http://www.moonofalabama.org/

A German perspective from "b":

"This New Yorker cover graphic is summing up negative cliches on Obama. The same cartoon would fit on the Weekly Standard or National Review. Unlike others I am not surprised at all to find it where it is.

Why is the New Yorker seen as a 'liberal' magazine at all? The only readable stuff I ever find in it are the Hersh pieces. Even those are often dubious as Hersh seldom lets one in on his sources and their special interests in talking with him. He made his name with sound stories on My Lai, Abu Ghraib and recently with reporting on a new executive order for silent attacks on Iran. But all of these stories were reported elsewhere before he even got near to them. He added interesting details though.

Other than Hersh the New Yorker peddles warmongerers like George Packer and neo-liberal pseudo economist stuff by James Surowiecki. The rest is on U.S. scales middle of the road culture writing which is essentially rightwing nonsense when measured in international benchmarks.

So again: Why are 'progressives' astonished about such an attack cover by the New Yorker?

The primary task of media entities is to make profit for their owners. Tight races in elections and controversies create an atmosphere were people yearn for news and commentary and buy media products. Therefore the media owners interest is to create tight races and controversies. It sells the mags and with them lots of ads."

[hyper-links disappear when coping to Salon]

Looks like some 220 members have endorsed House Resolution 362 which is a virtual war resolution. It "demands" that President Bush initiate a blockade to halt all Iranian imports of refined petroleum products, and impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran." A Democratic House that came to power denouncing the rush to war on Iraq is about to vote to demand that Bush commit an act of war against Iran. Anyone else find this a tad ironic?

The con men leading the way on 362 are liberal Gary Ackerman and conservative Mike Pence. Strange Bedfellows indeed! Unfortunately, they are not the sort we are hoping for. :-(

But the real power behind them is AIPAC, which is marching in step with Israel demanding the total destruction of all countries in the middle east so that the will of God may prevail and Israelis may have plenty of water for their swimming pools. That God of theirs sure does a lot of killing of innocent women and children.

Mossad's chief Meir Dagan was in D.C. last week to make the case for war on Iran. This week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak visits Dick Cheney and maybe Bush. Next week, it is the head of Israel's armed forces. Odd timing? Well, at least we are safe till next week's visit is over.

If you think your 4th Amendment rights are in trouble now; just wait until Bush, the butcher of Baghdad, starts the coming war with Iran. One wonders if he will think it safe to have national elections in the middle of the crisis.

Why are the Democrats so eager to help Bush start another war?

So, of course key Congressional Democrats who were made aware of these illegal torture and surveillance programs are going to protect the Bush administration and other lawbreakers. -- Glenn G.

You have described a criminal gang and a criminal conspiracy to cover up crimes. This is the sort of stuff Nixon was nailed on. Of course, if the "oversight" officials are in on the crime, what can be done?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/15/10365/

I guess we have not found that 'peace candidate' after all. I guess if was pure audacity to even hope.

Now that was a smack-down. No name calling or silly crap playing with the name/handle of the person. Just a statement of the facts.

Well done sir.

In the case of bernbart, that is being generous. And, we need not become the hate-filled, smarmy, snide sub-human that Rush Limbaugh became to get our points across. Do we?

By the way, I notice you do a lot of guessing. Do you have a magic act, or only the music one?

Aych

Also, Aych, when someone takes on some famous character's name like 'Tiberious' and I make fun of him by changing it to Tibby, that's funny and clever. Or when someone wants to be thought of as the head of or a member of the GOP by calling themselves Elephantman, and I change it to Elephantdung, that's funny and clever. When someone has a legitimate name of Kitt (whether you are certain that is their name of not) and you change it to Kitty, that's not the least bit funny or clever, that's just stupid.

-- Kitt

I have a feeling that the two of you have past issues, so I'll try to stay out of it. However, I can not believe the above rationalization for your statements.

As I understand you, "kitt" as in Kitt Carson or as in Ms. Kitty on the old TV show are names that must not be toyed with while screen names of people whose posts are objectionably (and they are, no doubt about that) may be made fun of at whim --- and one should be proud to do so.

I am having difficulty finding balance in that. I suppose I am not sufficiently enlightened and can not discern the inner mystery of it all. My head now hurts, so I will stop worrying about it.

Oh well, I do hope the name calling will be light for the next few days as Glenn is posting on damn important topics that I hope bring many new readers to his blog posts, and perhaps many that will read here in the comments section also.