text:
By lambert strether
Here are two Wordles from the last night of the RNCon. Which do you think is Romney, and which do you think is Eastwood? Spoiler alert: Click the image to enlarge and find out.
The Wordle on on the left — the one with "think" and "know"? — is Eastwood. And yes, the rumors are true: Eastwood really did use "bifurcating." Twice. Also too "Gitmo." Once. I wonder how many times Obama will use either of those two words in his speech?
All of which suggests to me that Eastwood's speech was a little more interesting than the torrent of meme-age instantly emitted from the cubes at Prudential Center in Chicago would suggest; I watched Eastwood live, and I found "the one humanly interesting moment of the convention" refreshing. So, first, I want to look a little at Eastwood's speech; and then I want to look at the reaction of one D apparatchik to it.
So, leaving the famous chair aside — and though it's not a bad riff, it's a riff that only the Ron Paul types Romney purged from the party would be likely to run with — what are some of the things Eastwood actually says? Here's one of the many interesting questions Eastwood raises:
[EASTWOOD:] So, Mr. President, how do you handle promises that you have made when you were running for election, and how do you handle them? I mean, what do you say to people? … I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn't close Gitmo …
Somehow, I doubt we're going to hear Gitmo mentioned in Charlotte, or by Romney, for that matter, showing again, if it needs to be shown, how close Obama and Romney really are. Apparently, only an "old mumbly guy … hearing voices in his head," as Lord Kos gracefully puts it,** would be so gauche as to raise such a topic. (Of course, when our guy does whatever, name it, it's OK, so everything's jake!) Here's more from Eastwood:
[EASTWOOD:] [Y]ou thought the war in Afghanistan was OK. You know, I mean — you thought that was something worth doing. We didn't check with the Russians to see how did it — they did there for 10 years. But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and I think that, when we get to maybe — I think you've mentioned something about having a target date for bringing everybody home. You gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only sensible question, you know, he says, "Why are you giving the date out now? Why don't you just bring them home tomorrow morning?"
Not scripted, ad libbed, ums and ahs, yadda yadda yadda, and so what? Once again, it takes a loveable old coot like Eastwood — which is how this flap would be playing if Eastwood had given the same speech at the DNCon to an empty chair named Romney — to raise a question that neither candidate and neither legacy party will raise. I mean, if we won Iraq, where was the victory parade? And if there's a reason to stay in Afghanistan, what is it? Afghanistan, graveyard of empires, and that. Bottom line for me is that both legacy parties now hate the guy, although for different reasons, which to me implies he's worth taking seriously.
Which brings me to how the D apparatchiks reacted to the Eastwood speech, and forget the yammering about "disaster" because that's what they would say. Here's Rachel Maddow, doyenne of career "progressives" everywhere:
Now, from one perspective, "Rachel"'s segment is excellent, and you should listen to it. She gives a lucid explanation of why national political conventions organize speaking slots as they do, since prime time TV exposure is a scarce resource. She explains the various media genres that the campaigns employ, like the heartwarming candidate bio videos (which really do work; when I was younger and much more naive, "The Man from Hope" really touched me). And yet… "Rachel"'s segment clocks in at 8:21, and although no empty chair appears in the MSNBC studio, "Gitmo" and "Afghanistan" aren't mentioned once. Or the "23 million" unemployed, which Eastwood also ad libbed about. In fact, what Eastwood actually said wasn't even a topic of discussion. "Rachel"'s focus was exclusively technical, even technocratic.***
To adopt another perspective, let's label "Rachel"'s style of technocratic discourse Inside Baseball. Much as baseball fans endlessly dissect statistics, trades, management decisions, Hall of Famers, etc., so D otaku generate endless permathreads on D sites — especially Kos, but it's pervasive — on polling, messaging, positioning, money raising, phone campaigns, petition campaigns, advertising, who's ahead or behind in this or that district, and on and on and on. But Inside Baseball isn't for players; it's for fans. Clue stick, guys: The operatives who are paid have these matters well in hand. They're playing baseball; you're playing rotisserie baseball.
That makes the entire Inside Baseball discourse a giant time sink, a cancer, an exercise in "Look! Over there!" After all, when everybody's talking about how Eastwood hosed the Romney campaign because he misused a prime time slot, nobody's talking about Gitmo, Afghanistan, or 23 million unemployed, are they? (There are entire lists of what we're not talking about.)
And wasn't that the real story? That, for one brief moment, a speaker turned human asked some questions that both candidates, and both parties, find very unpleasant?
Hey, when the Ds counter-strike and bring out Betty White for her star turn in Charlotte — kidding! — maybe she can bring up single payer? Or take a stand that not one penny should be cut from Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, or an other social insurance program?
As long as she gets the timing right?
NOTE * The spectacle of Romney's campaign staffers running to the Times to leak their stories and save their reputations, if any, isn't edifying either (assuming the quotes aren't fabricated, a la the late, great Judy Miller). Further, if the staffers thought they'd have jobs after Election Day, presumably they wouldn't be doing that, especially on the day after their boss got coronated. Do they know something we don't?
NOTE ** There's a good deal of strategic hate management for elders running through the D anti-Eastwood meme-age. Useful when it comes time to throw the elders we all will one day be under the bus in a Grand Bargain!
NOTE *** The attitude reminds me of the argument often made in the 2008 D primaries that Obama was best qualified to be President because of the excellence of his campaign organization. Besides the obvious question today — "How's that workin out for ya?" — the argument seems premised on a category error in the same class as "The government is like a household," or "The government should be run like a business." In reality, the government is not a type of household, a type of business, or a type of political campaign, no matter how much reactionaries, business persons, and campaign operatives, respectively, would like it to be.
NOTE I don't pretend to know what was in Eastwood's mind; all I'm doing is looking at what he said. Which the Inside Baseball types oddly, or not, just don't get around to doing. I also don't know if Romney asked the "sensible question" that Eastwood attributes to him; it sure doesn't read like Romneyspeak, though. Still, it's the question that matters, right? Not who asks it?
It seems likely to me that Iraq has been a defeat for the US, but it's hard to be sure since it's quite unclear what the devil the purpose was. Anyway, defeat or draw, it was an appallingly dim thing to do.
As for Afghanistan, a punitive expedition wasn't necessarily a stupid idea, but a decade-long war of occupation certainly was. O has to share the blame with W for that. Announcing the date for the retreat is truly cretinous, and that's O's doing.
There are two reasons why the US should massively reduce its armed forces. (i) To save money. (ii) To reduce the temptation for the adolescent-in-office frivolously to invade other countries.
Sometimes all you need is a map. Not one of those mercator projections like we had in grade school – a real map showing major oil basins, pipelines and shipping routes. It really is that simple.
He who controls the spice…..
I think the "War Nerd" answered the question of who won the Iraq war best — "whoever wasn't involved".
And yes, its been obvious for a long time that the reason our media stars focus on the "inside baseball" technical crap is just so that they can studiously avoid talking about the actual issues that both parties have no answers for. This election is the fist in my lifetime where the things that actually matter to people are either not talked about at all or talked about in such superficial and infantile ways that people are just tuning out. Everyone with any sense knows neither party has any answer to the jobs and economy questions; and people a bit smarter than that know its precisely because the pols are beholden to a class for which those questions are already resolved. The fact that incomes have dropped significantly over the past 4 years is just what Obama ordered — because he, and the Washington consensus he worships before, believe that is the true answer to the problem of jobs flowing out of the country. Its a feature not a bug, as the saying goes. They have so completely sold the "globalization" con they would never dream of protecting American workers from Chinese slave labor. The fact that this race to the bottom in wages is a recipe for massive economic instability, war, mass uprisings, etc., is also a feature that will allow the plutocracy to totally cement their control through the final implementation of the police state. Now we know why the NDAA was passed, and why the surveillance state and militarization of the police has been so effectively carried out. The problem, in short, with our two parties is that they are both rather insane and completely immoral. Obama and the dems may appear more sane in some ways but this is just appearance. They strongly support the global elite and have chosen to sacrifice us for their own supposed safety. Of course if the feces really does hit the fan their arrogance will not save them, and neither will their secret bunkers and private airplanes.
What other excuse can they possibly have for not even trying to alleviate the problems in our economy and society? And while we argue over whether Romney is a robot or can he channel the likeness of a human being, Obama has the act totally down. He will be reelected because he is much better situated to enact the will of the plutocracy. Its that simple. Of course because its that simple "smart" people won't believe it until its too late.
James Shannon
"The Big Issues…." Never ever talked About! THE REAL ELEPHANT IN ThE LIVING ROOM
There is only one issue and it will never be discussed by the Media or any Fbombing Politician or political party!
Like Fight Club we never talk about the real cost we all are paying, by allowing them to keep doing what the wealthy have always done with the money We The People allow them to keep!
Clearly – CENTAMILLIONAIRE$ AND BILLIONAIRE$ need to be taxed out of existence – how "WE The People" execute that fact is what "We The People" should be talking about!
Political parties continue to insure that won't happen!
The obvious conclusion is that Politicians are all owned by CENTAMILLIONAIRE$ AND BILLIONAIRE$ and "We The People" are a Nation of slaves to greed and the corruption of the Republic!
This is not a Democracy – never has been and never will be!!
As for Afghanistan, a punitive expedition wasn't necessarily a stupid idea, but a decade-long war of occupation certainly was.
More resources and technology dont neccesarily ensure a good outcome to an ignorant plan
"History, with all her volumes vast, hath but one page"
~Lord Byron
"…The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster. How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?"
~ August 22, 1920, written by former Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence (AKA Lawrence of Arabia)
How do you call yourself "liberal" and condone a "punitive expedition"? Especially against a country that didn't attack us?
10 years on, and soi disant "liberals" still don't have a freakin' clue.
Real men go to Riyadh
Obama still says Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" – because of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Wrong. The Bush administration had planned to attack Afghanistan even before 9/11. See Get Osama! Now! Or else … Asia Times Online, August 30, 2001 [http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CH30Df01.html].)
"War of necessity" is a polite remix of the same old neo-conservative "war on terror"; blame it on the "towelheads" and exploit public ignorance and fear. That's how al-Qaeda was equated with the Taliban and how Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, according to the neo-con gang.
For all his lofty rhetoric, Obama is still pulling a Bush, not making any distinction between al-Qaeda – an Arab jihadi outfit whose objective is a global caliphate – and the Taliban – indigenous Afghans who want an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan but would have no qualms in doing business with the US, as they did during the Bill Clinton years when the US badly wanted to build a trans-Afghan gas pipeline. On top of it, Obama cannot admit that the "Pak" neo-Taliban now exist because of the US occupation of "Af".
Taking pains to distance his new policy from the Vietnam trauma, Obama stressed, "Unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan." Wrong. If the official narrative of 9/11 holds, the hijackers were trained in Western Europe and perfected their skills in the US.
And even while he still emphasizes the drive to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaeda and deny it a "safe haven", Obama is fully contradicting his own national security advisor, General James Jones, who has admitted that there are fewer than 100 al-Qaeda jihadis in Afghanistan.
The myth of al-Qaeda has to be exposed. How could al-Qaeda pull off 9/11 but be incapable of mounting a single significant attack inside Saudi Arabia? That's because al-Qaeda is essentially a thinly disguised brigade of Saudi intelligence. The US wants to win "the war on terror"? Why not send special forces to Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan and knock the Wahhabis – the root of it all – out of power? [Vietnam-lite is unveiled, Pepe Escobar, Asia Times Online 3 December 2009, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KL03Df04.html .]
Obama's Vietnam-lite
Decades-long-ness is all about nuke-armed Pakistan, not Afghanistan as such.
President O once upon a time had a Pak-portfolio, did he not?
Don't expect Nato countries to cede Afghanistan to the open market anytime soon.
"It seems likely to me that Iraq has been a defeat for the US, but it's hard to be sure since it's quite unclear what the devil the purpose was."
Everyone gets to keep driving their SUVs mindlessly while the gas/oil companies also get their way in keeping supplies open, charging more for the product, and opening Keystone to move oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. (Americans will pay more for it that way, competing with the 'invisible hand' of the market for it"
What was Clint thinking during the speech?
Skippy… hope to gawd the gulfwing in fired up on the tarmac and ready to fook this gig, bye… bye… Check please!
PS. Same thing he did at El Toro and other acting jobs…
Clint's son is an accomplished jazz bassist. Clint even whistles in one song on his son's album.
Clint's just trying to whistle us past our own grave……..
Warren Celli
The corporate election scam, suffering from lack of attention by the corn hole weary public, ordered the RNC to put out bids to Hollywood and its stars to re-inspire the rubes. Grossly overpaid narcissistic corporate culture shaping tool, Clint Eastwood, won out with his scripted talking to a chair gig.
Clint beat out Maury Povich. Maury , who wanted to do DNA tests of Romney's kids that show that Mitt — not Paul Ryan — is the real father, was a close second.
Chuck Norris submitted a Chun Crap Do skit where he would have Chun Crap Do chopped a fake anti war protester, who was to have run on to the stage screaming "You corporate butt sucking fuckers!" and throw the fake protester into the audience. The skit was actually considered more exciting than Clint's chair bit, but turned down by the RNC as being too self promotional for Chuck.
Next election cycle they want to do something with cheap animatronic robots.
Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.
Jim A.
The chair wasn't really the problem. After all "one side of a conversation" is a fairly common comedy setup. Shelly Berman and Bob Newhart are both justifiably famous for it, although they style it as a phone conversation, with their hand to their ear rather than use a chair. If it had been done well, this could have been quite funny. And while I DO take your point that the topics covered were more interesting than those of most of the speeches, the delivery was still a halting, confused and nearly incoherent mess. The main lesson that I draw is that improv is hard.
John Drinkwater
I completely agree. Couldn't watch it. Too tedious and, well, painful.
An actor who still had to regularly audition for parts would have made that chair monologue work. What we witnessed was the result of decades of Eastwood being able to cast himself in his own movies, now resting on his laurels. A fitting metaphor for both legacy parties.
Stan Musical
Great point. We have millions of good actors in this country, but watch the same dozen over and over. Millions of great musicians, but we're made to listen to the same ones and the same songs over and over, some times for decades.
Millions of bright hard-working people, but many waste their lives making a select few filthy rich.
We had millions of stores, but now we get all of our stuff from the same dozen. We don't go to the grocery store, we go to Safeway. We don't go to the pharmacy, we go to Vons….
Millions of smart, ethical, hard-working, caring people, but we hand over the future of our world to the same handful of–some exceptions aside–narcissists, sociopaths, and lying greed/power-mongers year after year.
This is our freedom, 2012: Pepsi or Coke.
Eastwood will soon be dead, but he has had an interesting career. It's important to remember, his big success came from being an American actor in Italian Westerns. Weirdly, being Italian, these Westerns had a somewhat Hard Left orientation, especially Fistful of Dollars, which was basically Dashiell_Hammett's Red Harvest set in the Old West. Hammett was a great old Commie, and was imprisoned and blacklisted in the United States. So, Clint Eastwood's career making film, which lead to his other Man with No Name roles, which led to Dirty Harry was the brainchild of a blacklisted Communist who wouldn't have been able to sell the script to any American studio while the blacklist was in place.
Good points Lambert.
Rachel's Inside Bullshit really is a lot like sport's reporting. The only difference is, I want to know that my town's offensive line coach was out whiskey boozing the night before a big game, and that's why blocking assignments where missed by our leaderless guards and tackles, and those missed assignments led directly to our prized young phenom quarterback being killed.
I want the details. What was the guilty fucker drinking? Was it bourbon, or rye? When is the funeral? How soon can I join the tens of thousands of mourners in filing past the open(?) coffin of our late QB, whose body now lies in state … at the 50 yard line? Or is it in one of our end zones?… of our 1 billion dollar tax-payer funded coliseum?
As a avid sports fan, highly detailed reporting like this has great meaning in my life. As a longtime political animal, Rachel's nonsensical Inside Crap does not.
Note I: I knew it was over for Rachel the first time (of many) she said. "I love this job!"
Note II: When was the last time Glenn Greenwald was on Rachel Maddow Hour? I'd the to see the two diehard leftists* join in critiquing President Obama's, Citizen Assassination Program (CAP!).
*Well, one diehard leftist, anyway, and honorable chap, and one, hmm … not so much.
Goin' South
Funny you should bring up Greenwald.
One place the significance of what Eastwood said wasn't missed was Democracy Now. Goodman played the entire Eastwood bit and asked Greenwald to comment about the content. Yes, the content, particularly what was said about Gitmo and Afghanistan. (When was the last time you heard anyone on TV question whether going into Afghanistan was ever a good idea?)
I'm happy to see that Lambert caught this as well, and laid it out so nicely on NC.
No, the Kosites will never notice this, and Kos will do everything he can to divert them from it, including disparaging the old in his typically classless, clueless way.
Greenwald the Koch funded libertarian managed somehow to miss out on the biggest difference between Romney and Obama, being a Koch funded libertarian as he is.
Taxes. And Spending. Who Pays. Income Distribution, and Redistribution. You know, the thing that Actually seperates Left from Right in the final analysis. Now, fair enough, in America it's more like the differernce between centre right and hard right, but the difference is still vast, and if you are happy to ignore it, then you ain't actually a Leftist AT ALL.
You're a Libertarian, like Greenwald the Koch funded libertarian.
Goin' South
How the Kosmopolitans hate Greenwald because he dares to speak the truth about the Holy Droner.
As for my politics, I have no use for either Imperialism or Capitalism.
Self-organization. Direct democracy. That's the path to peace and justice.
I've read Daily Kos about 3 times in my entire existence.
Most mainstream democrats are pussies and Obama's one of the worst.
I just prefer them to pretend-left libertarians who never talk about the real difference between left and right, tax, spending and income distribution. Being anti-drone doesn't make anyone left wing. It needs alot more, and Glen Greenwald the Koch funded libertarian doesn't cut it for me.
James Cole
Synopticist, Glenn Greenwald does not claim to be a leftist, or a libertarian. You're reading into him claims that he does not make, and smearing him by association. He took Cato Institute money to do a study of drug legalization in Portugal–does that make him forever Koch-funded? You're upset that he doesn't focus on distribution, maybe that's because he's a lawyer, not an economist, and focuses on the justice system and erosion of constitutional values. In any event, you can come back and tell me how important the difference between the parties is when second-term Obama cuts Medicare and Social Security.
Goin' Sount sadi: "Self-organization. Direct democracy. That's the path to peace and justice."
Can we just add that REASON must be the underpinning, not F. Beard's FAITH?
How is Greenwald Koch funded?
No matter how many times Glenn Greenwald(PBUH) has answered these accusations, liars like yourself continue to spread your god damned lies. He can't be everywhere so I'll give it a shot and paste part of another response he gave to Erik Loomis, who after numerous corrections continues his secondary function in life as smear merchant.
Not only is your claim that " he is basically a libertarian on economic issues" absolutely false, but you know it's false, since I provided you with all of the ample views of mine that disprove that claim, right on your own blog, in response to the same false claim you made there. I wrote:
I've criticized Obama for:
(1) proposing massive cuts to Social Security & Medicare (cuts I oppose);
(2) negotiating away the public option for HCR to please the insurance lobby (a public option I supported);
(3) proposing financial reform laws far too weak for Wall Street;
(4) empowering numerous Wall Street-loyal officials such as Tim Geithner and Larry Summers;
(5) spending so much on military and surveillance policies while creating and then succumbing to pressure to freeze government spending. . . .
In response to your question about my views of unions, I wrote:
"I'm a huge fan of the role unions have played and think it's vital they be strengthened. I worked with SEIU and other unions to support pro-union primary challengers. I'm in favor of EFCA." …
"I've written about Obama's efforts to cut SS and Medicare (which I oppose); the far-too-tepid Financial Reform law (which I argued should be stronger); the empowerment of Wall-Street-loyal officials like Geithner, Summers and countless Goldman, Sachs officials (whom I oppose); the need for public financing (which I vigorously support), and so many others."
For you, having read all of that, to then claim I'm " basically a libertarian on economic issues" makes you nothing short of a liar.
To brand someone a "libertarian on economic issues" who – as you know – opposes enitlement cuts, advocates for a public option in health care, urges greater regulatory restraints on Wall Street, condemns banker-subservient government officials, favors a transfer of military spending to domestic spending, wants a system of public financing for elections, and favors EFCA and more protections for unions requires a staggering degree of wilful dishonesty.
Glenn Greenwald
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Erik Loomis wrote:
If you yell more, I'm sure I'll apologize. I recommend using all-caps.
Cash any checks from Cato lately?
…I wrote two papers for Cato – a major study on the success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, and one on the excesses of the Surveillance State: last I checked, neither issue has anything to do with "economic libertarianism," and both are popular, defining causes in mainstream liberalism.
I'm proud of both papers and the positions I argued, and trying to use them to justify your claim of my being an "ecomonic libertarian" is the rankest and most anti-intellectual form of guilt by association (Markos Moulitsas also wrote for Cato , so he must be an economic libertarian, too). […]
make sure to include the fact that, in addition to writing for CATO, I was also a featured speaker last year at the annual Socialism Conference in Chicago, and will be again this year…
I've cut out a lot. There are links in the text that I didn't reproduce.
Read the link. Nothing in it to disprove my assertions. Where are all those articles about those trades union issues which he's so passionate about?
Where's the fierce criticism of all those right wing ideas he apparently disparages?
Thats just a guy asserting he's not an economic libertarian. There's nothing there, or in any of Greenwalds published works, which backs that assertion up. I call BS.
No, this is the part were you prove your statement with links. That's how it works on the web and with science. You're peddling garbage.
You're asking me to dis-prove a negative.
How do I provide links of GG NOT ranting about trades unions, or income inequality, or tax cuts for the rich?
I could possibly dig you one out where Glenn obliquelly refers to his support for Citizens United, but it's lunchtime here, aand i have stuff to do in a minute.
Doug Terpstra
Sorry Syn, 3CPO nailed you. Your absence of evidence is like Rummy's lame attempt to prove WMDs: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That works on the general population but not at NC. Put up or shut up.
Taxes? I'm fairly certain people like Goin' South are against them. After all, how can you tax property if it doesn't exist; and how will the government carry out taxation if it doesn't either?
All this talk about sports metaphors is making me hanker after Keith Olbermann!
Wonder how Current's ratings have been keeping up?
I was lucky -very. Having no intention of watching speeches of any kind, I was listening on the radio to John Batchelor when it was switched to Clint Eastwood at the convention.
It was fabulous!! So funny!! He was fabulous. But IMO not for any of the reasons I've heard for or against Rachel Maddow types who BTW I listened to every day before she got bought out.
As a fan of neither party who finds all the political players; the game itself, vomitous -I do care about the results and keep tabs thanks to blogs like NC -ridicule is appropriate. Ridicule on both their houses. And ridicule WORKS.
Clint Eastwood did a fabulous job on that score. Now, if he will switch parties and do us all a favor on the next guy in, I might even watch some of his old movies.
They all need ridicule.
they all need TO BE ridiculed. I can just see an airport of people bursting out in laughter at these ridiculous TSA goons who have no authority from the people and answer to no one.
-on signal, just start laughing at them. Things have gotten that bad.
Being respectful, respectfully arguing -according to them -you're just a jerk who deserves everything that has been robbed from you -your families, your communities, your loyalties -everything that makes life worth living. And they will continue. They've torn the heart and soul out of the population already but its still not too late.
What else is there to do? As long as 'we' continue arguing on their terms, we lose. Its is WE who want to be civil. While THEY continue looting and raping. Who are they? How can we combat this staus quo where all the traidtional institutions of the country are overwhelmed by the new institutions of lying lyers, traitors, bank fraudsters, torturers, traitors, murderers, traitors, plunderers, traitors, theives, traitors, whiny little Posners, Greenspans, Geithners, Blankfeins, and Bernankes …
Peter Pinguid Society
LeeAnne: "they all need TO BE ridiculed"
You mean like a parody of the 0.01 percent and their government lapdogs, or of Lloyd C. Bankster dealing with the corporate owned media?
I already tried that approach, right here on this blog, in fact, and it doesn't work either, that is, not unless you put up a blinking, flashing smiley that says: WARNING: THIS IS A PARODY!
Goin' South
You underestimate yourself. Lloyd and the exalted society postings are both funny and revelatory.
No, I mean openly ridiculed as in 'laughed out of power.' They no longer deserve respectful argument because the bank fraudsters sit with the ivy tower parsing every word and throwing it back onto the public through their wholly owned media and think tanks specializing in lying and cheating. In the words of the great IOTB, working on deception 24/7 to cover up bank fraudster murdering, raping, destroying and pillaging all over the world in our name; owning and controlling everything on the board while working FULL TIME for only one purpose: to dominate the people who built this once great country wherever we're not looking.
And they are correct, you can't fool all of the people all of the time; but you can certainly fool one group at a time in one location at a time when you control the bully pulpit and all of its outlets.
and furthermore, the accusation that 'the people' are stupid and lazy. The opposite is true as with everything this criminal enterprise now does and says: the people are primarily DECENT. It is the decency of 'the people,' their willingness to abide by 'rule of law' that is being exploited by people who have largely foresworn rule of law for power.
In the smallest card game, that's called cheating. In some places, its worthy of being shot.
Seonded – "Lloyd's" comments have often been one of the highlights of this blog. We haven't seen enough of his "plutocrat perspective" lately.
Ms G
The Lloyd Bankster and Peter Pinguid Society posts are highlights in the NC discussion threads. Many of us "get" it and don't need the "Parody Alert" sign!
Keep up the excellent work. I think you should do little pamphlets of the Lloyd B. and Peter Pinguid "statements" to be widely circulated for free . . . kind of like pamphlets were during the Reformation + Counter Reformation in Europe. Only risk would be a sedition charge . . .
Doug Terpstra
To the exalted, honorable Sir Pinguid, Esquire, from one unworthy worm cowering beneath the soles of the huddled masses:
Please do not stop skewering us with your rapist wit. It is essential that we contemptible dullards be made to understand our place in the divinely-ordained new world odor and that we be made to support without question the infallible righteousness of the neofeudal Untied States in its crusade against all-encompassing evildoers. Please do not deprive us of your enlightenment.
Peter Pinguid Society
To Ms G, Goin' South, Doug Terpstra, and Lambert (without forgetting LeeAnne):
Thanks for all your comments!
"…In short, the vile slanders of my creeping opponents will inevitably fall back onto them and come to roost like a homing stool pigeon."
William S. Burroughs, "Naked Lunch"
Ms G
I think that the handles are cue enough! On the other hand, if you can find an icon of the "stool pidgeon" from the Naked Lunch quote, it would be a cute mascot :)
Parody is wonderful for relief. Very entertaining and useful psychologically. Its also a sign of helplessness.
Nobody does it better than Jon Stewart. How has it helped stem the tide of criminality. :)
Peter Pinguid Society
LeeAnne, it might be impossible for us to stem the tide of criminality or put an end to the reigning system of lies, no matter what we do, but this doesn't mean we should give up, or stop trying.
The strategist Sun Tzu recognized long ago that "advantage and danger are both inherent in maneuver." And Clausewitz noted that "in war neither side is ever certain about the situation of the other. One must become accustomed to acting in accordance with general probabilities; it is an illusion to wait for a time when one will be completely aware of everything."
As for Jon Stewart, please, let's not mention him!
Not after that absurd Rally to Restore Vanity wankathon he sponsored in DC a couple of years ago! :)
When I read about the empty chair, I thought of Jimmy Carter and the League of Women Voters debate that he refused to participate in. That was effective political theater; might have cost him the election. Debating an empty chair when you haven't — and wouldn't — invite the other party only emphasizes the one-sidedness of your presentation. The Republicans so rarely fumble on the p.r.
Iraq I-regulation tie, loss in overtime
Afghanistan-won the first quarter, loss
Iraq II-loss, see Afghanistan
Libya, losing pitcher [from a human rights point of view]
Pakistan-lost [from all points of view]
Iran-soon to be lost
where have I missed in the USG war on the world.
You could also mention American intervention in:
Panama, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, China, Mexico, Haiti, Texas, Russa, Yugoslavia, Turkey, El Salvador, Iran, Uruguay, Greece, Germany, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Egypt, Lebanon, Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, Oman, Chile, Angola, Libya, Boliva, Liberia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Zaire, Albania, Yemen
Some interventions occurred more than once since 1900.
See http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html
Korean, Vietnamese, Grenadanian, Panamanian, Libyan, Afghani, Iraqi, Pakistani. Hearts and minds. Lost. Lost forever.
Libya is better off than Iraq, and better off than it was, and will remain so as long as the militias don't disarm (IMO the TNG is how the neoliberals plan to take control); and the few thousand people who were killed in the civil war were far, far less than could have been. Yes, war is rarely the best option; but, in this case, we should take it.
"Negroes" have long been invisible to Republicans. And, they like it that way. It was a very accurate presentation of how Republicans talk to African Americans, they are invisible and the Party of Lincoln hears only imagined answers. Ask a Republican the following question "What must a Muslim to do become a human being?" and get comfortable for an answer.
Ned Ludd
Ask Obama, "What must someone in Pakistan, Yemen, or Afghanistan do to avoid being blown to pieces by U.S. bombs," and get comfortable waiting for an answer.
He was there to join a protest about the plague of American 'drones' – the remote-controlled aircraft that have left a bloody trail of death and fury among the innocent villagers who struggle to earn a living in the unforgiving mountainous region.
I was there to distribute digital cameras so that the people from Waziristan could record the damage and death caused by the drones, as part of a campaign to prove that innocent civilians are dying.
Tariq, a keen amateur photographer, was given one of the cameras before he left to return home.
Three days later he was dead. Like his cousin, who had died in April 2010 and whose identity card he clutched when we met, he was blown to pieces by a drone strike.
Are the children of Al-Majala, whose bodies were shredded by Obama's cluster bombs, visible to Democrats? Is the 16-year-old amateur photographer, blown to pieces by Obama's drone in Pakistan, visible to you?
Ned Ludd
And wasn't that the real story? That, for one brief moment, a speaker turned human asked some questions that both candidates, and both parties, find very unpleasant?
Well said, Lambert. Liberals could have used Clint Eastwood's speech to bring attention to the under-reported issues of war, unemployment, and civil liberties. They could have criticized the substance of Eastwood's speech and pointed out that "modern Republican courage… is actually fear". As Greenwald wrote: "Virtually every country in the world tries accused terrorists in its regular courts, in the cities where the attack happened." These are the points that liberals could have pressed; this is the conversation we should have had.
Instead, liberals exposed their own vapidity and moral bankruptcy by making it all about presentation. He wasn't slick enough. Liberals now embrace vices that Orwell criticized and saw occurring in his own prose when he wrote without political purpose: "purple passages, sentences without meaning, decorative adjectives and humbug generally."
Susan the other
Agree. Thank you Lambert. Actually when Eastwood used the word bifurcate I got worried and thought he was losing his train of thought. He was talking about how we should never put a lawyer in the White House because they are trained to look at both sides of any problem. And then they parse meaning like they're pruning an orchard. Which does describe Obama. But Clint's questions about Afghanistan that were asked knowing they will never be answered are not necessarily brave or bold. Lambert is so right that this is only one question in a litany of things we are not talking about. National interests? I've come to my own conclusions about our appropriation of mideast oil. Cause nobody will talk about it until they get pissed enough to get fired.
It would appear Eastwood was disappointed with Obama for not closing Gitmo and extending war in Afghanistan. He clearly appears to not have a hell of a lot of respect for Biden.
Otherwise he channeled Cheney via the stand-in chair to suggest the Republican Presidential candidate to fuck himself. This was no senile rant nor was it, in anything but style, rambling nonsense.
The real surreal part of it was that the convention was so keyed and giddy that they cheered the bad news of the extent of unemployment, that is they applauded disaster.
It is also surreal to see the famously reported but stray
Cheney insult can be invoked and recognized by suggestion of "doing things to oneself".
Then the entire crowd goes crazy quoting Dirty Harry's nastiness to a criminal (who happened to be black). A fantasy of how powerful one can be provided you're on the right end of a Magnum.
American political discourse is full of code and arcane cultural references. It is also a whole lot of shit.
Very entertaining, however.
"…they cheered the bad news of the extent of unemployment, that is they applauded disaster."
Huh? They were cheering that someone would say it aloud. They can't think it through to save their lives, but they aren't glad about it. We are all humans suffering in this economy/culture.
But I agree, this was no senile rant. And the (conservative) public loved it. It stood in for the humanizing bio of a person who cannot be made heart-warming no matter what is tried.
The crowd reflexively cheered what they thought was example of Democrat failure. Eastwood's statement was more subtle and literally more blameless. A crowd that gets excited at yelling "make my day" is more less punch drunk and not all that self aware and reflective. As were the entire media who were expecting an endorsement speech instead of performance art.
I get the feeling that Eastwood is a liberal trapped inside what he mistakenly believes is a conservative philosophy. Some of the statements were pretty darn subtle, like giving Obama a pass for deciding to not have the "terrorist" trial in NYC.
And what's this business about "quote unquote businessman"?
Sure, the crowd thought it was largely due to Dem failure. You likely think it's largely due to Repub failure. But that doesn't mean that they (or you) cheer the poverty/indignity/injustice.
"I get the feeling that Eastwood is a liberal trapped inside what he mistakenly believes is a conservative philosophy. Some of the statements were pretty darn subtle…"
But subtle thinking isn't the exclusive property of liberalism. It is possible to have basic facts correct and to have developed sophisticated (overlapping) answers that are different than traditional liberalism.
The most useful thinking begins with the realization that both sides of the citizenry are being played by those who currently run the country–those who are neither conservative nor liberal but who adopt whatever belief-structure blows by, for as long as it serves their own greed. It is this small bunch that carries the destructive cynicism you feel, not Clint's crowd.
We are in this together. The least damaging way out is together. I reeeallllyyy want us to take that way.
Only in our twisted world would Clint's speech be called bizarre and Romney's performance normal. Did anyone actually listen to that plastic machine of a man try and present himself as having feelings and emotions? The Romney speech was so cringe-worthy and insane I could hardly watch it.
Clint was right on, and forget the Gitmo and Afghanistan comments. He said this is OUR country, democrats, repubs, libertarians, whatever. These politicians are our employees who come around begging every couple years.. So f*ck them is the point, it is time for US to rise up and make this country work. Neither party is going to offer it up to us.
His comment about Biden was also hilarious, "a grin with a body behind it". The man is untouchable.
Also, thanks for the term apparatchik, I cannot stand Rachel Maddow – a disgrace to the progressive cause.
The problem is Clint chose a side.
One of two that does nothing for the people.
And you're right about Rachael Maddow.
Exactly, Clint to the best of my knowledge has never expressed any harsh criticism for the Bush/Cheney Cabal for the economic damage it's caused nor the large loss of American life in Iraq and Afghanistan. His film roles posture him as a rugged independent, but his one sided words give him away as a player for the republican team.
Yes, it is unfortunate that Clint has chosen one of these "sides", but I doubt he really pays that much attention to the content of the policies to begin with.
But hell, how else do you get a voice in this country if it isn't through one of these two parties? It is time for revolution!!
Josey Wales was one of my all-time favorites.
andrew hartman
nice post, mr. strether.
"Rotisserie baseball" lol It's a pleasure to read you, Lambert.
Mary Bess
Clint Eastwood's performance illustrates the terrible confusion in the minds of most people regarding politics. Good thing stars don't have to audition.
Heck yeah yves! I thought Clint's speech was great. I agreed with a lot of what he said, in a roundabout way. And I am a extreme left librul.
I was one who didn't find the speech that terrible. But it was worthy of some ridicule. The term leave the comedy to the professionals comes to mind. And there was rambling.
Aside from that, Eastwood said that Obama broke his promise of closing Guantanamo but the part he disagreed with was the promise not the breaking of it. He wants it open and to try the terrorists not in NYC. Nobody here agrees with him.
Also, what sense does it make to complain about unemployment and support the guy who will make things worse? The same goes for supporting the guy who wants even more war than the guy you're complaining about.
One might make fun of the inside baseball but to praise Eastwood in anything he said other than getting out of the wars is ridiculous.
Also, what sense does it make to complain about unemployment and support the guy who will make things worse? The same goes for supporting the guy who wants even more war than the guy you're complaining about.
Completely agree. Eastwood is the quintessential "low information" voter.
"support the guy who will make things worse"
Man oh man, is that debatable. Income inequality, drone strikes, whistleblower prosecutions, etc. are all worse–much worse–under Obama than under W. Bush.
Doug Terpstra
Clint utterly failed to capture the epic overarching theme of the RNCon-vention — the soaring, enthralling "WE CAN DO BETTER!" theme, worthy of St. Reagan, that lifted every spirit to the lofty pinnacle of inspiration-aspiration and captured souls above the clouds in sublime transfiguration. Like Lyin' Ryan, Missionary-man Mitt gets it: 'better' is the fourth largest word in his speech — just behind 'America', 'American', and 'Americans'. One can never get enough of that.
Clint's speech, OTOH, may cause some disciples to stumble in sin from the transcribed word of the golden tablets. It may even cause some to contemplate the lesser evil. It was appallingly off theme and off-script. Or was it?
"In Which Lie Did I Tell?, screenwriter William Goldman, recounting his experience adapting Absolute Power, mentions in passing that Eastwood was nine days ahead of schedule at one point, and then adds, without a hint of disapproval, 'partially because what he wants more than anything on Earth is to finish and get out to the golf course.'"
In simple terms, I'm willing to vote for the person who would prosecute the rampant financial malfeasance in our midst. So much for the legacy party candidates.
So, I'm ready to write in Clint Eastwood for President. At least he can identify what the issues are. Which is more than I can say for the other two.
Clint's speech was hilariously entertaining political theater.
The fact that Romney gave up showing us his life story in Prime-time is just icing on the cake.
The empty chair seemed very appropos given all Obama's relentless golfing and his abandonment of Town Halls (remember the one and only 'National Town Hall' after the election? Where, I believe, he was embarrassed by the questioning?).
Now and then, "the best politics money can buy" makes for some good entertainment.
go ahead, make my day…
lay me off, confiscate everything, and delay me at every turn…
acting is one thing, doing is another.
This is a splendid analysis. Lambert, I am so impressed and grateful.
Read this again, Lambert, and I am even more impressed and grateful. So sorely needed.
Same here. Best I've read on the subject. A lot of people could identify with Eastwood up there, including the incoherent anger.
so, i break my back to get a gall $100 for gas to get her to her job interview in another state, sleep in th car, and at 5:30 am seea guy circling 10 feet away. i do not, do not want to look at him, because he is going to come over and ask for a jump, to get to work…but i do.
if your company is going to lay off 1000 of you, and none of you have the time to give that guy a jump, don't expect me to put on a monkey suit and intercede on your behalf.
labor helps those who help themselves…
F. Beard
That reminds of a story where a guy is dressed in a suit for a job interview and sees a lady broken down on the side of the road. It means he's gonna be late but he stops to help her anyway.
He arrives for the interview in a wrinkled, dirty suit and is told the interviewer is late too. She comes in a little later and apologizes: "Sorry I'm late. My car broke down on the side of the road …"
Brooklin Bridge
Good post! Eastwood raised these questions almost for the right reasons where as most other Republicans are smack dab in that irony of irony's where they raise exactly the right objections to Dems but for exactly the wrong reasons.
Maybe Errol Morris should do a another film like "Fog of War," but with Eastwood instead of McNamara. Eastwood got interesting after he finished the "Dirty Harry" series and started doing more thoughtul, complex movies.
Since he seems to be interested in having some ties to the reality-based community*, I don't understand his loyalty to the Republicans, who seem so uninterested in reality. (For that matter, not enough Democrats are interested enough in reality.)
* A phrase used by one of Bush's imperial non-thinkers, who claimed that he and his know-nothing cronies were powerful enough to create their own reality, never mind the laws of physics, IED's, incompetence, greed, and guerilla warfare.
M. Hughes
Has it occurred to anyone that the whole thing may have been deliberate on Eastwood's part. I understand that he's directing a new movie. He can't be too senile.
The next several days, what did you hear the most about? Romney's speech, or Eastwood's? Even if Romney had given a really good speech, Eastwood really took the wind out of it minutes before Romney came on.
Clint is an old-style conservative, probably more Libertarian than Tea Party or Evangelical. I have the feeling that the only mistake that he made was that he should have practiced a little more, but maybe even that was intended to reach the audience.
I could easily be wrong aboout this, but if the speech was a disaster, maybe it was supposed to be.
M. Huges, yes, and within hours of accepting the nomination this coincidence:
"NY AG subpoenas at least 12 private equity firms
* AG probing conversion of fees into fund investments
* Bain, Romney's former firm, among those subpoenaed"
The choice of Romney is reminiscent of the choice of Pallin. Both intelligent air heads -barby dolls.
Next, I expect Romney to be thrown under the bus and tada tada drum roll!! -out comes Petraeus. No vetting -no controversy -he's been waiting -the GREAT General of the Army -the only one left. The good ones have all resigned or been retired. Petreaus is so necessary that an empty suited pinetta appoints him to the CIA holding him behind the curtain for the right time.
Just call me a crazy conspiracy theorist. There's no choice when you're dealng with pathelogical professional liars in your life all day long.
Eugene Ionesco has a play called "The Chairs." Clint just transitioned Theater of the Absurd into Political Theater of the Absurd. Look at the synopsis of the play to see the similarities:
I think Clint punked us all.
Ms G
"Rotisserie" Election Watching.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
The Bread and Circuses of Kleptocracy, with a Democratic-Voter twist.
Ms G
Clint's unrehearsed and unmetaphorical delivery — unemployment, Gitmo, Afghanistan — was indeed refreshing yet no consolation.
The tragedy is that neither official candidate in this cynical farce we call the 2012 Election for President will say: "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished." (FDR Second Inaugural Address)
I've copied the full section that ends with the "One Third" declaration below. Where is our FDR today?
"But here is the challenge to our democracy: In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens—a substantial part of its whole population—who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.
I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meager that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.
I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labeled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.
I see millions denied education, recreation, and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.
I see millions lacking the means to buy the products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.
I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.
Many Democrats are angry that a figure of wide appeal in America mocked The Obama. Roger Ebert called Clint's performance "sad and pathetic". He "didn't have to do it". Roger respected Clint, but Obama is his prince. He treats Obama with no less awe than he did in 2008. Most partisan Democrats would even shy away from this. He sees Obama as the actual embodification of hope, rather than that just being another bit of empty mass marketing. Bush was the president, Obama is HIS president, commander in chief. His, mine, ours. You can criticize him, hate him even, but you don't just treat him like another politician, or another man, to be mocked and derided, the butt of a gag, whether the gag worked or not.
And how dare he mock Obama's Afghanistan, how dare he imply some sense of ownership? Doesn't he know that it is a Republican war? Even though its deadliest years came during Obama's presidency, even though it had full Democratic mainstream support, "grassroots" support. Putting aside the fact that America post 9/11 was out for blood, frankly, and Afghanistan seemed the most "logical" place to get it, though if Afghanistan disappeared in a puff of smoke on 9/12, some other lucky ducky would have been invaded… this was the good, the "real fuckin' war" according to Neil Young. You cannot equate the disaster of Afghanistan with Obama. He just inherited it, the Republicans started it. It's not about moral accountability anyway, it's about who should be saddled with it in the minds of the voting public.
I enjoyed Eastwood's speech. Lots of showmanship and audience pleasing and even a few good points.
It did remind me though a bit of that poem Jenny Joseph's, When I am Old I shall Wear Purple.
sometimes old men get purple too.
The minute I heard reports of "Clint Eastwood was so senile he was talking to a chair", I suspected that there was probably more content to the speech than people were letting on.
Frankly, I don't approve of the Republican party, but I see no reason for Americans to vote Obama in again. I beleive that the 2012 election will, truly, present Americans with a choice between bad and worse. The trivialisation and mismanagement of US politics will crystalise into a race and outcome that can only end up leaving the population disgusted with the democratic process itself.
The US may end up being a very uncertain place in the coming years.
Detroit Dan
Eastwood's speech was good in an unintentional way. He typified the incoherent rational used by many in his demographic category to disparage Obama. His fantasies overwhelm the legitimate concerns. As Lambert implies, the same speech could just have easily been made at the Dem Convention talking to Romney. EXCEPT THAT THE IDIOT EASTWOOD CRITICIZES OBAMA FOR THE THINGS THAT REPUBLICANS ARE 10 TIMES MORE GUILTY OF!
Detroit Dan
I would say that Eastwood typifies American stupidity, and we can thank him only for making it so obvious. He's against invading Afghanistan, so he supports Romney! Obama hasn't brought us to full employment, after the previous administration left the economy in shambles. So let's elect the unreconstructed party that produce us the Great Recession! Eastwood doesn't think the president should be a lawyer. So let's elect the lawyer named Romney!
It's like Cheney blaming the intelligence agencies for the Iraq fiasco. As if he didn't cook his own intelligence, bypassing the professionals he later blamed.
Anyone praising Eastwood should be ashamed (Lambert, I'm looking at you). If you think the country is too militaristic, too disrespectful of human rights, too willing to let monied interests bend the political system to favor the wealthy over the struggling middle class, you don't endorse the party that is pushing for more and more of these things. Absolutely disgusting. It's like endorsing Hitler because the Weimar Republican politicians weren't solving Germany's problems. That is the level of respect Eastwood deserves for his demented performance. VOMIT
What I find glaringly obvious about both candidates is their transparant "lackeyness". I don't think even Bush was at this level of minionship. Clearly, both men are told what to do and they hop right to it. It would appear that many media figures are vying for the lackey to the lackey spot. Rachel gets high marks from me for her efforts in this regard!
The fact that both parties had to "go to scramble alert" tells you how vapid and emeshed they are. Substance, however badly spoken, must be elminated, BY THEM BOTH.
I don't see many signs for Obamney. I just don't. It is good to hear even the semblance of reality put out in the public domain.
Good write up Lambert!
Hello, empty chair….
How can you watch political speeches? How can you watch political shows on TV? How can you watch television news? Nothing but propaganda. A waste of time. Dull, dull, dull.
Okay, so Clint goes a little rogue at the RNC and livens things up a bit. Small mistake on the part of the Repubs. Won't happen again I can assure you….
Hey chair, I'm talkin' to you. I'm talkin' to YOU.
Brooklin Bridge
It's hopeless. Screw Eastwood and his dialog. Just go look at HuffPo and read a few of the comments on the only two pertinently critical Obama posts on HuffPo in ages. Here and here. One of them was even by
Sam Stein, Obama's own personal lap dog (besides England) entitled, "Who killed the Hope?". The other was the Cusack interview with Jonathen Turley which — of course — appeared here last week (or even earlier).
But back to HuffPo, the comments, oh lord, the comments! For an ocean, and I mean ocean, of "liberals" with the exact same outlook and observational prouesse as Fox viewers or tea party specimens, only rooting for team D, slog through a few of them and abandon hope.
You are aware, aren't you, Lambert, that Obama tried to close Gitmo, and Congress, with overwhelming support from the Democrats, passed a law to prevent him from doing?
doing so.
Squeaky Rat,
It is inaccurate to claim Obama tried to close Gitmo and was prevented from doing so by congress. This myth has been busted many times but here is a recent write up bebunking it: "During the Bush years, the plight of these detainees was a major source of political controversy, but under Obama, it is now almost entirely forgotten. On those rare occasions when it is raised, Obama defenders invoke a blatant myth to shield the President from blame: he wanted and tried so very hard to end all of this, but Congress would not let him. Especially now that we're in an Election Year, and in light of very recent developments, it's long overdue to document clearly how misleading that excuse is."
Thanks for the link to Greenwald's column. But the fact is that he simply changes the subject — his argument is that Obama wasn't going to end indefinite detention, so he wasn't really "closing Gitmo." Sorry, I don't buy it. He said he would close Gitmo, but Congress prevented him from doing so because their constituents were squealing in fear about having "terrorists" on US soil. He didn't say he would treat the prisoners according to Glen Greenwald's requirements.
I have two problems with Clint;
1. I think he should have put George W. in the chair. I think Obama is the wrong guy.
2.Clint is a great fan of Jazz. He has talked often about the effect it had on him. He even made a movie about Charlie Parker. That he is willing to associate himself with a campaign with such clearly anti african- american overtones makes me think that he thinks of them only as performers rather than managers. Quite an insult.I wonder how his hollywood pals would view this interpretation.This point is not about economics and money.Point No 1 takes care of that issue.
At least the Dems have the race card left. No need to look at Obama's record. Just paint the other side as racist.
As opposed to writing off any racism as the "race card" because of Obama's record?
I should clarify. Blaming Obama is like blaming an inept fireman for failing to put out the fire started by George W.At some point we must look at the causes of the financial mess.I think W. had something to do with gutting us into Iraq and Afghanistan. I even think he was the one who opened Gitmo. After the meltdown, I think you could make the case that W. was an empty chair.
Really, who needs paint?
OK fine you won't be pretentious: I'll take the risk…
Jesus was in Clint's mind.
Gotta Love the Performance art! Go Clint! It amazes me how the Liberals/Democrats would dare to show their hand like this. To ridicule an icon like Clint Eastwood is showing their desperation to attack in any manner anything Republican and conservative – but even worse – ridiculing him b/c he is OLD and has some "senior" traits. How can an 82 yr old NOT have some indicators of their age in their speech patterns? But F.Y.I – if anyone needs a refresher course – Clint Eastwood ALWAYS had a rather halting, deliberate manner of speaking even in his young years. So – is it safe to assume that (based upon the SUPPOSED reasons he is getting so much ridicule from the media and the left) that Democrats HATE and disrespect seniors? That due to his age he is no longer considered relevant and has even more shamefully become an open source of ridicule and amusement to these so-called "progressives"? Shame shame SHAME on you
It is the best time to make some plans for the longer term and it's time to be happy. I've read this put up and if I could I wish to suggest you some attention-grabbing things or tips. Perhaps you can write next articles referring to this article. I desire to read more issues about it!


text:
Tesla may build safe electric cars; when will they be affordable?
Now that Tesla Motors has turned a profit, and its Model S electric car has scored the top federal safety rating and the top Consumer Reports rating, what's left for the upstart Palo Alto automaker?
What Tesla has accomplished is remarkable, and it appears on track to become the first successful automotive start-up in a century. Investors certainly think so, having pushed the stock up 323% this year.
Top 10 cheapest cars that get 35 mpg
But whether the bullish bet pays off in the long term will depend on whether Tesla can break out of its niche of selling government-supported cars to rich people. Despite the hot start, some huge obstacles remain in Tesla's path.
Remember that much of Tesla's profits rely on government policy. Without pollution regulations that the automaker has effectively turned into an ATM, it would be far from profiting on what remains a small-volume, expensive car. The Model S may be the darling of the Los Angeles luxury market, but it's way off the shopping list of almost every U.S. driver.
Tesla sells its Model S sport sedan for prices starting at $63,570 and running to more than $100,000, with the largest battery and other options. And it's selling as many as it can make, expecting to move 20,000 or more Model S sedans this year.
But the cars themselves aren't making the company any money.
Tesla has reported a profit in the last two quarters because its chief executive, the intrepid Elon Musk, has deftly extracted millions from government environmental policies, all the while establishing himself as the country's leading corporate futurist, a modern Henry Ford.
On the more expensive Model S -- with the biggest battery and longest driving range -- Tesla collects seven environmental credits from California's Air Resources Board. It can sell those credits for an estimated $5,000 each to other automakers, as Los Angeles Times auto reporter Jerry Hirsch reported earlier this year. Other automakers need the credits to meet state pollution regulations.
So Tesla can net as much as $35,000 per Model S -- more than most cars cost. It's the difference between profit and loss. During just the first six months of this year, Tesla has sold about $150 million in environmental credits.
That's on top of the up to $10,000 in state and federal government subsidies directly to buyers of electric cars. Strip all that away, and Tesla presumably would have to sell its top-end Model S for something more like $150,000, in the same volume, to make any money.
This is not to attack the subsidies. Many people fairly argue that the government has a vital role in jump-starting innovative businesses that can't otherwise survive in a free market but serve a public good, in this case pollution control.
But the long-term survival of Tesla -- and all that Wall Street money riding on it -- ultimately depends on whether the company can stand on its own. Government startup subsidies aren't meant to be permanent.
It will also depend on the grand question facing all electric cars: When can we buy one with a sticker price less than $25,000? That's a reasonable limit for most mainstream household budgets. (The spate of cheap leases this year on many electrics makes them cost-competitive for some drivers, but they remain heavily subsidized.)
Tesla plans next to release a Model X sport utility vehicle. Based on much of the same technology as the Model S, the Tesla SUV may be cheaper but certainly not cheap. Only after that, Musk says, will Tesla attempt a mass-market model.
Most new technology comes down in price with time. But serious questions remain about the future of cost of electric car batteries. The fact that the technology has been around since forever and yet still needs subsidizing provides the clearest evidence of the engineering challenge.
Meanwhile, traditional gasoline and diesel engines, along with gas-electric hybrids, are getting far more efficient, in part because of another kind of government intervention. Ever-stricter federal fuel economy standards have produced a rush of innovation. Efficiency is the new horsepower -- the new cool car -- and automakers are embracing the challenge like never before.
Musk and Tesla have taken the tougher path, insisting with missionary zeal that zero emissions cars such as electrics are the only answer to pollution concerns; hybrids, to Musk, are a half-measure.
The question of whether Tesla becomes the next Ford is just as complicated. Tesla's success so far, although impressive, represents the first mile in a marathon.
But that's less a comment on Tesla's performance than the enormous challenge the company has embraced. It's no surprise, really, that Musk's other business is space travel.
Oh, Lord, won't you buy me a Tesla Model S
Subsidized leases are making electric cars as cheap as gasoline rivals
Tesla stock soars on second quarter operating profit
@LAThevenot on Twitter

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A pair of Atlantic Division foes will resume their rivalry Friday evening when the Boston Celtics host the Philadelphia 76ers at TD Garden.
Both teams enter the night with 2-2 records on the season and the Celtics are aiming for a third straight victory.
Philadelphia won two of three meetings against the Celtics last season, but Boston has taken five of eight and 11 of 15 overall in the series. The Sixers also have dropped three in a row and six of their last seven games in Beantown. The Celtics beat the Sixers in seven games during last season's Eastern Conference semifinals.
After beginning the 2012-13 campaign with losses to Miami and Milwaukee, the Celtics righted themselves with consecutive wins against the Washington Wizards. Boston posted an 89-86 win in D.C. on Saturday before earning an overtime win over a visiting Washington club on Wednesday.
The Celtics registered Wednesday's 100-94 win over the Wizards behind double- doubles and stifling defense late from Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo.
Garnett, who tallied 20 points, 13 rebounds, two blocks and a steal, grabbed a huge board off a Chris Singleton miss in overtime and passed to Rondo, who found Brandon Bass underneath the basket for an uncontested dunk to all but seal the victory.
Rondo posted his fourth-straight double-double with 18 points and 14 assists, while Pierce totaled 15 points and 10 rebounds for the Celtics.
"You knew coming into this night, no matter who you're playing, when you're play a team back-to-back games, you give them three days, you knew it'd be a tough game," said Celtics coach Doc Rivers. "But we made it so much harder."
Boston is 1-1 as the host this season and will follow Friday's home test with two straight on the road.
The Sixers were blown out in a home-and-home set with the New York Knicks over the weekend, but they managed to get back in the win column with Wednesday's low-scoring win in New Orleans. Jrue Holiday posted a double-double with 14 points and 12 assists and Evan Turner added 14 points and eight rebounds to lead Philly to a 77-62 victory in the Big Easy.
Thaddeus Young also notched a double-double with 12 points and 10 boards and Lavoy Allen added 12 points for the Sixers. Spencer Hawes chipped in 11 points, six rebounds and three blocks in the win.
"We were so out of sync in the first half we had 14 turnovers and I told our guys that last year we had a playoff game and we only have a total of five for the game," Sixers coach Doug Collins said. "We were just careless, but in the second half we had nine straight stops."
The Sixers have played the last two games without Jason Richardson and the veteran guard/forward will sit out again Friday with an ankle injury. Of course, Philadelphia center Andrew Bynum has missed the whole season so far and is still sidelined indefinitely with his knee injury.
Philadelphia is playing the middle test of a three-game road trip and will complete the swing Saturday in Toronto.


text:
Le Grand ROBERTA GREEN croco
Our new ROBERTA knows how to balance minimalism with mainstay cool. So versatile thanks to its back clip that can be attached to a belt; you can carry it also as a fanny pack or as a crossbody. It has a triangular handle that represents a beautiful contrast in the geometry of its pattern. Simply round and pretty.
- DARK GREEN croc-printed leather finishing;
- 22 cm diameter x 6 cm width;
- High-quality bicolor golden zip in white & blue, sign of identity of bolsillo®;
- Its insider lining is made with lacquered leather in color LIGHT PURPLE.
MADE IN SPAIN:100% locally handcrafted in Ubrique (Cádiz) by skilled artisans.
Bolsillo bags are constructed using the finest naturally tanned leathers, making leather soft and delicate.
In order to retain its appearance, we recommend that you
use your bag gently and avoid contact with abundant water. If leather gets wet, dry and rub gently with a clean cloth;
wipe down leather after wearing as this helps to prevent that a built up of dirt and salt corrodes the surface of the leather over time;
apply a leather conditioner every few months. A lanolin or a beeswax-based cream will soften while protecting leather over time and helps to stop cracking in places of rigorous pressure or contact;
to spot clean black leathers, apply a small amount of cleaning product to the area you wish to treat and leave out to dry naturally;
do not leave leather garments in direct sunlight or near to strong sources of heat as this can cause leather to oxidies or crack;
for persistent stains on lighter coloured leather, we recommend taking your garment to a leather care specialist;
when not in use, store the garment in the protective dust bag received when purchase.
Timeless design made to last
We build bags with the best premium leather, strong stitching, lacquered leather lining, long-lasting zips and durable gilt polished zamak accesories. We are passionate about developing classic, timeless, authentic designs which transcend seasonal trends.
Exclusive limited editions
To ensure the distinct character of each of our pieces, we only produce 50 - 100 examples per color and design. This is our way of making sure that our products are special and unique and that we preserve the process of making artisanal leather bags.
Responsible & ethical materials
All our leather, as well as other materials used in crafting our bags, are sourced from EU-based companies that comply with our high-standards of social, ethical & environmental awareness. We support the use of leather only if it comes from by-products of the food industry.
All EU & Switzerland orders over 250.-€ are offered with FREE SHIPPING.
For orders within Spain and Switzerland, the delivery takes from 24h-48h. For other EU countries, it can take from 3-5 working days.
If you are near our store in Lausanne, you can always choose the PickUp option!
If you are not quite happy with your purchase, you can always ask for a refund! Don´t forget that a refund is only valid if request is made within 15 days from your original purchase (final sale items excluded).


text:
November 14, 2011
Flash and Mobile Devices
That's not the case when it comes to mobile devices: Flash Player can only be installed in Android 2.2+, Blackberry PlayBook and HP webOS. According to Adobe, "by the end of 2010, over 35 models of smartphones were certified for Flash Player, and over 20 million smartphones either shipped with or downloaded Flash Player." The estimated percentage for Flash-enabled mobile devices shipped in 2011 is 36%. Since Apple's iOS devices and Windows Phone devices won't include support for Flash, it's obvious that Flash can't become ubiquitous on mobile devices. In fact, right now, it's mostly limited to Android and that's exactly what Adobe doesn't want to achieve.
Adobe's biggest mistake was that it assumed that Flash could be a great option for building mobile web apps. The mobile Flash Player was useful to load pages that required Flash, but that's because users didn't have other options. The experience wasn't great, scrolling was jerky, Flash objects looked disconnected from the rest of the page, so it was a good idea to only load Flash content on-demand.
Developers that want to build mobile apps right now have two options: either build HTML5 apps that work in any modern browser or create native apps for iOS, Android and other platforms. Adobe has tools for both options and the goal for the future is to improve them. "HTML5 is now universally supported on major mobile devices, in some cases exclusively. This makes HTML5 the best solution for creating and deploying content in the browser across mobile platforms," says Adobe. "Our future work with Flash on mobile devices will be focused on enabling Flash developers to package native apps with Adobe AIR for all the major app stores." Both AIR apps and HTML5 apps are already successful and the main advantage is that they don't require a plugin.
While it's nice to be able to load sites that require Flash on your phone and tablet, Flash is not a technology for the future, it's mostly for the past. Steve Jobs was right to say that "open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too)" and to recommend Adobe to "focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind".
Google chose pragmatism and started to collaborate with Adobe, who developed Flash for Android, Google TV and a more secure Flash plugin bundled with Chrome. Android's open nature and Chrome's focus on security made this possible. The end result was that users had the option to install Flash on their mobile devices and their desktop browser was more secure, since Flash was sandboxed and automatically updated.
Both Apple and Google cared about users, but in different ways: Apple wanted to provide a better experience, while Google wanted to provide more options. Flash was the wrong option for mobile devices, but it was the only option to load some sites.
8 comments:
I just hope that the AIR/HTML5 replacements don't follow the FLASH practice of pickling text and links so that other services can't re-present this information. For example you can't automatically translate the text in a Flash page.ReplyDelete
I hit one Flash site yesterday that drove me up the wall. It had a Contact link that was only enabled for MAPI email clients, instead of showing an email address that I could use from a browser client.
I also hit hotel sites which make their physical addresses and phone-numbers inaccessible in Flash packaging other than by manually retyping them. They may be completely invisible on a mobile device.
This doesn't make sense. I'm Adobe, have 36% of the mobile market and don´t want make more money of this ¿?¿? And vaguely promises flash applications packed on Air.ReplyDelete
I doubt that packed flash applications are admitted on iOS.
- AnonymousNovember 28, 2011 at 7:43 AM
Tampopo - The AIR runtime is available on iOS and works very, very well. The AIR apps perform in some cases better than apps compiled natively for iOS. This enables companies to have a SINGLE managed codebase for both Android and iOS which is a huge benefit. Do NOT underestimate how money/time saving this approach is. It is a very good strategic move for Adobe to move FLASH out of the mobile browser and into the stand alone APP arena.ReplyDelete
steve jobs was always rightReplyDelete
Flash sites can be a nightmareReplyDelete
Flash and mobile devices give to write interactive applications that communicate with remote servers. It's now possible to write complex business applications for data access, entry and processing on the move. Thanks a lot....
Thankful for a such wonderful blog yours...!ReplyDelete
Flash Application Development


text: Previous Post Next Post Deciding When Your Senior Loved One Should No Longer Drive Author: Kristin Worthington & George Ramage It's a hard decision to make. When do you take the car keys away from the senior in your life? While many things go into this decision, getting input from your loved one's doctor, as well as any other caregivers, can make it a little easier. This way you won't be making the choice alone.Here are a few things to think about when considering the right time for your senior loved one to stop driving:What is their physical capability? The skill of driving requires dexterity, fast response time, quick reflexes and the ability to multi-task. If they can still do all this, make sure they have strength in their feet for the pedals, as well as the ability to sit at the proper height.Check their vision. It's really important that you get a thorough eye exam for your senior. Check for glaucoma, cataracts or just blurred vision.How is their physical endurance? Our bodies are always best when we are in motion. If your senior loved one has little mobility or doesn't exercise, their bodies will not be as agile as they need to be.Think about their medications. Many medicines cause side effects and a big one for driving is drowsiness. Be sure that their medications do not carry side effects that would have a negative impact on their cognitive ability.Do they have diseases? The main thing you're looking for here is mental impairment. If your senior loved one has been diagnosed with dementia or Alzheimer's Disease, it may be time to take the keys. If they aren't showing any signs of confusion, then they may be fine for a while. You should also check for diabetes, as this can have serious effects if not managed.In addition to all of these things, consider the following points to help you make an informed decision:• Near misses while driving, or even accidents• Sudden changes in personality• Chronic health problems such as diabetes• Medication changes• Alcohol intake• Multiple traffic violationsFinally, be sure you understand your state laws concerning senior driving. There are restrictions, so take the time to understand them. Talk to their doctor and ask for help making this all-important decision. Remember—they are there to help!If the time has come to take away the car keys, make sure you do it with love and empathy. Allow your senior's dignity to remain intact by arranging another source of transportation when they need it. If they live alone, this may include a taxi or a bus pass.It's never an easy decision to take the keys because it's such a symbol of freedom. Just think back to how nervous your parents must have been when you were learning to drive! Clear communication and empathy will go a long way in easing the tension around taking away the car keys. Your senior loved one's safety is of utmost importance here! If possible, allow them to help make the decision. If they are a part of the process, things will most likely go a lot smoother.It's tough to remove any measure of control from our loved ones. While it's never easy, it is important to consider not just their safety, but also the safety of others on the road. You may very well be avoiding a tragic accident by being willing to remove the keys when the time is right.For more tips for seniors, visit our Home Helpers senior home care blog.Home Helpers of Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky is a locally-owned, trusted home health care agency and offers quality, compassionate senior in-home care services including home care assistance, personal care, companion care, respite care, Alzheimer's & dementia care as well as homemaker services in Cincinnati, Kenwood, Blue Ash, Indian Hill, Greenhills, Fort Thomas, Hyde Park, Madeira, Sharonville, Mason, West Chester, Mt. Lookout, Anderson, Wyoming, Covington, Burlington, Florence, Montgomery, Mt. Washington, Finneytown, Milford, Newport, Clifton, and Forest Park. Categories Senior Care Previous Post Next Post


text:
|Home > Redirect to an online broadcast
You are about to listen to:
FM Arco Iris, 94.1FM
From 9 de Julio, BA, Argentina
Market: Nueve de Julio / Bolívar
Format: unknown
This station offers their webcast service directly from their home page.
You will need to visit this station's web site to receive this webcast.
FM Arco Iris, 94.1FM
If you are experiencing problems receive this station's webcast -
|Home > Redirect to an online broadcast
Navigate RadioStationWorld
North America | South America | Oceania | Maritime Asia
Home Page | Search | Submit A Site | Contact Us
Privacy Policy | Copyright © 1996-2023 RadioStationWorld


text:
Free Standard Shipping Worldwide
Estimated To Be Ships Within 48 Hours
Bringing Monster Pub remote control vibrator Master Gokilla into your life isn't just a luxury – it's a necessity, Master Gokilla is the strongest monster remote vibrators of all. He's brave, courageous, confident, and comfortable. He knows his strengths, And remote control vibrator Master Gokilla aren't only for one person – you can use them to enhance your relationship too. Bring love into the world and show your partner how to love themselves too. As a remote control vibrator knows what he's capable of. However, he also has immeasurable power – and if you want to come along for a bumpy ride, then you better be ready! And Real, true love comes from loving yourself inside and out, and to love yourself inside and out is the purest form of pleasure
Nam tempus turpis at metus scelerisque placerat nulla deumantos solicitud felis. Pellentesque diam dolor, elementum etos lobortis des mollis ut risus. Sedcus faucibus an sullamcorper mattis drostique des commodo pharetras loremos.Donec pretium egestas sapien et mollis. Pellentesque diam dolor cosmopolis etos lobortis.
You may return most new, unopened items within 30 days of delivery for a full refund. We'll also pay the return shipping costs if the return is a result of our error (you received an incorrect or defective item, etc.).
You should expect to receive your refund within four weeks of giving your package to the return shipper, however, in many cases you will receive a refund more quickly. This time period includes the transit time for us to receive your return from the shipper (5 to 10 business days), the time it takes us to process your return once we receive it (3 to 5 business days), and the time it takes your bank to process our refund request (5 to 10 business days).
If you need to return an item, simply login to your account, view the order using the "Complete Orders" link under the My Account menu and click the Return Item(s) button. We'll notify you via e-mail of your refund once we've received and processed the returned item.
We can ship to virtually any address in the world. Note that there are restrictions on some products, and some products cannot be shipped to international destinations.
When you place an order, we will estimate shipping and delivery dates for you based on the availability of your items and the shipping options you choose. Depending on the shipping provider you choose, shipping date estimates may appear on the shipping quotes page.
Please also note that the shipping rates for many items we sell are weight-based. The weight of any such item can be found on its detail page. To reflect the policies of the shipping companies we use, all weights will be rounded up to the next full pound.
|Nam tempus turpis at metus scelerisque placerat nulla deumantos
|Pharetro Lorem
|Pellentesque diam dolor elementum etos lobortis des mollis
|Donec pretium egestas sapien et mollis
|Sedcus faucibus an sullamcorper mattis drostique des commodo pharetras
|Proin Molestie
|Pellentesque diam dolor elementum etos lobortis des mollis
|Donec pretium egestas sapien et mollis


text:
Craftsman embroidered Face Mask.
Inside: certified antibacterial & water repellent cotton. Outside: Linen.
The face mask has an inside pocket to include an anti-pollution filter if required.
Adjustable with velcro on your neck, to leave your hair and earrings free. You can put or take of your face mask from your mouth with a very simple movement.
Embroidery made by master Craftsmen in our Ateliers.
With the manufacturing of our Face Masks, we contribute to the fight against sexual exploitation of Women.
Made in Spain.
With hydro alcoholic solution (70%) in spray. Clean daily your face mask inside and outside with uniform layers.
Recommended Hand wash. Put your face mask in a bowl with warm water and neutral soap. Rinse it well.
Washing machine. Choose a delicate clothe washing cycle. Use neutral soap.
Ironing your face mask in the inside part at 150ºC is recommended.
Its properties remain unchanged with minimum 20 washings.
The cotton is certified for production of face masks.
It is Water Repellent. It shields water and provides protection from viruses and bacteria.
Prevents from fungal growth and bacteria due to exhalation.
Breathable textile.


text:
The U.S. Senate is debating the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. It's a bill that would result in the taxation of Internet sales, driving up costs for consumers. The legislation cleared a procedural hurdle Monday and could have a floor vote by Thursday.
This is a classic case of where the interests of big business and big government intersect. President Obama offered his support Monday after strong lobbying by state politicians and corporations like Amazon.com and Walmart.
But not all businesses are signing on to this new scheme. Etsy, an e-commerce hub where individuals can sell handmade items such as arts and crafts, warned yesterday that the legislation would "unnecessarily burden small businesses. Most Etsy sellers work from home and don't have the administrative resources to comply with the law."
According to the Tax Foundation, there are 9,646 tax jurisdictions in the United States, creating the kind of complexity that would frighten any small business.
"How can we possibly know the tax rates in [those] jurisdictions?" said Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne. "In one jurisdiction, cotton candy is food; in another it's entertainment or candy."
Reason TV's Nick Gillespie interviewed Byrne in 2009 about why he's opposed to the plan. Byrne said the Marketplace Fairness Act is anything but fair.
Byrne argued that Internet merchants "put a lot lesser load on a local infrastructure" than a corporation like Target or Walmart. Big corporations not only have multiple storefronts, but they serve employees and their children with roads, sewers, schools, and other buildings.
"We don't impose nearly that load, so it isn't fair that we should have to pay those taxes," Byrne said.
Overstock.com is not the only popular Internet retail company that opposes the bill. One of the biggest critics is eBay, which is attempting to drum up a grassroots rebellion against the Marketplace Fairness Act.
These companies are members of NetChoice, a coalition of e-commerce companies. Executive Director Steve DelBianco said NetChoice opposes the bill because of its incredibly complex sales tax regimes that threaten a fragile economic recovery.
"The bill has never been about helping Main Street, but about helping Big Box stores," DelBianco said.


text:
When Lost returns on Tuesday, the surprises will come thick and fast. How would you survive if you were trapped inside a twisty J.J. Abrams story? There's only one way to find out: by playing the J.J. Abrams board game.
(Click the board game to make it super big.)
We compiled a set of common J.J. Abrams plot twists, from all of his TV shows and movies. Pretty much every square of this board game is something that's happened in at least a couple Abrams joints, and some of them are common across the whole of the J.J.-verse. (If you can name which J.J. Abrams shows or movies these shocking reveals and turns of events are from in the comments, we'll give you an extra free throw of the dice, or maybe a "Get Out Of Causality Loop Free" card.)
We've created a starter set of "J.J. Widget" cards for you to put on the center of the board:
Feel free to suggest some other candidates for "J.J. Widgets" in the comments. If we get some awesome suggestions, we'll include them in an "expansion pack" of cards next week.
How to play: Take two six-sided dice and throw. Divide the result by fate versus free will to get the number of squares you can move forward. When you land on "Causality Loop," you have to keep rolling until your die roll equals the product of Faith x Science. If you land on "Symbol Overload," take a card from the "J.J. Widgets" stack in the center of the board. And yes, if you reach the final square, all of your questions will be answered!
(And before anybody points it out in comments, we know that J.J. Abrams isn't really in day-to-day control over Lost any more. But he launched it and it's still part of the J.J.-verse, which he runs alongside a brain trust that includes Damon Lindelof, Carlton Cuse, Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Jeff Pinkner, Bryan Burk and others. In fact, you could argue that J.J. Abrams is really ten guys.)
Additional reporting/writing by the awesome Cyriaque Lamar. Design by the uber-talented Stephanie Fox.


text:
Live chat
Have a chat with us!
Give us a call
Make it your own, with hundreds of options
Our Process
Discover more
From idea to on field, find out how we create bespoke teamwear.
Our Story
Read more
How Paladin grew to be one of the largest sportswear suppliers in Australia.


text:
ANAHEIM, Calif. – Patrick Maroon scored two goals, John Gibson made 36 saves in his second NHL start, and the Anaheim Ducks clinched their second straight Pacific Division title with a 5-2 victory over the San Jose Sharks on Wednesday night.
Corey Perry scored his 43rd goal as the Ducks finished off the second-place Sharks with a three-goal third period to earn the first back-to-back division titles in franchise history.
Matt Beleskey also scored for the Ducks as they pushed one point ahead of St. Louis for the overall lead in the Western Conference, although the Blues have a game in hand.
Jason Demers and Logan Couture scored for the Sharks, who have lost four of six down the stretch. Antti Niemi allowed three goals on 19 shots before getting pulled.
San Jose could have pulled within one point of the Ducks with a regulation victory, but Alex Stalock replaced Niemi midway through the second period after Maroon scored the tiebreaking goal on a stoppable shot through his legs.
Beleskey added a beautiful goal late in the period, and Jakob Silfverberg scored a short-handed goal on an empty net with 1:38 left to wrap it up.
Anaheim will face one of the West's two wild-card playoff teams — Minnesota, Dallas or Phoenix — in the first round.
The Sharks are locked into a first-round playoff rematch with the Los Angeles Kings, who eliminated them in a bruising seven-game series in the second round last spring. The California rivals are meeting in the postseason for the third time in four years.
The Ducks led the overall NHL standings for much of the season until St. Louis and San Jose pushed ahead of them last month. Anaheim reclaimed the lead two weeks ago and finally finished off the Sharks, who are in the playoffs for the 10th straight season.
In the biggest game of the regular season, Anaheim coach Bruce Boudreau made the mildly surprising choice to start the 20-year-old Gibson, who shut out Vancouver on Monday in his NHL debut, over longtime starter Jonas Hiller.
Maroon had the first multigoal game of his short career for the Ducks, coming through from the fourth line to give him 10 goals on the season — one more than Teemu Selanne, who assisted on both scores.
The Ducks also got a boost from the return of U.S. Olympic defenseman Cam Fowler, who had missed 12 games since March 14 with an injury.
Perry tied it for Anaheim on a drive to the net with 2.1 seconds left in the period, holding off Justin Braun with one arm and scoring with the other. The former NHL MVP trails only Washington's Alex Ovechkin in the league goal-scoring race.
Maroon put the Ducks ahead early in the second period with a wraparound goal off a setup from Selanne, but Couture tied it with a sharp-angled shot for his 22nd goal.
Selanne then got an outlet pass from Hampus Lindholm and sent a cross-ice feed to Maroon, who scored again 6:13 after his first goal to put Anaheim back ahead. Beleskey increased the Ducks' lead with an exceptional play, toe-dragging past a prone Brent Burns and beating Stalock for his eighth goal.
NOTES: Gibson was recalled because of an upper-body injury for Frederik Andersen. Hiller's Danish backup has missed three games. ... The Sharks scratched F Marty Havlat, who hadn't missed a game since March 8. ... Anaheim D Luca Sbisa sat out with an upper-body injury.


text:
Holland Tent Rental | Wedding Rental in Holland MI
Thank you for selecting American Rentals for your next party or event. We are your premier tent rental company serving Holland. We offer one of the largest and most extensive Holland tent rental inventories. Our Holland outdoor tent rental company has all the standard styles of tents as well as unique and contemporary styles of tents. Some examples are Holland party tent rentals and event tents including Holland wedding tent rentals, canopy tents, dome tents, tension tents, frame tents, pole tents, festival tents and more Holland tent rentals for parties and events.
Holland Wedding Tent Rentals
Are you planning your Holland wedding and looking for Holland rental equipment for that special day? From outdoor tents, tables and chairs to lighting, staging and the dance floor, our Holland tent rental company has all the wedding rental supplies needed to do your outdoor wedding and reception. As the saying goes "Love is in the air" and what better place to hold such a joyous occasion than the outdoors. The freedom of open space, the fresh air, and all of nature can only add a special touch to an already special day.
With a large inventory of modern looking tension structures and self-supporting frames, we have the specialty tents to make your Holland wedding or next Holland event a resounding success. Available in a wide array of widths and lengths, American Rentals' specialty tents offer maximum flexibility without sacrificing beauty and elegance.
Our Holland Tent Rental Company wishes you the best of luck in planning your next Holland event, and will offer whatever assistance we can to help make it a success. Just give us a call toll-free at 1-800-637-1110 or request a free online estimate.