• on a comment on I have reason to despise Clinton over 6 years ago

    voting to authorize a war that has killed 4000 US troops, horribly maimed tens of thousands more, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and cost the US economy up to 3 trillion dollars with absolutely ZERO benefit to the American people (as opposed to ExxonMobile) was wise and serious and brave, exactly the kind of quality we want in our next CiC, but being in favor of targeted attacks on the guys who were actually behind 9/11 in a country that is a tacit if not active supporter of anti-US terrorism and refuses to go after them, and just orchestrated the assassination of its former prime minister so its Bush-loving tyrant of a "president" can stay in office indefinitely is "naive"?

    You're an idiot.

  • on a comment on John McCain's Superstition over 6 years ago

    I came across an article today in the Huff Post (I think) about how the CIA apparently did exactly what Obama recently said that he'd do, when it apparently went after and killed a top Al Qaida leader in NW Pakistan, without Musharraf's knowledge or approval, after the latter failed to go after them. I'd LOVE to hear McCain either denounce this action or explain how it differs from what Obama called for.

    Our biggest weapon against McCain is quite obvious: McCain. He's an out of control loudmouth moron who can't keep his mouth shut and stop saying stupid and crazy things or letting his many inner crazyass demons come flying out. Put against Obama's cool and thoughtful demeanor, he will turn off indies in droves.

  • on a comment on John McCain's Superstition over 6 years ago

    This is about the last thing that I'd attack McCain over. It'll make us look like those idiots who keep calling into CSPAN saying that they'll never vote for a Muslim terrorist who refuses to salute the flag or recite the pledge.

    (Where do these losers come from?!?)

    I actually find these superstitions to be charming. About the only thing that I like about Herr Hundert und Tausend Jahre Krieg these days.

  • comment on a post John McCain's Superstition over 6 years ago

    this ranks pretty low for me. Everyone's got some sort of favorite ritual or object that gives them comfort. Let the poor man have his little talismen. By the time Obama and Dean are done with him, they'll be all that he has left. Maybe he can share them with his best friend Joe when they retire in a few years.

  • comment on a post With Friends Like These... over 6 years ago

    Yeah, it was pretty awful to watch, as much for this fool's lack of preparedness and the Obama campaign's sloppiness in allowing him to speak on its behalf, as for Tweety's barely disguised contempt for Democrats (as opposed to he-man white guy Reagan Democrats like him) of all stripes erupt in its full inglory. The man is a seriously nasty and disturbed creep who will doubtless do whatever he can to get his good Aqua Velva man-crush buddy McCain elected in the fall, all the while trying to hide behind a fake "I like Obama" facade. He has concern troll written all over him.

    But yeah, the Obama campaign needs to better vett and prepare its surrogates. Make them attend a seminar or something and record a tape to prove that they're ready for prime time. The stakes are too high than to give the other side anything to bite into. Let Tweety pick on Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman and the other side's fools.

  • comment on a post Clinton wins New Hampshire over 6 years ago

    Just a few seconds ago.

  • One of the beauties of IPTV is that for one flat internet access fee (which will not be limited to cable for broadband now that DSL is catching up, fiber's becoming more available, cellular access is becoming pervasive, and WiMax is set to entry the mix) we'll be able to get any and all non-premium channels for "free", with no more a la carte bundles (unless channels specifically agree to be bundled, which I seriously doubt since competition will make it unnecessary).

    I assume that most premium channels like HBO will continue to charge for access (like the WSJ used to charge for online access). But "regular" channels like CNN, MTV, the networks, and of course CSPAN, will likely not do so, deriving their revenues mostly from ad revenues (which--and this is the real beauty of it from their perspective--due to this being a digital and IP-based medium, will allow them to micro-target their ads to specific viewers, on the Google model).

    Far more importantly, though, is that this will make possible orders of magnitude of new channels, most of which will be free. Think MyDD TV (or, perhaps, on the flip side, Malkin TV--ech). And, perhaps, a very interesting "comments" section. ;-)

    All of which will greatly benefit from, if not require, a very progressive legislative and regulatory environment. I.e. a progressive Dem president and more progressive Dems in congress. Yet another reason to make this happen, as it will only redound to our benefit in the decades to come, just as broadcast deregulation redounded to the right's benefit in the 80's and 90's. This will be our (metaphorical and political) Fox, Drudge and Rush-killers. (But also the South Park Channel!)

  • comment on a post Distributing progressive voices on Internet TV over 6 years ago

    As in:

    Forget cable

    It's a short to mid-term delivery method that will eventually go away in its present form. People might still get their news via the same physical cable and electrical signals that travel through that cable that they currently do, but via IPTV, which is a totally different content delivery technology from either the analog or digital TV (including HDTV) technology that nearly everyone gets their TV news (and all other TV content) from. Instead of a direct cable connection offering up to 100 channels or an STB (set top box) connection offering up to 1000 channels, IPTV will effectively be able to offer as many channels as there are people who are able and willing to create and offer them. Think of it as the web model translated to TV content. I.e. just as you can now visit literally millions of unique web sites (of varying interest and quality, of course), you will be able to "tune" into literally millions of unique "TV" channels (also of varying interest and quality), originating from anywhere from a multibillion dollar media company to some guy's basement.

    This is not streaming web video, mind you, even if redirected to a TV at fairly high quality (which is currently possible, but still requires a computer as the "set top box"). Although it will work on a computer, if desired (the way that some people set up their computers with TV tuners to function as TVs), it will require no computer, at least not of the sort that most people think of as a computer (i.e. Mac or PC). Rather, a set top box will be all that's needed (the functionality of which could be built into future TVs or added via some sort of CableCard-like plug-in device), a comfortable couch, and you're good to go. And the beauty is that while you might still get such a box from the cable company, the open nature of IPTV will make it hard for them to limit the content that you can view. I.e. no more bundling or being forced to watch what you can afford to watch (this is part of the reason that so many telcoms are against new neutrality, as IPTV would kill their present business model, because they can no longer control content).

    I think that prospective progressive news producers should give IPTV a serious look. Not as a short or even mid-term solution, as its time hasn't yet come, but as a long-term solution. It'll be far cheaper to produce and "broadcast", will largely avoid the regulatory and practical constraints of broadcasting on cable or (satellite), and won't be subject to the current cable and satellite practice of bundling channels. Basically, if you can afford the staff and technology to produce the news (or any other content), and the cost of an IPTV hosting account, you're good to go. Essentially, everyone gets to have their own cable access channel! The main downside being that this is still several years away from being a practically possible and technologically competitive alternative to existing broadcast technologies, as the technology just isn't there yet (nor are the right people in place in DC yet to help make this happen--Martin has got to GO).

    What talk radio was to the right, and the web has been to the left, IPTV (and, I suppose, IP Radio) will be to progressivism in the future. And it will likely blow both of these away in terms of reach. Of course, the right will exploit it too (and clearly Murdoch gets it and has been making lots of moves to get in on the ground floor of this). But given the inherently progressive nature of technology, I suspect that it will benefit our side much more than theirs (but then I was convinced that Gore and Kerry would win so what do I know).

    by kovie on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 04:58:28 AM PDT

    From one ex-Israeli to another, ;-) ;-).

  • For what it's worth, I voted for Mark Green in every primary campaign that he's run in that I was able to vote in, and would have easily supported him for mayor if he ran against Rudy. I was voting as much if not more against the entrenched, corrupt and ineffective NYC Democratic political machine that dominated NYC at the time as for Rudy. It was like a crooked version of Jimmy Carter without the charm.

    Of course, he has since completely come unglued, and Mr. 4% doesn't appear to be going anywhere except the embracing arms of poor Judy.

  • comment on a post Giuliani's New Vote For Me Or Die Ad over 6 years ago

    and nearly 3000 people did die. So I'm struggling to see the point that he's trying to make. What, this time he'll get it right, having learned his lessons well?

    Obviously, his being mayor clearly didn't cause the initial attack (or so I assume, not having any reason to doubt that) or the initial and other unavoidable deaths. But putting the command center in WTC 7 (which I once worked in, before he became mayor) and not addressing the years-old radio problem? Obviously those were his fault, however he's tried to weasel out of it. And he's our one and only way to avoid another 9/11? That's kind of like appointing Joe Klein to head a journalism school.

    And I apologize for voting for him. If I knew then what I know now...

  • comment on a post The Real News over 6 years ago

    It's a short to mid-term delivery method that will eventually go away in its present form. People might still get their news via the same physical cable and electrical signals that travel through that cable that they currently do, but via IPTV, which is a totally different content delivery technology from either the analog or digital TV (including HDTV) technology that nearly everyone gets their TV news (and all other TV content) from. Instead of a direct cable connection offering up to 100 channels or an STB (set top box) connection offering up to 1000 channels, IPTV will effectively be able to offer as many channels as there are people who are able and willing to create and offer them. Think of it as the web model translated to TV content. I.e. just as you can now visit literally millions of unique web sites (of varying interest and quality, of course), you will be able to "tune" into literally millions of unique "TV" channels (also of varying interest and quality), originating from anywhere from a multibillion dollar media company to some guy's basement.

    This is not streaming web video, mind you, even if redirected to a TV at fairly high quality (which is currently possible, but still requires a computer as the "set top box"). Although it will work on a computer, if desired (the way that some people set up their computers with TV tuners to function as TVs), it will require no computer, at least not of the sort that most people think of as a computer (i.e. Mac or PC). Rather, a set top box will be all that's needed (the functionality of which could be built into future TVs or added via some sort of CableCard-like plug-in device), a comfortable couch, and you're good to go. And the beauty is that while you might still get such a box from the cable company, the open nature of IPTV will make it hard for them to limit the content that you can view. I.e. no more bundling or being forced to watch what you can afford to watch (this is part of the reason that so many telcoms are against new neutrality, as IPTV would kill their present business model, because they can no longer control content).

    I think that prospective progressive news producers should give IPTV a serious look. Not as a short or even mid-term solution, as its time hasn't yet come, but as a long-term solution. It'll be far cheaper to produce and "broadcast", will largely avoid the regulatory and practical constraints of broadcasting on cable or (satellite), and won't be subject to the current cable and satellite practice of bundling channels. Basically, if you can afford the staff and technology to produce the news (or any other content), and the cost of an IPTV hosting account, you're good to go. Essentially, everyone gets to have their own cable access channel! The main downside being that this is still several years away from being a practically possible and technologically competitive alternative to existing broadcast technologies, as the technology just isn't there yet (nor are the right people in place in DC yet to help make this happen--Martin has got to GO).

    What talk radio was to the right, and the web has been to the left, IPTV (and, I suppose, IP Radio) will be to progressivism in the future. And it will likely blow both of these away in terms of reach. Of course, the right will exploit it too (and clearly Murdoch gets it and has been making lots of moves to get in on the ground floor of this). But given the inherently progressive nature of technology, I suspect that it will benefit our side much more than theirs (but then I was convinced that Gore and Kerry would win so what do I know).

  • comment on a post Clinton & Clark over 6 years ago

    Now wouldn't that be interesting if Huckabee wins the GOP nomination--would he pick another Razorback Stater to make it an all-Arkansas race?

    As for Obama, if he wins, I think that he picks one of the following:

    Biden--foreign policy experience and "gravitas".
    Dodd--domestic policy experience and constitutional "gravitas".
    Edwards--the populist, progressive and "bubba" vote.
    Napolitano--immigration experience, western & female vote.
    Mitchell--establishmentarian, experience, overall "gravitas".
    Richardson--foreign policy & overall experience, Hispanic & western vote.

    Whoever he picks, though, it's obviously going to have to be someone who helps make up for what are likely to be seen as his biggest weaknesses in the general among swing voters, namely his race, name and heritage, relative lack of national and foreign policy experience, being a northerner, and his perceived liberalism (even if it's not entirely deserved). I'd go with Biden if I had to choose, with Richardson being a close second (although either might prefer cabinet positions instead, especially SoS).

  • I think that Keith Olbermann remarked on that. Yeah, it was strange. That whole family's got a really weird and unhealthy dynamic. It's like someone committed a horrible crime 150 years ago to make the family fortune and they all know about it and are forced to cover it up, and it explains their secrecy and coldness. It's also almost like they view themselves as royalty, but of the non-nobless oblige type. I.e. screw the commoners--there's a reason they're called commoners. Anyway, the daughters seem a bit more "human" than the rest, but at least Jenna still seems to think that she's 15, which is bizarre. Then again, daddy think's he's 12 (of the drown puppies sort), so it kind of makes sense...

  • I tend to value actual policy over words when it comes to politics (which is why, to give an example, Richardson's promise to remove all US troops from Iraq never impressed me much because not only didn't I believe that he really meant it, but I also didn't think that he could do it--it just sounded like what he thought would attract the most progressives to his side). So when Obama says things that are designed to please the center and soft right, I tend to dismiss it as much the same as what I think that Richardson did with the left--pander to them.

    I.e. it's just politics. And I think that he's pretty good at it.

    And, although I do not agree with some of Obama's policy stances--espcially SS and health insurance--I still view him as the "lesser of three evils" and the most promising in terms of the potential to be a good Democratic president among those whom I think have a chance of winning the nomination. Iraq plays heavily into this for me (and I initially supported the war, which makes me especially wary of politicians who also did).

    The fact that he hasn't gone for the progressive vote isn't that big a deal to me. Both he and Hillary seem to have conceded that to Edwards, who is the least likely of them to win and who I do not believe will win (which is why I never really gave him strong consideration).

    But in terms of who would actually govern more progressively between the two, I have to believe that it would be Obama, not Hillary, based on their track records. Perhaps not resoundingly so, but she just gives me a bad feeling about the sort of president that she'd be, in terms of politicans and policy. But between his working as a community organizer, opposing the war, and being a relative newcomer to DC, I see him as pushing forth a more progressive agenda, even if he isn't much of a "progressive" himself.

    Not a very comprehensive or scientific analysis, I realize. But in terms of likely real-world results, I see him as more likely to actually be effectively progressive than Hillary (i.e. there's no point in being the most progressive candidate in the world--which of course Hillary isn't--if you either can't get elected--like Kucinich, Dodd or Richardson--or you are less likely to win over congress and more likely to make bad compromises--which I believe would be more likely with Hillary).

  • comment on a post Thanks for the Bush Oprah Winfrey over 6 years ago

    I have to say that when I saw that clip of Jenna Bush on Ellen this week, it kind of creeped me out in how it tried to make Bush seem like just a regular guy dad having to deal with a fun-loving all-American daughter. Abu Ghraib? Iraq? Torture? Warrantless wiretaps? Feh, he's just a regular Joe, and his daughter's so cute!

    I couldn't help wondering why someone whom you would assume reviles Bush and opposes everything that he stands for would do this right now, after all that's happened. I mean, if you want to have Jenna on, fine, she recently wrote a book. But why the cutesy phone call to daddy? Do we really need to boost the creep's poll numbers among the segment of the population that can't remember beyond last Tuesday and knows more about Ellen's cats than where Iraq is on the map (and yes, I think that people who watch these shows regularly are illiterate nincompoops with the intellectual maturity of a 12 year old)?

    I just can't stand this American tendency to want to make everything "cute" and non-threatening. But what do you expect from someone who cries over a dog, but not stuff that's actually worth crying over, like, um, dead troops and innocent Iraqis. Or perhaps Darfur. Or maybe Katrina. Whatever, I give up.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads