Nothing sublime lately, but plenty of ridiculous. This first clip leads to the chronicles of Yacht Rock, a musical sub-genre I wasn't awae of by that name. So far there are 6 bizarro episodes dramatizing unknown musical endeavors of people like Michael McDonald, Kenny Loggins, a drunken Messina, Christopher Cross, members of Toto and more. Even sstranger, the belligerence of Hall & Oates; particularly Oates.
From tere it's a quick trip to Cheney's Got A Gun, a nicely animated parody that's still funny a week after the event, especially with Harry Whittington home from the hospital.
Enjoy the videos.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Fiscal responsibility & obstinance
Tim Grieve, the "War Room" blogger at Salon.com made this post yesterday. I like his writing a lot, especially the profiles he's done on people. That aside, this double punch of the $346 billion war that was supposed to be $50-$60B and the allegations that, surprise surprise, we were headed to war regardless of inspections.
As Bush seeks more cash for Iraq, a memo sheds light on how he got there
The Bush administration is asking Congress for an additional $120 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- money that comes on top of the $226 billion the administration has already budgeted for Iraq.
Would we be "aiding and abetting the terrorists" if we mentioned just now that the Bush administration's top budget official insisted in 2002 that the entire war in Iraq would probably cost between $50 billion and $60 billion? Or that the president's secretary of defense suggested that the cost would be "something under $50 billion" and that other countries would be paying some of it? Or that the deputy secretary of defense said that Iraq could "pay for its own reconstruction"? Or that the White House eased out the president's chief economic advisor after he dared to suggest that the war would actually cost $100 billion or -- gasp! -- $200 billion?
That kind of talk might not get you arrested -- OK, it might -- but it probably isn't particularly welcome among supporters of the president's war right now. Neither is this: A new report in the Guardian says that George W. Bush and Tony Blair decided to go to war in Iraq regardless of whether the United Nations authorized it and regardless of whether inspectors actually found any weapons of mass destruction.
The report is based on the work of Philippe Sands, a professor of international law at London's University College who practices law in the same firm as Blair's wife, and it seems to conflict with the two leaders' public claims that they were working through the U.N. process and wanted to give Saddam Hussein a final chance to disarm before deciding on war.
Among other things, Sands says the memo details Bush's idea about luring Iraq into war by spying on the country with U2 spy planes painted in U.N. colors. "If Saddam fired on them," Bush is said to have said, "he would be in breach" of U.N. resolutions. Bush is also said to have told Blair that he thought it was "unlikely" that there would be warfare between different groups in Iraq after the invasion.
Sir Menzies Campbell, the acting leader of Britain's opposition Liberal Democrat Party, said in a statement that the memorandum -- if accurate -- suggests that Bush and Blair were simply going through the motions when they sought U.N. approval for the war. "The prime minister has a lot of explaining to do," he said. One might say the same about the president and his administration, if only it would do any good.
As Bush seeks more cash for Iraq, a memo sheds light on how he got there
The Bush administration is asking Congress for an additional $120 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- money that comes on top of the $226 billion the administration has already budgeted for Iraq.
Would we be "aiding and abetting the terrorists" if we mentioned just now that the Bush administration's top budget official insisted in 2002 that the entire war in Iraq would probably cost between $50 billion and $60 billion? Or that the president's secretary of defense suggested that the cost would be "something under $50 billion" and that other countries would be paying some of it? Or that the deputy secretary of defense said that Iraq could "pay for its own reconstruction"? Or that the White House eased out the president's chief economic advisor after he dared to suggest that the war would actually cost $100 billion or -- gasp! -- $200 billion?
That kind of talk might not get you arrested -- OK, it might -- but it probably isn't particularly welcome among supporters of the president's war right now. Neither is this: A new report in the Guardian says that George W. Bush and Tony Blair decided to go to war in Iraq regardless of whether the United Nations authorized it and regardless of whether inspectors actually found any weapons of mass destruction.
The report is based on the work of Philippe Sands, a professor of international law at London's University College who practices law in the same firm as Blair's wife, and it seems to conflict with the two leaders' public claims that they were working through the U.N. process and wanted to give Saddam Hussein a final chance to disarm before deciding on war.
Among other things, Sands says the memo details Bush's idea about luring Iraq into war by spying on the country with U2 spy planes painted in U.N. colors. "If Saddam fired on them," Bush is said to have said, "he would be in breach" of U.N. resolutions. Bush is also said to have told Blair that he thought it was "unlikely" that there would be warfare between different groups in Iraq after the invasion.
Sir Menzies Campbell, the acting leader of Britain's opposition Liberal Democrat Party, said in a statement that the memorandum -- if accurate -- suggests that Bush and Blair were simply going through the motions when they sought U.N. approval for the war. "The prime minister has a lot of explaining to do," he said. One might say the same about the president and his administration, if only it would do any good.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Insulted by your President much?
Saw this article in my paper this morning and have been worked up about it ever since. First of all, the audacity of the administration to have W speak to the nation (and the world) about our "addiction to oil" and what seemed like an aggressive and, dare I say, nearly laudable plan to reduce our dependence on all oil. I'm with ya so far, Georgie. That is, until his Energy Secretary lackey, Sam Brodman clarified the statements, no doubt in large part to the bitch-slapping he took from the oil and energy industry starting immediately after the SOTU address.
He basically said, "the president didn't really mean reduce oil consumption by 75%, it was an example that was misleading, what he really meant was..."
Beyond that insult came the injury of an administration official issuing an outright racist justification of Bush's targeting of Middle-Eastern oil when he "really" meant all kinds of oil dependence:
Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official told Knight Ridder News Service that Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands."
I'm sure said administration official "never meant it that way", but come on - his statement is obviously meant to heighten the fear-based stereotypes of and prejudices against the Arab world. Does he mean to say that every American wouldn't understand that we want to cut dependence on our own oil as well? OK, maybe he just thought that people in TX OK and California would understand, but the rest of us have no idea where oil comes from.
Really, Clinton has nothing on the kind of dishonesty and slick spinning that this administration has engaged in the past six years.
He basically said, "the president didn't really mean reduce oil consumption by 75%, it was an example that was misleading, what he really meant was..."
Beyond that insult came the injury of an administration official issuing an outright racist justification of Bush's targeting of Middle-Eastern oil when he "really" meant all kinds of oil dependence:
Asked why the president used the words "the Middle East" when he didn't really mean them, one administration official told Knight Ridder News Service that Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that "every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands."
I'm sure said administration official "never meant it that way", but come on - his statement is obviously meant to heighten the fear-based stereotypes of and prejudices against the Arab world. Does he mean to say that every American wouldn't understand that we want to cut dependence on our own oil as well? OK, maybe he just thought that people in TX OK and California would understand, but the rest of us have no idea where oil comes from.
Really, Clinton has nothing on the kind of dishonesty and slick spinning that this administration has engaged in the past six years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)