death penalty decision for example). Liberal positions are not always winning positions. Lynette adds: We don't even know if the Liberal positions/issues are the mainstream Democrat positions/issues. The far left may have swept him in, but as a Democratic candidate doesn't he have a responsibility to now represent the entire Democratic party?
c. Emily's concern is that as we see him move to the right, it becomes more important for him to define what issues he wouldn't move for, what are his core values? Remind us, Obama.
2. Is the war a core issue?
a. Emily Bazelon says not necessarily. She feels that if its more realistic now to not withdraw all the troops on January 2nd, she doesn't want him to withdraw all the troops.
b. David Plotz adds: I think the war is not it. Its the notion of our stance towards the world is different, that out stance to the world is not that we dictate and the world agrees, its that we are enmeshed in a complicated web of nations and we have to deal with that in all its different ways.
3. Other core issues?
a. Emily Bazelon says - Health care, lower taxes on middle classes
b. David Plotz feels we've given him a pass on the core issues because there's this notion that his overall global vision is so attractive that we have a sense that there's some ultimately transforming way he looks at the world that's very useful.
Slate's Political Gabfest today made some interesting points.
1. As Obama takes positions (or modifies positions) shifting to the right (withdrawing troops from Iraq, faith based initiatives, DC gun ban, voted for FISA bill that Bush supports) Is it a real shift, or political positioning?
a. From Lynette: Obama has presented himself as someone who's interested in walking down the middle of the aisle. In that, people have the expectation that to unite people, conservatives should become more liberatl. But, its just as true that liberals must become more conservative as well.
b. I add: These are the kind of things he'll have to do to win the election and also to govern in a way that gets things done. He's doing what he should do; he's demonstrating a governing style that will get results.
c. Emily thinks its okay in some cases that he shift, but she wants to know what his core issues are.
d. From Emily: He's taken some positions that are not down the line liberal positions (Faith based initiatives, supreme court death penalty decision for example). Liberal positions are not always winning positions. Lynette adds: We don't even know if the Liberal positions/issues are the mainstream Democrat positions/issues. The far left may have swept him in, but as a Democratic candidate doesn't he have a responsibility to now represent the entire Democratic party?
c. Emily's concern is that as we see him move to the right, it becomes more important for him to define what issues he wouldn't move for, what are his core values? Remind us, Obama.
2. Is the war a core issue?
a. Emily Bazelon says not necessarily. She feels that if its more realistic now to not withdraw all the troops on January 2nd, she doesn't want him to withdraw all the troops.
b. David Plotz adds: I think the war is not it. Its the notion of our stance towards the world is different, that out stance to the world is not that we dictate and the world agrees, its that we are enmeshed in a complicated web of nations and we have to deal with that in all its different ways.
3. Other core issues?
a. Emily Bazelon says - Health care, lower taxes on middle classes
b. David Plotz feels we've given him a pass on the core issues because there's this notion that his overall global vision is so attractive that we have a sense that there's some ultimately transforming way he looks at the world that's very useful.
John McCain, Phil Gramm
Phil Gramm has a Phd in Economics, is a former senator, and is John McCain's top Economic Advisor.
In an interview with the Washington Times (a conservative paper), Phil Gramm said the United States is not in an actual recession, we're in a 'mental' recession, and we've become a nation of whiners.
He later clarified his statement about whiners and said he was talking about the leaders of our government.
John McCain immediately denounced what Phil Gramm said. He said "Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me."
During his denouncement press conference, someone John McCain whether this would affect Phil Gramm's future as Treasury Secretary in a McCain administration.
John McCain's response was "I think Sen. Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus, although I’m not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that.”
Just 24 hours ago, McCain considered Phil Gramm his friend and top economic advisor. When they appeared together at 'town hall' meetings, McCain didn't hesitate to share the microphone with Gramm when asked an economic question that required further details.
Turning on a dime, McCain is not only distancing himself from his friend, but mocking and ridiculing him as well. It wasn't enough to just say that Phil Gramm is no longer under consideration for Treasury Secretary. McCain had to make a joke about how even people in a far away country that used to be part of our cold war enemy the Soviet Union, even those people wouldn't like him.
That was unnecessary and unkind, and is a window into the type of person McCain is.
I have to believe that even the politicians I dislike have friends and family they care about; people who mean more to them than politics. I try to remember it when I consider how creepy they are as government leaders (Dick Cheney and George W Bush for example).
Again, I don't have a problem with John McCain distancing himself from the remarks. That IS politics. I have a problem with him treating his friend unkindly and with such disregard. That tells me a lot about John McCain inside his heart.
Don't get me wrong - I was never going to vote for John McCain. I'm not a fence-sitter.
I decided against John McCain long before he officially started his campaign. I was willing to respectfully disagree with him in 2000. But, when I saw how he pandered to George Bush and the Republican party in later years - even after the George Bush campaign belittled his military service in 2000 - I lost all respect for the man. It was clear to me he wanted to be president at any cost. And now I know he's willing to give up on his long term friendships as well.
The twist in the road here is that John McCain said an unkind thing that I don't like, but he probably didn't even mean it and behind closed doors he and Phil Gramm are still friends and its no problem. Phil Gramm's a politician too.
Either way its kinda creepy - John McCain's either a bad friend, or a liar.
In an interview with the Washington Times (a conservative paper), Phil Gramm said the United States is not in an actual recession, we're in a 'mental' recession, and we've become a nation of whiners.
He later clarified his statement about whiners and said he was talking about the leaders of our government.
John McCain immediately denounced what Phil Gramm said. He said "Phil Gramm does not speak for me. I speak for me."
During his denouncement press conference, someone John McCain whether this would affect Phil Gramm's future as Treasury Secretary in a McCain administration.
John McCain's response was "I think Sen. Gramm would be in serious consideration for ambassador to Belarus, although I’m not sure the citizens of Minsk would welcome that.”
Just 24 hours ago, McCain considered Phil Gramm his friend and top economic advisor. When they appeared together at 'town hall' meetings, McCain didn't hesitate to share the microphone with Gramm when asked an economic question that required further details.
Turning on a dime, McCain is not only distancing himself from his friend, but mocking and ridiculing him as well. It wasn't enough to just say that Phil Gramm is no longer under consideration for Treasury Secretary. McCain had to make a joke about how even people in a far away country that used to be part of our cold war enemy the Soviet Union, even those people wouldn't like him.
That was unnecessary and unkind, and is a window into the type of person McCain is.
I have to believe that even the politicians I dislike have friends and family they care about; people who mean more to them than politics. I try to remember it when I consider how creepy they are as government leaders (Dick Cheney and George W Bush for example).
Again, I don't have a problem with John McCain distancing himself from the remarks. That IS politics. I have a problem with him treating his friend unkindly and with such disregard. That tells me a lot about John McCain inside his heart.
Don't get me wrong - I was never going to vote for John McCain. I'm not a fence-sitter.
I decided against John McCain long before he officially started his campaign. I was willing to respectfully disagree with him in 2000. But, when I saw how he pandered to George Bush and the Republican party in later years - even after the George Bush campaign belittled his military service in 2000 - I lost all respect for the man. It was clear to me he wanted to be president at any cost. And now I know he's willing to give up on his long term friendships as well.
The twist in the road here is that John McCain said an unkind thing that I don't like, but he probably didn't even mean it and behind closed doors he and Phil Gramm are still friends and its no problem. Phil Gramm's a politician too.
Either way its kinda creepy - John McCain's either a bad friend, or a liar.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
So You Think You Can Dance Season 4 Top 12 Results
Quick Notes:
1. The way those three sets of two couples were combined, it was pretty clear who was in the bottom three.
2. Alvin Ailey Dancers - powerful
3. Will and Twitch had the best solo performances I can remember. I find the solo dances uninspired usually; the dancers have a short time to present their dance, and often, the styles and movements are the same week after week - particularly with the contemporary dancers. Leap, turn, kick, run to the other side of the stage, leap, turn, kick, run to the middle of the stage, leap, turn, kick, 5-4-3-2-1. Done. Blah.
Will and Twitch both showed me something better is possible. I had story, I had interest, I was engaged. Excellent work.
4. I've wondered about this song since I've seen it at the top of the iTunes list for a long time now. I didn't love it.
5. I agree with Nigel...it would have been appropriate to exchange Jessica for Thayne. And, Jessica, I'm so sorry. They're really hard on you and not even being polite about it. You're a wonderful dancer. I'm of the opinion that you're over it already and just gritting your teeth to get through it. I think you'll like the tour once the competitive pressure if off. Top 10 is a good milestone and a great time to relax and enjoy it from now on.
1. The way those three sets of two couples were combined, it was pretty clear who was in the bottom three.
2. Alvin Ailey Dancers - powerful
3. Will and Twitch had the best solo performances I can remember. I find the solo dances uninspired usually; the dancers have a short time to present their dance, and often, the styles and movements are the same week after week - particularly with the contemporary dancers. Leap, turn, kick, run to the other side of the stage, leap, turn, kick, run to the middle of the stage, leap, turn, kick, 5-4-3-2-1. Done. Blah.
Will and Twitch both showed me something better is possible. I had story, I had interest, I was engaged. Excellent work.
4. I've wondered about this song since I've seen it at the top of the iTunes list for a long time now. I didn't love it.
5. I agree with Nigel...it would have been appropriate to exchange Jessica for Thayne. And, Jessica, I'm so sorry. They're really hard on you and not even being polite about it. You're a wonderful dancer. I'm of the opinion that you're over it already and just gritting your teeth to get through it. I think you'll like the tour once the competitive pressure if off. Top 10 is a good milestone and a great time to relax and enjoy it from now on.
Someone else wrote it better...
As usual, someone else wrote about Karl Rove much better than I did. Sigh. I try. Maybe I'm not allowing myself enough time to let things percolate. I go with my instinct and write it.
Not only am I trying to write better, but I want to make sure my opinions are my own so I try not to read anything before making comments. I feel hurried so I don't articulate the complexities of my ideas (reflective of the complex times we live in). I'll keep trying.
In any event...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/karl-roves-contempt-for-t_b_111789.html
Update: As expected, Rove defied the House subpoena and failed to show up for his scheduled testimony. Rep. Linda Sanchez ruled that his claim of executive privilege was invalid, setting the table for a possible contempt vote next week. Stay tuned.
Original post:
Karl Rove ain't coming. And he ain't talking. Except on Fox News.
Despite being subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify on his role in politicizing the Justice Department -- and in using the Department to selectively prosecute Democratic officials -- the erstwhile Boy Genius has announced that he won't be showing up at tomorrow's scheduled hearing.
He claims that the president's assertion of executive privilege "obligates" him to disregard the Congressional order.
By doing so, Rove is thumbing his nose at Congress, legal precedent, the public's right to know the truth -- about, among other things, the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and the blackballing of Justice Department hires -- and the Constitution.
In 1776, Thomas Paine -- America's first blogger -- wrote in Common Sense: "in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other."
But throughout its seven-plus years, the Bush administration has demonstrated an unwavering belief that it is above the law and a deep-rooted disdain for checks and balances, and the Constitutional imperative of coequal branches of government.
Rove's refusal is, of course, part and parcel of the Bush White House's ongoing efforts to keep its actions cloaked in secrecy. But beyond that, it is further evidence that for Bush/Cheney and company the ultimate power in America lies in their hands, not in the hands of the people or the laws that govern us.
This is no petty partisan squabble; this is a fight about the foundations of our democracy.
Writing in Slate, David Iglesias, one of the U.S. Attorneys Rove may have had a hand in firing, carves up Rove's executive privilege claim, pointing out that in the landmark case of United States v. Nixon the Supreme Court unanimously held that executive privilege is not an absolute right:
The court noted that "military or diplomatic secrets" of an administration would be given "utmost deference." But the court was simply unwilling to go further to extend this high degree of deference merely to protect "a president's generalized interest in confidentiality."
So surely no Court -- not even the Roberts court -- would extend the privilege to protect political gamesmanship designed to build a permanent majority.
True to form, Rove has offered to meet with the Judiciary Committee -- but only in private, without being under oath, and with no transcript kept. Shades of the conditions imposed on the 9/11 Commission by Bush and Cheney, who only agreed to meet with the Commission members in tandem and with no record kept (indeed the members' notebooks were confiscated).
Rove has already been cited for contempt by the Senate Judiciary Committee for refusing to testify about the U.S. Attorney scandal. Since that time, he has landed high-profile gigs with Fox News and Newsweek. Maybe he figures this round of refusal will land him his own show.
So what will happen tomorrow when Rove refuses to show? Judiciary chair John Conyers and Linda Sanchez, chair of the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee, have threatened to subject Rove to "contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House." In theory, according to the Congressional Oversight Manual, Rove could be arrested, "brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail."
But that's not going to happen. Odds are the Committee will move to hold Rove in contempt. The matter will then be turned over to the Justice Department -- the same Justice Department Rove is accused of politicizing -- which will likely do the same thing it has done with Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, i.e. nothing. The matter will then be tossed to the courts... and Rove will go on pontificating on Fox and advising John McCain. Pretty sweet set up.
But none of this should stop the media and the public from keeping the pressure on Rove, on the White House, and on Congress. And the media organizations that have embraced Rove should be reminded on a regular basis that he is not a pundit worthy of our attention, but a Constitutional scofflaw worthy of our scorn.
A final thought: yesterday, a rumor that Nancy Pelosi was trying to block Conyers from holding Rove in contempt swept across the blogosphere. People were up in arms, with numerous calls for Congressional phone lines to be clogged with protest and rebuke. The trouble is, the rumor wasn't true. It's a reminder that as we rightly laud the ability of the Internet to galvanize citizens, and as we figure out the new rules of engagement, we don't toss out some of the old rules that have served us so well. Such as picking up the phone and calling the subject of the rumor. Or the subject's press secretary. Which is how the Pelosi rumor was finally -- and easily -- killed.
Not only am I trying to write better, but I want to make sure my opinions are my own so I try not to read anything before making comments. I feel hurried so I don't articulate the complexities of my ideas (reflective of the complex times we live in). I'll keep trying.
In any event...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/karl-roves-contempt-for-t_b_111789.html
Update: As expected, Rove defied the House subpoena and failed to show up for his scheduled testimony. Rep. Linda Sanchez ruled that his claim of executive privilege was invalid, setting the table for a possible contempt vote next week. Stay tuned.
Original post:
Karl Rove ain't coming. And he ain't talking. Except on Fox News.
Despite being subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee to testify on his role in politicizing the Justice Department -- and in using the Department to selectively prosecute Democratic officials -- the erstwhile Boy Genius has announced that he won't be showing up at tomorrow's scheduled hearing.
He claims that the president's assertion of executive privilege "obligates" him to disregard the Congressional order.
By doing so, Rove is thumbing his nose at Congress, legal precedent, the public's right to know the truth -- about, among other things, the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and the blackballing of Justice Department hires -- and the Constitution.
In 1776, Thomas Paine -- America's first blogger -- wrote in Common Sense: "in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other."
But throughout its seven-plus years, the Bush administration has demonstrated an unwavering belief that it is above the law and a deep-rooted disdain for checks and balances, and the Constitutional imperative of coequal branches of government.
Rove's refusal is, of course, part and parcel of the Bush White House's ongoing efforts to keep its actions cloaked in secrecy. But beyond that, it is further evidence that for Bush/Cheney and company the ultimate power in America lies in their hands, not in the hands of the people or the laws that govern us.
This is no petty partisan squabble; this is a fight about the foundations of our democracy.
Writing in Slate, David Iglesias, one of the U.S. Attorneys Rove may have had a hand in firing, carves up Rove's executive privilege claim, pointing out that in the landmark case of United States v. Nixon the Supreme Court unanimously held that executive privilege is not an absolute right:
The court noted that "military or diplomatic secrets" of an administration would be given "utmost deference." But the court was simply unwilling to go further to extend this high degree of deference merely to protect "a president's generalized interest in confidentiality."
So surely no Court -- not even the Roberts court -- would extend the privilege to protect political gamesmanship designed to build a permanent majority.
True to form, Rove has offered to meet with the Judiciary Committee -- but only in private, without being under oath, and with no transcript kept. Shades of the conditions imposed on the 9/11 Commission by Bush and Cheney, who only agreed to meet with the Commission members in tandem and with no record kept (indeed the members' notebooks were confiscated).
Rove has already been cited for contempt by the Senate Judiciary Committee for refusing to testify about the U.S. Attorney scandal. Since that time, he has landed high-profile gigs with Fox News and Newsweek. Maybe he figures this round of refusal will land him his own show.
So what will happen tomorrow when Rove refuses to show? Judiciary chair John Conyers and Linda Sanchez, chair of the Commercial and Administrative Law subcommittee, have threatened to subject Rove to "contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House." In theory, according to the Congressional Oversight Manual, Rove could be arrested, "brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail."
But that's not going to happen. Odds are the Committee will move to hold Rove in contempt. The matter will then be turned over to the Justice Department -- the same Justice Department Rove is accused of politicizing -- which will likely do the same thing it has done with Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, i.e. nothing. The matter will then be tossed to the courts... and Rove will go on pontificating on Fox and advising John McCain. Pretty sweet set up.
But none of this should stop the media and the public from keeping the pressure on Rove, on the White House, and on Congress. And the media organizations that have embraced Rove should be reminded on a regular basis that he is not a pundit worthy of our attention, but a Constitutional scofflaw worthy of our scorn.
A final thought: yesterday, a rumor that Nancy Pelosi was trying to block Conyers from holding Rove in contempt swept across the blogosphere. People were up in arms, with numerous calls for Congressional phone lines to be clogged with protest and rebuke. The trouble is, the rumor wasn't true. It's a reminder that as we rightly laud the ability of the Internet to galvanize citizens, and as we figure out the new rules of engagement, we don't toss out some of the old rules that have served us so well. Such as picking up the phone and calling the subject of the rumor. Or the subject's press secretary. Which is how the Pelosi rumor was finally -- and easily -- killed.
Unbelievable!
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political guru, refused to obey an order to testify before a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/10/rove.subpoena/
Unbelievable! The Bush administration believes the United States is a monarchy. But, we aren't - no one person is above the law in the United States. That's what the Revolutionary War was about. You don't get special privileges for being in the government. You don't get to do whatever you want because the president likes you. That's all out the window in the Bush administration.
Rove's brazenness and complete disregard for the United States of America has shocked me and I'm confused. Why don't more people rise up against this? Why does the media act like it isn't real; like its just a game the people are playing?
Rove's side cites 'executive privilege'. A person in the White House can do illegal things just as easily as someone outside the White House - so why do they get a pass?
I'm not even commenting on the validity of the House Judiciary Committee's hearings, I'm just saying - if the Congress calls you to testify. You go. You don't get out of it for no good reason. Crazy.
Other points of interest in the CNN report:
Rove's lawyer asserted that Rove was "immune" from the subpoena the committee had issued, arguing that the committee could not compel him to testify due to "executive privilege."
The panel is investigating allegations that Rove and his White House allies dismissed U.S. attorneys and prosecuted officials who they saw as political opponents.
We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal to even appear today as required by the subpoena," Sanchez said Thursday morning when Rove failed to show up. "The courts have made clear that no one -- not even the president -- is immune from compulsory process. That is what the Supreme Court rules in U.S. v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones.
In May, Conyers contrasted Rove's refusal to testify before Congress with his paid work as a commentator for the Fox News Channel and Newsweek magazine.
"Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters."
Rove's lawyer cited a letter from the Justice Department saying Rove is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony." He said Rove is willing to submit to an "informal interview" or to answer written questions about the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, whose ouster Rove is accused of orchestrating.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/10/rove.subpoena/
Unbelievable! The Bush administration believes the United States is a monarchy. But, we aren't - no one person is above the law in the United States. That's what the Revolutionary War was about. You don't get special privileges for being in the government. You don't get to do whatever you want because the president likes you. That's all out the window in the Bush administration.
Rove's brazenness and complete disregard for the United States of America has shocked me and I'm confused. Why don't more people rise up against this? Why does the media act like it isn't real; like its just a game the people are playing?
Rove's side cites 'executive privilege'. A person in the White House can do illegal things just as easily as someone outside the White House - so why do they get a pass?
I'm not even commenting on the validity of the House Judiciary Committee's hearings, I'm just saying - if the Congress calls you to testify. You go. You don't get out of it for no good reason. Crazy.
Other points of interest in the CNN report:
Rove's lawyer asserted that Rove was "immune" from the subpoena the committee had issued, arguing that the committee could not compel him to testify due to "executive privilege."
The panel is investigating allegations that Rove and his White House allies dismissed U.S. attorneys and prosecuted officials who they saw as political opponents.
We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal to even appear today as required by the subpoena," Sanchez said Thursday morning when Rove failed to show up. "The courts have made clear that no one -- not even the president -- is immune from compulsory process. That is what the Supreme Court rules in U.S. v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones.
In May, Conyers contrasted Rove's refusal to testify before Congress with his paid work as a commentator for the Fox News Channel and Newsweek magazine.
"Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters."
Rove's lawyer cited a letter from the Justice Department saying Rove is "constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony." He said Rove is willing to submit to an "informal interview" or to answer written questions about the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, whose ouster Rove is accused of orchestrating.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
So You Think You Can Dance Season Four Top 12
This week I'm picking my top three dances...
Chelsie and Mark - Broadway - Tyce DiOrio - "I'm a Woman" from Smoky Joe's Cafe
Costumes are an issue in this show - first her dress got caught on his belt, and then his suspenders flapped around a lot. They didn't show it at all though. They gave it a good bit of sultry and sexy. (Isn't she only 18 or so? I'm not comfortable with the judges comments about her body and then the camera panning slowly up her legs.)
Courtney and Gev - Jazz - Mandy Moore - "Standing There" by The Creatures
What a treat - different, interesting choreography, well executed by both dancers. Loved it.
Katee and Joshua - Bollywood - Nikula and Marla - "Dhoom Tana" from Om Shanti Om
A new dance style that looked fun and energetic. For a fast moving dance their movements were crisp and clean - fantastic job! Loved it.
I didn't love the dance that got a lot of judge's praise this week: Jessica and Will - Contemporary - Tyce DiOrio - "Silence" from Unfaithful.
I thought it was good and I liked the music. It just didn't flow naturally to me. It looked like an effort.
Mia Michaels sure does speak her mind. She told Courtney and Gev they weren't the best dancers on the show "that's very clear". And she thinks Will is tired of carrying Jessica (he was very gracious and kind to his partner when Cat asked if he wanted to say anything).
If it were up to me, the bottom three couples would be
Jessica and Will
Thayne and Comfort
Kherington and Twitch
(I hope Courtney and Gev aren't there again this week in place of Jessica and Will)
Chelsie and Mark - Broadway - Tyce DiOrio - "I'm a Woman" from Smoky Joe's Cafe
Costumes are an issue in this show - first her dress got caught on his belt, and then his suspenders flapped around a lot. They didn't show it at all though. They gave it a good bit of sultry and sexy. (Isn't she only 18 or so? I'm not comfortable with the judges comments about her body and then the camera panning slowly up her legs.)
Courtney and Gev - Jazz - Mandy Moore - "Standing There" by The Creatures
What a treat - different, interesting choreography, well executed by both dancers. Loved it.
Katee and Joshua - Bollywood - Nikula and Marla - "Dhoom Tana" from Om Shanti Om
A new dance style that looked fun and energetic. For a fast moving dance their movements were crisp and clean - fantastic job! Loved it.
I didn't love the dance that got a lot of judge's praise this week: Jessica and Will - Contemporary - Tyce DiOrio - "Silence" from Unfaithful.
I thought it was good and I liked the music. It just didn't flow naturally to me. It looked like an effort.
Mia Michaels sure does speak her mind. She told Courtney and Gev they weren't the best dancers on the show "that's very clear". And she thinks Will is tired of carrying Jessica (he was very gracious and kind to his partner when Cat asked if he wanted to say anything).
If it were up to me, the bottom three couples would be
Jessica and Will
Thayne and Comfort
Kherington and Twitch
(I hope Courtney and Gev aren't there again this week in place of Jessica and Will)
Walking a Tightrope
I don't have sophisticated and nuanced understandings of international politics, I don't know history on any deep level, and my views are somewhat simplistic, optimistic, and naieve. But, I know what I see people doing every day, and I know how people react when they have nothing to lose or when they feel belittled and devalued. That's the understanding we should bring to our foreign policy discussions. 99% of the world's people are happy to live and let live if they are safe and treated with respect and dignity. Why do we have to live our lives at the behest of the 1% who are greedy, power hungry, and angry? Why do we allow ourselves to be ruled by the extremes?
Anyway - I don't like waking up to headlines that say...
"US and Czechs to sign radar deal despite opposition" (Reuters) - the United States wants to install a missile defense radar in the Czech Republic and put 10 interceptor rockets in Poland. The defense shield is to protect European and United States allies from threats from 'rogue states' such as Iran. Russia views this as a threat and said it will aim its nuclear missiles at central Europe if the shield is deployed.
"Iran warns US as missiles tested" (ITV.com, UK) - Iran has test fired nine missiles as a warning to the US and Israel that it is ready to retaliate if attacked over its nuclear programmes.
That's all for now.
Anyway - I don't like waking up to headlines that say...
"US and Czechs to sign radar deal despite opposition" (Reuters) - the United States wants to install a missile defense radar in the Czech Republic and put 10 interceptor rockets in Poland. The defense shield is to protect European and United States allies from threats from 'rogue states' such as Iran. Russia views this as a threat and said it will aim its nuclear missiles at central Europe if the shield is deployed.
"Iran warns US as missiles tested" (ITV.com, UK) - Iran has test fired nine missiles as a warning to the US and Israel that it is ready to retaliate if attacked over its nuclear programmes.
That's all for now.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Doctor Who Season 4 "The Stolen Earth"
Please be aware that I'm writing about a show that hasn't yet aired. Don't read further if you have more patience than I and have chosen to wait until the episode is broadcast on Sci-Fi.
Well, that episode gave me some satisfaction after the despair of "Journey's End". I think I should always watch the second part of a two-parter before the first part.
1. I like Harriet Jones, former Prime Minister. I didn't like that they put in a small speech about why she was right and justified to destroy the...whoever it was. She seemed stubborn and it was written awkwardly. Especially given the story going on around her while she said it. 10 seconds can mean the difference between life and death, for goodness sake! But, I still like her.
2. Even though Rose only walked around with her big gun, at least she had more action in this episode. And I really thought she seemed capable - that was good.
3. It was a little obvious that in the last three episodes Donna reminded everyone, at every opportunity that she's "just a temp, I'm nobody". I knew why, but we already got it - we aren't as clueless as the Doctor apparently is ("Oh you really believe that!"). That was a little heavy-handed.
4. Every one sure did give up quickly and easily. They hardly investigated the problem and decided there was nothing they could do to solve it. Yes, we're all going to die. Weird.
That's all I can think of right now.
*****
I've been obsessing about Doctor Who for a while now, either rewatching the DVD's or sneaking a look at the last three episodes of the season, or searching the Internet for other people's opinions on the last episode, or writing about it here.
There are three things I'm still disappointed about...1) Donna, 2) Christopher Eccleston, and 3) Rose and the Doctor.
I have the funny feeling, all three things are affected by something outside the story; the story's integrity had to be compromised to satisfy other things. Its just a feeling I have.
I'm quite devastated - still - about Donna. Some reviewers and fans feel that was a perfect end because it illustrated how the Doctor's world is a thorny rose. (why didn't they use that metaphor somewhere in the series? Too obvious?) They thought it was truthful because its life; not all stories have happy endings.
I still don't think it was necessary to completely wipe out her memory. But, I'm feeling less emotional about it. I thought I was alone in my outrage for Donna's ending. Once I found out a lot of people agree with me, I could calm down.
I didn't know of Catherine Tate before Doctor Who, but apparently people had some preconceived notions about her. For the most part, even early detractors came around to enjoying and respecting Catherine's portrayal of Donna. I feel better about that as well.
There are a lot of Doctor Who fans out there who care about the show in a different way than I do. I wasn't (nor do I expect to be) a fan of the classic shows, I don't know all the villains and I listen to the technoblahblah only so I can get a vague understanding (that's why I think if I notice something doesn't make sense, it must be a pretty big hole in the plot).
I watched Doctor Who for the first time because I'd heard of it over the years and I wondered what it was - and really, I love Time Travel stuff and good science fiction.
I continued watching Doctor Who because I thought Christopher Eccleston was fantastic in the part, absolutely fantastic. Very good actor. I wouldn't be able to pick out separate episodes in the first season that I liked above all others - it was the total package.
I watched the second season because I watched season one. But, I had problems with it - the way Rose changed, and their newly overt, traditional relationship. I wasn't going to buy the DVDs. Until the final episode. Sad but satisfying end to their love story. I had to get the DVD's!
I watched Season Three because of how season two ended. It made me want to keep going. This season has more episodes that I specifically liked on their own. Even though the finale was a little goofy there too, I thought Martha was such a hero - I was proud of her.
And Season Four - Donna Noble is the reason to watch. She has done herself proud.
I write that because my criteria for a good show is more general than specific. As I've rewatched Seasons 1, 2, and 3 recently, I realize I actually like every episode. But, some of them touch me in a way. These are my particular favorites.
Dalek by Robert Shearman (No. 165)
Boom Town by Russell T Davies (No. 169)
The Girl in the Fireplace by Stephen Moffat (No. 175)
Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel by Tom MacRae (No. 176)
The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit by Matt Jones (No. 178)
The Shakespeare Code by Gareth Roberts (No. 184)
Gridlock by Russell T Davies (No. 185)
Human Nature/The Family of Blood by Paul Cornell (No. 189)
Blink by Steven Moffat (No. 190)
Partners in Crime by Russell T Davies (No. 193)
Planet of the Ood by Keith Temple (No. 195)
The Unicorn and The Wasp by Gareth Roberts (No. 198)
Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead by Steven Moffat (No. 199)
Turn Left by Russell T Davies (No 201)
(I haven't seen 'Midnight' yet)
And to that list I'd add anything Christopher Eccleston is in, anything Jack Harkness is in, and anything that gives us a prophetic clue. I like the 'Love and Monsters' episode because I like Marc Warren and I thought it seemed like it could really be true. It had a sad end to its love story as well. Hmmm...and ALSO written by Russell T Davies. What gives with the sad love story endings, Russell?
*****
Can I be done obsessing over Doctor Who now? Please?
Well, that episode gave me some satisfaction after the despair of "Journey's End". I think I should always watch the second part of a two-parter before the first part.
1. I like Harriet Jones, former Prime Minister. I didn't like that they put in a small speech about why she was right and justified to destroy the...whoever it was. She seemed stubborn and it was written awkwardly. Especially given the story going on around her while she said it. 10 seconds can mean the difference between life and death, for goodness sake! But, I still like her.
2. Even though Rose only walked around with her big gun, at least she had more action in this episode. And I really thought she seemed capable - that was good.
3. It was a little obvious that in the last three episodes Donna reminded everyone, at every opportunity that she's "just a temp, I'm nobody". I knew why, but we already got it - we aren't as clueless as the Doctor apparently is ("Oh you really believe that!"). That was a little heavy-handed.
4. Every one sure did give up quickly and easily. They hardly investigated the problem and decided there was nothing they could do to solve it. Yes, we're all going to die. Weird.
That's all I can think of right now.
*****
I've been obsessing about Doctor Who for a while now, either rewatching the DVD's or sneaking a look at the last three episodes of the season, or searching the Internet for other people's opinions on the last episode, or writing about it here.
There are three things I'm still disappointed about...1) Donna, 2) Christopher Eccleston, and 3) Rose and the Doctor.
I have the funny feeling, all three things are affected by something outside the story; the story's integrity had to be compromised to satisfy other things. Its just a feeling I have.
I'm quite devastated - still - about Donna. Some reviewers and fans feel that was a perfect end because it illustrated how the Doctor's world is a thorny rose. (why didn't they use that metaphor somewhere in the series? Too obvious?) They thought it was truthful because its life; not all stories have happy endings.
I still don't think it was necessary to completely wipe out her memory. But, I'm feeling less emotional about it. I thought I was alone in my outrage for Donna's ending. Once I found out a lot of people agree with me, I could calm down.
I didn't know of Catherine Tate before Doctor Who, but apparently people had some preconceived notions about her. For the most part, even early detractors came around to enjoying and respecting Catherine's portrayal of Donna. I feel better about that as well.
There are a lot of Doctor Who fans out there who care about the show in a different way than I do. I wasn't (nor do I expect to be) a fan of the classic shows, I don't know all the villains and I listen to the technoblahblah only so I can get a vague understanding (that's why I think if I notice something doesn't make sense, it must be a pretty big hole in the plot).
I watched Doctor Who for the first time because I'd heard of it over the years and I wondered what it was - and really, I love Time Travel stuff and good science fiction.
I continued watching Doctor Who because I thought Christopher Eccleston was fantastic in the part, absolutely fantastic. Very good actor. I wouldn't be able to pick out separate episodes in the first season that I liked above all others - it was the total package.
I watched the second season because I watched season one. But, I had problems with it - the way Rose changed, and their newly overt, traditional relationship. I wasn't going to buy the DVDs. Until the final episode. Sad but satisfying end to their love story. I had to get the DVD's!
I watched Season Three because of how season two ended. It made me want to keep going. This season has more episodes that I specifically liked on their own. Even though the finale was a little goofy there too, I thought Martha was such a hero - I was proud of her.
And Season Four - Donna Noble is the reason to watch. She has done herself proud.
I write that because my criteria for a good show is more general than specific. As I've rewatched Seasons 1, 2, and 3 recently, I realize I actually like every episode. But, some of them touch me in a way. These are my particular favorites.
Dalek by Robert Shearman (No. 165)
Boom Town by Russell T Davies (No. 169)
The Girl in the Fireplace by Stephen Moffat (No. 175)
Rise of the Cybermen/The Age of Steel by Tom MacRae (No. 176)
The Impossible Planet/The Satan Pit by Matt Jones (No. 178)
The Shakespeare Code by Gareth Roberts (No. 184)
Gridlock by Russell T Davies (No. 185)
Human Nature/The Family of Blood by Paul Cornell (No. 189)
Blink by Steven Moffat (No. 190)
Partners in Crime by Russell T Davies (No. 193)
Planet of the Ood by Keith Temple (No. 195)
The Unicorn and The Wasp by Gareth Roberts (No. 198)
Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead by Steven Moffat (No. 199)
Turn Left by Russell T Davies (No 201)
(I haven't seen 'Midnight' yet)
And to that list I'd add anything Christopher Eccleston is in, anything Jack Harkness is in, and anything that gives us a prophetic clue. I like the 'Love and Monsters' episode because I like Marc Warren and I thought it seemed like it could really be true. It had a sad end to its love story as well. Hmmm...and ALSO written by Russell T Davies. What gives with the sad love story endings, Russell?
*****
Can I be done obsessing over Doctor Who now? Please?
Television is the opiate of the masses, and I'm high.
I said it. Ha!
Given the obviousness of the statement, I know I can't be the first to tack on "and I'm high".
Right?
Given the obviousness of the statement, I know I can't be the first to tack on "and I'm high".
Right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)