Some select excerpts from “Dreams from my Father” – the audio book.Read More
Steph sent me this picture this morning…I think I’ll just let her explanation do the talking:
I was looking up romance novels and paintings for my one project and found this on flickr. Why is he in the river? Why is there a horse? WHY IS THE HORSE IN THE RIVER?!
I love it when he gets all ornery:Read More
I was looking at Wikipedia at about 12:30 am to see if someone had updated the Steeler page yet, and sure enough someone did. I also came across some pretty interesting facts I’d like to share with yinz…
(all information from Wikipedia)
President of the United States Barack Obama
I thought Adam might enjoy this also:
The Steelers logo was introduced in 1962 and is based on the “Steelmark,” originally designed by Pittsburgh’s U.S. Steel and now owned by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). In fact, it was Cleveland-based Republic Steel that suggested the Steelers adopt the industry logo. It consists of the word “Steelers” surrounded by three astroids (hypocycloids of four cusps). The original meanings behind the astroids were, “Steel lightens your work, brightens your leisure, and widens your world.” Later, the colors came to represent the ingredients used in the steel-making process: yellow for coal, orange for iron ore, and blue for scrap steel.
I just learned about this recently and find it interesting:
The “Steagles” is the popular nickname for the team created by the temporary merger of two National Football League (NFL) teams, the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Philadelphia Eagles, during the 1943 season. The teams were forced to merge because both had lost many players to military service due to World War II.
The More You Know…cue the sparkly star !Read More
[Obama is] just one of those guys, you know, like Will Smith. There’s no Will Smith jokes. There’s no Brad Pitt jokes. You know, what are you going to say? “Ooh, you used to have sex with Jennifer Anniston. Now you have sex with Angelina Jolie. You’re such a loser.” What do you say? “Ooh, your movies are big. You make $20 million.” There’s nothing to say about Brad Pitt…[With Obama it's] like “Ooh, you’re young and virile and you’ve got a beautiful wife and kids. You’re the first African-American president.” You know, what do you say?
[h/t Sullivan]Read More
Before I start, as a side note, I wish I wasn’t so busy at work right now, otherwise I would have posted this earlier, and also participated in liveblogging. Argh.
Surely, there are plenty of emotions that are being felt in this nation today. Jubilation. Pride. Amazement. For me, it’s all of those, but something else keeps finding it’s way to the top: relief. I just can’t seem to get over the fact that I am so relieved that George W. Bush is no longer our President.Read More
Just a random thing that I saw that kind of frustrated me. From The Raw Story (although it’s regarding a Fox news statement I don’t have the direct quote for)
Regarding the fumbled oath today:
Chris Wallace of FOX News wondered if, due to the fumbled oath, Obama really was president.
Typically, before I speak up in class, if I don’t know something that I am sure I ought to know (for example, I forgot that the “Lord’s Prayer” is called … the “Lord’s Prayer”) I typically do a quick google to answer the question. In forums, people are chastised for not googling something that should obviously be googled.
And so, whether this statement was in jest or not, and from my understanding it was not totally, it feels like a lot of TV news has become as un-journalistic as possible. Often we catch pundits and the like spewing off random personal opinions without any factual backing or understanding of the topic, as if they were sitting around with friends having a conversation. Everything from the infamous “appeasement” argument to the madrassa scandal, predictions on how americans will feel about candidates not wearing flag pins to what reactions will be to what was meant by Hilary’s dress. Today right after the inauguration on Fox a former speech writer from the Regan campaign came on and started saying how people aren’t going to remember the speech in 30 years because it lacked a certain muster.
The problem is that when people in media come out and share their opinions on how people WILL react in the future and play this game of speculation, people who haven’t formed their own opinions believe it. How about you do a survey and report to me the facts on how people regard Obama’s speech. Or find out the facts about the madrassa situation before going on air about it.
And Chris, next time you want to know the answer to whether or not the oath is required in full in order to effectively become president, just google it. Unless you actually expect the camera to talk back to you.
Here is the clip of Chris Wallace. It’s exactly as I stated: Three clicks to this article on the 20th amendment which clearly states when a president becomes president, or a whole bunch of B.S. on Fox news.Read More
Holla atchaboy.Read More
From ReadWriteWeb’s writeup:
…Regardless of the attendance, one thing is for sure: with nearly ubiquitous access to cameras and video equipment, this will be the most well-documented inauguration, ever. Now, the Microsoft Photosynth team has announced that they will be making the event even more memorable – by creating a three-dimensional “synth” of the inauguration from your photos.
Sounds pretty cool, right? So how does one participate?
1. Take one photo of the moment when Obama takes the oath. If you have a digital camera with a zoom lens, take three photos (wide-angle, mid-zoom, full-zoom)
2. E-mail each photo as soon as possible to email@example.com (one photo per message, 10MB size limit). Don’t forget to include your name in the message if you’d like to appear in the list of the contributors. Please only send in photos you took yourself.
3. Go to cnn.com/themoment to see all of the photos in our photosynth
The good news? Anyone with a digital camera can participate and take part in recording history. In addition to the Photosynth project, all of the photos will also be shared via iReport. Then, there’s the bad news. If you want to see the finished work in all its glory, you have to have access to a Windows machine. Photosynth is only fully supported support Vista and XP currently. But they do offer an experimental Silverlight-based Photosynth player for other platforms. (I used the experimental viewer and it worked very well.)
Brian you should so get in on that.Read More
This is a cool idea. Also, it makes your supporters feel really good. This administration is going to be very different. In a good way.
I wish I could make it to the inauguration. If I were on the east coast, I would go. Should be a hell of an event.
Lastly, I’m fairly impressed that they sent this to my new address, since I just moved here last month. They must be keeping a pretty slick voter file.Read More
I’ve been meaning to write something about the whole Rick Warren fiasco (if you are unfamiliar, look here and here) for a little while now, and of course, whenever you do that, someone else goes ahead and writes the post you were thinking about for you.
Since my spectrum post didn’t get many comments, you’ve forced me to talk about Rick Warren. And while I’m not exactly a fan of this guy, I don’t think inviting him to give the invocation is a big deal.
Now, it’s easy for me to not get that pissed about this, because I’m not gay. It’s a lot easier for someone to argue that a person’s derogatory comments about a minority group are no big deal when you aren’t part of that minority group. But here’s the thing: Rick Warren really isn’t that bad of a guy. Don’t get me wrong, though, he has said ridiculous things about gays, and I don’t want him anywhere near the policy portfolio on gay rights, but he’s far from a full-on bigot, like say, John Hagee. In fact, Warren has done a lot of good work for fighting global HIV/AIDS. Plus, people are missing some subtle political calculations here:
If you followed the internal politics of evangelical and fundamentalist leaders, you’d see this for what it is—not an elevation of Warren, but a slap in the face of the old guard leaders like Dobson and LaHaye. They’ve been fighting to see who gets to be the spokesman for the movement, and lately it’s been a tie. Obama just broke it.
And let’s be clear, there is a difference between those groups. Warren may not be progressive on gay rights, but he’s been out front on a number of issues of global justice—traveling from Davos to Damascus, and working hard to get rank-and-file evangelicals invested in “creation care” environmentalism and the fight against global HIV/AIDS.
This isn’t about riling up the left to boost Obama’s “centrist” credentials. It’s about extending a hand to a somewhat reasonable leader of the evangelical community, and in doing so, elevating his status within it.
I’ll let publius finish:
Obama isn’t going to cause evangelicals to start loving abortion rights or gay marriage. But what he could maybe accomplish is to help elevate a leader whose primary mission in life isn’t defeating and vilifying Democrats. That’s all Dobson and Perkins have — they commodify outrages and liberal hatred, and that’s what they sell (at a nice profit). Warren, despite his flaws, devotes more energy to doing good things — things that secular progressives could even coalition with him on.
Personally, I’d rather see a greater chunk of evangelical money going to fight AIDS than to defeat Democratic candidates. Obama’s courtship of Warren could make that happen. Also, if the evangelical leadership shifts, young evangelicals wouldn’t grow up hearing how awful Democrats are. Instead, they would grow up hearing how important it is to do good in the world. And without that incessant demonizing, younger evangelicals might eventually drift over to the progressive camp, which is far more consistent with their views on poverty, the environment, etc.
In short, Obama’s invitation is extremely ambitious — FDR or Nixon-level ambitious. He’s trying to wedge one of the other side’s key coalition groups and assemble a new permanent coalition (or at least one that attracts less incoming fire). With that new coalition in place, the legislative environment for LGBT rights will much more conducive to progress.
It’s beyond frustrating watching the MSM try to make this a story about Barack Obama. I realize that, if you look at this from 10,000 feet, it might look like Obama might be involved. I mean it is his governor, and his Senate seat, but as soon as you get to about 1,000 feet, you realize that Obama was nowhere near involved.
At one point, he proposed a three-way deal, that a cushy union job would be given to him at a higher rate of pay, where he could make money. In exchange, he thought that the union might get benefits from the president-elect. And therefore the president-elect might get the candidate of his choice.
I should make clear, the complaint makes no allegations about the president-elect whatsoever, his conduct. This part of the scheme lost steam when the person that the governor thought was the president- elect’s choice of senator took herself out of the running. But after the deal never happened, this is the governor’s reaction, quote, “They’re not willing to give me anything but appreciation. Bleep them,” close quote. And again, the bleep is a redaction.
Sounds pretty open-and-shut to me. I mean, it might be one thing if Patrick Fitzgerald wasn’t one of the most respected US Attorneys in the nation, and made a name for himself prosecuting the Plame leak. You might be able to make something out of it if he was Joe Schmoe. But he’s not. The guy’s a straight shooter, and everyone knows it.
There’s nothing here. In fact, Obama and Blagojevich didn’t even like each other. Why? Because Obama championed ethics reform legislation that curbed exactly the type of behavior that Blago utilized. The NYT went as far as saying that Obama may have played an indirect role in the arrest of Blago:
In a sequence of events that neatly captures the contradictions of Barack Obama’s rise through Illinois politics, a phone call he made three months ago to urge passage of a state ethics bill indirectly contributed to the downfall of a fellow Democrat he twice supported, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich.
Mr. Obama placed the call to his political mentor, Emil Jones Jr., president of the Illinois Senate. Mr. Jones was a critic of the legislation, which sought to curb the influence of money in politics, as was Mr. Blagojevich, who had vetoed it. But after the call from Mr. Obama, the Senate overrode the veto, prompting the governor to press state contractors for campaign contributions before the law’s restrictions could take effect on Jan. 1, prosecutors say.
So, basically, there’s nothing here except a corrupt-beyond-belief governor. That’s it. And anyone trying to push anything else either hasn’t done their homework, or is being intellectually dishonest. In case you were wondering, that would be the MSM and the GOP, respectively.Read More
I always knew that Obama was one cool cat …Read More