The feeling around the house is that the people with tickets to the Super Bowl have it too easy. The game should be held outdoors in the most unpleasant weather possible. That way, celebrities and corporate fat cats won’t want to attend and hardcore fans will have the chance to live their dreams of shrivering. Based on my brief research, Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton, Alberta seems to be the ideal candidate. Other suggestions?
“Three former high-ranking U.S. military officers have called for Britain to help defuse the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, saying military action against Tehran would be a disaster for the region“:
In a letter to the Sunday Times newspaper, the three former officers urged President Bush to open talks, “without preconditions,” with the Iranian government in a bid to find a diplomatic solution.
The signatories were retired Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, a senior military fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington, D.C.; retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former head of U.S. Central Command; and Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, former director of the Center for Defense Information.
The officers said an attack “would have disastrous consequences for security in the region, coalition forces in Iraq and would further exacerbate regional and global tensions.”
“The current crisis must be resolved through diplomacy,” they said.
I still hate Payton Manning; let’s go Bears!
The resolution was a resolution that authorized the president to take that action if he deemed it necessary. Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served myself and my party and my country better, though, had I done so.
Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, said a standout concern for the USA is the finding that climate change is likely to raise the intensity and rainfall from hurricanes and other tropical cyclones, a point of great debate since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and the onslaught of storms in Florida in 2004.
That makes the report’s discussion of sea-level rise “disappointing,” Romm said, because it narrows and lowers the expected range of the oceans’ rise even as recent research shows Greenland and Antarctica losing masses of ice that could raise the world’s waters.
Romm said recent sea-level science not included in the report because it came out after the deadline of more than a year ago suggests a 5-inches-a-year rise after the year 2100, “which is devastating. How do you adapt to that? We’re going to have to triage a lot of major cities here, particularly when you throw in the increased intensity and increasing rain events” of hurricanes.
Last week, VoteVets launched a powerful ad campaign opposing President Bush’s escalation policy.
ThinkProgress has learned that the new ad will run during today’s Superbowl. The ad, part of the Americans Against Escalation In Iraq campaign, will air in Washington, D.C., Minnesota, and Maine, targeting Sens. John Warner (R-VA), Norm Coleman (R-MN), and Susan Collins (R-ME), respectively. Those three senators say they oppose sending more troops to Iraq, but haven’t signed on to the anti-escalation resolution sponsored by Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Joe Biden (D-DE).
Watch the ad focusing on Sen. Norm Coleman:
One thing hanging over Barack Obama is the idea — voiced by Debra Dickerson among others — that he isn’t really black. He was, after all, raised by his white mother. And his dad was from Kenya, not the descendant of American slaves. It seems to me that Joe Biden should have dispelled that kind of talk, by showing that Obama’s black enough to be subjected to bizarre race-related crap from white people.
Similarly, if you watch the NBA I think it’s clear that there’s a set of stereotypes associated with black players (“amazing speed and athleticism”) and a different set associated with Europeans (“incredible skills, but he’s too soft”) and also fairly clear that black Europeans (Parker, Diaw, Turiaf, etc.) are treated like blacks rather than like Europeans for these purposes.
UPDATE: See also Chris Hayes’ article on David Alexrod.
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) blasted the Iraq war resolution introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), which calls for benchmarks, but says nothing about what will occur if the benchmarks aren’t met.
“I think if you want to go to a disingenuous resolution, this idea about putting benchmarks on the Iraqi government…and then having no consequences, now that’s intellectually dishonest,” he said. “So what are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out? If the benchmarks are not met by the Maliki government, are we then going to walk out? Are we then going to bring our troops home? Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category.”
Asked about the resolution this morning on ABC’s This Week, McCain declared, “Well, the consequences are obvious.” But, he said, “I can’t tell you what the other options are, because there are no good options to this.”
Transcript: Read more
There’s been a slightly weird “speaking truth to non-power” moment recently in the blogosphere where MYDD’s Chris Bowers has been joining Team HRC in trying to convince us all that Hillary Clinton has a daunting advantage in the upcoming primary race. I’m not buying it and neither is Jonathan Chait who notes correctly that her polling isn’t nearly as good in the early primary states as it is in big, vague national polls:
In a memo published the day she announced her candidacy, Clinton pollster Mark Penn offered up a rebuttal to this inconvenient fact. Clinton, he argued, is bound to rise in the early primary states as she spends more time there. But other candidates will be spending more time in Iowa and New Hampshire, too. The question is: Which candidate is more likely to benefit from endless hours of speechifying, hand-shaking, and town hall meetings? There’s no reason to think the answer will be Clinton. While she may be just as smart as–and more experienced than–Edwards and Obama, she is an average orator, while Edwards is a very good one and Obama is a brilliant one. Having seen all three give speeches, it’s hard for me to imagine how a prolonged side-by-side comparison will move voters into Clinton’s camp. And, as the best-known of the leading candidates, she’ll have the hardest time making a strong new impression anyway.
This seems right to me. Something Chait doesn’t mention, is that I think she’s particularly vulnerable because she’s counting on a perception of inevitability to boost her to victory. Insofar as leaders of progressive institutions believe she’s likely to win, they’re unlikely to point out that she’s a poor choice. There’s no point in opposing someone who’s certain to win. But as cracks in the armor appear more evident, I think there’s a good chance of a downward spiral as more opinion leaders speak out.
Does Brad Plumer hate the Jews or does he just have Lindberg-esque views worthy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?