Links With Your Coffee - Saturday
- Ode To Randi “Queen of Obscene” Rhodes » Mad Kane's Political Madness
- Roosevelt-era reforms are saving capitalism—again. - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine
In the 1930s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved American capitalism from its own self-inflicted wounds by erecting a new financial infrastructure—often over the vociferous opposition of the bankers and investors whose poor judgment had helped precipitate the Great Depression. During the New Deal, the government reacted to a disastrous systemic failure by creating the sort of backstops, insurance, and risk-spreading mechanisms the market had failed to develop on its own, such as deposit insurance, federal securities registration, and federally sponsored entities that would insure mortgages.
- DNA found in Oregon rewrites the book on the first native Americans - Science, News - The Independent
Textbook accounts of how the Americas were first populated may have to be re-written following the discovery of the oldest DNA of prehistoric humans who lived 14,300 years ago in what is now Oregon.
Scientists said that the DNA is about 1,200 years older than the previous oldest human artifacts produced by the Clovis people, who are named after the site in New Mexico where the exquisitely shaped spearheads of the first Americans were found.
- Jon Henley on the fate of the semicolon | World news | The Guardian
It is a debate you could only really have in a country that accords its intellectuals the kind of status other nations - to name no names - tend to reserve for footballers, footballers' wives or (if they're lucky) rock stars; a place where structuralists and relativists and postmodernists, rather than skulk shamefacedly in the shadows, get invited on to primetime TV; a culture in which even today it is considered entirely acceptable, indeed laudable, to state one's profession as "thinker".
That country is France, which is currently preoccupied with the fate of its ailing semicolon
Comments
Why is it surprising that Oregon has the oldest humans yet found, in america? didnt people come from asia via the ice bridge? You would think somewhere in Alaska is dna even older.
Randi Rhodes supports Obama. Howard Stern supports Hillary Clinton. I doubt that either candidate wants their endorsement.
It would be nice if both sides would quit the guilt by association game, though I think Mad's limerick is condemnation of Randi Rhodes not Obama.
I agree. I listen to what each of them say and I look at their record in the senate (including the state senate for Obama).
I feel that both Hillary and Barack lean towards caring more about the everyday person instead of corporate bigwigs and the wealthy than does McCain or any other Republican.
I have never been a fan of Randi Rhodes. She has a big mouth and has said a lot of idiot things in the past. In fact, I'm not a fan pf radio talk show hosts in general. I never listen to radio talk shows. I just read about them and from what I hear, I'm not impressed. I think that they all lower the level of discussion.
I meant "am radio".. that is, the dregs of society.. be it Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh or any of the others..
However, as concerns Air American, I do like Rachel Maddow.
oops, sorry, that should be "Air America".
However, I do realize that Maddow and Olbermann have been way too "partisan" in their support of Obama, yet during this primary season, it is clear that most Democrats are leaning one way or the other re Hillary vs Barack.
Haven't they, I don't mind the partisan bit as much as the guilt by association they employ. It is particularly hypocritical since they get all self righteous when someone mentions Barack's pastor. Keith spent several days trying to associate Hillary with Richard Mellon Scaife because she granted him an interview. Shame on him. But to be fair, I don't recall Rachel doing that, though I might be wrong.
Another Doozy
Maddow was pretty pro-Clinton until maybe march 4th or so.
What? Scaife is a scum bag. Another right wing strategist that is ready to dump millions into spreading lies to crush the agenda of reasonable people. What valid reason is there for interviewing directly with this man?
i listen to the rachel maddow show on AAR every day (via podcast so i never miss a thing), and she has been quite explicit in NOT endorsing anyone. i think it was pretty clear, the day edwards dropped out, that she had been for him. but between obama and clinton she makes a point to be completely neutral i would say. she faults them both for attacking one another constantly, because she insists they should be attacking mccain.
as for randy rhodes, i've had distain for her since the first day of AAR when she made her national debut by attacking ralph nader in non-productive and incredibly obnoxious ways until he finally (and rightfully) hung up on her. frankly, it surprises me that she supports obama. her tone is so very different than the one his campaign tries so hard to strike.
Right, like the guilt by association that Charles Lemos and Krugan attempted to employ re Obama supporters. And yet, in the end, we discover that it is, in fact, the majority of Hillary Supporters who are more "cult like" and refuse to vote for Obama rather than the majority of Obama supporters who refuse to vote for Clinton.
If we're going to criticize Olbermann for not being fair, then we should also say that Lemos and Krugman were not fair.
(Not that I consider Lemos to be as important as Maddow and Olbermann, except for here at OGM ;) )
What exactly has he done that is so unfair? I think he likely supports Obama, but his show is part opinion, he is entitled.
Sounds like a bushism. Those that criticize Clinton are clearly "unfair" or "biased".
Right RedSeven,
Some will say that Olbermann is not being fair in supporting Obama, but those who clearly support Hlllary are fair... right....
It seems that most of the left blogosphere is really Obamosphere. You can see how fair they are in their attacks on TalkLeft which is one of the few to support Hillary.
One comment by one of them called TL "fucking crazy".
If Obama had met with Scaife and his newspaper, these Obamablogs would be praising him for his openness and unity.
The attacks on Hillary remind me of the attacks on the first woman to run for president, Victoria Woodhull, more than a century ago.
"Instead of debating Victoria on the issues, her opponents attacked her personally. They called her everything from a witch to a prostitute."
http://www.victoria-woodhull.com/whoisvw.htm
There were cartoons of her as witch or dark angel, or satan.
http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Month=February&Date=17
All that seems very familiar today.
About the Randi Rhodes article.
It may be offensive (the whole "It's not what you call me, it's what I respond to.." thing), but I don't see why this is big enough a deal to get her show suspended. Am I mistaken or was this said in some comedy show setting?
Bern
You be living in a fantasy world on this one. Certainly there are some loyalists that wouldn't criticize obama no matter what just as there are with Clinton, but meeting with extremist hate mongers is troubling for any candidate.
It's one thing to meet with their media sources at Fox news and company, its a whole other thing to sit down with the hate mongers and kiss their asses.
If Randi said this a year ago I would completely agree, but in the current atmosphere I think she should be suspended not because her remarks are offensive, but because they are incredibly f-ing stupid.
Post a comment