Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Keith Olbermann on "A textbook definition of cowardice"

Keith Olbermann in Rolling Stone magazine. Oh boy! My man Keith just keeps on getting better and better! Gawd it is so great to see someone in the American media finally having the balls to stand up there and say exactly what he thinks about the Bush administration regime. At last!

*sigh* I love a man who stands up for what he believes in...

In this week's Countdown Special Comment, Keith laid into Fox News for ambushing Bill Clinton during an interview last Sunday - and he pulled no punches when it came to expressing his opinion on Dubya's cowardice, either.

You are probably aware that on Sunday former President Bill Clinton was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. He was expecting to answer questions about the Clinton Global Initiative, but first Wallace (claiming that his viewers had "emailed him the question") asked Clinton why he didn't do more to capture or kill Osama bin Laden while he was in office. Following on from the distortions of the truth by The Path to 9/11, eh Chris? Must be one of the Republicans' memes of the month, I guess.

Thing is, I don't think it's such a great idea to try and put one over on Bill Clinton. Bill got mad, and he got even by telling the truth, and exposing the Republican talking points for what they are - lies and distortions. Way to go, President Clinton!

WJC: I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him. The CIA was run by George Tenet, who President Bush gave the Medal of Freedom to and said he did a good job. The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office.

If you can criticize me for one thing, you can criticize me for this: after the Cole, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack/search for Bin Laden. But we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan, which we got (only) after 9/11.

The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that Bin Laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred Special Forces in helicopters and refuel at night. Even the 9/11 Commission didn't do (think we should have done) that. Now the 9/11 Commission was a political document, too? All I'm asking is if anybody wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book.

CW: Do you think you did enough, sir?

WJC: No, because I didn't get him.

CW: Right...

WJC: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try and they didn't. I tried. So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country: Dick Clarke. So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me...

You can read the full transcript of the interview at Crooks and Liars - Fox Clinton Interview - Part 1 - Osama bin Laden.

So today Keith's Special Comment was all about the interview, the MSM's spinning of Clinton's response (they called it "crazed", amongst other things), the fact that we should all be mad as hell for what the Bush regime has done over the past five years - and that Bush's actions (or, rather, inactions in this case) are a "textbook definition of cowardice".

Check it out:



Here's one of my favourite bits:
Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:

You did not try.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.

You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.

Then, you blamed your predecessor.

That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.

To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.

That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book 1984.

The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...

"Power is not a means; it is an end.

"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power... is power."

You can read the full transcript on Keith's Countdown page - A textbook definition of cowardice.

Oh yeah, it's official - Keith Olbermann - I know I love you!

Interesting links:
Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , .

Read the full post

Monday, September 25, 2006

Why I blog - and a great big thank-you!

Check this out! It's my latest blog post translated into Japanese at The New Clay Aiken Blog. How cool is that? I love writing. It's the main reason why I started this blog in the first place. Well, that and the fact that all my friends were doing it. Heh.

I write on quite a range of subjects - from geekery to gardening, literature to cats, politics to rugby, environmentalism to human behaviour, and from New Zealand to Clay Aiken. Since I started this blog in May my visitor numbers have gradually increased, and my Technorati ranking has got better and better. On an average day I get about fifty visitors, but on a good day - like today - I can get over a thousand. Wow! I started at 2 million and something on Technorati and now my ranking is up to 57,180. I've still got a very long way to go, but I'm feeling pretty good about where I'm at after only four months.

The most hit-worthy subjects I write about are Clay and American politics - with Clay coming out on top by a very big margin.

Read the full post

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Is Clay gay or straight? It's none of your business!

Clay's double-page feature in People magazine - thanx to ClayIzzaQT for the fold fixin'. The release of Clay Aiken's sophomore album, A Thousand Different Ways this week has been accompanied by a resurgence of the endless speculation about his sexual orientation.

It appears that the media, the tabloids and those who enjoy celebrity gossip cannot stop asking the question: "So, Clay, are you gay?". Even though he has answered the question a number of times in the past, it appears that some people will not take "no" for an answer, and continue to insist that he "must" be gay, and that he's either confused or lying about his sexual preference.

And Clay, in his typical stubborn, ballsy way, has decided that he's not going to answer the question yet again - partly because he believes it's rude, intrusive, and none of your business, and partly because he's realised that people will believe what they want to believe - whatever he says.

"Some people, for example, seem to think that because he is slender, has long, fluttering eyelashes, and currently doesn't have a girlfriend, he must be gay. ...This kind of stuff seems to amuse Aiken more than it upsets him.

One thing I've found of people in the public eye," Aiken says, "either you're a womanizer or you've got to be gay. Since I'm neither one of those, people are completely concerned about me. They're like, 'What are you then?'

From Prime Time Live with Diane Sawyer: 10/09/03:
Clay: "I have some very effeminate qualities... I'm not completely blind to it. I have gotten used to people asking the question. They think, ok, he doesn't drink; he doesn't go out and have sex with every woman that he sees. I think it's high time there's somebody who represents people who aren't gay, but doesn't sleep around with everybody, you know. If I'm supposed to carry the banner for all the nerds in the world I'm fine with that, too."

To those people who either insist on asking him again and again (presumably because, thus far, he hasn't given them the answer they want to hear), and to those who are so sure he's gay because he pings their gaydar I would ask: "How the f*ck is this any of your business?"

How would you feel if complete strangers insisted on speculating publicly about your love life, asked you intrusive questions about whether you preferred men or women, and then completely ignored your answer and carried on believing what they believed in the first place, regardless of the answer you'd given?

Listen: I'm a fully paid-up member of the ClayNation (in case you hadn't noticed!) and I don't give two hoots about what Clay does or doesn't do behind closed doors. It's absolutely NONE of my business - just as what I get up to in my bedroom is none of his. Or yours.

Firstly - what gives someone the right to pry into another person's private life? OK, if you're planning to enter into a relationship with them - or even just hoping for a quick f*ck, I can see why it might be a fair question to ask - although in both cases I would think by that point you might have a good idea of whether they preferred men or women... But otherwise? How is it any of your business?

Clay Aiken - People Online pic by Matthew Ralston. Oh. Wait. It's because he's famous, isn't it? Famous people are fair game, right? It comes with the territory, right? They deserve it, right?

Really? Why? No, really, why??

Are you jealous of their success and fame? Do you think you have a better voice than they do/can act better than they can/have more talent than they do? Is that it?

Or is it because you envy the money and recognition that comes with fame, and wish you had a piece of it - and because you don't you find it fun to tear them down instead?

Or is it because you secretly find that you're attracted to them, and you can't acknowledge that, even to yourself, and so you attack them instead?

Or is it simply that you enjoy gossip, and you just can't stop yourself from speculating - regardless of the fact that this is a real person, with real feelings, real hopes and dreams, and real insecurities and hang-ups - just like you - and that they can feel real pain, sorrow and frustration as a result of your actions - just like you would if the tables were turned?

Oh - and in case you're wondering how Clay's religious beliefs fit into all of this - because you know he's a committed Christian - a Southern Baptist to be exact - and you have some half-arsed notion that Clay's gay but can't admit it because you think his church and/or family are homophobic and wouldn't approve, here's what he said on Good Morning America this week:
Despite the trauma that the reports have caused, Aiken said his Baptist faith had gotten stronger.

"Are there tolerant Baptists? Absolutely. Are there intolerant Baptists? Oh yes, I'm sure there are," he said.

But the Jesus that he believes in loves all faiths, races and sexual orientations: "Muslim, Jewish, Christian, gay, straight, black, white, everybody."

What does it say about you as a person if you get your jollies from speculating about someone else's sex life? Especially if that speculation includes refusing to believe that what they say is true? What's missing in your life to make you feel the need to pry into the private life of someone else?

The fact that some betting organisations were offering odds on whether or not Clay was going to come out this week says a lot about the state that people are in right now. Have you got nothing better to think about? Nothing more important to focus on? Puh-lease!

Clay performing on GMA this week. Secondly - why would a person's sexual orientation affect the way I feel about them? I have straight friends and I have gay friends - and their private lives have nothing to do with our friendship. I love them all, regardless of whom they choose to make love with. It's the same with the artists, musicians, actors and performers whom I admire - why would the gender of the people they love have any effect on the fact that I love the way they paint/sing/dance/act? I just don't understand why some people might think that it would make a difference to the way I respond to their art.

One of my friends, when she found out that I'm a fan of Clay's, shrieked "Why??? He's so GAAAAAAYYYYYYY!!!" My response was threefold: "1. How do you know? He's already said he's not - do you think you know him better than he does? 2. What business is it of yours anyway? 3. And finally - why on earth do you think that would that make a difference to the way I feel about him?"

If Clay came out next week and told the world that he's gay, I would shrug my shoulders and say "Oh well, good for him, I'm glad he feels that the time is right for him to come out, and I hope he's found a good man who will love and cherish him forever"... and then I'd go back to enjoying his music and admiring his character and integrity.

And if he announced next week that he's fallen in love with a beautiful woman and they're planning to get married and have dozens of babies, I would say "Oh well, good for him, I'm glad he's found the girl of his dreams who will love and cherish him forever - so when's that CD of lullabies going to be released?"... and then I'd go back to enjoying his music and admiring his character and integrity.

Clay during the soundcheck at GMA - photo by ClayIsAdorkable. It seems as though Clay has finally arrived at the end of his patience with regards to the questions and the speculation. He's drawn his line in the sand, and he's now refusing to dignify the question with any kind of answer at all. I've gotta say: the man has balls.

In an interview on Good Morning America the other day, he told Diane Sawyer:
"I've gotten to a point now where I a) am tired of trying, and b) I feel it's kind of invasive, you know? What I do in my private life is nobody's business anymore..." "It's one thing to try to be open and talk to people and try to share as much as I can and, and of course I want to," he said. "But at some point it becomes just really rude, you know?"

Aiken said he didn't understand the curiosity, Sawyer's included, about his sexual orientation... "I'm not spending my time with this anymore, this is a waste of my time."

During the interview he also stated quite clearly that the recent tabloid stories about him are not true - although he's not going to dignify those by discussing them either. And of course - as he predicted - the media and the gossip-mongers are continuing to read their own agenda into his refusal any longer to answer the question. "Oh well" they say, "he didn't say he wasn't this time, did he? So that must mean he's gay, but he won't come out and say it!" Which is exactly what he's tired of fighting.

As he told MTV this week:
"Most celebrities, after a while, get used to the fact that no matter what you say, people are gonna believe one thing or believe another one, so it kinda becomes a waste of your time to even attempt to deal with it anymore," he said, shrugging his shoulders.
And as he said to People magazine:
"I learned this year that you can't make people like you or care about you or love you."


Clay - official fanclub photo. Yum! It's OK, Clay, you didn't need to "make" me like you or care about you or love you - you did it just by being yourself.

My dear friend Pink Armchair at the CH and The ConCLAYve wrote this great skit which, for me, really says it all - with humour. I think it demonstrates one of the reasons why Clay's decided that answering "that" question, over and over again, is simply a waste of his time. Enjoy.

2006:
Kimmel: So, Clay... whatcha been up to?
Clay: Well, Jimmy, Ah'm here to promote mah new CD, A Thousand Different Ways, and announce that, AGAIN, Ah'm not gay.

2007:
Kimmel: So, Clay... you don't have any new album to promote, so what's going on?
Clay: Jest here ta announce that Ah'm STILL not gay.

2008:
Kimmel: So, Clay... how're things?
Clay: Well, as ya know, Ah got married this year, to a woman. So Ah guess it's oh-fishul: Ah'm NOT gay.

2010:
Kimmel: So, Clay... I hear you have a new baby.
Clay: Yep, shore do. So Ah guess it's obvious: AH'M.NOT.GAY.

2020:
Kimmel: So, Clay... How many kids do you have now?
Clay: Five. Oh, and Ah s'pose Ah should make mah annual announcement: Ah'm STILL.NOT.GAY.

2050:
Kimmel: So, Clay... I hear you had a hip and two knee replacements.
Clay: Huh? Better crank up mah hearin' aid. What was that? Oh, that's right. And Ah'm STILL.NOT.GAY.

2060:
Kimmel: So, Clay... is there anything you have to tell me?
Clay: Yeah... but Ah'll be danged if Ah kin remember what it is.


Interesting links:

On Clay and his private life:
On Clay and A Thousand Different Ways:
Other blogs about Clay, his private life and his new CD:
Oh - and the photos on this page? As always, if you click on a pic, you'll find a larger version hiding just beneath the surface. Just sayin'.

UPDATE 18/02/07: I see I'm getting a whole lot of new visitors to this post who've searched Google to find out What Clay confessed to Kimmel. The answer is that he confessed to having his teeth done this week.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Read the full post

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

A Thousand Different Ways to be patient

Clay Aiken - A Thousand Different Ways. *sigh*

I adore living in New Zealand, I reckon it's the best country in the world, but just occasionally there's a downside to living here.

Clay's new CD, A Thousand Different Ways, was released at midnight in the US (which was around 6pm here), and everyone I know there was either at a Clay Aiken CD release party (there were parties at record stores right across the country), or sitting with their fingers poised on the "buy album" button at iTunes, waiting for the clock to strike twelve. Unfortunately New Zealand doesn't have an iTunes store yet, so although I can see Clay's ATDW page, I can't actually buy the CD.

Mustbepatient.

Which is a total bummer, because the iTunes version of the CD includes a bonus track, not available anywhere else. It's called Lover All Alone, and by all accounts it's to die for. Rumour has it that the song was co-written by Clay, and everyone who's heard it seems to be completely amazed that it isn't on the regular version of the CD - it's so heartbreakingly good. Waaaaaaa! I wanna hear it! If you're lucky enough to have an iTunes store in your country, go to Clay's ATDW iTunes page to get a copy and see/hear it for yourself.

Mustbepatient. Mustbepatient.


Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Read the full post

Monday, September 18, 2006

Problem-solving in the shower

I've been working like a crazy person this week, which is why I haven't had a chance to update my blog for a few days. I reckon my job as a web developer is the best job in the world, and it suits me perfectly. It's a great mixture of creativity and cold hard logic, which I don't think you find in many careers.

Each website I build is a one-off, and each comes with its own challenges in terms of the build. A couple of years ago I started building sites in pure CSS instead of using tables for layout, and that's meant a whole new set of techniques (and bug fixes) to figure out.

The site I've been working on for the past couple of months is pretty darned complicated, and it's really stretched my brain at times. Lots of layout trickiness, which, as usual, has thrown up a whole bunch of bugs that have to be fixed and sometimes even hacked. Yeah Internet Explorer, I'm looking at you...

Dijksterhuis [the researcher] points out that consciousness is good at following precise rules - arithmetic, solving anagrams, etc - but has only limited capacity for handling more complex problems. He proposes the "deliberation without attention" hypothesis, whereby complex problems are best solved by the parallel-computing capabilities of the unconscious mind.
...which I suppose is exactly what I'm doing when I have a cigarette break and watch the world go by, when I take a moment to make a fresh cup of coffee and peruse the paper while I'm at it, or when I simply stare into space and let my mind wander for a minute or two.

Here's an example - I was sitting on the bus this evening, gazing out of the window, thinking about nothing in particular, and it suddenly occurred to me that the layout problem I've got with Opera might just be solved if I try a width: 100% on an outer div, rather than the one I can't use 'cos it breaks in Firefox... We'll see tomorrow...

And as for problem-solving in the shower - well, that's just about the perfect place to sort out the toughest of layout problems - as long as you're not actually thinking about them, that is!

Think about it - you're still half asleep, you're concentrating on getting your bits clean rather than that fiendish float you've got waiting for you at work, it's a new day, the sun's shining through the window, and even though in some ways you'd (I'd) much rather just go back to bed, there's a new challenge waiting... (which, remember, you're not thinking about).

Get all those factors together, add the cats waiting for their breakfast and the stress of having got up late and ohbuggernowI'mgoingtobelateforworkagain and that's the moment when inspiration is bound to strike. It always does.

And if it doesn't strike today, there's always tomorrow...

Technorati tags: , , , , , , .

Read the full post

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Keith Olbermann talks impeachment

Wow. I *heart* Keith Olbermann. And boy, is he on a roll at the moment!

A couple of weeks ago he used the words of another great broadcaster, Edward Murrow, to comment on Donald Rumsfeld's pathetic attempts to paint the majority of American as "unpatriotic". It was an amazing piece, full of sober passion and serious poetry.

Today I think he outdid himself, with a blistering piece on Bush's woeful response to 9/11, that there is still a gaping hole in the ground where the World Trade Center once stood, a gaping hole in the fabric of the nation, and, worse, that this represents "the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath reduced to lazy execution."

It's an absolutely brilliantly argued, beautifully presented cry of anguish for everything that America (and the world) has lost, and for all that Bush has squandered in the past five years.

And he uses the "I" word. (That's "I" for "impeachment", folks.)

Take a look...



History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken... a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do with 9/11', is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase, is "impeachable offense."

When those who dissent are told time and time again - as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus - that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...

When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"… look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
You have.
May this country forgive you.

Wow.

And here's his piece on Rumsfeld, in case you missed it:



You can read the full transcript at Crooks and Liars here: Keith Olbermann Delivers One Hell Of a Commentary on Rumsfeld

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence - indeed, the loyalty - of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land; worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants - our employees - with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism." As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that - though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Keith Olbermann, I think I love you.

Interesting links:

Bloggermann
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
Keith Olbermann Delivers One Hell Of a Commentary on Rumsfeld
Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on Bush
The Olbermann factor
The Worst Person in the World: And 202 Strong Contenders

Technorati tags: , , , , , , .

Read the full post

Monday, September 11, 2006

Response from TVNZ to my Path to 9/11 complaint

Graphic by bushwatch.comI heard back from TVNZ today about the (extremely detailed) complaint I made on Friday. My complaint was about what I feel was misleading promotion for The Path to 9/11. You can read it here - The controversy of The Path to 9/11.

Basically I asked them to change their promos so that they no longer claim the mini-series is "the shocking true story" when even ABC has admitted it isn't; to put a disclaimer before and after each of the two parts; and to reconsider even showing it at all.

Anyway, I was most excited to see a reply from TVNZ in my in-box this morning. Until I opened and read it, that is...

To: webweaver
From: ViewerCorrespondence@tvnz.co.nz
Subject: RE: Complaint - A Programme - The Path to 9/11

Hi webweaver,

We did add a disclaimer.

Thanks for your email.

Kind regards

Lesley Rowe
Viewer Correspondent
Public Affairs

That's it??? After all my research and hours spent carefully crafting my complaint, all you've got is "ner ner ner-ner ner - we did add a disclaimer! So there!"

Well crappity crap. So I sent this reply back to them:

To: ViewerCorrespondence@tvnz.co.nz
From: webweaver
Subject: RE:RE: Complaint - A Programme - The Path to 9/11

Hi Lesley,

Yes you did - I noticed. Thank you. So could I ask why you
continued to promote it as "the shocking truth", when it
quite clearly isn't.

Not good enough, I'm afraid. I'll be making a formal
complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - both
about the promotion and the mini-series itself. I don't
think I'll be the only one, either.

:)webweaver

Right back atcha Lesley!

I wonder if the extreme - uh - brevity of her reply was because she had another eleventy hundred Path to 9/11 complaints to deal with this morning? Hope so.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , .

Read the full post

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Live blogging of New Zealand screening of The Path to 9/11

Well, the TV One screening of Path to 9/11 has screened, and I've attempted to do a live blog - particularly so that those of you in the US can get a handle on what you (may or may not) see tomorrow; so you have time to figure out the details of what's correct and what's been falsified or made up; and so that we can compare the NZ version with the US version, to see if anything's been changed by ABC/Disney by the time you guys get to see it.

Apologies in advance for any typos (and appalling mis-spellings of names of famous Americans!) - I've now tidied it all up so it makes more sense.

Screening on TV One begins with a BIG disclaimer:

Due to subject matter, viewer discretion is advised.

The following movie is a dramatization that is drawn from a variety of sources including the 9/11 Commission Report and other published materials, and from personal interviews. The movie is not a documentary.

For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, as well as time compression.

Read the full post