When I was debating whether I wanted to come here, given my well-known gripes about so-called A-list bloggers, what tipped me over the edge was the chance to see perhaps the next President of the United States in a debate with the other candidates. Given that it's questionable whether there will even BE any more elections, this seemed like a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

And the event did not disappoint.

All of the candidates attended, with the exception of Joe Biden, who apparently had a scheduling conflict. Given the way the right has been having fits about this event for the last week, I have to give credit for all these candidates for having the guts to show up for an event that was clearly not designed for what most of them are accustomed to in running for office.

Some impressions:

As one might expect, Hillary Clinton was utterly hammered by this crowd. She is so completely out of touch with what matters to the netroots, which are increasingly the issues that matter to the rest of the country -- universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq, crumbling infrastructure, how to regain our stature in the world from the wreckage the Bush Administration has made it, employment issues, the deficit...

Hillary is very polished and very studied, but she clearly has her talking points down and this is not a crowd that's going to buy that she is the candidate for change. Her patter about change and accountability and the war ending the day she is inaugurated doesn't fly with this bunch. And the more she talked her standard campaign boilerplate, the less enthusiastic this crowd became. There's no doubt that she's smart. But when a question is asked about turning down money from Washington lobbyists, her answer is that there are also lobbyists who work for YOU -- presumably groups like the NEA and unions. But this simply shows just how clueless she is and how entrenched in Washingtonia she is even just halfway through her second term.

Not surprisingly, John Edwards jumped on this and pointed out that neither he nor Obama are taking lobbyist money, and that the lobbyists are doing the bidding of the people who employ them. He challenged Hillary to pledge to join them in not taking money from lobbyists and she refused. In front of this crowd, she might as well have said flat out that she's a Republican.

Barack Obama was asked about deficit reduction, and as far as I'm concerned, committed a huge faux pas in addressing his response to questioner Matt Bai instead of to the assembled audience. In a small group, makimg eye contact with the questioner is important, but when it's a debate/panel setting on a dais, directing the response to the questioner has the effect of essentially shutting out the audience, which in this case is the people on whom he needs to rely to do the heavy lifting and the grunt work of a long-haul campaign. Obama's intelligence is palpable, but my overall impression is that while he's going to be great, he's not quite ready for prime time. This is the kind of gaffe for which the press will jump all over him in a general election campaign.

John Edwards, asked about universal healthcare in the context of the huge deficit today. He was forceful in his insistence that the way to deal with healthcare is not through negotiation or compromise when it comes to health care. He pointed out that insurance companies are not going to give up control lightly. He framed his experience as a trial attorney as a positive in giving him experience in dealing with "these people." His experience as a trial lawyer is always present, but I noticed during the breakout group that followed the debate that when Edwards talks about something about which he feels passionate, he gets an oh-so-slight waver in his voice -- a departure from his polished demeanor so slight as to be almost imperceptible. But it is that slight window into man who still sees himself as the son of a millworker that makes you realize the depth behind the famous looks that have been the focus for so many slurs.

Bill Richardson, who was surprisingly effective and who demonstrated a sharpness and succinctness that we haven't really seen before, called for a Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget and a line-item veto. This was, predictably, greeted by catcalls from the assembled crowd. Richardson has said that he doesn't want a job in any administration unless he wins the presidency, which is a shame, because he has a great deal to offer a Democratic president.

The biggest surprise in recent weeks has been Chris Dodd, who after 26 years in the Senate has finally found his voice. We saw some of it with his smackdown of Billo earlier this week, and he was on fire today, drawing an enthusiastic response to his statements about media consolidation. Dodd has been a fine Senator and for some reason he now seems to feel free to be a liberal again, but he is not going to be the Democratic nominee. I do hope, however, that the eventual nominee finds a role for him in the campaign. He's smart, passionate, knowledgeable -- and a cautionary tale of what can happen when you stay in the Senate too long; except that he seems to have recognized his own hackery and seems to enjoy this journey of finding the causes that made him want to enter public service in the first place.

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were also in attendance. But Kucinich, for all that he is in many ways the voice of the conscience of the Democratic Party, also isn't going to be president. I hope this is the last time he runs, for the only reason he isn't the comic relief in this most important year is because Mike Gravel is around. Gravel too occasionally says something pithy and sensible, but often he is like a marginally more lucid version of Grandpa Simpson. I half expect him to start talking about how he had an onion tied to his belt...which was the style at the time.

It's impossible to underestimate how important it is that these candidates came to Chicago today. In previous years, these candidates would have been at the DLC conference, talking about "New Democrats" -- a thinly veiled form of corporatism disguised as a so-called "correction for the excesses of the left."

But what excesses have the mainstream left engaged in and advocated? Medicare? Activism to end wars in Vietnam -- and now Iraq? Head Start? The Civil Rights act of 1964? Alternative fuels and energy independence? We were doing that during the Carter years -- until Ronald Reagan became president and took the solar panels off the White House.

The progressive netroots has done nothing but remind those who would listen that the government belongs to the people -- not to corporations, not to politicians, and certainly not to the Bush family and those who would turn this country into something akin to the Middle Ages -- a theocracy led by a royal family making shifting alliances and going to war with whomever isn't our ally today...a feudal society in which the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few families with the rest of us scrambling for the few scraps they deign to give us.

I remember when I was growing up. I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and "duck and cover" and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. I remember the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I lived through the turmoil of the late 1960's and the rise of Republicanism in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan. During my lifetime, the things that even conservatives say make us great were all implemented by liberals. And then they set out to try to destroy those very things.

Last night the Democrats failed to live up to their own heritage by giving this most disastrous of presidents the authority to spy in the very citizens who employ them. Right now I'm listening to a surprisingly touching and heartfelt speech by the Great Orange Satan. This afternoon, those who want to take on the thankless task of cleaning up the worst mess George W. Bush has ever made in his life of messes to clean up recognized that those of us who remember -- and those of us who remember what liberalism can do, or have read about what liberalism can do, had a meeting of the minds.

This has been an extraordinary weekend, with the kind of energy I never expected to see again in my lifetime. And now we take it to our homes and communities. We will kick the greedmongers out of Washington DC -- and we will demand accountability from those who replace them.

More from:

Jane Hamsher

Labels: 2008 election, Yearly Kos 2007

It's always funny when virgins try to describe the experience.

Labels: Yearly Kos 2007

Flair:



Flair:

Labels: 2007, movies, Yearly Kos

Yesterday there was a great deal of speculation about whether Hillary Clinton had decided to bow out of her appearance at today's Leadership Panel, after an announcement of an appearance by two members of her campaign staff. At her campaign booth in the exhibit hall, a hand-scrawled poster saying "Hillary WILL be here on Saturday" was posted to dispel these rumors.

I can't help but wonder whether this gathering was in the minds of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as they cast their votes in opposition to legislation allowing President 26% to continue spying on whomever he pleases. Neither Clinton nor Obama are known as risk-takers, and both have been given to bellicose rhetoric of late in an attempt to show their national security bona fides. Especially given the TSA's admission last week that the so-called "Cheese Bomb Wannabes" that had given everyone (including me) the vapors just a few days before were completely bogus, it's hardly surprising that people would view the context of new threats with skepticism. Still, for these Senators to vote to allow a president who has already shown that he will spy on people suspected of nothing more than questioning his policies to continue to do so would have caused them to answer to their base today. So good on them for at least trying to keep this president in check.

There's no question that this legislation puts Senate Democrats between a rock and a hard place. If there IS another attack, those voting against giving Bush this authority will hear it from the Republicans and their Mighty Media Wurlitzer. But with an Administration that is already known to fabricate and publicize and exaggerate threats that either don't exist or aren't a credible threat solely for political gain as they move us closer to the police state of old Prescott Bush's dreams, one has to question what is the more real, significant and imminent threat to our freedom -- terrorists from whose attacks this president will claim he's protecting us when we know that he ignored warnings the last time, or an executive branch run completely amok as its members continue to try to exploit the fears of the citizenry in their quest for absolute, unshared power.

Labels: domestic spying

If he were here, I might have to ask Bob Geiger to ask him if he now regrets so strongly supporting the nomination of Bob Casey for the Pennsylvania Senate in 2004. Casey was one of 16 Senators to vote to give President 26% the authority to wiretap Americans for any reason at any time:

A furious push by the White House to broaden its wiretapping authority appeared on the verge of victory on Friday night after the Senate approved a measure that would temporarily give the administration more latitude to eavesdrop without court warrants on foreign communications that it suspects may be tied to terrorism.

The House is expected to take up the White House-backed measure on Saturday morning before going into its summer recess.

Democratic leaders acknowledged that the bill would probably pass.

Democrats in both the House and the Senate failed to pass competing measures on Friday that would have included tougher judicial checks and oversight on the eavesdropping powers.

The White House and Congressional Republicans hailed the Senate vote as critical to plugging what they saw as dangerous gaps in the intelligence agencies’ ability to detect terrorist threats.

Last November, Americans elected a Democratic Congress to provide some measure of checks and balances against an executive branch that has gone completely out of control. Today, sixteen Democrats voted against the American people.

In addition to the aforementioned Bob Casey, the other sellouts are:

Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Tom Carper (Delaware)
Kent Conrad (North Dakota)
Dianne Feinstein (California)
Daniel Inouye (Hawai‘i)
Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Nancy Landrieu (Louisiana)
Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland) (WTF???)
Bill Nelson (Florida)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)

and tragically:

Jim Webb (Virginia)

Labels: Democrats, spinelessness

OK, folks....can you help out a fellow blogger who's down on his luck? I have an AVI file from my digital camera that I have to split in two in order to upload it to YouTube. Anyone know how I can split this file? Windows Movie Maker says it will export the split item as a file of over 1800 MB.

Labels: technology, video

Melina's mom listens to right-wing talk radio, and this morning she reported that the Usual Suspects of right-wing talk radio have been All Yearly Kos, All The Time.

It appears that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Rahm Emmanuel, all of whom were expected to appear here tomorrow morning, have cancelled. Right now only Chuck Schumer is still on the schedule.

Is there a connection?

It's beyond disheartening if in fact these Democratic leaders have decided to say a giant "fuck you" to the netroots, though it's hardly surprising. Republicans have won elections by playing to their base; Democrats thumb their noses at their own base.

It's too bad that none of these people on the right-wing airwaves opining about a conference about which they know nothing haven't actually come here to see for themselves. But then, the right talking smack about things they've never seen is nothing new, is there?

If the Democratic Leadership is still going to be cowed by right-wing radio talkers needing to fill a 24/7 broadcast day, it's impossible to have any confidence that they will stand up to an intransigent Republican Party. Why are Democrats choosing to allow Rush Limbaugh to decide to whom they will speak?

Ask why these Democratic leaders are allowing right wing talk show hosts to dictate to whom they include in the partyh. Let Pelosi, Reid, and Emmanuel know that we are Democrats too, and that we are not going to sit down and we are not going to shut up. And let them know that they cannot win without us:

Nancy Pelosi:
(415) 556-4862
(202) 225-4965
or email her office at: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov.

Harry Reid contact form:
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
DC office phone: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327

Rahm Emmanuel contact form:
http://www.house.gov/emanuel/IMA/issue.htm
DC office phone: 202-225-4061
fax: 202-225-5603

Labels: Democrats, spinelessness

This morning I attended a session entitled "Evolution and Integration of the Blogosphere", a self-congratulatory panel moderated by Chris Bowers (late of MyDD), featuring Tracy Russo (blogger for John Edwards' campaign), Ali Savino (Center for Independent Media), the Big Blue Smurf, Amanda Turkel (ThinkProgress), Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon), and Matt Stoller (late of MyDD).

I can't say I didn't anticipate the self-congratulatory, "holding court" atmosphere of this session, but what struck me was the similarity between the "We're successful because we work really hard and if you work as hard as we do you can be successful too" message that those who were early adopters of the blog format convey and the "I got mine and fuck you" attitude of Republicans. The so-called "top-tier" bloggers have been defensive of late at having been accused of running a closed shop. At this panel, that defensiveness was very much in evidence, enhanced by the "panel on the podium talking to the assembled masses layout of the room. I thought my head would explode when Tracy Russo opined that the reason they have been successful is because they work very hard to get where they are.

When you think about some of those bloggers lurking just below the top tier, people like Driftglass and the Group News Blog folks, the idea that hard work is what makes bloggers successful (and by implication, those who are still trying to achieve traction are slackers) is like saying that Warren Buffett is more successful than the average family living in the projects because he works harder.

Isn't this illusion of meritocracy and this notion that it's ALL about hard work the very thing we knock when Republicans advocate against a social safety net? Don't we rail against Republicans for insisting that the reason you can no longer afford to pay your mortgage isn't because you had to train your H-1B replacement and you are over 50 and can't find another job but because you simply aren't trying hard enough? Isn't a certain degree of collectivism and sharing part of progressive philosophy? So for a progressive blogger to claim "It's all because we work harder than you do" in a room full of bloggers, is breathtaking.

To be fair, later on in the session, lip service was given to the notion of outreach, but it's clear that the belief that because there is no formal central authority who decides who makes it and who doesn't there is no elitism among bloggers is preposterous. Chris Bowers loves to joke about "We all take our orders from Markos", but his voice drips with condescension towards the Great Unwashed Masses as he does so.

The other topic discussed was whether the individual blog has gone the way of the dodo -- another meme that has been given a lot of air of late. I wrote movie reviews online for seven years, and in the heyday of online film criticism, we faced the same issues -- whether an individual reviewer could generate enough content to make a viable site. Online film criticism evolved from many individual sites to group collective sites. Gabriel (ModFab) and I started Mixed Reviews from two individual sites, but later on we added two more critics. Anyone reviewing movies online was sooner or later asked to "gain exposure" by writing for another startup online magazine -- no payment, just "links and exposure." Now, with political blogging, history is repeating itself. Earlier this year, WNBC in New York fed shrimp to a few hundred bloggers offering to provide "links and exposure" in exchange for bloggers providing content to General Electric. Group blogs are running around here recruiting contributors, saying "We need content." Of course they do. Ever-changing content is required to generate the traffic that generates ad revenue. But I think it's dangerous to buy into the meme that it is somehow OK to give away your work in exchange for some vague promise of "links and exposure."

The reason that the Heathers in a high school have power is because those not in that inner circle bestow power upon them by longing to enter the club. The reality is that most of us aren't going to make a living blogging. We will continue to have to work a real job, take care of kids, pay the mortgage on time, and other mundane aspects of life. So we have to decide for whom it is we blog, and why we blog. I blog because for me, writing is like breathing. If I stop doing one, I may stop doing the other. I blog so that people I know who may not read other blogs see the stories they may not find elsewhere. I blog to keep my sanity. I blog because not to do so is unthinkable. I blog because by writing, I come across other writers who visit this blog who blow me away with their talent.

And THAT is what lower-tier bloggers ought to be doing. Forget about the big boys. You're never going to be invited to play golf with the CEO and you're never going to be in their club. Decide why you blog, and help out other bloggers who deserve greater recognition. Blog because you love it. Don't blog for ad revenue, or for recognition by the famous, or because you want your name on the masthead of a group blog. If you want a blog that reflects your own identity, don't let anyone talk you into giving that up so you can be part of a group blog where someone else makes a living.

On Sunday, I'll be inviting five or six people to guestblog from August 11-17. Those who aren't selected shouldn't think it's because their work is lacking. I'm just another mid-tier blogger who isn't going to have computer access for a week. Frankly, I'm thrilled that there have been so many people who want to guestblog. Part of my mission is to recognize writers I think are good so that the few hundred people who visit here every day will consider visiting them too. My eyes are always open.

And that's a promise.

Labels: Alpha Dogs, bloggers, blogging

The way I see it, if you're going to share a hotel and conference center with the Order of the Sphinz convention, you might as well get in the spirit.

I don't know why I have this knack for staying at hotels hosting conventions of Masonic orders. Maybe it's from having read The Illuminatus Trilogy. Or having been one of those Trash Culture Mutants looking for Illuminati symbols everywhere. But this is the second time for me. First time was at a Shriner's convention in Virginia Beach. This time it's the Order of the Sphinx, which looks to be an African-American order consisting of elegantly-dressed, largely unsmiling but friendly people in star-studded neckpieces and fezzes. When combined with the strange pagan rituals of the 2000 or so progressive activists (no, they are not all Kossacks) currently powwowing here at the McCormick Place Convention Center, it's making for an interesting, convivial environment.

I can't tell you anything about the Order of the Sphinx (though Melina is trying mightily to find out), but the strange pagan rituals at the group I'm with consists largely of drinking coffee, sitting hunched in front of laptops, partcipating in caucuses on how to be more effective activists and bloggers, wandering the cavernous halls of the Center looking for coffee, bathrooms (in that order) and free food -- the latter because at this joint, a cup of coffee will set you back three bucks, a bottled water $2.50, and a salad $15.

Right now I'm at Wesley Clark's Friday morning keynote. Those of you who were hoping Clark would throw his hat into the ring, it's time to take the bumper sticker off the car, because Clark made it clear this morning (albeit not in so many words), that he is not running. Clark is a far more effective and engaging speaker then I expected him to be. He's speaking to his particular area of expertise, which is the military and the handling of Iraq in particular and terrorism in general. I wish that anyone (*cough* Republican s *cough*) who thinks "Democrats don't get it" could hear this guy.

What's coming out of this conference is an emphasis on how to most effectively try to repair the horrific damage done by the Bush Administration, from gutting the social safety net to raping the planet and everything in between. This is hardly the Two Himutes Hate envisioned by Loofah Boy and his mouthbreathing, slobbering undead minions. The only people who need be afraid of the people here are those who truly believe that America should be a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, run entirely by wealthy white men with the power to decide how many scraps they're going to share.

But while this may be the progressive politics junkie's Jerusalem, the real fun here is talking to other bloggers. The term "bloggers" is loosely used here, and spans from the ridiculous guys who lurk on Daily Kos and thought this would be a good place to pick up easy chicks to the people who identify as bloggers because they post a comment on Daily Kos every now and then, to people like Christy Hardin Smith and Bob Geiger, who find the irony of so-called progressive bloggers earning their living off their blogs and then pulling up the ladder behind them and helping only each other.

(Aside: Clark is really on fire here, noting what every Democratic candidate ought to say to George W. Bush and the Republicans. "THIS IS YOUR WAR." Damn, he is really, really good. Diplomacy. Engagement. Strategy. Notions that shouldn't be radical, but in the context of six-plus years of Republican warmongering seems so.

So who am us, anyway? We're one of you....and you're one of us...and...

OK, enough of that.

If there is one major concern that the denizens of this conference should note is the relative lack of diversity at this conference. This crowd is whiter than the array of Democratic candidates. Last night Howard Dean (video to be posted on YouTube later) talked about Democratic strengths among young, Latino, and black voters. Yet minorities are seriously underrepresented here. Some of this may be attributed to the cost of attending a conference like this, for unless you're prepared to spend close to a grand on airfare and the $149/night conference rate at the hotel, you're not going to be here.

If anyone from the organizing committee is reading this, may I just suggest something? While the centralized conference is seriously fun, and is of course the best way to attract national candidates to attend, why not put together at the same time a group of regional satellite conferences, wired into the main one via videoconference, thus making it a truly national convention that represents the diversity in the progressive movements. Barring that, at the very least, the minute this conference ends, and if possible before, start putting together a "scholarship fund" to help defray some of the costs of attending this conference for those who cannot afford to attend. For if there's one reservation I have about this conference (other than the Big Boiz walking around as if waiting for someone to kiss the ring), it's that it is an extremely white group. On the one hand, it means that the Republicans are not, much as they would like to be, the political home for Comfortable White People, but that not everyone who is Caucasian carries the "I got mine and fuck you" attitude that Republicans think is part of the definition of being white. On the other hand, it still feeds into that old "limousine liberal" stereotype. We need to find a way to get the voices of underrepresented communities into this annual dialogue.

UPDATE: Here's Clark's speech, courtesy of Pam:

Labels: 2007, 2008 election, bloggers, Yearly Kos

Oh Magoo, you've done it again.

Please, Bill O'Reilly, spare [The Daily and Yearly Koseaux] from your savage and inexplicable rage. We can't take any more of it. Being defended by Keith Olbermann... being roundly and sternly publicized by Stephen Colbert... it's all too much. The extra traffic, the publicity, the footage of your narcissistic tantrums... the subsequent exposure of hate speech and death threats on your pay-to-post blog. How can any liberal website withstand such a well-planned assault?

Please, Bill, I am personally begging you: stop your organized Fox News effort to promote us to wider and wider audiences. Between you and your Fox News compatriot Bill Kristol, we can't take it anymore. How are we supposed to compete with a man whose written punditry has led to the deaths of tens of thousands? How can we sustain ourselves when attacked by a talk show host well known for his fabrication of facts and stories? Our imaginary lesbian street gangs have been decimated already: what more havoc will Fox News wreak upon us in our hour of despair?

I have won twenty seven separate Peabody awards over the past three months - no perhaps it was fifty two, I lose count. It was getting so bad I had to melt them down into one big Peabody award. I made it really look like Peabody, too - Mr. Peabody, the cartoon character. I use it as a doorstop. But now I am feeling guilty. After receiving as many as five concerned emails from your dozens of adoring fans, I have come to a heartfelt conclusion - I must sell my cherished Peabody Peabody, and use the proceeds to help your fans buy themselves some lowercase letters. Seeing an entire class of individuals so cruelly afflicted, having to make do with uppercase letters and exclamation points when there is a whole world of glyphs and punctuations waiting nearly at their doorsteps, cold and trembling and nuanced - it is too much. I am not the kind of monster who can ignore such heartfelt, if badly spelled, pleas.

Sniff! Sniff! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

No, we thin wraiths of progressive punditry cannot hold against this onslaught. Please, please call off your cruel assault on us. Please do not mention us on your program anymore, sending waves and waves of progressives to see what the fuss is about. Please stop forcing Democratic lawmakers into expressions of support for our tiny little movement. Please stop obliging other, better news programs and fake news programs to report on your ongoing Jihad of Jackassery: these things have wounded us greatly.

First one out of the blocks with a crispy baguette joke wins!

H/t: the Rude Pundit, crossposted at Blanton's & Ashton's.

Labels: fake news

I'm off this morning to meet Melina at the Chicago Conclave of the Secret Order of the Dirty Fucking Hippies. I anticipate taking part in many secret rituals, such as listening to speeches, participating in breakout groups, walking my feet off, sharing an electrical outlet via powerstrip, trawling for swag, and just generally doing what I can to give Bill O'Reilly apoplexy. I've got my laptop, my MP3 player with the microphone, a cell phone, and my trusty Fuji A800 (Thanks, Dad!), so watch for updates, photos, and snark, coming soon to this space.

Labels: blogging, Yearly Kos

"The reports I'm hearing from people whose views I respect indicate that the Petraeus plan is in fact producing results." -- Dick Cheney, to Larry King, July 31, 2007

And here are those results:

Baghdad shook with bombings and political upheaval Wednesday as the largest Sunni Arab bloc quit the government and a suicide attacker blew up his fuel tanker in one of several attacks that claimed 142 lives nationwide.

The Iraqi Accordance Front's withdrawal from the Cabinet leaves only two Sunnis in the 40-member body, undermining Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's efforts to pull together rival factions and pass reconciliation laws the U.S. considers benchmarks that could lead to sectarian reconciliation.

The U.S. military announced the deaths of four more American soldiers, including three killed in Baghdad on Tuesday by a powerful armor-piercing bomb. Washington says these types of bombs are sent from Iran. The fourth soldier was killed by small arms fire on the same day. A British soldier also was killed Tuesday in a roadside bombing.

The American military announced it found a mass grave in Diyala province northeast of the capital. The grave contained 17 bodies of mostly Sunni Muslims — including women, children and elderly people — killed by al-Qaida in Iraq, the military said in a statement. U.S. forces did not say how they knew the attackers were al-Qaida in Iraq.

Altogether at least 142 Iraqis were killed or found dead, including 70 in three separate bombings Wednesday in Baghdad. The violence came after July ended as the second-deadliest month for Iraqis so far this year, but with the lowest U.S. death toll in eight months.

But as long as the dead are Iraqis, Americans really don't much care. And Dick Cheney sure as hell doesn't care.

Labels: Iraq casualties

I really wish I could support Hillary Clinton. I wish she wasn't a triangulating corporatist who hobnobs with Rupert Murdoch and thinks we have to find "common ground" with people who want to punish unchaste women with God's curse of mandatory pregnancy. I really do. For one thing, it would be thrilling to support a woman who has a very real chance of being elected. For another thing, it would be so nice to work for someone who gives the wingnuts such apoplexy:

Over the last year, as Republicans have sought out their next standard bearer, no candidate has excited their passions and united their focus more than the Democratic senator from New York. Clinton is regularly evoked in stump speeches, presidential debates and fundraising events as a symbol for all that the Republican voters stand to lose in the coming election. She is, in many ways, the glue now keeping the Grand Old Party from further splintering into disarray after the 2006 elections.

"It unifies the party. It motivates a part of the base," explains Grover Norquist, a longtime party activist who runs the group Americans for Tax Reform. "Hillary can be scary."

It's those Boobs of Mass Destruction, I guess.

The Republican focus on Clinton may say more about the Republican Party than it does about her inevitability as the Democratic nominee. Though she polls better nationally than her Democratic rivals, she currently trails slightly in most Iowa caucus polls to John Edwards, and she has been surprisingly outstripped in fundraising by Barack Obama. But this has not stopped Republicans from referring regularly to the Democratic Party as a shell organization at the beck and command of the Clinton family, even if that's a flimsy caricature at best.

Norquist, for one, insists he is confident that Clinton will come out on top. "The Clintons run the Democratic Party the way the Bhutto family runs the PPP," he said, in a reference to the corrupt and dynastic Pakistan People's Party. Republican leaders, such as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, long ago elevated the Clinton family to nearly mythic stature, claiming that the Clintons are backed by a vast "George Soros-funded, Harold Ickes-led shadow party." But Republicans have a history of glaring disconnection between their strategic prognostications about the Democrats and the way things actually turn out. As recently as the fall of 2003, presidential advisor Karl Rove was betting hamburgers in the White House that Howard Dean would be the Democratic nominee. A few months later, Dean's campaign deflated after the first caucus returns in Iowa.

Actually, once Rove said this, the Democratic Party took the bait and decided that Dean must be stopped, even though it turned out later that Dean was the candidate he feared most:

"'The good news for us is that Dean is not the nominee,' Rove now argued to an associate in his second floor West Wing office. Dean's unconditional opposition to the Iraq War could have been potent in a face-off with Bush. 'One of Dean's strengths though was he could say, I'm not part of that crowd down there.' But Kerry was very much a part of the Washington crowd and he had voted in favor of the resolution for war. Rove got out his two-inch-think loose-leaf binder titled 'Bring It On.' It consisted of research into Kerry's 19-year record in the Senate. Most relevant were pages 9-20 of the section on Iraq."

Woodward explained that, "Rove believed they had Kerry pretty cold on voting to give the president a green light for war and then backing off when he didn't like the aftermath or saw a political opportunity. Whatever the case, Rove sounded as if he believed they could inoculate the president on the Iraq War in a campaign with Kerry."

"Rove," Woodward observed, "was gleeful."

With Clinton and Obama tossing barbs at each other, John Edwards is able to plod doggedly along, without the media spotlight, and run against the Republicans already:



I'm under no illusions here. The Democratic Party apparatchiks have shown me that they are bound and determined to lose, and so I am still convinced that Hillary will be the nominee. And it's a damn shame that the first viable woman candidate is someone I distrust so much.

Labels: 2008 election, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards

No, I'm not making fun of seizures OR epilepsy. But when presented with idiocy like this, humor is the only response. Yesterday Michael the Savage Weiner, gave the Democrats far more credit than that particular hapless bunch deserves:

Am I to believe there's no connection between Charles Schumer on Friday saying he would never appoint, or never, excuse me, approve another Bush appointment to the court, to any court? And then the chief justice suffers a so-called seizure two days later? You're telling me there's no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats to have caused this seizure in some manner?" He added: "Tell me it's not possible, and I'll tell you you're a liar.

[snip]

And so, this is pretty amazing to me that he's had a seizure at age 52. That's a pretty amazing thing. They say that he had a similar episode in 1993 and that now they're telling us there's no cause for concern and you don't know what to believe. But he will remain in the hospital and will remain overnight. Now why he had a seizure I don't know. I don't think he was asked to dine in Manhattan on his way to Maine. I don't think he was asked to share a sandwich on his way to Maine, do you? They say, "Well it can't happen here. It's impossible."

Well, let me ask you something. You remember the Russian who ate some polonium sushi? He was going to give an interview that was embarrassing to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin? He ate a polonium sushi and then he died. Well, they do it over there when there's a lot of money at stake, don't they? Power at stake? What's a human being to power-mad people and power-mad parties? Nothing.

So why can't we assume for a moment that it's within the realm of possibility that Roberts was in some way -- his health was in some way tampered with by the Democrats because they can't believe that no matter what they do, no matter what they do -- even if they engineer a victory for Hillary Clinton/[Barack] Obama -- they're still not going to be in control because the court's moved to the center? Just a thought.

No, Mr. Savage....it's called a delusion. Believe me, if the Democrats were capable of what you're saying, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Gonzo would be not only out of power, but sitting in a brig somewhere. Do you really think that the Democrats deliberately hired Japanese animators to create boobytrapped cartoons that were then watched by John Roberts as he was stepping off a boat....perhaps while wearing a virtual reality headset? But hey, Mike, while you're at it....isn't it interesting that Roberts' last seizure was in 1993? Wasn't that the first year of the (wait for it)......CLINTON ADMINISTRATION?????? After all, he WAS deputy solicitor general for George Herbert Walker Bush, right? Maybe when Clinton took office, he implanted an electrode in Roberts' brain, anticipating with his SUPERIOR KICKASS GIFT OF PROPHESY that George H.W. Bush's son would someday nominate Roberts to the Supreme Court. Yes! That's IT!

Wow....this is easier than I thought.

Mr. Olbermann, I think you've found your Worst Person in the World for tonight.

(big ups to Libby Spencer for finding this one.)

Labels: idiocy, wingnuttia

Your tax dollars at work:

Supplies and medicine in strife-torn Baghdad's overcrowded hospitals have been siphoned off and sold elsewhere for profit because of corruption in the Iraqi Ministry of Health, according to a draft U.S. government report obtained by NBC News.

The report, written by U.S. advisers to Iraq's anti-corruption agency, analyzes corruption in 12 ministries and finds devastating and grim problems. "Corruption protected by senior members of the Iraqi government," the report said, "remains untouchable."

One potential problem is in the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, according to the report.

The report said that "the prime minister’s office has on a number of occasions intervened on cases involving political supporters."

Gee, ya think? He's learned from the masters.

Labels: corruption, Iraq

When was the last time you heard anyone talk about epilepsy? I thought so. But now that Justice John Roberts has had a second major seizure, he fits the criteria for epilepsy and a determination must be made as to whether he requires medication:

“I would recommend taking medication,” Dr. Barkley said. “The intervals tend to get shorter and shorter, and people tend to have recurrent seizures.”

He explained: “The brain learns from practice. The more you practice, the better you get, whether you’re playing the piano or having seizures. The more you have, the more you’re going to have. Most neurologists feel that the best way to intervene is to get the seizures under control as quickly as possible.”

Dr. Robert S. Fisher, director of the epilepsy center at Stanford University and a past president of the American Epilepsy Society, said: “In my view, it would be reasonable not to treat. It sounds like he went 14 years between seizures, and that’s a lot of pills to take to prevent the next seizure 14 years from now. The new ones are better than the old ones in terms of side effects, but they all have potential side effects and risks.”

Doctors say a complete medical workup is needed to find out if the two reported seizures were really the only ones that have occurred, because people with epilepsy can have mild seizures that they are not aware of. Neurologists often ask family members whether patients have certain symptoms, like daydreaming or blanking out for brief intervals, and not snapping out of it when others try to speak to them. Other symptoms may include dizziness, sensations in the stomach, feelings of déjà vu or noticing odd smells or tastes in the mouth — experiences that the patient may not recognize as seizures.

Often, Dr. Barkley said, a patient will report having had one seizure, but when asked about these other symptoms will say, “Oh, yes, that happens all the time.”

If such symptoms are frequent, it may sway the decision in favor of treatment.

Dr. Cynthia L. Harden, a professor of neurology at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, said it would be important to perform brain-wave studies to look for abnormal electrical activity in the brain, to get an idea of where the seizures may be starting and how frequent they are.

Dr. Harden said such studies during sleep were especially useful, and could help in making the decision about treatment. In people with epilepsy, Dr. Harden said, sleep deprivation can be a potent cause of seizures. The chief justice has had a busy schedule recently, including a two-week trip to Europe during which he attended conferences and taught.

Unless he can be shown to have had multiple milder seizures, this would be a tough call. On the one hand, you don't want to take medication unless absolutely necessary, but if the next seizure takes place, say, behind the wheel of a car, the consequences could be catastrophic for himself and others.

One would hope that as with any disease afflicting someone high-profile, Roberts allows his experience to enable shining a brighter light on a disease that is not uncommon, but is rarely discussed. One would also hope that the next time a case involving health care comes before him, he reflects on the excellent care he receives from the United States government, and on whether all Americans should be able to obtain the level of care he is receiving.

Labels: health, JOhn Roberts

Tips-only compensation. Yes, this is in Mexico, but how long do you think it'll take for Wal-Mart to pull this kind of crap here?

Wal-Mart is Mexico’s largest private-sector employer in the nation today, with nearly 150,000 local residents on its payroll. An additional 19,000 youngsters between the ages of 14 and 16 work after school in hundreds of Wal-Mart stores, mostly as grocery baggers, throughout Mexico—and none of them receives a red cent in wages or fringe benefits. The company doesn’t try to conceal this practice: its 62 Superama supermarkets display blue signs with white letters that tell shoppers: OUR VOLUNTEER PACKERS COLLECT NO SALARY, ONLY THE GRATUITY THAT YOU GIVE THEM. SUPERAMA THANKS YOU FOR YOUR UNDERSTANDING. The use of unsalaried youths is legal in Mexico because the kids are said to be “volunteering” their services to Wal-Mart and are therefore not subject to the requirements and regulations that would otherwise apply under the country’s labor laws. But some officials south of the U.S. border nonetheless view the practice as regrettable, if not downright exploitative. “These kids should receive a salary,” says Labor Undersecretary Patricia Espinosa Torres. “If you ask me, I don’t think these kids should be working, but there are cultural and social circumstances [in Mexico] rooted in poverty and scarcity.”

In a country where nearly half of the population scrapes by on less than $4 a day, any income source is welcome in millions of households, even if it hinges on the goodwill of a tipping customer. And Wal-Mart did not invent the bagger program that, as a written statement from the company notes, pre-dates the firm’s arrival in Mexico, nor is it alone within the country’s retail sector in benefiting from the toil of unpaid adolescents. But in Mexico City, for example, the 4,300 teenagers who work in Wal-Mart’s retail stores free of charge dwarf similar numbers laboring unpaid for Mexican competitors like Comercial Mexicana (715) and Gigante (427). Although Wal-Mart’s worldwide code of ethics expressly forbids any “associate” from working without compensation, the company’s Mexican subsidiary asserts that the grocery baggers “cannot be considered workers.” The Mexico City government’s top labor official dismisses that contention as so much corporate hogwash. “To my mind, that is not an accurate description because the bagger is providing a service on the store’s premises that benefits the company by serving the customer better,” argues Federal District Labor Secretary Benito Mirón Lince. “In economic terms, Wal-Mart does have the capability to pay the minimum wage [of less than $5 a day], and this represents an injustice.”

The main difference between Mexico and the U.S. is that at least in Mexico, the labor secretary has the humanity to recognize that this is appalling. Elaine Chao would probably think this is a swell idea to get American teens off the streets and wonder why she didn't think of it first.

Of course uncompensated "teen volunteer workers" aren't completely alien to the U.S. labor market, only here they're called "summer interns." In theory they are learning skills that they can use to land paid jobs later on, but does anyone doubt that someone in a boardroom somewhere hasn't thought about doing most software development in the summertime when uncompensated help is available?

Labels: employment

As more information comes out about the Justice Department being used to disenfranchise voters through attempts to aggressively prosecute so-called "voter fraud", more Americans are willing to believe that not just the 2000 election, but also the 2004 election, was stolen for George W. Bush.

Between executive orders allowing the president to declare anyone he wants an "unperson" and confiscate all that person's assets simply on his say-so, detention camps being built for unknown reasons, and frightening rumbles of expanded wars in Pakistan Iran, and now Turkey, we are seeing the result of allowing a president who would steal an election to take office.

Now, with the House of Representatives getting ready to go on vacation without acting on electronic voting problems, it seems that even after two elections, technologically ignorant Congresspeople refuse to take seriously just how easy it is to hack the existing voting machines:

Matthew A. Bishop, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Davis, who led the team that tried to compromise the machines, said his group was surprised by how easy it was not only to pick the physical locks on the machines, but also to break through the software defenses meant to block intruders.

Professor Bishop said that all the machines had problems and that one of the biggest was that the manufacturers appeared to have added the security measures after the basic systems had been designed.

By contrast, he said, the best way to create strong defenses is “to build security in from the design, in Phase 1.”

It's clear that the Republican Party in this country decided in 2000 not to trust its ideology and agenda to win elections for it, but instead work the process to its advantage. Democrats allowed themselves to be bamboozled in 2000 and 2004. Only Josh Marshall's noting of a pattern behind the firing of a group of U.S. attorneys thwarted the plan to rig the 2008 election by using the United States Department of Justice to systematically disenfranchise members of groups believed to be Democratic voters -- Latinos, African-Americans, and the elderly.

The Republican way is not to win hearts and minds, but to win by any means necessary. Democrats in Congress are still living in an earlier generation, when Tip O'Neill could fight tooth and nail on the House floor and then go out for collegial drinks with those same antagonists. Those days are gone. These guys play for keeps. It's not enough for them to win, they have to stomp their opponents into the ground.

Do Democrats believe in fair elections or not?

Labels: 2008 election, vote suppression

Aside from some very minor snark about Chelsea Clinton's employment with a hedge fund, not even Chatty Cathy Jodi Kantor can find anything bad to say about Chelsea Clinton:

And if her mother, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, manages to become the first female president of the United States, Chelsea Clinton could be in a historic, head-spinning position of her own: the first first child twice over.

She certainly brings experience to the job. At age 12, she appeared in Bill Clinton’s “Man From Hope” video, testifying to his fatherly virtues. (Mr. Clinton also told viewers of his daughter’s forgiving reaction to his admissions about marital transgressions.) During the Monica Lewinsky scandal six years later, she was photographed hand in hand with her parents, seemingly holding them together.

When Mrs. Clinton first ran for the Senate, her 20-year-old daughter crisscrossed New York State by her side. Now, at 27, Ms. Clinton is still clapping and beaming on her parents’ behalf, accompanying them on trips (recently, to Aspen, Colo., Germany and Israel), fund-raising ( she helped bring in more than $20 million for her father’s foundation this fall) and playing a more glamorous version of her lifelong role: model daughter.

“It’s ‘The Truman Show,’ ” said Jill Kargman, a friend of Ms. Clinton, citing the movie about a character whose entire life is a reality television program.

But like Truman, who eventually breaks free, Ms. Clinton now has her own life: a hedge fund job, a serious boyfriend, a tight circle of friends and a permanent place setting on the New York party circuit.

[snip]

Colleagues from McKinsey and Avenue Capital give a uniform account of Ms. Clinton, saying that she came early, stayed late, showed sound judgment and asked no special favors. At a benefit last month for the School of American Ballet, on whose board she serves, Ms. Clinton seemed as hardworking as the other attendees did festive. Most of the women her age wore bright gowns and bare skin, but Ms. Clinton wore a dark pantsuit, her hair smoothed and fastened back into a strawberry-blond sheet. She slipped out before the performance ended, telling friends she had to return to her computer.

[snip]

But when Ms. Clinton is introduced, she often comes across as an inquisitive student. Daniela Amini, a friend, recently watched her navigate a dinner table full of strangers by asking well-informed questions about subjects like Iranian history, antique carpets and Russian literature.

Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, has watched the deliberate way Ms. Clinton navigates the award-and-cocktail-party circuit. “She’s more than aware that she could be a week’s worth of headlines or a month’s worth of rumors,” Mr. Gelb said.

Ms. Clinton also appears patient with the strangers who constantly insert themselves into her day. “Way more than any actor, she would be entitled to the eye roll,” said Ms. Kargman, who recently tried to carry on a conversation with Ms. Clinton at a party as fan after fan interrupted to talk about her parents.

Not even Kantor's expenditure of four full paragraphs to the fact that the father of Ms. Clinton's companion, Marc Mezvinsky is doing time for investment swindling, significantly detracts from what is overall a very flattering piece, nearly devoid of the kind of condescension that usually drips from New York Times coverage of All Things Clinton.

Perhaps watching the useless wastrel Bush girls for the last six years serves to underscore the fine young woman the Clintons have raised. An adolescence spent not looking like an even-featured blond beauty is difficult for anyone, let alone someone living under the microscope of the White House, with Rush Limbaugh calling you the "family dog" over the airwaves to millions of people who then call in and agree with him. Clinton's adolescence with lesser parentage would have seemed like a high school with millions of wingnuts playing the role of the Heathers. That she has grown into a poised and together young woman is a credit to her parents, no matter what we may think of either of them as leaders.

Labels: Chelsea Clinton

The coverage last night of Chief Justice John Roberts' hospitalization for what is being described as a "benign idiopathic seizure" questioned the almost instantaneous reassurance that "he has fully recovered from the incident." Any time there is a brain incident like this, quick and facile diagnoses, absent a history of epilepsy, are usually not standard practice.

Because we are not a "hate site", contrary to what most wingnuts may believe, we hope for Roberts to make a full recovery. He is, after all, a relatively young man with young children. Unlike the mouthbreathers on the right, our compassion isn't contingent on liking what he does or his ideology.

Roberts had a similar incident in 1993 and has not had a recurrence since. Interestingly, a Google search on "benign idiopathic seizure" reveals nothing that occurs in adulthood. There is, however, an idiopathic generalized epilepsy of adult onset, which has a genetic component.

If in fact Roberts does have a form of adult onset epilepsy, this is still not a cause for excessive concern and should not result in talk of his resignation, particularly if Arlen Specter is truthful that the Senate Judiciary Committee knew of the 1993 incident and didn't find it important. Epilepsy is treatable with medication, and one would hope that we have progressed beyond the stigma that the syndrome used to carry with it.

If the Roberts incident causes the composition of the Supreme Court to finally become a presidential campaign issue, particularly with a third of Americans now believing that the Court is "too conservative", up from 19% in 2005, that would not be the worst thing in the world. Rudy Giuliani has already said he would appoing "strict constructionist" justices, which is code for "extremely reactionary" in the mold of Samuel Alito. The Roberts court has made clear that it favors corporations over citizens and government control over individual rights. Concerns about the Court extend far beyond Roe. Assuming that Roberts is not seriously ill, shining a spotlight on this Court is a positive development.

Labels: JOhn Roberts, Supreme Court

Some days there's just too much good stuff out there to comment on individually.

Digby on CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood's belief that Hillary Clinton having the temerity to wear her breasts in public is like Barry Bonds lying about using steroids. Perhaps someone else can explain this linkage to me, because I'm sitting here scratching my head. Has there ever been a culture more obsessed with, and yet revulsed by, the oversized sweat glands that sit on an adult woman's chest? I'll bet John Harwood has a stack of back issues of Juggs, but that Hillary Clinton doesn't bind her chest with Ace bandages before appearing in public makes her some sort of flasher. Would someone please contact his mother and ask at what age she weaned him?

If you enjoyed training your H-1B replacement before getting fired, you'll love President Fred Thompson. Carrie pulls the curtain aside from Thompson campaign manager, former Bush Energy Secretary and former Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham to reveal the ugly truth.

Looks like those of us who see echoes of Nazi Germany in the way the Bush Administration does business are on to something. Jurassicpork reports on Captain Codpiece's granddaddy's plan to topple FDR in the 1930's and replace it with a fascist dictatorship.

N=1 on the difference between universal health INSURANCE and universal health CARE -- and why plans requiring the purchase of insurance from for-profit companies are Trojan horses.

clammyc askes, "What will it take to end this madness?"

Skippy taunts the chickenshit Republicans who aren't only afraid to fight in real wars, but are also afraid to answer real questions from real voters. I know that the obsessive Zac Efron fans uploading Hairspray 30 seconds at a time can be pretty terrifying, but really, guys -- YouTube is nothing to fear.

Melina reports on just one family trying to work hard and play by the rules -- and getting nowhere fast. Now with added frogs and a new parakeet.

Here's one from the "Is Mr. Brilliant Right Again?" file. Is the veneer over the progressive areas of North Carolina really just that? Pam reports on jackbooted thugs (otherwise known as the local gendarmes) harassing those who do not equate the flag with George W. Bush.

Considering that Republicans like to give lip service to not taking Al Franken seriously as a candidate, they sure are taking him seriously as a candidate -- in their typical way.

And that's all for now. Laterz, bitchez....

Labels: bloggers

This is what happens when you go to war not understanding the context of the country you're invading:

The fighting around the factory north of Baghdad went on for a month, until local Sunni Muslim tribesmen decided they had had enough of the extremists in their midst and started working with the Americans. About 220 of those tribesmen now staff checkpoints and have started cooperating with Shiite counterparts who once were their enemies, said Fulton, a U.S. Army company commander from Yucaipa.

Experiences like these have led the U.S. military command to step up efforts to recruit residents to set up local protection forces, authorizing officers to use emergency cash and other funds to strike contracts with tribal leaders.

On Saturday, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, credited the strategy with beginning to turn around an insurgent haven as he toured the region of dusty villages, citrus plantations, fish farms and palm groves near Taji, about 12 miles north of the capital.

But the Shiite-led government, which has been under intense U.S. pressure to dismantle Shiite militias, has complained that the policy legitimizes what they regard as the Sunni equivalent.

"They solve one problem by creating another," said Sami Askari, an aide to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and member of his Islamic Dawa Party. "This is a seed for civil war."

Meanwhile, as Frank Rich opines, Gen. Petraeus may be the new de facto president (replacing Dick Cheney), but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has had quite enough of him.

Mission accomplished.

Labels: Iraq

Yes, I'm a size 16. But I can walk 2.2 miles in 43 minutes (with my short little legs on my 4'10" body), I do yoga 3-4 times a week, and at least one cardio and one sculpt workout every week. I don't eat fast food, I limit myself to one square of dark chocolate every day, I have banished as much high fructose corn syrup and white flour from my life as is practical. I don't have high blood pressure.

I have been at my current job for six years and seven months and have taken exactly five sick days.

But a growing number of employers (thankfully, not my current one) think they have a right to decide that I am not healthy simply because of the size I wear.

Perhaps employers might be more effective in improving workers' healthy by reducing stress, increasing vacation time, not putting people on guilt trips for taking that vacation time, and not expecting them to work 70 hour weeks to show how dedicated they are. And they can also alleviate the kind of stress that causes weight gain by not cutting jobs the minute the stock price drops and making employees train their H-1B replacements.

But of course it's much easier to pick on the fat chicks, isn't it?

I don't think UnitedHealth, which is my insurer, has spent more than about $800/year on me in the last five years, except last year when I had my first colonoscopy. Most of the time they don't even pay anything for my gynecology visits, because my doctor (or at least she was until she went on a crash diet and started driving everyone crazy) isn't in-network and is subject to deductible. In fact, I think my annual mammogram is about all they've had to pay. But because some asshole worships before the altar of the almighty BMI, some employer out there would be able to belittle my healthy old self simply because at 4'10" tall and of Russian peasant stock, I am unable to reach a BMI they say is "acceptable."

Interestingly, the only time in my adult life that I was anything close to "ideal weight" I was on a 300-calorie-a-day crash diet, I was working out five nights a week, and I would cry at the drop of a hat because I was hungry all the time.

This is health?

More at The Crone Speaks.

Labels: weight

Those readers who only know me from this blog probably don't know that I wrote online movie reviews for seven years prior to taking on the task of speaking truth to power. OK, I exaggerate. I started blogging because I was getting my rant on every morning and driving Mr. Brilliant crazy. I don't rant any less, but this way he knows what I'm ranting about.

It started in early 1998. Later that year, I was invited to join the Online Film Critics Society. Like most organizations of its type, it became intensely political and crazy, and when the craziness of involvement in a group for which you do not get paid outweighs any pleasure you get out of it, it's time to quit. Other online critics I knew through the OFCS, like Mary Ann and Gabriel, soon followed. Gabriel and I decided to merge our web sites together and created Mixed Reviews, the archive of which is still here.

In 2000, a bunch of OFCS alumni, led by Mary Ann, cobbled together a new organization, the mission of which was to elevate online film criticism above the level of sites like Ain't It Cool News and be taken seriously as film journalists -- on a par with print critics. I always thought that "Cinemarati" sounded like a pasta dish, but after much back-and-forth e-mail, Mary Ann, Brian Webster, Gabriel, Dan Jardine, Jeff Huston, Scott Renshaw, myself, and a few others had managed to put something together that over the next five years clawed and scratched its way to credibility. The initial vision of a portal site similar to Rotten Tomatoes combined with a messageboard proved too ambitious to maintain on a volunteer basis, so over time the site evolved to a messageboard with some original articles by and links to articles by members.

And what members they were, too. Over the years, people like the Oscar®-obsessed Nathaniel, the cerebral Nick Davis, the great and wondrous Stephen Himes, the lovable and bizarro Low IQ Canadian/Martin Scribbs, the incomparable Catherine Cantieri, Mark Ruffalo's BFF the prolific Michael Dequina, the still amazing and tireless gentle tough guy Vern, and so many others, combined with the various lunatics who both challenged the discussion and laid verbal turds in the punchbowl, made Cinemarati the fascinating Web destination it was.

I left the group in 2005, when this blog became MY obsession and when reviewing movies became a chore instead of a joy. The site moved from a static site with a Snitz forum messageboard over to a new, sleek design at Wordpress, and with new blood, carried on for two more years.

It is a mark of how far I left it behind that I didn't even know until checking in today that the remaining members had decided that Cinemarati has outlived its usefulness, and it was time to give it a dignified burial.

If you want to read what those who stayed on have to say about their experiences, it's still there. Just move fast, because soon it'll be gone forever...lost to the vapors and the Wayback Machine.

Labels: movies

MJS at CorrenteWire explains how all this happened:

(Jivester News, Lmtd.) In a breathtaking announcement today, Rabbi Soyvitch Goldberginsky told a slightly confused gathering of End Timers at a How to Dress for the Rapture: Boxers, Briefs or Dangler’s Puffery seminar in Las Vegas, Nevada that the basis for their religion, the founding gospels of the New Testament were in fact part of an elaborate gag perpetrated by “…a few wisenheimers back in the day. The guys were sitting around, tossing shrimp at pigs for who-knows-why, when one of them says “Hey, what if we say that God shtupped a zaftig and Jr. will give everyone a Get Out of Hell card? And they will have to sing ass-kissing songs and feel bad a lot of the time, just like us.”

Read on....

Labels: religion

Like buying Lowe's stock. Many years ago I worked with a guy named Walter. Walter had a very simple investment strategy: Buy stock in companies that make things you like. In Walter's case, it means investing in whimsical things like Tootsie Roll Industries. But it's not necessarily a bad way to go. Think of it as socially conscious investment in the micro-micro-micro level. Even former Fidelity Magella whiz-picker Peter Lynch sometimes operated this way, picking Pier One Imports after a visit to one of their stores with his wife.

A long time ago, when I rolled some old 401(k) plan funds into an IRA, one of the stocks they picked for me was Home Depot. The OTHER Great Orange Satan was very good to me over the eight or so years I had it. I think it split three times. But after I started growing more irritated with their stores, and after a Lowe's opened near where I work, I thought "What the heck am I hanging onto Home Depot for?" So I put in an order to sell Home Depot and buy Lowe's instead.

Lowe's has also been pretty good to me, but even though big-box home improvement stores are down in general, and even if it hadn't, I'd still be happy I have Lowe's stock instead of Home Depot. Here is Lowe's response to finding out that one of the shows on which it advertises has a web site in which people are permitted to advocate assassination of a Democratic presidential candidate and attacks against the Capitol:

Dear Lowe's Customer,

Thank you for your comments regarding the program, The O'Reilly Factor.

Lowe's has strict guidelines that govern the placement of our advertising. Our company advertises primarily in national, network prime-time television programs and on a variety of cable outlets.

Lowe's constantly reviews advertising buys to make certain they are consistent with its policy guidelines. The O'Reilly Factor does not meet Lowe's advertising guidelines, and the company's advertising will no longer appear during the program.

We are dedicated to providing the best service, products, and shopping environment in the home improvement industry. All three of these are very important to our business, and our customers will always be our number one priority.

We appreciate your contacting us, and hope this information addresses your concerns.

Thank you,

Lowe's Customer Care

On the other hand, here is how Home Depot is responding:

Our advertising campaigns have one simple objective to communicate with audiences in the most effective way possible. The Company is receptive to many forms and styles of media as we seek a balanced representation of programming to reach our customer base. Unfortunately campaigns like this one cause us to take time away from our sustainability goals and address a variance of political views.

By the way, I also bought Adobe right after the Macromedia acquisition was announced. I work with both Adobe and Macromedia products, and the two companies seemed like a good fit to me. A week after I bought the stock at around $54, it split. Even after this week's bloodbath, it closed at $40.39. I think I've done OK.

Thank you, Walter.

Labels: investing