McCain excludes Malkin from blogger conference
calls.

Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign has begun an effort to reach out to both liberal and conservative bloggers, perhaps attempting to repair the senator’s past slights against new media. However, one blogger upset at not being included in the project is Michelle Malkin, who yesterday complained that she wasn’t invited to take part:

Yesterday, I learned that several far left-wing blogs were invited to participate in The Maverick?s blogger conference call session (it?s part of that Big Vision Thing). I e-mailed McCain?s New Media guy, Patrick Hynes, asking if I could participate in the next blogger conference call.

After all, McCain said yesterday he?ll ?listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse? and ?will set a new standard for transparency and accountability? and ?will work with anyone, of either party, to make this country safe, prosperous and proud.?

If he?s willing to take questions from hostile liberal bloggers, why not take some from conservative bloggers who represent substantial readerships with dissenting views on how best to make this country ?safe, prosperous, and proud?? I?ll keep you updated.

As Malkin herself would say, “Boo-freakin-hoo.” (HT: Atrios and TBogg)

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Best OReilly Tributes

Bill O’Reilly’s embarrassing “Inside Edition” tirade has been on the web for five days now, and has spurred various creative internet users to put together some hilarious spoofs. Aside from Colbert’s laugh-out-loud recreation, these are the two best I’ve seen so far. Both, obviously, are NSFW. F**k It! The Dance Remix:Bill O’Reilly’s Producer Speaks: [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/17/best-oreilly-tributes/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

WHEN YOU HEAR OBAMA, DO YOU THINK "WHERE'S THE
BEEF"

In the near future we'll be depending on our constitutional law expert, Jon Dodson, to analyze President Obama's Supreme Court nominees. So it was important for us all to pull him away from his meditations on the Fouth Amendment and get him focused on Obama. He seemed happy to and here's the report he filed, one that brings another element to a discussion too long dominated by paid Republican shills embedded with the news networks: 

TALK MAY BE CHEAP-- AND IT'S OUR ONLY HOPE

-by Jon Dodson


Forgive me as I venture into election commentary, (a tired theme, and not my specialty), but I hope I have something to say that hasn't been repeated ad nauseam in the past five months. You see, I still bristle whenever I hear the criticism that Obama is "all talk." This has come from all sides-- even some of his supporters. Most recently, one of the wisest people I know echoed this vague concern that, "he talks pretty, but..." The problem with this critque is that it unfairly couples one of Obama's greatest strengths with a few general criticisms that apply to all politicians. In the process it demeans the power and importance of words, and consequently of teaching, communication, inspiration, civics, and the dialogue necessary for democracy to work. Sure, we can't know how authentic Obama is. Of course he can't accomplish everything through a few speeches. But the idea that he lacks substance, or that his eloquence is unimportant, is hogwash.

Its one thing to wonder whether Obama is sincere, or to wonder what he'll really accomplish in office.  This is a fair, general criticism of any politician. I can't imagine any politician who doesn't allow political considerations to influence their style, words, or the battles they choose to wage. This, frankly, is only prudent. (To be sure, many politicians go way, way too far-- leading to the dog-wagging permanent campaign). But, yes, none of us can ever know what any politician actually believes, or what any politician will actually do once elected. That said, there's absolutely no reason that this concern should singularly or disproportionately discredit Obama.

It also may be fair to criticize Obama-- or his supporters-- as being unduly optimistic, naive, or unrealistic. Of course its easier to talk about universal healthcare, pulling out of Iraq, overhauling our energy system, and putting the brakes on global warming, than to actually solve these problems. But again, this criticism applies to every politician! What can a politician do in a campaign but get his or her message and ideas out there? Hillary's platform has been virtually indistinguishable from Obama's. Yet no one seems to criticize her for being "all talk." The contrast, I suppose, is that she has a lenghty record-- a record which often shows her either at odds with her current platform (e.g. NAFTA and the Iraq war), or unable to accomplish her platform (healthcare). I guess Hillary isn't "all talk."  She's a mixture of talk, hypocrisy, and failure! But I digress. The point was not to beat up on Hillary.  I'm actually feeling pretty conciliatory towards her at this point. The point is merely that Obama cannot but be "all talk." He's not president yet. Moreover, since when is it a good idea to aim low? Since when should a platform be based on our cynical sense of what's "realistic," rather than on our highest hopes.

There is an old distinction in early-20th-century copyright law between an "idea" and its "expression."  The rule was that "ideas" couldn't be copyrighted, but their "expression" could. This rule fell by the wayside because it was completely impracticable.  And it was impracticable because it was fundamentally, philosophically misguided. One cannot separate expression from the ideas encapsulated, the messages communicated, or the effect a particular expression has on the listener. To the extent that an idea is communicated more eloquently, this does not reflect a meaningless sophism, but a greater depth of understanding-- not only of the nuances of the ideas expressed, but of the psychology, humanity, and needs of the listener. Unlike the conservative icon William F. Buckley, who once confessed to using a bigger word "because I wanted more syllables," Obama doesn't just "talk pretty," or drop a lot of big words. He communicates. He inspires. He teaches. His rhetoric isn't a meaningless parlor trick. It conveys a breathtaking brilliance, a thorough understanding of the complicated problems we face, and a deep appreciation for the needs of his diverse audience.

Maybe I just see him as a teacher because he was a professor in my favorite subject of constitutional law. But if there's a foundation, a lynchpin, or a first step down the long road to a better future, its a new civic education. Americans have become civically irresponsible and intellectually lazy. This has enabled all of our problems. Naturally, to solve these problems, we need a renewed sense of civic responsibility. Our only hope for such a sea-change in attitudes is to be taught, trained, and inspired-- to be re-socialized towards a democratic political culture. Everything else must follow from this. No amount of Beltway experience, corporate appeasement, negotiation, rough-and-tumble political battling, or even sincere desire for change, can build the coalitions necessary for meaningful change. "Talk" is our only hope.

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-you-hear-obama-do-you-think-wher
es.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Obama: Why do McCain and Bush have a problem with
JFK

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-bush-mcca.html. It also creates yet another story in which Hillary isn't even a player.

ABC News Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama went one step further today in his pushback against presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and President Bush on appeasement, suggesting that both Republicans have a problem with presidents past who have engaged in direct diplomacy.

"If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy, led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy because that's what he did with [Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev, or Ronald Reagan, 'cause that's what he did with [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev, or Richard Nixon 'cause that's what they did with [Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung]," Obama said in Roseburg, Ore. "That?s exactly the kind of diplomacy we need to keep us safe."

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Through the Darkest of Nights: Testament XV

Every few days over the next several months I will be posting installments of a novel about life, death, war and politics in America since 9/11.  Through the Darkest of Nights is a story of hope, reflection, determination, and redemption.  It[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/292569041/showDiary.do

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Make Your Own OReilly Tantrum Remix!

video details and more

In case you’ve been living under a rock with neither internet nor cable access, you might’ve missed this recently unearthed clip of Bill O’Reilly experiencing, um, temperamental technical difficulties on the set of Inside Edition during his pre-FOX days. It’s good to see that the fame and fortune he gained from The O’Reilly Factor really hasn’t changed him that much — he’s still the same unhinged, unstable, belligerent blowhard he was when he had hair, and I’m sure tantrums like this date back to his infancy. And this guy actually thinks he’s an authority on raising kids?

O’Reilly has tried to laugh this off, but there’s plenty more fun to be had. In solidarity with his idol, Stephen Colbert released a clip of one of his own past freakouts, and Keith Olbermann invited an O’Reilly-type body language expert (actually Stacy Grenrock Woods of the Daily Show) to talk about BOR’s dictatorial body language “mostly seen by your Benito Mussolinis, your General Pinochets.” Some terrific remixes of BOR’s meltdown have started surfacing, like this hilarious one from Barely Political, and even a dance remix.

So we at FOX ATTACKS! thought we’d invite all of you to submit your own O’Reilly Tantrum remixes! As you can see from the clips above, there are a lot of directions you could take this, so go for whatever you think is the funniest and most entertaining. You can find a downloadable Quicktime version of the original clip here — the rest is up to you!

When you have finished your video, post it on YouTube and paste the URL into a comment in this blog. Once we have enough videos, we’ll put them on a page where everyone can view them and vote on them. There will be prizes for winners in multiple categories (TBD).

Can’t wait to see what you guys come up with!

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Senator Kennedy taken to MGH

Senator Kennedy who is 76 years old and very overweight was airlifted to Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). As far as I can tell no one really has a handle on what is going on. The news media is reporting that Senator Kennedy has symptoms of a stroke whatever that is. (As a physician I get very frustrated with the media's use of medical language. What is symptoms of a stroke? He couldn't walk or did he lose feeling on one side of his face. What?)

I pray for his speedy recovery.

Update from the Boston Globe:

Doctors believe that Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts suffered a seizure at his home in Hyannis Port this morning, then a second seizure as he was being transported by helicopter from Cape Cod Hospital to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, according to an official briefed on the situation.

His condition was unclear early this afternoon, as a special police security detail gathered at Mass. General. Kennedy family members were called this morning and told to rush to Boston, according to sources.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Skimping on Inmate Meals Profits AL Sheriffs

Shame on Alabama:

Back in the day of chain gangs, Alabama passed a law that gave sheriffs $1.75 a day to feed each prisoner in their jails, and the sheriffs got to pocket anything that was left over. More than 80 years later, most Alabama counties still operate under this system, with the same $1.75-a-day allowance, and some sheriffs are actually making money on top of their salaries. ...

Critics charge that Alabama is, in effect, paying law enforcement to skimp on food and may be rewarding sheriffs for mistreating prisoners.

"Critics charge"? We should all be critical of laws that reward the mistreatment of prisoners. Does anybody out there think this is sound public policy? (more...)

Consider inmate nutrition:

A prisoner advocate said he constantly hears complaints about jail food. "Most of it is like powdered food, and the portions are minimal in the county jails," said the Rev. Kenneth Glasgow, who visits Alabama jails to register prisoners to vote.

Unsurprisingly, the sheriffs disagree, pointing to seemingly nutritious menus. Should we believe them? Consider accountability:

The head of the Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, Ron Jones, said state auditors cannot determine how much some sheriffs are making off the system because the lawmen put the money in personal accounts.

How they make a profit on $1.75 per inmate per day is a mystery, although a late night arrest followed by an early morning release nets the sheriff $3.50 without having to feed the arrestee a crumb. Is it smart to give sheriffs a financial incentive to encourage their deputies to make late night arrests on dubious charges that may never be prosecuted?

Now consider the excuses:

"These people eat better here than they eat on the street, and they eat three times a day," [Sheriff] Shaver said.

Well, they only get two meals a day on weekends and holidays, at least in Limestone County, but who's counting? And why should we assume, as Sheriff Shaver apparently does, that all his prisoners were living on the street before they were arrested, or that prison grub is better than the meals they might find at a homeless shelter?

The $1.75 fee was set in 1927. It should be scrapped and replaced with an adequate meal budget that, like the rest of the Sheriff's departmental expenses, is approved and funded by a legislative body. Allowing sheriffs to profit from funding that is already too meager is deplorable. Shame on Alabama for continuing this loathsome policy.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Kennedy Hospitalized II

A brief recap on the ongoing story of Ted Kennedy's hospitalization:

U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy was airlifted to a Boston hospital Saturday morning after falling ill at the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport, the Cape Cod Times reported.

He was first rushed to Cape Cod Hospital, and after being in the emergency room for two hours he was transferred to Massachusetts General Hospital, according to the Times.  [...]

Hyannis fire responded to the compound after a call was made around 8:30 a.m. It's unclear what Kennedy's medical condition is, but after he spent almost two hours in the emergency room a decision was made to transfer him to Mass General Hospital in Boston.

While it has been reported that Kennedy was suffering from "stroke-like symptoms," CNN's Ed Henry had some encouraging news when he reported that a Kennedy family source told him that Senator Kennedy himself made a phone call to cancel a luncheon nearly two hours after the initial 911 call. Sources also say that family members are "guardedly optimistic," which is good news.

A hospital spokesman will be coming out with an update on the Senator's condition soon.

Statements from the presidential campaign trail:

Barack Obama:  "I know a lot of you are interested in the situation with Senator Kennedy. I have been in contact with the family. Obviously they are in our thoughts and prayers – they I am sure will be releasing some sort of statement when they have a better assessment of what the situation is. You know, as I have said many times before, Ted Kennedy is a giant in American political history  –  he has done more for the health care of others than just about anybody in history and so we are going to be rooting for him and I insist on being optimistic about how it's going to turn out."

Hillary Clinton:  "My thoughts and prayers are with Ted Kennedy and his family today. We all wish him well and a quick recovery."

John McCain:  "I was very sorry to hear that Senator Kennedy has taken ill, and like millions of Americans, Cindy and I anxiously await word of his condition. Senator Kennedy's role in the U.S. Senate cannot be overstated. He is a legendary lawmaker, and I have the highest respect for him. When we have worked together, he has been a skillful, fair and generous partner. I consider it a great privilege to call him my friend. Cindy and I are praying for our friend, his wife, Vicki, and the Kennedy family."

Ed Henry now reporting that two family members told him they "expect the Senator to have a full recovery," and that he is doing much better.

Update:  The Associated Press is reporting that Senator Kennedy suffered a seizure.  Apparently seizures can be caused by any number of things, from a change in medication to a stroke, so we will continue to await an update from the hospital.  

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Why A Unity Ticket

I always am amazed that discussions of the Unity Ticket never seem to include any reasons why it MIGHT be a good idea. Thus, I must protest Bob Wright's discussion with Mickey Kaus of the Unity ticket possibility.

Their entire discussion is predicated on the assumption that, despite the fact that Democratic voters strongly support a Unity Ticket, it is bad for Obama to have Clinton on the ticket. I think the polling has clearly said otherwise. I have made arguments for why I think it is almost essential that Obama pick Clinton as his running mate. No such arguments are addressed in most elite pundit discussions of a Unity Ticket.

More . . .

There is a real disconnect that I see from the elite pundits like Wright and Kaus with the data and the wide swath of Democratic voters who actually are strongly committed to Hillary Clinton. They dislike the Clintons and therefore assume everyone else must or should too.

It is just this type of elitist attitude that the Obama campaign must avoid. I think the solution is simple, a Unity Ticket. But the pundit elites have their own ideas and wash away any plausible concerns about Obama's general election candidacy.

To see a Democrat win in November while dissing half of the Democratic Party will be an amazing feat. But to the elitist pundits, this is not only not a concern, actually ADDRESSING that Clinton half of the Democratic Party is a terrible idea. It is remarkable how people can convince themselves than what they want personally is what the voters want.

P.S. I never knew Bob Wright was a Clinton Hater. I knew Kaus was.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!