I just enjoyed and energetic set of music by the Motor Primitives down at Madison's Annual Lakefront festival. I really wasn't sure just what to expect, having heard one tinny track on my computer. All I'd heard was that their bass player could really rock.
The band looked like it wss having a lot of fun. The female lead singer was good, had the perfect voice for some of the songs, but got covered up by the intruments on others. Sound mixing issue? The guy on keyboards looked like he was having fun. The drummer was very capable.
The bass player was awesome. Nice hat. Never missed a beat. Excellent. (Can You say "eggamuffin"? Of course you can!) Sorry, private musician-type joke.
All in all, I highly recommend that you see this band.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Friday, June 8, 2007
Top Democrats Discuss Faith (but Not Impeachment, of course)
by Mike Dorning
The Chicago Tribune 6-05-2007
Three leading Democratic presidential candidates on Monday offered a glimpse of the role that religion plays in their private and political lives, from the faith that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said helped her endure the humiliation of her husband's public infidelity to the model that Sen. Barack Obama said he finds in Lincoln's presidency for reconciling war and Christian faith.
Clinton described taking solace in prayer and her religious convictions as she continued in her marriage with President Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," she said.
The New York senator addressed the affair -- which she rarely discusses -- at the prompting of CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien, host of a forum on faith, values and poverty featuring Clinton, Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
"I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," Clinton said. "I take my faith very seriously."
The forum, aired on CNN and sponsored by Sojourners/Call to Renewal, an evangelical Christian organization that emphasizes progressive social causes, was intended to provide voters a greater insight into the values that inform presidential candidates. It also offered each of the three candidates an opportunity to show a more personal side. The candidates were interviewed separately in 15-minute segments.
Monday's forum comes as the Democratic candidates have been more actively courting religious voters than in the past. In the last presidential election, President Bush forged a strong connection with conservative evangelicals and Catholics while Democratic nominee John Kerry rarely spoke of his Roman Catholic faith and was caught in a controversy with his church's hierarchy over abortion rights.
This year, some of the Democratic candidates have built campaign operations to reach out to religious voters. Obama, a member of the United Church of Christ, and Edwards, a Southern Baptist, have unveiled Web sites devoted to faith and moral values. Clinton, a Methodist, plans to do the same.
Edwards, who has proposed an ambitious set of anti-poverty programs that he says would eliminate poverty in 30 years, portrayed the plight of the poor as a stark test of religious convictions.
"It is the great moral issue of our time," Edwards said. Later, he added, "Whatever happens in this presidential campaign, as long as I am living and breathing, I will be out there fighting with everything I have to help the poor in this country."
Obama, when asked whether "God is on the side" of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, turned to Lincoln's admonition that even in a war for just causes a nation must be wary of acting unjustly. (so his faith values say there IS such a thing as a just war....)
Obama called the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, "evil" acts but, without naming Bush, clearly criticized the president's frequent characterizations of the U.S. struggles in the Middle East as a war against evildoers. (but did he mention impeachment??)
"The danger of using good versus evil in the context of war is it may lead us to be not as critical as we should be about our own actions," said Obama. He cited prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib that "all of us should be ashamed for" and the "unjust" detention without charges at Guantanamo.
There were also personal questions. The audience of religious leaders gasped when O'Brien asked Edwards to name his "biggest sin," a question he fended off by noting "I sin every day. We are all sinners."
(Isn't keeping impeachment off the table a sin, Senator, like maybe one of the biggest? If you believe in sin, that is?)
The Chicago Tribune 6-05-2007
Three leading Democratic presidential candidates on Monday offered a glimpse of the role that religion plays in their private and political lives, from the faith that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said helped her endure the humiliation of her husband's public infidelity to the model that Sen. Barack Obama said he finds in Lincoln's presidency for reconciling war and Christian faith.
Clinton described taking solace in prayer and her religious convictions as she continued in her marriage with President Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," she said.
The New York senator addressed the affair -- which she rarely discusses -- at the prompting of CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien, host of a forum on faith, values and poverty featuring Clinton, Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
"I'm not sure I would have gotten through it without my faith," Clinton said. "I take my faith very seriously."
The forum, aired on CNN and sponsored by Sojourners/Call to Renewal, an evangelical Christian organization that emphasizes progressive social causes, was intended to provide voters a greater insight into the values that inform presidential candidates. It also offered each of the three candidates an opportunity to show a more personal side. The candidates were interviewed separately in 15-minute segments.
Monday's forum comes as the Democratic candidates have been more actively courting religious voters than in the past. In the last presidential election, President Bush forged a strong connection with conservative evangelicals and Catholics while Democratic nominee John Kerry rarely spoke of his Roman Catholic faith and was caught in a controversy with his church's hierarchy over abortion rights.
This year, some of the Democratic candidates have built campaign operations to reach out to religious voters. Obama, a member of the United Church of Christ, and Edwards, a Southern Baptist, have unveiled Web sites devoted to faith and moral values. Clinton, a Methodist, plans to do the same.
Edwards, who has proposed an ambitious set of anti-poverty programs that he says would eliminate poverty in 30 years, portrayed the plight of the poor as a stark test of religious convictions.
"It is the great moral issue of our time," Edwards said. Later, he added, "Whatever happens in this presidential campaign, as long as I am living and breathing, I will be out there fighting with everything I have to help the poor in this country."
Obama, when asked whether "God is on the side" of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, turned to Lincoln's admonition that even in a war for just causes a nation must be wary of acting unjustly. (so his faith values say there IS such a thing as a just war....)
Obama called the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, "evil" acts but, without naming Bush, clearly criticized the president's frequent characterizations of the U.S. struggles in the Middle East as a war against evildoers. (but did he mention impeachment??)
"The danger of using good versus evil in the context of war is it may lead us to be not as critical as we should be about our own actions," said Obama. He cited prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib that "all of us should be ashamed for" and the "unjust" detention without charges at Guantanamo.
There were also personal questions. The audience of religious leaders gasped when O'Brien asked Edwards to name his "biggest sin," a question he fended off by noting "I sin every day. We are all sinners."
(Isn't keeping impeachment off the table a sin, Senator, like maybe one of the biggest? If you believe in sin, that is?)
Language Taken Hostage
"They have taken language hostage. We wanted numbers but this is bureaubabble. ... It is not real in any language. We are looking for accountable language and numbers. I might be a rock star but I can count."
- Bono, denouncing G-8 leaders for a lack of timelines and other substantive details in their recent pledge to fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. (Source: Reuters)
- Bono, denouncing G-8 leaders for a lack of timelines and other substantive details in their recent pledge to fight AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. (Source: Reuters)
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Vet School Being a Bit………Pretentious?
Saturday, June 16 is the big multi-class reunion event sponsored by the School of Veterinary Medicine, here in Madison. As an alum, I kind of felt like I should go, but hadn't really articulated my distaste until a friend, who works in the Vet School asked me if I was going. No, I said.
Why, she asked? I said its $58 a person----- plus I don’t have a date, I added! She laughed at my feeble atttempt at humor and told me that my class, the class of ’96, was particularly underrepresented. I said it's $58 per person for hors d'ouveres and a number of "special presentations" (ie, endless speeches). The "gala" is taking place at The Edgewater which is a swanky hotel and restaurant here in Madison. I asked her if there were any low expense or free events planned. Nope, she said. I feel this would attract more alums than a pretentious “dinner”. Plus, we’re not getting any real entertainment for our $58. No Jerry Seinfeld. No Motor Primitives (famous local band). Not even an Elvis impersonator. Now I would much rather hang out at the Memorial Union with my friends and classmates, swapping stories, laughing (and crying), catching up. You know, being real! Knowing my classmates, I think most of them would enjoy the same.
A big reason the Vet School is holding this gala is to raise money for the Susan Hyland Fund. I think the money is going to be used for scholarships for vet students. A worthy cause. I have no quarrel with that. Dr Hyland did a lot for the school, so I don't really have a problem with that, either. However, I do feel angry that the Vet school is putting so much effort and money into this when they seem un-interested in building up the so-called “indigent fund”. This is a fund that has been available for clients whose pet needs a $400 MRI or an expensive surgery, or a simple consultation with a highly qualified specialist, but can’t afford it. In the words of the Chief of the Veterinary Teaching Hospital: “we haven’t done much with that fund for a long time". Why not? When I spoke with the school’s fund raising person about the fund, she listened politely, but acted like I had a bad case of head lice. Clearly what I was asking was not to be found in her job description.
But instead we’re being asked to spend a lot of money, get dressed up (always difficult for a fashion-challenged person such as myself), then sit at little round tables talking with people we don't know very well. My friend reminded me that the reunion is taking place on Father’s Day weekend, which she thought might explain the low attendance. Fathers Day? I think hanging out with Poodledoc, Jr will be more real. It will certainly be more fun. And..........he won’t care if I get dressed up!
Why, she asked? I said its $58 a person----- plus I don’t have a date, I added! She laughed at my feeble atttempt at humor and told me that my class, the class of ’96, was particularly underrepresented. I said it's $58 per person for hors d'ouveres and a number of "special presentations" (ie, endless speeches). The "gala" is taking place at The Edgewater which is a swanky hotel and restaurant here in Madison. I asked her if there were any low expense or free events planned. Nope, she said. I feel this would attract more alums than a pretentious “dinner”. Plus, we’re not getting any real entertainment for our $58. No Jerry Seinfeld. No Motor Primitives (famous local band). Not even an Elvis impersonator. Now I would much rather hang out at the Memorial Union with my friends and classmates, swapping stories, laughing (and crying), catching up. You know, being real! Knowing my classmates, I think most of them would enjoy the same.
A big reason the Vet School is holding this gala is to raise money for the Susan Hyland Fund. I think the money is going to be used for scholarships for vet students. A worthy cause. I have no quarrel with that. Dr Hyland did a lot for the school, so I don't really have a problem with that, either. However, I do feel angry that the Vet school is putting so much effort and money into this when they seem un-interested in building up the so-called “indigent fund”. This is a fund that has been available for clients whose pet needs a $400 MRI or an expensive surgery, or a simple consultation with a highly qualified specialist, but can’t afford it. In the words of the Chief of the Veterinary Teaching Hospital: “we haven’t done much with that fund for a long time". Why not? When I spoke with the school’s fund raising person about the fund, she listened politely, but acted like I had a bad case of head lice. Clearly what I was asking was not to be found in her job description.
But instead we’re being asked to spend a lot of money, get dressed up (always difficult for a fashion-challenged person such as myself), then sit at little round tables talking with people we don't know very well. My friend reminded me that the reunion is taking place on Father’s Day weekend, which she thought might explain the low attendance. Fathers Day? I think hanging out with Poodledoc, Jr will be more real. It will certainly be more fun. And..........he won’t care if I get dressed up!
Weather: The New House of Horrors
Is it just me or is the weather becoming part of the entertainment world? Yeah, I remember talking about the weather and all that, still a "fabric" of discussion. No, I don't mean that.
I'm talking about things like the Weather Channel. Computer weather maps and forecasting. All those pretty weather maps and the pretty people that point at things and read the teleprompter. All the Live Channel 4 Super Doppler Storm Team Weather Lab stuff. Sounds impressive. Weather is cool. Weather is hip. Weather is scary. We can't control it. It's like Godzilla!!! Run for your basements.
But then it becomes ingrained in our psyche's as a fear. So for instance today, my son was going to stay after school to do some homework, but they sent all the kids home early because of the POSSIBILITY of severe thunderstorms. Same thing happens in winter. Oh my God, we're supposed to get hammered tonight. On the bus today, I heard someone talking about the wind getting up to 100 miles per hour. Funny how the velocity creeps up during the day. I'm all for accurate predicting of weather and that, but it feels like it's gotten way out of hand. Instead of helping, it sends people into a panic. Just what we need: more fear. As if all those color coded "alerts" aren't enough......
Of course, if my windows blow out tonight, I'll be eating these words........
I'm talking about things like the Weather Channel. Computer weather maps and forecasting. All those pretty weather maps and the pretty people that point at things and read the teleprompter. All the Live Channel 4 Super Doppler Storm Team Weather Lab stuff. Sounds impressive. Weather is cool. Weather is hip. Weather is scary. We can't control it. It's like Godzilla!!! Run for your basements.
But then it becomes ingrained in our psyche's as a fear. So for instance today, my son was going to stay after school to do some homework, but they sent all the kids home early because of the POSSIBILITY of severe thunderstorms. Same thing happens in winter. Oh my God, we're supposed to get hammered tonight. On the bus today, I heard someone talking about the wind getting up to 100 miles per hour. Funny how the velocity creeps up during the day. I'm all for accurate predicting of weather and that, but it feels like it's gotten way out of hand. Instead of helping, it sends people into a panic. Just what we need: more fear. As if all those color coded "alerts" aren't enough......
Of course, if my windows blow out tonight, I'll be eating these words........
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Holy Cow! Cubs Win!
Well, the Chicago Cubs finally won after losing 6 (or was it 8) games in a row, all in the most pathetic ways possible.
And during the game, none of the players got into fist fights.
No umpires had dirt kicked on their shiny shoes.
No hats were thrown. At least not by players or managers.
There are 110 games left.
A World Championship is still within their grasp.
As Gandalf said, "There's always hope". Gandalf must have been a Cub fan.
And during the game, none of the players got into fist fights.
No umpires had dirt kicked on their shiny shoes.
No hats were thrown. At least not by players or managers.
There are 110 games left.
A World Championship is still within their grasp.
As Gandalf said, "There's always hope". Gandalf must have been a Cub fan.
Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
by Robert W. McChesney & Mark Weisbrot
Published on Friday, June 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
To read and view the U.S. news media over the past week, there is an episode of grand tyranny unfolding, one repugnant to all who cherish democratic freedoms. The Venezuelan government under “strongman” Hugo Chavez refused to renew the 20-year broadcast license for RCTV, because that medium had the temerity to be critical of his regime. It is a familiar story.
And in this case it is wrong.
Regrettably, the US media coverage of Venezuela’s RCTV controversy says more about the deficiencies of our own news media that it does about Venezuela. It demonstrates again, as with the invasion of Iraq, how our news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to ascertain and report the truth of the matter.
Here are some of the facts and some of the context that the media have omitted or buried:
1. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, far fewer than the number who would like to have the privilege to broadcast. In democratic nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal. In the United States it is eight years; in Venezuela it is 20 years.
2. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.
3. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media are not only in private hands, they are constitutionally protected, uncensored, and dominated by the opposition. RCTV’s owners can expand their cable and satellite programming, or take their capital and launch a print empire forthwith. Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own.
Now consider the specific facts of RCTV as it applied to have its broadcast license renewed.
The media here report that President Chavez “accuses RCTV of having supported a coup” against him. This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done everything to discredit. In fact, RCTV - along with other broadcast news outlets - played such a leading role in the April 2002 military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected government, that it is often described as “the world’s first media coup.”
In the prelude to the coup, RCTV helped mobilize people to the streets against the government, and used false reporting to justify the coup. One of their most infamous and effective falsifications was to mix footage of pro-Chavez people firing pistols from an overpass in Caracas with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed. This created the impression that the pro-Chavez gunmen actually shot these people, when in fact the victims were nowhere near them. These falsified but horrifying images were repeated incessantly, and served as a major justification for the coup.
RCTV then banned any pro-government reporting during the coup. When Chavez returned to office, this too was blacked out of the news. Later the same year, RCTV once again made all-day-long appeals to Venezuelans to help topple the government during a crippling national oil strike.
If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason.
RCTV’s broadcast frequency has been turned over to a new national public access channel that promises to provide programming from thousands of independent producers. It is an effort to let millions of Venezuelans who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media do so, without government censorship.
The Bush Administration opposes the Chavez government for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, or else there would be a long list of governments for us to subvert or overthrow before it would get close to targeting Venezuela. Regrettably, our press coverage has done little to shed light on that subject.
Our news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard our own government’s claims with the same skepticism they properly apply to foreign leaders. Then Americans might begin to get a more accurate picture of the world, and be able to effectively participate in our foreign policy.
Robert W. McChesney is a professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net).
Published on Friday, June 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
To read and view the U.S. news media over the past week, there is an episode of grand tyranny unfolding, one repugnant to all who cherish democratic freedoms. The Venezuelan government under “strongman” Hugo Chavez refused to renew the 20-year broadcast license for RCTV, because that medium had the temerity to be critical of his regime. It is a familiar story.
And in this case it is wrong.
Regrettably, the US media coverage of Venezuela’s RCTV controversy says more about the deficiencies of our own news media that it does about Venezuela. It demonstrates again, as with the invasion of Iraq, how our news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to ascertain and report the truth of the matter.
Here are some of the facts and some of the context that the media have omitted or buried:
1. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, far fewer than the number who would like to have the privilege to broadcast. In democratic nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal. In the United States it is eight years; in Venezuela it is 20 years.
2. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.
3. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media are not only in private hands, they are constitutionally protected, uncensored, and dominated by the opposition. RCTV’s owners can expand their cable and satellite programming, or take their capital and launch a print empire forthwith. Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own.
Now consider the specific facts of RCTV as it applied to have its broadcast license renewed.
The media here report that President Chavez “accuses RCTV of having supported a coup” against him. This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done everything to discredit. In fact, RCTV - along with other broadcast news outlets - played such a leading role in the April 2002 military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected government, that it is often described as “the world’s first media coup.”
In the prelude to the coup, RCTV helped mobilize people to the streets against the government, and used false reporting to justify the coup. One of their most infamous and effective falsifications was to mix footage of pro-Chavez people firing pistols from an overpass in Caracas with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed. This created the impression that the pro-Chavez gunmen actually shot these people, when in fact the victims were nowhere near them. These falsified but horrifying images were repeated incessantly, and served as a major justification for the coup.
RCTV then banned any pro-government reporting during the coup. When Chavez returned to office, this too was blacked out of the news. Later the same year, RCTV once again made all-day-long appeals to Venezuelans to help topple the government during a crippling national oil strike.
If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason.
RCTV’s broadcast frequency has been turned over to a new national public access channel that promises to provide programming from thousands of independent producers. It is an effort to let millions of Venezuelans who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media do so, without government censorship.
The Bush Administration opposes the Chavez government for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, or else there would be a long list of governments for us to subvert or overthrow before it would get close to targeting Venezuela. Regrettably, our press coverage has done little to shed light on that subject.
Our news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard our own government’s claims with the same skepticism they properly apply to foreign leaders. Then Americans might begin to get a more accurate picture of the world, and be able to effectively participate in our foreign policy.
Robert W. McChesney is a professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
