kevinthegreat (without imported items)

"As journalists wonder why their profession is going down the tubes, it's up ...

Tue, 05 May 2009 08:01:13 GMT

"As journalists wonder why their profession is going down the tubes, it's up to fourth graders to ask the former secretary of state why she authorized the illegal torture of other human beings." — Andrew Sullivan

Sounds like torture to me ...

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:15:02 GMT

U.S. military interrogators have often blasted music at detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. According to the British law group Reprieve, these are among the songs they have used most frequently:

“Enter Sandman,” Metallica.
“Bodies,” Drowning Pool.
“Shoot to Thrill,” AC/DC.
“Hell’s Bells,” AC/DC.
“I Love You,” from the “Barney and Friends” children’s TV show.
“Born in the USA,” Bruce Springsteen.
“Babylon,” David Gray.
“White America,” Eminem.
“Sesame Street,” theme song from the children’s TV show.

Other bands and artists whose music has been frequently played at U.S. detention sites: Aerosmith, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Don McLean, Lil’ Kim, Limp Bizkit, Meat Loaf, Rage Against the Machine, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Tupac Shakur.

- Associated Press

Son of the Sausage King

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:13:00 GMT

We're doing a story on Michael Froman, a Marin guy who is part of Obama's transition team (and who intro'd Obama to Robert Rubin back in the day). The first newsroom question, of course, was whether Froman was of any relation to the Sausage King of Chicago — and then the reporter told us the guy's dad's name really is ... Abe Froman. Classic.

On California, Proposition 8, marriage, church and state

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 03:37:31 GMT

If marriage is the religious institution and pact with God that the right keeps insisting it is, then I say we give them exactly what they want: full religious control and protection of the term "marriage," without a government definition. It's a simple church and state issue, and the state has absolutely no business certifying religious pacts, offering special titles or granting special benefits to those who join into those religious pacts. Therefore, the state should immediately stop recognizing marriages as a legal contract.

Instead, government should convert all current state recognition of "marriage" — and the rights and benefits afforded — to "civil unions." Nothing changes but the name: A straight couple married in a church is simply recognized by the government as a civil union, while same-sex couples who enter into their own civil unions are recognized identically by the government and afforded the same legal rights. No one loses any rights, no one gains and, most importantly, no one is treated or recognized differently by the government. The Establishment Clause is preserved.

"Marriage," then, would be a title offered only by the church. If different religions want to allow or disallow same-sex marriages, that's their right to do so, and will be afforded that First Amendment protection under the U.S. Constitution. But for the government, or the electorate, to vote upon the definition of a religious term that happens to vary depending on the denomination? Are there any other religious terms we'd like to put to a vote?

Or perhaps that all sounds a bit extreme, and the fanatics pushing Proposition 8 understand the importance of the government officially recognizing their union as a marriage. Interesting. I'm sure I could find another group of people who'd agree.

Or perhaps all this breathless bluster about gay marriage isn't about religious sanctity after all. If that's the case, then any religious argument should be entirely eliminated from the conversation, as it's totally irrelevant. But I fear then, unfortunately, that the only remaining reasons boil down to bigotry and discrimination against an entire group of people based solely on their sexual orientation. Do we even have to ask ourselves or put to a vote whether such discrimination should be sanctioned by the state?

I think the right should be forced to pick its poison, and that they can no longer have it both ways. Either marriage is a religious pact that shouldn't be governed by the state, or it's not a religious issue and therefore government should remain neutral in its definition of the term. Of course, that's not a choice they're about to make.

La Floridita (aka The Hemingway Daiquiri)

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:44:00 GMT

Since I keep forgetting to write down my version of the recipe:

2 oz light rum
3/4 oz key lime juice
1/4 oz maraschino liqueur
1/4 oz simple syrup

Shake shake shake and strain into martini glass. Skip the grapefruit juice and the maraschino cherry (unless it's really maraschinoed!)

I guess Kissinger and the conservative pundits weren't paying attention to the debates.

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:38:13 GMT

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality." - Henry Kissinger this morning.

Let's look at the transcripts.

OBAMA: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition.

So, Obama is merely talking about the concept of preconditions. He hasn't mentioned a thing about presidential talks. More:

OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.

When we talk about preconditions -- and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions -- the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.

So there's more clarification: the president wouldn't meet without having lower-level talks, and suggesting otherwise is a mischaracterization. OK. More:

MCCAIN: Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.

OBAMA: Of course not.

All right, so Obama fully acknowledges Kissinger didn't say anything about meeting with the president without preconditions. Is it sinking in yet? We're talking about the idea of eliminating preconditions, not about direct talks with the president. Just to be sure:

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that.

"Nobody's talking about that." The transcript says, right there, again -- nobody is talking about talks with no preconditions on a presidential level. We're talking about preconditions on another, lower level.

Concepts to remember: (a) No preconditions, (b) High-level talks, but (c) not with the president. So what has Kissinger said in the past? Here's from the other CNN transcript:

KISSINGER: I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Sounds like "no preconditions." And:

KISSINGER: I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level.

Sounds like high-level, but not with the president. And what did Kissinger say this morning?

I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.

So Kissinger favors high level talks without preconditions — just not with the president. Obama never asserted otherwise. Obama never said there should be direct talks with the president without preconditions, and in fact tried several times to make sure that was clear. Kissinger's retort this morning only mentioned direct talks with president — it didn't disqualify eliminating preconditions in lower-level talks. Kissinger has been consistent in his statements (no preconditions, high-level talks, no president) and Obama has been consistent with Kissinger (no preconditions, high-level talks, no president).

McCain (and apparently a rising storm of conservatives this morning) are the only people who haven't been consistent. They either don't understand their own position, don't understand Kissinger's, or don't understand Obama's.

It simply cannot be clearer.

What can the average person do?

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:53:26 GMT

On a Web forum, after a debate about what caused the Wall Street meltdown, someone finally asked what the average person can do right now to prevent it from happening again. My response:

The average person?

Stop living the self-absorbed, entitled stereotypical "American" lifestyle that the rest of the world claims we live. Some of us do, some of us don't -- but the stereotype, as always, is rooted at least partially in reality.

Are you financially overextended? Pay more than 30% of your gross on housing? Pay more than ~12% of your gross on a car payment? Don't have three months living expenses in a savings account? Have credit card debt? No retirement savings? But definitely have a new plasma, new F-150/BMW and think on $60,000/year that a $380k condo sounds reasonable? If so, you suck. Stop it.

If everyone got their sh*t under control, especially the notion that they "deserve" to live in a house (or peer-pressuring that rent is a waste of money), a lot of this would have been a lot less dramatic. Houses are too expensive because people are willing to pay that much. People are willing to pay that much because they got some BS liar loan and interest-only ARM and prayed their income would triple in three years when the payment increases, because that's definitely typical.

These firms did a lot of this on their own not related to this, but this a significant part of it. Personal fiscal responsibility.