Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Chasing Sarah


This past weekend, our national treasure -- S-Pal -- visited Washington, D.C., to kick off her grifter bus tour.

To add some spice, the hot tamale of American politics kept all her fans -- and the press corps -- guessing where she would go. There were hints she would be here, there, and everywhere.

And the Washington media, never getting enough to cover America's sweetheart, was chasing S-Pal all over the place. From The Huffington Post:

On Sunday, Palin entered Washington on the back of a Harley-Davidson in a war veterans' motorcycle parade that is part of the Memorial Day weekend observance in the capital.  Rumors, then Twitter messages, then posts on her website showed Palin had also visited sites in and near Washington -- the National Archives, where the U.S. Constitution is on display, and Baltimore's Fort McHenry, where the "rockets' red glare" described in the national anthem took place.  A photo on her website late on Sunday showed the closing words of the Gettysburg Address delivered by President Abraham Lincoln after the 1863 battle. That was taken as a hint.

The crack journalists at Dcap Media caught the Washington pundits Chasing Sarah around town:


And we wonder why the country is going off a cliff. Instead of discussing real problems, the U.S. media is running around like a bunch of Keystone Kops chasing a woman who will cause a helluva lot more problems than she is worth.

Why the GOP is f***ed in 2012

By Nicholas Wilbur 

The future of the Republican Party rests on the shoulders of one candidate. Unfortunately, not even the Republican Party has any idea who that candidate will be. 


The long list of potential, possible, likely and too-stupid-to-calculate-basic odds second-string presidential hopefuls include: a flip-flopping Mormon with a soft spot for government-run health care; a libertarian advocate of legalizing heroin and prostitution; a perpetually stoned former governor from a state most Americans don’t know is part of the union; another Mormon (this one who worked for a socialist as ambassador to communists), a paranoid Constitutionalist whose followers have threatened to rape a high school girl who challenged their candidate’s knowledge of America’s founding documents; an evangelic whose last name has come to mean “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter”; a hopelessly unattractive Minnesotan with no redeeming qualities other than his own self-awareness in admitting publicly that he’s boring; and a pizza maker.

Romney is ready to take on
supporters of Medicare. Other
potential GOP candidates,
 order your red man suits online today

With such a pathetic roster of uninspiring candidates, the Republican Party was more than happy to leave the media spotlight for a weekend as the perpetually campaigning Mama Grizzly from the Upper One state launched a Memorial Day “Rolling Thunder Magical Mystery Bus Tour” along the east coast. Riding into DC on an all-American hog and dressed in full leathers, the still unpopular, still unqualified former half-term governor of the Great Frontier, who sold her soul to Rupert Murdoch in order to prolong her short-lived 2008 Mama Grizzly publicity tour, kept the limelight burning for one last-ditch effort to sell some books and boost her public image before the media finally catches on and permanently turns the cameras away from the publicity hound and onto the real, equally hopeless but nonetheless inarguably “legitimate” candidates for the presidency. The most that will come of this magical bus tour is a Fox News segment on patriotism and motorcycles – and possibly a sequel to Hustler’s 2008 porn flick “Nailin’ Paylin.” (“Nailin’ Paylin Part II: The Bang Bus Tour,” or maybe “Paylin Does Pennsylvania.”) 

Whomever the GOP trots out as the next “savior of the party” better come equipped with a red man suit, a dog-eared copy of “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” and either Scott Brown’s Cosmopolitan centerpiece photographer, Brad Pitt’s personal trainer or Bristol Palin’s cosmetic surgeon – because he’s going to have a lot of heartened hearts to soften before Election Day. 

Between near-riotous town hall meetings prompted by Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to “voucherize” Medicare, the party’s backing of anti-union laws, and the continuous state- and federal-level efforts to defund family planning services and undermine women’s right to choose, the Republican Party’s presidential nominee will face the seemingly impossible feat of convincing retirees, women and laborers – not to mention the unemployed, the LGBTQ community and college students fighting for grants and scholarships – that the GOP cares about more than securing the votes of the Tea Party base. 

Then, of course, there’s the question of party’s post-primary strategy: how will he (or, less likely, she) go toe to toe with the supercandidate (and popular incumbent) Barack Obama, who enters the race with the political equivalent of a Seal Team 6 campaign apparatus? President Obama – the Commander in Chief who captured and killed Public Enemy No. 1, the international uniter, the eloqutionist and the level-headed pragmatist – is already salivating at the prospect of debating a presidential challenger about the fiscal ramifications and social consequences of continuing tax cuts for millionaires, abolishing the health care reforms that stopped insurance companies from dropping coverage on a whim and bankrupting families without mercy, eviscerating the social safety net for seniors and the poor through radical changes to Medicare and Medicaid, holding hostage federal funds for disaster relief to ravaged states until Democrats embrace more budget cuts and every other radically unpopular policy the GOP has pushed since 2010. 

All of this is to say that the candidate Republicans nominate to face off against Obama in 2012 won’t be a candidate who is capable of actually winning. There is no such candidate. Not even in the party’s wildest, homoerotic political wet dream does such a candidate exist. But that isn’t what the 2012 race is all about. If Republicans are smart (a rhetorical question if there ever was one), they’ll take advantage of the free publicity, use the opportunity to train a future leader in the art of presidential campaigns, save the estimated $1 billion they’ll have to spend in order to make a dent in the Obama incumbency, and use 2012 as a primer for the only election race in which they have a fighting chance: 2016.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Beer For Breakfast

By Carl
 
David "BoBo" Brooks is to thoughtful analysis what Charlie Sheen is to lucidity.
 
To-wit, in pondering the fate of college graduates:

College grads are often sent out into the world amid rapturous talk of limitless possibilities. But this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to. The successful young adult is beginning to make sacred commitments — to a spouse, a community and calling — yet mostly hears about freedom and autonomy.

Today’s graduates are also told to find their passion and then pursue their dreams. The implication is that they should find themselves first and then go off and live their quest. But, of course, very few people at age 22 or 24 can take an inward journey and come out having discovered a developed self.

Most successful young people don’t look inside and then plan a life. They look outside and find a problem, which summons their life. A relative suffers from Alzheimer’s and a young woman feels called to help cure that disease. A young man works under a miserable boss and must develop management skills so his department can function. Another young woman finds herself confronted by an opportunity she never thought of in a job category she never imagined. This wasn’t in her plans, but this is where she can make her contribution.

Two observations immediately spring to mind. First, the ten most popular college majors seem to indicate that Brooks' concerns are ill-advised. You need to get down to number nine on the list, psychology, before you hit a soft, non-material target. College students today get it, David. The world requires money, it demands a genuflection to authority (note where criminal justice lands on the list), it inspires...conformity.

Second, as should be obvious from that list of popular college majors, students have taken that inner journey and decided that a good salary is the most important plan for their lives.

(An aside: number three on that list, communications, concerned me at first, until I realized they are also lumping in media like web-design, advertising and even marketing into the mix. But I digress...)

But soft, what is Brooks' issue with asking our young people to aspire to greatness? Life is about limitless possibilities, and while the vast majority of us will work forty, fifty, maybe sixty years making someone else richer, what's the problem with reminding people that there are alternatives? Or reinforcing in the minds of the small minority that they should have the courage to strike out on their own?

"Ah, a man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?"

Even if you do end up working as an office drone, a cubicle gopher, a desk jockey...and there will always be jobs for people willing to spend eternity in front of a computer screen monitoring someone else's wealth...what's wrong with applying that same advice to the rest of your life? What's wrong with running that extra mile, or painting a landscape, or collecting that stamp that you've always wanted to own? Is life our job? Is our job our life?

Brooks, being the quasifascistic little capitalist drone that he is, by his very nature has denied the existence of a morale value to life that cannot be measured in dollar terms. He hacks away at a keyboard, then presuambly goes off to cocktails and whatever pathetic little existence he squanders his precious time on planet earth with.

No one lives to work, except for those idiots who somehow believe that, with hard work and perserverance at a job, they can themselves become fabulously wealthy and make other people drone for them. To those who still believe THAT fantasy, buy lottery tickets because your odds are better. You might make a comfortable living, but you will never get that rich slowly, and you will never have a life.

Adults make compromises with life, even as they've decided that there are no compromises to be had. Ask any artist who has made it big on the back of their own work, and they will tell you of the countless friendships they've lost, the money they've forgone working in an office, the opportunities they've missed. In choice, there is always a compromise to be had. Sacrifices are made by both sides.

"Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it. Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, 'All right, you can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance. Madam, you may vote but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat. Mister, you may conquer the air but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline.' "

Brooks would rather that this small percentage of American adults, this 20% of college age Americans who actually graduate each year (scary thought, that), should be like the rest of us, as if giving them the tools to build the wings to fly their own lives as high as they want is a bad thing, that they might crash and burn. No, they should be like the vast majority of us, and hunker down for our next paycheck and live life as though we will always have a safety net under us, as pathetic as that net may be.

If the past thirty years in America have taught us anything it's that the social contract between a company and its employees is not sacred. My job can go away in the blink of an eye, through no fault of my own. So can yours. So can hers.

Now, I will say this in defense of Brooks' piece: in my experience, very few people at 20 or 25 know themselves well enough to know what they want, but here's the thing. It's not that they can't. It's that we've given them so many conflicting images and opinions about how to shape their own world that we've imposed expectations and "should haves" on the most fragile of beings. These fawns are barely standing on their hooves and we ask them to sprint and compete.

If that's so and if the contract with citizens and corporations is nulled, then perhaps counseling our graduates to caution is a bad idea. We should encourage them to exceed their expectations. We should demand that they take five years off and walk the world. (I've always had this fantasy of a draft for the Peace Corps, sorry.) We should tell them that it doesn't get any better than they have it right now, and they ought to enjoy it because most of them will fail and they will end up in the corporatocracy. But they should try first, so that when the alarm clock rings on the cold winter mornings that sees them get dressed and jump on a commuter train, bleary eyed, they can smile back on the effort and know they gave it their best shot and can move on now.

As opposed to people of Brooks' age who never even tried and now try to rationalize their failures by warning people behind them how scary the world is. I'm Brooks' age. I know of where I speak. For it is only now, as I turn the corner of my middle years and face the yawning descent that I see how much time I must make up and how little energy I have left to do it in.

Many of my readers are recent college graduates, certainly more recent than I, and are at cusps and cross-roads of their lives. I tip my hat to you, and offer this small consolation.
 
You can't have screwed things up that badly that you can't tear it all down and start from the beginning. It will be difficult, it will be fraught with psychic peril and yes, sometimes it might be painful, but there is no pain worse than looking back across decades and seeing yourself stagnate.
 
Do it. Just do it.
 
(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

This will be our official picture from now on ..only if me and paul have a new idea !!!


Made by : Zim
Idea by : Paul

I know what you're thinking

By Capt. Fogg

My first thought was: I've seen this scenario in some cheesy Tom Cruise infected Sci-Fi movie. Apparently that thought occurred to the Nature.com editorial staff as well. The Department of Homeland Security it would seem, is testing a system to detect malicious thoughts. No really.

They call it Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST) because that's what government departments do with their doings, lest clear speech shed clear light. They make up acronyms that disguise the tunnels they dig under the foundations of liberty, but I digress. The technology purports to identify individuals who are planning to blow things up or have "malintent" as they say in the dialect.

Like a more traditional polygraph, FAST measures heart rates, among other things. Heart rates respiration and perspiration go up, after all when you're nervous about the bomb in your shorts or wishing you could throttle some thick-skull TSA twit as he gives you grief over an aspirin in your pants pocket that shows up on a scanner and starts groping you for explosives as you put your hands over your head in abject submission. Hell I'm sure I'd set off all kinds of alarm bells right now just thinking of how I've so often been treated as a felon on his way into the penitentiary instead of a tired traveler trying to get home.

I have no idea about what else this electro-mechanical night club bouncer measures and I'm not sure it invades any privacy that hasn't already been taken away by the cowardly traitors who passed the "Patriot" Act. I'm too lazy and too unwilling to provoke myself into another Lewis Black style tantrum to read the " Privacy Impact Assessment" our bureaucratic brethren at DHS have given us. I'll leave that to you. Besides my loathing of people who seem to exist only for the purpose of inserting that fly-blown and putrid metaphor into every sentence, it was written, most revealingly, by someone any German speaker will recognize as the Devil himself: Hugo Teufel III, Chief Privacy offer at the DHS under George W. Bush.

Does it work any better than the Polygraph does at detecting the evasions of sociopaths? It would have to, since those tend to be the people we're looking to put on no-fly lists and of course we won't have the results interpreted by a seasoned professional, but rather someone who was promoted from K-Mart security officer last week.

No, it's the stuff of B movies or sarcastic Dr. Strangelove sequels or even Orwell novels, but perhaps we've lost the ability even to see what the politics of fear has done to us in our cringing, cowardly new century.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Monday, May 30, 2011

NATO airstrike kills Afghan civilians. Yes, it's time to end this war.



Afghan officials said Sunday that a NATO airstrike had killed 14 civilians, most of them women and children, in the southern province of Helmand on Saturday night.

Local officials said the strike was aimed at Taliban fighters and missed, hitting two family homes.

But in a conflicting account, a high-level NATO official said Sunday night that nine civilians were killed in the strike, which was aimed at five insurgents who attacked a coalition foot patrol and killed a Marine. The insurgents continued to fire from inside a compound when NATO forces called in the strike.

"Unfortunately, the compound the insurgents purposefully occupied was later discovered to house innocent civilians," the official, Maj. Gen. John Toolan, commander of NATO forces in the Southwest region, said in a statement. The general apologized for the civilian deaths on behalf of all coalition forces, including Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan, and said the investigation into the episode was continuing.

"While I know there is no price on human life, we will ensure that we make amends with the families in accordance with Afghan culture," he said. 

This isn't about "us" being as bad as "them," it's about the quagmire the Afghan War has become, that it has been for a long time now. And making "amends" just won't cut it. It's time to get out.

Now, I'm not sure Hamid Karzai's "last warning" really means anything. NATO (and particularly the U.S.) will stay in Afghanistan as long as it wants.

But what is the point of staying? What is the war for?

There are several answers to that question -- including supporting the country's "government" (i.e., Karzai, who barely controls Kabul), rooting out the Taliban in the name of the "war on terror," building a sustainable state with a legitimate democratic government, as well as a healthy civil society, etc.) -- but not a single one is satisfactory anymore.

It may be impossible to avoid civilian casualties entirely, but this latest incident serves as a reminder of just how pointless the war has become.

McCain says Palin could beat Obama


Well, it's official. John McCain is insane:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has said he thinks Sarah Palin could defeat President Obama in next year's presidential election, but he's far from certain that she will actually jump into the race.

The GOP's standard-bearer in 2008 also shrugged off his former running mate's poor standing in many polls, saying she would have the opportunity to turn that around if she did make a bid for the White House.

"That's what campaigns are all about," McCain said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I've never seen anyone as mercilessly and relentlessly attacked as I have seen Sarah Palin in the last couple of years," the Arizona senator added. "But she also inspires great passion, particularly among the Republican faithful."

Wait, coming from McCain, is that a compliment?

Either way, it would appear he's just defending himself over what was clearly the worst and most embarrassing decision of his political career.

More thoughts on the Republican presidential field

By Richard K. Barry

Now Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is saying that, had he chosen to pursue the Republican nomination for the presidency, he could have beaten Obama. Where have we heard this before?

Oh yeah, Mike Huckabee said the same thing, as did Donald Trump.

This is playground boasting bullshit. If any of these guys thought they could beat Obama, they would have jumped in with bells on. At least Haley Barbour had the integrity to admit that he didn't get in because Obama would just be too hard to beat.

This did, however, get me thinking about what I see as the categories of those who are either running, thought about running or are still thinking about it. It's goes a little something like this:

  • Those who feel that this might be their one and only chance to win the thing.
  • Those who have no chance of winning either the nomination or the general election but look(ed) on the process as a way to raise their profile or just to push a very specific agenda.
  • Those who would have gotten no coverage if the field weren't so weak, so are finding the promise of attention too much fun to pass up (but are otherwise without hope).
  • Those who have grown weary of listening to how weak the field is and can't help but at least talk about offering themselves because their egos demand it.
  • Corollary to this one: those who can't stand not being talked about as a potential front-runner.
  • Those who, when being honest, know that an incumbent president would be hard to beat, especially this one, and know also that they have time on their side, perhaps being young and new to things.
  • Those who know that the ideological purity test required by the Republican Party these days is just too hard to navigate.
  • And a subset of the previous, those who are being courted by the GOP leadership but who know that the moment they really give it serious consideration, every slight break with conservative orthodoxy that they even thought about would bite them in the ass in a hurry.
  • And finally, those who are just delusional (are you listening Newt?)

Make up your own categories. Mix and match. I'll leave it to you to attach names to each grouping. It's a game the whole family can play.

But on that point of candidates who didn't get in but swear that, had they taken the leap, they could have beaten Obama, I have just one thing to say:

I know that if I had only auditioned, I could have been the next American Idol, but I chose not to compete for family reasons. You do believe me, don't you?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Sunday, May 29, 2011

George Will doesn't think Sarah Palin should have her finger on the button


I don't much care for Mr. Will, and I don't even have any grudging respect anymore, but he's one of the few major conservative pundits who goes after Palin, and for that, I suppose, he deserves some credit -- yes, let's at least give him that.

Yesterday on ABC's This Week, Will asked the key question about Palin:

The threshold question, not usually asked, but it's in everyone's mind in a presidential election. "Should we give this person nuclear weapons?" And the answer [in Palin's case], answers itself.

I'd say the answer also answers itself for Michele Bachmann, if not necessarily so much for Romney and Pawlenty, Giuliani and Gingrich, Pataki and Huntsman, or even Paul.

I'd also say there any number of other such threshold questions not just for all presidential candidates but for the increasingly extremist Republicans and especially for Palin, questions such as:

-- "Should this person be allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices?"

-- "Should this person be given the keys to the country's national security apparatus?"

-- "Should this person be given control over U.S. foreign policy?"

-- "Should this person be the country's chief diplomat, the person advancing America's interests around the world, the person most responsible for America's reputation and credibility globally?"

-- "Should this person be put in charge, as much as any single person is in charge of, the economy?"

For Palin, it's clearly a NO on all questions. It doesn't take George Will to tell us that, but it's good that at least some Republicans understand what lurks in their midst. 

**********

Will is a frequent critic of Palin. For some background, let's head back to those heady days leading up to the '08 election:

[REL]Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare Army Vehicles V2

The UAZ is converted too but I'm sick of macking windows for it. So, it will be in the next pack. I'm giving you now only the following vehicles:
T72 [all bugs fixed]
What's fixed? The collision, the texture, the main gun and the wheels.

BM21 [all bugs fixed]
What's fixed? The collision, the wheels and the lights. Now it's got HD texture, damaged parts and windows. Like everybody can see, all my mods work in sa-mp.

BMP [all bugs fixed]
Woodland camo
Desert camo

What's fixed? the main gun's bug, the collision and the texture(now it's HD).

Humvee [all bugs fixed]
Jungle camo
 Desert camo
What's fixed? The height, the wheels, the collision, the lights. It's got damaged parts and windows. Minor bugs are fixed too.

My next mod will be a full pack of Battlefield 2 US characters.
Password: modsbypaul98.blogspot.com


Phil Ochs - protest singer for his time and ours

Music on Sunday @ The Reaction

By
Richard K. Barry

A few weeks ago a friend gave me a copy of a relatively new documentary about the life and times of singer-songwriter Phil Ochs. Ochs wasn't all that famous in his own time and certainly is not a name that would mean much to those who didn't live through the 60s, but he was a very talented example what I suppose would be called a writer and singer of protest songs.

The doc is called There But For Fortune. I think it has been in theatres. In any case, I highly recommend it. It is very well done though quite sad as it depicts Ochs' rise and fall, which culminated in his suicide in the mid-70s.

The music in it is amazing and it reminds us how much the man had to say and how he left us way too soon.

A while back I wrote something in defence of Bob Dylan to counter the claims by some that his concert in China recently in no way attempted to chastise the Chinese government over their human rights record. He didn't even sing the songs that might have carried that kind of message like Blowin' in the Wind and The Times They Are aChanging. Fine, but as I wrote, while Dylan penned some fine songs that have been used to good effect as protest vehicles, he rejected the label of protest song singer. By his own admission, he did this in part because he understood that such a label was likely to be career limiting.

In contrast, Phil Ochs seemed to run headlong in the direction of protest, with lyrics that could not be mistaken for anything other than what they were: an attempt to take the stuffing out of those responsible for injustices and all manner of unfairness in our society wherever it might be found.

Not to crap on Dylan because I really do love his music, but many of his tunes we typically think of as protest songs are oblique enough to appeal to a wider audience and don't always perhaps name the injustice so boldly, which can serve to make a wider audience more comfortable with what he is saying. I know it's not that cut and dried, but as a rule protest songs tend to be a little more ham-fisted and Dylan was/is more "artistic" than that.

Ochs, on the other had, while very clever, tended to name the beast even if it meant taking a swipe at those who were more on his own side.

For example, in one introduction to the tune featured below, Ochs defines a liberal as "ten percent to the left of center in good times. Ten percent to the right of center if it effects them personally."

The song is Love Me, I'm a Liberal and for my money it speaks across generations to the difficulty many progressives continue to have holding true to their principles especially if they are largely driven by the requirements of electoral success. On that point, I note that the picture below features Ochs at a campaign rally for 1968 Democratic presidential hopeful Eugene McCarthy. If that means nothing to some of you, I would not be at all surprised.

Have a listen to Ochs below, and listen closely to the lyrics. You'll be glad you did.


(Cross-posted to Music Across the 49th)

[REL]Spestnaz AN94,L96A1 From Black Ops

Spestnaz AN94

Download Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?mox1w8oby6aktwi

L96A1 From Black Ops
Crosshair by: Kami7ekPL



Download Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?mmej5o24pnjcwu3

Saturday, May 28, 2011

The desperation of Tim Pawlenty


There are some who think that Tim Pawlenty is the favourite, if not by much, to win the Republican presidential nomination. (I said that myself earlier this month.)

And while he may not have the name-recognition of a Romney or, needless to say, a Palin (not that she's running or anything, yet), that sort of makes sense. After all, he could turn out to be the compromise candidate between the somewhat more moderate party establishment (Romney) and the right-wing Tea Party insurgency (Palin? Bachmann?). Gingrich, I thought, was aiming at that position, but his campaign has been an utter failure so far and he just has way too much baggage. Pawlenty has executive experience as governor of a bluish state (Minnesota), is perceived to be smart and sensible, seems to be electable (i.e., in Republican terms, not entirely insane), and would appear to be fairly popular, if not really anyone's first choice, across the GOP spectrum, not extreme enough to worry the establishment while sufficiently conservative to appeal to social conservatives and the Tea Party right. He's pretty much the only Republican either running or thinking of running who has that sort of broad appeal. Huntsman, maybe, but he's tarnished by his association with Obama (as ambassador to China) and his utterly unacceptable (to most Republicans) views on issues such as civil unions. (In another time, Huntsman would have been formidable. He still could be, but the party won't let him get that far.)

In a way, Pawlenty is the perfect Republican for 2012. And he's been trying hard to make sure he appeals to the party's extremist base. As far back as August 2009 he was sucking up to the right-wing insanitarium, then by talking up the GOP's (and Palin's) death panel lie about the Democrats' proposed health-care reform. And since then he's positioned himself as a firm opponent of marriage equality and DADT repeal. Earlier this year, he came out, in contrast to his reputation as a moderate, as a social conservative extremist, as the proponent of conservative judicial activism and the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

And yet, however serious a contender he may be, he remains a relative unknown, particularly with so much of the focus on, and with so much energy sucked out of the Republican presidential field by, the likes of Trump, Gingrich, Huckabee, Daniels, Barbour, Bachmann, and now Palin, and with Romney generally viewed as the frontrunner, not to mention as the likely choice of the establishment. Last month, polls showed Trump, Huckabee, and Romney as the clear first tier, with Palin, Paul, and Gingrich behind them. Pawlenty was nowhere to be seen. Nothing has changed. Trump, Huckabee, and Daniels are out, while Bachmann and Palin may soon be in. Meanwhile, there's a lot of talk about other big names getting in: Giuliani, Pataki, Perry. And the latest polls show Pawlenty running well back, behind even Cain.

So is he really the favourite, or is it just that he makes sense as a candidate to those of us who overthink such things? Well, he really does seem to be the only major candidate who has appeal across the party, and there is certainly a path for him to win the nomination: a strong showing in Iowa (first or second), a decent showing in New Hampshire (third or fourth), a strong showing in South Carolina (first or second), then, with big names starting to drop out and the race looking like, say, Romney vs. Palin or Bachmann, emerging as a viable third option who squeaks through the "middle."

The problem for him is getting even that far, and even doing well in Iowa, where Palin or Bachmann would do extremely well with right-wing caucus voters, where someone like Paul could surge, and where the unexciting Pawlenty might just get cast aside.

What's clear, it seems, is that Pawlenty knows he has to strike now, that he knows he has to push his way into the spotlight before it's lost for good, and what we're seeing is a much more aggressive Pawlenty than before. This was a terrible weak for him, notably with the horribly embarrassing Iran/Iraq gaffe (it's easy to misspeak, yes, but he looked utterly clueless -- there's just not way a serious candidate should ever get that wrong, particularly when it was clear the question was about Iran), as well as with the ridiculous tweet about Obama's "European pub crawl" (last time I checked, a president is allowed to travel overseas for diplomatic purposes and, when there, out of respect to his hosts, may partake of the local culture, including, in this case, drinking a Guinness, as if that was so horrible). But the worst came on Friday, when, on CNN, he said this about the president:

Any doofus can go to Washington and maintain the status quo and that's what we've got in the White House and in Congress in terms of their attitude about their willingness to tackle these issues. If we're not going to have leaders who are going to say that and do it and tell the American people, look them in the eye... then we're all wasting our time.

I'm sure this elicited some guffaws among Republicans, but calling the president of the United States, an extremely intelligent man, a doofus? (I'm surprised he didn't call him a hipster doofus.)

And saying that Obama is just a maintainer of the status quo? Hasn't Pawlenty read the Republican talking points about how Obama is a fascist-socialist destroying America? Or is that the status quo?

Yes, yes, Pawlenty is trying -- desperately, it would seem, to get some attention, to get people to talk about him -- to position himself as the serious candidate on the Republican side, as the one who will "tackle these issues" and be honest with the American people, but this was just a pathetic outburst. As Andy Kroll of Mother Jones put it:

A GOP presidential hopeful ripping a Democratic incumbent? Yawn. But calling him a "doofus"? That's awfully sophomoric. Remember, this is a candidate whose campaign slogan promises "a time for truth," casting the former governor as a politician who is serious about America's skyrocketing national debt and bleak labor market. When he unveiled that slogan, there were already plenty of questions about Pawlenty's "truthiness." Now, with the spicy tweets and using juvenile takedowns, it's even harder to take Pawlenty seriously.

Yes, so much for Pawlenty being The Candidate of Truth. So much for his "courage to stand." All he's doing is playing to the right (and shifting his views to the right, as on climate change) and grasping for attention. And I'm beginning to think we were wrong about him. Far from being a compromise candidate who could bridge the main Republican divide, he's looking more and more hopeless.

The New York 26th special election and what it means for the budget debate

By Richard K. Barry

It's been fun to watch Republicans scramble over the past week to downplay the importance of the Medicare issue in Democrat
Kathy Hochul's upset victory in the special election for New York's 26th Congressional District. For the record, Hochul won with 47% of the vote over GOP candidate Jane Corwin, who got 43% and Tea Party candidate Jack Davis, who got 9%.

My favourite conservative spin has been the
claim by Erick Erickson at REDSTATE that the results had everything to do with local New York politics and little or nothing to do with Medicare or Paul Ryan's budget plan. In the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove also did his best to suggest that we shouldn't read too much into the results as any sort of supposed referendum on Medicare. Let's face it. These guys need to believe this, else they have a problem.

Yes, there was some vote splitting due to Jack Davis' third party candidacy, although it is always difficult to know where a third party candidate's votes would go had they not been in the race. Would they be split amongst other contenders, or would they just have stayed home?

The bottom line is that Republican
Chris Lee won the seat back in November, a mere seven months ago, by a margin of 73.6% to 26.4%. Everyone knows that special elections are indeed special, but those are some pretty big honkin' numbers and you typically would want to look for a defining issue to help you understand what happened when a district flips so decidedly.

So aside from who actually won and who lost, let's not forget that the Democratic vote from 2010 went up by about 20% and the aggregate conservative vote went down by about 20%. Big numbers indeed in a district that has been a stable "keep" for Republicans.

But this is all old news.

Here's some new stuff. A poll has just been released by
Democracy Corp indicating that disapproval of Republican House members is in fact surging. They write:
Republican leaders and conservative pundits have spun Democrat Kathy Hochul's upset win in New York's 26th Congressional District as exceptional - with peculiar ballot line, Tea Party independents, quality of the candidates, and Democratic message discipline. But our national poll completed Wednesday (May 25) shows that New York's 26th is not alone. It is an advanced indicator of a sharp pull back from Republicans, particularly those in the House.

Disapproval of the Republicans in the House of Representatives has surged from 46% in February to 55% in April and to a striking 59% now. Disapproval outnumbers approval two-to-one; intense disapproval from three-to-one. For the first time in more than a year, the Democrats are clearly even in the named Congressional ballot - an 8-point swing from the election. This period captured the introduction of the Republican budget plan and vote by the House - and voters do not like what they see.

There are really just a few basic truths in politics and it is remarkable how clueless Republicans have been in understanding one of them. I am almost embarrassed to repeat it, it's just so obvious, but here it is: A lot of people like the idea of lower taxes and a reduction in services as long as they don't think that it will be "their" services, "their" programs, "their" entitlements that will be cut.

When the voters in the NY-26th started to clue in that a very identifiable and important program was on the chopping block, they didn't like it. And if Democracy Corp's poll is any indication, voters in western New York are not alone.

Simple, simple, simple.

Here is where all of this goes for me: Voters need to get real about the kinds of programs, services and entitlements they think our collective public action should provide (that means government) and start to think about how we pay for it, including plans to increase much needed revenue (that means taxes).

It's one measure of how successful conservatives have been in framing the budget debate that we seldom hear quoted the sage comment by early 20th century
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. that "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."

It's easy to spin one lonely special election; let's hope this starts us on the way to reframing the budget debate across the entire country. That would be courageous.

(Cross -posted to
Lippmann's Ghost)

Blogging from the Heart

I am always thankful for another day, for the life and for the wonderful blessings God had given me, a loving family and supportive friends. Everyday is a learning process and that is the very reason why i decided to blog so my brains will continue to work despite daily work and trials. I always write from the heart and not what i blog about, its how i blog it. Thats why i post even a simple lunch because friends are important to me.




Blogging from the Heart

I am always thankful for another day, for the life and for the wonderful blessings God had given me, a loving family and supportive friends. Everyday is a learning process and that is the very reason why i decided to blog so my brains will continue to work despite daily work and trials. I always write from the heart and not what i blog about, its how i blog it. Thats why i post even a simple lunch because friends are important to me.




[REL]MP5 RAS (Rail Attachment System) Like MW3

I made it look like the MP5 that is in the Mw3 trailer, comes w/o silencer
Download Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?wvb5n55p42y7u16

Friday, May 27, 2011

This day in history - May 27, 1933: The Century of Progress World's Fair opens in Chicago


 
I went to the New York World's Fair in the mid-1960s. I was quite young, but I vaguely remember it. Mostly I remember that I couldn't get that insipid little tune "It's a Small World (After All)" out of my head for months afterward.

One of the best things about world fairs is the inevitable exhibitions that describe what life will be like in the future and how they always get it so incredibly wrong. Apparently the Homes of Tomorrow Exhibition featured futuristic homes with the promise that personal helicopter pads would be available as an accoutrement for those so inclined.

In fact, the overall theme of the fair was technological innovation.

One interesting fact is that the first Major League Baseball All-Star Game was held at the Chicago White Sox Comiskey park in conjunction with the fair.

All in all I understand that the Chicago World's Fair of 1933 -- "A Century of Progress International Exposition" -- was a splendid and highly successful event. No doubt.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Allen West


He wasn't being crazy when he was criticizing Newt Gingrich for proposing the return of "poll tests," but he's generally one of the craziest and most extreme Republicans around, and he's been at the crazy again in recent days attacking President Obama over Israel:

In West's typical hyperbole, he said [Obama's] speech was the "beginning of the end" of Israel and mysteriously accused Obama of giving Islamists a "Pavlovian-style" reward. But in a statement quoted by the Broward County New Times [on Wednesday], West took things further than any Republican lawmaker yet, invoking Hitler and accusing Obama of "nefarious" intent toward Jews:

In reviewing history, I would say Sir Neville Chamberlain was naive in his negotiations with German Chancellor Adolph Hitler. However, when one examines the state of affairs in the Middle East, including the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation pact, increase of rocket/mortar attacks from Gaza, the definitive Hamas Charter statement vowing the destruction of Israel, and the Hamas condemnation of America for killing Osama bin Laden... I cannot attribute this incompetent statement to naivete, but rather to conscious, nefarious, and malicious intent.

Of course, this is "an ignorant or intentionally dishonest interpretation of Obama's speech and the facts of the Middle East situtation." (And, yes, he spells Hitler's name incorrectly.)

And it is simply ridiculous, if predictable from the likes of West, to suggest that Obama is anti-Israel, or that suggesting, as Obama did, that the pre-1967 borders be taking as a starting point for negotiations signals an opposition to Israel's very existence. As the New Times explains:

Obama never once said Israel ought to withdraw to its "pre-1967" borders. He said that the division of land between Israel and a future Palestinian state would take the 1967 borders as a template and would be modified by land swaps. The words "pre-1967" never passed his lips. (In his speech, Obama also roundly decried Fatah's association with Hamas. West doesn't mention this, presumably because it would tarnish Obama's new image as the Jew Killer In Chief.)

How Obama's cautious, conservative stance on Israel is "unconscionable" is anyone's guess. It's precisely the approach advocated by every American president for a generation. The only way Obama's prescription is "unconscionable" is if a two-party solution is itself "unconscionable" -- which West firmly believes. Yet, like Obama's statements of unyielding support for Israel's security and his condemnation of Hamas, this goes unmentioned in his remarks.

And so you see, West is anti-Obama but also anti-Palestinian, and so he's attacking Obama, and doing so by lying about what the president actually said and actually supports, for working towards a sustainable peace in the region that includes not just a secure Israel but a Palestinian state that is itself similarly secure in its territory -- and not just "peace" on Likudnik Israel's terms, a "peace" that would allow Israel to keep all the post-1967 land it occupies.

A genuine peace agreement will require concessions on both sides. Obama knows that. But West, like Netanyahu, and like many in the American pro-Israel lobby, refuses to compromise, or to concede anything at all, which he crazily likens to appeasing Hitler. And that means he opposes peace, or at least that he doesn't give a damn about the Palestinians. Given his history of scapegoating Muslims, it's hardly surprising that that's the case.

(photo - with more on West's craziness)