Nice attempt to spin away Ron Paul's bigotry
Hilarious spin by the Ron Paul blinder-wearing partisans to revelations that their hero is a bigot:
The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”
So some of the times he participated in the "composition" of the newsletter, which is of far less import than reviewing the words the newsletter carried under his own byline? And what does being "60 miles away" have to do with anything? They had fax machines in the 80s. They had FedEx and UPS and USPS. It was an 8-page newsletter.
It wasn't that big of an operation.
This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”
So are we led to believe by a bunch of unnamed sources that Ron Paul is so stupid that he wouldn't demand prior review of content written not just in a newsletter bearing his name, but under his own byline?
And that when he found out about it he was angry, yet never retracted such statements in a subsequent issue of the newsletter that, once again, bore his name? That's what we're supposed to believe? If that's the case, then why the silence?
"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."
His reasons are "harder to understand" because they make no sense.
If he has "moral responsibility" for his comments, then why not apologize or retract those statements? Why not express outrage that his good name was misappropriated with scurrilously racist sentiments and demand an honest admission and retraction in his newsletter?
Why? Because he agreed with the sentiments. That's why. And it's precisely writings like those, and his refusal to disavow them, that have made him a favorite of the Stormfront/Neo Nazi crowd.
Of course, Paul's supporters will take this post, along with any other criticism of their demigod, as evidence that he is "feared" or other such nonsense. Hardly. When he cracks single digits in the polls in any state we can start worrying. Until then, he doesn't even reach "Ross Perot-like nut" status. I worry about McCain. I worry about Huckabee. I used to worry about Giuliani. But Paul? Nah. He is what he is -- fringe.
But it's also clear that some of his supporters would benefit from a full airing and education about what Paul stands for and has stood for in his years in the public limelight. If people still want to support him despite his bigotry, then that actually says more about his supporters than about Ron Paul himself.
Post courtesy of DailyKOS
Why Sudafed doesn't work anymore
Congress and the Bush administration have rationed Pseudoephedrine under the guise of the war on drugs. The replacement product--Phenylephrine--might as well be a placebo. This article assembles evidence that the switch was designed to subsidize a well-heeled Germany company that spent millions in lobbying for the law.
Google Reader Sharing/Social Controvesy
I couldn't resist posting on this subject this morning. When at home I have a Mac & use NetNewsWire for all my RSS feed needs. When at work, however, I prefer Google Reader. I've been out on 
vacation though, since December 14th, which is the day that Google updated Reader with new social networking-like features - much to the chagrin of many. The problem is, Google added the "feature" that automatically opts-in you & all of your gmail contacts who use Google Reader to mutually share your shared feeds between one another. This sounds harmless until you really see what this means or think about it. They did this without warning to anyone. Techcrunch posts a good summary of the details of the controversy:
A small privacy debate is igniting
over a new sharing feature in Google Reader. A couple weeks ago, Google turned on a new feature in its feed reader that lets you share posts with anyone in your Gmail or Gtalk contact list (assuming you use either of those other Google services as well). The problem is that sharing is an all-or-nothing proposition. You either share posts with all of your contacts (who also use Google Reader) or with nobody. In other words, sharing is the same as making your selections public. There is no way to pick and choose with whom exactly you want to share particular posts or feeds.
Without giving consumers that granular control,
To be clear, Google Reader is not broadcasting every feed you subscribe to out to your entire contact list. The default is to keep everything private until you deliberately click the “share” button. But once you do that, you lose control over who gets to see what. The appeal of this approach is that it is an effortless way to discover what a subset of people you know are sharing. But it might also create privacy issues for people who do not understand exactly how it works . There is a creepy surveillance aspect to this that might also turn some people off, or keep them from sharing anything at all.
I think Google could put a lot of this to rest if they did a better job of defining what constituted as a friend or gave each person the ability to select which friends are able to see their shared feeds. What if they made a system where someone would send a request to see your feeds & you had to approve/deny their request? I think this would work much better than a blanket all-or-nothing approach that they currently use.
Rodriguez may seek immunity in torture tapes probe.
Jose Rodriguez, the CIA official who reportedly ordered the destruction of the torture tapes, “has indicated he may seek immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying before the House intelligence committee.” Rodriguez is “determined not to become the fall guy” for the White House, according to intelligence sources.
(Via Think Progress.)
I love when the Bush administration gives us Christmas presents...
Out of Frame: Sweeney Todd
We've got a secret for you: Sweeney Todd is a musical. We understand there might be some confusion about that, seeing as how the television ads don't have a single note of singing in them, and if you blink during the theatrical trailer, you'll miss the five seconds of Johnny Depp singing buried in the clip. Make no mistake, though. The vast majority of this film is told in song. On the one hand, it's a shame that DreamWorks is acting ashamed of a musical as fun as Sondheim's, full of challenging, yet entirely accessible songs. But it's pretty clear that they're counting on scoring some extra ticket sales by luring in horror fans with playing up Tim Burton's dark, Gothic vision of the material. And that might be a smart move, because Sweeney Todd may just be that rare musical with broad appeal to audiences who might normally say they don't care for the genre.
Which is no surprise, considering that neither the film's director nor its star have much affinity for the genre themselves. Burton has crafted exactly the kind of musical he'd like to see, which is one that eschews big production numbers and full company set pieces in favor of a more naturalistic approach to the movie musical, if characters breaking into song can ever be considered naturalistic.
The story, which had been bouncing around in various forms for decades of British folk storytelling before Sondheim made it into an international musical sensation, is a fairly straightforward revenge tale: sweet natured barber Benjamin Barker is separated from his wife by a lustful judge who trumps up charges and sends him away for 15 years. Barker returns with a new name and bloodlust in his heart, but when vengeance is slow in coming, he turns his fury upon the hapless men sitting in his chair for a shave. His downstairs neighbor, Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham-Carter, playing the the character like a Cockney version of Fight Club's Marla), has a self-destructive taste for darkly mysterious psychopaths, and enters into a partnership with Todd to use the by-product of his murderous inclinations to supply her failing meatpie business. Hilarity ensues, just as in any of the many Broadway musicals concerning serial murder and cannibalism.
OK, so hilarity might be going a little far, but Burton does know when to let up on the overwhelming gloom for a few laughs. By taking the show off the stage and onto the screen, the director is able to infuse the affairs with as much blood, grime, and skin-crawl-inducing elements as the material really calls for (but which is largely impractical for live theater). Especially the blood. I lost count of the number of jugulars that are slit in the course of the movie, but there are many, and Burton shows the murders from many angles, with blood shooting, spurting and flying in all sorts of creative fashions. Few directors besides Dario Argento have ever taken this kind of operatic zeal in the display of gore, and it's not for the squeamish. As a result, without a sense of humor, the film would be a grim affair indeed. But Burton and screenwriter John Logan never fail to recognize the comic notes inherent in Hugh Wheeler's original book for the show. So they're sure to include the go-to comic ringer of the last few years, Sacha Baron Cohen, in a hilarious turn as a rival barber. And the "By the Sea" sequence, in which Mrs. Lovett fantasizes openly about a life of love and comfort with Todd into their golden years, is side-splittingly funny, as Burton throws all the vivid colors of his work on Big Fish around the still pale and dour Todd, making Lovett's fantasy all the more ludicrous.
Still, those moments are comic relief, and much needed relief from the darkest musical you're ever likely to see. Depp's Todd is a tortured character, not given to much talking. He talks less, in fact, than in the original musical. Burton again takes advantage of one of the differences between screen and stage by allowing Depp to play his part mostly through his eyes and his facial expressions. The reactions one can't see from the back of the house are readily apparent on the big screen, and Depp plays his wordless scenes with the skill of a seasoned star of silent film. Eyes flash and fade, brows furrow into an evil grimace, and even when he's pointedly ignoring the questions being asked of him by those around him, he speaks volumes.
Of course, he can't be silent all the time. So how's his singing? He's not likely to take Broadway by storm anytime soon, but its more than passable. The same goes for most of the cast, who are all better actors than they are singers, but in this context it works. Sondheim's score, re-orchestrated here to make it more lush and full, is still just as engaging and complex as it's always been. Sondheim purists beware, though: a few nips, tucks, and outright cuts were made to fit the long stage musical into a more manageable film version, and some are bound to be annoyed that there's a verse or a song missing here or there. But taken on its own, Todd is a rousing success. It's easily Burton's best film since Ed Wood, and one of Depp's best, most soulful performances. If you're iffy on musicals, don't let that scare you away: Burton sympathizes, and has made this musical with you firmly in mind.
Sweeney Todd is now playing at theaters all around the area.
(Via DCist.)