These 4chan Kids Should Stay Out of Digg

Monday's Musicians Series - Dear Mr. President, Pink

"Dear Mr. President" is a song by Pink and was recorded for her fourth album, I'm Not Dead. She said the song is an "open letter" to the President of the United States, George W. Bush, and that it is one of the most important songs she had written. It was never released within the U.S. because Pink thought it too important to be interpreted as a publicity stunt.

'Medaling' With Free Speech at the Olympics

by Walter Brasch via The Moderate Voice

President Bush sounded just like a liberal.

Yes, you heard that right. Bush. Liberal. Same sentence.

At the new U.S. embassy in Beijing on the opening day of the Olympics, he said, "All people should have the freedom to say what they think." Without even blinking, he also told the world, while directing his comments at the Chinese, "We strongly believe societies which allow the freedom of expression of ideas tend to be the most prosperous and the most peaceful."

The day before, in Tibet, he boldly said, "America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents and human right's advocates and religious activists." He said he was speaking out "for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights, not to antagonize China's leaders but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential." Read on at The Moderate Voice.

VIDEO - Israel, Iran and the New Neocons

Washington's neocons are alive and well, advising both John McCain and President Bush. Now many are saying Bush should permit Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities after Election Day before the new President takes office. American News Project investigates as they chase down John Bolten, Bill Kristol and Frank Gaffney to see how far ahead these hawks are thinking. And a new report says the whole plan could backfire. Here is the video from ANP.

What it Means to be a Republican Conservative

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Question the Questioners When the Question is Journalistic Integrity

The value of a confidential source is invaluable and a constitutional right or something. But what happens when the "credible" source(s) turn out to be a lying turd? Does the journalist have a right to protect the identity of said turd? Read on at The Columbia Journalism Review... 

P2P File Sharing May Have Just Been Legalized

If you’re a fan of digital video recording (DVR), I’m sure you’ve heard about the recent ruling regarding “networked” DVR. Turner Broadcasting sued Cablevision over its development and trial of a DVR system that doesn’t require a DVR box in a customer’s home. Basically, the hard-drive that stores television shows is on the other end of the cable, on servers operated by Cablevision.  Cablevision won. If you’re not familiar with the case, read this article from today's New York Times.

Although the basis of the lawsuit regarded the ability to fast forward through commercials, purely an advertising issue, a wider, and much larger implication may effect the way illegal file-sharing, such as music and movies, over the internet is viewed both by the courts of law and the court of public opinion.

In his ruling, Judge John M. Walker, said the technology “would not directly infringe,” on the media companies’ rights.

So the courts said I have legal access to a file produced by Hollywood that is stored on a hard drive that is not owned by me. I’m not paying for the actual file; I pay for the service of recording that file. I am not in violation of copyright laws. Remember, even without the DVR, my monthly Cablevision bill isn’t for the right to watch the television shows, it’s for the transmission of those shows.

What is the difference between file sharing between two personal computers over the Internet and the sharing of a file between Cablevision and it’s customers? In effect, there is no difference. I want to watch a movie. That movie is stored on another person’s hard drive. That other person doesn’t want to charge me, and he gives me access to that file. I now have that file.

The plaintiffs will no doubt appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The implications of this possible precedent will be very interesting.

Leave  a comment, let's get a discussion going.

Monday's Musicians Series- Masters of War, Pearl Jam

"Masters of War," performed here by Pearl Jam, was written in 1963 by Bob Dylan. USA Today quoted Dylan as saying the song "is supposed to be a pacifistic song against war. It is not an anti-war song. It's speaking against what Eisenhower was calling a military-industrial complex." The war business has had a good run in the last 8 years.

Would Obama prosecute the Bush administration for torture? Salon.com

On the campaign trail in April, Barack Obama was asked whether, if elected he would prosecute Bush administration officials for establishing torture as American policy. The candidate demurred. "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," he said. But he quickly added, I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve. Keep reading at Salon.com

The Sunday Sandbox

The Firefox Vote... If by changing "tech images" you mean "issues," I'm all for it...The Politico, Ben Smith.

Hovering Above Poverty, Grasping for Middle Class... Strength from within... The Washington Post, Michael A. Fletcher and Jon Cohen.

McCain Mocked Idea of Obama on U.S. Currency, in June... America is blind to Hypocrisy...The Jed Report, Jed Lewison.

The Best Ad Ever, and How to Ruin It

Why Most Ads Suck....MAdvertisingBlog

read more | digg story

Richard Bruce Cheney (born January 30, 1941) is a former United States Congressman, Secretary of Defense, the 46th Vice President of the United States and is a dick. He also served as White House Chief of Staff and in the private sector was the chairman and chief executive officer of Halliburton Energy Services. Every decision he has ever made has been wrong.

This is How F--ked We Are

A picture is worth $200 billion dollars. That is how much that was borrowed by banks to cover demand deposits because their assets have less value than their liabilities.

read more | digg story

A Reasonable Case Against Drilling in ANWR

Reasonable people react reasonably when given credible reasons. Unfortunately, when dealing with ANWR and offshore drilling, the only part of that statement that hold true is the first. Yes, the vast majority of the public is reasonable. Many are misinformed on the facts, so you cant blame them for reacting in a way that seems stubborn and/or wrong.

When it comes to any issue such as health care, social security, foreign relations, etc., the politician is just a pawn. Politicians don’t make decisions on issues anymore. Their job is to get as many of their constituents to support him or her. The actual idea comes from the lobbyists. Lobbyists get a politician to agree with them by showing a pol how a side to a particular issue will garner more votes. Once the lobbyist does that, then the game has been won, almost. The oil industry lobbyists are no different. They want to sell you on the "facts" minus the facts that hurt their cause.

There is a plethora of “facts” at arms reach to the average American citizen. But, the average citizen doesn’t have time to sit down and research which “facts” are real facts and which ones have been molested and spun to fit an agenda. 

Here are the facts:

• 25 years ago, 60% of oil used domestically was produced domestically, now it is a little higher than 25%. Our economy cannot survive on this trajectory simply because we don’t have control of the one thing that feeds our economy. If we cannot control our economy, we lose our country.
• If ANWR is tapped, it will take approximately 15 years for the oil well to reach its peak production. The price of oil will only progressively drop so to compensate for the increased supply. Our risk/return on this issue is not within our favor. 
• Because of oil prices today and global warming concerns, our oil driven economy has already begun to shift toward alternative fuels. 15 years from now, there will not be as much of a demand for oil.
• America’s economic stability is our physical stability. If not for industry, America would collapse.
• The price of a barrel of oil rests heavily on political concerns within the Middle East. Our military would not be there today if we did not have an economic reason to be there. Terrorists did not attack us because they hate freedom, they attacked us because we have troops on their soil and we support Israel. The longer we stay in the middle east, the more political upheaval within the Middle East will force oil prices higher which makes us even more concerned about the region. It’s a catch-22.
• There is not enough oil underneath the United States to allow us to even be close to energy Independent. 

The issue of whether or not we open up drilling in ANWR and offshore isn’t about the price of oil; it is about our survival as a country. By opening up these areas, we allow our economy to continue to be driven by a commodity that cannot domestically sustain us. So why not face the facts and allow our economy the push it needs to becomes dependant on renewable, domestic energy. It will allow us to have control over our industry, and it will cut off our reasons for our presence in the Middle East, thereby saving the lives of future generations of our soldiers. And we will again have full control over our liberty and freedom.

When Does It End?

The lying has got to stop. Where can I find a television channel with truly no spin when it comes to guests? Why do the networks keep putting these pundits in front of me to play stupid or blatantly lie to my face?

Barack Obama screwed up. He said the republicans were trying to scare Americans away from his candidacy because he “doesn’t look like those presidents” on the currency. That is true. The McCain campaign were “outraged” that Obama would play the “race card.” Then the Obama campaign denied the original message of that comment was because Obama is an African-American.

Where do I start, the fact that John McCain was outraged? Ha! He’s not outraged, its just another attempt at the joyless and imagination-less McCain campaign cannot possible come up with any other response because they WERE TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE into voting for him.

And then, Obama’s campaign tried to say they weren’t insinuating the obvious. Hopefully, whoever made the denial did it with a slight smirk when telling us that.

Now, as I listen to all of the weekday night cable news shows, I’m faced with pundits from each side of the political spectrum trying to convince me they’re right. And the host’s are barely doing a thing to call the idiot’s out on it.

Why not stop booking these paid campaign consultants? They just end up looking like fools anyway? Why not book a few college students to come on? Ones that aren’t carrying the recent talking points from the respective campaigns. Just political science majors that can discuss how the rest of society may be interpreting what is going on rather than adding to the hills and hills of moist bullshit.

The Commander-in-Chief Test

                                 

"W." New Oliver Stone Movie Trailer

Here is the trailer to the new Oliver Stone movie, a bio of our Partyboy-in-Chief, George W. Bush. I'm going to wait until the reviews come out to decide if I'll go see it. I am no fan of our president, but if this is purely a hit piece, I'll pass.


                              

This Week with George Stephanopoulos

John McCain was Gorgeous Georgie’s guest on This Week. Once again John McCain sidestepped many inquiries by repeating his stance on a controversial issue without an explanation as to why. George asked him for his opinion on gay adoption. Senator McCain only expressed his interest in supporting the ubiquitous family values line. When asked about his positions regarding Russia, the Senator said he would throw them out of the G8. Didn’t say how, just that he would. When reminded of the fact that every other country in the G8 opposes the exclusion of Russia, Senator McCain said he would convince the other nations to do it. It seems that “Pretty Please” has become his foreign relations mega-weapon.

It is interesting to note, John McCain, when asked about Russia, incorrectly named Prime Minister Putin as the current President of Russia. Screw President Medvedev. He doesn't count. After checking out his soft, Pantene hair, Stephanopoulos quickly corrected McCain. When will the MSM start examining Sen. McCain’s increasing forgetfulness?

Flip flopping is an art. When asked about affirmative action, McCain stated his opposition to any bill that supports affirmative action within our fine Republic.  I guess Arizona isn’t part of the Republic. Because, in 1998, he opposed any ban to affirmative action. The desert heat must be getting to the Senator from Arizona. 

The Sunday Sandbox

Katie Couric is the New Fat Attention Whore.... Huffington Post

Get your Calculator Out, the Wingnut Scorecard is Here.... Daily Kos

Kotecki's Korner

I'll Have the Roasted Chestnuts, With a 

Side Order of Republican Hypocrisy

The Roots of Ideological Censorship

After the destruction of the World Trade Center, tensions ran high in the United States. Bumper stickers of the American flag were the hottest item available at the local convenience store. For months, whenever most people saw the American flag, goose bumps ran the length of their bodies. I remember seeing a picture of a corn field in the mid-west. The farmer had reaped his field in the pattern of an eagle, perched over the remains of the toppled buildings. Anger, sadness, and hope were the engineers of our nationalistic freight train ride. Questioning the “American way” was taboo. As far as the public was concerned, the United States was the infallible moral leader of the world. To initiate a debate over the cause of the attacks wasn’t in the best interest of an intellectual citizen.

Bill Mahr, social satirist and host of the controversial television show, “Politically Incorrect,” was ostracized for his take on the inner strength of the terrorists who flew those planes into our buildings. He ultimately lost his highly rated show. Threatened censure isn’t the tool of American television networks alone. Nicholas De Genova, an assistant professor at Columbia University, called for the defeat of American forces during a speech protesting the Iraq War. On March 27^th, 2003, he proclaimed, “I personally would like to see a million Mogadishu’s…The only true heroes are those who find ways to help defeat the U.S. military.” One hundred and four Republican congressional lawmakers demanded Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, to fire the professor. Citing academic freedom, President Bollinger refused to do so. He said the professor “was exercising his right to free speech.” “There are few things more precious on any University campus than freedom of thought and expression. That is the teaching of the First Amendment and I believe it should be the principle we live by at Columbia University.”

Edward Said, in his essay, “Identity, Authority, and Freedom: The Potentate and the Traveler,” says, “ a whole slew of controversial political issues like race, gender, imperialism, war and slavery have found there way into lectures and seminars. To this extraordinary, almost Copernican change in the general intellectual consciousness, responses have often been very hostile.”

Such pressure applied to academia is an every day occurrence in the post 9-11 world. Paul K. McMasters, a First Amendment scholar for Freedom Forum, a free-speech advocacy group says, “At a time when the country could most benefit from the diverse perspective that we depend on academe to provide, there will be immense pressure on those in the academic community to repress their views.” The repression he speaks of isn’t a new phenomenon. The citizens of the United States have experienced it before via McCarthyism.

McCarthyism was an –ism used to describe a conservative ideology adopted as a result of frustration over the country’s inability to contain communism. United States Senator, Joseph M. McCarthy, became a crusader against communism in the 1950s. He regarded communism as a godless system and played on the fear of American Christians to join him in his witch hunt.  He chaired a nationally televised congressional investigation into the possible infiltration of the Communist party within America. Being a member of the Communist party was not illegal. But Sen. McCarthy treated all accused as traitors to the United States, thereby ruining the present and futures of many law-abiding citizens. In his hearing room, the Bill of Rights didn’t exist. Americans allowed this out of paranoia and fear from what they knew nothing about, communism. At the time, Americans used the disregard of our Constitutional Rights as a way to protect our “freedom and liberty, our American way.” The blatant suspension of free speech at that time was the forefather of the threat to academic freedom today.

A child growing up in the 1950s, whose parents condoned the suspension of rights out of ignorance, accepted the consequences of the hearings as normal. George W. Bush, born in 1946, was a child of that era. He was the product of an ultra-conservative mother and father. His father, George H.W. Bush, was an ex-pilot in World War II, a then current C.I.A. agent, and later was elected the 41^st President of the United States. Born in New Haven, Connecticut, George W. Bush spent his childhood in exclusive areas of Midland and Houston Texas, attended the affluent Philips Academy Preparatory School, and followed by Yale University and Harvard.

Although President George W. Bush is a product of that conservative era, lapses in moral judgment didn’t escape him as a young man (DWI arrest, AWOL from the Air National Guard, rumors of cocaine use). However, upon meeting his wife in 1977, he “found God.” He became a “Born Again Christian” and converted from Episcopalian Christianity to Methodism, thus cementing the ultra-conservative values he had grown up to. This solidification of radical- right political views, along with his fathers winning of the 1988 presidential election ensured him an easy win in his campaign for Texas governor in 1994. He became the golden buckle of the Bible belt. In 2000 he was elected as the 43^rd President of the United States. He currently enjoys the luxury of a conservative dominated Congress, which has allowed Christian Doctrine to dictate his domestic and foreign policies. The United States of America is now being led by a man who grew up accepting McCarthyism as a necessary evil in a time of stress.

The New McCarthyism is a direct result of the stress felt by Americans in the years after September 11^th, 2001. It has transformed itself . The communist enemy has now become the terrorist enemy. Just as the communist supposedly hated us because of our liberty and freedoms, so too, the terrorists hate us for them. President Bush, in his address to Congress on September 20, 2001 said, “…Americans are asking ‘Why do they hate us?’” “They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” His speech would have been just as effective in the 1950’s “communist” had been replaced by “terrorist”.

As a way of creating political support for his policy, the government of George W. Bush turned to New McCarthyism. Peter N. Kirstein, in his essay “Academic Freedom and the New McCarthyism,” explains. “New McCarthyism emerged from a sense of frustration and panic that America’s enemies had not been subjugated and that the empire could strike back. Since the largely unsuccessful wars against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan on October 2001, and the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the United States has been in the throes of a militant-nationalistic crusade fueled by war.” 

It was seen in 2003. In the fall of that year, the United States House of Representatives passed Resolution 3007. It would create an “Advisory Board” to oversee the teachings within accredited universities in the United States. The board would investigate all ideas discussed to ensure that they are in the best “national interest” of our country. In another noose-tightening, the U.S. Government has placed restrictions on the visas of international professors and students if he/she has views critical of United States policy. The result of the restrictions has turned out to be a reduction in the number of foreign born students and professors within the classrooms of our universities. The government has begun to politicize the classroom. A critical voice within the classroom has been silenced. The government has, in the name of “liberty and freedom,” attempted to destroy academic freedom. I believe they’ve, in a sense, shot themselves in the leg so the pain of a scraped knee wouldn’t hurt as much.

New McCarthyism can be witnessed beyond Capitol Hill. Accuracy in Academia (AIA) proudly proclaims its mission to be, “the reassertion of traditional academic ethics in our universities.” To reach their goal AIA publishes Campus Report. It “publicizes political bias within the academy.”

As a University student, I cannot condone the limits placed on academic freedom. Academic freedom is vital to our understanding of different cultures and the understanding of ourselves. It forces us to focus beyond our own agenda and is the key to dismantling ignorance throughout the world.

Cementing a Stereotype in McCain's Campaign

I’m not sure John McCain’s campaign staff can be any more inept as they have been. They must be measuring their success in terms of how much solidification of the “old man, old politics” McCain stereotypes can be attained per day.

Let’s go over the stereotypes and see how the campaign successfully attained them:

McCain’s website features graphic miscues abundantly. Plastered on the front page of the site is this. The first thing I thought of upon seeing the “media is in love” piture is…yup, you guessed it, “I Love Lucy.” It shares a very similar backdrop to the famous 1950’s show starring Lucille Ball.

Another great example I came across was from this article on CNN.com. Eric Pearlmutter, a member of USC’s Young Republicans club, pointed to a picture of a barbershop on JohnMcCain.com. The webpage’s subject was apparently touting John McCain’s positions regarding small business ownership. “Well when you see the Main Street barber shop image, you think of 1950s America, an entrepreneur, a Silicon Valley guy would definitely make him more attractive," he said.

I’ve seen enough interviews and have read enough articles on John McCain’s wife, Cindy, to know she is truly a good person and should be an asset to Sen. McCain, personally and professionally. Why, then, is she not out front and center of his campaign? His staff seems more intent on portraying her as an old school political wife than who she really is, a strong, intelligent woman. From her stepford stare, to the physical position behind the Senator (as opposed to next to) in campaign-packaged pictures, John McCain is turning away from today’s young female voters. The “political wife” is and has been a dead image.

And I have to mention the infamous green backdrop. When it became apparent that Obama would become the nominee of the Democratic Party, John McCain’s podium backdrop changed. It was a bright green. I know the intent of his campaign was for a livelier backdrop that would emphasize his Irish heritage, but green is not a color that flatters him physically. His face looked sick, gaunt and expressionless. One look of a screenshot should have been enough for his image consultants to nix the idea.