Bill Kristol joins the New York Times Editorial Board

This broke a few days ago but I didn’t feel like blogging about it. I don’t have much to say really. I enjoy Kristol’s article’s but he’s seriously been slacking off lately. His articles are little more than shitty partisian accusations.

Advertisements

a good-ol’ fashioned ass-whoopin and gettin your shoes coat and your hat tooken?

Matt Yglesias goes negative on Mike Huckabee hardcore:

On a Christmas Eve CNBC broadcast that I’m sure nobody watched, John Fund and I wound up agreeing that there was something remarkably vacuous to Mike Huckabee’s economic populism. It doesn’t even rise to the level of a lie the way George W. Bush’s “different kind of Republican” schtick did in 2000 — there’s just nothing there

Damn…that’s Hucked up!

WE NEED A MUSIC REVOLUTION!

The RIAA should go fuck themselves:

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

RIAA’s hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: “If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you’re stealing. You’re breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages.”

They’re not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota — the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury — Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That’s $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.

At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG’s chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.” Copying a song you bought is “a nice way of saying ‘steals just one copy,’ ” she said.

That’s bullshit. Someone should organize a CD burning protest where music fans gather in a central public location and throw a bunch of original CD’s in a pile and burn them publicly, like they used to do at book burnings. But even better, we should stick it to the RIAA by burning a bunch of copies of the CD’s , before we burn them, and trading them among participants in the protest. After that, we need to start a giant boycott of the music industry. Stop buying CD’s period until they give into our demands. Only go to concerts where the band has signed a pledge demonstrating their commitment to the digital expansion of music.

The only way the record industry is going to listen is if we hit them where it really hurts, their wallets. If they think this profits are low now, we should show them how bad it’s can get.

************************UPDATE***********************

Megan brings up a good point. If the RIAA is arguing that its illegal for people to burn music to their own computer, then that pretty much makes Ipods and other Mp3 players accessories to crimes. I wonder how Apple feels about being called felonious. Sure you can purchase music from the Itunes store or other online vendors, but theres no doubt the majority of most people’s music on their iPod’s are not “legally” acquired.

The RIAA’s arguments cause two interesting questions. First, wouldn’t this make Sony an accessory to its own “theft”. They sell MP3 players which store millions upon millions of “illegally” acquired music. Like I said above, sure music can be “legally” purchased but the vasty majority of music on mp3 players is no doubt ripped off of CD’s or downloaded. This seems like a big performative contradiction to me.

Second, if the RIAA is so hell bent on stopping people from burning CD’s, then why don’t they go after computer companies that include CD Burners in their computers. In fact, not only do computer companies include the technology to burn CD’s, but they explictly market the technology as a method to burn CD’s. Even more hypocritical, SONY SELLS COMPUTERS WHICH INCLUDES CD BURNERS. That means they’re once again facilitating their own theft, if the RIAA/Sony arguments are to be believed.

Hell, the Record Industry could even go after retailers who sell computers that burn music, like Best Buy and Circuit City. Sure that would require the RIAA to sue basically every retailer, including places like Sears, but that demonstrates how fucking stupid this argument is.

CNN: Obama advisor links Clinton vote and Bhutto death?

Told you. See more comments Axelrod made:

Barack Obama had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq. And he warned at the time that it would divert us from Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, and now we see the effect of that,” said Axelrod. “Al Qaeda is resurgent. They’re a powerful force now in Pakistan….There’s a suspicion they may have been involved in this. I think his judgment was good. Senator Clinton made a different judgment. Let’s have that discussion.”

“I think people need to judge where these candidates were and what they’ve said and what they’ve done on these issues,” said Axelrod. “I mean, she was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit is one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda who may have been players in this event today. So that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend.

Obama Campaign Blame’s Clinton For Bhutto Assassination

How low can the Obama campaign go? Apparently very low:

Bhutto’s death will “call into issue the judgment: who’s made the right judgments,” [Obama campaign manager David] Axelrod said. “Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it’s in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that’s a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That’s a serious difference between these candidates and I’m sure that people will take that into consideration.” . . . “She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend,” Axelrod said

This is seriously just sick and sad. Do you remember when Barack Obama claimed he was going to clean up politics. I have a hard time remembering considering the mud that Obama has been slinging at Edwards and Clinton. But even aside from Obama’s “holier than thou” attitude how disgraceful is that you’re trying to explicitly pin this tragedy on one of your political opponents. 154 people died today. Innocent women and children, along with an advocate for democracy.

Even if Obama is right, the absolute lack of tact that Axelrod used to make his comments, takes the focus away from the issue, Pakistan and Iraq, and focuses it on the Obama’s campaign’s insensitive remarks as well as the horse race of the campaign. Very sad.

By the way, I think it’s worth noting that Axelrod is WRONG anyways. The Bush adminstration has invested heavily in the Musharraf adminstration and their ability to fight terrorism. You can dispute with whether that move has worked or not but the BILLIONS of dollars in aid we’ve given Pakistan to fight terrorism shows that we have been focusing on fighting terrorism in Pakistan. Unless you’re advocating invading Pakistan, a vote for Iraq did not tradeoff with fighting terrorism in Pakistan. Once again, maybe we could’ve done more in Pakistan, no doubt, maybe there were issues with invading Iraq, but we could’ve done both.

And lastly, assuming Obama is right about Pakistan/Iraq, I think its fair to ask what steps did Obama take in the Senate to shift the focus from Iraq to Pakistan. He’s had 2 years in the Senate to introduce bills on Pakistan, to refuse to vote for Iraq funding, and/or take steps to get our eye “on the ball”.

It’s one thing to talk about how good your judgement is but it’s a whole other thing to demonstrate your judgment, especially when you’re critizing others.

Clinton and her supporters have defended her judgment on Iraq and other foreign policy issues. What has Obama done to PROVE he has judgment when it counts?

The hypocrisy of hope

The nerve of this guy. After calling out John Edwards on 527 groups Barack Obama has the nerve to say this:

Obama would not definitively answer if he would accept 527s in the general election, but said during the primary season he would tell them to stop.

Oh so 527’s are okay as long as they’re helping you. Geez. If these groups are so bad then why can’t you give us a straight NO answer and say you won’t use them in the general election?

What I hope to do is to get Republicans to come up with some sort of agreement in terms of how we are going to operate,” Obama said, “You know, I’m not going to endanger the Democratic party’s ability to win races by letting the other side outspend us by two or three million dollars.

The Politic of Hope strikes again. “Maybe if I ask nicely then Republicans will share their toys and be nice.” Where the FUCK has Barack Obama been the past 15 years? (Oh yeah the State Senate) Why would the GOP agree to not play the one card they have? (The vicious right wing smear machine) Seriously, I can’t believe this guy is running for president. I’ll support him if he wins, a bad Barack is better than a good Republican, but geez. How naive can you get?