Adjective

Can anyone tell me?



I know that there is a waiting game going on, until the election and transfer of administrations, but is there anyway that the Bush administration can continue the stone-walling after they leave office. I mean, this abuse of executive privilege won't extend past mid January, right? In other words, if in 2009 subpoenas are issued bringing Rove, Cheney and Bush to testify under oath, do these criminals have a recourse like: files have been sealed for 20 years or some legal precedent which will allow Bush to continue legally sparring w/ congress



I don't know why it's so difficult for me to phrase this in a clear concise way but what I want to know is:



Should Obama win the presidency and the dems get a solid filibuster proof majority, will Rove be able to continue ignoring subpoenas based on stuff the current pres has done?



Is there even an teensy chance that Karl will go to jail? posted 07/17/2008 at 20:00:45

Can anyone tell me?

I know that there is a waiting game going on, until the election and transfer of administrations, but is there anyway that the Bush administration can continue the stone-walling after they leave office. I mean, this abuse of executive privilege won't extend past mid January, right? In other words, if in 2009 subpoenas are issued bringing Rove, Cheney and Bush to testify under oath, do these criminals have a recourse like: files have been sealed for 20 years or some legal precedent which will allow Bush to continue legally sparring w/ congress

I don't know why it's so difficult for me to phrase this in a clear concise way but what I want to know is:

Should Obama win the presidency and the dems get a solid filibuster proof majority, will Rove be able to continue ignoring subpoenas based on stuff the current pres has done?

Is there even an teensy chance that Karl will go to jail? posted 07/17/2008 at 19:59:35

It's the "Smell the Glove" cover controversy all over again.

I like Harry. I listen to Le Show every week. I very much dislike Clear Channel; I don't appreciate their attitude and wish I had an digital billboard company, because I would advertise against Clear Channel (I'd also give Harry a big discount because I like his product.), but I don't.

I don't understand Da Noo's problem, but I can tell you that I don't think they're very hip if they took your ad down and I think they're lying when they said that patron's complained, because if you're a digital billboard company then your patrons are the advertisers (that's you, Harry) not the kind of idiot who would complain about an album cover, that is tame by any standard of political cartooning (just compare to the New Yorker cover of the Obamas).

Perhaps the flap over this issue will help in your quest for ubiquity. In any case I hope the record sells okay and that Da Noo is hit with a Karmic backlash for their despicable behaviour. And I'd be happy to see Clear Channel go out of business entirely. If only. posted 07/16/2008 at 16:01:44

1 Alberto Gonzales would still be AG
2 Karl Rove would still have a WH office
3 What DoJ scandal?
4 Off-shore drilling? Sure!
5 A much worse FISA bill, Iraq strategy, energy policy,...

This list goes on and on, plus there's smaller things like control of what bills make it to the floor and continuing to get GOP senators to go on record w/ their stubborn resistance to bringing US soldiers home.

Sure, I'd like to have seen more action, even w/ this congress that is NOT filibuster proof (for those fools in the blogosphere who think that the infintessimal advantage that Dems have in the Senate should have brought forth more wide sweeping changes.)

If you honestly think that a GOP rubber-stamp congress (and if they had won in 2006 they would surely have felt that rubber-stamp was a mandate) would be anything like the congress we have now then you are not thinking it through. posted 07/15/2008 at 12:22:25

Yeah, it's called a VERY POWERFUL TELECOM LOBBY, that and the political inconvenience of the president (and presumably some members of congress) breaking the law over 30x. There is no public desire for telecom immunity. This bill was poorly written and, though FISA does need to be updated, this law is HORRIBLE.

Yes, I'm still going to vote for Obama, but all who voted for this bill (especially those who did not support the ammendment stripping immunity) should be punished in some way, hopefully by losing their seats.

It is obvious to me that those who support this pathetic piece of legislation, which weakens the constitution's 4th ammendment, do not have America's best interest at heart.

Shame on you, Senators. posted 07/09/2008 at 17:30:46

Watergate scapegoat/whistle blowerJohn Dean suggested this very thing on Countdown the other night but there would be no reason for Obama to keep this intention secret, so if he is planning on doing it , Senator Obama should make it clear that criminal investigations will be made for accountability's sake. posted 06/25/2008 at 21:03:51

I have a message for the Onceler: "Unless" posted 06/24/2008 at 19:19:45

"Any Obamagaffe (and there have been plenty more than McCain lately)"

No there haven't. Everythime McCain opens his mouth their is a gaffe.

A vote for McCain is a vote that says, "I love high gas prices and a deflated dollar. I want the rest of the world to continue hating the US. I would like to waste more money on useless wars."

rwe doesn't want to pay taxes. He thinks that he should be able to live in America (a country engaged in an expensive war no less) and not contribute money. Granted, I wish MY money, the money I've paid in taxes over the past decade, wasn't going to fund a war I do not believe in even slightly (I think we've not done a shred of good in Iraq since we've been there), and was instead funding education so that future generations of Americans were smarter and better able to face the 21st century) but paying into the running of government is the price of living in a democracy. And finally, "read my lips," the next president, even if McCain should somehow cheat his way into the office, will have to raise taxes, so stop whining and face reality. posted 06/24/2008 at 16:33:52

It would be absolutely WRONG in every perceivable way for Obama to take 'public financing'. Anybody who takes him to task for not honoring this ridiculous qualified pledge is either a stalwart Obama critic looking for any slight thing to hang onto him or just doesn't understand the stakes.

Pay attention people: public financing is meant to even the playing field, but it's ABSOLUTELY a system that doesn't work. If you don't like the fact that a candidate can 'opt out' of public financing, then get congress to change the law with stringent guidelines about where, when & how they can get and spend campaign cash. But don't look for it this election cycle. Geez, McCain can't even play by the rules HE wrote.

I love the Daily Show; it makes me laugh consistenly and often helps me ease through a hard day, and though I haven't seen last night's episode yet, I'm sure I'll laugh at least once. I'm more concerned with people like Charles Gibson denigrating the fairness of campaign finance than I am with the commentary of Daily Show, where I feel their only real agenda is to make me laugh.

I won't be satisfied until I see at least 3 MSM larger than life headlines that proclaim: "A NEW WAY OF PUBLIC FINANCING: Obama and small donations" or something like that.

Meanwhile, Jon & Co, you guys just keep being funny. posted 06/24/2008 at 16:13:18

HuffPost headlines are based on the Drudge model, which has been very successful at getting people to click the links. They are sensational at best and misleading and disinformative at their worst.

Since they're successful at getting you to read the blogs (albeit with gritted teeth and a modicum of frustrated disgust at times) and since critical comments are (for the most part) allowed, I do not think it'll change anytime soon; none-the-less, a plea to HuffPost editors:

If your headlines must be sensational could you guys at least put in the extra effort so they do not contain disinformation? posted 06/18/2008 at 19:25:21

Gore was VP for 8 yrs. Why would you think he'd want to play 2nd fiddle to another president when he can concentrate on global climate reform with the full supprort of an Obama administration? (Just think of it no more oil lobbyists writing policy! Neither will Edwards want to play 2nd fiddle on another ticket, and I don't suppose Liz is really all that excited about another veep run.

Webb is not likely, Clark even less so. I'm thinking Strickland, Warner or Kane because they're all popular democrat govs from states that are in play. posted 06/16/2008 at 22:02:35

I infer pressure from her conservative military sister is the real key to this ill-considered move; sour grapes exploited into rash ill-advised action. How did she ever become a delegate? There is not a single good reason in her list of grievances (all GOP talking points) for abandoning the party of her supposed beliefs. posted 06/14/2008 at 19:25:12

The difference between KO and BO is that, though sometimes Keith is over the top, his political commentary is generally well-reasoned and supported by logical arguments and it's usually expressed with a degree of eloquence. FOX commentators generally rely on uncorroborated hearsay, hyperbole, and ad hominem arguments that collapse when examined with standard fact checking.

Yeah, I wish Mr. Olbermann would save his Special Comments for occassions that warrant it (and specifically aimed at the Bush admin) and, certainly the Worst Person in the World segment is hyperbolic and should be reserved for people who really deeserve it. I find it very hard to believe that Katie Couric is the worst person in the world (especially while the Bush Admin is still in the WH and McOutOfIt is still running for CinC). Keith, if you disagree with Katie's views on whether sexism reared its ugly head during the primaries and whether the MSM enabled it, then engage her in a debate from your respective anchor chairs (or even face to face), but there is no call for vitriol in this situation. posted 06/12/2008 at 17:45:50

Not Zig Zag paper but...yes, you guessed it...Big Bambu paper was included as an insert in C&C's BB album. posted 06/11/2008 at 20:01:08

Let's see:
Vampire Weekend's vinyl came w/ a free digital download of the record
Silversun Pickups came w/ a 7" and a code for downloading it (2 songs)
LCD Soundsystem and Raconteurs came with posters
Postal Service and Kate Bush records both came with 12" books...
Etc.,

I NEVER see new vinyl on sale, but, the pressings are usually better now than they were 20 years ago and well worth the price (from around $10 to $30) posted 06/10/2008 at 16:52:44

"But it's not just about the sound. Audiophiles say they also want the format's overall experience _ the sensory experience of putting the needle on the record, the feeling of side A and side B and the joy of lingering over the liner notes."

I'm a DJ and I've been saying this for years. The LP is all about the gestalt. Sitting in a beanbag chair w/ the headphones on, the gate-fold propped between my knees as I pored over the hipgnosis artwork - that's more than nostalgic, it's tactile. You can spend hours/days with a 12". The liner notes and artwork on CD's are just too small. A lot of people I know just throw out their CD packaging.

CD's are not what they promised us 20 years ago. They don't last forever, the music quality isn't great and after 15 years a well used CD is just a piece of scratched up plastic. This is why Tower Records went out of business; this is why the RIAA is having trouble wrangling those massive profits they got used to in the 70's: When you take away the 12" packaging (you could put posters, stickers and booklets with writing big enough to read in the sleeve) and that overall sensory experience then all you have left is the digital music which can be exactly replicated for free, or downloaded cheaply. Who needs CD stores? Who needs big labels?

Long live vinyl! posted 06/10/2008 at 14:57:05

Just like Montgomery Burns said (and I'm paraphrasing here because I don't remember the exact quote): "Yes I have a lot of money, but I'd trade it all for more money."

I sure don't make two hundred grand a year and I do not consider myself poor. If I did make that much I guarantee that I'd happily pay a higher tax rate. posted 06/10/2008 at 17:04:43

I was hoping for photos posted 06/10/2008 at 12:45:17

If you can't read him, then listen to his audio books. Fun stuff for a long drive. posted 06/07/2008 at 18:57:56

"Mind Games" is also a great song that juxtaposes spiritual questing with psychological warfare...a provocative lyric that might possibly serve as an allegory to being in the Beatles...or running in the 2008 democratic primary.

You know "I am the Walrus" makes much more sense if you get the Lewis Carroll/James Joyce references. You can still enjoy the song even if you've never read Alice's Adventures through the Looking Glass or Finnegan's Wake (like you can still enjoy Piccaso's Guernica even if you don't know the history) based simply on the aesthetic value.

Anyway, I agree with your general point, RJ, that the Beatles work, far supercedes the individual's solo stuff and, for the most part I agree that your simile works as relates to HRC & BHO, but if you reallly want to dis post Beatle's Lennon/McCartney, then why not some of the lesser songs from Walls & Bridges or Wings at the Speed of Sound? posted 06/06/2008 at 19:52:14

From Mort Zuckerman @ USN&WP:

"In fact the Jews have lived in Israel for over 3,300 years since 1312 B.C. (or B.C.E., before the Common Era, for those who dislike tying their calendar to Christianity). They had lived there at least 1,800 years before the Arab conquest of 635 C.E., which lasted only 22 years..."

...I don't usually read USN&WP nor do I always agree with Israel, I'm just saying... posted 06/05/2008 at 19:45:33

Slime? Really?

Isn't Clinton not suspending her campaign last night, like she promised she would do, a bit slimy? She doesn't have to concede but we need her to start actively campaigning for the presumptive nominee.

If you've been following Rahm, he, like several other superdels, waited until the last primary to endorse the presumptive nominee. He's a dem in a leadership position and those people have to decide now (and most have).

Look, I'm far from certain that Obama can win a general election, but to be honest I'm even further from certain that Hillary can win one (that is without shennanigins) though, I, personally, will vote for whoever the democratic candidate is. I must admit I was moved when I heard Obama speak last night (as I was for the last 3 or 4 Obama speeches) and felt a frustrated lump in my stomach during Clinton's speech. I don't want her to wait and consider her options, I want her to support the candidate and chastize anyone in her camp who would even consider voting for McCain. She should tell those people that she's ashamed of them if the vote for McCain.

Come on, Hillary, it's going to be a tough general election, let's work hard to get a democrat in the WH. posted 06/04/2008 at 13:07:00