This just goes to show the greatness of Pink Floyd, and what a lasting cultural impact "The Wall" album has on society.
The anti-establishment theme of "The Wall", written by Roger Waters, is often used today as an album for rebels and those who are dissatisfied with the behaviors of the state. But Floyd's earlier work, namely "Dark Side of the Moon", discusses the broader theme of universalism and equality and also fits into the discussion of the freedom of Iranians.
I really can't say I'm too surprised or blown away by this, however compelling the leaked data. What did people think they would find if they dug through the archives of America's war in Afghanistan as it stands today? That things are actually better than they seem?
Any person who follows the news on a regular basis would know that the war in Afghanistan has worsened in the last few months, with an increase in deaths for both troops and civilians. These leaked files are really the icing on the cake, so to speak, in the discussion to end America's involvement in Afghanistan. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Go Rachel! O'Reilly's comment about the ratings is just him trying to save face. He is a proud man, and he wants to be known that he's a winner. And Rachel's right, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
It's at least good that O'Reilly apologized about misleading his audience, but ultimately, his arrogance might get he best of him. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Brian Williams will make a better Late-Night talk show host than Jay, Dave, Jimmy, and Jimmy, combined (but not Craig or Conan), period. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Dear the White House, the Democrats, the left-leaning side of the media, and anybody who indulged in the lies of Andrew Breitbart and the subsequent venomous propagation by Fox News:
Stand up for yourselves, start pointing fingers and hold liars accountable.
The Shirley Sherrod controversy is just the latest installment of a long line of incidences whereby the administration did nothing wrong to begin with, and then, to react to media hype, screws up. This has happened before, more than a few times. Somebody somewhere (in this case, a right-wing blogger) would make damning allegations against someone or some policy in the administration, and the White House would react as if these allegations were true and get into ‘damage control mode’, as if it is always their fault.
When one thinks of examples, the Van Jones case comes to mind. But there are others, such as the debates on health care, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus, where the White House has been confronted with all sorts of slandering, ridiculous, and flat out insulting claims, and they would act totally apologetic, and, without any trace of flare, issue some kind of lame guesture of rebuttal.
Look no further than the myth about the ‘death panels’ during the health care debate. The Tea Partiers and the far right started spreading this claim that seniors will essentially be told whether their lives should be ended, and this was subsequently adopted into the rhetoric of some prominent Republicans (Sarah Palin, for example).
Also, during the lead up to the signing of the stimulus bill, many in the far right have claimed that the Recovery Act is a ‘government takeover’, with others going as far as saying we’ve turned into a socialist state.
Time and again, no one in the White House stood up to blast away these lies.
Remember though, I am not asking for anyone in the administration to literally stand up and start yelling at people. But I would very much like to see guys like David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and even President Obama himself, use more direct and forceful language to put these lies to rest.
The liberal media has taken notice of this for quite some time. Many have expressed their frustration with the administration’s inability to condemn the lies propagated by the right. Various commentators have also grew tired of the administration’s rhetoric of bipartisanship, and has called on the President to reinforce the liberal base and get bills passed without Republican help.
Here is Ed Schultz blasting both Fox News and The White House about the Shirley Sherrod debacle:
“The White House just can’t stand up to Fox News has to say, don’t they?”
No, they can’t.
I don’t necessarily think that the White House is afraid of Fox News like Ed says, but the administration does have a habit of going on the defensive when something like this happens. Instead of fact checking the claims and attacking the lies and those who perpetrate them, the White House just assumed that the other side is right and starts PR damage control for something they didn’t do wrong (ie employing Ms. Sherrod).
You can tell that Schultz is fed up with the White House’s constant bowing down to Fox News. The White House staff probably knows that Fox News has high ratings and therefore high viewership. And they interpret this as political leverage, which means that anything Fox News has to say is of significance.
Watch what Bill Maher says a few months ago, right after the passage of health care reform (starting watching at 2:58 for the final New Rule):
Maher has asked numerous times why President Obama hasn’t acted like President Bush when it came to getting bills passed in Congress. When Bush wanted something done, he got it done; most of those things may not have been the wisest of ideas, but that’s not the point. The point is, Bush did not waste a second even pretending that he intended to please the liberal populations during his tenure.
Finally, in a chapter titled “How Democrats can lose the upcoming elections” in Michael Moore’s book Mike’s Election Guide 08′, Moore alerted the reader of what the consequences would be if the Democratic presidential candidate abandons his liberal base to please the right.
Moore argues that America is becoming more liberal as a country. True or not, this liberal populace is being ignored right now in favor of often-radical conservative sensationalism.
Alas, it seems like Obama’s bipartisan rhetoric has gotten the best of him. It’s not from him not trying. He has demonstrated willingness to reach across the isle for compromises. But when the opposition is so adamant that they will not change their minds no matter what he says, then it becomes a waste of time to try to jump start any meaningful discussions.
Obama can blame the media all he wants, but he has to look himself in the mirror and really think about what Fox News has done to his presidency, and whether if they should be allowed to get away with it.
“I’ve told my team and I told my agencies that we have to make sure that we’re focusing on doing the right thing instead of what looks to be politically necessary at that very moment. We have to take our time and, and think these issues through.”
Yes, of course you say that now.
While everyone is engulfed in fury about Breitbart and Fox News over the Shirley Sherrod case, let us not forget this was a horrible embarrassment on the part of Tom Vilsack and the White House. They fired someone because of an edited blog video posted by a right wing ideologue, pure and simple.
“If there’s a lesson to be drawn from this episode,” the President continued, it’s to avoid “jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers at each other.”
Yes, Mr. President. We’ve been doing this since we were teens. But the adults who are running the country aren’t.
I wonder how much President Obama, and back then President Bush, knows about how the financial crisis is being handled.
When one sees Obama explaining the 08-current financial crisis during stump speeches and rallies, he paints a picture more or less similar to the situation outlined by Talbott, i.e. banks over lending and the eventual burst of the bubble. But what Talbott argues here is that Geithner has set in motion a plan that is slow in nature and benefits the banks much more so than the consumer. The question then becomes: how much is Obama aware of Geither's (and Summers') plan, and does he show full support for it? Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
There you go, Obama, keep firing! Enough with the bipartisan crap and take the GOP to school!
Don't just leave it to the pundits and media commentators to point out the Republican hypocrisies, especially with regards to extending the tax cuts for the rich while withholding help for the unemployed. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening, constantly, and while this unemployment bill will probably not narrow that gap, it will reinforce the social safety net that all governments should uphold.
What the Republicans are doing makes no sense. But what is even more awe-inspiring is how near-unanimous they are in their opposition to unemployment benefits, something previous congressional Republicans have passed quickly.
I can hardly imagine the consequences of the Democrats losing the House or the Senate in the upcoming midterm elections, with Democrats already having so much difficulty getting things done as it is, with a majority in both houses.
Many commentators have argued that Obama tried to do too many things at once during the first two years of his term. But the argument could be made that he was not aggressive enough. If he had gotten a bigger stimulus passed through congress, and passed health care at a faster pace, maybe he would be seeing noticeable results by now. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This is actually where the heart of the immigration debate lies. It's not the fault of the United States that Mexicans want to leave their home country and immigrate to America, but it has become America's burden to, put it frankly, clean up bodies for the Mexican government. Despite the ungodly climate, Mexicans still want to come to America. No type of border patrol, wall, fences, even guns, can deter this kind of determination.
The problem lies with Mexico. The only way to a solution for this immigration issue is to make Mexico a place where Mexicans do not want to leave.
The question then become show much the United States can help in that regard. Immigration reform should center around helping Mexico directly instead of strengthening border security. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I hate to place judgment on things I don't know much about. But I know this much about Lindsay Lohan: She was a child star. She makes her money primarily through making movies, posing for magazines, and advertises for various consumer products. She has to attend social gatherings (mostly parties) a lot.
Here are the things one can quite safely assume of Lindsay: She likes to party. She likes to drink alcohol (often to excess amounts). She likes to think she's very popular, and can get away with things others can't.
The fact that she has violated probation for work reasons does not make sense at all; the law trumps your employment, always. Same thing applies to skipping seven classes in the alcohol treatment program.
I am obviously not the first person to say this but, she needs to face the consequences of her actions.
Seems like the President is in campaign mode, already.
This speech shows what a great job he has done since taking office. His administration inherited two major wars, an economy that's almost on life support, rising unemployment, a huge budget deficit, an increasingly-volatile North Korea, a broken health care system, the list goes on.
And of course Obama and his team is now facing the responsibility of holding BP accountable for its immense environmental damage as a result of the oil spill.
But the main point I got from his speech at that town hall is the confidence he has in taking the Republicans to school in the November midterm elections. Now, granted that recent polls suggest that many incumbent democrats are in danger of losing their seats in the House and Senate, the GOP seems to keep shooting themselves in the foot with infighting, ridiculous ideas, and labeling themselves as the party of 'no.'
Various polls have shown that members of the so-called Tea Party movement do not always support Republicans; many of them believe that the GOP belong to the same 'failing' establishment that they despise. And by rejecting and trying to filibuster just about every legislation the Democrats propose, the Republicans are not only being viewed as the party of no ideas, but also as the party that wants nothing done.
And when they do want something done, it's usually some implausible proposal, such as lowering the already-low taxes for the rich, and further deregulating an under-regulated financial market.
By the looks of things, Obama will probably be working with a majority government again after the elections.
