Okay okay I just had to. I know gay cowboys sounds like a more liberal subject but Kong is at its heart about the environment. Here is something wild, untamed, rough, terrifying, and yet beautiful. In the name of prescious progress we try to bring it to civilization and therefore civilization to it. It rebels and we destroy it. The Empire State Building represents the zenith of progress at that time. Some say it isn't beauty that killed the beast, it was greed. Its important to note that its beauty that allowed the beast to be calmed or depending on the moment, violent without thought long enough to allow greed to kill it. If Kong was not so entranced by beauty would he have fallen victim to civilization? And from the perspective of this blog should something wild and dangerous be allowed to exist in the world, untouched, untamed? I say yes. I say its the ultimate form of civilization to allow it, to preserve and protect it even if we might profit from it in the short term (Anwar). And while Im at it let me say this movie was great. It was not perfect. There are some touchy areas. Areas of the movie that required more time to fix or required trimming to save time. I suspect the true director's cut version will take care of all that. Its fairly safe for kids as well. Just hide their eyes in two scenes. Once you see the natives attack hide their eyes for the entire fight. Nothing is actually shown but some violence not shown is even worse. They need not see it. And when the slugs show themselves you might consider having them hide their eyes then too. They won't miss anything they need to see.
A bit off topic for a political blog, but I had the privelege of seeing Peter Jackson's King Kong last night and it ripped my heart out.
It is haunting me and affecting me every second.
Though the story, itself, is unbelievable and deeply involving, it's Peter Jackson and Andy Sirtis that make the movie trancendental.
Sirtis's performance tore me apart. Jack Black and Naomi Watts were outstanding too. They all brought these intriguing characters to life for me.
Peter Jackson is the finest director of our time. As in Return of the King, Fellowship of the Ring, several moments of astounding emotional gravitas are directed so subtly and gently that they echo in your soul. Jackson's ability to crush your heart with a feather puts him in an entirely different league.
Don't write King Kong off as "the monkey movie." It is about love. And it is devastating.
I dont know what happens. I would hope it all gets destroyed. I dont think they call up the person and inform them of their eavesdropping. I think that should be done as well. It is all handled in current law though and has nothing to do with this presidential order. The issue here is they dont need to go beyond the law. The law accounts for eavesdropping in and not having time right then to go get a warrant. 72 hours is plenty of time. Now the question is why did they find it necessary to go beyond this level of oversight? I believe this government is fascist and to believe that I have to also think they believe in lists of people in our nation that they find to be an enemy. I don't believe they really fundamentally see a difference between political enemies and foreign. So do I think they have it in them to spy on policital enemies or people like me? Yes and I think its this very topic that might help shed light on just how nasty this government is. I am amazed at how many secrets are coming out one after the other. It could also be that Bush simply feels that no one should be able to see what he is doing, not even that secret court (one I dont believe should exist). That is less sinister, more childish, but still wrong.
They have 72 hours according to a report I heard earlier today, 72 hours in which they can eavesdrop before they need to seek a warrant. This notion that time is of the essence is one they would like to play, but I suspect even they know its a card that doesn't belong in the deck. They have no high ground here.
So we vote on whether people commit crimes now? According to certain Senators it is a crime. I suspect it is a crime. Though I doubt Republicans agree. Regardless if it is a crime, and if he so flagrantly violates it, and he says he will continue to do so, then I see impeachment as the only course of action with censure the only viable alternative for Republicans. Shoot for impeachment and hope to embarras a few Republicans along the way.
Push polling is to plant a seed in the mind of the pollee through the question asked and how they are asked. I think what Rove and Co did in push polling was wrong because the seed was a false one. I don't think it inappropriate to ask people a fair question that gets them to think. But that was not the real intent of the poll suggestion. You don't have to push poll to get something out of a poll. Ask the right questions and then after the fact educate them on the issue at hand. Just ask the right fair questions, see where people stand, let them see where others stand, and then push the issue out of the blogosphere and into the mainstream. We all know too many polls simply don't ask the right set of questions and force people, if they answer, to potentially pick an answer that can be twisted any old way the viewer chooses.
Whatever will get people motivated and get the M$M to talk about an issue, even if for a few moments, is money well spent. Impeachment is a fair result for Bush. We can't afford three more years, waiting is...well it is an option...it just isn't a very good one. He lied to take us to war (that has to be illegal somewhere along the line...fraud on Congress), lied about the intelligence, has put cronies in positions of power, etc, etc. It may be that what he did was legal, technically, somehow. But it won't matter if enough people turn against him on this issue. Right now what matters is keeping the ball rolling and not allowing him to turn the tide. Show them the slippery slope and maybe they'll squint their eyes long enough to see the gutter at the bottom where Bush likes to roll around in the mud with Rove. It should be done appropriately, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with spending money on it.
Should the President be all powerful? Should there be checks and balances on his power?
Fair questions, I think not misleading, and they go to the core of much of what Bush and Co use against this country. They believe he is all powerful (now that he is a Republican) and can decide what is torture, what is legal and what is not, and what is secret. The question is do regular Americans believe it and do they ever ask themselves that question. Should they be asking that question of themselves right now?
Ive heard this rumor but I have a Dell notebook and recently used support and everything was great. Outside of a few minor glitches that support has always handled Dell is the best PC manufacture out there. IMO
If by "regular" you mean naive, sure, "regular" people watch. And if you take away the supposed balanced guests you will reduce the palatability of FOX to these so called "regular" people. They will tire of watching the right wing guests spew their crap talking amongst themselves. The right needs people like you to bounce off of. The only reason I can imagine "regular" people watching FOX is to get their fix of a Jerry Spinger-like attack from the right and the sheepish and surprised reaction of the liberal commentor that naively went on thinking they were going to get some message out. Your presence will not serve any interest you may have.
All you do by going on Fox is serve as something to point to as a token liberal. You give them legitimacy that they do not deserve. Its time people treat bullies the way they should be treated. By ignoring them. FOX is a news bully. They don't treat liberal views equally. They will allow you to talk only enough to get a sound bite out which they can twist into a noose to hang you or someone else. Those that continue to watch them will seek out real news as they get tired of the boring echo. There is no fair and there is no balanced at FOX news.
Since you are likely going to say something then say this, "Keith Olberman 8EST on MSNBC". Say it in response to each and every question offered to you.
I don't believe everything I read especially that which can be found on the Internet and I find this a highly unusual series of quotes. I always cross check my news regardless of source and considering this person appears to answer to no one (like say Jeff Ganon answered to no one). Its one of those I want to believe it kind of situations but alas...Its ghood to know what links and sources can be reliable and which need to be questioned. This one is too out there.
How reliable is this source? If this information is true it could help strip a great deal of support for Bush if it were to get wider coverage. This kind of rant is dangerous and would show a very disturbing side of this administration. It would be confirmation that Bush believes he is absolute. A side I have long believed existed but would have a hard time convincing true Bush believers. How is it this guy gets a scoop like this from inside sources and it doesn't get out to everyone under the sun? I don't want to hear about the M$M, they would be all over this if they knew. So I wonder how reliable this story is to begin with.
True, it shouldnt be necessary to ban torture or define it. But for now, dealing with the type of people we are having to deal with in power, expecting them to pass such laws or make such definitions is equivalent to making them write sentences as punishment for their past deads. Clearly they don't abide by the laws we have on the books now, new ones will make no difference. But the squirming and the embarrassment of passing such laws, for them, is beneficial. Maybe it will cast some light on them for voters to make the real changes necessary to fix the problem. It may serve to catch them in a political trap if not a legal one. I really wonder why Cheney protests so much if he has no problem with ignoring laws now. It may be they are worried that underlings will start to revolt and refuse orders.
So I assume that means both present and future "detainees". If we don't torture and according to Rice we don't give detainees to other nations to torture, then what is the purpose of this new bill? What are all the flights about and why were detainees moved from the European prisons to Africa as the news broke about the secret prisons? If we aren't doing it to facilitate torture then why the secrecy. I believe McCain doesn't want torture to be our practice. I know he understands what it will mean to our prisoners of war in the future. We have one now, or at least could, no news as to his final status of alive or dead to my knowledge. He is naive at best to not address this issue of clearly defining torture.
He does need to recognize the idea of catch and hold with no hope of release is itself torture to the minds of those that have lost their freedom with no real hope of fighting it in a court of law, seeing the light of day, or communicating with the outside world...and who are in fact innocent of the supposed crimes they are accused )or not accused as the case may be)
Regardless, this anti-torture bill will do nothing so long as they refuse to define what is torture. Water boarding is torture for instance (not to them). I don't care if the guy comes out of it without a scratch. He shouldn't have to endure it. Imagine the minds of those that give out such treatment, how they must exist in our world when they are done. It will not reveal meaningful information anymore than torture that might involve loss of life or limb. We should ask ourselves if we want our soldiers to endure such treatment day in and day out in future conflicts. Their bodies may come back whole but their minds are just as important. I would say allow torture in the case of a ticking time bomb scenario. The only problem is this administration will assume all cases involve a ticking time bomb. They have no conscience.
If you are going to pick an arbitrary day to give yourself a one year birthday you should have picked the 25th. It would give the War on Christmas folks something to work with. You clearly need to work on your ego a bit. Happy Birthday!