You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1406)

PLAYS: (1493)

Fox's Catherine Herridge has been reporting for a couple of weeks about the White House's change of policy regarding reporters' access to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which while problematic from a journalist's perspective has all the earmarks of a classic bureaucratic conflict with reporters.

Herridge ran an update yesterday on Fox's Live Desk with Marsha MacCallum, including a clip of a Pentagon spokesman being short with Herridge, evidently, over her persistent questions on the issue. It looks like a tempest in a teapot, but Herridge is a serious reporter and her beef has some legitimacy, especially when it comes to transparency for this White House.

The interesting part of this report, though, came immediately after Herridge's report, when MacCallum hosted our old friend Judith Miller, the woman who helped bring you that six-years-and-running disaster on wheels known as the Iraq War. Miller decided that this Pentagon spokesman was in need of upbraiding:

MacCallum: What did you think of the Pentagon response there to Catherine's question?

Miller: You know, I thought, it's very combative. Excuse me, Mr. Pentagon Spokesman, for Fox doing our job. We're supposed to be there, we're supposed to be reporting on what the Pentagon is doing to and for these prisoners, or detainees, as they prefer to be called. And if he doesn't like our going back and back to look in on those people, well, maybe we should just believe everything they put out.

I found it completely combative, unnecessarily so.

So now we're being lectured on the relationship of reporters to official sources by the woman who was the faithful stenographer of Bush's Pentagon -- particularly Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- in selling the public on the notion that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein. The woman who -- after the utter mendacity of her sources was revealed -- told an interviewer:

"[M]y job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."

I don't have a problem with Fox reporters pushing for transparency from the Pentagon. I do have a problem with Judith Miller telling us how we should do that.

It sure is heart-warming, after all, to see Miller get concerned about looking into the accuracy of Pentagon claims -- though it does seem rather convenient that this is a concern of hers only now, now that we have a Democratic administration.

If she had demonstrated even an ounce of this concern during the Bush years, the nation might not have been talked into an outrageous, costly, and wholly unnecessary war.

James Moore wrote the ultimate survey of Miller's journalistic miscreancy.

Turning to Sarah Palin to explain the international economy and the role of government is like asking a dog why it likes to lick its rear end. But as an audience of investors and fund managers learned today in Hong Kong, Palin's cartoon-quality conservative platitudes don't merely fly in the face of the consensus of economic analysts. As a flashback to her catastrophic interview with Katie Couric reveals, Sarah Palin doesn't even agree with herself.

Palin's rewriting of history begins with the causes of the global economic meltdown. While the villains behind the calamity are many (see, for example, Time and the New York Times' excellent series, "The Reckoning"), for Sarah Palin there is only one. As the Wall Street Journal summed up her closed-door remarks:

"We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place," the former Republican U.S. vice presidential candidate said Wednesday at a conference sponsored by investment firm CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. "We're not interested in government fixes, we're interested in freedom," she added.

Of course, those "government fixes" were not only badly need to stem the financial crisis, they've already paid huge dividends in reversing the slide of American gross domestic product (GDP), refilling empty state coffers and preserving up to a million jobs. As the reliably Republican Wall Street Journal put it three weeks ago:

"Many forecasters say stimulus spending is adding two to three percentage points to economic growth in the second and third quarters, when measured at an annual rate. The impact in the second quarter, calculated by analyzing how the extra funds flowing into the economy boost consumption, investment and spending, helped slow the rate of decline and will lay the groundwork for positive growth in the third quarter -- something that seemed almost implausible just a few months ago. Some economists say the 1% contraction in the second quarter would have been far worse, possibly as much as 3.2%, if not for the stimulus."

And during the 2008 campaign, then Governor Palin agreed about the need for government intervention. In her own confused and incoherent way, Palin defended to Katie Couric one year ago this week the kind of government bailouts she now decries. The benefits from $700 billion plan she and running John McCain endorsed, she insisted, all fall "under the umbrella of job creation."

"Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy- Helping the -- Oh, it's got to be about job creation too. Shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans."

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 167

PLAYS: 63

(Grapefruit - all the right moves - all the right sounds - but . . .)

Even when you come with a name by Lennon, liner notes by Derek Taylor, publishing by Apple and production by Terry Melcher you can still fail to click with the record buying public. Such was the case with Grapefruit, a band with all the earmarks of a screaming success which, sadly came to very little.

Together for less than two years, Grapefruit formed in 1967 and recorded two albums (one released in 1968 and the second "Deep Water" released in 1969), and released a score of singles before packing it in and going their separate ways.

What they did leave is an awful lot of potential and some very good music.

Their first album "Around Grapefruit", issued in the U.S. on ABC-Dunhill, was laced with all the psychedelic hooks and twists needed to make each track memorable on its own. Great expectations were attached to it, but it failed to chart. And by the time their second album came out, issued on RCA, things had cooled considerably in the expectation department and its release went virtually unnoticed.

After splitting up, George Alexander, bass guitar, whose real name was Alexander Young, teamed up with his brother George and Harry Vanda who had just left The Easybeats to do sessions under the name Marcus Hook Roll Band. Vanda and Young, you will remember eventually morphed into AC/DC. So all was not lost.

Back to Grapefruit. This track, "Yesterday's Sunshine" is a blend of pop and psych with more emphasis on psych and it's typical of all the work on this album.

Another addition to the bulging "should've been" file. It doesn't deserve being ignored.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 126

PLAYS: 26

(Eclipse - Progrock from Quebec . . timing wasn't good)

I think, of all the various genres of music in the world, Rock Quebecois of the 1970's is probably the least known. A number of bands came out as part of the Progrock scene and achieved a certain loyal following, while others recorded one of two albums and vanished without a trace.

One of those bands was Eclipse. Almost totally unknown outside of Canada and, specifically Quebec. This French speaking band had all the earmarks of being a success. Great production, good musicians and a major label (CBS). But times being what they were (we're talking 1976 here - the year of The Sex Pistols and the great change in music), could not settle in with an audience and, English being the language of Rock, there was no interest in them from a mainstream point of view.

I've always been amazed at how a lot of European bands were rejected out of hand simply because they didn't sing in English - somehow their work wasn't valid because you couldn't understand what they were saying. I've often felt we missed out on a lot of great music because of that. Our loss.

Anyway - here is Eclipse from their first release in 1976. The track is called "La Derniere Fois". . . and the chords are universal.

DOWNLOAD (51)

PLAY (115)

David Shuster calls out Michelle Bachmann for her double talk on earmarks. After claiming that she requested zero earmarks for her state Bachmann now admits she requested millions of dollars in earmarks, but now says she took them but it's not a big deal:

Bachmann: Well, the average earmark I think for the state of Minnesota for the members of Congress is somewhere around 70,000– $70 million, so mine is very, very small on that level and that’s in the first two years that was in. After I saw the way that the process worked, after being a freshman, I saw how corrupt it was and took an earmark pledge and that’s why I personally have no earmarks in the current budget bill and the stimulus bill that was passed this year.

As David Shuster notes:

Shuster: The problem is, that level is wrong. According to Legistorm in 2008 Minnesota's Congressional delegation delivered 158 earmarks costing $330 million. The average earmark from Minnesota members was not $70 million as Bachman claimed but $2.1 million which is less than the $3.7 million Bachman earmarked.

Congresswoman, when you insist that your record be put in perspective and then you mislead people about the record of your colleagues, that's hypocrisy, and it's wrong.

DOWNLOAD (53)

PLAY (131)

Jon Stewart pokes some fun at the pork in the budget that just got signed into law and the earmarks for Congress' "pet projects".

Sadly despite the jokes had this bill not been signed into law the government literally would have had to shut down had it not been passed. From the article:

Most of the government has been running on a stopgap funding bill set to expire at midnight Wednesday. Refusing to sign the newly completed spending bill would force Congress to pass another bill to keep the lights on come Thursday or else shut down the massive federal government. That is an unlikely possibility for a president who has spent just seven weeks in office.

I don't think most rational people would think that shutting down the government in the middle of our worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is a good idea. I guess President Obama thought the pork was worth the trade off to stop that from happening.

Of course in the mean time there's nothing like poking a bit of fun at the Congress and their hypocrisy on earmarks.

UPDATE: John Amato

Don't forget to tune in tonight to TDS because Jim Cramer is going to join Jon Stewart and try and hash out their differences. I do hope it's two segments instead of one so Jon can really dig in. Blowhards like Cramer aren't usually prepared to go up against an excellent interviewer like Stewart, but then it falls on Jon's shoulders to get down to business. I kind of think he will tonight because Cramer went out of his way to smear Stewart on so many shows.

If he's easy on Cramer then it makes the recent kerfuffle not all that important. We always seem to ask this question. Why is it up to Stewart to expose these hypocrites?

DOWNLOAD (43)

PLAY (82)

Sen. David Vitter (R-Diaperland) is the subject of David Shuster's Hypocrisy Watch for his double talk on earmarks.

Think Progress has more here: Vitter Stands By His $249 Million In Earmarks While Complaining That The Omnibus Bill Is ‘Bloated’

March 10, 2009 C-SPAN

DOWNLOAD (51)

PLAY (104)

(h/t David E..)

Lindsey, Lindsey, Lindsey. How long do you think you'll be able to get away with this game, hon? It's astounding to watch you defending your virtue with one hand - and grabbing as much pork as possible for your state with the other.

As Mark Karlin puts it, it's like foreclosing on a bakery and demanding a free cake.

We need to stop this kind of hypocritical grandstanding. Here's a good idea, via The Political Carnival:

In essence, Graham is saying he opposed the "Main Street Job Creation Act" even though it would be political suicide not to distribute the money to the voters of his state. He was joined in rabid obstruction of the bill by his fellow Republican, Senator Jim "Stonewall Jackson" DeMint.

As BuzzFlash Editor Mark Karlin proposed a couple of weeks back, the state of any senator who opposed the "Main Street Job Creation Act" should only receive half their allotted funds. If both senators opposed the bill, the state should receive no federal allotment from the legislation.

That way, hypocrites such as Lindsey Graham couldn't grandstand their zealotry and then pass out the goodies that they fought against.

In fact, Graham represents one of the many GOP Neo-Confederate states that receives more money from the federal government than their citizens pay in taxes. That sort of makes South Carolina a welfare state as far as the Union is concerned.

As for Lindsey Graham, he's become a talk show regular spouting GOP talking points -- and then practicing the chronic hypocrisy of being a Republican welfare king for his constituents.

March 06, 2009 CNN

h/t NewsPoliticsNews

Give 'em hell Clair! McCaskill calls out Republican hypocrisy on these earmarks they've been crying about.

DOWNLOAD (20)

PLAY (69)

Keith reports on the collective hissy fit being thrown by the GOP and led by John McCain over earmarks in the omnibus spending bill. Steve Benen has more here on the Republicans and their hyprocrisy on wasteful spending. DEPARTMENT OF POTS AND KETTLES:

For all the recent Republican talk about wasteful spending and unnecessary earmarks, the GOP is more than pulling its own weight when it comes to the very practice they claim to hate.

Download | play    Download | play   (h/t Heather)

Maybe...just maybe...Chris Wallace had enough of McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis's ridiculous spinning on Sarah Palin that he wasn't about to let Davis get away with the standard campaign glossing over of her "executive experience."  Who knows, maybe Wallace is nursing a grudge for not being able to book Palin this Sunday and having to settle for the unctuous Davis.  Whatever the reason, Wallace was uncharacteristically hard on Davis's attempt to bolster Palin's reputation for being a reformer. 

But honestly, I think that all of this sturm und drang about Palin is EXACTLY what the McCain campaign wants.  Suddenly the campaign has become all about Palin vs. Obama, shunting off McSame into the shadows, where he gets to spend less time trying to refute that his will be a third term of proven failed Bush policies.

Palin's aggressive stance in getting federal money is the same thing that every governor does (although as a Californian, who pay more taxes than we get back, the per capita federal funding makes me a little ill--think of how much better our infrastructure would be here in Cali, if we didn't have states like Alaska sucking us dry).  I don't think that there should be that much focus on it other than to point out that Palin herself was named THREE TIMES by none other than McCain as a Pork Barrel Princess.

So doesn't this go more towards the poor and reckless judgment of McCain, who picked someone as a running mate that he personally has castigated in the past for her fiscal irresponsibility?  

So are they trying to tell us that this kind of hypocrisy is acceptable?

transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »