Oh, good Krist, this is wonderful Combined with this, I nearly fainted today, it's so nice to see this sort of thing. Stark is showing the Way, for those truly interested in being a New Media or whatever. It's so frakking simple.

Let me put it this way: I always thought I couldn't take good pictures. Trad film and I don't get along. Then they invented fancee digi cams that I can sort of use, and voila! I'm ansel adams, or something. But anyway, my point is that there should be a lot more of this, please.

Cokie Roberts.

But AFAIC, she's right on this one -- or at least a hell of a lot closer to right about what you should do with a guy who drugs, rapes and sodomizes a 13-year-old kid than nearly any other Villager (or media / entertainment / political 'star') voice I've heard on this subject.

Remember, Polanski not only gave the kid liquor and Quaalude, he admitted it.

Luc Besson, director of Léon, refused to sign a Hollywood petition calling for Polanski's immediate release.

"There is one justice, and that should be the same for everyone," Besson said on French radio. "I have a daughter, 13 years old. If she was violated, nothing would be the same, even 30 years later."
Popular support in France for Polanski, who has lived in Paris as a fugitive ever since the episode, has quickly waned - if it was ever there at all. More than 70 per cent of the 30,000 participants in an online poll by Le Figaro believed that Polanski should be extradited to face justice.
Four hundred readers of the French magazine Le Point have written to condemn Polanski and the French celebrities who back him, dismissing them as the "crypto-intelligentsia of our country" who deliver "eloquent phrases that defy common sense".

Remember, Polanski not only pleaded guilty, he underwent a psych eval.
Remember, Polanski spent 42 days in a California lockup -- and 31 years running.

The Swiss say they wouldn't have let him go so long if they'd known. That's a little specious -- he owned a chalet there, and presumably had to show a passport upon visiting. But they did nail him, finally -- and publicly. If it's their idea of tit-for-tat over UBS ... I'm okay with that. Hell, I'd give 'em Phil Gramm in zip-tie handcuffs, if only I could.

Salon has a full transcript. I'm just gonna hit the highlights here (hat tip to Athenae at First Draft, who is dead solid perfect in her reaction to Todd's half-coherent special pleading that if you have a trial, the Democrats will be perceived as "mean" and the world will end in all 32 wingnut flavors, again.) [ why does a TV News department need a political director?]

Chuck Todd looks to me to be covering for torturers in advance, and through the use of misdirection, in a way that I find purely despicable. Is Chuck Todd really saying murders -- more than 100 murders of POWs -- shouldn't be investigated because it'd cause a row in political circles?

Glenn Greenwald: My guest today on Salon Radio is NBC News political director Chuck Todd, who participated in a discussion on the MSNBC show Morning Joe earlier this week regarding potential torture investigations and prosecutions by the Obama Justice Department.

So far, so good. We get the who, (NBC's Chuck Todd) the what, (potential torture investigations) and the when (recapping a discussion from MSNBC earlier) to back up the discussion about to open. Props to Greenwald for getting three of the W's in his lede. He then asks a good, if possibly overcomplicated, question:

I want to begin by asking you this: discussions of torture prosecutions in the media typically focus on waterboarding, and that was true of the television segment that I just mentioned. The reality, though, is that there have been at least 100 detainees who have died in US custody, many that died during or as a result of interrogations, and many of those are deaths that the US government itself classifies as homicides.There have been a lot of other cases where detainees didn't die but were brutalized severely during interrogation. Eric Holder said that reading the reports of what happened there, quote "sickens" him.
Do you think that investigations by the Justice Department to determine if there were crimes committed, violations of our laws -- either by individuals interrogators or high-level policy makers in the Bush administration -- is nothing but a petty, unimportant distraction from what really matters?

Greenwald goes right by the waterboarding -- there have after all been non-prisoners who underwent a version of it, as well as SERE school alumni who have talked and written about it, and it is obviously torture. He wants to know whether politics ought to outweigh murder in importance. It's a simple question: do you let powerful people get away with ordering murder?

Immediately, Chuck Todd starts to dissemble, lose coherency, ramble, obfuscate, and in general not give an answer. "Let me clarify," "the thinking behind the political thinking on this -- which is that, politically, these things can turn into a distraction." "this is where I took some issue with it, and maybe I was inartful --"
and then he completely changes the subject into the future role of the CIA. You never get an answer to the question -- he even says that his 20 years of watching the special prosecutor process leads him to this conclusion.

If this guy was at the White House Press Office podium (especially if he were there as a GOP Press Secretary), that'd be one thing (and I'd've expected this level of non-answer). But this guy's supposed to be a reporter, for catsakes!!!

What exactly is the point of articles like this:

March 1 (Bloomberg) -- Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that he believes Iran has enough nuclear material to eventually make a bomb, concurring with a United Nations report.

“We think they do, quite frankly,” Mullen said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program today about the UN report. “Iran having a nuclear weapon, I’ve believed for a long time, is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world.”

And, Mr. Mullen, what do you suggest we do about it?

Gates then walks back Mullen's accusation:

Pam catches a funny part of the whole explosion of the the Jammy folk:

Roger quips: Actually that part of our business has been losing money from the beginning, so the people getting their quarterly checks from PJM were getting a form of stipend from us in the hopes that advertisers would start to cotton to blogs and we could possibly make a profit. Didn't happen. No wonder those people are kicking and screaming now that they are off the dole. I might too. [What's their beef? I thought most of them were free marketeer libertarians or something.-ed. Go figure.]

Dan Responds:
Here's the thing, Roger: you never once told us that the blog network you kept insisting was the next great thing "has been losing money from the beginning" - at least, not to our faces, and certainly not in any way that would suggest that you were carrying us like welfare recipients.

 Read more…

When is President Obama going to employ is Massive Army of Internet Based supporters to rally Congress for support for his stimulus bill? If it's "so hard" to pass truly liberal policies in the package, resist Republican whining for the inclusion of their failed crap, and discipline the naughty Blue Dogs...well, isn't that what the Screaming O-Hoarde is for?

Put another way: Rethugs used to do, and still do, the same thing for their bills all the time. Winger radio routinely gets their screaming minority to become involved in "phone actions" and suchlike, on everything from Janet's titties to immigration reform. And they get legislative results by doing so. Or, last year, when the original giveaway TARP proposals came out, I was told that the calls were 1200-1 against it, which resulted in at least some window-dressing in the final bill and scared a lot of progressives and heartened a lot of Republicans to continued opposition to more giveaways. So I don't want to hear about people being 'lazy' and 'nonparticipatory,' and anyway, I have read to my fill, plenty of celebratory "new techology in politics" crowing all during the primaries and thru the election and beyond.

So...what is the Administration doing with that much-celebrated "List" right now? Anything? Last time I checked, Congresscritters and Blue Dogs didn't read nor manage "change.gov" or "WH.org."

To Our Leaderz and Betters in the Village, $650 million dollars is chump change, barely worth a guffaw at a Beltway cocktail party joke, a rounding error in the DoD budget, peanuts. But it's not to me. It has been more than 12 years since I've given the broadcast, cable or satellite people a single dime of my money, and if I have my say, they can take my money from me out of my cold, dead hands.

I'll admit to hypocrisy. I rent movies and watch them on my computer sometimes. Most recently, I watched "Sicko" and a little while before that "The Battle of Algiers." Go on, uberpurists, beat me up for it. I'm sure there's something evil about Netflix and I'm just sticking my head in the sand. Guilty, I am.

But right about now, when I'm reading about 93yo retirees freezing to death because the power company has shut off their heat for unpaid bills, or children in Gaza starving to death while trapped in a bunker with the corpses of their dead mothers, or...you get the point. This is one of those moments when being polemical is only going to get me in trouble. Instead I'll ask: do you think you could do "more good" with $650m of taxpayer money (borrowed, at high interest, etc) than paying for people's HiDef converter boxes?

Gah. There's just so much wrong with this it's hard to start. Please, don't even try to argue that people "need" teevee. Just don't. And don't tell me to 'Be Happy!' that the same push also includes billions for internet coverage. Not the same thing, not by a long shot, and no need to group it all together. Hundreds of millions for teevee is *obscene* at a time like this. It's just fucking obscene. For once (perhaps not just once?) I get to say "Bush did a better job," as according to the article, he only allocated $250m for this shit.

I'll keep it simple: on the balance, what do these supposed poor, benighted rural people who 'can't afford' converter boxes watch, when they watch teevee? Same deal with the poor- what are they tuning into, that helps Dems and progressive causes in general? Can anyone tell me that? Or here, I have an idea: why don't we spend close to a billion dollars improving AM radio reception in rural areas, so they can listen to Rush with better quality and regularity? Is that a smart idea or what?

Feh. It's been a while, but I suppose I should thank Obama for reminding me of just how much I hate teevee. And giving me a new reason to bash it.

(and I'll even include Fox on this one folks.) Seriously I saw a commercial on NBC today from MSNBC for the Barack Obama DVD featuring 4 hours of material, and to quote the site:

"NBC News presents “Yes We Can!” the story of Barack Obama. This commemorative DVD takes you through the story of Barack Obama's life - his campaign to win his party's nomination, his campaign for the presidency, and finally his victorious history-making win. DVD extras include footage of the full inspiring speeches which were the most pivotal and memorable ones of his 2-year campaign. "

They will only ship it domestically and you can't use PayPal to buy it.

Environmentalists, social activists, feminists, atheists, political junkies... our modern Swifts and Voltaires. George Carlin blended anger and satire to blissful perfection, Grist Magazine is doing it for environmentalism, and Melissa McEwan does it for sexism and racism at Shakesville.

As the Obama euphoria fades, expect much more of this, from 23/6:

The Reader's Guide to Maureen Dowd

In November of 2006, Bill Moyers was asked to give the Sol Feinstone Lecture on The Meaning of Freedom, an endowed serial event for the men and women cadets of West Point.

It is an amazing speech to read, and it should warm the hearts of all liberals that West Pointers are being exposed to material like that Bill Moyers chose to honor them with.

I suppose I could, and perhaps should, leave the link and let you go and read it, but I've decided to highlight certain aspects of Moyers' lecture, although you should still go and read the extended excerpt published at TOM PAINE from which I am working.

From Shakesville:

"Briefly, my opinion is that it was an ill-considered statement that warranted an apology, irrespective of intent. FWIW, I don't think she intended to suggest anything nefarious, but it was not a particularly sensitive example to use to make her point, and careless in its disregard of the history of violence against black leaders. It was inevitable, and of course not unreasonable, that people would consider her competitor Obama within the frame she built, to upsetting results, even if she didn't specifically mention him."

So the new rule is Hillary (and Bill, her surrogates, etc.) cannot mention anything that someone might possibly, in some bizarre fashion, connect in some offensive way to Barack Obama within six degrees of separation?

We have a new game for the media and OFB to play!

Via Talk Left, Bob Somerby on Keith Olbermann and Countdown:

But then, Countdown has almost surely become the most propagandized show in cable “news” history. Yes, you can still find pure crap in the mainstream press. But pure crap abounds now on Countdown.

When we started this site, the mainstream press corps took the cake (see item above). Now, our “liberal” cable show does—and that has our analysts bollixed.

How silly does it get on Countdown? Just watch any part of the show, any night! The propaganda flow starts right away, and it rarely stops.

But wait, there's more! The emphasis is mine.

Elton John says so!

http://www.millan.net][IMG]http://www.millan.net/minimations/smileys/yay.gif
on another note
Caroline Kennedy to lead "women from Obama rally", she is going to be handing out the cutesy Obama buttons "Hot Chicks dig Obama"

I'll keep my own free stickers thanks

http://www.ingalagringa.com/items/

Oh I'll take a few dozen one for all my friends.

Elizabeth Drew is a sad testament to the fact that even the NYRB has succumbed to the Clinton Rules (check out the image of HRC devilishly laughing on their front page). The article is a mixture of projection, lies, and just plain asshatery. I could only shake my head as I read the following:

Thats it for me..my time has come. Today, I proudly went and changed my voter registration from Democrat to Independant. I can't tell you yet how I will vote in the Fall, but I honestly cannot see myself voting for Obama.
For me, its not that he won..if indeed he does win, but for me, it is the how of it.
Hillary Clinton tried to run as good a campaign as she could. She had the right, the media, the lefty blogs all against her. I can't even watch keith Olberman any more..his outright contempt for Hillary Clinton is disturbing, to say the least.
I have seen the most vile and atrocious attacks against Hillary coming, not from the right, but from the so-called progressive left. Many female progressives have become little more than Ann Coulter wannabes, in their attacks against Hillary.

Much has been written and said about the ability of Barack Obama to “attract Independents”, and how that translates into good news for his electability in November. But no one ever mentions that there is a huge difference between “Independents” and “Moderates”. Independents, as defined by the exits polls, are all over the map in terms of ideology, and include not just people who are “moderates” (that is, those who think that Democrats are too liberal and Republicans too conservative), but also “third” parties (Greens, Libertarians), individuals who are disaffected from the political system, and those on the ideological fringes who think the Democrats and Republicans are too “centrist.”

UPDATE: I suppose, being as the debate is now over, that it comes as no surprise to anybody who watched that Kucinich lost the appeal. Apparently the decision didn't come down until barely an hour before it was supposed to start. The regrettable details can be found here because I did promise to update.

(I still think John held his own. Only mentioned the word "millworker" once that I heard, which is an improvement. :) Dammit he's wrong on the no-new-nukes thing but we're grownups, we know that even our favorite candidate isn't going to agree with us on every single thing.)

TMP is reporting that..well, let's just roll the tape here:

NBC News was planning on cutting tonight's Democratic debate in Nevada down to the top three candidates — but a judge's ruling may just force them to expand it to four.

Last night, Clark County District Court Judge Charles Thompson ordered that NBC include who Dennis Kucinich, who they had originally invited but then later excluded, or he would issue an injunction to stop the whole debate. NBC is appealing the order.

To which I of course say Huzzah, hurrah, YAY, whoooooopeeeee! and similar expressions of unbridled glee.

Not because I think our favorite elf is going to stage an amazing surge and win Nevada, but think

CD updating the update to reflect the latest news: Reid has pulled the bill.

Well, we're into it - a full-throated Senate debate on many of the dearest, in all senses of that word, fundamentals of constitutional government,

The opening, as Lambert has suggested, was a bit confusing.

Dodd gave a passionate analysis of the many strands of this new FISA legislation, meant, mainly on the Democratic side, to correct the excesses of last August's Protect America Act, which more or less gutted the FISA court as a check on the power of the executive branch to secretly ignore the civil liberties of Americans not to be spied upon by their own government.

To talk process for a moment, the thrust of Dodd's first speech was in support of the many and profound reasons why the Senate should not proceed on the matter at hand as long as the Intelligence Committee's version is the basis of the debate and the subsequent voting on the entire issue. In other words, he was arguing against the imposition of cloture, so that the Senate might spend time debating the merits of substituting the Judiciary Bill as the basis for debate and amendment.

It didn't look or sound to me like this was Dodd's attempt to get a genuine filibuster going, and indeed, the vote was lopsided in favor of cloture, all Republicans voting yes, only ten Democrats voting no.

This is not the end of the debate by any means, though, and from what I've seen thus far, do not despair that passage of the Intelligence Committee's version of this new FISA bill is a done deal, including the extending of amnesty to those Telecoms which choose to go along with the administration. Here's why:

Reuters headline:

"Rock stars more likely to die prematurely"

Researchers figured this out a mere 37 years after the deaths of Janis and Jimi.

I hope I'm still alive in 2044, so I don't miss the story "Iraq 'surge' not working after all."

Many today including Barack Obama are saying that rap music needs to be looked at in the wake of what Don Imus said on the radio that got him fired. You see, we are trying to get at root causes here. If black rappers didn't say nappy headed hos, Don Imus apparently wouldn't be a racist misogynist.

It was bandied about in a few panels of talking heads yesterday, and dismissed in what may have been a reflexive dignity following the meltdown of Imus' exit. But here it is again. Let's go after the woman in the Duke Lacrosse wild sex story.

Howard Kurtz wakes up this morning, and suggests there's more here to shovel. Why waste all those notes he's taken on the racial divisions in Durham and the black women working as strippers to support their families on the other side of town from Duke fratboys?

This story really pisses me off. It's a puff piece on how wonderful and compassionate the right wing blogosphere has been regarding Elizabeth Edwards' illness. I wrote a post on Thursday, detailing some of the lovely reaction by Free Republic members to the news. Here are a few selected quotes.

Thank God that we aren't living under Edwards socialized medicine plan. She has a great chance for recovery.

He could be using this as a cynical ploy to get a sympathy vote later. He is a sleazy trial lawyer after all. I don't put anything past them.

Perhaps I looked too early. Maybe the tone had changed.

Just watched the Edwards' presser.

I'm sure you all know the Edwards will be having a joint new conference, called for noon, EST, and that whatever the announcement is to be, it follows on Elizabeth's visit to her doctor, and that given the fact of her discovery that she had breast cancer soon after the 2004 election, that fears there has been a reoccurance are natural, as are speculations that Edwards may be withdrawing from the Presidential race.