Kentucky-bred Singer-Songwriter-Guitarist Tim Krekel has stunned listeners with his soulful grooves and knockout passionate performances for years.Yet, he remains a welcome, new discovery for many outside of the Southeast US. Befriended and endorsed as a personal favorite early in his career by John Belushi, the modest Krekel has a massive recording and touring history with icons such as Jimmy Buffet, The Eagles, Bo Diddley, Tracy Nelson, Delbert McClinton and others. He has enjoyed several Billboard chart-toppers and 1 Hits; and is ranked as the 150th Greatest Artist of All Time on WFPK/Louisville's "Fortunate 500" and had FOUR songs listed in WFPK's "2001 Greatest Songs of All Time".
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Another Saturday With Tim Krekel
Friday, May 29, 2009
Obama and Cheney Speeches Not the End of Torture Discussion
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sibel Edmonds Starts a New and Exciting Blog - Project Expose MSM
Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI’s Washington Field Office. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her issues have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secrets Privilege” by Attorney General Ashcroft, and the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification issued by the Department of Justice.
We all have been tirelessly screaming about issues related to Congressional leaders abdicating their main responsibility of 'oversight.' We have been outraged for way too long at seeing 'no' accountability whatsoever in many known cases of extreme wrongdoing. I, and many of you, believe that the biggest reason for this was, and still is, the lack of true journalism and media coverage -- which acts as the necessary pressure and catalyst for those spineless politicians on the Hill and in the Executive branch. Or, at least it's supposed to. So, in our book, the MSM has been the main culprit.
Well, here is a chance to turn the tables.
At my new blog, 123 Real Change, I'm happy to present an experimental project, Project Expose MSM, created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on the documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers.123 Real Change is inviting all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and even reporters themselves, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored, blacked out or tainted.
Yes, we will be naming names -- myself included.
Unlikely Partners - David Boies and Ted Olsen File Prop 8 Challenge
In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8. Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the propostion, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Here is a pdf file of the press conference announcing the challenge and a pdf file of the complaint filed May 22, 2009.
And here are the plaintiff bios and the bios of Ted Olsen and David Boies.
In the AM LAW Litigation Daily they point out that the LA Times talks about the uphill battle that awaits this challenge:
The Times adds that Boies, of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, and Olson, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, could have a tough battle ahead, given the many conservative judges George W. Bush appointed during his presidency. Even the reliably liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has "experienced a curtailing of its liberal orientation with Bush's seven appointments," notes the Times.
In an article by Byron York at the Washington Examiner, Ted Olsen tells York why he is involved in the case and what he would tell conservatives who object to his challenge:
"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation, and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions," Olson told me Tuesday night. "I thought their cause was just."
I asked Olson about the objections of conservatives who will argue that he is asking a court to overturn the legitimately-expressed will of the people of California. "It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution," Olson said. "The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."
Politico always eager to placate the right is already snidely referring to Olsen as "the left's favorite conservative lawyer." I'm sure that this characterization of Olsen by Politico will be mild in comparison to what other conservative outlets and their friends in the establishment media will be saying. It might get real ugly.
Because this case will probably end up at the Supreme Court it raises a number of questions. Will the Court take the case or will they punt? If they do take the case and rule in favor of Boies and Olsen will this finally put an end to Republicans using gay marriage as a wedge issue in Republican politics or will they just combine their attack of gay marriage with their usual attack against "activist judges"? Will the current make-up of the Supreme Court doom this case before it even gets there? Will Ken Starr go after Ted Olsen? How will the right wing echo chamber handle having one of their own turning on them? Lots of interesting questions. This is certainly one case that should get a lot of attention.
For further updates on this case you can follow it at the American Foundation for Equal Rights FACEBOOK page.
Update: Internationaljock has a diary up at Daily Kos on this same topic. Check it out.
ATT Up to it's Old Tricks Again
LOS ANGELES — AT&T, one of the biggest corporate sponsors of “American Idol,” might have influenced the outcome of this year’s competition by providing phones for free text-messaging services and lessons in casting blocks of votes at parties organized by fans of Kris Allen, the Arkansas singer who was the winner of the show last week.
AT&T spammed a "'significant number' of its 75 million customers" yesterday with text messages advertising the premiere of American Idol. AT&T also pissed off a significant number of its 75 million customers in the process, and the company's justification for the blitz isn't exactly making AT&T sound smart when it comes to understanding what qualifies as spam.
Unfortunately, there has been scant coverage by MSM of the AT&T/NSA spying program and the pending court cases against it, despite the imminent threat this program and its legalization poses to communication privacy in America, and indeed to democracy itself. So why haven't the MSM given due attention to this serious threat to national security?
The answer probably lies in the ever-increasing trend toward corporate media consolidation in America. First, the MSM corporations including News Corp (FOX), General Electric (NBC), Time Warner (CNN), Viacom (CBS), and Disney (ABC) have all enjoyed joint ventures with AT&T. Since these few giant media corporations that control network news in America are driven largely by their bottom lines, they are not likely to persist in exposing a serious business partner to bad press. Consequently, such stories are played down or not covered at all.
Second, the behemoth media and telecom companies have strong monetary incentives to cooperate with the government -- such as the receipt of lucrative military defense contracts, tax breaks, and relaxed ownership and antitrust rules. For example, the recent merger of Bell South with AT&T was possible only because the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), presently chaired by Kevin Martin, a Bush appointee with close ties to the White House, approved the merger.
Monday, May 25, 2009
A Memorial Day Tribute to All of Our Fallen Heroes
Death leaves a heartache no one can heal, love leaves a memory no one can steal." - Anonymous
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Wash. Post Lied to Readers About Max Baucus & His Health Care Reform
The Super massive Black Hole at the Center of our Galaxy
Perry Bacon Jr.: The Post is not covering single-payer (like the rest of the media) because the President of the United States has repeatedly ruled it out as an option. I wrote recently about a meeting he had with some House Democrats who were pushing the issue and he again said no
Today the Washington Post continues their policy of not reporting about single-payer health care. Not only didn't they mention single-payer health care in the Shailagh Murray/Ceci Connolly piece about Senator Max Baucus but because they didn't, they out and out lied to their readers about what they call "the Baucus approach to health care reform."
The Washington Post says in the above headline that health care is the issue of a lifetime for Senator Baucus. That may be, but for average Americans, the health care reform debate is not about selfishly polishing our legacy or defining our career, it's about getting quality, affordable health care where we are not at the mercy of the greedy health insurance industry. And unlike Mr. Baucus, for some Americans this truly is an issue of a lifetime - their lifetime- a lifetime that frequently gets cut short because of the greed of others. In view of the seriousness of this issue for so many average Americans it is especially galling to see the Post deliberately lie about and hide key facts in this article.
But this omission of relevant facts about Senator Baucus' background is a small lie compared with the blatant lie told by the Post about "the Baucus approach to health care reform." That lie is truly a whopper.
For more than a year, Baucus has schooled himself -- and many on the committee -- on the daunting complexities of the U.S. health-care system, a sector that represents one-sixth of the economy. His approach has been to pull together stakeholders and hold them as long as possible; no idea is ruled out, no policy change dismissed.
This statement by Murray and Connolly that was approved for publication by the Post is just factually false. In fact, it’s a bald-faced lie. Max Baucus ruled out the idea that there should be a policy change to a single-payer system for health care before the discussion even began. Not only did he rule out the idea but he and the rest of the Committee made sure that not one representative who supported the idea of single-payer, that incidentally the majority of the public supports, would even be allowed to sit on the panel of so called “stakeholders” who testified before the Committee.
But these groups had a seat at the table:
- The insurance industry was at the table.
- The Business Roundtable was at the table.
- The U.S. Chamber of Commerce of Commerce was at the table.
- Blue Cross Blue Shield was at the table.
- The Hertiage Foundation was at the table
- Corporate liberals like Andy Stern, Ron Pollack, and AARP were at the table.
Baucus and his Committee, like the Washington Post, were determined that the pubic would not even so much as hear about the idea of single-payer much less that the idea would be given fair consideration in the debate to reform health care.
Max Baucus excludes single-payer representatives from having a seat at the table for discussion on health care reform and instead of being challenged by the Washington Post, as he should have been, he is awarded with a puff piece by them designed to enhance his reputation because the Post sees itself not as a watchdog for the public but as a propaganda mouthpiece for the president’s “protect the insurance industry” agenda. And sadly, the Post is not alone. The majority of our establishment media are doing the exact same thing, as this study by FAIR documents.
The establishment media censorship of single-payer is more in line with the kind of propaganda we'd expect from Pravda then it is with what we'd expect from a FREE PRESS that historically prided itself on serving the democratic principle of the public's right to know. In this Washington Post piece today the readers are delibertately lied to about Max Baucus in order to continue with the Post's policy of not reporting about single-payer. For a country like the United States that fancies itself as the world's leading democracy, fully capable of spreading democracy around the world, this is an absolute disgrace.
Cross Posted at Oxdown Gazette
Update: I also found this hilarious yet depressing chat answer in another Washington Post discussion where Garance Fanke-Ruta refers a questioner from Princeton (who's asking about single-payer) to Ceci's Connolly's blog. Yeah, the very same Ceci Connolly who helped write today's Max Baucus piece where she and Murray lied about "the Baucus approach to health care reform."
Princeton, N.J.: You may think single-payer health care has no chance. But this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if the facts are not available to the people.
We see article after article on process, but never any discussion of content. Since the wealthy health insurance industry has the power to suppress the facts, we only have the media, you, to get the truth out.
Garance Franke-Ruta: Thanks for your faith in the power of the fourth estate! One good place to get more of the substance of the debate is our new Health Reform 2009 aggregating page and Ceci Connolly's Daily Dose blog:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/
Friday, May 22, 2009
When Will the Cheneys Finally Admit That Waterboarding is Torture?
President Obama has banned the harshest tactics that the CIA employed in the interrogation of suspected terrorists captured after 9/11, with his Justice Department labeling waterboarding, a simulated-drowning tactic used in many interrogations, as "torture."
"Torture was never permitted,"
Is Mark Halperin Really The Best "Public Face" for Time Magazine?
Mark Halperin's three things to watch for in politics for Friday, May 15.
1. Watch to see how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handles herself today. The press conference she had yesterday on what she knew about the government's enhanced interrogation techniques got her into more trouble, so watch to see if she's willing to answer more questions today to clear up some of the contradictions and allegations swirling around her.
2. Watch to see how people around Pelosi treat her. See what liberal bloggers, her constituents, the White House, Republicans and Democrats say about her today and whether there seems to be a strong sense that she's really in trouble. In particular, watch to see whether any prominent Democrats raise questions about her credibility on the briefings and in general. (Halperin reported on plenty of Republican comments, a few comments by a select group of Democrats, the WH, no liberal bloggers, no constituents).
Mr. Halperin never revised his "things to watch for" on Pelosi (like whether maybe Pelosi was truthful) and he obviously never reported what liberal bloggers were saying or he would have reported what Newton-Small reported even earlier than she did. Halperin started out with the premise that Nancy Pelosi was in trouble on this issue because he assumed she did not tell the truth and that's how he's covered it, both on Morning Joe and at Time. It's clear from his "reporting" that he never changed his initial narrative and when facts were reported that supported Pelosi's comments he just didn't report them because they didn't fit his narrative. He was evidently more concerned with selling entertainment and a political view than he was in reporting all the facts so that readers and viewers could make an informed decision about the story. Here are the pieces he did for Time since he laid out his narrative, beginning with the most recent one that he reported on today that shows that even two days after the Newton-Small piece in Time he's still ignoring the facts she laid out and is still working off his "narrative."
House Dems Shut Calls for Pelosi Probe
Penn to Pelosi: "Close the Door" on CIA Controversy
Boehner: Pelosi Needs to Come Clean
Pelosi on Waterboarding: CIA Misled Me
Thank goodness Ms. Newton-Small doesn't use the Mark Halperin method of reporting. Rather than creating a narrative about Pelosi and then reporting on what fits the narrative, she reported on the facts in her story (substance) even if they led in a direction that contradicted the widely used faux narrative of people like Halperin.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy