![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Frodo:What are we holding on to Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw
For more on how the Bagram "encampment" is virtually identical to Bush's Gitmo (just in a different place), see:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw
And Obama is asking for additional funding for Iraq in a manner strikingly similar to those bills he voted against, and on a withdrawal schedule roughly equivalent to McCain's schedule mentioned during the campaign:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1239307
Oh and Obama wants to leave 50,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely, a move strikingly similar to McCain's plan (which Obama made fun of with his 100 years attacks during the campaign):
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/02/26/obam
And while the media is gleefully reporting defense "cuts", Obama is actually INCREASING the Bush defense budget by 4% (though juggling that spending around), a fact which was not lost on John Stewart at least:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2
In other words, at least for much of foreign policy and civil liberties issues, Obama's "Change we can believe in" is more like "Change, in the same way Bush and McCain meant change".
I am personally pleased with some of these decisions. But, it's sure not what Obama campaigned on, and it is sure not the policies so many of Obama's supporters claimed would come into effect if Obama were elected.
1) that the poll has perfect sampling, methodology, or anything like that. It's the same generic Congressional poll used for decades, so it is as accurate as all the others.
2) that the Republicans will win Congress. It's just a single poll, with a slight lead. In the grand scheme of things it barely means a trend, much less definitive anything.
Those caveats said, I do find it interesting that a mere month after some were writing off the Republicans as a party in general, they have finally pulled ahead in the generic poll, after opposing Obama's economic plan at almost every step. It's been many years since they led this poll. It's a minor but good sign for the Republicans, for now.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_
Generic Congressional Ballot
Republicans Take Small Lead on Generic Congressional Ballot
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Support for the Democratic Congressional candidates fell to a new low over the past week, allowing the GOP to move slightly head for the first time in recent years in the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.
Investors now favor Republicans by a 46% to 36% margin, while non-investors would vote Democratic by a 45% to 33% margin.
Democrats began the year holding a six or seven point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. Over the past month, the gap has been smaller, with Democrats holding a two-to-four point lead. It remains to be seen whether the current results reflect lasting change or statistical noise.
Over the past year, Democratic support has ranged from a low of 39% to a high of 50%. In that same time period, Republicans have been preferred by 34% to 41% of voters nationwide.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates also available on Twitter.
Separate Rasmussen polling released last week found that ratings for Congressional leaders of both parties have changed little over the past month and remain largely unfavorable.
Just 19% believe Congress has passed legislation to improve life in America over the past year.
Consumer and investor confidence has improved over the past week. Confidence improved more among Democrats than Republicans and unaffiliateds, perhaps one indication that the President’s effort to talk up the economy had an impact.
It is the most amazing house we've seen. We've been looking for about a year now, much of that pretty constant. We've seen a lot (including some things accidentally out of our price range that were very nice, such as Samuel L. Jackson's home).
But this house...this house we fell in love with the moment we saw it.
I didn't think we could get it. I thought it was impossible to get this house. There was no way we could afford it. It had to be close to a million dollar house (I looked it up, and it was valued at $800K a year and a half ago, went on the market at $649K in November, and now we are paying, well, a WHOLE lot less than that!). I thought the whole block had to be million dollar houses, from they way they looked. and given housing prices out here.
But we wrote a heartfelt letter explaining how much we wanted it, and how we would care for it, and how we would honor the memory of the prior owner (it was a trust house, the prior owner died and left it to a relative back east).
And this morning I got the call, they accepted our offer, over the offer of two other people (one of which was an "extremely strong offer").
Here are some pictures:
And a whole lot more here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/melodymoon
The back yard is HUGE. It has a little pond and waterfall. It has an authentic 1940s incinerator for leaves. It has a huge lawn, and a deck, and mature trees, and fruit trees, and rose bushes.
Inside, it is almost all the original detailing from when the house was built in the 1940s. We love so many little details about it, such as the little kitchen service door, the original crown molding, the built-in shelving and laundry hampers, the built in bar, the chandeliers, the two fireplaces, the solar powered water heater (which needs repairs), the vanity area, the hardwood floors, and so many little things.
And the house is on a famous block. The block even has its own website: "Cameron Woods", at http://www.cameronwoods.org/
From the website, some details: It's know as the "One-Way Road Back to the '50s", It is the "the single most-filmed residential block in Los Angeles, according to city records" "It's very LTB," said Pam Carter, a resident of the street who is a location manager for Warner Bros. LTB is film lingo for "Leave It to Beaver."
Houses on the block have served as the make-believe homes of millionaire Blake Carrington's mother-in-law for the television show "Dynasty" and rock legend Richie Valens' rich girlfriend in the movie "La Bamba." Once, film crews covered a house in artificial snow in the middle of July for a car battery commercial." ""World War II hero Audie Murphy once lived on the street, and "The Jack Benny Show" was written in an office behind one of the houses".
"Three generations of some families live on the block. And residents looking to sell their houses generally give first shot to neighbors' children looking to buy". "Houses so rarely go on the market that they are snatched up within hours of a "For Sale" being planted in the front yard--if a sign ever goes up at all.
There are lots of other details about the history of the block, who built it, how much they originally went for in 1947, some newspaper articles on it, etc..
They also have an annual block party, a street newsletter, and a homeowners group (not a fee-paying one, just one apparently organized to help deal with film crews).
From the MLS:
Beds: 3+1 (see additional rooms)
Baths: 2
Sq. Ft.: 1,844, not counting converted garage (BIG room, was a two-car garage)
Lot Size: 1/3 Acre
Property Type: Detached, Single Family Residence
Style: Ranch
Year Built: 1947
Stories: 1
Additional Rooms: Breakfast Nook, Formal Dining Room, Attic, Converted Bedroom, Den, Dressing Area, Family Room, Living Room, Master Bedroom, Utility Room
Laundry Information: Laundry Area, Inside Laundry, Gas Laundry
Fireplace Information: Has Fireplace, In Den, In Living Room
Heating & Cooling: Forced Air Heating, Natural Gas Heating, Has Air Conditioning, Central Air Conditioning (+additional Solar Water Heating but needs repairs).
Total Rooms: 11
We are so friggen excited!
And now I am flat broke. Not a penny in the bank, and a mortgage that will be very tight. And the house needs plenty of repairs. But, it's worth it. This is our dream home, and I cannot believe we got it!
This is what the house across the street looked like in 1951, where it was used in a newspaper article I think (which gives me a Stepford Wives feel):
No idea if the offer will be accepted. We have a chance, but it is a great house, and we offered below the asking price by $35,000. We qualify for a conventional mortgage, which is looked on better than an FHA offer, and that seems to be our advantage over other offers that the seller (who is really the bank, since this is a short sale) has on the table. Yea for saving my pennies over the years and being able to make a down payment!
Anyway, it's a great house in a nice area of Encino. You can view a few interior pictures here:
http://www.movoto.com/real-estate/h
However those three pictures really do not do the house justice. The owner (who bought it for nearly $200,000 more in 2006) put a LOT of work in it. New beautiful kitchen, great looking hardwood floors, a MASSIVE master bedroom (so big we are not quite sure what to do with it), a nice big walk in closet and beautiful master bathroom with separate tub and shower, and two additional rooms. Decent back yard as well. All on a nice quiet street in a residential neighborhood with a good school district and a short drive from a really nice portion of Ventura Blvd.
There is a possibility of problems with the house. We are suspicious that there is an issue with the foundation, and obviously we will need to get that checked out if they accept our offer. There is a little work to do, on the front porch and driveway, and some appliances in the Kitchen. But, assuming the foundation is OK and inspection doesn't reveal anything nasty, it's in really good, move-in condition.
I hope we get the house. We shall see. It will probably take 2 weeks for the bank to respond. In that time, we will keep looking at other houses. Cross your fingers!
Obama Disappointed Cabinet Failed To Understand His Reference To 'Savage Sword Of Conan' #24
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama expressed frustration Wednesday after members of his cabinet failed to recognize his allusion to the 24th issue of the comic series Savage Sword Of Conan during their first major meeting together.
Obama, whose upcoming challenges include organizing a massive effort to rebuild the nation's infrastructure, was reportedly unprepared for the confused silence he received upon suggesting that his cabinet "team up with Taurus of Nemedia" to secure the necessary funding from Congress.
"If my inner circle of advisers can't even communicate about the most basic issues, how are we going to tackle the massive problems our nation faces?" Obama said during a press conference. "When I tell my cabinet that getting bipartisan support is exactly like the time Conan got Taurus to help him steal Yara's jewel, they need to understand what I mean."
After receiving no reaction from the assembled reporters, Obama added, "Because a giant spider is protecting this chamber full of precious jewels, just like Congress is protecting its…. God, how are you people not seeing this?"
Obama, an avid collector of Conan The Barbarian and Spider-Man comic books since he was a child, was referencing the 1977 story "The Tower Of The Elephant," written by Roy Thomas. According to administration sources, no one in Obama's cabinet was familiar with the magazine-sized comic, though Labor Secretary Hilda Solis claimed to have once seen Conan the Destroyer.
Aides also confirmed that Obama has refused to lend his copy of issue #24 to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, fearing the former Republican congressman will carelessly bend or rip the pages. The commander in chief is reportedly intent on keeping the comics in pristine condition for their eventual inclusion in his presidential library.
"How am I supposed to effectively lead this nation when [attorney general nominee Eric] Holder has to stop the meeting and ask what the story of Taurus using the black lotus powder to kill the five guard lions has to do with increasing broadband Internet connections nationwide?" Obama said while vigorously rubbing his temples.
Added the president, "For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?"
Administration officials said the incident has caused the president to question whether his staff has ever understood any of his Conan references. One such instance he is reportedly reexamining occurred after his loss in the New Hampshire primary, when Obama rallied his staff by reminding them, "There is always a way, if the desire be coupled with courage."
Although campaign workers smiled and nodded at the time, Obama has begun to seriously doubt that any of them connected the inspiring quotation to the story line in which a Kothian rogue informs Conan that it is impossible to climb to the top of the Elephant Tower because the sides are more slippery than glass
While Obama has not scheduled another meeting with his cabinet this week—a respite the president hopes they will use to brush up on the 235-issue Savage Sword series—he is expected to meet with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on Friday to discuss Afghanistan. A holdover from the Bush administration, Gates told reporters he may have gotten off on the wrong foot with the new president, citing an occasion when Obama asked him what he knew about 1984's Secret Wars, a 12-issue limited Marvel release. Gates then handed a visibly confused Obama 1,400 classified pages on covert CIA operations in El Salvador.
Later, the defense secretary attempted to find common ground with Obama by making casual references to the comic book Spawn. But the 44th president reportedly brushed him off with an abrupt laugh, saying, "no one in [his] administration likes Spawn."
Minutes from the first cabinet meeting indicate it lasted just under 35 minutes, coming to a standstill during a discussion of minimizing public waste. When Energy Secretary Steven Chu failed to understand the president's instructions to "be like the barbarian wielding his steel to cleave flesh from bone," Vice President Joe Biden attempted to clarify the president's thoughts.
"I think what the president is trying to say here is that this is just like the time when Barney had to put Fish on restricted duty because of his health exam results," said Biden, a longtime fan of the late-'70s police sitcom Barney Miller. "It's pretty straightforward when you look at it like that."
When asked by the press corps if this week's hiccup has caused him to rethink any of his appointments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton interrupted the president to assert that she and her colleagues have already begun educating themselves about comic books, and will soon be "an invincible team of Supermen and Wonder Women working to save America."
"Wonder Woman? That's not even Marvel," Obama responded before storming out of the press room. "Who are you people?"
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/i
Good news everyone!I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head, in my voice!
- Eleanor Roosevelt
The amount is just about exactly what I had predicted it would be, and the range we have been looking at for months now as we visiting homes. We should be able to find a nice place in a decent neighborhood.
In this climate of decreasing housing prices, combined with a recession bringing down interest rates, we hope to catch the housing market at the perfect moment of cheap prices and cheap loans. Which will make the waiting all worth it.
Now...to find the right home!
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/11/07/wh
Why Prop 8 Passed
Posted by GayPatriotWest at 9:04 pm - November 7, 2008.
I just received yet another mass e-mail from Lorri L. Jean of the LA Gay and Lesbian Center, whining about the “reprehensible role that the [Mormon] Church hierarchy played in directing members to fund the campaign of lies and deceit promoted by the Yes on 8 leaders.”
In her missive, she spent more time blaming her opponents’ campaign for its success than she did looking at her own team’s failures. Perhaps, she should take a gander at some of the sensible conservative blogs as we look with admiration on the Obama team’s amazing organization and take stock of the mistakes the McCain campaign made. Yeah, we’re bummed about the election, but we’re trying to figure out where our side went wrong.
That’s what Ms. Jean and other opponents should be doing now instead of venting at Mormons. Since they’re not going to look inward, let me try to do so for them.
First, their slogans just didn’t work. “Equality for All” doesn’t resonate with people outside social and political activist circles of the left. A later slogan, “Unfair and Wrong,” did little more than express anger at the initiative. It didn’t do anything to convince voters opposed to discrimination yet favoring the traditional understanding of marriage. If anything, it suggested people were wrong to believe that sexual difference is a defining aspect of marriage.
Indeed, I believe, the “No on 8″ campaign failed primarily because its leaders did not appreciate those who favor that traditional understanding not out of anti-gay animus but due to their belief that sexual difference is essential to marriage. Opponents of the initiative needed explain why we should expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and acknowledge that this expansion would indeed promote a social change.
Social change can be a good thing, but is frightening to some. You need to reassure those who might fear such change by showing how it is good for society and do so in a manner which shows respect for those who espouse the traditional understanding of marriage.
Instead of focusing on promoting social change, they, with help from ballot language provided by Attorney General Jerry Brown, contended the initiative’s passage would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, as if that “right’ had existed for generations, instead of having been mandated just six months ago by the State Supreme Court.
Had it not been for the court’s decision, it would have been much easier to defeat 8. Had the court ruled the other way, it would have deprived the “Yes” folks of their apparently quite effective line that “four judges ignored four million voters.”
Those who spoke of the initiative “eliminating a right” failed to appreciate that most Americans don’t like courts resolving controversial social issues. And whether we like it or not, gay marriage is just such an issue.
Not only did the “no” campaign fail to appreciate people’s opposition to court intrusion, they failed to offer an argument which appealed to socially moderate citizens who respect, but are not beholden to, certain social conservative ideas. All too often, initiative opponents told us that those who do not see marriage as a right were bigoted, hateful or just plain mean-spirited.
As a gay conservative blogger, I heard from both sides and found the language of the “No” folks far more hostile than that of the “Yes’ folks.
The “No” side failed to make an affirmative case for gay marriage. Their stuff was invariably negative, attacking the initiative and demonizing its supporters. The attacks on the Mormon Church in the wake of the initiative’s passage are public manifestations of the vitriol I’d been reading in private e-mails before the election.
Such angry e-mails caused me to waver in my opposition to the initiative. If I, a gay man, wavered, how then would straight people, knowing fewer married gay couples, have reacted to similar efforts at suasion?
At the same time, the correspondence I received from the “Yes” folks almost always made clear that the codification of the traditional definition of marriage would not prevent the state from continuing to recognize same-sex domestic partnerships. They didn’t demonize gay people, merely insisted that marriage was a unique institution defined as the exclusive union between two individuals of different genders.
In short, the “No on 8″ campaign failed because its leaders failed to appreciate the legitimate concerns of gay marriage opponents. They saw this campaign as one to prevent voters from eliminating a right whereas many voters say it as one where they could weigh in on social change.
In the future, when the time comes to repeal this newly-enacted provision from the state constitution, we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about promoting social change. We just need be prepared to explain why we believe such social change is a good thing.
And we need leaders who don’t see social conservatives as they enemy whom we must demonize, but as potential allies whom we need to convince by the power of our arguments. It’s simply a question of making the case for gay marriage rather than against social conservatives.
A case for social change instead of a demand for rights.
A Senior Fellow at the Institute of Nonexistence
New York Times
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: November 12, 2008
It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.
Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.
Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.
And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt, who turns out to be a very elaborate hoax that has been going on for months. MSNBC, which quickly corrected the mistake, has plenty of company in being taken in by an Eisenstadt hoax, including The New Republic and The Los Angeles Times.
Now a pair of obscure filmmakers say they created Martin Eisenstadt to help them pitch a TV show based on the character. But under the circumstances, why should anyone believe a word they say?
“That’s a really good question,” one of the two, Eitan Gorlin, said with a laugh.
(For what it’s worth, another reporter for The New York Times is an acquaintance of Mr. Gorlin and vouches for his identity, and Mr. Gorlin is indeed “Mr. Eisenstadt” in those videos. He and his partner in deception, Dan Mirvish, have entries on the Internet Movie Database, imdb.com. But still. ...)
They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.
“With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find,” said Mr. Mirvish, 40.
Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.
An MSNBC spokesman, Jeremy Gaines, explained the network’s misstep by saying someone in the newsroom received the Palin item in an e-mail message from a colleague and assumed it had been checked out. “It had not been vetted,” he said. “It should not have made air.”
But most of Eisenstadt’s victims have been bloggers, a reflection of the sloppy speed at which any tidbit, no matter how specious, can bounce around the Internet. And they fell for the fake material despite ample warnings online about Eisenstadt, including the work of one blogger who spent months chasing the illusion around cyberspace, trying to debunk it.
The hoax began a year ago with short videos of a parking valet character, who Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish said was the original idea for a TV series.
Soon there were videos showing him driving a car while spouting offensive, opinionated nonsense in praise of Rudolph W. Giuliani. Those videos attracted tens of thousands of Internet hits and a bit of news media attention.
When Mr. Giuliani dropped out of the presidential race, the character morphed into Eisenstadt, a parody of a blowhard cable news commentator.
Mr. Gorlin said they chose the name because “all the neocons in the Bush administration had Jewish last names and Christian first names.”
Eisenstadt became an adviser to Senator John McCain and got a blog, updated occasionally with comments claiming insider knowledge, and other bloggers began quoting and linking to it. It mixed weird-but-true items with false ones that were plausible, if just barely.
The inventors fabricated the Harding Institute, named for one of the most scorned presidents, and made Eisenstadt a senior fellow.
It didn’t hurt that a man named Michael Eisenstadt is a real expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and is quoted in the mainstream media. The real Mr. Eisenstadt said in an interview that he was only dimly aware of the fake one, and that his main concern was that people understood that “I had nothing to do with this.”
Before long Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish had produced a short documentary on Martin Eisenstadt, supposedly for the BBC, posted in several parts on YouTube.
In June they produced what appeared to be an interview with Eisenstadt on Iraqi television promoting construction of a casino in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Then they sent out a news release in which he apologized. Outraged Iraqi bloggers protested the casino idea.
Among the Americans who took that bait was Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. A few hours later Mr. Stein put up a post on the magazine’s political blog, with the title “Hoax Alert: Bizarre ‘McCain Adviser’ Too Good to Be True,” and explained how he had been fooled.
In July, after the McCain campaign compared Senator Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, the Eisenstadt blog said “the phone was burning off the hook” at McCain headquarters, with angry calls from Ms. Hilton’s grandfather and others. A Los Angeles Times political blog, among others, retold the story, citing Eisenstadt by name and linking to his blog.
Last month Eisenstadt blogged that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, was closely related to Charles Keating, the disgraced former savings and loan chief. It wasn’t true, but other bloggers ran with it.
Among those taken in by Monday’s confession about the Palin Africa report was The New Republic’s political blog. Later the magazine posted this atop the entry: “Oy — this would appear to be a hoax. Apologies.”
But the truth was out for all to see long before the big-name take-downs. For months sourcewatch.org has identified Martin Eisenstadt as a hoax. When Mr. Stein was the victim, he blogged that “there was enough info on the Web that I should have sussed this thing out.”
And then there is William K. Wolfrum, a blogger who has played Javert to Eisenstadt’s Valjean, tracking the hoaxster across cyberspace and repeatedly debunking his claims. Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish praised his tenacity, adding that the news media could learn something from him.
“As if there isn’t enough misinformation on this election, it was shocking to see so much time wasted on things that didn’t exist,” Mr. Wolfrum said in an interview.
And how can we know that Mr. Wolfrum is real and not part of the hoax?
Long pause. “Yeah, that’s a tough one.”
www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win
- Mood:
amused
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/u
Young voters and first-time voters, two groups that in pre-election polls had registered excitement about Mr. Obama, did vote in greater numbers than usual but so did other groups. So as a share of the electorate, they were little changed from 2004. Young voters under the age of 30 again made up just under 20 percent of all those who voted, and first-time voters about one in 10. Both groups, as expected, broke heavily for Mr. Obama.
