Monday, December 08, 2008

Quote of the day

From The New Yorker Online, Todd Snider:
Just from interviews and stuff I see on Radiohead, I get the impression that these guys aren’t in this for the chicks, and that just seems dumb to me.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

What can she be thinking? How is she thinking?

I wonder about Sarah Palin's though processes... Never mind the Couric interview (as telling as that might be); there's more pre-meditated problems:

There's her strange choice of quotation in her Republican Convention speech.

And there is her mis-quote of Madeleine Albright's "There's a place in hell reserved for women who don't help other women", from a Starbucks cup. Not only did it not occur to her that the quote was not applicable to the question of voting for a woman, but she did not seem to have the self-awareness to reflect that, perhaps, the quote was referring to women such as herself.

Friday, October 03, 2008

But why?

Can someone please ask Sarah Palin the follow-up question, of why it is "reckless" for Barak Obama to point out the problem of civilian casualties in Afghanistan?

Update: For more on this, see this post.

New update: The McCain-Palin campaign releases an ad on this: the accusation is based on a dishonest interpretation of Obama's comments. Kinda like the "lipstick on a pig."

Here is factcheck.org's debunking.

Thursday, October 02, 2008

A little disturbing...

Consider this line from McCain's remarks, Sept. 30:
So, that's how we see this election: Country First or Obama First, and I have a feeling I know which side you're all on
This seems like dishonest rhetoric from the get-go. It would seem that a choice of "McCain First or Obama First" would be more fair and balanced.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Lies and the Lying Liars

If this is how they campaing, how would they govern?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Krugman left out one more outrage: the shameless mis-use of factcheck.org's fact checking.

It's as if McCain has decided that only a dishonorable campaign can win.

Thursday, May 08, 2008

So now McCain says that Obama is the candidate that Hamas favors?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/obama-mccain-is-losing-his-bearings/
But wait a minute: Surely Hamas would know that whichever candidate they said they favored, would have *less* of a chance of winning. So, if indeed they "endorsed" Obama, wouldn't this mean that they really want McCain to win?

Not that farfetched a theory, I would say. But the real conclusion to be drawn is, that it is completely absurad and infantile to make statements such as McCain's, and let the U.S. Presidential Race be controlled by the ramblings of psychopaths half a world away. As with Osama bin Laden and the Bush-Kerry contest in 2004.

Friday, May 02, 2008

These guys sure knew how to run a war

General Ricardo Sanchez's account, including Rumsfeld's attempt to buy him off to rewrite history. Now it seems that no-one made the decision to draw down forces after the invasion; just like the decision to disband the Iraqui military. Sanchez concludes:
In my mind, this action by the Bush administration amounts to gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.
Now imagine the reaction if a General were saying the same thing about a Democratic administration.