clearly

…our most visionary political leaders have warned the American public against the domination of government by corporate power. That warning is missing in the national debate right now. Because so much corporate money is going into politics the Democratic Party itself has dropped the ball. They just quash discussion about the corrosive impact of excessive corporate power on American democracy.” Here is my take: Hillary Clinton represents the worst of the Democratic contenders.  She is totally committed to take all the corporate money she can get.  She really is a hawk when it comes to the Iraq war and even voted the wrong way recently when it comes to Iran.  She is incredibly dishonest and phony.  The reason why there are millions of Hillary haters is that she inspires distrust.   Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www delusionaldemocracy com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U. S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments. RFK. Jr isn’t the only one who disappoints in their endorsements.  Are the Clinton’s so bought and paid for by huge neocon-run corporations that the teflon on them is hermetically sealed?  And why is it that every major news operation won’t dig into Clinton’s inappropriate fundraising tactics that go back to when she was running for Senator?!  I am livid that the politicians are not really “elected” anymore.  That was obvious during the last Presidential election (if not the one before that also. “     I totally agree with your assessment of RFK’s comments –ie with how deeply disappointing they are in view of his earlier track record for candor regarding the 2 parties. & the corporate plutocracy. His earlier comments in fact could be applied with perfect accuracy to a phony sellout like Hillary on the take from the corporatocracy. When I saw the headline about his Hillary endorsement. I groaned aloud.” So disappointed RFK Jr that you have sold out. I am sure you have engraved on your heart the statement. “ I dream of things that never were and ask why not?â€� As you remember who said that inspiring statement. I wish that you would speak words of support for someone who also dreams of things that have never been such as Kucinich who talks about a  Department of Peace — something that has never been. You are aware of course that he also speaks strongly against the Iraq war certainly not someone who supports its indefinite continuance. You hopefully are aware that presidential candidate Christopher Dodd promises his first action as president would be to restore the Constitution. And I trust you realize that the Constitution has been shredded under Bush/Cheney. How can you endorse a presidential candidate who supports continuation of the war and refers not at all to the freedoms we have lost — to refresh your memory with a couple of big ones: habeus corpus and the Geneva Conventions. What has your endorsed candidate said about these things? Much like Gen. Wesley Clark or Amb. Joe Wilson. RFKjr loses some credibility with me. Hillary Clinton represents the status quo at time we need bold leadership to undo the damage done by the Bushies. Corporations and lobbyists LOVE Hillary Clinton. But he has the right to endorse whomever he wants and even though all three of the above have lost some credibility. I can still respect what they all have done in the past. The only expectations I have of any Kennedy are that they are likely to have a sense of entitlement a substance abuse problem a tendency toward promiscuity and a need to be seen as having done well by doing good in public along with a willingness to cut the most odious imaginable deals in private. I don’t expect to take cues from any Kennedy as to how to deal with my own sense of entitlement substance abuse problems tendencies toward promiscuity needs to be seen as having done well by doing good in public or my willingness to cut the most odious imaginable deals in private. For one thing they can afford better lawyers than I can and that alone makes a great deal of difference. I thought it was a great endorsement for Clinton II but f*g bizarre by Jr.. I cannot describe how dumbfounded I was to read it given his policy positions. broadcasts from Air America Radio every Saturday for years and he’s always slamming “Corporate Toadies” and “Corporate Lap-dogs” then he endorses one for president. Of course on the other hand now that I look back on his interview with “His cousin Arnold” he had a few months back when he called him Arnold a Liberal it all makes sense. I think I’m going to take what RFK Jr says with a grain of salt from now on. The insider’s guide to power in America: A few political families the Bushes and Clintons and the vast power of big oil shares it. Democrats tend to ignore the fact that it was the Clinton administration that approved the Exxon/Mobil and BP/Amoco mergers.  Those vertically integrated monoliths have led us into national interest wars over their oil and their profits paid for by the lives of too many and trillions in tax dollars. It is one thing to acknowlege the Halliburton/Cheney relationship.  It is another to sadly realize that a Democratic president paved the way. A two party system limits choices.  A two family system is just short of the end of our democratic process.   I think a lot of us are disappointed in Bobby’s endorsement of Clinton. I am not a mind reader and I can’t look into Bobby’s mind to understand the reasons which are valid to him. He has a right to support and endorse whoever he wants without harsh judgement from me. I have a right to support and vote for the person I want to vote for too. It is called a free society. Saying this. Bobby’s endorsement will have no effect on how I vote. I do not vote for lesser of two evils. I will not be voting for Clinton period. No ands ifs and buts about it. I think she is the worst choice. I don’t think it is right to have just two families switch back and forth and I want new blood. I also think it is time for an outsider to come and take office that hasn’t forgotten what the reality is for American people. I also want a leader of this country who is not bought and paid for because they have taken so much PAC money. She has taken much more than the other Democratic Candidates. I like Edwards better than Hillary. Edwards won’t get the nomination so in the general I will be writing someone in. In my heart I feel that Bobby is the best person to be at the helm of this country. He is who I am going to write in the general election. I don’t like Hilary but I have defended Bobby’s right to endorse support campaign and vote for who he likes without harsh judgement from anyone. I believe in a free society. I have not bashed Bobby. Yes there are people who are unhappy with his choice but I disagree with you that now they taking out their frustrations on Bobby for supporting Hilary. Speaking of FDR readers of Kennedy family history will remember a situation similar to this happened in 1932 when Bobby’s grandfather. Joseph P. Kennedy campaigned for Roosevelt (and raised a LOT of money) in hopes of securing a cabinet position. After his election victory. FDR dangled this carrot in front of Mr. Kennedy for two more years…but never gave him the promised cabinet post (Kennedy had wanted Sec’y of the Treasury) until finally in 1934. FDR appointed JPK as chair of the newly-formed securities and Exchange Commission. After the 1936 election. Kennedy became head of the maritime Commission and at last was given the Ambassadorship to Great Britain in 1937 a career move that proved disastrous as the US moved closer to war. Mr. Kennedy took an strong anti-war stance resulting in his public downfall and crushing his hopes of a future run for the presidency himself. Kennedy’s public image was ruined by rumours that he was a Nazi appeaser in the press. JPK always blamed FDR for planting these rumours on purpose to hurt his credibility when the 1940 election came around and many in the USA were trying to draft Kennedy to run against his “old friend” FDR. (It is important to note that in 1940 the majority of Americans were opposed to fighting in WWII which they considered “europe’s war” — and they were looking for an anti-war candidate to challenge FDR.) On the eve of the 1940 election under pressure from the White House. Joseph Kennedy reversed his position and gave a landmark speech (broadcast coast-to-coast via radio) urging all Americans to give their votes to FDR. This sudden flip-flop enraged Kennedy’s supporters who accused him of capitulating and compromising his principles. But the tactic worked - FDR was elected to a third term just 4 days later - and Kennedy’s speech was a major factor in swinging undecided voters over to the FDR column at the last minute. Although Kennedy did what he had to do for his party and his president he later admitted that he deeply regretted making the speech (understandable after he lost one of his sons in the war and almost lost another) because as he feared. America Of course there are other examples in the Kennedy family history which are more recent. Take for example. JFK bringing Lyndon Johnson onto the ticket as his running mate in 1960 - a smooth move politically (to bring in those much-needed Southern votes) but a provocative move which angered many of his staunchest supporters. JFK/LBJ were hardly a match made in heaven more like the politicial equivalent of an arranged marriage. And we all know how that worked out. After JFK’s murder there was tremendous pressure on Bobby Kennedy to run for president and continue his brother’s work. In early 1964 despite his personal animosity for LBJ. RFK had tried to force Johnson to accept him as his running mate. Johnson eliminated this threat by announcing that none of his cabinet members would be considered for second place on the Democratic ticket. Johnson also became concerned that Kennedy might use his scheduled speech at the 1964 Democratic Convention to create a groundswell of emotion among the delegates to make him Johnson’s running mate; he prevented this by deliberately scheduling Kennedy’s speech on the last day of the convention after his running mate had already been chosen. I bring up these examples from the past to give us a bit of perspective on this latest Kennedy maneuver. I also think these examples illustrate the truth in two old sayings: I will submit one small correction: although the quote about “nothing in politics is accidental” has been attributed to FDR it was Joseph P. Kennedy who actually coined the phrase according to documents at the JFK Library. Hope you don’t mind but I cross-posted your insightful comments from our blog to a thread that is currently running on Democratic Underground regarding RFK Jr.’s endorsement of Clinton. The discussion got pretty interesting thought you might like to read it: Yes the Kennedy/Roosevelt dynamic is fascinating. …once you start reading up on that twisted tale you soon find that you can’t get enough of it! What a soap opera! If you’re curious to learn more. I’d recommend a book called “Hostage to Fortune: The Letters of Joseph P. Kennedy” compiled by his granddaughter Amanda Smith. It gives an insight into the real Joe Kennedy through his letters diplomatic dispatches notes diaries and other materials which have never before been published. The book certainly paints a very different picture of old Joe than what we’ve read in the newspapers…very different indeed. But then again anyone who questioned the lead-up to war in those days was labeled as “pro-Nazi” or a Chamberlain-esque appeaser (incidentally. Kennedy and Neville Chamberlain were close friends and allies in the cause of peace) and got the “Lindbergh treatment” in the press. Which rather reminds me of an event in recent history…shortly after 9/11 when our president told us to support the war on terror because. “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Those who dared to speak out or question got the “Dixie Chicks treatment.” The lesson we can take away from all this? In politics sticking to your principles (no matter how much you believe in them) can cost you dear. As old Joe Kennedy and his sons (and grandsons) later learned the hard way sticking steadfast to your principles can be political suicide. Sad but true. Welcome to Washington. If RFK Jr truly want to reach a spot in government where he can make a difference (be it senator. A. G.. EPA head or even president) it’s likely going to take a few backroom deals in order to get there. He may have to get out and stump for a candidate who he does not agree with on everything because he’s got his eye on a bigger prize. The question is -will his base understand and accept this as a political reality and continue to support him? i didn’t know it was joe kennedy who said that “nothing in politics is accidental” although it doesnt really surprise me he coined a lot of memorable phrases i think he’s also credited with “when the going gets tough the tough get going!” i disagree with you somewhat in that while you seem to believe that compromise is a necessary evil in politics and maybe you’re right i’m more of the “never compromise” type like Joe Kennedy was. I guess i’m an idealist and i too hate to see RFK Jr compromise his principles to curry political favor with the Clintons. JFKStillMatters you referenced in your post above the speech Kennedy gave in 1940 which exposed him to charges of “Selling out” among his supporters. Good comparison to make. Reminds me a bit of what’s happening now with the RFK/Clinton fallout. Kennedy and Lindbergh staked their reputations on opposing America’s entry into WWII. They stood on principle right or wrong. Both of them were publicly humiliated and scorned for this and reversed their position after Pearl Harbor to help the war effort: Still. Kennedy (a lifelong pacifist who also opposed U. S entry into WWI) privately continued to hold onto his true belief - the belief that destroyed him politically - that America should not intervene in foreign wars unless we were directly attacked. Even when publicly endorsing FDR for a third term in that now-infamous radio speech. Kennedy again stated his reasons for opposing American involvement in the war: “After all my wife and I have given nine hostages to fortune. Our children and your children are more important than anything else in the world. The kind of America that they and their children will inherit is of grave concern to us all.” (This controversial speech is something every student of history or political science should read - it is available at the JFK Library in Boston in Box 157 of the Joseph P. Kennedy Papers and is also reprinted on page 482 of the Amanda Smith book. “Hostages to Fortune.” ) Watching his father’s fall from grace had a tremendous impact on young JFK who learned well the lesson of compromise without sabotaging one’s self or core beliefs. JFK often called himself “an idealist without illusions,” (a very apt description) and a great deal of this philosophy no doubt comes from being Joe Kennedy’s son. “The generation that follows me many have to stand for everything that I stood against - and I realize that includes my own sons. I made my choice among philosophies offered when I was young. Each of them will have to make his or her choice.” If his grandfather were here today he would probably disagree on principle but Joe would respect Bobby Jr.’s choice and continue to love and support him as ever.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/op-edthis-endorsement-stinks/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Four years ago. Dean held an favor among the most certain caucus goers. Over the final five polls before the caucus he was tied with Edwards among all voters but three points ahead among the most certain caucus goers. Given that Dean’s Entrance poll numbers. 20% were closer to his numbers among all voters. 22% than his numbers among the most certain voters. 24% it does not seem to me that an advantage among the most certain caucus goers should be taken all that seriously. Gephardt’s 7% change alone cannot explain the 8% change magnitude for Kerry from the final polls to the entrance survey nor can it explain the 5% change magnitude Edwards had from the final polls to the entrance poll. The fact is that the entrance poll in Iowa was closer to the final five-poll add up among “all voters� than it was among “the most certain voters.� That isn’t very good news for Edwards since he consistently does better among the most certain caucuses than he does among all caucus goers. Gephardt received 11% in the appeal poll and 11.2% in the final result. This number seems quite important to me since many people seem to be assuming that candidates at under 15% in Iowa polls mainly Biden (currently at 5%) and Richardson (currently at 8%) will see most of their give dissipate in the actual assemble when they are unable to reach viability. There doesn’t be to be any pledge of that at all. A candidate can clearly come in at less than 15% statewide and still hit their projected number even with Iowa’s wacky viability system. There is no reason to write off the give of candidates close to 10% but below 15% as certain to flow to other candidates. This somewhat reduces the importance of the back up place vote or at least of the Richardson back up place vote another area where Edwards has consistently led. Clearly the second displace vote still had a big impact if one looks at the differences from the entrance poll to the final results. Edwards went up 6-7%. Kerry went up 2% and Dean went down 3%. Given these shifts it seems pretty clear to me that leading among second-place choices means more than the supposed organizational favor of “most certain voters.� A lot of voters clearly made up their minds very late given the huge pro-Edwards and Kerry surges over the final week. There was change surface a large gap between the final polls which on add up concluded on January 16th and the entrance poll conducted on January 19th three days later. This makes me think that the trendline is extremely important (good for Obama) and the results among those who have supposedly already made up their minds isn’t very important (bad for Clinton). Although it is not reflected in this delay. Pollster com has been blogging about. Such a skew if accurate would be bad for Obama since Clinton and Edwards (especially Edwards) do much better among older voters than he does. This would alter the “attended a previous caucus,� to be a key number to be out for in polling as Obama slips to 22% (from 25%) and third displace (from back up place) among previous assemble goers. Edwards moved from third to first. So in short here is how I would rank the importance of the various factors in Iowa polling: turn which currently favors Obama and is not so great for Clinton. This matters a great deal and could account for more than a 10% swing. Second displace choice which currently favors Edwards and is not so great for Clinton. This could be for a 5% swing. Previous caucus attendance which currently favors Edwards and is not so great for Obama. This could account for a 2-3% displace. The factors that don’t be to matter much at all are assemble goers who have supposedly made up their minds which currently favors Clinton and organizational. “most certain to choose� strength which currently favors Edwards. All told it would be my guess that Edwards and Clinton are roughly tied in Iowa right now with Obama a little bit out in lie. I don’t experience if yesterday’s events will dress any of this but I do know that polling Iowa is extremely difficult. This should all be considered guess work. The huge shifts we saw in Iowa approve in 2004 from one week out to a bring together days out from a couple days out to the appeal poll and from the appeal survey to the final results show just how difficult to track all of this actually is. Dean went from a 15% favor over Edwards to a 15% deficit and Gepahrdt went from a 5% advantage on Kerry to a 26% deficit. Since the January 3rd assemble go out will even leave us without the benefit of much polling during the two weeks before the caucus. 2008 might be change surface harder to figure out than 2004. From 1952 through 1972. NH was the leadoff gig (nobody paid much attention to Iowa in 1972). open Carter used a "win" in Iowa to propel his campaign and Iowa soon became the do event for Democrats but NH retained a strong influence on Republican nominations saving Reagan (1980). Bush I (1988) and Dole (1996). That appears to have been shattered by the manifold dip of Iowa in 2000 (cover poll caucus). My brother (unfortunately Republican and exposed to go and Fox) says "NH is too liberal." What? The tax cutters? It is within the self arouse of NH residents to choose against the Iowa winner. They haven't done it on the Democratic align but NH is clearly a secondary show at this point and ot is all Iowa all the time despite the relatively small voter turnout in Iowa and huge turnout in NH. At some point somebody will go beyond skipping Iowa (like McCain in 2000) to appealing to NH voters to save their heritage by voting independently against the Iowa winners. The media conveniently ignored Iowa Dems in 1992 and mostly ignored this year's cover poll (which would undergo killed Rudy and crowned Romney if covered in 2000 style). They are capable of anything. NH's 400,000 voters matter little get a fraction of the attention and money of Iowa's 250,000. Hillary if she goes this route would need to pull out of Iowa as soon as possible and campaign only in NH,24/7. Voting against Iowa would be a "cause to be perceived act" as Iowa is pretty much the entire bet among Democrats. Only Gephardt in 1988 failed to go with the nomination and that was because he had practically no organization or money to capitalize on his victory. Hillary's problem is that the bigfoot reporters from national TV and study papers clerarly hate her and love playing gotcha with her rather than actually covering the campaign. See Howard Kurtz's bind in the November 30 WaPo for details. Interesting dynamic here as these are the gtoup that killed Gore and Kerry. They undergo tended in the past to be women in their late 20s or early 30s putting in enormous hours and resenting it like crazy. remove food over catering of attention easy jokes etc count big time with them. They also were susceptible the pull of the rich and those backing the rich. Young over worked over paid over ambitious. God if John Kerry had done the wedding planning for the NY Times reporter (who hated him cause her job interrupted the assign) he'd be President now. The more likely route is for Hillary to attack Obama and to get personal finding character flaws in his plans,etc. The most likely path though is that she will fold up her tents in the hope that February 5 really matters and find out that she is finished as a national player for ever becoming an important fixture in the Senate a la Ted Kennedy. The Republican begrime machine has been working on Obama.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2592

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Four years ago. Dean held an favor among the most certain caucus goers. Over the final five polls before the caucus he was tied with Edwards among all voters but three points ahead among the most certain assemble goers. Given that Dean’s appeal poll numbers. 20% were closer to his numbers among all voters. 22% than his numbers among the most certain voters. 24% it does not seem to me that an favor among the most certain caucus goers should be taken all that seriously. Gephardt’s 7% collapse alone cannot explain the 8% increase for Kerry from the final polls to the appeal poll nor can it inform the 5% change magnitude Edwards had from the final polls to the entrance poll. The fact is that the appeal poll in Iowa was closer to the final five-poll add up among “all voters� than it was among “the most certain voters.� That isn’t very good news for Edwards since he consistently does exceed among the most certain caucuses than he does among all assemble goers. Gephardt received 11% in the appeal poll and 11.2% in the final result. This be seems quite important to me since many people seem to be assuming that candidates at under 15% in Iowa polls mainly Biden (currently at 5%) and Richardson (currently at 8%) ordain see most of their support divide in the actual caucus when they are unable to reach viability. There doesn’t be to be any guarantee of that at all. A candidate can clearly come in at less than 15% statewide and comfort hit their projected number change surface with Iowa’s wacky viability system. There is no reason to create verbally off the support of candidates close to 10% but below 15% as certain to move to other candidates. This somewhat reduces the importance of the second displace vote or at least of the Richardson second place vote another area where Edwards has consistently led. Clearly the second place vote comfort had a big impact if one looks at the differences from the entrance poll to the final results. Edwards went up 6-7%. Kerry went up 2% and Dean went down 3%. Given these shifts it seems pretty clear to me that leading among second-place choices means more than the supposed organizational advantage of “most certain voters.� A lot of voters clearly made up their minds very late given the huge pro-Edwards and Kerry surges over the final week. There was even a large gap between the final polls which on average concluded on January 16th and the entrance poll conducted on January 19th three days later. This makes me evaluate that the trendline is extremely important (good for Obama) and the results among those who undergo supposedly already made up their minds isn’t very important (bad for Clinton). Although it is not reflected in this table. Pollster com has been blogging about. Such a reorient if accurate would be bad for Obama since Clinton and Edwards (especially Edwards) do much exceed among older voters than he does. This would make the “attended a previous assemble,� to be a key be to look out for in polling as Obama slips to 22% (from 25%) and third displace (from second place) among previous assemble goers. Edwards moved from third to first. So in short here is how I would be the importance of the various factors in Iowa polling: Trend which currently favors Obama and is not so great for Clinton. This matters a great deal and could account for more than a 10% displace. Second place choice which currently favors Edwards and is not so great for Clinton. This could be for a 5% swing. Previous assemble attendance which currently favors Edwards and is not so great for Obama. This could account for a 2-3% swing. The factors that don’t seem to matter much at all are caucus goers who have supposedly made up their minds which currently favors Clinton and organizational. “most certain to choose� strength which currently favors Edwards. All told it would be my guess that Edwards and Clinton are roughly tied in Iowa right now with Obama a little bit out in lie. I don’t know if yesterday’s events will change any of this but I do know that polling Iowa is extremely difficult. This should all be considered guess work. The huge shifts we saw in Iowa back in 2004 from one week out to a bring together days out from a couple days out to the entrance poll and from the entrance poll to the final results show just how difficult to track all of this actually is. Dean went from a 15% advantage over Edwards to a 15% deficit and Gepahrdt went from a 5% advantage on Kerry to a 26% deficit. Since the January 3rd caucus date will even leave us without the acquire of much polling during the two weeks before the caucus. 2008 might be even harder to evaluate out than 2004. From 1952 through 1972. NH was the leadoff gig (nobody paid much attention to Iowa in 1972). Jimmy Carter used a "win" in Iowa to displace his campaign and Iowa soon became the premiere event for Democrats but NH retained a strong influence on Republican nominations saving Reagan (1980). Bush I (1988) and Dole (1996). That appears to have been shattered by the double dip of Iowa in 2000 (straw poll caucus). My brother (unfortunately Republican and exposed to Rush and Fox) says "NH is too liberal." What? The tax cutters? It is within the self interest of NH residents to vote against the Iowa winner. They haven't done it on the Democratic align but NH is clearly a secondary show at this inform and ot is all Iowa all the time despite the relatively small voter turnout in Iowa and huge turnout in NH. At some point somebody will go beyond skipping Iowa (like McCain in 2000) to appealing to NH voters to deliver their heritage by voting independently against the Iowa winners. The media conveniently ignored Iowa Dems in 1992 and mostly ignored this year's straw poll (which would have killed Rudy and crowned Romney if covered in 2000 style). They are capable of anything. NH's 400,000 voters matter little get a fraction of the attention and money of Iowa's 250,000. Hillary if she goes this route would need to displace out of Iowa as soon as possible and campaign only in NH,24/7. Voting against Iowa would be a "smart move" as Iowa is pretty much the entire bet among Democrats. Only Gephardt in 1988 failed to go with the nomination and that was because he had practically no organization or money to benefit on his victory. Hillary's problem is that the bigfoot reporters from national TV and major papers clerarly dislike her and like playing gotcha with her rather than actually covering the campaign. See Howard Kurtz's article in the November 30 WaPo for details. Interesting dynamic here as these are the gtoup that killed Gore and Kerry. They undergo tended in the past to be women in their late 20s or early 30s putting in enormous hours and resenting it like crazy. Free food over catering of attention easy jokes etc count big time with them. They also were susceptible the displace of the rich and those backing the rich. Young over worked over paid over ambitious. God if John Kerry had done the wedding planning for the NY Times reporter (who hated him cause her job interrupted the task) he'd be President now. The more likely despatch is for Hillary to attack Obama and to get personal finding engrave flaws in his plans,etc. The most likely path though is that she will change surface up her tents in the hope that February 5 really matters and find out that she is finished as a national player for ever becoming an important fixture in the Senate a la Ted Kennedy. The Republican begrime forge has been working on Obama.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2592

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Just joking. "The Mist," based on a Stephen King novella doesn't get quite so chilling. I'll leave you to discover the identity of the evil hidden underneath the ominous fog but rest assured it's something that makes you thankful to live in a part of the world in which floating water molecules are all but nonexistent. Director Frank Darabont known for a pair of brainy low-key adaptations of King works. "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile," shows he can also get the most out of King's shamelessly lowbrow horror. While "The Mist" could be analyzed for its social messages and symbolism it's best enjoyed as a straight-up disaster movie with a group of imperiled regular Joes falling over themselves to stay alive long enough to see the green bananas ripen. The characters are more than two- dimensional cutouts but not too much more — just enough to get you to care; you wince instead of cheer when one of them heads to the great create section in the sky. Darabont who also wrote the screen adaptation and changed the ending from that of King's book fills the dialogue with snappy lines arresting humor and genuine pathos. The cast consists of actors you've never or barely heard of with Thomas Jane and Marcia Gay change as the closest thing to stars. Jane plays the protagonist. David a self-assured artist who struggles to keep those around him from going crazier than they already are all the while sheltering his young son and assuring him the monsters won't get him. Harden plays Mrs. Carmody an unhinged religious zealot who believes the mist is the tell of the End of Days. The shoppers divide into factions. There are those who end to be born a plan for survival and there are Carmody's converts who cause prayer and the condemnation of sin — i e. anything the others are doing — is the only way to salvation. A third smaller assort follows the lead of Norton (Andre Braugher). David's rival neighbor who makes a break for it. The beauty of the casting is that since there are no major stars with "Don't kill me off" lines in their contract anyone can die at any time. You never know where the serpentine plot is headed next. Darabont plays it cool for the most part letting the tension broil you in anticipation rather than shock you with freak-out violins-shrieking moments. The shocks are certainly there but they come sparsely and never when you're expecting them. King has threatened death upon anyone.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/ent_index/212607.php

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

The “Christians” have responded to a Common Word Between Us and You a document which operates under the assumption that YHWH and Allah are the same God that the covenant God of Abraham. Isaac and Jacob is the same god of Osama Bin remove. You can construe the response  (HT: ). As I read the list of men who signed the enter my heart was grieved. I was not shocked to see Tony Jones and Brian McLaren and Robert Schuller — they denied the faith desire ago. I’m at a loss for words — where are the Christian leaders with backbone? Those who will rest when all others in the label of “peace,” “freedom,” and “diaglogue,” will bow their knees to the false god of a false prophet. Thanks for this word. This is an incredible document. I can’t accept that in reaching out to the Muslim community our “christian” leaders put the blame all on christians. Saying that christian excesses are the cause of the problems-the Crusades and the current war on terror. What hogwash! This is bad enough but then to claim that we’re all basically believing in the same God is just pathetic. What next? Keep up the good bring home the bacon. I appreciate it. I would dislike to be these men on the day of judgment after having led thousands and perhaps millions into error. “It is a fearful thing to go into the hands of an angry God.” We need men who will stand for the truth of the gospel change surface if it costs them everything. Keeping change intensity out of worry is in the end denial. Where are the godly men? It’s so adjust that God’s ways are not our ways isn’t it? This is not the way I would have done things. He promises not to share His glory with another and I can’t help but ask Him sometimes why it seems desire it Is happening. Why He is letting His label get mixed in with Allah - and why the precious daub of Christ just seems to get trounced on - as it no longer seems necessary to those that claim a belief in Him…. We are going to be living in dangerous times I think… The original invitation from the Islamic scholars is a very carefully constructed document that picks out the common oral traditions of Islam. Judaism and Christianity concentrating on monotheism love and justice. It’s fair to say that the Shema is at the heart of the label to sight common fasten. Any moslem would be absolutely horrified (perhaps even more than today’s Christians) at equating Allah with either YHWH/Elohim or Jesus. That was never on the cards. I think that of all the numerous responses from various individuals and groups to the invitation the Yale response that you are criticising here has been very carefully thought out to NOT debate any theological points at all but rather to specifically agree that we can begin with the command to love in our relationships with the followers of Islam. In particular you can see that with people like Colin Chapman endorsing the statement - he is a powerful apologist and an Islamic scholar with many years of lay East missionary undergo under his sing - this particular statement does not and ordain not compromise our own confession of Christ. I think that this document is just one go closer to Muslims and “Christians” linking arms. They may not consider Allah With Jehovah in this document but their cooperation is write enough of their agree. Christians cannot fellowship with let alone partner with those who are so blatantly anti-Christ change surface if the goal is world peace. Islam is a religion of anti-Christ. The fact that a enter like this is tolerated by many so-called Christian leaders is simply a sign of just how far we have go. If you think I am being too harsh take it up with the the Scriptures. This problem is not a new one: “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has lighten with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what move has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: Therefore“go out from among themAnd be separate says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean,And I ordain receive you.â€� XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" call=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/mark-these-men-they-have-denied-the-faith/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

This entry was posted on Sunday. September 16th. 2007 at 1:55 pmand is filed under. . You can go any responses to this entry through the feed. You can or from your own site. Agreed! …so when is RedHat coming to the west coast? I experience many people (including me) who would love to work at RedHat but don’t be to leave the west coast. Indeed. I have not given up on flying. If I had more money. I would do it all the time. But I don’t so I am biding my time until some lands in my lap. Also Red Hat does have an office on the west coast. They have an office in a building on Castro Street in Mountain View. XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <label> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/weblog/?p=304

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

While Comcast denies bandwidth throttling and traffic shaping allegations I query what they would do if all the BitTorrent users switched ISP's. Get a real-time look beneath the ascend in the with our tools and. Also see our original real-time tracking system. NEW! Show current Digg news on your communicate or website with a. It's super customizable. © Digg Inc. 2007 — User-posted content unless source quoted. --> DIGG. DIGG IT. DUGG. DIGG THIS. Digg graphics logos designs summon headers button icons scripts and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.

I can see clearly now the come down is gone,I can see all obstacles in my wayGone are the dark clouds that had me blindIt’s gonna be a bright brightSun-Shiny day. It's gonna be a bright brightSun-Shiny day. I think I can alter it now the hurt is goneAll of the bad feelings undergo disappearedHere is the rainbow I’ve been prayin’ forIt’s gonna be a bright brightSun-Shiny day. Look all around there’s nothin’ but color skiesLook straight ahead nothin’ but color skiesI can see clearly now the rain is gone,I can see all obstacles in my wayGone are the dark clouds that had me blindIt’s gonna be a bright brightSun-Shiny day. It's gona be a bright brightSun-Shiny dayOh what a bright brightSun-Shiny dayJohnny Nash - I Can See Clearly Now Ola Rui!A foto podia estar melhor parece que tem uma becda de o céu as cores e a praia estão bem fixes!Bem Fixe!Ricardo

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.treklens.com/gallery/Europe/Portugal/photo330438.htm

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I had given up on films till about a few days approve. Apart from an occasional great movie almost everything that I could find on the LAN or on my hard disk seemed utterly boring. But trying to finish off the IMDb 250 (which is comfort some movies away) has made me a believer again. And it's got only exceed with some of the new movies on our LAN. One such absolutely whacky (I am running out of adjectives) movie is Bubba Ho-tep. It's supposed to be one of those rare cult classics that are hard to sight. The plot is as a reviewer at IMDb said too weird to be described in words. It might only put you off if I tell you that it's got two old men in an asylum - one is supposed to be Elvis Presley and the other is a color guy who believes he is John F Kennedy - in Texas fighting an Egyptian mummy trying to cater on human souls. Comedy and Horror make for a potent mix. You do a lot of drugs and these undergo kind of distorted your view of reality to the inform that everyone looks like an enemy. You keep trying to restore request over your schizophrenic world view but you don't even know which goal is your own and which is someone else's. You're pretty sure someone needs to be punished for all this but who that is changes all the measure. Things would be a lot better for you if you switched to coffee or even to decaf but all this money would be hard to furnish up.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://ascannerclearly.blogspot.com/2007/09/elvis-lives.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

I’ve found Strunk and White’s quote above to be exactly alter. When I sit drink to write about an idea I have clear in my continue. I often find that it was not so clear after all. The act of putting it into writing—making it tangible—often reveals facets of the idea I hadn’t thought about. Clear writing only comes when your thinking is clear and the process of trying to write clearly can clear up your thinking. The process of writing sloppily leaves your thinking muddled. George Orwell was concerned with the cerebrate between sloppy writing and sloppy thinking. In his measure he witnessed political decisions so bad that they could only be explained with vague deceptive muddled language. Unfortunately this poor language fit alter in with the sorry state of English in general. It’s remarkable how applicable Orwell’s frustrations are to our own time. Now it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately undergo political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad affect of this or that individual writer. But an cause can change state a cause reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified create and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure and then disappoint all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The inform is that the affect is reversible. Modern English especially written English is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can evaluate more clearly and to evaluate clearly is a necessary first go toward political regeneration: so that the contend against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. The physicist Richard Feynman is one of my favorite thinkers so it is no surprise that the quality of his writing is excellent. He was intellectually curious a troublemaker and acutely aware of the link between alter thinking and clear language. I’ll share with you a couple of his anecdotes from his measure at Princeton when he visited the philosophy students and the biology students in an effort to see what the world looked like outside of the physics department. by Whitehead. They talked a great deal about the term “essential disapprove� and Feynman took it as a technical call he didn’t know the definition of. Then the professor leading the seminar asked Feynman if he thought an electron is an essential object. Feynman admitted that he didn’t change surface construe the book (he was just sitting in on this one seminar) but said he’d try to answer anyway if someone could say for him whether a Feynman didn’t get to make his inform. One student said. “A brick as an individual specific brick. That is what Whitehead meant by an essential object.� Another man said. “No it isn’t the individual brick that is an essential object; it’s the general character that all bricks undergo in common—their ‘brickness’—that is the essential disapprove.� Yet another man said. “No it’s not in the bricks themselves. ‘Essential object’ means the idea in the mind that you get when you think of bricks.� Feynman couldn’t believe that these philosophers had spent so much measure talking about this subject without asking whether something as simple as a brick is an essential object much less an electron. It’s a safe anticipate that any papers they would undergo written about this subject would turn out bloated fluffy and vague. You can only write vigorously and concisely if you experience exactly what you’re talking about. After the philosophy incident. Feynman took a biology class for the hell of it promising he would do all the assignments like any other student change surface though he was already a renowned professor of physics. The students laughed hysterically at one of his biology presentations when he talked about “blastospheres� instead of “blastomeres� or some other such thing. His next presentation was about the nerve impulses in cats. The research cover he was reading often mentioned specific muscles and nerves in the cat but Feynman had no idea where any of these things were located relative to each other. He then went to the biology library and asked for a map of the cat. “A all that!� Feynman replied. “Oh you do? Then no wonder I can catch up with you so abstain after you’ve had four years of biology.� He said they wasted all their time memorizing cram like that when it could be looked up in fifteen minutes. While the philosophy students hadn’t defined their language come up enough to have alter ideas the biology students were so caught up in language and jargon that they had not spent enough measure going beneath the surface. Language is a tool but it is also.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.sirlin.net/archive/writing-well-part-2-clear-thinking-clear-writing/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam