Despite the fact that WALL-E’s striking resemblance to Johnny Five really bugged me when I first saw the trailer, I didn’t think about it even once during the movie. That’s probably because WALL-E is freaking adorable, while Number 5 was seriously annoying. Anyway, I really enjoyed the movie. Definitely recommended.
And now for a psychic movie review: The upcoming remake of Short Circuit will be just awful. (That’s right—not a sequel, a remake.)
In the interest of being fair and balanced after that last post, I guess I should make it clear that I’m sorely disappointed that Barack Obama supports the FISA bill passed by the House last week. For details on the legislation and why it’s so bad, read Glenn Greenwald.
Some bloggers have speculated that the explanation for Obama’s support of the FISA bill might be that he expects to be the next president, so he’s not worried that the executive power granted by the bill would be abused.
Greenwald: “Obama believes he will be President and wants these extreme powers for himself, no doubt, he believes, because he’ll exercise them magnanimously, for our Own Good.”
Jack Balkin: “Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive, and he can institute internal checks within the Executive Branch that can keep it from violating civil liberties as he understands them.”
Barack Obama himself said in his statement supporting the bill: “So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.”
This is precisely what George W. Bush would have us believe. This is precisely why those core supporters of Bush defend him to the end on civil liberties issues (and everything else) — because they trust him to do what’s right and good. They trust that he has the best interests of the country and of the people at heart and that he wouldn’t abuse his power.
Well, I don’t trust Bush, but that’s actually beside the point. I shouldn’t have to trust him. Though my instincts lead me to believe that Obama is more trustworthy than Bush, I shouldn’t have to trust Obama either. That’s why we have laws. That’s why we have the Constitution.
John Adams: “There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
Thomas Paine: “[I]n America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”
Obama’s support for this bill is all the more galling because he has taught Constitutional law. I’ve heard him talk about other Constitutional issues and about Supreme Court rulings in a clear, pragmatic, and intelligent way. He knows why this bill offends so many, yet he still supports it.
In what I can only assume is an attempt to garner attention, Ralph Nader has accused Barack Obama of “talking white” and “appealing to white guilt.” Here’s what he had to say:
“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”
[...] Asked to clarify whether he thought Obama does try to “talk white,” Nader said: “Of course.
“I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law,” Nader said. “Haven’t heard a thing.”
In addition to the grammatical errors (”how the poor is going to be defended by the law?” — ouch, that makes my ears hurt), there are so many things wrong with Nader’s statements that it’s hard to know where to begin.
First, obviously, there’s the overt racism. I’d like Nader to explain just what it means to “talk white.” And who the fuck does Nader think he is to decide for black politicians what their number one priority should be? Note that the criticism isn’t simply that Obama should talk more about poverty, it’s that he should talk more about poverty because he’s black. (And by the way, Obama’s father was from Kenya, so he’s actually half African, not half African-American. With an African father and an American mother, Obama is quite literally 100% African-American.)
But the biggest thing that’s wrong with Nader’s statements is that they are, well, wrong. Obama does talk about poverty. He does talk about the urban poor and the rural poor. He does talk about predatory lending. He does talk about payday loans. Clearly, one could argue that he should talk more about poverty (an argument that could be made about most politicians), but you can’t say that he doesn’t talk about it at all.
Ralph Nader says: “Haven’t heard a thing.” Perhaps he needs to trim his ear hair.
On payday loans and predatory lending: In the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama sponsored the Predatory Home Loan Act and a bill strengthening the Consumer Installment Loan (i.e., “payday loan”) Act. In his Blueprint for Change (pdf) and on his web site, Obama specifically addresses payday loans:
Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure: Obama supports extending a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans. Obama will require lenders to provide clear and simplified information about loan fees, payments and penalties, and he’ll require them to provide this information during the application process.
On the rural poor: On October 16, 2007 Obama unveiled his “Real Leadership for Rural America” agenda. In his Blueprint for Change and on his web site, Obama has one section devoted entirely to rural issues and another devoted to poverty.
On the urban poor: Obama proposes creating a White House Office on Urban Policy. On July 18, 2007 Obama gave a speech entitled “Changing the Odds for Urban America.”
On issues of particular concern to the black community, particularly the poor, urban black community, Obama has made a litany of policy proposals:
On lead: Obama sponsored the Lead Free Toys Act of 2005 and of 2007 and the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act of 2006 and of 2007. On asbestos: When he was a community organizer in Chicago, he pulled together a group of hundreds of residents of housing projects and pushed for asbestos removal, among other improvements.
Obama sponsored the Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act of 2007.
During the confirmation process for Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Obama sent him a letter asking him detailed questions about how he would address issues of racial discrimination and civil rights if confirmed.
I realize that this post now reads like one big campaign commercial for Barack Obama, but I want to demonstrate just how wrong Nader is. He couldn’t be more wrong. Obama has talked about all of the issues Nader claims he hasn’t and has specific policy proposals regarding those issues.
Basically Nader’s argument boils down to “Barack Obama doesn’t care about black people.” What I’d like to know is, what has Nader done for black people? And why doesn’t Nader ask this question of every presidential candidate, instead of just the black one? I don’t recall him ever raising this issue with Al Gore or John Kerry or George Bush. Nader claims that Obama’s public career is long on words, short on action. I know that Nader has done a lot in the past, but besides running for president, what has Ralph Nader done lately?
The Politico reports today that dozens of House Democrats haven’t paid some or all of their dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2008 election cycle. Among them is West Virginia’s own Rep. Alan Mollohan, who hasn’t given the DCCC a penny. Rank-and-file members are required to pay $125,000 in dues. The way it works is that candidates transfer funds from their campaign war chests to the DCCC.
I checked Mollohan’s campaign contributions on OpenSecrets.org to see what kind of money he has raised for 2008, and it breaks down as follows:
| Raised: |  $575,194 |
| Spent: | $451,320 |
| Cash on Hand: | $79,199 |
| Debts: | $200,000 |
So as of April 23, 2008, when Mollohan last reported his fundraising numbers, it doesn’t look like he had enough money, particularly considering the $200,000 in campaign debts, to pay the $125,000 in dues. But when you look at his campaign contributions from 2006, you can see that Mollohan is perfectly capable of raising much bigger sums of money. In fact, in 2006 he raised more than the average House Democrat:
| Raised: | $1,622,991 |
| Spent: | $1,726,707 |
| Cash on Hand: | $5,329 |
| Debts: | $280,132 |
The $1.6 million that Mollohan raised in 2006 includes $250,000 of his own money, which brings me to the real point — Alan Mollohan is loaded. He should just pay the $125,000 already. Democrats have a great opportunity to pick up seats this year, and since Mollohan’s seat is safe he should be helping out those Democrats whose seats aren’t so safe, who are running for open seats in swing districts, or who are challenging potentially vulnerable Republican incumbents (like Anne Barth, for instance).
Not that I think Mollohan really gives a damn about getting more Democrats elected. His main concern as a member of Congress seems to be making himself, his friends, and his family members rich. Senator Byrd gets a lot of shit for having his name emblazoned on buildings, highways, and bridges all across the state, but at least Byrd’s earmarks largely go to public works projects that benefit citizens all over West Virginia. In contrast, Mollohan’s earmarks mostly go to non-profit organizations or foundations that were created by him or people close to him and that have questionable accounting practices.
So come on, Rep. Mollohan, cough up the cash. We know you have it.
Over the weekend, John McCain’s campaign issued the following press release:
U.S. Senator John McCain’s campaign today announced a group of prominent Democratic and unaffiliated leaders and activists who have joined “Citizens for McCain,” a new grassroots effort headed by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to rally Americans of all political parties to support John McCain’s candidacy.
First, an aside: Can an effort that is headed by a United States Senator and former Vice Presidential candidate be said to be “grassroots?” More to the point, can an effort that is lead by a presidential candidate’s own campaign be said to be a grassroots effort on behalf of that candidate? Methinks not. As Wikipedia tells us:
A grassroots movement (often referenced in the context of a political movement) is one driven by the constituents of a community. The term implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it is natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures.
Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain are the very definition of “traditional power structures.” Nice try, boys.
Now for the good stuff. The last person on the list of thirty “prominent Democratic and unaffiliated leaders and activists” released on Saturday is former West Virginia gubernatorial candidate Philip Frye. That is, Philip “Icky” Frye. If you’re from West Virginia, you’re already laughing. If you’re not, let me explain.
Calling Icky Frye a former West Virginia gubernatorial candidate is like calling Gary Coleman a former California gubernatorial candidate. He ran as a joke. He ran for attention. He ran because the incumbent governor, Bob Wise, had been sleeping with his wife. He ran as revenge.
As Frye told The Daily Show in August 2003, he had no hopes whatsoever of winning the election and ran simply “to be a sheer nuisance to Bob Wise.” The Icky Frye part starts up at around 1:10, but the whole video is well worth a watch.
Paul Nyden from the Charleston Gazette contacted the McCain campaign to get to the bottom of the Icky situation:
Jeff Sadoski, a spokesman for the national McCain campaign, said Monday, “This is a list of people who are known in different states, as Democrats or independents. They include elected officers and leaders in the Democratic Party. They were prominent Democrats.“
Sadowski said Frye was “someone who has run statewide as a Democrat.”
Asked how the McCain campaign chose people to put on the list of “prominent” supporters, Sadowski said, “We did research. We reviewed them.”
They did research? Yeah, right. It’s clear what likely happened here. Because of his 2003/2004 gubernatorial run, the name “Philip Frye” was on some list that the McCain campaign had and they just called him up, without much thought, and asked him if he’d like to join Citizens for McCain. And then hilarity ensued.
Sure, by the dictionary definition of “prominent” — widely and popularly known — I guess Icky Frye is prominent in West Virginia. But “notorious” would be more apt. Paul Nyden refers to Icky Frye as a fringe candidate, but truthfully, calling him a fringe candidate is an insult to fringe candidates. I don’t mean to beat up on the guy, I mean to beat up on McCain’s campaign staff for being a bunch of clueless, careless idiots. I can only hope that they continue to run his campaign this way.
Post linked by: Wonkette, Americablog, Huffington Post
This is very last minute notice, but tonight is the first Charleston meeting of Drinking Liberally. It starts at 7:00 pm at the Red Carpet, 308 Elizabeth Street.
What’s Drinking Liberally, you ask?
An informal, inclusive progressive social group. Raise your spirits while you raise your glass, and share ideas while you share a pitcher. Drinking Liberally gives like-minded, left-leaning individuals a place to talk politics. You don’t need to be a policy expert and this isn’t a book club - just come and learn from peers, trade jokes, vent frustration and hang out in an environment where it’s not taboo to talk politics.
Bars are democratic spaces - you talk to strangers, you share booths, you feel the bond of common ground. Bring democratic discourse to your local democratic space - build democracy one drink at a time.
If you’re liberal and you like to drink, please join us! Stop by whenever you can — I’ll be the shorty with the red hair.
Yesterday, Jessica at Feministing asked: What was the first concert you ever went to (excluding anything that your parents may have dragged you to when you were a kid)? When I was twelve years old I went to my first concert with a group of friends, chaperoned by my friend Wendy’s mom. We didn’t have great seats, but we managed to push our way toward the front of the crowd once the concert started. Wendy touched Donnie Wahlberg’s hand and the rest of us were jealous. Of course, I always preferred Jonathan anyway. Yes, it was the New Kids on the Block. I believe I may have stared intently at pictures of Jonathan Knight in BOP magazine while listening to this song repeatedly:
Now for the bonus round! This one’s courtesy of me, not Jessica.
When is the first time you smelled marijuana? I have an equally embarrassing response to this question. The first time I smelled weed was at a Billy Joel & Elton John concert. In my defense, I was dragged to the concert with my family. I had to ask my aunt what the smell was.
Your turn.
Since I have this beautiful election day off, this afternoon I walked to my local polling place to cast my votes. I also took a walk along Kanawha Boulevard toward the capitol, since the weather is so nice today. I stopped when I got to the capitol to see if I could spot Andrea Mitchell from MSNBC, who has been reporting from the University of Charleston all day today, with the shiny capitol dome across the river behind her. I’m not sure, but if you squint real hard, I think I caught a photo of her here:
We’re important! West Virginia is important, dammit!
So, did y’all vote?
This sounds like the most plausible explanation to me:
Clinton’s calculation is as much about history as it is about politics. As the first woman to have come this far, Clinton has told those close to her, she wants people who invested their hopes in her to see that she has given it her best.
At this point, with only five states (& Puerto Rico) to go, she may as well ride it out to the finish. I can understand that she truly appreciates her die-hard supporters and doesn’t want to seem like a quitter. I really don’t like some of the tactics her campaign has been using for the past few months, but I don’t fault her for staying in the race.
Recent Comments