February 2008 Archives
Friendly Fire readers will surely have noticed in recent days that the postings have been light. There's a very good reason for this. Or, rather, a very bad one. The staff of the Daily News was reduced about 20 percent over the last two days due to the every-crapifying state of corporate print journalism in the United States. We've all been dealing with the loss of good friends and talented journalists, all while wondering if we were the next to be called into the editor's office for the last talk.
This blog was lucky enough only to suffer one casualty. Mike Tetreault, the acerbic and saucy letters editor who had been practicing particularly fine journalism at the Daily News for nearly 25 years. He and 21 other people found their Daily News careers over yesterday and today. Needless to say, those of us remaining have been in shock or scrambling to figure out how to deal with the absences -- both emotionally and workload wise.
It's a dark time for American journalism that appears to be darkening ever still. The Daily News wasn't the only newsroom to get bad news this week; across California the many MediaNews papers have let people got and will continue to do so through next week. And papers across the country such as NYT, the Boston Globe and Newsday are cutting staffs. The LA Times is conducting buyouts through this week and will then move to layoffs.
Where we will be in a a few months no one can say. But please bare with us as we absorb this shock.
Who’s sane in American politics? Instead of sticking to issues and things that make a difference to how we live, we are bombarded by the use and misuse of names as symbols of the ethnic and religious diversity that should make us proud as Americans. Perversely, names are being used as thinly coded slurs referencing Barack Obama’s ethnicity and his father’s religion.
As many brave Danes were said to have worn Jewish Stars during the Nazi occupation to show support for their Jewish Community, I suggest showing solidarity with Barack Hussein Obama and taking the sting out of his middle name.
You do not have to support Sen. Obama to know that using names as ethnic weapons is wrong and dishonorable. In our history we have sniggered Jewish names, Russian names, Italian and Irish names—implying by exaggerated emphasis on their foreignness that they, and therefore those who carried them, were not “real Americans.” Now is the time to end this reprehensible tradition.
The Right wing of the Republican Party has been repeating all three of Barack Obama’s names. They snidely insert, at the top of their voices and with dripping innuendo, his middle name HUSSEIN! Of course this is done by his opponents to remind the world, frightened white folks, devout Christians and nervous Jews that Sen. Obama is not a WASP. In fact his first name and middle names are Arabic—and as John Stewart pointed out during the Oscars, his first name is one letter away from Osama and his middle name is the name of our old enemy Saddam Hussein.
When the anti-Obama people do this, the pro-Obama folks act all hurt and question how dare they smear him with his own name. The anti-folks respond with feigned innocence that they can’t imagine why Obama would not be proud of his names and his heritage. Their mock naiveté on this is not becoming.
His names are Barack Hussein Obama—and there is not a thing wrong with Semitic names. Instead of being hurt every time someone uses the Hussein reference and having to re-argue its propriety, why not just embrace it? Change the intended epithet into something to be proud of. Don’t either apologize for it or act as if the speaker owes you an apology.
Let’s face it, Obama cannot change his middle name to Fred or Bill. Politicians do change their ideas for the sake of electability but not Obama. Some politicians even change religions for God’s sake. Well, not actually for God’s sake but for the sake of their own boundless ambition. Henri IV of France was born a Protestant but famously remarked “Paris was worth a Mass,” and so converted to Roman Catholicism in order to rule all of France. This would not be Barack’s style. Besides changing his name would be creepy, inauthentic and counter both to his message and his substance. Changing his name to Barack X Obama might also send the wrong signal.
This “What’s in a name?” issue will be played out for the entire presidential campaign (assuming that Sen. Obama is the nominee). Let’s get it out of the shadows and change it from a thing unspeakable and wear it proudly as a badge.
I am proposing that good and decent people of all genders, political persuasions and faith traditions change our own middle names to Hussein. This is exactly what I will do for the duration of this election. The fact that Hussein means “Handsome One” in Arabic states a fact about Obama and a little audacity of hope for me. I will put my Hebrew middle name Kasrael—Crown of Israel—on the shelf and proudly become Jonathan Hussein Dobrer.
To paraphrase the immortal words of the late, and therefore clearly mortal, Hunter S. Thompson, “I was somewhere around Encino on the edge of an urban jungle of strip malls when the drugs began to take hold.” I was on my way to conduct a class with a learned rabbi on Religion and Spirituality as my spirit and body seemed to want to part ways. Was I just getting in the mood or was there something non-spiritual afoot?
I was struck by a small epiphany, (so it didn’t hurt too much) and I realized that I was stoned—but not in a pleasant way. This was no flash back to the 60s when I may or may not have “experimented” with drugs. I love that euphemism experimented as if it were a lab section for a science class. The truth is I tried grass a few times and didn’t much like it. As someone who has struggled with weight issues (as well as weighty issues) all my life, if there is one thing I don’t need it is anything that encourages the munchies, or as my people say, noshing.
I was zipping along at 55 mph and feeling spacey, light-headed and sensed a slight tremor in my right hand. I asked myself if I felt safe to continue to drive another 45 miles to my speaking engagement. As one time sailor, I remembered my old safety rule: If I showed up at the dock and asked if the wind was blowing too hard for a recreational sail, it was. The question implied the answer. I pulled off the freeway and headed home.
At the time I did not know that it was the drugs. I thought that the head cold I was fighting had just weakened me, and I hadn’t put together what should have been obvious, and would have been obvious were I not stoned. The over the counter meds that the pharmacist had recommended for my head cold and sore throat had rendered me incapable of operating heavy machinery—which my little Honda CRV qualified as.
I returned home and not realizing it was the cough syrup (non-alcohol) and the anti-histamine, immediately took more meds before crawling into bed. Unsurprisingly I didn’t feel any better that night and after re-medicating in the morning nearly aborted a lecture in the first thirty minutes. I soldiered on to the end, returned home and did a web search of my two benign over the counter meds. I found that they could each make me light-headed, dizzy, drowsy and incapable of operating heavy machinery—such as my mouth. In combination they had, what is today called, a synergistic effect and rendered me non-compus mentis.
This is serious stuff, and I was totally unprepared to be, well, so totally impaired by non-prescription medication. During a long lifetime of allergies and three back injuries that led to surgeries, I have had a fair number of prescription medications and have never been so knocked out. I am deeply grateful (I suppose to myself) for my uncommon common sense in turning around and coming home.
My internal dialogue about how it was really nothing and I could still do it and how I mustn’t disappoint my audience seemed quite compelling at the time. Somehow I talked myself out of talking myself into continuing. Okay, that last sentence may indicate that I’m still suffering from some diminished capacity…but you do know what I mean.
The lesson, in case it isn’t clear, is that prescription drugs are not the only drugs that we should consider when assessing our ability to function. The over the counter market offers some pretty powerful drugs and they can and do alter thinking, reflexes and judgment—and these are the big three when operating a computer, a mouth or most importantly a car.
The winning parties in last week's Pakistani elections are beginning to push Pervez Musharraf around.
Pick your governance cliche: The more things change... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss... L'etat, c'est moi or some other idiote...
Actually, Musharraf brought this on himself. He launched a bloodless coup against the bungling and corrupt Nawaz Sharif in 1999, who had replaced the bungling and corrupt Bhutto dynasty. After promising for 8+ years to make Pakistan safe for democracy while clinging stubbornly to power, he now watches as voters bring back Sharif and the Bhutto dynasty. That's not much of a legacy, and it disappoints me, who once believed he could accomplish great things.
You can't imagine that the power has been worth the humiliation he's earned (especially in a society that it is, like East Asia, very shame/honor-based).
And so many people think local government is dull! Not in L.A. I'm here at Los Angeles City Hall this morning for my weekly immersion into the zany antics of the City Council and its groupies. And none of the groupies are as loud, as obnoxious and as over-the-top as Council gadflies and now bloggers Matt Dowd and Zuma Dogg, he of the ear-splitting rap poetry and weird musical stylings. * I take it back: Zuma Dogg isn't here today. Just Dowd, who invoked his name. But he's carrying the weight for both.
In truth, these two would be insufferable were it not for relentless and creatively silly attacks on the free speech limits the council has had to adopt -- because of them. Today, both are driving the council members nuts with their repeated reference to their support for and concern about the abuse to "Mike Hunt" during Brown act-required public comment. If you don't get it, say the name out loud a few times until you do. It's seriously juvenile, but highly amusing.
These dudes are odd and clearly not part of the regular working world. But they've found a mission in life: to annoy local government officials. It's quite possible they are doing the people of Los Angels a great service. Or maybe it's just an elaborate piece of performance art.
You can watch yourself once the meeting is over (it's in closed session at the moment). Find today's council meeting online at the city page.
My one-time boss, my mentor, and my dear friend William F. Buckley Jr. has passed away. According to the reports, Bill died in his study -- at work. For those who knew him, this will not come as a shock. Whether sick or on vacation, Bill was always diligent about keeping up with his writing. But then, he was always diligent about keeping up with his recreation -- and his friends -- too. His was an ordered life, to say the least, and a life lived to the fullest.
To say "he will be missed" is not only to resort to the sort of cliche which Buckley despised, it's also to be guilty of understatement. I can't think of anyone with more friends to leave behind. The world knew WFB as a great intellect and writer, which he certainly was, but he was also as decent, gentle, kind and loving a man as those of us blessed to make his acquaintance would ever know.
It will take some time for me to formulate my thoughts and write something more about this extraordinary life, but till then I offer this excerpt from a profile I wrote about Buckley for Salon nearly nine years ago:
One almost forgets, when WFB refers to lunch with Henry, a stroll with Ronald or a trip with Milton, that he is speaking of a former secretary of state, a former president or a Nobel Prize-winning economist. But if Bill Buckley walks with kings, he has not lost the common touch. At a recent celebration commemorating Ronald Reagan's 88th birthday, Buckley, the keynote speaker, was seated at the head table with Nancy Reagan, two former cabinet secretaries and the ex-governor of California. The moment the dinner ended, he ditched the dignitaries, dodged hundreds of autograph seekers and sneaked out to the parking lot to meet old friends for a nightcap.Many conservatives say that government is unimportant, but behave as though every legislative or electoral defeat is a personal disaster. Buckley is different. He loves politics, he's intrigued by its sport and he enjoys wrestling with big ideas. But he has other passions -- sailing, skiing, playing the harpsichord, studying the English language and, of course, being with his friends, who are legion and just as likely to include a former research assistant as a former president of the United States.
Before all of them, however, comes Pat, his wife of 49 years, a Vassar-educated one-time Miss Vancouver. Whenever she admonishes Bill to fix his tie, or sends a dinner party into a fit of laughter with a well-timed wisecrack, he gazes at her with relentless affection. They are unembarrassed to call each other by pet names, no matter who else is present. Their son, Christopher, is the father of two and a successful humorist -- facts that Pat and Bill proudly advertise.
But the work that helps to explain Buckley's character more than any other is his 1997 book "Nearer My God: An Autobiography of Faith." "It seems to me," he once said of his faith, that "a balanced life begins by acknowledging the insufficiency of purely materialistic considerations, and therefore one instinctively looks out for the other dimension that religion supplies you with." His is a quiet devotion, which he'd previously made little effort to discuss publicly. But his generosity, his patience, his compassion are all indicative of a grace that strives not only to believe the faith but to live it -- even if humility bars him from saying as much.
Requiescat in pace, Bill, and say hi to Pat for me.
Here's what a spokesperson for Democratic Presidential contender Barack Obama said when he got wind of former Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s virtual endorsement of Obama’s White House bid, “Senator Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan's past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister's support." Farrakhan made the glowing tout of Obama at the NOI’s annual Savior's Day confab in Chicago. Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan was blunt and pointed. But he did not reject Farrakhan’s implied endorsement.
Even after Hillary Clinton publicly demanded that he forcefully reject Farrakhan’s endorsement, Obama waffled. He weakly said after more Clinton cajoling that he rejected the endorsement. He still did not mention Farrakhan by name. A candidate shouldn't need to be prodded by his opponent to emphatically reject the endorsement of a controversial, and in the case of Farrakhan, much vilified figure. Obama, of course, does not endorse Farrakhan's views, politics, or his organization, and he has made that clear on more than one occasion.
Yet his failure to flatly say he does not want his endorsement is no surprise. Farrakhan may be a controversial and much vilified figure but he is not a fringe figure within black communities. He is still cheered and admired by thousands of blacks. They are also voters too and most have embraced Obama with almost messianic zeal. This zeal has been a driving force in powering Obama's surge past Clinton. Many blacks are exhilarated by the prospect that a black man will sit in the Oval office. In other words, Obama is a racial fantasy come true for many blacks.
Few blacks publicly demand that he assume the role of a black leader. They have made no demand that he tell what he’ll do to boost civil rights protections, fight the HIV/AIDS plague, or take strong positions on the other pressing social issues. It’s just as well they haven’t since his image is that of the new generation African-American elected official who thinks and speaks as a unifier and consensus builder, not a racial crusader.
However, many blacks quietly expect or at least hope that if he’s elected it will be more than a historic first for blacks. They hope that he will be a vigorous proponent of civil rights and social programs. As long as that hope is there their impassioned zeal be for him will be there too. If Obama denounces Farrakhan too strongly that would raise the eyebrows of the thousands of blacks who admire Farrakhan and his organization.
But, if Obama doesn’t blast Farrakhan as an anti-white hate monger that could raise questioning eyebrows with many white voters. He can’t afford that. He’s far exceeded the predictions of many who questioned whether whites would vote for an African-American for president. They have and he has even done what was thought to be even more implausible and that’s net considerable backing from white males. They have been rock solid backers of GOP presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Obama got their support with his open-ended message of change and unity. Farrakhan, then, is the absolute last thing that Obama needs now that he’s on a roll with so many diverse voters.
Obama isn’t the first politician to face the Farrakhan dilemma. It got Jesse Jackson into momentary hot water during his presidential bid in 1984. Jackson rashly agreed to let the NOI briefly handle some of his security. That drew howls that Jackson was in bed with the Farrakhan. Jackson backpedaled fast and dropped the NOI as part of his security. That didn’t stop the loud grumbles that Jackson as a presidential candidate was too cozy with Farrakhan. But Jackson did not denounce Farrakhan. He stayed mute in part out of his stubborn insistence that no one should tell him who could support him, and in bigger part with an eye on the black vote.
Obama is closing in on a place in history. If he wins the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries, his fierce nomination battle with Clinton will be virtually over. The movement will be irresistible among Democrats to nominate him and that will evaporate the Democrat’s worst fear, namely a fractured convention, split between the two warring Obama and Clinton factions. A divided party would be a lethal blow to the Democrat’s chances to take back the White House.
But Obama also knows that he doesn’t just need black votes. Any Democratic presidential contender will get the majority of black votes. That was the case with Democratic presidential contenders Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Both still lost. He needs blacks to turn his drive to the White House into a crusade. They must make a spirited and massive rush to the polls. Farrakhan can help insure that some of that spirit and some of those numbers are there. Obama can’t publicly applaud him for doing that. But he can’t totally reject him either. That’s Obama’s Farrakhan dilemma.
OK, so they don't have temblors very often. And they have a bunch of stuff made of brick. And "retrofit" likely isn't the first thing on their minds. But there was no serious damage reported and one injury from the U.K. quake that was reportedly felt for 300 miles.
But The Sun tabloid is all over the hot story:
"Stunned Mark Young said he looked out of his window and saw an EIGHT FOOT crack in his neighbour’s garden at LEICESTER.He said: 'There was a big crack through the ground and there was smoke and flames coming out. It was spitting things out.
'It is eight foot long and two foot wide.'
John Burton feared his house, in WAKEFIELD, West Yorkshire, was going to fall down as he watched television.
He said: 'It shook the whole house.'
Metal worker Simon Smith, 38, from CHATTERIS, Cambs, said: 'It felt like a juggernaut was going down my road.
'I turned to my wife Heather and shouted, "S***, it’s an earthquake."'"
Wimps.
And yes, that's the worst damage picture to be found.
They look so happy to be going off to fight the Marxist weenie terrorist PKK, huh? (And pretty er, cute, but that's beside the point.) That is, until they see what that cross-border incursion entails...
Damn! I guess that's why you don't invade Kurdistan in the winter. They look like a party out hunting the Yeti. Heck, with the snow camo they look like the Yeti. That's some determined Turks...
Tonight’s Democratic debate could be interesting. More interesting and intense than the heavyweight unification boxing match was on Saturday night. To escape the doldrums of jabbing and weaving, dancing and clutching, a la Klitchko and Ibragimov, here is what each candidate must do:
Hillary has to ask Obama to take a position on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of him. Will Obama denounce Farrakhan and risk the Black vote or will he waffle and risk the white vote in general and the Jewish vote in particular? Nasty wedge issue.
Obama must counter Hillary’s tactics of being the nice Hillary in one debate and the aggressor in the next. He must ask which is the real Hillary the one who is “proud” to be up there with him or the one who calls for him to be deeply ashamed of his use of the Karl Rove playbook? He must point out that Hillary cannot be both the good cop and the bad cop. With all her experience, she should be able to pick one “authentic” position.
Tonight may test Obama’s chin. We’ll see if he can take a punch and remain unruffled. In this case the test is fair, and style is substance, or at least partly, in politics. Hillary has little to lose. It is too late be worry about seeming warm and likable to those not already in her camp. This is the stark question: Will she risk losing without grace for the chance of winning the prize? Will Obama parry her charge of plagiarism by asking her if she wrote that terrible line about him being "about change you can Xerox"? Meanwhile, I expect lawyers from Xerox to serve papers for misappropriating their trademarked brand as a generic.
If this is the best weapon the Clinton campaign's got to fight the rising tide of Obamania, they are in worse shape than I thought. In recent days the Democratic campaign has become a tad nasty -- really a tad. This photo of Obama in native Somali dress on a past tour of the continent was reportedly circulated by a Clinton staff. The photo made it to The Druge Report today. And this is supposed to make him look bad how? If I were more paranoid, I'd think this "attack" was so lame it was orchestrated by someone trying to make the Clinton campaign look bad, which it does.
Frankly, the media's characterizations of harsh words seems a bit overblown. Maybe I've just been in too many editorial board meetings.
Here's an example from the Reuters story linked above:
Clinton mocked Obama's speeches in which he emphasizes hope and promises change, telling supporters the problems facing the next president would not be easily solved."I could just stand up here and say 'Let's just get everybody together, let's get unified.' The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect," she said at a rally in Providence, Rhode Island.
Obama fired back in Lorain, Ohio, criticizing the New York senator for changing her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement pushed through by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
"She has essentially presented herself as co-president during the Clinton years," he said. "So the notion that you can selectively pick what you take credit for and then run away from what isn't politically convenient, that doesn't make sense."
Or, here's my translation:
Clinton: "Oh hope-schmope, blah, blah, blah."
Obama: "I know you are, but what am I?"
If this is the dems' idea of nasty exchange, they are going to be killed by the GOP in November. They know how to play dirty.
In a recent address at Cincinnati State Technical and Community College Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton blasted arch rival Barack Obama for his inexperience. This should not be dismissed as another frantic, grasp at straws by Clinton to slow the momentum of his campaign or a badly overrated quality that few first time presidents need bring to the Oval Office anyway. The tout of Obama as the second coming of John F. Kennedy is supposed proof that a Senator with ideals and vision, ala JFK, can work wonders for the country even if short on experience.
The Obama-JFK comparison is a bad stretch and the dismissal of experience as a president-to-be attribute is an even worse stretch. JFK majored in foreign policy at Harvard and was a decorated naval war hero. His father, Papa Joe, was a multi-millionaire diplomat, confidant of presidents, and consummate political deal maker. This enabled JFK to meet a slew of European leaders. He wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning book, served fourteen years in the Senate and Congress, and came close to getting the vice presidential nomination in 1956.
Despite JFK’s years of public policy experience and political acumen, that Obama can’t match, he was still woefully ill equipped to deal with the two biggest crises that confronted his administration; the Cuban Missile crisis and the civil rights crisis. The mythmakers have spun a picture of a cool, calm, and collected JFK facing down Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in 1962. He allegedly forced him to get Russian missiles out of Cuba and that saved the world from nuclear destruction.
The truth is far different. In his memoirs Khrushchev gloated that the Soviet Union never had any intention of going to war over Cuba, and that the missiles were a bargaining chip to get the U.S. to remove American missiles from Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union. The other aim was to get the U.S. to guarantee the security of Castro’s regime.
Even if Khrushchev’s boast is sloughed off as a face saving historical falsity to burnish up his badly tarnished image; the fact is that American missiles were removed from Turkey. And in the nearly half century after the missile show-down, there has been no US military effort to oust Castro. He stepped down voluntarily and will likely die of old age.
The U.S. –Soviet stand down was brokered through back channel talks initiated by Robert Kennedy with the Soviet ambassador to the U.S. After they hammered out the bare details of the agreement it took urging by RFK and other Kennedy senior advisors to get Kennedy to finally approve the deal. JFK’s inexperience in a crisis moment cost valuable time, delays, and raised tensions. It had another tragic by-product. It earned JFK the undying enmity of the thousands of Cuban-Americans.
Then there’s the issue of civil rights. The Obama camp twisted and mangled an innocent comment Clinton made in which she praised President Lyndon Baines Johnson for driving the 1964 civil rights bill through Congress. Supposedly Clinton defamed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by minimizing his role in getting a civil rights law. Clinton, of course, got it right. It took every bit of Johnson’s relentless political arm twisting, cajoling, and deal making skills to get wavering Republicans and hostile Southern Senators who controlled key committees to back the bill or soften their vehement opposition to it.
The bill though was not Johnson’s. It was introduced by Kennedy. Despite his efforts, Kennedy could not budge Congress to take action. JFK simply did not have the political muscle to budge the bill’s opponents. Johnson did have the experience and the muscle to ultimately force passage.
The rap against Obama that he lacks the requisite experience to get the job done effectively in the White House is not a cheap and meaningless campaign shot at him. The American presidency should not be an OJT position. Voters shouldn’t be asked to make a leap of faith that an untested candidate can smoothly and effortlessly handle crisis situations that inevitably arise. Inexperienced presidents are poor crisis managers. They get us into costly and unpopular wars and brush fire conflicts. They alienate foreign friends and allies. They bungle the economy. And their administrations more times than not are riddled with corruption and cronyism. The disastrous proof is the administration of the man that Obama seeks to replace.
Even without fingering Bush’s foreign and domestic policy bumbles and ineptitude, the presidents that have been most successful in recent decades have been FDR, Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower. They had two things in common. They had extensive executive and administrative experience either as governors, or in the case of Eisenhower, in the armed forces before they became president.
The lack of administrative and crisis management experience shouldn’t disqualify a prospective presidential candidate, or mean that he or she will crumble under fire. At the same time, their inexperience raises a giant question mark about the candidate. That can’t be cavalierly dismissed.
Well, technically I'm an Inglewood girl, but I am a fan of "No Country for Old Men," so I'm not disappointed at Sunday night's Oscar results. It was an edge-of-your-seat film, Javier Bardem was amazing, and all in all the film was truly great.
But hopefully soon, soon, soon it will be native Valley son Paul Thomas Anderson's chance up on that Oscar stage. I was really hoping that "There Will Be Blood," which is no less than a work of art, would get more Oscars than for Daniel Day-Lewis and cinematography. Goodness, the mining and drilling scenes should have garnered the sound statue as well, but I thought the direction on "Blood" topped "Country." Then again, I'm a PTA fan since "Boogie Nights" (aka the Valley's biopic), so I might be a tad biased...
That's Michael Moore and his junior prom date... er, wife going into the Governors Ball on Sunday night. That's also officially the worst Oscar dress of the evening. The pink taffeta frock I had to wear in my best friend's quinceanera was more fashion-forward. Somebody get a dress doctor, stat!
I was really rooting for Kazakhstan (sniff!) to win the Oscar for Best Foreign-Language Film. I hear that "The Counterfeiters" from Austria is a fantastic work, but who could really vote against a biopic of Genghis Khan? A friend at the Academy tells me that the Kazakh nominee, "Mongol," is a "beautiful" film. I was looking for the adjective "badass." And not only did I want "Mongol" to win, but I wanted Sascha Baron Cohen to present the Oscar to Kazakhstan.
Young Genghis is set to do battle with Indiana Jones when it arrives in limited release on June 6. Mongols rock.
"Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context I've decided to run for president."
More on the Return of Ralphie!!
Why, she's lobbying for members of the Muslim Brotherhood who face trial in Egypt. Why?
"I decided I wanted to do human rights work on behalf of people around the world who have been harmed by US imperialism.Part of why I am here, also, is to draw attention to the parallels between the military courts here and the same kinds of courts that are being used to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay by the US.
...If we [America] really want to promote democracy in this region then we cannot silence the voices of the Muslim Brotherhood because they're the moderate voice here and they are the ones who are actually working for democracy."
Al-Jazeera also asked Sheehan, who waxed even more about her commitment to telling Egypt what to do, how a recent visit to the National Council of Women in Cairo went. Her response was absolutely classic:
"I didn't really understand a lot of what was going on. There was a lot of yelling in Arabic."
Bwahaahahaa!!!
But for Cindy's reference, the Muslim Brotherhood is not a moderate democratization savior. Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Mahdi Akef has called the Holocaust a "myth," the Brotherhood has advocated taxing Christians extra, is linked to violent acts and nefarious terrorists over the decades, promotes strict Islamic dress code for women and segregated schools (as well as separate female curriculum), promotes the Caliphate, allows democracy only up to what is deemed allowed by Islam, and lives by the motto: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
Heck, maybe she knows all that and loves 'em anyway...
The disputed island has elected a proud Marxist as its next president, making Communist Party leader Demetris Christofias the only (confessed) communist leader in the EU. The Communist party on Cyprus, the AKEL, features a bust of Lenin in its HQ, and Christofias loves him some classic Che T-shirts. It would probably be difficult enough to tell his rabid supporters that in their Che worship they're bowing to a murderer, but even check out the sleeve on the guy pictured: it says "CCCP." What heroes they have!! Hand over your computer and get in line for toilet paper now!!
That's George with President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in Liberia, just one step away from a full striptease...
Faithful readers will know that I am a proud liberal and am unlikely to vote for Sen. John McCain under any circumstances that I can foresee. However, the hints and attacks by the New York Times are beyond troubling.
There is certainly a scandal, but I do not know if John McCain is involved. What is clear is that there is a scandal in journalism. When the New York Times runs a story like the one on McCain, they better have more than they printed.
On the surface it seems that the issue is McCain being reckless in his confidence in his moral compass. However, when the Times puts the sexual innuendoes in the third paragraph, that becomes the story. And what is their standard for raising the possibility that he had an “improper relationship” with a lobbyist? Some of his staffers were concerned and thought that it might have become a romantic relationship. So concern begets speculation that begets a not so thinly veiled allegation? This is outrageous.
Given this standard, or rather lack of a standard, should a paper be able to print anything about which they might have an idea, inkling or suspicion? Can they protect themselves by saying, “Friends of Dobrer’s are worried that he might be (Fill in the blank)_____. Pick one or more: Sick, Perverted, Fascist, Communist.”
If it is true that some friends of mine are worried, talking or speculating, is that good enough for the “paper of record” to go with? It could be true that there is speculation but that doesn’t imply a fact.
I have no idea if McCain did anything wrong. I am very clear that the New York Times did something very wrong. If they have more, show it. If they don’t, then be ashamed, very ashamed! Meanwhile journalists the world over are speculating if the New York Times reporters and editors have lost their moral compass and their minds.
Some Los Angeles city officials are proposing the largest transfer of public land to private homeowners in the history of the city. But there's a catch, as outlined by the story in the LA Times today. See, the city wants to give homeowners the sidewalks (with an easement, of course) that border their property.
That way, they are no longer responsible for paying to fix them. I suspect the liability for trip-and-fall claims then reverts over the homeowner's insurance. Double bonus for the city! Sneaky, sneaky, huh?
Faced with more than 4,000 miles of broken sidewalks and scarce money to make repairs, Los Angeles officials are weighing a proposal to put responsibility for making the fixes squarely on homeowners.Under the proposal, homeowners would be forced to replace the damaged pavement -- or pay the city a fee -- when they sell their property, before the close of escrow.
The City Council's Public Works Committee got its first look Wednesday at the "point of sale" plan, which could cost the average homeowner as much as $15 for each square foot of sidewalk, and dramatically shift the burden for such repairs from city government to the private sector.
If the city give me the sidewalk in front of my house, the first thing I'm going to is put up tollbooths. If LAUSD can charge the public to use public facilities to fund their upkeep, why can't I? I intend to charge $5 for walking through the lovely strip between my fence and the greenery between it and the curb (what do you call that strip, anyhow?), which I'm not sure if I own, but is my responsibility to keep up.
Today, I received one of those annoying spams pushing sex-enhancing drugs, it was blocked by my spam filter and sent to the junk file (which I check periodically for misdirected legit emails). But here's the kicker -- it was from my very own email account! I spammed myself!
Pharmacy mall: everything for your sex! From: msmarielgarza@______.com High riskThis message may be dangerous. Learn more Sent: Thu 2/21/08 9:07 AM To: msmarielgarza@_______.com
Well, not me, exactly. Spammers steal real people's email addresses to spam people, that's why so many people open them. And now my email is the perp. So if anyone out there is getting spams from me, I'm sorry. It's not my fault. And while it looks like me, it really isn't
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama coyly hinted at something that has been virtually taboo during the fierce hunt for the White House in 2008. That’s likely GOP presidential candidate John McCain’s age. In a speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Virginia in early February, Obama hailed McCain for his half-century of service to the country.
This borderline ageist damn with faint praise of McCain was of course tame stuff compared to the dumb crack from B karate movie action guy Chuck Norris before the Florida primary last January that McCain was just too old to be president. Norris subsequently apologized but he still got a swift and deserved disappearance as a prominent mouthpiece for McCain’s GOP presidential rival Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. It probably ramped up in the number of votes McCain got from the loads of AARP seniors that retired in the state. That sweetened McCain’s victory there and rocketed his once seemingly DOA campaign forward faster.
Norris aside, age is and will be a factor in the possible showdown between McCain and Obama. Some Democrats undoubtedly bank that Obama’s boyish looks and fresh faced vigor will stand in stark contrast to the weary, and slow pace gait of McCain. But age won’t be an Obama trump card against McCain.
It just doesn’t titillate and get the tongues furiously wagging as race does with Obama and gender with Hillary Clinton. It shouldn’t. Age is no legitimate measure of McCain’s mindset, physical health, or even his possible longevity in the office. JFK, Nixon, and Clinton were all in their forties when they took office. Each had serious health problems, and each one faced serious political and personal crises during their terms, but their health didn’t lay them low. McCain released hundreds of pages of his health records before his presidential run in 2000 and last year to head off talk that he’s medically and emotionally incompetent (that pertains to his torture as a Vietnam POW) to be president. Even if he hadn’t, and even if there were health issues with him, his age still holds minefield peril for Obama.
Reagan is the best example of that. Other than sniggers, and wisecracks about his memory lapses and occasional gaffes, there was no evidence Reagan lost a single vote because anyone thought he was too old. The early signs of Alzheimer’s came much later in his term and by then the Reagan myth and legacy had been well ensured. The eyes of many in their audiences misted over the countless times McCain and the other one time GOP presidential candidates evoked Reagan’s name during their debates and on the campaign trail.
Reagan for his part did much to defuse the age issue when he turned to his Democratic opponent Walter Mondale in their presidential debate in 1984 and challenged, "I want you to know that I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." The aim was not to score a quick debate point or to cut Mondale low, it was to make the point that age is not a liability but a desired quality in a head of state; that age equates with experience, level headedness, and maturity.
Then there are the voter demographics and age related issues. The vast array of programs from social security to education and housing subsidies for seniors soaks up more than a quarter of the federal budget. Legions of senior citizen advocacy groups keep a hawk like watch on funding, spending, and possible cuts in those services. The slightest hint of any attack on social security either real or manufactured politically is the political kiss of death for a candidate. Seniors have the political muscle to make sure of that. Those aged 60 and older make up almost a quarter of those who turn out on Election Day.
There is no such thing as an old age voting bloc. Seniors vote based on their needs, personal tastes, interests, and political preferences, just like other voting groups. But seniors have been far more likely to vote for Republicans than Democrats. In 2004, those over aged 60 gave Bush a wider vote margin over John Kerry than any other age group.
McCain deftly snatched a page from Reagan’s political playbook, dampened the age issue, and will try to turn the age table on Obama. He’ll pound on the point that a school boy looking, relative political newcomer on the national scene simply can’t be trusted too make the mature, sober, and vital decisions that presidents have to make especially in times of war, terrorist peril and domestic crisis. The irony is that age may just turn out to be McCain’s trump card instead of the Democrat’s even if Obama tries to help him out of his chair when they debate.
On Saturday I went to a luncheon at the Pakistani consul general's house in Beverly Hills held in honor of the visiting Mirwaiz Omar Farooq. The mirwaiz (meer-wise) is the hereditary spiritual leader of the Kashmir Valley's 5.3 million or so Muslims; he took the post in 1990 at age 17, after his father was assassinated. In a snappy suit jacket, no tie, closely trimmed beard and no hat, he was barely recognizable at the backyard buffet. (Translation: He looked very L.A.!) He was also very eloquent, speaking at length about the need for the region to have a voice in his nonviolent quest for a solution to the Kashmir problem. Read what the mirwaiz said here at the Daily News, or at NYT clients such as the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
A sample:
"'Whatever is happening in Pakistan has a direct reflection on Kashmir and we believe that this peace process needs to be strengthened,' he replied. '...So it's very important that we have a government in Pakistan who is committed to the peace process with India, but at the same time who are ready to think out of the box, not just concentrate on whatever the policy has been in the past. They need to be more flexible in their approach.'The mirwaiz said he believes the peace process 'will gain some momentum once there's a stable government in Pakistan.'
...'People don't want violence, they want peace,' Farooq stressed. 'But peace with honor, peace with dignity. We don't want peace at the graveyard. And you cannot have peace in a vacuum.'"
The mirwaiz is constantly under threat from extremists for advocating dialogue; when his All Parties Hurriyat Conference began talks with India in 2006, Farooq's uncle was killed and Farooq's house was attacked. At this sunny Bev Hills event, I confess I kept thinking how pragmatic men like him need to stick around in this world, and it's worth saying a novena for the guy's safety.
And not to nosedive into trivial talk, but the Pakistani food was awesome at the lunch -- particularly flour patties with yogurt sauce, spinach and feta with naan (soft flatbread), korma, chicken tikka, and a shredded beef that was super-spicy. Today I found a Pakistani restaurant, Shahnawaz Halal Restaurant, and the shredded beef was included on the tandoori mix plate (but it was mintier than the buffet variety), plus the garlic naan was divine. Now where are the damn Rolaids??
A great idea, and one that will put many democracies on the hot seat (where as well they should be): If you don't have the guts to take a stand for human rights and boycott the Summer Games, do you at least have the balls to skip the party beforehand?
From Al-Jazeera:
"...Joel Voordewind, a member of the Christian Union that is a junior member of the ruling Dutch coalition government, said he wants governments around the world to support the boycott and lean on sponsors to use their financial clout with Beijing on the human rights issue.'It is possible to take part in the games but skip the party before hand,' he said.
'Such a ceremony is only intended to glorify the host, China.'
Voordewind also suggested setting up a venue in Beijing during the games where visitors can discuss human rights."
Er, good luck with that one. That'd quickly meet with a Red Army tank.
"He expected opposition from organisers, but said, 'If the Chinese are against the plan, that means they are against human rights.'''
Yeah, no kidding.
"Voordewind has only just begun enlisting world support. Neither the Dutch government nor the Olympic Committee have backed him.Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said the government regularly brings up human rights issues at meetings with Chinese officials and has no plans to support a boycott of the games or the opening ceremony."
That's because nobody intends to grow a pair before Beijing's gross spectacle.
The tipping point has been reached and Hillary Clinton is faced with the political version of Sophie’s Choice. She must decide between the fate of her party and her political ambition.
Last night, the results were clear. Obama won every category except white women over 60—the first modern generation of feminists who rightly feel both pride and loyalty in Hillary. Obama carried the black vote overwhelmingly, including black women. He carried the male vote by a significant proportion. He carried Democrats somewhat more narrowly, and he attracted a disproportionate number of independents. To be fair, some independents voted for him because the Republican contest was over and they could exercise their animus against Hillary.
To have won by such a percentage in a state not very different from Ohio, bodes ill for the Clinton campaign. Inevitability is gone, and desperation is in its stead. So fast has Obamamania grown that only three things can stop it. A really major gaff, a “Macaca moment” when he flies off the handle or seems mean or demeaning. (His wife Michele saying something as tone deaf and offensive as admitting that “this is the first time she’s been proud of America” was a Macaca moment, but as a spouse she may get one error…but that’s it! Candor is a not positive survival strategy in national elections.) Second, God forbid, a terrorist attack on our soil would move even the Democrats to the more experienced candidate who is tied (at least figuratively) to the former president, Bill.
The third way to stop Obama is the most likely and that is to go strongly and blatantly negative. She cannot catch him in a race, so someone has to trip him, mug him and beat him beyond recognition. They have to drag him through the mud with any and all charges. I have every confidence they will try this. They have to. They must realize however that mugging Obama might get the nomination but lead to a Chicago 68 style convention with the youthful enthusiasts disenchanted, sullen and angry.
This is a terrible calculation to have to make, but now is the moment. Do the Clintons go on an all out attack in order to bring Obama down or do they fade away and accept that she has a career in the Senate, and he can be an international statesman? Their history is to fight but she must know that she cannot win by catching up. The public has met her and prefers him. Charisma is not fair—ask Bob Dole or Gerald Ford or Al Gore. Her winning through the politics of personal destruction is not impossible by any means. But her use of any and all means will leave the party in a shambles. The hardest part of this political calculus is that if she wounds him and he wins, she will be marginalized. So she must either back off or go for the political kill. Not a great choice.
Boy, mention breasts and suddenly everyone's up in arms.
The DWP's $37,000 lactation program for new mother employees has been called into question by DWP commission chairman Nick Patsaouras. (We opined on the topic here)He got slammed as "anti-woman" yesterday in a Board of Water and Power Commissioners meeting. I don't know if Patsaouras is anti-woman, but I don't think being skeptical of such a curious perk is evidence either way.
In fact, it's really his job as a citizen commissioner to scrutinize the utility and its operations. In tough financial times when they keep raising rates ( I know my bill was HUGE last month) every non-essential expense ought to be considered. Lactation classes that most can get through health benefits or low-cost classes or find free information from La Leche League are fair game.
But, that said, I can understand (not condone or side with, mind you) the reactionism on the other side. Historically, American workplaces have not be exactly family friendly, especially to new mothers. It's not as bad as in Mexico, where employers can demand you take a pregnancy test before hiring you. But the working mothers (or fathers for that matter) have never had it easy and have had to fight for every benefit. It's too bad, because parents are often the hardest and loyalest workers. So, I think it's great for the DWP to have a room where breast-feeding mothers can pump. I know many a working mother who's had to sneak off to the bathroom to pump in secret, or their cars in the lot. But paying for lactation consultants and pump rentals? That might take the accommodating one step too far. Kinda of like having taxpayers pay to babysit the City Attorney's kids.
Anyway, since DWP Chief David Nahai promised not to cut the program, and he has that authority, it's a moot point anyhow.
Tim Rutten at the LA Times has a fun column today smacking Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's pandering to cops during SWAT Officer Randal Simmons's funeral -- and denigrating the media in the process. I agree with his assessment, but have to point o