So there's this issue that really has not gotten much press lately (sarcasm for those who don't pick that up). Apparently a Rolling Stone news reporter was spending time with General McChrystal recently and kind of exposed the ugly side of military-civilian relations. The article reveals a number of statements/impressions given by McChrystal and his aides that are not exactly complimentary of President Obama, Vice President Biden, Afghanistan ambassador Karl Eikenberry, and a few others. As usual, hilarity ensues.
My take: McChrystal fucked up. Pure and simple. Should he be fired? I believe so. Or at least his resignation should be accepted to save him some face. The first rule in business is that no one is irreplaceable. In this political climate with the longest war in US history taking place a man in his position has no place to be having this sort of report be released to the public. That is inexcusable. The office of President of the United States of America demands a certain respect, regardless of who fills that position. Turd burglars like you and I can feel free to run our mouths about these guys as much as we want but a certain decorum is expected for those in important government/military positions.
That isn't to say that I think that McChrystal should be punished for his (alleged) views. What gets him in trouble is that, a) a reporter was given the access to these candid statements, and, b) his aides and staff were under the impression that they could be this candid with the reporter. I am certainly not as naive as to think that every member of the military would be infatuated with Obama or those who have never served. That's just delusional. Regardless, the fact that this did come to light and will now grace the pages of Rolling Stone, a magazine that regularly places a shirtless Shawn White on the cover, is an incredible lapse of judgement.
I've heard a number of conservative pundits run their mouths in the time since this story broke and not too many of them have recognized the serious breach of protocol and are instead acting as if they are the damaged party. It's exactly the way a child acts when guilty. That's besides the point. They just don't seem to get it. Just because they and their couple million listeners want the president impeached/executed for made-up offenses is not reason. There has to be some actual substance. So while they are spending their air time finding justification for McChrystal's misstep the man himself is answering to his boss and taking responsibility for it.
Consequence. Again these people have proven they have no idea what consequence is about.
So it is a shame that something like this was exposed to the public. I've often heard that civilians have no business being privy to what goes on in military life and that is something that I agree with 100%. We the people are too squeamish. Too easily offended.
So McChrystal made a mistake. He's a four star general who will now be forever associated with this and that is unfortunate, but it is the truth. Political junkies are now eagerly awaiting the news of whether or not a replacement will be needed for the Afghanistan campaign but largely the actual military implications of this event will be far outweighed by the politics as each side will now jockey to inform/misinform the public on what it all really means. It's already getting wore out by Rush. Mark Levin was bitching like crazy last night. It's just the current bullshit du jour right now. McChrystal kept it real... and it definitely went wrong.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
MediaMatters: Will BP be Fox News' tipping point?
Just read this post over at MediaMatters and I couldn't agree more:
Will BP be Fox News' tipping point?
June 23, 2010 8:51 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Eight-two percent.
That’s the number you need to keep in mind as you listen to the right-wing caterwauling about how poor, helpless BP has been tormented and demonized by the bullying, Constitution-hating Obama White House.
Eight-two percent.
According to the latest CNN poll, a huge, huge, huge majority of Americans supports the $20 billion escrow fund that BP agreed to create in order to help pay for the Gulf of Mexico cleanup.
And get this: According to the same CNN poll, a microscopic 5 percent of Americans think Obama has been “too tough” on BP. Just 5 percent.
But apparently those 5-percenters all host radio and TV shows, or blog online, because that radical claim that Obama’s to blame for creating the hated escrow fund (not to mention for causing the oil spill in the first place), has been exploding within the GOP Noise Machine as pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts rush to defend BP and denounce one of the most popular things Obama has ever done.
And, of course, helping lead the charge to guard BP from Obama’s wicked ways has been Fox News.
Fox News is programmed for Obama dead-enders, that much is clear. They’re the radical minority of political hyper-partisans who hold as a matter of faith that Obama is a Manchurian candidate. It’s not just that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t truly of this country, or culture, and that his policies are misguided and wrong for America. It runs much deeper. It’s that Obama ran for the Oval Office with the explicit plan to ruin America from within once he was elected. He ran for president in order to destroy this country by stripping it of its freedoms and liberties and transforming the United States into some sort of socialist or communist outpost.
That’s how far out on the ledge Fox News now operates. And FYI, if you view the world from that demented perspective, it probably does look like BP got jobbed. (Just like of course the Clinton White House sold nuclear secrets to China during the `90s; Democratic presidents are a treasonous bunch.)
As I said, the dead-enders represent a radical minority. And yet they have an entire right-wing media complex set up explicitly to whet their Obama-hating appetite. There is no thought put into the rhetoric anymore, or their partisan jousting. Instead, the content revolves around a very simple premise: If Obama did it, it’s wrong. Not just wrong. More like, if Obama did it, it’s evil and dangerous and ghastly and un-American.
So the stimulus bill was evil and un-American. Bailing out GM and Chrysler was evil and un-American. Passing health care reform, of course, was evil and un-America.
But securing $20 billion from BP to pay for the cleanup and to compensate working Americans for the damage done to their livelihoods. That was evil and un-American?
According to Fox News it was.
And with that audacious claim, I’m wondering if Fox News isn’t pressing up very closely to its tipping point; to the moment where Fox News reveals how certifiably insane it is by rushing to BP’s defense, and just how distant its programming is from the American mainstream.
I don’t mean it’s the tipping point in terms of there being some sort of collective realization within Fox News that its signature form of partisan Obama hatred has jumped about 19 different sets of tracks and its incessant campaign of smears and lies makes a mockery out of the news business, as well as does real damage to democracy. (I’m pretty sure everyone at Fox News already knows that.)
I’m referring instead to a collective realization among people outside Fox News and the GOP Noise Machine that there’s something fundamentally wrong with a so-called news organization siding with BP after what the oil giant has done to the Gulf of Mexico and the reckless, cavalier way it has ruined the livelihoods of countless of residents.
That there’s something just plain wrong and illogical in being so robotically ant-Obama that the Fox News team would consciously side with today’s version of Public Enemy No. 1 and insist, with complete conviction, that it’s the president of the United States who’s to blame for the big oil disaster, and it’s the president of the United States who should be attacked, smeared, and ridiculed for getting BP to set aside $20 billion in damages.
The tipping point could come when everyday Americans, as well as mainstream reporters, observe the right-wing media’s radical embrace of BP (fueled by all-consuming Obama Derangement Syndrome), look at each other and utter various equivalents of, “WTF?”
Because not only is Fox News in effect defending BP, but it’s using the occasion of the $20 billion agreement to depict Obama as some sort of monster bent on destroying America. How? By holding BP financially responsible.
Again, you can almost hear the “WTF’s” as the realization of the Fox News attack campaign sinks in. Rupert Murdoch’s channel is siding with BP over the United States???
You better believe it. From Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano:
I think you could argue that the government is, in large measure, responsible for this mess.
The reason I’m (perhaps naïvely) suggesting there may soon be a collective A-ha moment about Fox News with regard to its defense of BP, whereas the channel’s outrageous programming in the past has not triggered that kind of response, is that this is different because it’s not about politics. That Fox News will relentlessly attack Obama and Democrats about every conceivable issue is, at this point, a given -- Fox News functions as the Opposition Party.
But the BP disaster, and the callous disregard for how it was handled by the oil company, is different. The environmental fiasco very much resembles an attack on the United States by a foreign entity. (An act of eco-terrorism, if you will.) And common sense tells us that that should never be a partisan issue. And common sense dictates that no sane person would side with BP, let alone condemn the government for securing $20 billion in private funds to pay for the disaster.
Or would they?
It’s difficult to put into words just how isolated and extreme the right-wing media’s embrace of BP has been over the last week. It’s mind-bending that a major political movement in this country, driven by its media “news” outlets, would rush out onto the battlefield of public debate in order to plant its flag alongside BP, even as the incompetent petroleum giant remains unable to turn off the underwater gusher that is destroying the Gulf of Mexico.
And yet turn on Fox News or tune into Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, or a whole host of other BP apologists, and get a daily earful about how BP is being unfairly maligned and that Obama should be condemned for securing $20 billion in cleanup funds. (Keep in mind that no one associated with BP has ever suggested the White House bullied the company, or that BP was the victim of a “shakedown.” No one.)
And yes, I realize some conservative loud mouths claim that just because they’re attacking the White House over the $20 billion “shakedown,” that doesn’t mean they’re defending BP, or that they agree with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and think the oil giant deserves an apology. But gimme a break. That’s a distinction without a difference because even before the “shakedown” meme was launched late last week, the same right-wing outlets, including Fox News, were weeping hysterically at how the White House was trying to “demonize” little ol’ BP, and how its poor executives were going to be paraded before Congress for a nasty “show trial.” Meaning, the right wing’s desire to throw its body in front of BP and protect it from alleged government abuse has been a constant for weeks now, and extends far beyond the “shakedown” defense.
The fact is, forced to pick a villain in the BP disaster, Fox News chose America and set its sights on the White House, not the foreign oil giant; a giant that even industry players have tagged as being reckless and guilty of “gross negligence.”
Has Fox News finally reached the point of no return?
Will BP be Fox News' tipping point?
June 23, 2010 8:51 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Eight-two percent.
That’s the number you need to keep in mind as you listen to the right-wing caterwauling about how poor, helpless BP has been tormented and demonized by the bullying, Constitution-hating Obama White House.
Eight-two percent.
According to the latest CNN poll, a huge, huge, huge majority of Americans supports the $20 billion escrow fund that BP agreed to create in order to help pay for the Gulf of Mexico cleanup.
And get this: According to the same CNN poll, a microscopic 5 percent of Americans think Obama has been “too tough” on BP. Just 5 percent.
But apparently those 5-percenters all host radio and TV shows, or blog online, because that radical claim that Obama’s to blame for creating the hated escrow fund (not to mention for causing the oil spill in the first place), has been exploding within the GOP Noise Machine as pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts rush to defend BP and denounce one of the most popular things Obama has ever done.
And, of course, helping lead the charge to guard BP from Obama’s wicked ways has been Fox News.
Fox News is programmed for Obama dead-enders, that much is clear. They’re the radical minority of political hyper-partisans who hold as a matter of faith that Obama is a Manchurian candidate. It’s not just that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t truly of this country, or culture, and that his policies are misguided and wrong for America. It runs much deeper. It’s that Obama ran for the Oval Office with the explicit plan to ruin America from within once he was elected. He ran for president in order to destroy this country by stripping it of its freedoms and liberties and transforming the United States into some sort of socialist or communist outpost.
That’s how far out on the ledge Fox News now operates. And FYI, if you view the world from that demented perspective, it probably does look like BP got jobbed. (Just like of course the Clinton White House sold nuclear secrets to China during the `90s; Democratic presidents are a treasonous bunch.)
As I said, the dead-enders represent a radical minority. And yet they have an entire right-wing media complex set up explicitly to whet their Obama-hating appetite. There is no thought put into the rhetoric anymore, or their partisan jousting. Instead, the content revolves around a very simple premise: If Obama did it, it’s wrong. Not just wrong. More like, if Obama did it, it’s evil and dangerous and ghastly and un-American.
So the stimulus bill was evil and un-American. Bailing out GM and Chrysler was evil and un-American. Passing health care reform, of course, was evil and un-America.
But securing $20 billion from BP to pay for the cleanup and to compensate working Americans for the damage done to their livelihoods. That was evil and un-American?
According to Fox News it was.
And with that audacious claim, I’m wondering if Fox News isn’t pressing up very closely to its tipping point; to the moment where Fox News reveals how certifiably insane it is by rushing to BP’s defense, and just how distant its programming is from the American mainstream.
I don’t mean it’s the tipping point in terms of there being some sort of collective realization within Fox News that its signature form of partisan Obama hatred has jumped about 19 different sets of tracks and its incessant campaign of smears and lies makes a mockery out of the news business, as well as does real damage to democracy. (I’m pretty sure everyone at Fox News already knows that.)
I’m referring instead to a collective realization among people outside Fox News and the GOP Noise Machine that there’s something fundamentally wrong with a so-called news organization siding with BP after what the oil giant has done to the Gulf of Mexico and the reckless, cavalier way it has ruined the livelihoods of countless of residents.
That there’s something just plain wrong and illogical in being so robotically ant-Obama that the Fox News team would consciously side with today’s version of Public Enemy No. 1 and insist, with complete conviction, that it’s the president of the United States who’s to blame for the big oil disaster, and it’s the president of the United States who should be attacked, smeared, and ridiculed for getting BP to set aside $20 billion in damages.
The tipping point could come when everyday Americans, as well as mainstream reporters, observe the right-wing media’s radical embrace of BP (fueled by all-consuming Obama Derangement Syndrome), look at each other and utter various equivalents of, “WTF?”
Because not only is Fox News in effect defending BP, but it’s using the occasion of the $20 billion agreement to depict Obama as some sort of monster bent on destroying America. How? By holding BP financially responsible.
Again, you can almost hear the “WTF’s” as the realization of the Fox News attack campaign sinks in. Rupert Murdoch’s channel is siding with BP over the United States???
You better believe it. From Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano:
I think you could argue that the government is, in large measure, responsible for this mess.
The reason I’m (perhaps naïvely) suggesting there may soon be a collective A-ha moment about Fox News with regard to its defense of BP, whereas the channel’s outrageous programming in the past has not triggered that kind of response, is that this is different because it’s not about politics. That Fox News will relentlessly attack Obama and Democrats about every conceivable issue is, at this point, a given -- Fox News functions as the Opposition Party.
But the BP disaster, and the callous disregard for how it was handled by the oil company, is different. The environmental fiasco very much resembles an attack on the United States by a foreign entity. (An act of eco-terrorism, if you will.) And common sense tells us that that should never be a partisan issue. And common sense dictates that no sane person would side with BP, let alone condemn the government for securing $20 billion in private funds to pay for the disaster.
Or would they?
It’s difficult to put into words just how isolated and extreme the right-wing media’s embrace of BP has been over the last week. It’s mind-bending that a major political movement in this country, driven by its media “news” outlets, would rush out onto the battlefield of public debate in order to plant its flag alongside BP, even as the incompetent petroleum giant remains unable to turn off the underwater gusher that is destroying the Gulf of Mexico.
And yet turn on Fox News or tune into Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, or a whole host of other BP apologists, and get a daily earful about how BP is being unfairly maligned and that Obama should be condemned for securing $20 billion in cleanup funds. (Keep in mind that no one associated with BP has ever suggested the White House bullied the company, or that BP was the victim of a “shakedown.” No one.)
And yes, I realize some conservative loud mouths claim that just because they’re attacking the White House over the $20 billion “shakedown,” that doesn’t mean they’re defending BP, or that they agree with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and think the oil giant deserves an apology. But gimme a break. That’s a distinction without a difference because even before the “shakedown” meme was launched late last week, the same right-wing outlets, including Fox News, were weeping hysterically at how the White House was trying to “demonize” little ol’ BP, and how its poor executives were going to be paraded before Congress for a nasty “show trial.” Meaning, the right wing’s desire to throw its body in front of BP and protect it from alleged government abuse has been a constant for weeks now, and extends far beyond the “shakedown” defense.
The fact is, forced to pick a villain in the BP disaster, Fox News chose America and set its sights on the White House, not the foreign oil giant; a giant that even industry players have tagged as being reckless and guilty of “gross negligence.”
Has Fox News finally reached the point of no return?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Crying over spilled oil
Politics is hilarious. Can I just say that? There has been a ton of absolutely hysterical behavior lately so it's been kind of difficult for me to choose any particular issue to dive in to on this here blog. However, this whole oil thing has just been a joke. Before I delve in to that, though, I'll hit up a few other topics.
There's been a little bit of new musics lately. I last blogged about STP's new album and over time it has really just struck me as mediocre. It just appears to be more blah blah blah like the last couple albums with nothing particularly pleasing to get excited about. It's always disappointing when the lead single is the high point of the album. At this point I have to admit that my affection for STP is nothing more than a fading memory of the mid 90s. There is nothing in their current works that bears any resemblance to Core or Purple.
Coming out at about the same time as STP was the new one by the Deftones. This cd isn't too shabby but, like STP, I am remembering the band more for one of my all time favorite albums (White Pony). Anyway, the reviews likened the new joint to White Pony and raved about it saying it was a return to that style but I just am not seeing it. I actually see their last three (post-White Pony) albums as kind of similar. There's nothing amazing going on in this particular era but I also don't hate it.
Another cd for me to get excited about would have to be the recent release by Sarah McLachlan. I love me some Sarah. She's awesome. I can't quite explain why my usually hard rock music taste is infiltrated by this sweet singing Canadian but the fact is that I love it. She sings great, there's usually some sweet ass bass lines going on, she's got commercials trying to make you adopt animals... what's not to like? Keep bringing it Sarah. Don't change a thing.
- Musics
There's been a little bit of new musics lately. I last blogged about STP's new album and over time it has really just struck me as mediocre. It just appears to be more blah blah blah like the last couple albums with nothing particularly pleasing to get excited about. It's always disappointing when the lead single is the high point of the album. At this point I have to admit that my affection for STP is nothing more than a fading memory of the mid 90s. There is nothing in their current works that bears any resemblance to Core or Purple.
Coming out at about the same time as STP was the new one by the Deftones. This cd isn't too shabby but, like STP, I am remembering the band more for one of my all time favorite albums (White Pony). Anyway, the reviews likened the new joint to White Pony and raved about it saying it was a return to that style but I just am not seeing it. I actually see their last three (post-White Pony) albums as kind of similar. There's nothing amazing going on in this particular era but I also don't hate it.
Another cd for me to get excited about would have to be the recent release by Sarah McLachlan. I love me some Sarah. She's awesome. I can't quite explain why my usually hard rock music taste is infiltrated by this sweet singing Canadian but the fact is that I love it. She sings great, there's usually some sweet ass bass lines going on, she's got commercials trying to make you adopt animals... what's not to like? Keep bringing it Sarah. Don't change a thing.
- Body movin'
So with the upcoming wedding thing the Hot Mary and myself have recently taken a couple dance lessons. Quite frankly I don't think we learned enough to actually hold our own anywhere but the surprising thing was that it was actually kind of fun. We had these cats teaching us some foxtrot steps and speaking to us in accents I could barely make out but I kind of dug it. Of course it's all sorts of expensive and will require practice that we don't necessarily have time to do but it might be something that we'll have to revisit in the future. Don't knock it till you've tried it.
- Eh... the fantasy baseballs
Wow. This season has been a bust. Let me give a brief summary. Doumit is ok at catcher but the guy I cut, Napoli, has since blown up. Konerko is one of the league leaders in dingers but the guy I drafted, Berkman, still has yet to do some damage. Beckham still can't put some distance between his average and the mendoza line. A-Rod is hitting well but is only on track for 20 HRs. Jeter is also hitting well but is mysteriously lacking the patience he once had (OBP of around .350). Abreu and Span are no where near the .300 AVE and .400 OBP they normally hit and Ellsbury is still not back from cracked ribs. Lester and Liriano are fine but Nolasco and Beckett are not contributing much. Finally, my closers are ok but Bailey and Franklin never get save opportunities.
That is my season thus far and, again, it is a miracle that I am not in last place.
Alright, so, the oil spill.
First of all, I suppose it's not even correct to refer to it as a "spill". That was an accurate description of what happened with Exxon up near Alaska but this situation in the Gulf of Mexico is more of an oil gusher. Not good news. The worst part (that's not actually true but it makes for a better phrase) of it is that it isn't a singular incident for which the news cycle will come and go and become yesterdays news. Nope, in this situation, as long as the oil continues to gush, so do all of the friggin experts.
This whole incident was labeled incorrectly right from the get-go as certain morons deemed it "Obama's Katrina". How does one single natural event resulting in thousands dead that was forecasted to occur have any similarity to a surprise man made event killing a dozen? I don't really know. Both of them involved water and Louisiana. Great job connecting the dots.
What it comes down to, and this is no surprise, is that there is a certain segment of the population flirting with blatant treason/sedition in the hopes of pushing Obama out of office. Most of these people like to come up with justification in their feelings despite the fact that they decided on this course before Obama was elected and even had a chance to unleash "TEH ZOMG EVIL SOCIALIST AGENDA".
The conservative criticism is two-headed and quite contradictory. On one side you have oil lover conservative head. These people are motivated by shouts of "Drill, Baby! Drill!" and, not surprisingly, is led by intellectual genius on all matters, Sarah Palin. She blames the crisis on environmentalists. This makes sense because environmentalists would prefer that there was no drilling at all. This causes drilling to occur in deep water which causes safety lapse induced explosions. In actuality I have no idea what Palin is talking about and I rarely do. I tried just now to connect the dots on her logic but I forget that pretty much everything says is some sort of Tea Party slogan which doesn't really translate well to actual thought. Fuck that bitch.
The other two prominent conservative minds claiming the oil gusher ain't no thang are Brit Hume and Rush Limbaugh. Just with the fact that Rush's name is attached to this is enough reason to already know that this stance is full of shit. Rush says that the ocean is used to absorbing oil all the time, so what's the big deal? You know what else isn't a big deal? Getting a little sun, having a glass of wine and eating a little bacon. However, just as dumping tons upon tons of crude oil in to the water isn't the same as a little oil naturally escaping in to the water it's also a whole different story to tan 5 hours of day, drink gallons of wine and eat a shit ton of bacon. Rush is a friggin moron. By the way, rush also spends his day criticizing Obama for his handling of this "non" crisis. Again, Rush is a friggin moron and so are the people who believe him.
As for Hume, it absolutely blew my mind when he asked a couple weeks ago on that idiot-fest known as Fox Sunday Morning or something like that: "Where's the oil?". What the fuck?!? At this point I had been douched with images of the following: oil slicks visible on the surface of the gulf, oil washed up on shores, oil slicks on fire in controlled burns in the water, unidentifiable oil covered avian creatures, dead turtles and other animals covered in that shit and satellite images of the mess in a big-picture view. And Hume asks where the oil is? Listen, Brit, the only reason you had no idea where the oil was is either because you are willingly ignorant on these images or your employer has chosen not to run any of the images and that's where you get all of your "news". Either one is inexcusable.
This brings us to the next bunch of critics. These are the people who think that Obama is personally responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong in this country. I really don't even know where to begin on this one as the criticisms have been coming from all directions and for any number of reasons. I'll try to round them up as I remember them.
One of the bigger complaints during this crisis is that Obama hasn't appeared to be upset enough and is detached from the situation. That criticism is entirely based on each individual. Some people want to see their leader get worked up and angry at those who have wronged us. Other people want someone who keeps emotion out of it. Regardless of your own preferences there are those that didn't like that Obama did not appear to care. Obama then made the mistake of saying that he needed to kick some ass in this whole ordeal and also gave a speech about it. All of a sudden now he is acting like a "street thug" and being rude. I also heard that he was acting like a child throwing a tantrum. These criticisms in many cases were coming from the same people who didn't like his then emotionless response. The obvious conclusions: these people wouldn't be happy no matter how Obama responded.
Next up we have the people who complained that Obama was not being hard enough on BP. This of course leads to allegations of collusion. Maybe Obama wanted this to occur hmmmm? Fast forward to this week and BP has been hit with the $20 billion bill for the damages. Now of course we hear these morons upset that Obama would dare force BP to pay for this. It's an absolute joke. The conclusion drawn in the previous paragraph is also applicable here.
The other criticism which I have personally repeated on Hannity as well as Fox is that Obama is not accepting any foreign assistance in this. This is an absolute lie and yet it gets repeated every single fucking day. There are no less than 15 nations with a ship in the gulf right now helping out in the process. All you have to do is a simple internet search. Why is that beyond the capabilities of these "professionals"?
All told I really don't know what the critics expected of Obama. I honestly don't believe that any department in the Federal Government is knowledgeable or equipped to handle an oil leak miles beneath the surface. Obama certainly made a large number of campaign promises but no where in those speeches did he say anything about being able to swim down there and take care of shit like this.
The list of outright lies and smearing that is being placed on the administration right now is so ridiculous that it really takes away from the actual tragedy. There has even been the lie spread that Obama was just fucking around for a month without visiting the scene despite the fact that Obama made an appearance right at the beginning of May. Again, it's all information that could be easily obtained should one want to know the truth rather than just tune in to sources that will tell you what you want to hear.
What the fuck would it really matter if Obama showed up on the Louisiana shores anyway? Perhaps he could stand on the beach and give the oil slick a stony stare that would send it scurrying back to the depths from whence it came. That's exactly what Reagan would have done.
As for Obama, he clearly has justification to give a hearty "fuck you" to those conservatives who find fault in everything he does. Simple as that. Why give a shit about people who hate for the sake of hating. All they want is a Republican in power. When you are the type of person to put the party above the country you have clearly fallen outside of reality. The ironic part is that these are the first people to declare themselves "patriots".
Stop getting your information from Sarah Palin facebook updates and wake up. It's either that or remain an idiot. Your choice.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Bittersweet reunion
I recently put up a post on Stone Temple Pilots in anticipation of their most recent album after a 6 year hiatus with reserved excitement and optimism. Since then STP has been garnering the expected amount of press and magazine articles that one can expect from a multi-platinum record selling band reuniting during a time when the musical landscape has since moved on from alternative rock and grunge. Being the huge fan of the group back in the day, I've read as much as I can find and I can only conclude that Scott Weiland is an absolute mess.
After the first bit of excitement over hearing of an STP reunion there were immediate signs that I shouldn't get too worked up over it. Amidst the gushing of band members about how great it was to work together again there was the confession that, while the DeLeo brothers and Kretz were recording together, Weiland had his own separate recording studio and was recording the vocal tracks by himself. Doesn't exactly speak of a glorious return to comradery, does it.
While reading through the track by track story on the Wikipedia page you see again and again how Dean DeLeo is impressed with how well Scott sang on the tunes. However, accompanying all the praise are remarks like "Scott is in a dark place". Songs that are to sound kind of happy and poppy are subject to the dark depression and drug influenced lyrics of the singer.
If you supplement these notes with articles like what was written in SPIN you can really only conclude that this reunion tour might not be very long-lived. Weiland simply sounds like a mess. He doesn't show up until the very last minute before concerts, has his own bus which he retreats to the second a show is over, needs an assistant to bring him food, chain smokes and drinks like crazy, pops pills but considers himself "clean" because he is no longer doing smack and is obsessed over ex-flames. It really sounds like he hates his current gig of "talented millionaire front man", which is a shame.
I recently gotten my hands on the newest cd and the first listen wasn't too bad. From what I have heard so far it isn't as hard as previous albums but it is definitely catchy. Without listening to lyrics it does sound like a happy album... but paying attention really exposes the current state that Weiland is in. The dude, quite frankly, sounds like he's one bad trip from suicide.
It must be frustrating as well for the other members of the band. They are talented as all hell but really have not amounted to much without Scott in front of the band. It would have been nice to see them continue the Army of Anyone project with Filter front man Patrick because the cd they did release was actually pretty good. It seems, however, that they really don't shine unless they have Weiland, and to have their success tied to such an erratic and unhealthy person can not be pleasant.
You'd think this wouldn't bother me as much as it does. The band has basically been dead for years and everything else they release is pretty much a bonus but just knowing that they are capable of much more pisses me off. I'll never be able to understand rock stars. You take a god given gift that is capable of getting you hordes of admirers and a shit ton of cash and yet it's not good enough. Ruin it all with drugs and self-loathing. Awesome. Have fun with that. I suppose the over-exposure of media is to blame as I could simply just listen to the cds and ignore the story.
Anyway, I'm hoping to take advantage of the long memorial day weekend by giving this new cd as well as the new release by the Deftones a good listen. I also plan on getting drunk at least once. There's a new bottle of brandy with my name on it. Have a good weekend kids.
After the first bit of excitement over hearing of an STP reunion there were immediate signs that I shouldn't get too worked up over it. Amidst the gushing of band members about how great it was to work together again there was the confession that, while the DeLeo brothers and Kretz were recording together, Weiland had his own separate recording studio and was recording the vocal tracks by himself. Doesn't exactly speak of a glorious return to comradery, does it.
While reading through the track by track story on the Wikipedia page you see again and again how Dean DeLeo is impressed with how well Scott sang on the tunes. However, accompanying all the praise are remarks like "Scott is in a dark place". Songs that are to sound kind of happy and poppy are subject to the dark depression and drug influenced lyrics of the singer.
If you supplement these notes with articles like what was written in SPIN you can really only conclude that this reunion tour might not be very long-lived. Weiland simply sounds like a mess. He doesn't show up until the very last minute before concerts, has his own bus which he retreats to the second a show is over, needs an assistant to bring him food, chain smokes and drinks like crazy, pops pills but considers himself "clean" because he is no longer doing smack and is obsessed over ex-flames. It really sounds like he hates his current gig of "talented millionaire front man", which is a shame.
I recently gotten my hands on the newest cd and the first listen wasn't too bad. From what I have heard so far it isn't as hard as previous albums but it is definitely catchy. Without listening to lyrics it does sound like a happy album... but paying attention really exposes the current state that Weiland is in. The dude, quite frankly, sounds like he's one bad trip from suicide.
It must be frustrating as well for the other members of the band. They are talented as all hell but really have not amounted to much without Scott in front of the band. It would have been nice to see them continue the Army of Anyone project with Filter front man Patrick because the cd they did release was actually pretty good. It seems, however, that they really don't shine unless they have Weiland, and to have their success tied to such an erratic and unhealthy person can not be pleasant.
You'd think this wouldn't bother me as much as it does. The band has basically been dead for years and everything else they release is pretty much a bonus but just knowing that they are capable of much more pisses me off. I'll never be able to understand rock stars. You take a god given gift that is capable of getting you hordes of admirers and a shit ton of cash and yet it's not good enough. Ruin it all with drugs and self-loathing. Awesome. Have fun with that. I suppose the over-exposure of media is to blame as I could simply just listen to the cds and ignore the story.
Anyway, I'm hoping to take advantage of the long memorial day weekend by giving this new cd as well as the new release by the Deftones a good listen. I also plan on getting drunk at least once. There's a new bottle of brandy with my name on it. Have a good weekend kids.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Rand Paul is an effing coward
So in the aftermath of Rand Paul's inability to answer a question about Civil Rights, he has resorted to some rather childish damage control today. Taking a page out of the Sarah Palin book of zero personal responsibility, his statements are now all Rachel Maddow's fault.
"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that.
These are settled issues in the Civil Rights Act," he said. "I have no intention of bringing up anything related to the Civil Rights Act... I think [segregation] is sort of a stain and blight on our history -- so, no, I have never really favored any change in the Civil Rights Act or any of that. But they have seemed to unleash the loony left on me."
To his credit, he did issue a full a full statement which you can read if you follow the above link.
I'm sure the right wing blogosphere is currently vilifying Maddow and accusing her of gotcha politics. I bet there might even be people referring to her being a lesbian. The truth is that Rand took the cowards way out of this situation. Perhaps it was unwise of him to go on her program, but Rachel did not force him to say the things he said.
I think the Tea Party needs to find themselves a new hero.
"It was a poor political decision and probably won't be happening anytime in the near future," the Tea Party endorsed Senate candidate said on the Laura Ingraham show on Thursday morning. "Because, yeah, they can play things and want to say, 'Oh you believed in beating up people that were trying to sit in restaurants in the 1960s.' And that is such a ridiculous notion and something that no rational person is in favor of. [But] she went on and on about that.
These are settled issues in the Civil Rights Act," he said. "I have no intention of bringing up anything related to the Civil Rights Act... I think [segregation] is sort of a stain and blight on our history -- so, no, I have never really favored any change in the Civil Rights Act or any of that. But they have seemed to unleash the loony left on me."
To his credit, he did issue a full a full statement which you can read if you follow the above link.
I'm sure the right wing blogosphere is currently vilifying Maddow and accusing her of gotcha politics. I bet there might even be people referring to her being a lesbian. The truth is that Rand took the cowards way out of this situation. Perhaps it was unwise of him to go on her program, but Rachel did not force him to say the things he said.
I think the Tea Party needs to find themselves a new hero.
She turned me in to a newt!
... apparently he didn't get better, though.
My last post inspired me to attempt to recall all the political douchebaggery that has been going on.
First of all we have Newt Gingrich. I need to remind you all that Newt was made famous by conducting a witch hunt on Bill Clinton's extra marital activities while Newt himself was busy being a less than perfect husband. This by no means clears Bill's name, but it certainly does leave quite a shit stain on his own.
So in case you didn't hear, Obama recently nominated some lady to the Supreme Court. There isn't a lot of history on this lady but opponents have been doing their best to find issues and fucking run with them.
If there's one thing that conservatives can agree upon is that, despite their own Ivy League educations, they hate fancy pants faggy elitist Ivy League Schools. Harvard qualifies. So this Kagan lady at one point worked at Harvard. So here's what Newt comes up with:
"On the one hand, Harvard accepts money from Saudis. Saudi Arabia, by the way, executes homosexuals. Saudi Arabia represses women. Saudi Arabia does not allow Christians or Jews to practice their religion, but Saudi money is fine."
The irony? Newt was on Fox news at the time. He's a paid contributor. Fox news happens to be partially owned by a Saudi prince. That, my friends, is too good to be true.
On top of that, her lack of experience in court was a bad bad thing, says Newt & Co. However, similar lack of experience was ok with John Roberts. Why? Because Roberts was conservative.
So it's just political hypocrisy as usual. But whatever, let's burn the bitch anyways.
This is actually the only thing I'm going to get to for now. I should really get some effing work done.
My last post inspired me to attempt to recall all the political douchebaggery that has been going on.
First of all we have Newt Gingrich. I need to remind you all that Newt was made famous by conducting a witch hunt on Bill Clinton's extra marital activities while Newt himself was busy being a less than perfect husband. This by no means clears Bill's name, but it certainly does leave quite a shit stain on his own.
So in case you didn't hear, Obama recently nominated some lady to the Supreme Court. There isn't a lot of history on this lady but opponents have been doing their best to find issues and fucking run with them.
If there's one thing that conservatives can agree upon is that, despite their own Ivy League educations, they hate fancy pants faggy elitist Ivy League Schools. Harvard qualifies. So this Kagan lady at one point worked at Harvard. So here's what Newt comes up with:
"On the one hand, Harvard accepts money from Saudis. Saudi Arabia, by the way, executes homosexuals. Saudi Arabia represses women. Saudi Arabia does not allow Christians or Jews to practice their religion, but Saudi money is fine."
The irony? Newt was on Fox news at the time. He's a paid contributor. Fox news happens to be partially owned by a Saudi prince. That, my friends, is too good to be true.
On top of that, her lack of experience in court was a bad bad thing, says Newt & Co. However, similar lack of experience was ok with John Roberts. Why? Because Roberts was conservative.
So it's just political hypocrisy as usual. But whatever, let's burn the bitch anyways.
This is actually the only thing I'm going to get to for now. I should really get some effing work done.
Is this the face of the Tea Party?
There's been so much retarded business lately in politics that I haven't been able to pick which to blog about. However, in the wake of recent elections (the only things that really matter, I guess) this story was too good to pass up.
All too often politicians do not go on to talking head shows hosted by pundits with opposite leanings. It's much easier to stay within your bubble and get lobbed softballs from the likes of Hannity or Olbermann. I give Rachel Maddow a shit ton of credit as she often invites "the enemy" and gives a great interview.
Last night, Rand Paul discovered why it is good political strategy to remain safely within that bubble:
That is really not going to help his cause. Even Joe Scarborough was a bit taken aback by this saying that if Paul didn't come out with a fix soon it was going to turn in to racism battle much like what is happening in Arizona.
So here you have the most high profile victory for the Tea Party. In the brief time between yesterday morning and when the Maddow interview aired it has been reported again and again that Paul stands for all the values that the Tea Party holds sacred. Come to find out that also involves segregation. He couldn't come out and give a clear answer on whether or not minorities should be allowed to make a purchase in the same place as whites. It completely baffles me.
And yet we get told again and again that the evil liberal media is somehow causing the Tea Party to appear racist. No matter how many racist signs are held up at rallies or no matter what idiot statement comes out of their mouths it's always the fault of the liberal media.
I had a conversation with a conservative friend of mine recently discussing the Tea Party. The things they say they are for I am also for. Less taxes sounds good to me. Less spending is also good. My problem stems from the reality of the movement, rather than what they perceive themselves to be. It is not a non-partisan group. It is not a diverse group. Those are the facts. If there had even been a hint of this movement gathering momentum during the Bush years it would be much easier to believe. Instead, the Tea Party reared it's ugly head only after Obama's election as part of this massive wave of faux outrage over imagined insults.
Illegal wiretapping. That's cool.
Shady government actions and no attempts at transparency. Fine with me!
Fabricated intelligence as cause for war. No problem.
Taking the first surplus in years and turning it in to a deficit. Why not?
Health Care Reform... FUCK NO!
It makes no sense.
As I always do I've gotten completely off track. The point is that hopefully the voters will understand they have the power to not elect a man who opposes the Civil Rights Act. Hopefully they make the right choice.
All too often politicians do not go on to talking head shows hosted by pundits with opposite leanings. It's much easier to stay within your bubble and get lobbed softballs from the likes of Hannity or Olbermann. I give Rachel Maddow a shit ton of credit as she often invites "the enemy" and gives a great interview.
Last night, Rand Paul discovered why it is good political strategy to remain safely within that bubble:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
That is really not going to help his cause. Even Joe Scarborough was a bit taken aback by this saying that if Paul didn't come out with a fix soon it was going to turn in to racism battle much like what is happening in Arizona.
So here you have the most high profile victory for the Tea Party. In the brief time between yesterday morning and when the Maddow interview aired it has been reported again and again that Paul stands for all the values that the Tea Party holds sacred. Come to find out that also involves segregation. He couldn't come out and give a clear answer on whether or not minorities should be allowed to make a purchase in the same place as whites. It completely baffles me.
And yet we get told again and again that the evil liberal media is somehow causing the Tea Party to appear racist. No matter how many racist signs are held up at rallies or no matter what idiot statement comes out of their mouths it's always the fault of the liberal media.
I had a conversation with a conservative friend of mine recently discussing the Tea Party. The things they say they are for I am also for. Less taxes sounds good to me. Less spending is also good. My problem stems from the reality of the movement, rather than what they perceive themselves to be. It is not a non-partisan group. It is not a diverse group. Those are the facts. If there had even been a hint of this movement gathering momentum during the Bush years it would be much easier to believe. Instead, the Tea Party reared it's ugly head only after Obama's election as part of this massive wave of faux outrage over imagined insults.
Illegal wiretapping. That's cool.
Shady government actions and no attempts at transparency. Fine with me!
Fabricated intelligence as cause for war. No problem.
Taking the first surplus in years and turning it in to a deficit. Why not?
Health Care Reform... FUCK NO!
It makes no sense.
As I always do I've gotten completely off track. The point is that hopefully the voters will understand they have the power to not elect a man who opposes the Civil Rights Act. Hopefully they make the right choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)