JustMyWords
Recent comments by this user
The Media, Obama, Iraq
LOL - that's hilarious! Oh, wait, you're serious? You really believe that if Bush/McCain want to have troops in Iraq, that the little fact that the troops aren't wanted will somehow make a difference? Perhaps it has escaped your notice that those troops showed up in Baghdad with something less than the open-armed blessing of Saddam's then existing government.... It's also probably escaped your notice that Iraq and Iran are something less than allies, so no one is going to be embraced by Iraq simply because Iran likes 'em. posted 07/23/2008 at 08:45:50
Op-Ed Writing Tips For Senator McCain
People are blocked from publishing op-ed pieces every day - surely you're not so naive that you think that every letter to the editor and every editorial appears. Why should McCain get carte blanche to have a poorly written piece of drivel published just because he's John McCain? Incidentally, have you actually read both of the pieces? Or read the publisher's statement about the matter - it does clearly state their reasons for not publishing this particular piece, and essentially invites McCain to provide them with something that meets certain publication guidelines. That's not exactly unreasonable or shamefully biased.
Apparently you prefer the "journalistic principles" displayed by such revered media outlets as The Drudge Report and Fox News. posted 07/23/2008 at 09:03:13
Apparently you prefer the "journalistic principles" displayed by such revered media outlets as The Drudge Report and Fox News. posted 07/23/2008 at 09:03:13
No, no, NO! I have no problem with the NYT not publishing McCain's "op-ed" piece. It's poorly written and offers nothing new to the conversation, it's simply a political hack-piece rehashing old campaign talking points. Op-Ed page real estate is a small territory, and it doesn't benefit anyone to publish bad drivel - use those column inches for something done well.
But I WOULD have a problem with the NYT if the only reason they had chosen not to publish it was because it came from McCain's campaign. I do not want the media to pick and choose what I get to see or read based on their own political inclinations - even on the op-ed page. I want both viewpoints, so that I can read them and make up my own mind. It's no better for the NYT to play that game than it is for Fox News to peddle schlock. posted 07/23/2008 at 08:55:49
But I WOULD have a problem with the NYT if the only reason they had chosen not to publish it was because it came from McCain's campaign. I do not want the media to pick and choose what I get to see or read based on their own political inclinations - even on the op-ed page. I want both viewpoints, so that I can read them and make up my own mind. It's no better for the NYT to play that game than it is for Fox News to peddle schlock. posted 07/23/2008 at 08:55:49
Senator McCain Isn't Funny, So Stop Encouraging Him
Hmm, so if I'm following your line of thought for the comparison between Rev. Wright & John McCain, then McCain is also like the elderly uncle who always embarrasses everyone by what he says, right? Of course, the problem with that comparison for the Republicans is that McCain is actually the nominee.... posted 07/18/2008 at 17:39:28
Anchors Away! (On Obama's Overseas Adventure)
And "anchors away" when referring to news anchors traveling would be a play on words. Also simple English. And those who choose to critique the journalists should reasonably be expected to understand it. posted 07/18/2008 at 17:47:00
Scary Thought: Is Condi Rice Our Last, Best Chance for Peace?
Especially if the diplomatic position you're representing is the "Do it our way or else" position. posted 07/18/2008 at 11:21:45
Negotiation shouldn't be that difficult a concept for people to grasp. You don't need to negotiate with your friends - they're not the ones that will be tossing bombs at you. You negotiate with your potential enemies, to reach a conclusion that will satisfy all without the need for bomb tossing and bloodshed. And you cannot negotiate at all if your attitude is "Talk all you want, but when you're through talking, this is what we're going to do, and nothing you can say or do is going to change that."
Why is it so hard to anyone to understand that "no preconceived strings attached" is not the same as "willing to negotiate away anything and everything"? All good negotiators have not only issues they are willing to trade away, but issues that they are not willing to compromise on. And the art of negotiation involves two (or more) people sitting down and TALKING in order to find the areas of agreement. posted 07/18/2008 at 11:18:30
Why is it so hard to anyone to understand that "no preconceived strings attached" is not the same as "willing to negotiate away anything and everything"? All good negotiators have not only issues they are willing to trade away, but issues that they are not willing to compromise on. And the art of negotiation involves two (or more) people sitting down and TALKING in order to find the areas of agreement. posted 07/18/2008 at 11:18:30
Even Paid Speech Isn't Free
I have to go with bluehorizon on this one. If satire about one is OK, so is satire about the other. And, incidentally, the New Yorker cover wasn't satirizing Obama, it was satirizing the ridiculous misconceptions that are continuously being spread about him. Whether it worked for people or not is another matter - personally, I thought it was funny. posted 07/18/2008 at 10:44:32
Personally, if someone is assaulted or dragged from a stage, I'm going to be at the least a tad bit perturbed, whether that someone is conservative or liberal. You're describing a criminal offense, after all. And one that has absolutely nothing to do with the point that people are trying to make.
Your correct, Clear Channel is free to decline business. I don't think anyone is seriously quibbling with that. Most of us are concerned that at this point, the media has also become part of the "bigger is better" corporate culture.
The power is concentrated in the hands of very few people, and by virtue of that concentration, a very few people can determine what information is available to the majority of the American people. They are not making their decision based on what you - yes, you, too - need to know to make intelligent, informed decisions about your life. They are making their decisions based on what they think will cause you to spend money to their benefit. posted 07/18/2008 at 10:26:00
Your correct, Clear Channel is free to decline business. I don't think anyone is seriously quibbling with that. Most of us are concerned that at this point, the media has also become part of the "bigger is better" corporate culture.
The power is concentrated in the hands of very few people, and by virtue of that concentration, a very few people can determine what information is available to the majority of the American people. They are not making their decision based on what you - yes, you, too - need to know to make intelligent, informed decisions about your life. They are making their decisions based on what they think will cause you to spend money to their benefit. posted 07/18/2008 at 10:26:00
Hmm, well, the legislative branch was controlled by the same party. A party that, even though they are no longer the majority, maintain enough seats to effectively block almost any changes. And the judicial branch has, for the most part, aided & abetted, beginning with the Bush v. Gore decision.
Your question to libertyanne about lost freedoms hopefully is theoretical. Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but under these lovely new "terrorist surveillance" laws, she would legally prohibited from actually telling you if she is the subject of an investigation, or that she has had her records subpoenaed, among other things. In fact, she is unable to exercise her constitutional right to legal counsel, because she isn't allowed to share any of that information with an attorney. Man, I feel safer already, how about you? posted 07/18/2008 at 10:15:41
Your question to libertyanne about lost freedoms hopefully is theoretical. Perhaps you aren't aware of it, but under these lovely new "terrorist surveillance" laws, she would legally prohibited from actually telling you if she is the subject of an investigation, or that she has had her records subpoenaed, among other things. In fact, she is unable to exercise her constitutional right to legal counsel, because she isn't allowed to share any of that information with an attorney. Man, I feel safer already, how about you? posted 07/18/2008 at 10:15:41
How to Get the Economy from its Vicious to a Virtuous Cycle -- But Radical Righties Won't Let it Happen
I'm really intrigued with your math. According to you, welfare & foodstamps going to non-citizens accounts for almost half of all government spending. I'm curious where you come up with those figures. Let's see the $$$$, and your source, please. posted 07/16/2008 at 21:04:07
So much for the "tax and spend" Democrats. posted 07/16/2008 at 21:01:03
You touched on one of the things that totally irritate me.
We're told constantly about the rise in oil costs essentially being the fault of (a) those darned Chinese and Indians using up all that oil, and (b) those darned tree-hugging Democrats that won't let us drill up the oceanfront property. By golly, if we could use our own oil and not have to buy someone else's oil, we'd be in just dandy shape.
So, for the love of God, why are oil companies selling American oil to those pesky foreigners? I'm not buying the idea that it is some sort of bizarre hope that if we increase worldwide supply that somehow the costs will go down for us. No, somehow, in the twisted world of speculation and commodities trading, oil companies can make a bigger profit selling US oil abroad while essentially buying the oil back on the world market. There is something very wrong with this picture.... posted 07/16/2008 at 20:59:47
We're told constantly about the rise in oil costs essentially being the fault of (a) those darned Chinese and Indians using up all that oil, and (b) those darned tree-hugging Democrats that won't let us drill up the oceanfront property. By golly, if we could use our own oil and not have to buy someone else's oil, we'd be in just dandy shape.
So, for the love of God, why are oil companies selling American oil to those pesky foreigners? I'm not buying the idea that it is some sort of bizarre hope that if we increase worldwide supply that somehow the costs will go down for us. No, somehow, in the twisted world of speculation and commodities trading, oil companies can make a bigger profit selling US oil abroad while essentially buying the oil back on the world market. There is something very wrong with this picture.... posted 07/16/2008 at 20:59:47
The Real Legacy of the 'Reagan Revolution'
One can only assume that you have limited experience with the actual record and history of Sen. McCain. posted 07/16/2008 at 21:29:09
And so off the US toddled into Afghanistan....hey, just because the other greatest superpower the world has ever known was brought to the knees by the mujahaddin doesn't mean they can beat US, dammit! posted 07/16/2008 at 21:20:45
Hmm, yeah, those darned borrowers should have known better than borrow money just because the bank approved them for the loan - a loan with payments they could afford at the time. Why aren't you talking about how the lenders should have known better than to make loans that size to someone with an income that small???? posted 07/16/2008 at 21:15:41
If he can manage that one, maybe we SHOULD consider voting for him. posted 07/16/2008 at 21:14:40
Actually, if memory serves me correctly, it was George HW Bush that put that executive order in place, not Bill Clinton.
And the fact that off-shore drilling was prohibited doesn't actually do a thing to, as you say, stop "the Democrat controlled Congress prevents American industry from developing the vast energy resources of this nation." Aside from the fact that the Congress was controlled by the Republican party for the better part of the time period since GHWB was in office, oil is hardly the only energy resource available. There has been absolutely nothing stopping industry from developing almost any other energy resource imaginable. Nothing, of course, except for the fact that for the last 8 years, energy policy has been completely skewed in favor of oil, and nothing else. The oil industry is propped up by unbelievable subsidies and tax breaks, while "alternative fuels" have received almost no attention. Shoot, under this president, even minor, drop-in-the-bucket endeavors have been ended - surely, you remember that once upon a time, Joe Citizen could get a tax credit for purchasing a hybrid vehicle? No longer.... posted 07/16/2008 at 21:14:20
And the fact that off-shore drilling was prohibited doesn't actually do a thing to, as you say, stop "the Democrat controlled Congress prevents American industry from developing the vast energy resources of this nation." Aside from the fact that the Congress was controlled by the Republican party for the better part of the time period since GHWB was in office, oil is hardly the only energy resource available. There has been absolutely nothing stopping industry from developing almost any other energy resource imaginable. Nothing, of course, except for the fact that for the last 8 years, energy policy has been completely skewed in favor of oil, and nothing else. The oil industry is propped up by unbelievable subsidies and tax breaks, while "alternative fuels" have received almost no attention. Shoot, under this president, even minor, drop-in-the-bucket endeavors have been ended - surely, you remember that once upon a time, Joe Citizen could get a tax credit for purchasing a hybrid vehicle? No longer.... posted 07/16/2008 at 21:14:20
McCain Ape Rape Joke Recalled By Sources
Except that in this case, it shows that his recent spurt of inappropriate comments isn't just a new thing. It isn't because he's getting older, or because of the stress of campaigning, or any of the other excuses that people might want to trot out for him. He's been "inappropriate" for years. posted 07/18/2008 at 17:50:14
David Remnick On That New Yorker Cover: It's Satire, Meant To Target "Distortions And Misconceptions And Prejudices" About Obama
There's a difference in calling someone a derogatory name, and in using that derogatory term in the course of telling a story. posted 07/14/2008 at 21:41:33
Come on, this is America, after all. Land of the free, and home of the obtuse. posted 07/14/2008 at 21:35:05
Bernie Mac Makes Off-Color Joke At Obama Event
If Obama wanted everything in the routine rated G, he shouldn't have let Bernie Mack on the stage. It's not like no one's ever heard one of this routines before. posted 07/14/2008 at 21:51:53
Phil Gramm Is Conservatism
The fact that you can so blithely compare building an oil facility in ANWR with constructing a football field in Indiana shows an incredible disconnect from reality - and means everything else you say is, at best, suspect. posted 07/11/2008 at 17:55:34
The Week That Should Have Ended McCain's Presidential Hopes
I don't like Obama's FISA vote. At the same time, whether or not I agree with it, I can at least understand the logic of "half a loaf is better than none." And even more importantly, I don't think that it's even remotely possible that Obama could flip SO far from my view on the issues that he could be worse than McCain. posted 07/11/2008 at 17:36:12
You're correct when you say that it's not the MSM's job to attack and counter-attack McCain. But what IS their job is to present the information on ALL candidates (there are, after all, more than two) in a fair, even, and unbiased manner.
The MSM is failing its job miserably. posted 07/11/2008 at 17:28:55
The MSM is failing its job miserably. posted 07/11/2008 at 17:28:55
What Jesse Jackson Said Was A-OK
Mmm, I'm pretty sure that while he might have been exaggerating, he wasn't kidding. I didn't see a smile anyway.
I'm not worried about the language (hear worse every day). I'm not even concerned about the fact that JJ may not be a member of the Obama fan club. But damn! Jackson's been a public figure for long enough that he certainly should remember one cardinal rule - there's no such thing as a dead mike. posted 07/10/2008 at 19:52:00
I'm not worried about the language (hear worse every day). I'm not even concerned about the fact that JJ may not be a member of the Obama fan club. But damn! Jackson's been a public figure for long enough that he certainly should remember one cardinal rule - there's no such thing as a dead mike. posted 07/10/2008 at 19:52:00
Thinking like that is one reason we've had 8 years of Bush. For God's sake, vote Obama! posted 07/10/2008 at 19:50:54
Zanesville On Obama's Faith-Based Initiatives: Thanks But No Thanks
Actually, Obama's proposal doesn't use tax money for religious purposes. Funds provided to organizations - whether faith based or otherwise - must be used to provide the needed services, and cannot be used for religious proselytizing. And faith based organizations that wish to receive funding must comply with the same sort of regulations that secular organizations are required to follow when it comes to hiring, benefits, etc.
The First Amendment does create a separation of church and state. It also does not permit the state to discriminate against religion, any more than the church is allowed to favor a religion. If taxpayer money is available to secular groups that provide social services, is it fair to refuse to support organizations that provide identical services simply because the organization is associated with religion? posted 07/11/2008 at 19:24:12
The First Amendment does create a separation of church and state. It also does not permit the state to discriminate against religion, any more than the church is allowed to favor a religion. If taxpayer money is available to secular groups that provide social services, is it fair to refuse to support organizations that provide identical services simply because the organization is associated with religion? posted 07/11/2008 at 19:24:12
Better wording would be community-based initiatives. And in some ways, there are some very logical reasons to make use of them, whether they're faith-based or not.
Most of the organizations are in the community. They've already got the contacts in the community, and they know the people in the community. It's far easier for these organizations to be in touch with what their clients really need and how best to serve them. It's a lot more practical, and in the long run, can be much cheaper, to use networks that are already in place. Instead of spending money to build the community network, that money can actually be spent on providing the needed services. Personally, I don't have a problem with the organization being a "faith based" group, as long as they're willing to follow the same guidelines that a secular organization would be required to follow. posted 07/11/2008 at 19:15:26
Most of the organizations are in the community. They've already got the contacts in the community, and they know the people in the community. It's far easier for these organizations to be in touch with what their clients really need and how best to serve them. It's a lot more practical, and in the long run, can be much cheaper, to use networks that are already in place. Instead of spending money to build the community network, that money can actually be spent on providing the needed services. Personally, I don't have a problem with the organization being a "faith based" group, as long as they're willing to follow the same guidelines that a secular organization would be required to follow. posted 07/11/2008 at 19:15:26
Jesse Jackson Disparages Barack Obama: Caught On Tape (VIDEO)
I quit listening to Sharpton after Tawana Brawley. Not because he backed her initially, but because he was apparently more interested in getting his face on TV than in finding out what had actually happened. And despite all evidence to the contrary, he has refused to admit that (a) the girl lied, and (b) he accused, publicly and frequently, innocent men of a horrible crime. And in this case, his actions were based entirely on the race of the people involved. He no longer has any credibility to me. posted 07/18/2008 at 18:26:25
Yeah, and in fairness to Sharpton, don't forget his great work in the classic case of Tawana Brawley. Who wouldn't be proud of the way that he pursued justice? Who wouldn't be proud of the way he denounced the lies of a manipulative teenager who falsely accused 6 innocent men of a horrible crime? Oh, wait....he never did that, did he? Sorry.... Sharpton isn't relevant, and he doesn't fight against injustice - he just makes sure he keeps up on current events and gets his name in the news. He jumped the shark years ago. posted 07/18/2008 at 18:21:05
Killing Iranian Civilians Isn't Hilarious, Senator McCain
Well, we know that McCain can't manage tasks as mundane as getting through a press conference without saying something inappropriate or becoming irrational.
There's a difference in having a temper and in losing your temper. You can get upset at stupidity without having a meltdown. And adults damn well should understand how to stay calm in the face of asinine comments, which are annoying, but hardly lethal. posted 07/10/2008 at 19:37:41
There's a difference in having a temper and in losing your temper. You can get upset at stupidity without having a meltdown. And adults damn well should understand how to stay calm in the face of asinine comments, which are annoying, but hardly lethal. posted 07/10/2008 at 19:37:41
The Flip Flopper on Iraq? McCain
Sure, why not? Perfectly reasonable to take SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY.
Bet you wouldn't think it was so great if someone broke into your house to take your television, but the logic is the same. I want it, you have it, I'm going to take it. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:48:44
Bet you wouldn't think it was so great if someone broke into your house to take your television, but the logic is the same. I want it, you have it, I'm going to take it. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:48:44
The flip-flop on his position on leaving when the Iraqis want us to go is the more telling flip-flop. When it didn't appear that it would happen, McCain was all in favor of allowing the Iraqis to decide that they were ready for us to leave. Now, they've said it. Why hasn't McCain acknowledged that? He still wants us to hang around in Iraq. You know, it's not our country. The people who live there don't want us there. I'd say it's time for us to say "hasta la vista, Iraq." posted 07/09/2008 at 19:31:42
Nicole Kidman's Baby Name: Sticking It To Scientology?
You're kidding, right? posted 07/10/2008 at 20:04:19
I'd rather have the daily Perez Hilton report. posted 07/10/2008 at 20:01:33
Progressives Must Guard Against Helping to Promote Republican Narrative That Alleges Obama "Flip Flops"
Um, "his complete 180 degree turn on his promise to only take public funds in the general election if the Rupublican nominee did the same"? When, pray tell, did he ever make such a promise? And if that is actually what he had said, how could it be a flip-flop to not be taking public funds? posted 07/07/2008 at 21:25:50
Good lord. Rational thoughts, expressed in clear, concise English. Whatever in the world are you doing here?
Obviously, I agree with you. I don't like telecom immunity (at least the amendment only grants civil immunity, not criminal immunity), but court oversight is a HUGE step in the right direction. And to be honest, if I can only get one of the two, I'll take oversight over civil lawsuits any day of the week. It would be far more useful to the majority of people potentially affected by FISA. posted 07/07/2008 at 21:24:58
Obviously, I agree with you. I don't like telecom immunity (at least the amendment only grants civil immunity, not criminal immunity), but court oversight is a HUGE step in the right direction. And to be honest, if I can only get one of the two, I'll take oversight over civil lawsuits any day of the week. It would be far more useful to the majority of people potentially affected by FISA. posted 07/07/2008 at 21:24:58
A "Great Debate" Ingrate (Me)
Hmm, well, I suppose in some ways, it's accurate to say that JFK's "bronze warrior" look was an accurate representation of his persona, since we know now how very good he was at hiding things from the public....I mean, you ARE aware that his healthy bronzed appearance was a result of his Addison's disease, which was a debilitating, not very treatable, and sometimes fatal disease at the particular moment in medical history, right? This would be the serious medical condition that he hid from everyone outside of his immediate family, and certainly would not allow as public knowledge. posted 07/07/2008 at 21:07:55
McCain Flips At Legit Question
Well, it's true that if we ruled out everyone of a certain age that had ever used drugs in the past, it would make elections a lot easier. There'd only be three people left.
Personally, I'm going on the assumption that anyone who made it through Harvard without the assistance of being a legacy probably hasn't destroyed too many of his/her brain cells along the way. posted 07/03/2008 at 19:32:59
Personally, I'm going on the assumption that anyone who made it through Harvard without the assistance of being a legacy probably hasn't destroyed too many of his/her brain cells along the way. posted 07/03/2008 at 19:32:59
One Way to Lower Gas Prices: Lay Off Iran
Hogwash. No oil producing nation is likely to be worried about hypothetical supplies that would be at least 5-10 years down the roads. posted 07/03/2008 at 20:59:29
Gen. Clark and That POW Thing McCain Hates Talking About
Here's a thought.... what attack? Clark was asked a question, and he answered it. In most people's eyes, that's not much of an attack.
Incidentally, Clark also didn't say, or imply, that McCain has said "vote for me because I was a POW." posted 07/02/2008 at 19:36:46
Incidentally, Clark also didn't say, or imply, that McCain has said "vote for me because I was a POW." posted 07/02/2008 at 19:36:46
Unless there's nothing to running the country besides military knowledge, I'm not too worried about Obama in that regard. And if there's nothing to running the country besides military knowledge, then let's give up presidential elections and just let the Army run everything.
There's no reason - and no realistic expectation - that an executive should know everything about everything. What is important is that an executive knows where to find the necessary talent for every position, and to use that talent effectively. posted 07/02/2008 at 19:31:16
There's no reason - and no realistic expectation - that an executive should know everything about everything. What is important is that an executive knows where to find the necessary talent for every position, and to use that talent effectively. posted 07/02/2008 at 19:31:16
Stephen Baldwin On Fox News: If Obama Wins, I'll Leave The Country
He's nowhere near pretty enough to make up for that amount of stupid! posted 07/03/2008 at 20:20:56
The next great reality show.... posted 07/03/2008 at 20:16:45
Defending Wes Clark
Obama's work as a community organizer actually would require more executive experience than McCain's time as a combat pilot. But the difference is, McCain is running on his experience, and Obama is not. posted 07/01/2008 at 19:49:03
Why the assumption that being a poor Navy pilot is somehow better experience than being a good community organizer? posted 07/01/2008 at 19:45:34
Right On, General Clark. Do Not Back Down.
So I guess perhaps you aren't quite analytical enough to understand the difference between McCain's military service and Clark's? Shame shame posted 06/30/2008 at 20:35:56
What About It, Al?
it's a shame you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you should do a little more research on the concept of the carbon footprint. Not all energy usage is created equal. posted 06/30/2008 at 20:15:58
Understanding Obama's Recent Right Turn
Well, if you want to be quite technical about, Congress has every power necessary to write a law that is totally contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
And the Court has every power necessary to overturn a law that they determine is unconstitutional. But law is not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is. posted 06/30/2008 at 20:22:28
And the Court has every power necessary to overturn a law that they determine is unconstitutional. But law is not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is. posted 06/30/2008 at 20:22:28
Bush v. Gore Meets the Second Amendment
And so we can expect you to be hopping the first plane to Iraq in the morning to do a little active duty militia service, right? You won't object if we send someone to pick you up?
Because, after all, if everybody is a member of the militia (incidentally, it DOES specify males), then we'll just pick men up off the street at random and send them overseas. Manpower problem solved! posted 06/27/2008 at 21:58:49
Because, after all, if everybody is a member of the militia (incidentally, it DOES specify males), then we'll just pick men up off the street at random and send them overseas. Manpower problem solved! posted 06/27/2008 at 21:58:49
David Vitter Has a New Fetish
The oil companies thought there was plenty of oil under the 68,000,000 acres of land that they already hold leases for, too. Apparently, they were wrong. Or they're lying to the public. Take your pick. Either way, why should we believe their estimates on ANWR? posted 06/22/2008 at 20:40:20
Well, golly, then here's an opinion for you.
Oil companies have 68,000,000 acres of land that, according to them, aren't suitable for drilling. 68 million acres that they have chosen to acquire leases for (admittedly at ridiculously low cost, all things considered), and NOW say that nope, this land just isn't good enough.
So, why should I believe them when they say that drilling in ANWR is somehow a magic bullet and that there's just heaps & gobs of oil up there, hanging around waiting for us to take it out of the ground? posted 06/22/2008 at 20:38:09
Oil companies have 68,000,000 acres of land that, according to them, aren't suitable for drilling. 68 million acres that they have chosen to acquire leases for (admittedly at ridiculously low cost, all things considered), and NOW say that nope, this land just isn't good enough.
So, why should I believe them when they say that drilling in ANWR is somehow a magic bullet and that there's just heaps & gobs of oil up there, hanging around waiting for us to take it out of the ground? posted 06/22/2008 at 20:38:09
Ten. Dems Blame Fox News And GOP For Their Own Skewed Perceptions Of Obama
It doesn't need to be law. It needs to be a policy with teeth.
There are penalties for false advertising. There are penalties for "lewd behavior," and for profanity.
Why isn't there a massive monetary fine for any program/station/personality that is identifying itself as "news" while knowingly spouting propaganda, if not outright lies? Spout opinion all you like, spread unsubstantiated rumors if you wish - but it should be clearly identified as opinion. posted 06/18/2008 at 09:42:52
There are penalties for false advertising. There are penalties for "lewd behavior," and for profanity.
Why isn't there a massive monetary fine for any program/station/personality that is identifying itself as "news" while knowingly spouting propaganda, if not outright lies? Spout opinion all you like, spread unsubstantiated rumors if you wish - but it should be clearly identified as opinion. posted 06/18/2008 at 09:42:52
John McCain: The Second Coming of Bob Dole
But you know, if I were running for office, I wouldn't publicly come out in support of gay marriage (even though I do), for purely cynical reasons. The public is still so stirred up about the whole "marriage" idea that supporting it would be a huge wedge issue - and my thought would be that you can't make the changes that need to be made if you don't get elected in the first place. posted 06/18/2008 at 09:49:13
McCain's Odd Townhall: Woos Clintonistas By Defending "Rights Of The Unborn"
Somehow, I don't quite see AIDS prevention and abortion as being the same issue.... posted 06/18/2008 at 09:06:16
After Six Years, Accountability at Guantanamo
If they're not part of an army, then we must have taken custody of them because they're criminals. Which means they're entitled to habeas corpus.
Why is it so hard to fathom the idea that it is just plain wrong to take people out of their country, drag them halfway around the world, lock them up in chain-link fence runs, refuse to allow them contact with the outside world, refuse to allow them to contact their families, refuse to tell them exactly what it is they are accused of and who has accused them? posted 06/14/2008 at 21:52:45
Why is it so hard to fathom the idea that it is just plain wrong to take people out of their country, drag them halfway around the world, lock them up in chain-link fence runs, refuse to allow them contact with the outside world, refuse to allow them to contact their families, refuse to tell them exactly what it is they are accused of and who has accused them? posted 06/14/2008 at 21:52:45
They're not telling the military who is an enemy combatant. The administration made that decision.
And you know what? If we are going to "capture terrorists", then we have a moral and legal obligation to PROVE that the people we have captured have done something wrong. If we are not willing to do so, then perhaps we shouldn't have taken custody of these people and dragged them halfway across the world. posted 06/14/2008 at 21:51:02
And you know what? If we are going to "capture terrorists", then we have a moral and legal obligation to PROVE that the people we have captured have done something wrong. If we are not willing to do so, then perhaps we shouldn't have taken custody of these people and dragged them halfway across the world. posted 06/14/2008 at 21:51:02
No, we treated them as prisoners of war, with all due access to appropriate legal safeguards if they were accused of a crime.
We are not at war with either Iraq or Afghanistan. We have troops there, but we are not at war with them. Technically, we're not "at war" at all.
You're a little shaky factually yourself. posted 06/14/2008 at 21:45:28
We are not at war with either Iraq or Afghanistan. We have troops there, but we are not at war with them. Technically, we're not "at war" at all.
You're a little shaky factually yourself. posted 06/14/2008 at 21:45:28
You're absolutely right, an Algerian caught in Iraq is not a criminal arrrestee who should stand trial in front of a US jury. His trial should have occurred in Iraq. (Although it's highly unlikely that you could justify imprisoning someone for "planning" to build a bomb.) Assuming he actually built the IED, though, it would be a criminal offense, not an act of war. We're not at war with either Algeria or Iraq, remember? posted 06/14/2008 at 21:41:11
As soon as we brought them to Gitmo, we brought them to US soil. And maybe YOU should try reading the document. On US soil, EVERYONE has the same rights and privileges under the Constitution.
Or are you saying that Gitmo is actually Cuban soil? And as such, all activities - and personnel - on the base are subject to Cuban law? You've got no problem with it, then, if Cuban officials stroll onto the base and take over, right? posted 06/14/2008 at 21:38:19
Or are you saying that Gitmo is actually Cuban soil? And as such, all activities - and personnel - on the base are subject to Cuban law? You've got no problem with it, then, if Cuban officials stroll onto the base and take over, right? posted 06/14/2008 at 21:38:19
Except that the factual situation in Eisentrager doesn't match the factual situation of the Gitmo detainees, which means that Eisentrager is not precedent.
The Supreme Court didn't "create a right that doesn't exist in our Constitution." They rightfully determined that Eisentrager is NOT precedent in this case.
Not much of a constitutional scholar, are you? The fact that one side or the other cites a case as precedent does not make it so. posted 06/14/2008 at 21:34:37
The Supreme Court didn't "create a right that doesn't exist in our Constitution." They rightfully determined that Eisentrager is NOT precedent in this case.
Not much of a constitutional scholar, are you? The fact that one side or the other cites a case as precedent does not make it so. posted 06/14/2008 at 21:34:37
It's simple, really.
If these people are prisoners of war, they are entitled to Geneva and Hague convention protection. Which they are not receiving, because our administration has decided they are "enemy combatants," a term which has no legal meaning.
If they are NOT prisoners of war, then they ARE entitled to our Constitutional protections, which they are also not receiving, because our administration has decided that they are "enemy combatants," a term which has no legal meaning.
They must be either one or the other. They cannot be left indefinitely in legal limbo, and the Court has finally decided that it's time to do the right thing.
Incidentally, totally aside from the fact that there's no reason to believe that any or all of these prisoners are members of Al-Qaeda, you DO realize that even if they were, that is not illegal? You can stand on a street corner or take out a full page ad in the local paper announcing your membership, and you haven't broken any laws. Membership in an organization is not a crime in this country. Oh, wait, none of these prisoners were IN this country. We went to THEIR country and kidnapped them to bring them to Cuba. posted 06/14/2008 at 21:29:50
If these people are prisoners of war, they are entitled to Geneva and Hague convention protection. Which they are not receiving, because our administration has decided they are "enemy combatants," a term which has no legal meaning.
If they are NOT prisoners of war, then they ARE entitled to our Constitutional protections, which they are also not receiving, because our administration has decided that they are "enemy combatants," a term which has no legal meaning.
They must be either one or the other. They cannot be left indefinitely in legal limbo, and the Court has finally decided that it's time to do the right thing.
Incidentally, totally aside from the fact that there's no reason to believe that any or all of these prisoners are members of Al-Qaeda, you DO realize that even if they were, that is not illegal? You can stand on a street corner or take out a full page ad in the local paper announcing your membership, and you haven't broken any laws. Membership in an organization is not a crime in this country. Oh, wait, none of these prisoners were IN this country. We went to THEIR country and kidnapped them to bring them to Cuba. posted 06/14/2008 at 21:29:50
Obama Pledges Imposing "Oil Windfall Profits Tax" -- Right Message, Wrong Language
You DO know that money invested in exploration is a tax-deductible business expense, right? Profit is what's left over after they've made those investments. And money spent in that sort of exploration would NOT be subject to a windfall profits tax.
I don't know if the windfall profits tax would work or not. I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know enough details about what was proposed. But at least I don't blindly parrot talking points without even the vaguest clue what I'm talking about. posted 06/14/2008 at 22:16:23
I don't know if the windfall profits tax would work or not. I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know enough details about what was proposed. But at least I don't blindly parrot talking points without even the vaguest clue what I'm talking about. posted 06/14/2008 at 22:16:23
Fox News Calls Michelle "Obama's Baby Mama"... FOX: Producer Used Poor Judgment
Your logic completely escapes me. Hillary's supporters shouldn't point out that Fox News is, yet again, idiotically offensive, because it isn't a slam against Hillary? posted 06/14/2008 at 22:35:34
Courtney Hazlett, MSNBC Talking Head, Calls Spike Lee "Uppity"
Lee may or may not have had a valid point. Given the rampant segregation of the time, maybe Eastwood was justified in shooting with an all white cast.
But what wasn't justified was his comments about "people like that" and "shut your face." And you can defend the use of the word "uppity" all you like - it still has specific connotations, and when used to refer to someone of color, as the term goes, well, you shouldn't be surprised when it's seen as an insult. posted 06/09/2008 at 16:51:28
But what wasn't justified was his comments about "people like that" and "shut your face." And you can defend the use of the word "uppity" all you like - it still has specific connotations, and when used to refer to someone of color, as the term goes, well, you shouldn't be surprised when it's seen as an insult. posted 06/09/2008 at 16:51:28
Eastwood was "being a man"? No, he was channeling a low-rent Dirty Harry machismo routine.
Whether or not Lee's complaint is valid is a matter of opinion, but at least he expressed it clearly and without resorting to name calling. In return, he's been termed uppity and told he should shut his face. posted 06/09/2008 at 16:46:15
Whether or not Lee's complaint is valid is a matter of opinion, but at least he expressed it clearly and without resorting to name calling. In return, he's been termed uppity and told he should shut his face. posted 06/09/2008 at 16:46:15
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but "uppity" has ALWAYS been insulting and inflammatory. It's intended as a put-down, pure and simple. posted 06/09/2008 at 16:41:08
What Bill O'Reilly Is Really Afraid Of
But Dennis Miller, at least, doesn't pretend to be a journalist. posted 06/07/2008 at 09:43:12
I have no intention of "silencing" anyone. (Although, then again, I'm not really a liberal, either, or so I've been told by many liberals.)
No matter whether the views are liberal or conservative, the media has an obligation to (a) ACTUALLY BE fair and unbiased, not just use the words as a catchy slogan, (b) present the facts in an honest manner, or (c) clearly identify the programming as OPINION, and not pretend that it's JOURNALISM. posted 06/07/2008 at 09:42:40
No matter whether the views are liberal or conservative, the media has an obligation to (a) ACTUALLY BE fair and unbiased, not just use the words as a catchy slogan, (b) present the facts in an honest manner, or (c) clearly identify the programming as OPINION, and not pretend that it's JOURNALISM. posted 06/07/2008 at 09:42:40
You know, in a way, I don't think that journalism has changed - what has changed is what we are willing to allow pass for journalism.
Bill O. most certainly has the right to say what he pleases, with as much or as little fact to back up his claims as he pleases. But it's high past time that we, the public, start demanding that pundits and op-ed stop claiming to be "journalists." They are not. There's nothing wrong with op-ed, until you start pretending that it is fair and unbiased fact.
One of my co-workers was carrying on about Jon Stewart one day, and wanted to know why I think O'Reilly should be reined in but I have no problem with The Daily Show. Pretty simple, actually. Stewart is a comedian. A political comedian, but a comedian. Not only does he not pretend to be anything else, he is quick to point out that he is NOT a journalist. Shoot, his show is on Comedy Central, for crying out loud. O'Reilly, on the other hand, insists that he is a serious, unbiased, responsible journalist. And he's not even close. posted 06/07/2008 at 09:34:29
Bill O. most certainly has the right to say what he pleases, with as much or as little fact to back up his claims as he pleases. But it's high past time that we, the public, start demanding that pundits and op-ed stop claiming to be "journalists." They are not. There's nothing wrong with op-ed, until you start pretending that it is fair and unbiased fact.
One of my co-workers was carrying on about Jon Stewart one day, and wanted to know why I think O'Reilly should be reined in but I have no problem with The Daily Show. Pretty simple, actually. Stewart is a comedian. A political comedian, but a comedian. Not only does he not pretend to be anything else, he is quick to point out that he is NOT a journalist. Shoot, his show is on Comedy Central, for crying out loud. O'Reilly, on the other hand, insists that he is a serious, unbiased, responsible journalist. And he's not even close. posted 06/07/2008 at 09:34:29
Clint Eastwood: Spike Lee Should "Shut His Face", Lee Responds, "We're Not On A Plantation"
I didn't know that names came with racial requirements. I am SO out of the loop, I guess. posted 06/07/2008 at 09:55:28
Whether or not it was racially motivated, you gotta grant it was rude. And someone who has spent the last 50 or so years as a public persona should have thought for a moment before he spoke, because if he had, it probably would have occurred to him that the phrase "a guy like him" was just not going to sound good. posted 06/07/2008 at 09:50:44
Oh, lordie. This is apparently going to come as a shock to you, but those of us that enjoy historically based movies will watch them whether the cast is white or black (although we tend to make fun of unrealistic racial mixes). People that like war movies will still watch a war movie. Hopefully, you get the idea. posted 06/07/2008 at 09:48:22
Obama, The New Majority, And The Race (Card) Ahead
And don't forget, you have to count the votes in Puerto Rico - where they don't get to actually vote in the presidential election. posted 06/05/2008 at 21:44:05
AMEN!!! posted 06/05/2008 at 21:39:03
You don't live in a caucus state, do you? posted 06/05/2008 at 21:38:50
Clinton To Obama: If You Don't Want Me, You're Gonna Have To Tell Me
By that logic, there's no reason to consider HRC for VP as a way to unite the party, because you would have to credit her for anything and everything one of HER supporters said.
No candidate can control what their supporters say. So why don't we turn our attention to what the candidates are actually saying and doing? posted 06/05/2008 at 22:49:42
No candidate can control what their supporters say. So why don't we turn our attention to what the candidates are actually saying and doing? posted 06/05/2008 at 22:49:42
Amen! HRC's personal ambitions are just that - her personal ambitions. They are NOT feminist issues. posted 06/05/2008 at 22:46:22
Pretty much anyone with working brain cells should have been offended by Thomas, Scalia and Alito. Lord knows I find them offensive. And it's obscene to think of Chief Justice Rehnquist or Chief Justice Roberts. But MsLiz has a point as well. Not to say that HRC would necessary be incompetent (although I don't know that she has any real qualifications for the bench, either), but as a general principle, are we willing to say that it's OK to pack the Court with incompetents as long as they politically lean the right direction? posted 06/05/2008 at 22:41:29
Steve specifically said that the people who need to be trashed were the voters that said they would not vote for Obama because he's black. He agreed with the rest of your statement.
I think it's really time for everyone to do away with terms like "Clintonistas" and "Obamaists" while we're at it. It's time we all started thinking in terms of "Democrats" and "Republicans." posted 06/05/2008 at 22:32:37
I think it's really time for everyone to do away with terms like "Clintonistas" and "Obamaists" while we're at it. It's time we all started thinking in terms of "Democrats" and "Republicans." posted 06/05/2008 at 22:32:37
I have to admit, the idea that you can determine that blacks voting for Obama aren't racist simply because up until now they were voting for white men is pretty ludicrous - pretty much the only option any of us had was picking which old white guy to vote fore. But it's pretty no more ridiculous an idea than some pea-brained media mouthpiece deciding that blacks are voting for Obama only because he's black.
I don't believe that African Americans voting for Obama are racist, any more than I believe that women voting for HRC are sexist. Not unless that's the only reason they used in determining who to vote for. And I'm pretty sure that parsing statistics can't realistically tell us what people were thinking when they were voting. posted 06/05/2008 at 22:30:18
I don't believe that African Americans voting for Obama are racist, any more than I believe that women voting for HRC are sexist. Not unless that's the only reason they used in determining who to vote for. And I'm pretty sure that parsing statistics can't realistically tell us what people were thinking when they were voting. posted 06/05/2008 at 22:30:18
And with the choices being Obama and McCain, do you find McCain to be the candidate that most closely matches your moderate, progressive political beliefs?
Obama's and Clinton's platforms were extremely close on the issues. McCain is 180 degrees the opposite direction. How could anyone that believed in HRC not decide to vote for Obama in November? posted 06/05/2008 at 22:24:06
Obama's and Clinton's platforms were extremely close on the issues. McCain is 180 degrees the opposite direction. How could anyone that believed in HRC not decide to vote for Obama in November? posted 06/05/2008 at 22:24:06
He's not a worker, doesn't work for a living, and is better than people who work? OK, I'll agree that he probably could have found something better than "sweetie," because no matter how he meant it, there are people that are going to find some reason to be offended by it. But I'm confused. At what point did Obama suddenly become some sort of independently wealthy, born-with-a-silver-spoon trust-fund baby? I thought that we were supposed to ADMIRE people who started with nothing and succeeded anyway? posted 06/05/2008 at 22:16:15
"...it will be helpful for the Clinton machine to be on board." Yeah, the Clinton machine will be helped. Obama's campaign, well, maybe. Maybe not. Not that I don't think HRC would be a fine VP. I think she would be a fine president. But if nothing else, the sky-high negatives she would bring to the campaign, and the irrational hatred of the right-wing sector, could be the death knell of Democratic presidential hopes. There are very few people that the right loves to hate as much as they hate the Clintons, and I doubt that energizing that conservative base would be a good idea. Probably the only Democrat they'd rather vote against would be Ted Kennedy - it's just a knee-jerk reaction. posted 06/05/2008 at 22:09:40
Sebelius is most certainly excellent, although in a way I would hate to see her on the ticket. Most of the time, there seems to be so few intelligent, or even functional, people in Kansas! (Hey, I live here, trust me on this one.) posted 06/05/2008 at 22:00:39
Koromuso, that sounds like a very good start. posted 06/05/2008 at 21:57:35
I never thought of being a Senator as a "compromise." I think HRC would be more useful, and more powerful, in the Senate than as VP, especially if she chooses to become a truly progressive/liberal voice - someone needs to fill Ted Kennedy's shoes. (And like him personally or not, he's been one hell of a senator.) Or tag her for the Supreme Court - it would be nice to see a little more actual intellectual ability in that particular venue. posted 06/05/2008 at 21:56:21
Would you rather have Obama and his oratory, or McCain and his carbon-copy of Bush's policies? Because that's really the choice you're making.
Anyone who doesn't actively work for and vote for Obama is voting for McCain. Personally, I think the proverbial yellow dog would be a better choice. posted 06/05/2008 at 21:52:13
Anyone who doesn't actively work for and vote for Obama is voting for McCain. Personally, I think the proverbial yellow dog would be a better choice. posted 06/05/2008 at 21:52:13
Being Gracious in a Sexist World
There's nothing gracious or supportive about continuing to fight or pretend that the delegate count isn't what it is. She should have made the proper gesture and conceded last night. And the longer she waits to do so, the less it is a concession speech and the more it becomes nothing but calculated political posturing - which is what got her to this point in the first place. posted 06/04/2008 at 20:15:43
What, there are no other women capable of becoming president? Or do you expect to die in the next couple of years?
Clinton is far from being our "last chance" to see a woman president. And to say that is an incredible insult to the up-and-coming female politicians, both of the present and the future. posted 06/04/2008 at 20:10:07
Clinton is far from being our "last chance" to see a woman president. And to say that is an incredible insult to the up-and-coming female politicians, both of the present and the future. posted 06/04/2008 at 20:10:07
Ten Key Steps to Put Obama Over the Top In November
If the only place south of the Mason-Dixon line you've been is to Florida, then YOU'RE the one that's out of touch with the South. posted 06/04/2008 at 20:07:50
25% of Anti-Obama Dems Think He's a Muslim
Actually, that's not what he said at all. Methinks perhaps thou dost protest too much. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:46:58
Well, not to support anti-semitism, but I'd be OK without Willis or Seinfeld.... but if we could bring back Lenny Bruce, that would be great! posted 03/28/2008 at 19:31:20
And you are just totally and completely ignoring what TriniGirl said. She did NOT imply that Clinton supporters are racist. What she said is that it's a statistical certainty that SOME are, just like SOME of the rest of the country is. Hell, SOME of Obama's supporters are racist. SOME of EVERYBODY'S supporters are racist. posted 03/28/2008 at 19:11:37
I'd be curious to see Wuzhappn's sources. None of the research I've done on Odinga connects him to the church burnings, and I've found no mentions of Kenyan genocide. In fact, outside of a few unsourced blogs, I haven't found any mention of Odinga being Muslim - at least one article stated that he was raised as a Christian. Incidentally, none of the articles I found gave any indication that the perpetrators had been identified, so there's no way of knowing whether this was actually motivated by religion, or whether it was an example of ongoing tribal violence.... posted 03/28/2008 at 19:07:34
Badgered her? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. Clinton was asked the same question several times, true, but I have a hard time applying the term "badgered" to a situation where you're being asked repeatedly about someone else. He didn't ask Hillary about herself, her personal life, her beliefs - he asked her opinion about someone else. Would it have been so hard for her to say, "I've already answered that, can we move on?" Or when asked the same question, to have continued to give the same answer? Why the need to change the answer at all? posted 03/28/2008 at 18:18:51
Where Did McCain Get What He's Got "in the Bank" with the Press?
"Perfect Hair 101" and "How to Smile While Announcing Death and Destruction." posted 03/27/2008 at 18:16:15
Big Mac's Blazing Saddle Diplomacy
The feminization of this country? Oh, good god.... posted 03/27/2008 at 18:03:43
Obama Provides A Way for the Evangelicals to Redeem Themselves -- Following the Bush Disaster They Foisted on the Rest Of Us
Actually, I'll disagree with you that evangelicals are intolerant by definition. A true evangelical actually would be quite tolerant, since a true evangelical is someone who not only spreads the word but lives the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was, if nothing else, a most tolerant man. For me, I think I'll stick with the words of Gandhi - "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." posted 03/27/2008 at 17:55:19
Popular Stories on HuffPost
As Barack Obama began his trip to the Middle East and Europe,...
An ABC-TV outlet in Houston, and now the Houston Chronicle,...
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
The Bush...
John McCain made a mistake this evening, which as far as...
I understand why John McCain's campaign...
***UPDATED BELOW*** During a CBS interview on Tuesday, John McCain made...
The New York Times has rejected an op-ed penned by Senator John McCain in response...
BARCELONA, Spain — Christian Bale swept into Barcelona on Wednesday night to attend a...
When Walk Score recently released their ranking of the ten most walkable U.S. cities there was no doubt that folks in places...
Here we go again. Oil prices tumbling "in the steepest four...
According to Psychology Today and referencing the American Journal of Psychiatry,...
