Jul - Au top [Lyrics/Paroles]

3589 vues - 1 0  

Jul - Au top

the environmental disaster in the gulf, people would be hungry for this sort of thing. Maybe they are and just don't know about it. I'd like to change that--for my uncle's sake. I'm reaching out to various mechanical engineers and physicists here in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, but thought I'd ping the list to see if anybody had any relevant contacts that they wouldn't mind sharing offlist. In addition, if you feel like writing a story on a potentially groundbreaking technological development--one that could realistically go a long way toward solving our nation's energy crisis--then I'd be happy to speak to you as well. Lord knows that the publicity wouldn't hurt. Again, I know that this comes out of left field and probably sounds far-fetched, but I assure you that I am very, very serious. -Brad

On 14 June, 22:47, David Weigel wrote:

Ezra wanted one from the NYT but I think I've got a better gripe. I described the popular video of Rep. Bob Etheridge acting like an ass to a student who won't ID himself this way: Last week Rep. Bob Etheridge who's seen as a safe bet for re-election this year despite representing a somewhat conservative district, ran into two self-described students with video cameras outside of a fundraiser.

"Do you fully support the Obama agenda?" asked one of the students.

"Who are you?" asked Etheridge, grabbing one of the cameras and pointing it down -- a move more typically seen from Hollywood bodyguards than congressmen. The second camera rolled as Etheridge, irritated, he [illegible] the wrist of the first cameraman, then pulled the student to his

side and grabbed him in a hug.*

Here is how Matt Drudge linked me:


Please show me where I implied that Etheridge was not assaulting the kid, and where I implied that this was an affectionate hug and not a grappling bear hug. After you have done so, please tell me what to do with the 600 emails and several phone calls calling me a "lying faggot" and threatening to kick my ass.

This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire.

David Weigel


The Washington Post

On Jun 15, 11:19-Aoam, Rick Perlstein wrote:

For your delectation, Matt Drudge's yearbook photo:

Below it he printed this: "I Matt Drudge, being of sound mind and body, do hereby leave the following: To my only true friend Ms. thing, Vicky B, I leave a night in Paris, a bottle of Chaps colongne and hope you find a school with original people--And to everyone else who has helped and hindred [sic] me whether it be Staff or students, I leave a penny for each day I've been here and cried here. A penny rich in worthless memories. For worthless memories is what I have endured. It reminds me of a song, "The Funeral Hyme” Not making this up. 

On Jun 15, 9:16-Aoam, David Weigel wrote:

Follow-up to one hell of a day: Apparently, the Washington Examiner thoght it would be fun to write up an item about my dancing at the wedding of Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman. Said item included the name and job of my girlfriend, who was not even there -- nor in DC at all. I'd politely encourage everyone to think twice about rewarding the Examiner with any traffic or links for a while. I know the temptation is high to follow up hot hot Byron York scoops, but please resist it.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Dean Baker wrote:

great plan. Maybe he would threaten a libel suit. Drudge would claim huge damages based on the fact that David was implying that he is an honest journalist. 

On Jun 15, 5:15 am, Daniel Davies wrote:

just write a story saying that he's admitted he's wrong and apologised, then let him come after *you* looking for a correction.

On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Michael Kazin wrote:

the difference is that most of the games end up as ties; in the Senate, someone is usually winning and someone else thinks they're losing.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM, wrote:

You simply MUST get this out to the wider world. I'd love to post this somewhere.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Ryan Donmoyer wrote:

"The World Cup is a lot like the Senate. All they do is kick the ball around but nothing ever happens and no one who watches knows what the hell is going on."

Subject: [JournoList] Haiti fundraiser press release From: Rick Perlstein To: Journolist :

Linda and my beloved little brother Ben (aka the Cool Perlstein) is manager for the bassist Tommy Stinson, of Guns 'n Roses and formerly the Replacements. Here's an announcement for a fundraiser he's doing--Ben's inviting reporters to come along with them for the graduation ata school Stimson supports, but even just an announcement (and I'll post a reminder just before the time of the auction) blogs or, say,the Nation's news briefs page would be fantastic. Also, it's a nice little update on still-horrific conditions on the ground.

The world's attention has turned elsewhere as Haiti struggles to recover from the historic January earthquake. No country has suffered such a massive disaster in a century; 3% of the 9 million population died, a like number suffered injury and illness and 20% are now homeless. The situation in Port au Prince is still threatened by the chaotic situation existing there. Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere has little infrastructure, making every task more difficult.

TOMMY STINSON is committed to aiding the fundraising and awareness building efforts in Haiti by working with the Timkatec Centers, three schools located in Petion--Ville, a suburb of Port Au Prince.

Tommy, currently in Guns Roses and Soul Asylum and formerly of The Replacements, Bash Pop and Perfect, will hold an online fund-raiser by selling personal and donated items on his website,in late July. Items will include a signed GNR bass guitar, two retired custom--made plaid suits from his GNR tours, a week—long vacation in the Bahamas, and more. Everyone who makes a donation of any amount to Timkatec as part of the fund-raiser will receive a free download of "Deserve You," the first single off of Tommy's upcoming solo release, which is currently in production (release date TBA).

The three Timkatec schools support 500 children and desperately need financial support. Timkatec residential Primary school founded in1994, brings some relief and normalcy to kids in the post earthquake chaos by providing food, shelter, education and structure to homeless and abandoned children, some just 5 years old. Timkatec 2, built in 2005, is a trade school for destitute teenage boys, training as plumbers, electricians, tailors, shoe makers and construction workers; Timkatec 3, founded in 2009, trains teenagegirls as cooks, hairdressers, seamstresses and child care workers. The results are improvements in health, literacy and self--esteem and above all, the ability to support one's self. Currently, funding for Timkatec comes from "The Friends of Timkatec in America", founded by the O'Shea family and friends in 2004 to build Timkatec 2 and fund its operations. More information:

Consider these facts:

150 students and employees are unaccounted for and have been replaced from the thousands of newly homeless.

Medical treatment for the girls is a significant new unplanned expense.

A is on staff to advise the kids suffering from post-traumatic stress as frequent after--shocks still occur.

Many Timkatec students still sleep outside. The need to assist staff with minimum housing and clothing so they could return to work is an unplanned expense.

The water and fuel situation is critical and expensive. Food is 15-25%higher in costs.

Tommy is planning on attending the graduation ceremonies at Timkatec 2in Petion--Ville to hand out diplomas on Saturday, July 31, 2010.

Would your publication be interested in sending a writer along with Tommy to Haiti cover this story? The travel would commence on Thursday, July 29th, returning Sunday, August 1st. American Airlines flies directly into the Port au Prince Airport. All ground transportation and accommodations would be arranged, I look forward to speaking with you about the possibility of havin gone of your fine writers accompany Tommy on this extraordinary endeavor.

From: Marc To: "journolist@googlegroups.com" Subject: Re: [JournoList] Fwd: EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY: Remarks of President Barack Obama's Address to the Nation on the BP Oil

Yes they are. Those are more obstacles. Not saying it's going to work. But that's what they're thinking

On Jun 16, 2010, at 12:07 AM, Ben Adler wrote:

Marc, i thought they were way short of 60. like mark warner, jim webb, ben nelson et al. no?

on Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Marc wrote:

The WH does have a strategy here. Let the Senate pass a bill without carbon pricing. Wait till the lame duck. Then throw the full weight of the office into getting cap and trade into the final version. Scott Brown might be the 60th vote, although Sherrod Brown and Mccaskill and Rockefeller are obstacles. In other words, it's all about the confernce. Wil it work? No idea.

On Jun 15, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Matthew Yglesias wrote:

That seems like best--case scenario for the White House -- would give them a big fight to engage progressives with, and on terrain their comfortable with rather than this boring climate change stuff that they don't want to talk about.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Mark A.R. Kleiman wrote:

That was my first reaction, but on second reading all the specifics he offers involve things not in the legislation that he might be willing to consider as the ideas of others. But yes, it would have been nice for him to say "What happened in the Gulf is the price of cheap energy. We can't afford to keep paying it." Different question: What happens if BP tells him to go play in traffic on the restitution fund? The speech suggests that he's in a position to give orders, but I don't see how.

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Ben Adler wrote:

Am I wrong to be totally underwhelmed by this? sounds like a weak cop out to me. no specific call for a carbon cap or tax?

From: Jeffrey Toobin To: journolist@googlegroups.com:

I covered Kobe's rape case and went into it with pro-prosecution assumptions. The details have faded from my memory, but I remember thinking that the government made the right choice in dropping the charges. Obviously, Kobe benefitted from excellent lawyers and unlimited resources, but I also concluded that it was a very weak case. Which is not the same thing as saying he was innocent, either.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Tom Philpott wrote:

I, too, have been creeped out by Kobe since the rape accusation. It seemed to me there would be very huge downside for a working class young woman to accuse a megastar with a bottomless legal budget of rape. It would be obvious that she, as much as him, would go on trial. Of course we have no idea what happened, but it would seem that no sane person would press a false accusation under such circumstances.

On a much more trivial note, thanks to Matt Yglesias for this wise note on the (absurd) Bryant/MJ comparisons now going on: Matt's analysis is backed up by that of the economist/basketball theorist Dave Berri. That chart compares Pierce and Bryant in their primes (8 years ending in the '08 season) with MJ in the last eight seasons of his career--including those weird ones in D.C. Even with that skew, MJ emerges as Clearly superior to the others, and Pierce and Kobe as roughly equal.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Alex Rossmiller wrote:

Not to get too far afield, but since Russ mentions that report, it's worth noting that there is a serious and inexplicable gap in many states' regarding strangulation, which is often classified as a minor misdemeanor (or even less) while most other conceivable acts of potentially deadly violence are felonies.

This is changing, but only relatively recently, and it's an incredibly important thing -- not surprisingly, studies show that choking is a clear precursor to many domestic violence incidents that turn fatal. This year alone, Delaware and New Hampshire have made strangulation a felony, and New York (following the horrific Paterson aide stories) introduced a similar bill. In recent years, Illinois, Wyoming, and Nevada have taken analogous steps.

In New York, choking without "evidence of physical injury" isn't even assault, but rather second degree harassment, which is a violation. You get a ticket (or just a warning), like for disorderly conduct. I think I read at some point that only around half of states have specific laws regarding choking, and a quick google search doesn't turn up much about how strong they are a state might have a law about strangulation, but making it a misdemeanor without apparent injury, etc.).

The idea of choking a physically weaker person gives me the willies in a way even beyond most kinds of violence would be attractive to abuser it often leaves no permanent marks, but it exemplifies dominance and control in a uniquely personal and terrifying way; it can produce unconsciousness in around 10 seconds and represents the possibility of not just pain or humiliation, but surprisingly quick and easy (10-15 pounds of pressure for a couple minutes) death.

Between ten and fifteen percent of violent deaths every year in the are from strangulation. But if the victim doesn't die, in too many places it's barely prosecuted (because it's barely illegal), and in the states it is a real crime, that's generally a very recent development.

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Russ Wellen wrote:

Isaac wrote:

although I actually think Kobe, too, gotten a freer ride than he deserves She claimed that she tried to pull away at that point, ryan has Yeah over what might have transpired at the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera in 2003.

The rape charge didn't stick, but ever since, or wrongly, I've never been able to get what's highlighted in what follows out of my mind whenever I see him play. and said put both of his hands around her neck to choke her. She said he pulled her over to the chair by her neck. with one hand on her neck holding her down. hands from [her] neck. She said she told Bryant "no" [and] tried to release his.

She may have had an overactive imagination. But who makes up a story about a man leading you around with his huge hand around your neck? Truly frightening. Okay, yes, as a player, he's certainly within spitting distance of Jordan. Russ Wellen.

I covered rape case and went into it with pro-prosecution assumptions. The details have faded from my memory, but I remember thinking that the government made the right choice in dropping the charges. Obviously, Kobe benefitted from excellent lawyers and unlimited resources, but I also concluded that it was a very weak case. Which is not the same thing as saying he was innocent, either.

From: Amanda Marcotte Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:34:34 Subject: Re: [JournoList] Re: FW: The Right-Wing War Against Soccer

FWIW, the NASCAR fans who whined about Toyota getting in annoy me less than those who find excuses to insinuate that only Americans see how stupid soccer is. The sport did start as stock car racing, and I can see how bringing foreign cars sort of betrays that history. But they got eaten by a global economy.

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Daniel Davies wrote:

I'm not sure that "every major producer" isn't a bit of a chiz though;the US-built requirement effectively insulates NASCAR from having to compete against nearly all of the world's really strong motorsport manufacturers. Ferrari, no McLaren, etc, and no way for the Motorsport cluster" (the specialist factories in and around Northampton and Worcester who build most of the power trains forracing cars everywhere else in the world) to get involved.

Another "World Series" I guess. This must be a producer lobby at work though- I'm sure NASCAR fans would love to see a team of Ferraris line up.

On Jun 17, 8:35pm, Alex Rossmiller wrote:

I don't see what's not fair about simply observing that it's wrong to say the sport driving an American car" when Toyota has been and supplying teams for four years. For a variety of reasons I don't think the domestically-built rule is especially jingoistic, but even if others don't agree, that has nothing to do with the fact of Toyota's presence; nor did Toyota get in on a"technicality" -- any manufacturer that makes cars in the U.S. (which these days is basically every major producer) could field a team, if they wanted to put in the years of work and preparation and the millions of dollars required. the controversy over Toyota's entry is similarly irreleant to the (absence of a) rule prohibiting foreign automakers . . .that's like saying it's unfair to mention that it's not true that the U.S. has never elected a black president because Obama's electoral victory was contentious. More broadly,it's worth noting that NASCAR is mostly boring if one doesn't know anything about the sport, but very engaging when viewed with an understanding of what's going on. Unlike, say, soccer.

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Amanda Marcotte wrote:

That's not quite got in on a technicality, because they manufacture in California. rules still stipulate that the cars have to be built in the U.S. When Toyota joined NASCAR, it was a major controversy in the racing world.

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Alex Rossmiller wrote:

That hasn't been true for years.

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Rick Perlstein wrote:

Another thing to remember about NASCAR is that it REQUIRES driving an American car. The sport has its own built-in jingoism.

On Jun 17, 11:37 am, Ben Williams wrote:

Isn't the "problem" also that its probably impossible to get a class league going in America? There are already 4 extremely popular and lucrative European leagues (England, Spain, Italy, Germany) that siphon most of the world's top talent and pay said talent very well. There are less lucrative but also very popular South American leagues. All these leagues can be followed by the recent immigrants who would be one part of US soccer's fanbase. There are better options in other pro sports for both American kids and athletes. So it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing: The current American league isn't close to being able to pay enough top talent to come over and create a truly competitive offering in the global can only afford the occasional oddity like Beckham--and the top talents to play against each other, anyway. Its unlikely that the US will be able to grow a great and popular league from scratch, which might lead to being able to attract and pay more of the world's And without a great league,soccer in the US can't attract fans beyond the passionate minority because its not that fun to watch, doesn't have the star factor, etc.

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Katha Pollitt wrote:


On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jeffrey Toobin wrote:

Katha's point has been pretty clearly refuted. Soccer has been very big with American kids for two decades. They don't become fans. The best athletes tend to migrate to basketball and football, where there are bigger crowds and more chances for scholarships -- although that's changing somewhat

On Jun 17, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Adam Blickstein wrote:

I think part of the problem in the past with entrenching the American sports landscape has as much to do within frastructure as anything else. There are now 12 soccer stadiums built within the past 10 years in the MLS (with several planned),whereas with the NASL I don't think there were constructed stadiums. Now, both the league and local have a vested financial interest in the success of soccer to mention a greater investment in soccer by ESPN over the two. Will it ever be as popular and successful as the big 4 probably not except for hockey, but that doesn't mean its now the sports landscape, which is a rather new reality.

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:35 AM, david dayen wrote:

Isn't that what the Major Indoor Soccer League did? Philadelphia Fever!(by the way that didn't work)

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Matthew Yglesias wrote:

Yeah, I bet if you played soccer 6 on 6 on a dramatically smaller pitch it would be perceived as more action-packed. Actual soccer fans

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Michael Cohen wrote:

Ugh, hockey does not have tons of fighting, especially during the playoffs, which is definitely the best time to watch the sport. Granted it's an aggressive sport but the fighting meme really doesn't ring true as much anymore. FWIW, one big difference between soccer and hockey is that while both tend to be somewhat low--scoring there is tons more action in hockey; more shots on goal etc.

On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Ezra Klein wrote:

Also, hockey has tons of fighting.

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Amanda Marcotte wrote:

I don't buy the scoring argument. Giving a touchdown 6 points doesn't mean there were six separate scoring events. Think Americans can be arrogant, but they aren't stupid; they aren't going to be fooled into thinking football has more scoring events than it does. soccer was scored like football, the Argentina/Korea game this morning between omestic noticing Seri=esllsameeasonpoint=outway=r:ared:exceptiona=listmoney=anddiffi=cult it's been to would have been a 28-7 game. Or 24-6, shouldn't count as more than a touchdown without the extra point.

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Sam Stein wrote:

I think Chad Ochocinco offered the most lucid commentary on Artest's post-game interview. Is Ron Artest promoting his album in the interview? And y'all got the nerve to call me crazy, #wow

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Rick Perlstein wrote:

Dude! ESPN used to have Aussie Rules football on all the time when I was a little kid! I loved it! I miss it!

On Jun 18, 1:02am, Michael Cohen wrote:

No, no, really, that game seven in the was very exciting the second half, and I truly enjoyed watching many many Los Angeles Lakers shoot their "free throws" from the "free throw line" while the Boston Celtics watched them and became impatient. also the many stoppages and strategic timeouts and many commercials! is good to know that your basketball game has a mechanism for making everyone sit down and think about buying cars when things are going too fast or the ball changes possession too quickly. OK, I know I can't convince anyone on this list that bball is what happen swhen ice hockey slows down and becomes unbearably boring. I don't want to get into the whole entire soccer debate, either. can we all finally agree that the only sport worth watching is Australian Rules

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Tom Philpott wrote:

Ok, that sucked. I hate the lakers. But the game's baddest bad boy just out classed Kobe on the court and them thanked his shrink on national TV.That was good stuff.

On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:49 PM, Sam Stein wrote:

nevermind, he's in

on Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Sam Stein wrote:

why isn't Doc putting in nate robinson here for some 3s/steals?

on Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Tom Philpott wrote:

And the lakers play so under their talent.

On Jun 17, Jun 17, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Benjy Sarlin wrote:

Celts are still most overachieving playoff team since Knicks.

Tom Philpott wrote:

Even if the lakers Kobe>MJ nonsense is off like an errant Kobe jumper.

David dayen wrote:

replaced these two teams with the Knicks and Rockets 1994?

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Tom Philpott wrote:

Sweet! I've talken to yelling brick as kobe sets up to Working quite well.

On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Benjy Sarlin wrote:

Btw, Michael Jordans son is apparently talking smack about Kobe--MJ comparisons on Twitter tonight: RT NO ONE should EVER compar kobe Bryant to my dad say that he is anywhere near close to my dad He's jagging this

On 6/17/10, Sam Stein wrote:

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Tom Philpott wrote:

Ray is cursed tonight. book. Never OPEN

On Jun 17, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Benjy Sarlin wrote:

Where's Wallace at?

On 6/17/10, Matt Yglesias wrote:

Any game where Kobe plays this badly is a great game in my

On Jun 17, 2010, at 10:22 PM, Tom Philpott wrote:

What a weird and terrible game so far

On Jun 17, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Matt Yglesias wrote:

And all the Lakers offensive boards. The KG of yore would let that happen.

On Jun 17, 2010, at 9:54 PM, Jesse Singal wrote:

Biggest story so far is Allen missing three (four?) WIDE threes. Bad omen.

On Jun 17, 2010 9:33 PM, "david dayen" wrote:

kobe looks terrible. 1-7.

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Mark A.R. Kleiman wrote:

Geoghegan's new book, coming out this summer, "Were You Born on the Wrong Continent? How the European Model Can Help You Get A Life," is basically about how this argument is inconceivable in a place like Germany, where top-notch education, including college education, is free, as are most of the amenities people are bickering over in this thread.

And that, because of such social provisions, in terms of these arguments, just about all middle class folk in social democratic European countries are "rich"--and that, because of affluent American's fear of falling that Harold so poignantly refers to above, and the barely concealed resentments it encodes, few Americans feel much rich at all. Which is precisely why the American model fails. The generation project of fixing this must be the very ideological grounding for American liberalism, if you ask me. 

On Jun 22, 5:40 pm, Ben Adler wrote:

michael, im very much in agreement with you and have actually been wanting to do a story on this phenomenon. needless to say, as someone with more smarts than dollars i think this is a bad development. also, id like to disabuse of this idea that living in, say, ny is a luxury and so the cost of living merely reflects a choice to buy a luxury good. is there an element of that for many folks? yes, but if you work in an industry that is concentrated here you have to live at least in this very expensive region if not the city itself. and if your a city employee, like my mother, you are required by law to live in the city.

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Michael O'Hare wrote:

(earlier schmoose about being rich in NY) It's struck me that New York has seen a big change in the last few decades that's little remarked on. When I was a kid, it was possible to have a good life living in Manhattan if you were rich or if you were smart. My parents were in the latter category: they bought a brownstone on east 30th St. for very little in 1946, renovated it into two apartments on the garden and parlor floors and two floors for us, plus a workshop studio as a questionably legal fifth floor that Dad built carrying bricks and materials up the stairs by hand.

At one point a building inspector came around for a bribe, and Dad did the most amazing idiot act "another fee? Sure, whom do I make the check out to?" and they gave up and left him alone. They also had a summer house in New Jersey, originally with no electricity or running water, bought for practically nothing in the middle of what was then very rural Morris County, which we similarly upgraded ourselves. My mother was a sculptor with a very spotty income teaching and occasionally selling a piece; Dad never had a big or steady income but they sent me to private grade school and Harvard, and we had pretty much what we needed. That didn't include travel or going out to dinner or theatre much (but New York had a lot of free music, and nice clay tennis courts you could play on an hour a day for $5 per season).

We never had a new car, but we had tools and knowhow that we could turn into transportation. As with the houses. So we had something a lot like a rich people's lifestyle on a very small income. And at summer camp I met really rich kids from Dalton and Brearley, so I even got to go to coming-out parties in high school. I don't think the second option (smart) works any more, at least not in Manhattan, at least not within the law. This is too bad, and not good for the city. Other views?

From: journolist@googlegroups.com [mailtoz journolist@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hilary Bok (hilzoy) which what but ~kiS~k that I rich, about, older bust, to the Meh. *Of course* I'm rich. Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:18 PM To: Journolist Subject: [JournoList] Re: rich people

I probably fall somewhere on the low end of the zone in you're well above the median income for the US, but are not some people think of as "rich". I can pretty much do what I want, that's largely because I have no dependents and pretty modest tastes/want, but that's because a Prius the car I want. I wouldn't be able to if there were any chance might want a Testarossa.)

I was pretty clearly brought up thanks to the fortune my great-grandfather made and my great-uncle lost, of which there are still a few dribs and drabs lying but the parts that are mine are relatively small, and utterly inconsequential pocket change compared to what some of my relatives, who were around before the family business went think of as normal.

That said: I take it for granted that any temptation think otherwise is just silly, trying to raise kids on the median income. and an insult to people who are And it seems to me that least

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:21:22 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [JournoList] Re: The Pope was fired From: Matthew Yglesias To: journolist@googlegroups.com:

The origins of the Pope nickname, as explained by Marc, are really pretty horrifying. Does it strike anyone else as problematic that the affectionate nickname for the JSOC commander is a joke about how awesome it is to refuse to obey the law?

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Marc wrote:

The Pope is a nickname that SOF and their admirers bestow on the commander JSOC because Janet Reno once complained that trying to get information out of JSOC units was impossible. They were the Vatican, she grumbled. Fuck yeah was the response to that grumble. Hence the name. People who served under when he was CJSOC still call him the Pope.

The current Pope by rights is Admiral Wm McRaven, a former DevGru (SEAL Team Six) commander. But he's just a weeny Navy guy. So tease the rmy guys. One of the reasons the name stuck was because JSOC was unleashed by the Bush admin. knows where the bodies are buried. I do not mean t= his metaphorically. He literally knows. He knows because he buried them. 

On Jun 23, 2010, at 3:28 PM, yeselson wrote:

can't get fired. 

On Jun 23, 3:12 pm, Spencer Ackerman wrote:

The Pope is nickname. That's the reason for Marc's subject header.

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:10 PM, wrote:

That would give me the vapors too. As if!

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Michael Tomasky wrote:

I think his accountant told him his net worth was only $1.9 million.

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM, wrote:

So what happened the other day to cause Petraeus to faint? Are we worried about his health?

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Michael Tomasky wrote:

Petraeus is the one who was being groomed in certain quarters for '12. That's probably out now. So it's a pretty sharp play on that level, too. Very strong move all the way around.

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM, yeselson wrote:

Exactly. The Cardinal was fired, and the Pope was hired. substantively re: the war, things are still a mess, but the only guy who could be a plausible replacement for SM got the gig. absolutely brilliant. Having your civilian control. not in anger, but regret--and eating it too by hiring an even bigger superstar/coin general to step in and clean things up.

On Jun 23, 1:29 pm, wrote:

No, he was hired.

Original Message From: journolist@googlegroups.com To: journolist@goog1egroups.com sent: Wed Jun 23 13:27:52 2010 Subject: [JournoList] The Pope was fired

I would too I almost never write in here, but I read it all the time (and I've never leaked anything).

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:08 PM, David Greenberg wrote:

I don't know if this is all true, but from Al Gore's perspective, it sure is inconvenient.

On Jun 24, 5:41 pm, Katha Pollitt wrote:

To you, to me, it doesn't damage her credibility. But to lots of people it will. They will think she was not really at risk and is making up/exaggerating to extract money. That what is often said about women who accuse famous men of assault.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Lindsay Beyerstein wrote:

Why does asking for a settlement damage her credibility? I don't know if this woman is credible or not, I'm just saying that the fact that she wanted compensation doesn't sway me one way or the other.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that she was assaulted. We all know how horrible it is for a victim to pursue a sexual assault case through the criminal justice system. Like any victim, she could expect to be grilled about her sexual history in court. The defense would insinuate that "masseuse" is a euphemism for prostitute, an allegation that could wreck the woman's career.

After all that, the defendant would probably still walk. He is, after all, a rich white man in a rape culture. The victim has virtually no leverage in the criminal justice system. Whereas, she has a ton of leverage with the rich married man who assaulted her. He will probably pay her to keep his name out of the press.

One of the conditions of this payout might be that she drop the criminal charges. Why not make the bastard pay through the nose for what he did? At least you'll get some redress, unlike most victims of sexual violence.

On Jun 24, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Katha Pollitt wrote:

There was possible corroboration the police didn't follow up on. For ex, she says she told friends right away, and she did save her clothes. Also, she says her leg was injured during the whole thing and she was under a dr's care for months.

I totally understand why she refused to press charges, but I don't really understand why she went back to the police in 2009. Civil suit? But the suggestion that she is looking for a settlement damages her credibility too. The national enquirer is suggesting that this is why tipper left gore. Also, that gore has had lots of affairs and this is widely known in his circle.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Ezra Klein wrote:

It's either so detailed that it can't possibly be a hoax, or so detailed because it is a hoax.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Laura Rozen wrote:

the bit where he bellows in anger when she mentions bill and hillary surreal

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Daniel Davies wrote:

for what it's worth, her description of Gore's behaviour sounds to me really like descriptions of Ambien-zombies.

On 24 June, 13:19, Marc wrote:

I'm with Katha. And I was very skeptical before I read through the report.

On Jun 24, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Katha Pollitt wrote:

Sorry disturbed. Salon's writer says her story isn't credible because the police didn't charge, because the Portland tribune said it didn't meet unspecified test points" of credibility, and because other celebrities have been falsely accused. That's pretty lame, imo. I hope everyone reads the whole police statement.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Katha Pollitt wrote:

if you google "al gore rape portland," up will come a lot of news stories about this from yesterday. Portland Tribune had the story ages ago, decided not to publish.

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Katha Pollitt wrote:

I've only read half of this, it's I think she is totally credible. Even though in the abstract I believe male politicians are mostly bastards, entitled and narcissistic, and we all know rape, molestation, violence against women are incredibly common, AND we all know lots of men use prostitutes and think massage therapists are basically prostitutes, this shocked me. I wish I was a lesbian. A1 gore, the sanctimonious rapist. I hate him.

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Ben Adler wrote:

needless to say, ive found the list to be an invaluable resource and will be glad to join any future list.

on Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Michael Cohen wrote:

BTW, I think the name for the new Journolist should be JTPlist as in Japanese Tentacle Porn 

On Jun 25, 2010, at 5:18 PM, Michael Cohen wrote:

Wow these quotes Goldberg got from Post reporters should be put in a time capsule titled "Old Media's Last Gasps:"

"This is not just sour grapes about the sudden rise of these untrained kids, though I have to think that some people in the building resent them or bypassing the usual way people rise here. This is really about the serial stupidity of allowing these bloggers to trade on the name of the Washington Post."

"It makes me crazy when I see these guys referred to as reporters. They're anything but. And they hurt the newspaper when they claim to be reporter.”

"Ezra Klein is a talented guy, but he's just an absolute partisan. If this is where journalism has don't want to go there."

"The lack of toilet-training is right. Everyone makes mistakes, but you can mitigate the number of mistakes through seasoning. Some people here are still put through seasoning, but others aren't. It shows, and it's embarrassing."

On Jun 25, 2010, at 4:56 PM, Steve Clemons wrote:

Jim Fallows apparently spoke to Goldberg

on 6/25/10 3:34 PM, "David Roberts" wrote:

Forcing the leaker to send a personal note to the founder of a new list saying want to be on the list and I promise not to leak" is not fool-proof, but as I keep saying, I think it's a lot more potent than people give it credit for.

On 6/25/2010 12:28 PM, Lindsay Beyerstein wrote:

We don't know who the leaker is. What's the point of starting a new list if the saboteur can follow us to J--L 2.0? Not that I'm opposed to starting a new list and purging the j-list archives. If that's what we end up doing, count me in.

On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Steve Clemons wrote:

Lindsay -- that is because the saboteur wants to lie in wait for another opportunity to take down someone. Actually, if we kept going, this person who may have serial habits, may expose himself or herself. A new list needs to be started, and we probably have to have periodic warnings that there could be breaches, so don't post material that you can't defend publicly.

On 6/25/10 3:17 PM, "Lindsay Beyerstein" wrote:

Working at home in Brooklyn, I think of j-list as a virtual water cooler and j-listers as my surrogate colleagues. It would be a mistake to kill the list because of a leak. Each of us has a massive paper trail spanning blogs, youTube, twitter, IMs, facebook, private email correspondence, The problem is that someone was out to get Dave, not j-list per se.

On Jun 25, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Mark Thoma wrote:

For me, the list was invaluable. It helped me daily. Sitting in Oregon, there are very few, if any, substitutes for this. If the list is reformed, and I'm lucky enough to be part of it, I hope people can find a way to use it that does not leave them vulnerable to such attacks. The information I got from the list was essential I learn more here than anywhere else and I tried to give back as could, but the debt is surely one-sided. I hope it can be resurrected somehow.

From: journolist@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Ezra Klein Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 11:35 AM To: journolist@googlegroups.com Subject: [JournoList]

I began Journolist in February of 2007. It was an idea born from disagreement. Weeks, or maybe months, earlier, I had criticized Joe Klein over some comments he made about the Iraq War. He e--mailed a long and searching reply, and the subsequent back-and-forth was educational, I think, for us both.

Taking the conversation out of the public made it less defensive, less about winning. It made my future writing on the subject better. The experience an idea I'd been kicking around for some time. I was on all sorts of e--mail lists, but none that quite got at the daily work of my job: Following policy and political trends in both the expert community and the media.

But I always knew how much I was missing. There were only so many phone calls I could make in a day. There were only so many times when I knew the right question to ask. By not thinking of the right person to interview, or not asking the right question when I got them on the phone, or not intuiting that an economist would have a terrific insight on the election, I was leaving insights on the table.

That was the theory behind Journolist: An insulated space where the lure of a smart, ongoing conversation would encourage journalists, policy experts, and assorted other observers to share their insights with one another. The eventual irony of the list was that it came to be viewed as a secretive conspiracy when, in fact, it was always a fractious and freewheeling conversation meant to open the reporter- source relationship to a wider audience.

At the beginning, I set two rules for the membership. The first was the easy one: No one who worked for the government in any capacity could join. The second was the hard one: The membership would range from nonpartisan to liberal, center to left. I didn't like that rule, but I thought it necessary: There would be no free conversation in a forum where people had clear incentives to embarrass each other. A bipartisan list would be a more formal debating society. Plus, as Liz Mair notes, there were plenty of conservative list servs, and I knew of military list servs, and health--care policy list servs, and feminist list servs.

Most of these projects limited membership to facilitate a particular sort of conversation. It didn't strike me as a big deal to follow their example. But over the years, Journolist grew, and as it grew, its relative exclusivity became more infamous, and its conversations became porous. The leaks never bothered me, though. What I didn't expect was that someone a member of the list, or someone given access by a member of the list, would trawl through the archives to assemble a dossier on one particular member and embarrass him. But that's what happened to Dave Weigel.

In a column about Stanley today, David Brooks talks about the union of electronic text, unheralded transparency, 24/7 media, and a culture that has not yet settled on new rules for what is, and isn't, private, and what is, and isn't, newsworthy. "The exposure ethos, with its relentless emphasis on destroying privacy and exposing impurities, has chased good people from public life, undermined public faith in institutions and elevated the trivial over the important," he writes. There's a lot of faux--intimacy on the web. Readers like that intimacy, or at least some of them do. But it's dangerous. A newspaper column is public, and writers treat it as such. So too is a blog. But Twitter? It's public, but it feels, somehow, looser, safer. Facebook is less public than Twitter, and feels even more intimate. A private e--mail list is not public, but it is electronically archived text, and it is protected only by a password field and the goodwill of the members.

We've not quite decided on how to handle this explosion of information about people we're interested in. A newspaper reporter opposing the Afghanistan war in a news story is doing something improper. A newspaper reporter telling his wife he opposes the war is being perfectly proper. If someone had been surreptitiously taping that reporter's conversations with his wife, there'd be no doubt that was a violation of privacy, and the gathered remarks and observations were illegitimate. If a batch of that reporter's e- mails were obtained and forwarded along? People are less sure what to do about it. It was ironic, in a way, that it would be the Daily Caller that published e-mails from Journolist.

A few weeks ago, its editor, Tucker Carlson, asked if he could join the list. After asking all of you, I said no, that the rules had worked so far to protect people, and the members weren't comfortable changing them. He tried to change my mind, and I offered, instead, to partner with Carlson to start a bipartisan list serv. That didn't interest him. In any case, Journolist is done now. I'll delete the group shortly after I send this out. That's not because Journolist was a bad idea, or anyone on it did anything wrong. It was a wonderful, chaotic, educational discussion.

I'm proud of having started it, grateful to have participated in it, and I have no doubt that someone else will reform it, with many of the same members, and keep it going. But insofar as its archives have become a weapon, and people's careers are at stake, it has to die. Thanks for everything