Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » DFW » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
DFW's Journal - Archives
Posted by DFW in General Discussion
Wed Jan 19th 2011, 06:18 PM
He went ahead with his symbolic repeal of the health bill even though he knew the Senate wouldn't play,
and even if the Republicans managed to charter small planes for every Democrat in the Senate, Obama would
still veto the repeal, which there would not be 67 Senators to vote for.

This was money wasted (where's all that conservative fiscal responsibility they were screaming about?).

I demand a refund.

So should you.

So should everyone.
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion
Thu Jan 13th 2011, 05:58 PM
Like 90 years old.

This will be the first time I've visited with Helen Thomas since she took the job with the Falls Church (Virginia)
News-Press.

I talked with her briefly a few minutes ago on the phone about Obama's speech, which she read, but did not hear.
I think she would have been somewhat more forgiving if she had heard his voice deliver it. She said it sounded
good, but asked why he didn't take on the gun lobby in it. I said I thought Obama made the right choice not to
be confrontational on the issue at this particular venue, with so many of the families of the victims present.

Helen retorted, "if not now, when?" She is feisty as ever, and even if I disagree with her on this point, I love
her fighting spirit as much as ever. This, as always with Helen, will not be boring.

I will be sure to say from her DU fans to her.


*to those who still harbor her ill will, don't bother slamming her, or me. You'll be wasting your breath. She has
been a friend for many decades, since I was a kid, and I won't change my dinner plans (leaving in 5 minutes anyway),
or my friendship with her due to negative posts about her, even if they happen to contain arguments I may agree with.
Read entry | Discuss (51 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion
Thu Dec 16th 2010, 06:09 AM
Well, with a world view like this, small wonder:

Read entry | Discuss (8 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Nov 01st 2010, 01:21 PM
Mitch McConnell was whining about how Obama wouldn't invite him to the White House for a one-on-one.

A couple of weeks ago, Trent Lott called up Tom Daschle (can't imagine who put Lott up to that), who
called the White House and suddenly McConnell gets his invite to meet with President Obama.

Then just within the past couple of days, it comes out that one of McConnell's goals for the next two years
is...........guess what? Not to work on health care, taxes, foreign policy, the economy, the military, climate
change, but to make sure that Barack Obama will be a one term President.

If McConnell has to wait another two years for his next invite to the White House, at least he won't have to
ask if it was something he said.
Read entry | Discuss (4 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Mon Apr 19th 2010, 01:33 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/1...

Who wants to bet the American radical right, once they hear about this, will try to snap up every copy they can get,
and distribute it with gleeful spite at every gun-carryin' gubmint-hatin' libbrul-bashin' rally they can organize?
Fox Noise will cover the rally, attended by dozens, and use computer enhancement to claim the "rally" gathered more
people than the million man march, had more firepower than the 82nd Airborne, and was proof that lynching was
constitutional (confirmed in an exclusive, spontaneously scripted interview with Nino Scalia and Sam Alito).
Read entry | Discuss (8 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Feb 25th 2009, 07:14 AM
They elect a black RNC chairman, choose an ethnic Indian to deliver the TV rebuttal to Obama.

Do they REALLY think that just because they are suddenly putting forth spokesmen of color
that their empty message suddenly has validity.

GIMME A %&(&%$$=(//% BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama isn't connecting because his dad was African. He's connecting because he's articulate,
intelligent, a gifted orator who thinks that he can get his message across without talking
down to people, and not whitewashing a bad situation that people already know is bad. He's
likable, has good people instincts, and does his homework. If he was green and red striped
with two large antennae coming out of his head, his rhetoric would still connect (kids and
punks might pay more attention to the screen, but that would be about the only visual advantage).

I find it incredibly insulting that the Republicans think that just because they suddenly
put forth their own spokesmen of color that their empty negativism magically gains validity.
Do they think they can fool people who are losing houses and jobs that it's gonna be alright
just because some non-white Republican tells them so?

If they think they can get away with this, I have some 2010 early returns for them: No You Can't.
Read entry | Discuss (11 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Thu Sep 04th 2008, 06:32 PM
I finally saw some of Palin's speech. Polished with zero content, other than
rote stuff I could have written for her in one of those "compose the opposing
point of view" exercises in debate class.

They will try to say otherwise, but the record is clear: 4 years of this Republican
ticket IS four more years of Cheneybush. The only reason they even have a chance
is because they have the 30% who still think Bush is great (and probably drive their
cars as well as Mr. Magoo) plus another 20% who thought he should have been, and can't
figure out what went wrong.

McCain will address "his friends" shortly back Stateside. I won't stay up for it.
It's after midnight here, and I just got back, jetlagged above and beyond the call.
I'll just get put to sleep anyway--might as well get a head start.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Aug 29th 2008, 03:13 AM
The official DU bloggers gave you most of the scene at Mile High Stadium, and I will not be
attempting to duplicate them. Hissyspit and I did communicate, but as it turned out, the
place is huge, and I didn't have access to their part, and they had no access to mine.

My seat was perfect--right across from the stage on level 3.

Music was by Cheryl Crow, Stevie Wonder and Michael McDonald. My favorite by far was Cheryl Crow.

Bill Richardson was more powerful and forceful than I had ever seen him. Wes Clark did not speak,
which disappointed me. Obama's speech was probably the best he has ever given, and the posted
comment by Matthews and Olbermann was as good as any I have heard.

Best line of the evening goes to Al Gore. He said, as did many, that McCain wanted to take the
failed eight years of Cheneybush and give us four more of them. Gore then said: "I'm for
recycling, but that's ridiculous!" The crowd went justifiably wild.

Second best line--a guy from Indiana named Barney Smith, who had voted Republican all his life
was is dire financial straits, and was voting for Obama this time, because he wanted a president
who would "put Barney Smith before Smith Barney." VERY clever!!

I saw Howard briefly, but only had a chance to say hi, as there was a crush. People DID turn and
wonder who the $§*%$§#! I was when he called out my name and shook my hand a little longer than the others LOL.

I rode in an elevator 2 days ago with Raplh Nader, who was the ONLY known person the whole week
who didn't smile at all. Maybe he has forgotten how, but I didn't dwell on it.

I don't have a telephoto, so for the stadium shots, I took mostly monitor shots. For the private reception afterward they were standing right in front of me, although the lighting was a bit dim.

I got to meet Michelle for the first time (she's even more gorgeous in person than she is on TV), and Obama for the first time since 2006, when he was just a tiny bit less prominent. I got to shake Joe Biden's hand for the first time since, well, last night!

Sheryl Crow:


Stevie Wonder:


Al Gore:


Obama accepting the nomination:


Obama & Michelle up close:


Biden (again) up close:


Biden moves like a cat, and it's difficult to get a decent shot of him unless he wants you to!

That's it. It's 1 AM Denver time, and I have to be up at 5:00 in order to get out of here
in time to make my flight to Dallas.

Hasta luego, seņoras y seņores pasajeros.
Read entry | Discuss (4 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Aug 27th 2008, 09:25 AM
The 3 DU bloggers were busy, so I stole an hour, and filled in on taking notes at a talk by Dan Rather, and a brief Q&A afterward. Dan Rather must be in his mid-seventies, but except for the expected physical aging, he seems to be very much the old Dan Rather--no wonder he got too uncomfortable for CBS! Here are the main points of the part I caught (some of his main points, many of which will be familiar as subjects that Helen Thomas has also spoken out upon forcefully).

Comment above the dotted line are taken from notes from Rather's talk. My own comments are either in brackets or below the dotted line:


One rhetorical question he posed: How did American journalism get to the sorry state in which it currently finds itself? Answer: because if you ask an uncomfortable question, then you get to ask no more . When money interests trump the interests of journalism, money wins, and news stops.

Big conglomerates buy up media as a small part of their global holdings. These are sometimes big corporations that have no interest in news per se, just in so far as it is another business with which to try and make money, i.e. attract advertising. Shareholder value, reviewed sometimes as often as quarterly, becomes the main factor of consideration for the owner. Where does real news fit into this (i.e. it doesn't).

He said (and admitted: possibly naively) that we should hold the government accountable to maintain a free press .

Genuine debates are suppressed or discouraged and turned into entertainment--shouting matches that contain no news.

Policy has become a factor in determining what is news and what is not. American interests are closely tied to there being oil and gas pipelines running through Georgia , and this had as much (or more) to do with our support of Georgia as anything else. This was, of course, not reported a such by the MSM.

Resources and talent are expensive, and detract from the bottom line. But if this is the case, then there will never be another Walter Cronkite, and lots more Hannity-types.

Rather said that he had raised his voice about this general tendency in the past, but had, himself, never imagined it would deteriorate to the extent that it has today,

The mission of the press, he quoted loosely from Finley Peter Dunne, was to afflict the powerful and comfort the afflicted. Delivering good shareholder value is, alas, by far not always compatible with good news practice.

Fear should not be a characteristic of American journalists (skepticism should).

There has been a lot (i.e. too much) consolidation of US media, which leads to a lack of news. He said we should all be alert to media's bowing to outside interests, and let them know when we think they are doing it! He said that they do read feedback. With many voices, Rather said, they will listen. More vigilance is needed to maintain a free press these days than in the past.

He said flat out that the press was rolling over and playing dead ,
and that a spine transplant was needed so that we didn't get sleepwalked into war again. Continuing support for that war depended on the US public back home not being able to see how bad it was (coffins brought home at night, wounded rarely shown, etc.).
-----------------------------------------------------------

One thing is for sure--under the present circumstances as Dan Rather described them, it will be a long time before there is another Walter Cronkite--or even a Dan Rather.
Read entry | Discuss (10 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Aug 04th 2008, 04:07 PM
I was discussing the McCain-Obama choice with a friend from Australia, and he
kept on and on about McCain's military record against Obama's lack of one as
a deciding factor as to why the USA should pick McCain. McCain has the military
"experience," and Obama does not.

I see this over and over and over again. We should honor John McCain as a war hero,
his military experience, Armed Services Committee, War College, etc etc etc.

What are we, a friggin' military base?

I know we need a military and all, but that's what we have generals and a Joint Chiefs
of Staff for. That's ONE department of our cabinet. ONE. Has it completely escaped the
attention of the MSM and McCain's campaign that besides the Secretary of Defense, there
are also Secretaries of State, Commerce, Treasury, Agriculture, Energy, Health, Housing,
Education, etc. etc. etc. etc.? Now either they are there for show, or THERE'S MORE GOING
ON IN THE WORLD THAN JUST HOW TO KILL PEOPLE. Yeah, World War II had to be fought, but
plenty of wars since did not, and Vietnam and the Iraq invasion were certainly two of them.

Why is there no comparison of how much more experience Obama has as a community organizer
against McCain's lack of it? And family values? OK, how often has Obama ditched Michelle
in favor of some heiress to $100 million? Right, we all know the answer, because we all
know who pays the MSM's advertising bills, but if he's elected, then Obama decides who is
the next FCC Commissioner, and they have to know this, so there has to be SOME backroom
discussion going on about whether or not to make other comparisons than just who was a
prisoner of war and who was not. At least I hope so.

If our capacity to kill has really become more important than our capacity to do something
for the living, then the America envisioned by the men who founded it is already dead.

**note to pessimists: I'm already uncomfortably close to joining you on that last point, so
for now, please allow me my moment of hope, and don't state the obvious.
Read entry | Discuss (3 comments)
Posted by DFW in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Nov 09th 2007, 07:34 AM
Article II, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States

George W. Bush at a press conference, answering a question about Pakistan:
"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time."



(unless you can prove in a court of law that you walk and chew gum??)
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
Random Journal
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.