My Whatever World in Maine

Daydreaming of Vacations in Europe

RIP, Tim

Tim Russert died of a heart attack yesterday afternoon-about the time I was eating lunch, apparently-and for a political and news junkie like myself, that is the equivalent of the death of Valentino. It seems especially cruel that he died in the midst of what is shaping up to be the most groundbreaking presidential campaign in this country's history.

The punditocracy and politicians around the news world are in deep mourning, calling Russert "a giant," "transformative" and "the embodiment of journalistic integrity". Russert was certainly one of the hardest-working guys on television-you'd see him working a primary until the wee hours of the morning, and then show up on "Today" at 7am for an analysis. He was all over the news shows especially at this time of year. I enjoyed listening to his analysis of what was going on under the surface of the campaigns, ie, this is what is going on in this camp, this is what this candidate needs to do to shore up this voting bloc, this is what is going on in this war room. I also liked the one-on-one interview show he did on CNBC, usually with a political or cultural figure who had just written a book. He just seemed like a very approachable, smart guy, and he always knew what he was talking about, which is more than you can say for a whole lot of what passes for journalists these days.   

Although the rest of the world is lauding what they say is Tim's hardnosed way of interviewing his MTP guests, I admit I didn't see it that way. I frankly wasn't always a fan of his interviewing style-although I often watched "Meet the Press," I  would often find myself screaming at the television over his softball tactics with many of his more controversial guests, particularly his lack of follow-up. He'd ask what might be a good initial question, get a completely self-serving answer-like the statement made a million times on that show that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat-and then not adequately follow up on it or challenge it (not that any of the MSM does, but I digress). That drove me insane. But I figured that what made him the top Sunday newsshow was his ability to get the big shots on, and he couldn't alienate them too much or he's lose his bread and butter. I was also really annoyed at his propensity (again, common amongst mainstream news media outlets) of mixing in partisan conservative commentators in a panel of what was ostensibly objective news reporters-Peggy Noonan or Kate O'Bierne or Robert Novak's comments given the same amount of weight as those from John Harwood or Gwen Ifill or Andrea Mitchell. Rarely do I remember seeing a similar deference given to someone from the left-while the National Review was always well represented, I don't remember the last time I saw a Nation writer given the same privilege. It was bullshit, and more than once I emailed the show's producers to tell them so.

Still, Sunday mornings won't be the same without him, and NBC will be hard put to fill those shoes with someone else with his mix of charisma and skill (I admit I am rooting for the MTP gig to go to Chris Matthews, who, absent the mandate to shout down and be rude to his guests, might be an excellent fit here). RIP, Tim. You'll be missed in this household.

Why I Stay Single

Because white men vote Republican, and since a) I'm not interested in having an intimate relationship with a Republican sympathizer, and b) I live the whitest state in the nation, that somewhat limits my choices.

The People Speak...

As usual, the best thing about the blogosphere is the comments. jaycee, responding to "First thoughts" on msnbc, nails it here.

I’m afraid Barack and Michelle can expect whole slew of personal attacks in the coming months since the Republicans have little else to run on.  What do Republicans even stand for any more?  Pretty hard to tell. 

Remember how they were going to bring morality and honor back to Washington?  Instead we got the Mark Foley, David Vitter, and Larry Craig hypocrisy squad.  Yuck.  Remember how they were supposed to be the party of fiscal restraint that was going to shrink the Federal government and cut our taxes?  We give them control of the White House and both branches of Congress and what do they do?  They spend our money like drunken sailors and create entire new bloated bureaucracies while cutting taxes for their fat cat buddies and passing the bill off to our children.  

Remember when Republicans were supposed to be strong on national defense and the military?  Instead, as the Senate Intelligence Committee just confirmed, they fooled us into an unnecessary war and ran our military into the ground while further destabilizing the Middle East in the process.  Why?  Because Bush and Cheney bought into some ridiculous fantasy cooked up by a bunch of think-tank wonders about spreading democracy at the point of a gun, while McCain and the rest of his Party cheered them on.   Meanwhile Bin Laden is still out there mocking us.

Now I’m supposed to be scared of Barack Obama because he has a funny sounding name, doesn’t wear a flag pin often enough, and his wife is a strong uppity black woman?  That he was either born a Muslim (whatever that’s supposed to mean) or that he’s a racist Christian (whatever that’s supposed to mean).  I even saw someone yesterday blustering that they could never vote for someone whose father wasn’t born in this country.  Apparently the writer doesn’t realize that John McCain himself wasn’t born in this country.  Morons.  There really is no reason to even consider voting Republican this cycle except out of irrational fears or blind loyalty to the tired old Republican brand.  It’s time to turn the page, America, and throw the bums out.

Well said.

Your President Is a Liar

The report shows that there was no intelligence to support the two most frightening claims Mr. Bush and his vice president used to sell the war: that Iraq was actively developing nuclear weapons and had longstanding ties to terrorist groups. It seems clear that the president and his team knew that that was not true, or should have known it — if they had not ignored dissenting views and telegraphed what answers they were looking for.

Over all, the report makes it clear that top officials, especially Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, knew they were not giving a full and honest account of their justifications for going to war.

You can read the rest here. Of course, for the rest of the "liberal media," this report isn't even on the front page. I guess they figure it's stuff we already know, but now it's our government confirming it.

Richard Clarke is right. Somebody needs to be punished for this.

But in the end, even the NY Times turns out to be a weasel:

We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq. But when the president withholds vital information from the public — or leads them to believe things that he knows are not true — to justify the invasion of another country, that is bad enough.

The definition of a lie, per Merriam Webster: "To create a false or misleading impression." In other words, withholding vital information and leading people to believe that which is not true IS THE DEFINITION OF A LIE!

As Monty Python demonstrated, calling an amputation a flesh wound doesn't make it so. Let's all move beyond politics and denial and call a spade a spade here...and a liar a liar.

Bill O'Reilly:The More Things Change...

...the more they stay the same.

John McCain's Running Mate

Tim Russert was saying on NBC that John McCain should wait until Barack Obama announces his running mate to do the same, and then, if Hillary Clinton is not the VP candidate, choose a woman for his ticket-say, Kay Bailey Hutchinson. (Yeah, nothing screams "Change!" like the alliance of two geriatric right wingers, does it?)

Still others say that he will need to choose a member of the Christian right, to shore up support with that portion of the lunatic fringe.

Considering all that, as far as I can see, he really only has one logical choice:

Another thought might be Margaret White, if she weren't dead.

The Presumptive Nominee, Part II

Barack's victory speech last night:

No matter who you supported in this race, you cannot deny that Mr. Obama is an incredibly gifted speaker...I just watched his AIPAC speech on MSNBC, and it blew the audience and even the pundits away. If he just gets up to the podium every day, John McCain doesn't have a chance (and it's been fun watching the right wing piss themselves over this fact)...not that he deserves one even if his Democratic opponent were deaf and mute.

Full steam ahead, folks. It's time to come together.

Summer Class

"This class serves as an introduction to the world of visual art. Through the use of a unique thematic approach we will explore topical threads that cross cultural and historical boundaries, leading from cave drawings to the present. Each class will feature a different inspirational theme-memory, structure, humor, etc-which will be explored through presentations, readings, writings, field trips and studio projects in a variety of different media."

That's the course description for my summer class, Introduction to Visual Art. I admittedly know absolutely nothing about art, so I took it for fun. As an SMCC employee, I don't have to pay tuition for it. Cool, huh? Although I must admit, I am a bit envious of the instructor, considering nobody in their right mind takes my classes for fun.

Here's are the course requirements:

• Complete studio projects for critique deadlines; submit all completed projects fro final critiques
• Complete required readings and demonstrate comprehension in class discussion (note to instructor: "demonstrate" is not a measurable term)
• Complete a weekly journal of writing about art, participate in discussions about writings
• Actively participate in studio work, discussions and critique
• Deliver a research presentation

I can tell my instructor must be relatively new to teaching, considering his requirements for the research presentation: "a short 5-7 minute research presentation on a topic of your choice. Your presentation must consist of equal parts historical/factual information and your own thoughts and opinions on the topic." Pretty vague and unstructured, and I have found that if you give people too much rope on these things they will generally hang themselves.  Anyway, I'm giving thought as to what my topic should be. Made, the building of a ceramics business in Maine? I have some pretty good source material for that, after all...

We have a weekly writing assignment as part of the course, which is obviously more up my alley. "Appropriate topics for writings include reviews of art exhibitions, reactions to assigned readings about art, freestyle/opinion writings about art theory and contemporary society, etc." (We have a reading this week called "Chromophobia," literally fear of color.) I'm not sure what I'll do this week, but maybe since I'm going to the home of my source material for lunch this weekend, I'll write a review of the latest batch of pots. My source is always telling me I have a better eye for color than the average unsophisticated consumer savage anyway.

I'll post my weekly art musings here for you all to laugh at. 

Wish me luck!

Glenn Cummings Speaks at the Convention

Glenn Cummings, Speaker of the Maine House and professor of business at Southern Maine Community College, speaking at the convention as to why he supports Barack Obama:

Thanks for posting this, Kay.