The musical genius of the Beach Boys.
God Only Knows:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-jMKeB8qc4[/youtube]
Surfin’ USA
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yMR53VcUSk&feature=related[/youtube]
And here’s someone’s homemade video, a short snippet with Brian and Bruce Springsteen:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4dlmQwN64c[/youtube]
We Grotonites fondly remember Walter Kerr, who was Joe Courtney’s field co-ordinator here in our area. Walter worked out of our Groton headquarters. He was able to extract maximum effort out of the motley crew that is the Groton Democrats. We didn’t win Groton, but we narrowed Simmons previous margins enough to be able to claim a share of the glory for Joe’s win. It wouldn’t have happened without Walter.
I got an email from him today telling me that he has started a blog. It will not be a political blog, at least not completely. He will be studying in China, and the blog will be a journal of his experiences. I’m sure my readers from Groton will want to keep up with Walter, which you can do here. Put him on your RSS feeder.
I am veering back and forth between Obama and Hillary. During yesterday’s debate one of the questions from the public raised the question of dynasty. I think it’s a serious issue. We can’t allow our highest office to become a hereditary entitlement. That, along with my reluctance to see endure another 8 years of Clinton hating bile from the right had me thinking I’d go with Barack.
Then I saw this, and I’m back on the fence. I don’t mind Barack attacking Clinton, but doing so by validating a right wing talking point is dangerous stuff. It’s also frustrating that Barack insists on making a virtue out of the one feature of his health plan that would practically guarantee it would fail if enacted. This is not the first time he’s attacked an opponent by adopting a right wing frame.
What do I find in my inbox today, but a missive from Nancy DiNardo, telling me how shocked, truly shocked she is at that fact that Joe Lieberman is not a man of his word:
“I continue to be disappointed beyond words with Joe Lieberman, as are a lot of Connecticut Democrats — saddened, surprised, and truly disheartened by just how completely he has abandoned the Democratic principles that have guided him over the years and the Party whose members have supported him and helped him achieve his goals. As recently as 18 months ago, Senator Lieberman was telling us Democrats that he shares our values, and with the exemption of Iraq, that he agrees with us on the issues we care so much about — critically important issues like a woman’s right to choose, tax and economic policies, healthcare and education. Moreover, in July of 2006, Senator Lieberman even stated that he intended to work to help a Democrat get into the White House in 2008. His endorsement of Senator McCain means he either doesn! ’t care about the issues noted above, or he’s putting politics ahead of people. If you look at Senator McCain’s voting record, and campaign platform – on these, and many other issues we care about – you’ll understand why I am saying this. This is a man, Senator McCain, who proudly says he was a “foot soldier” in the Regan Revolution. Senator McCain is wrong on the issues we Democrats care so much about—and he’s wrong by a lot. I am proud to stand with my fellow Democrats and announce that we as a Party will grow stronger and do everything in our power to make sure a Democrat is elected in November, “ said Nancy DiNardo, Chairwoman, CT. Democratic Party.
Gosh Nancy, there are a lot of us who aren’t at all surprised by what Joe did. We were the ones who didn’t attend his party in Washington the day he was sworn in after the 2006 election. You remember that election. It was the one where you and “a lot of Connecticut Democrats” quietly subverted the Democratic candidate to help Joe. Had you bothered to ask us we could have told you he would stick the knife in when he got the chance. In fact, we were saying it at the time.
Every once in a rare while, the government does something cool:
NASA will send the Beatles song “Across the Universe” across the universe on Monday, the agency said. At precisely 7 p.m., E.S.T. the song will be beamed by the agency’s Deep Space Network of antennas at the North Star, Polaris, which is 431 light years away. The transmission is to mark the 40th anniversary of the recording of the song, as well as the 50th anniversary of both NASA and its first satellite, Explorer I, and the 45th anniversary of the Deep Space Network, which carries out communications between NASA and its far-flung fleet of spacecraft. In a message to the space agency, Paul McCartney, one of the two remaining Beatles, said, “Send my love to the aliens. All the best, Paul.”
Via Americablog, this is something of which everyone should be aware:
A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country’s rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after “liberation” and under the democratic rule of the West’s ally Hamid Karzai.
The fate of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has led to domestic and international protests, and deepening concern about erosion of civil liberties in Afghanistan. He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.
If you’re going to run an Empire the least you can do is do it right. Who allowed these people to set up religious courts with the power to impose death sentences?
We turned our TV on for the first time in months to watch Clinton and Obama debate in California. For my own part, it made me feel great about the party, because I got the impression that each of them is ready to take it to the Republicans and either of them would make a fine president.
Just one little thing. Clinton is still exposed on Iraq, and it’s really a shame she just can’t admit she blew it when she voted for war. At one point she channeled Condi when she said: “No one could have fully appreciated how obsessed this President was” about starting a war in Iraq.
Well, I guess I’m no one. I guess thousands of people who took the time to educate themselves on the issue were nobodies, and I guess all of us who realized that we were watching the world’s biggest con job were nobodies. Add to that the millions who knew that there was zero chance that there would be no war after that vote, despite the pro forma claim that war was a last resort. I give Clinton too much credit for intelligence to believe that she really believed she was giving Bush the tools to negotiate. She knew she was voting for war.
In all other respects, I thought she did a great job as did Obama. Each one of them appear to have found a way to properly package realistic thinking. I thought Obama was better responding to Wolf Blitzer’s outrage at the prospect that his taxes would be raised. Hillary was a bit too wonkish on that, though they both made the same basic point: Wolfie, you’ve had 8 years of a tax cut you didn’t deserve; you can’t complain if we put you back where you belong. It was truly refreshing to see two politicians not run for cover when a questioner accused them of “raising” taxes.
Interesting too that the crowd erupted at the prospect of the two of them on the same ticket. That would be something.
The Time has come, as the Walrus said. With John Edwards dropping out today, I find I must finally make a choice between Hillary and Barack. I knew this day would come, but I’m still not ready. My wife is no help. This is an even numbered day, so she’s for Hillary. Odd numbered days she’s for Barack. Of course, that pattern changes on the first, since there will be two odd days in a row, so it looks like she’ll be voting for Hillary.
There’s two considerations of course. Which can win, and which would be the better president.
Hillary must be a person of great personal strength. No one would voluntarily expose themselves to the onslaught of pure hate that will be directed at her if she gets the nomination. She has no illusions about what she’s getting into, and she’s doing it anyway. Were I in the same position, I think I’d take a pass. Not only does she know it’s coming, but she’s ready and willing to give as good as she gets. I’m not sure Barack either appreciates what will be in store for him, or is ready to fight back. If he really believes his talk about bi-partisan sweetness and light then he’s in for a shocker. But, if he can keep to that line while effectively dealing with the opposition, then he could do well. But, granting that Hillary is ready to fight back, have she and Bill perhaps developed political tin ears. Their negative campaign against Obama has been unsuccessful to date, but maybe they would be more effective against their natural enemies.
This might well be the dirtiest campaign in history. McCain has learned his lesson, and he’s prepared to sling mud. He’ll be enabled by the media, for whom he can do no wrong.
On balance, I’d say Hillary is more prepared for the road to the White House.
As to once they get there, I’m inclined toward Obama. I think he has the potential to be a more successful president. Hillary will be a repeat in many ways of the Clinton years. The media and the right will combine to gang up on her, and she will have difficulty accomplishing anything. Moreover, it’s pretty clear that her goals, as she has articulated them, are modest. We won’t have any startling departure from the status quo. Were she to try, the right would go into attack mode, and she’d get nowhere. They will not be cowed by her victory, no matter how overwhelming it might be, and I question whether she could rally the country around her. People will vote for her because they don’t want the alternative, and because they know she’ll do a competent job. Obama, on the other hand, generates real enthusiasm, and the Republicans might find themselves on the defensive if they get too oppositional with him. Maybe, once he’s elected, he’ll move toward the left a bit, and forcefully articulate a progressive vision, something he certainly hasn’t done yet. He’s certainly more of a blank slate than she is. Both would be good presidents, he has an outside chance to be a great president. On the other hand, if he really believes that bilge about Reagan he was spewing, then we have a problem.
I truly wish that Edwards had stayed in, so I could put off this choice. I have a sinking feeling I’ll be making it in the voting booth. My consolation, and it’s a big one, is that I could support either one with as much enthusiasm as a confirmed cynic can muster.
Via Atrios, I couldn’t resist:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH47iuMTuC8[/youtube]
I realize that it is mandatory that the press cover the State of the Union address, so I am not criticizing the New York Times for doing so. However, it is emblematic of all that is wrong with the press in this nation that the real important event that took place yesterday, the fact that the Senate Democrats finally took a stand, however temporary, against the White House and Senate Republicans on FISA, was not covered at all. There is not a single article in the Times on the issue.
There is a brief mention of it in the article reporting on the speech, in which the issue is cast in a light favorable to Bush:
He asked lawmakers to make his tax cuts permanent, and implored them to renew legislation permitting intelligence officials to eavesdrop on the communications of terrorism suspects and to provide legal immunity to phone companies that have helped in the wiretapping efforts.
The bill doesn’t just permit intelligence officials to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects, it permits them to eavedrop on all international communications and opens the door for even wider abuses. The article implies that the phone companies were co-operating with wiretaps authorized by the bill, but in fact they were engaging in clearly illegal wiretaps, which they knew to be illegal, at a period before the present law was in effect.
But, back to the coverage. There’s an even briefer mention in an article about Congressional reaction to the speech which notes that Clinton and Obama returned to the Senate “for a couple of intelligence-related votes”.
The FISA debate got less ink in the Times than the heartwarming vignette about the Bush twins taking time off from partying to watch Daddy give a State of the Union speech for the very first time.
Bush’s speech will be old news tomorrow. The FISA votes go to the heart of our democracy. The fact that this issue, so heavily covered on the blogs (see firedoglake’s coverage, for example), is ignored by the Times speaks volumes about the real State of the Union.
