That could sound a bit ominous, depending on your political leanings. Saw this on kottke.org, a slightly Photoshopped picture of the President playing around with the U.S. Olympic fencing team during their recent visit to the White House. Your political affiliations probably influence whether this looks like Barack Obama as a Jedi, a Sith Lord, or just an inexperienced Padawan. Either way, you have to admit, this picture is pretty cool:
I figure Wander might have an interest in this op-ed piece from one of his favorite authors (I think--maybe I'm remembering wrong), Orson Scott Card. Apparently, he writes a column for a paper up in Wild Willie's neck of the woods and had a few choice words to say about the journalist coverage of this whole financial meltdown and takes a different angle than what I was expecting before I started reading this:
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.Just goes to show you that no one's hands are clean in this mess.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
I've always admired Colin Powell and I've told Lemon repeatedly if he ever even considered running for President, I'd fill out my ballot and give him my vote right on the spot. He always appears very calm, intelligent, and nonpartisan in any of his appearances and seems to look at things in a very thoughtful, logical manner. His argument before the United Nations that was instrumental in our invasion of Iraq will forever be a black mark on his career, but I still give the guy credit for admitting he was wrong. That's what I call honorable.
Of course, Powell has said he has no ambition for the highest office in the land, but I still like to listen to his opinion as to who he's voting for come November:
I think political historians will look back on McCain's campaign in a pretty negative light. The whole "lipstick on a pig" crap they were trying to hype up was just the beginning. Since then, his campaign has sunk lower and lower into the mud. I used to think McCain was a pretty honorable man himself, but there's only so much your military career history can stretch to give you a pass. In just a few months, he's gone from someone I admired in the Republican Party to one that's joined the worst of them. He's been saying in all his stump speeches and debate rhetoric that he and his fellow congressmen were "elected into office to change government, and instead it changed us." It's sad that he let the far right change him in this way. Sure, you have to get elected first to get into office before you can change anything, but this negative strategy is not what America wanted or needed right now, and certainly it's not what he needed to get elected. Some have said that McCain's presidential aspirations will be looked on in a tragic light as a man whose ambitions were squashed twice by George W. Bush. The first being the 2000 Republican primaries and the second being Bush's abysmmal approval ratings making it difficult for any Republican candidate to get elected. Unfortunately, I don't think McCain can blame W. on this one--he'll lose this one all by himself.
Something tells me Wander doesn't think such a diabolical ploy is really all that preposterous:
Is this why Obama didn't choose Clinton as his running mate? Did he know about McCain's choice ahead of time, and didn't want unfavorable comparrisons?
If McCain is elected, I want him to abdicate all TV air time to his VP. I will watch every state of the union address she gives. Repeatedly.
I'm sure most of you have already heard about this little bit about Jesse Jackson making some unfortunate remarks about Barack Obama caught on air while he thought his microphone was off. No big deal, but I thought it was laughable that he comes on today with his apologies and claiming that he and Obama are good friends. If that's the case, may "I just want to cut your nuts off" be the cordial greeting all of us here in the Kool-Aid Gang say to each other whenever we meet.
I think Barack Obama has a pretty good shot at becoming the next President of the United States based on the enthusiasm he's drummed up amongst old and young alike. Campaigns like "Boobs for Barack" can't hurt either.
NSFW for lots of hooters. Hey, it's for a good cause, right? Hehehehe...
I caught a blurb on the news tonight about whether or not oil companies should be investing in more alternative energy. This is is the prevalent thought heard on the news lately. I have felt like the motivation behind such talk from the American public is one of punishment because of all the money they are making. I have to say to everyone out there ... be careful what you ask for. Isn't asking oil companies to invest in alternative energy (aka energy of the future) just going to shove even more money in their pockets in the future?
I am all about investing in alternative energy for the future, and I don't care who does it. Heck I don't care if oil companies get even more filthy rich if they do it, but then I don't care if they are filthy rich now. The media and some political candidates seem to think that getting filthy rich is wrong. If they want to punish the oil companies for making so much money, don't allow them to invest in alternative energy. You think companies like Exxon, BP, or Conoco Phillips think oil is going to last forever. They know its not. They are probably loving the fact that people are asking them to invest in something they were already thinking about anyway.
Due to a malfunction of communication between my TiVo and Dish Network receiver (FYI: Dish Network SUCKS!), I wasn't able to see the first part of the Frontline special "Bush's War" on PBS, but the second half I watched last night was a nice intelligent connect-the-dots documentary of what seemed to be a perfect storm of an impressionable president, a couple of overzealous paranoid cabinet members (i.e. Cheney and Rumsfeld), a marginalized National Security Advisor, and a Secretary of State that had some common sense about the whole thing, but always seemed to lose the argument in the face of the Vice President, that coalesced into the disaster that is Iraq. Although the intentions of everyone in charge was probably in the right place, it's kind of scary knowing how clueless some of those in charge really were. You watch interviews that seem to clearly show that the right information was there, but no one of importance would listen.
Anywho, if you've got time to watch the 4+ hour documentary, you can catch it in full on the PBS website.
I was reading this article in The New York Times about some of the infighting and disorganization going on in the Clinton camp, and thought this kind of sounded familiar. It's like what most of the critics of the Bush administration complain about:
Still, interviews with campaign aides, associates and friends suggest that Mrs. Clinton, at least until February, was a detached manager. Juggling the demands of being a candidate, she paid little attention to detail, delegated decisions large and small and deferred to advisers on critical questions. Mrs. Clinton accepted or seemed unaware of the intense factionalism and feuding that often paralyzed her campaign and that prevented her aides from reaching consensus on basic questions like what states to fight in and how to go after Mr. Obama, of Illinois.Just based on this article, I'm not sure Hillary sounds much more competent as a leader than George W. For all the hoopla about how the country needs a new kind of leadership and an end to cronies, I'm not sure the Democrats can provide it either if the Clintons were back in power.Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style, relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign’s woes. Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise.
Barack Obama has "Yes We Can."
I saw a little blip on the news tonight about this video put together by Will.I.Am from the Black Eyed Peas. Its kind of a catchy video.
Forget Oprah and her endorsement of Obama. The guy you really want on your side is Chuck Norris!
The more I hear and read about Mitt Romney, the more I really dislike the guy. This little gaffe, though, really put the nail in the coffin for me. Either he's subliminally working on the minds of voters and really pushing the envelope on our terrorist fears or someone sneaked in a typo into his teleprompter:
GREENWOOD, S.C. — Mitt Romney might have still been a bit bleary-eyed this morning when he twice confused Senator Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden when referring to the latter’s new recorded message.Mr. Romney was talking about global trade this morning, rolling out a spiffy new PowerPoint presentation before the Chamber of Commerce here in which he called for the United States to initiate global free trade zone agreements with other countries that he called the “Reagan Zone of Economic Freedom.”
But he paused to talk about the threat of radical Islam, taking John Edwards, one of his Democratic opponents, to task for comments he made several months ago that criticized the “global war on terror” as a bumper sticker for President Bush.
“I think that is a position which is not consistent with the fact,” Mr. Romney said. “Actually, just look at what Osam — uh — Barack Obama, said just yesterday. Barack Obama calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. That is the central place, he said. Come join us under one banner.”
The comment set off some confusion among the press corps. Glen Johnson of the Associated Press was momentarily frantically searching for comments made by Mr. Obama, another Democratic presidential contender, about jihadism and Iraq.
It turns out, of course, Mr. Romney was talking about the new audiotape from bin Laden calling on insurgents in Iraq to unite.
Oops.
Kevin Madden, a Romney spokesman, said afterward: “Governor Romney simply misspoke. He was referring to the recently released audiotape of Osama bin Laden and misspoke when referencing his name. It was just a brief mix-up.”
Now, I'm no fan of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but I thought the way Columbia University treated him was in quite poor taste. Here's how the president of the university, Lee Bollinger, introduced his invited guest according to The New York Times:
He said, “Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,” adding, “You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated.”I can't say I disagree with Bollinger's statements, but still, the guy's an INVITED speaker. You'd think a high falutin' intellectual ivy league school like Columbia University would have a bit more class and would have let Ahmadinejad's own words implicate him as being perhaps an evil tyrannical dictator. Instead, it seems Bollinger invited him over so he could throw eggs at him from the get go. Seems like some cheap playground tactics to me.The Iranian president, who was seated 10 feet away from him on the stage, wore a frozen smile. The anti-Ahmadinejad portion of the audience, which looked to be about 70 percent of it, cheered and chortled.
Mr. Bollinger praised himself and Columbia for showing they believed in freedom of speech by inviting the Iranian president, then continued his attack. He said it was “well documented” that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism, accused Iran of fighting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and questioned why Iran has refused “to adhere to the international standards” of disclosure for its nuclear program.“I doubt,” Mr. Bollinger concluded, “that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions.”
The title of this story kind of caught my eye, as it seemed to insinuate that the real person in charge of U.S. international diplomacy decisions was not George W. Bush, but Dick Cheney. I know it's almost accepted knowledge that Cheney is really the guy running the show in the White House, but still, I figured reading the whole article would make some mention of Cheney acting on behalf of the President--it didn't.
First, we've got the dispute between the United States and Canada over who controls the shipping lanes through the Northwest Passage. Then, Russia planted its rust-proof flag in the middle of the ocean bed under the North Pole to stake their claim in the region, claiming the Lomonosov Ridge is actually a land extension of their country. Now, the Danes are sending in their own expedition to prove that this undersea stretch of mountains is actually contiguous with Greenland, and thus, the property of the ol' House of Denmark.
It's going to be the next hot spot for trouble, I tell ya. But think of all the cool battles that would take place. Gunfights on skis, snowshoes, and snowmobiles. Submarine battles straight out of The Hunt for Red October. Hockey matches on the glacier tops when they all figure out it's way too cold up there to be fighting over oil.
