No SIBLY, the message is not mixed. Because what he is against is just rehashing the Zep songs in the same old way as 1973...he doesn't mind doing Zeppelin songs if they're done in a way that doesn't require him to still be a 21 year old Robert Plant. And it is not just Zep songs he is doing...he is also breaking out songs from his SOLO career, which he has every right to do...there are also some other golden nuggets from the likes of George Jones thrown in the set, too.

It is just this sort of open-mindedness that is going to entice Robert Plant to do a Led Zeppelin tour "for the fans". Led Zeppelin's music was all about expanding your horizons and looking towards the future while also paying tribute to past roots...and it was nothing, if not eclectic. And the last thing it was about was nostalgia just for nostalgia's sake...leave that for the Rolling Stones and all the other old bands that tour endlessly milking the gravy train, no matter how many original band members are still around, if any. And it used to be that if you were a Zeppelin fan, your tastes were eclectic for the most part as well. But lately, I've noticed an alarming tendency for a lot of fans on this board to be stuck in their little narrow "Zep-Sabbath-hard rock/metal only" mindset...and anything that deviates from this template is unworthy of consideration. The plain fact is that there is some country and bluegrass and folk out there that is just as weird, dark, hard and heavy as any metal band. And just to clarify...scs, first you claim that Robert is just doing this to make a buck, but then you say in another thread that the tour is not doing well...you can't have it both ways.

First of all, sometimes "quality" is a hard sell, especially in America...Johnny Cash, Steve Earle and the Velvet Underground could all tell you a thing or two about that. Secondly, let us not assume that the Zeppelin reunion tour is NEVER going to happen. I mean, let the poor guy finish the Raising Sand tour first...then, maybe he'll think a bit and decide if the circumstances are right, a Zeppelin tour could be fun. Of course, if I were a part of his circle and saw the crap dumped on poor Alison here for having the temerity of recording and touring with your lemon-squeezer-god, I would tell him to forget it. The stuck-in-the-past types that have been bagging unfairly on the RPAK union don't understand the true legacy of Led Zeppelin and don't deserve to have their every whim catered to...the whole "Robert owes us fans a Zep tour" is obnoxious and selfish, to say the least. In fact, you naysayers have it all wrong...as usual: it is NOT Alison that is keeping the Zeppelin reunion from happening. Think about it...do you really think that if, say after the Ahmet Ertegun show, Robert had said to Alison, "Man, that was fun, and I think I would like to play some more shows with these guys. So would you mind if we put off the "Raising Sand" tour until later this year or possibly next?", that Alison would say no? Of course not. So it is not Alison that has held up any Zeppelin tour...it is Robert himself. So stop blaming her.

Careful Jahfin, cause you're never going to make sense with this guy, as he is obviously one of those scourges of message boards everywhere...i.e. FirstLedZep=Troll

well great...i just wrote out a long review of the two greek shows and for some reason it didn't post and i've lost it so i can't repost. and now i've no time to rewrite it...so y'all have to wait for my magnum opus, hehe. briefly; both la greek nights were good, second night looser than first, and that goes for the audience as well. set list same both nights...surprised we didn't get when the levee breaks either night. was also hoping for maybe hey hey what can i do, as i had read they did that earlier in tour.

More than capably, I might add...as I go into in more detail in my post on the Greek show thread.

Awwww. it would have been cool to see you guys, katy and allison...but yeah, maybe next tour. and alwizard, even if there are 7000 members on this board, they don't ALL live in los angeles...and even if they did, i bet you most will have forgotten about my post by the time of the next tour. you see, i posted about the same experience i had a couple of years ago on the mighty rearranger tour...showed up at the greek, and got great seats between steve jones and mick fleetwood...and did that cause tons of people to do the same for this raising sand show? obviously not. fyi. my routine yesterday netted me front row seats in the pool circle for the tom petty show at the hollywood bowl...cost? $95...which is even less than the $150 they were charging for the box seats behind us. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! SCREW YOU TICKETBASTARD!

The only farce that is going on are your posts...okay we get it, you don't like the RPAK tandem. Anyway, don't you have a lunch to go to with Percy? As for the thought that there are cracks showing in the pairing...that is just wishful thinking on some of you "haters" part. For one thing, keep in mine that that review was from fairly early in the tour...now that it has been a couple of months, you can see them more at ease with each other. I went to both nights at the Greek...saw nothing but smiles and winks and nudges and laughter all around. Alison likes to sing with her hands behind her back when she's not playing her fiddle, that's all. And lastly, I would advise all of you to read the fun and informative interview with Robert Plant & Alison Krauss in the June 2008 issue of Record Collector magazine...he makes it pretty clear that a big stadium tour with Zeppelin is not what he wants to do now.

Hey all, long night last night as I partied after the show...just waking up and got lots to do and not enough time before heading out for show number two. Enjoyed last night's show...will post more detailed reflections another day on both night's concerts. Last night Ann & Nancy Wilson were sitting in the section behind us...didn't see Cameron but it looked like they were with their mother and some other friends. Also saw Pamela and Michael Des Barres and had a chance to chat a bit with them. My friend also pointed out that Chelsea something or other was sitting right next to me, but I have never heard of her...I guess she's a big deal on E or something. GREAT SOUND! GREAT VIEW!(I could look at Alison all night...especially the way the breeze was fluttering her dress.) Oh, since someone asked, Robert was wearing the usual boots he's been seen in lately...he also wore them at the Zeppelin O2 reunion gig. Alison was wearing a lovely orange-red floral print dress with sexy tannish thigh- high boots. No When the Levee Breaks...perhaps saving that for tonight...but incredible versions of Black Country Woman and Battle of Evermore(although Alison was great, Sandy Denny's version is still tops...at least it was better than the 77 tour where poor John Paul Jones was in the unenviable position of trying to sing Sandy's parts). In the Mood with Matty Groves in the middle was a highlight of the night...did not expect that at all! Later dudes...gotta run.

Yes, you are correct about that FirstLZ. The very first show in 1975. Man, what a loss...and I was getting so geeked up for tonight's Plant/Krauss show... this news brings me down some. For me, George Carlin was up there among the first rank legends of edgy comedy: Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, Bill Hicks. His comedy albums of the 70's were essential listening...as much a part of anyone's record collection as Led Zeppelin, the Beatles and the Stones. You could probably add Monty Python and Cheech & Chongs' records to that list as well. While there a few good comedians out there today(Mitch Hedberg and Patton Oswalt are two I like), the more time passes, the more it seems like the golden age of comedy is over. If you saw George Carlin live, count yourself among the lucky ones. Rest in Peace, George Carlin.

Neither are good...I guess "Get Smart" wins by default, only because it sucks the least of the two. But rather than waste your money on either, go see Guy Maddin's "My Winnepeg"...Guy Maddin is so out there, he makes David Lynch look like Chris Columbus. Or, if you still haven't seen it, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "In Bruges" are two worthy choices.

Hey everyone...after months of waiting the long days of anticipation are finally over...as the Robert Plant & Alison Krauss caravan rolls into town for two nights at the Greek Theatre amidst the trees and hills of Griffith Park, Los Angeles. However, having read so many of everyone's horror stories about buying tickets through ticketmaster and presales over the years here, I think the following is likely to instill some anger. As I long ago swore off buying tickets thru internet presale or on-sale dates, today I did my usual for any concert I want to see; in this case tonight and tomorrow night's Robert Plant & Alison Krauss concerts: I rolled out of bed around 8am and headed to the Greek Theatre box office, arriving around 9am...I was surprised I was the first one there. After waiting for an hour or so, the box office opened, and I asked for 2 tickets for tonight's show and one for tomorrow...BINGO! I got PIT tickets for both nights, and for tonight they are in the FIRST ROW!!! And that is face value...no bullshit extra ticket fees added. I am so STOKED! It was already gonna be a great show, but with front row seats, it just got even better! So any fellow Led Zeppelin board members that want to say hi and reminisce over old Zeppelin shows...or if you hate my posts and want to throw beer on me...my seats are in the PIT, Row AA, seat #9.

As sure as "your" should be "you're". This is the "Ramble On" forum, no? If others can post stuff about politics, why not I? At least I don't post stuff on bands that should be in the "Other Bands/Music" section.

I actually went and dug out my cd of this show...yes, it was put out by Griffin Music and there is "A Mainman Production" credit on the back. "David Bowie Santa Monica '72" The cd catalogue number is GCD-392-2 and it was released in 1995 with the entire show on just a single cd; total time is 76:39. I paid around $10 or $12 for mine back then when it came out....for comparison's sake, the ticket to the actual concert was only $6.50. Sound isn't perfect...about your average FM radio broadcast quality...the interesting part is hearing B. Mitchell Reed doing the intro; he was a famous LA FM DJ of the 70's. I can't remember if I listened to the radio broadcast of the show or not. On a personal note, I saw the second night's show at the Santa Monica Civic, as that was on a Saturday, and therefore my parents were cooler about me going...to try to go on Friday with school and rush-hour traffic on the 405(we were living in Costa Mesa at the time) would have been too much of a time crunch. Going to the second show meant I had more time to get dressed for the show... I had my friend's older sister do my hair and makeup...and no traffic to worry about. All in all, even though the Civic didn't seem totally sold out, I think we got the better of the 2 shows. Mick seems a little restrained in parts on the cd of the first night...like on Moonage Daydream, he cuts his solo a little shorter than what I remember from the second night's show and from the 1973 shows. Anyway, the article didn't mention if the sound has been improved from the 1995 cd release or if it is the same quality, so I don't know if I will bother buying it since I already have the cd. I might get it on vinyl, though, just to have it in my collection.

AMERICA ISN'T OVER The next president must free us from Bush's 'freedom agenda,' but that's not an excuse to disengage from the world. By Ted Widmer Los Angeles Times Sunday Opinion June 15, 2008 A few weeks ago, I went into a Barnes & Noble and noticed a prominent new display -- the "BRIC" table, piled high with books detailing the irresistible rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Nearby, another shelf sagged under the weight of more than half a dozen depressing new books about the failures of American foreign policy, each painting a more lurid picture than the last of the coming era of U.S. impotence. The implication, it seemed clear, was that America's time has past. We now live in the "post-American world," according to Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria. The gloomy clouds forming above the commentariat suggest that we should give up trying to lead the world, as we have since 1945, and simply step out of the way in deference to the irresistible winds of history and inevitability. But to just throw in the towel, as so many of these new books seem to do, seems a little un-American. It also ignores a mother lode of history that points to the opposite conclusion. There is no question that U.S. foreign policy suffered a monster setback over the last eight years, and it does not take a genius to realize that the next president will have to speak differently to a world that has grown cynical about American promises. After years of the most simple-minded platitudes about liberty, it will be a pleasure to declare ourselves free from President Bush's "freedom agenda," which was never well-defined or successful, even by its own yardsticks. In fact, during the last two years of Bush's tenure, the number of democracies has been declining around the world, according to the human rights monitoring group Freedom House -- the first two-year decline in 15 years. Notorious crooks, such as Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, have stayed in power throughout the Bush years; other nations, such as Cameroon, have gotten worse, and we all saw what a nightmare Myanmar is when the cyclone blew the lid off its usual secrecy. But does that really mean that it is time for the U.S. to disengage from the world? Do Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay mean that our country's role as a moral force and global example is anachronistic? I believe the answer is no, and that we should be extremely careful, when the next president takes over in January, to avoid an over-correction. Bush may have made a number of catastrophic decisions -- Iraq dominates the list -- but that doesn't mean that the U.S. has forever forfeited its global stature. American presidents must always speak forcefully about freedom and democracy before a world that is not naturally inclined to either. It's in our nature, our history and our interest. Democrats especially should take this lesson to heart and, rather than hide behind an isolationist foreign policy, should reconnect to an important tradition that was once at the heart of the party's message. For much of the 20th century, to be an internationalist and a Democrat were close to the same thing. The best articulations of Democratic foreign policy -- Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, for example -- fused domestic and international principles into a vision that was backed by the full weight of American power and utterly persuasive. Who among the new powers will take up the standard of democracy around the world if not the U.S.? Europe might, if it wielded sufficient military force, but that is an expensive investment that Europeans seem unlikely to make. The rise of China will do nothing to reverse democracy's downward slide, and all summer it will be entertaining to witness the real gymnastics of the Olympics -- the efforts of Chinese leaders to suppress dissent and appear welcoming at the same time. Although Russia and India claim to be democracies, their leaders do not speak with comfort on the subject of human rights and the essential freedoms that underlie civil society. Russia now calls itself a "sovereign democracy," but no one knows what that means, and it is hard to be a poster child for civil society with Vladimir Putin near the levers of power. No one wants more cowboy diplomacy, but a forceful statement of American ideals at the beginning of the next presidency would go far to remind the world why the United States became a superpower in the first place. A clear vision of the world we want -- and if necessary, are willing to fight for -- would frighten despots, encourage young democracies and improve the odds for the large number of nations that might go in either direction. A new and better freedom agenda, grounded in realistic promises of economic betterment as well as a core commitment to FDR's Four Freedoms -- freedom of speech and religion; freedom from want and fear -- would do far more than parrot the pronouncements of the current administration. It would bring hope to hundreds of millions of people who still live in societies in which disease, illiteracy and the lack of opportunity make promises of freedom something of a distraction. It would encourage the huge numbers of ethnic groups that are still targeted within their nations, sometimes in conditions resembling genocide (as in Darfur). It would establish clear standards for the credibility of elections, creating consequences for leaders who tamper with votes (as in Kenya and Zimbabwe). It would return to us something valuable that we have lost -- the moral authority to intervene the next time a crooked leader threatens his neighbors or even his own people. Bush surely believes in the abstract notions of freedom -- few presidents have ever used the word with such carefree abandon. In his second inaugural, he used freedom or its equivalent 49 times. But the word's luster dulled with overuse and with the sense that Bush was a flawed messenger. Cynics pointed out that the election that produced the Bush presidency was no triumph for democracy, and that Bush's policies rewarded the wealthy, producing more division than unity, at home as well as abroad. Americans reeling from the last eight years are in no mood to hear of global responsibilities. But to discard the language of freedom along with Bush's failed policies runs the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In effect, a strong new articulation of freedom would mark a return to the best traditions of American foreign policy, with its unusual combination of idealism and realism. It would bring us back into contact with the greatest moment of foreign policy in our history -- not the triumph of World War II but the successful creation of a working international architecture in its aftermath. That architecture, conceived by Roosevelt but ratified by Republicans, introduced an exhausted world to concepts that we now take for granted -- that governments are accountable to people, that there should be healthy checks on leaders (opposition parties, free media, term limits), that free trade builds trust and that international assemblies can diminish tension between nations. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have failed to live up to these promises since they were made in the founding documents of the United Nations, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in nearly every presidential inaugural address since then. But that does not mean that we should not return, a little wiser, to a very healthy wellspring. Of course, we do not know who will be the next president. But there is room for hope, to use a word abused nearly as often as freedom. A President McCain would almost certainly avoid the Pollyannaish predictions of freedom that sent ill-equipped American soldiers to foreign deserts without a clear sense of mission. And a President Obama would bring many of the world's millions back to a belief that was once essential to American foreign policy -- that our promises are real because we are not so unlike the rest of the world. When the postwar global system was invented, it built on the ideas of Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, two presidents from different parties whom FDR revered as a young man. It also drew from a surprisingly rich American tradition of liberal internationalism before that. In the 19th century, Americans founded colleges in the Middle East, tried to arbitrate between warring powers (TR's Nobel Peace Prize came for his work to settle the Russo-Japanese conflict) and showed a cynical world, mostly royal and absolutist, that democracy was a working possibility. Americans lent moral and financial support to revolutions against kings during the 19th century, from the Greek struggle against the Ottomans in the 1820s through the liberal struggles of 1848. One of the reasons Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War, as he stated on numerous occasions, was to keep our democratic influence in the world from waning. Even at the beginning of our national history, a striking sensitivity to international opinion gripped the leaders of a republic at the edge of civilization. The American Revolution was fought not only to secure independence but to change the way the world worked. American promises of liberty can grate on the ears of listeners in other countries -- near the beginning of the Iraq war, a German newspaper ran the headline, "Bush threatens more freedom." But these promissory notes spring from a rich patrimony that has wrought a great deal of good in the world and that is at least as liberal as it is conservative. All presidents want to talk about the future, but we should not forget how much inspiration can be found simply by consulting the better angels of our past.

COKE BABY! By the way, Coke was a Jeopardy question last night...it seems that the Coca-cola script logo was designed by the company's bookkeeper. I tend to get the Mexican Coke's now, as they are still made the old-fashioned way with cane sugar instead of the evil corn syrup which is used in just about everything in America these days...and YES, you can taste the difference! Plus, they still come in that cool glass bottle!

Another clueless post from someone who just doesn't get it. Actually, if you really are a die-hard Plant fan, you KNOW WHY he is doing this and you don't wonder about it at all...it makes perfect sense. He's having fun...she's having fun....and you better get used to more, as I hear they're keen on making another record. Good for them, I say. The more I read and hear some of the rude and classless comments by so-called Zeppelin fans regarding the Plant/Krauss tour and collaboration, the more I hope the Zeppelin reunion tour NEVER happens. If I am lucky enough to bump into Plant at Amoeba while he is in L.A. for the Greek shows, I am going to thank him for sticking to his guns and doing what HE wants to do and when he wants to do it. I've also got a couple of song suggestions for the next album should he and Alison do record another one. Can't wait for the Greek shows!

I am going to ignore most of the dross that has flooded this thread and address to Del's original question. So, okay Del, let's say the whole "whitey" thing turns out to be true...will that be something that makes me not vote for Obama? Let's see if I can be clear on this... HELL NO! Really, so what if she said "whitey"? It's still not as bad as "nigger" or the countless other slurs said against blacks and other minorities every day by whites...and I am not just talking about what is said in private. Lost in the whole Rev. Wright hooey, was the fact that you can drive thru the South and on radio shows hear all manner of slurs against blacks, liberals, women, gays...exhortations to KILL, gloating over any misfortune that happens to a member of a minority, etc. These are white christian shows and yet I didn't hear anyone calling for Bush or McCain to repudiate them. Let's say you were a part of a minority that was first enslaved, treated worse than animals, stripped of your language, culture, dignity...then, after slavery was abolished, still went thru the Jim Crow era, went to fight a war in segregated armies where you were treated better in Europe than you were in your own country; then saw the government do all they could to stifle, if not outright kill any of your community leaders...not to mention the horror of the Tuskegee experiment...and that is just scratching the surface...there's still redlining, and more. I'm guessing that after all that, you would have a stronger word than "whitey" on your mind...so yes, I am willing to cut Michelle some slack and don't really care if the rumor turns out to be true or not. It's a non-issue and just something the right will try to use to distract voters away from the dismal Republican record of the past 8 years.

Let's not forget that on Faux News they like to confuse Obama's name with Osama...I swear it happens several times a week, followed by some lame- ass apology. But they know it works, as most of the doofuses who get their news from Faux news apparently really believe Obama is a Muslim, related to Saddam Hussein, likes to sleep with monkeys and is a terrorist. Perhaps you saw the latest Faux News smear tactic...when Barack and Michelle gave each other a fist bump, someone on Faux called it a "terrorist fist jab". Someone asked don't the Dems play dirty, too? Yes, occasionally, but they are never as good at it as the GOP...and they don't cross the line into out-and-out lies and depravity that the GOP/Conservatives manage to get into. Remember when Bill Clinton ran in 1992 and all the vile stuff that was said not just about Hilary, but also their daughter Chelsea? All manner of sick stuff about rape and sexual assault was broadcast on right-wing radio and tv shows. They teased Chelsea about her looks...and she was just a little girl at the time. So much for Christian compassion. But let someone ask a valid question about Dick Cheney's views on gays and his lesbian daughter(a grown-up and already out-of-the-closet) and you would have thought the world had ended according to the right-wing pundits. The thing is, it's a sickness that, helped along by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, has turned into a full-blown plague on the GOP. It's like they can't help themselves; sleazy and dirty is the only way they know now how to campaign. And Big Klu is right...McCain is RIPE for a takedown...all this sappy stuff about his Vietnam past; I mean, great, he survived a terrible ordeal...but how does that make him supposedly a better man for Commander-in-Chief and friend of every soldier? Especially when you look at his voting record and you see that he has voted against nearly EVERY bill aimed at helping military personnel. McCain and the whole straight talk thing is a fraud. Throughout this whole primary season, I was taking my time to go thru everyone's stance on the issues...I didn't want to commit myself early to anyone. As time went on, I found myself leaning towards Obama over Hilary. But I wasn't ready yet to count John McCain out. Maybe some of the crap he was saying was just a sop to the chickenhawks in the GOP, but that he didn't really believe what he was saying, and if he won election would actually be more of a centrist than right-wing President. But then when Clinton and McCain came out with that horrible Gas Tax Holiday idea...and Obama was the ONLY candidate to NOT PANDER to the crowd; well, that cinched the deal for me and since then Obama is my guy. That, and it seems more and more that McCain really is DELUSIONAL...he's drinking the same koolaid that Cheney and Bush have been drinking.

Can't argue with that you there...talent does seem subpar compared to last year and before...but still like Tom and Padma. And I LOVE it whenever Anthony Bourdain is a guest judge...and HIS show on the Travel Channel is a don't-miss hoot! Hopefully next season they'll go to a better city than Chicago.

Thought this was timely considering how it deals with internet rumors...just the sort that someone posted the other day about Michelle Obama. Barack Obama vs. the Internet rumor machine By David Sarno June 11, 2008 Rumors have always traveled fast, but when it comes to politics, the whispering campaigns and defamatory leaflets of yesteryear don't hold a candle to the button that beats them all. "Forward": the marvelous technology that allows truths and untruths alike to be propagated widely, instantly, and at no cost to the sender. Thanks to Forward-thinking citizens, the online rumors are flying in this campaign like no campaign season before. Dozens and even hundreds of different e-mail chain letters -- most targeting Sen. Barack Obama -- are being circulated in the Internet's muggy back channels, where context suffers and falsehoods flourish. Add in the parts of the political blogosphere that survive on speculation and unsourced hearsay, and you have a petri dish capable of growing such vivid rumors that the best of them actually make it into the mouths of the Washington press corps -- without so much as a factoid to back them up. At Snopes.com, the urban legends clearinghouse run by a couple in the San Fernando Valley, Barack Obama's page has 18 entries, only one of which Snopes determined to be true. Of the rest, Snopes rated 11 false, four partly true and two undetermined. The same pattern holds true at PolitiFact.com, a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly. In its "Chain Emails" section, 21 of the 25 e-mails they've reviewed are marked "Barely True," "False" or "Pants on Fire." Of those, 2 out of 3 were aimed at Obama, and the remainder at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why Obama is such a magnet for outlandish Web allegations, while Clinton and especially Sen. John McCain have gotten off easier, invites some tricky questions. No one I talked to for this story wanted to say that the candidate's race, an area that can bring out all kinds of rumor-fueling fears and resentments, is the primary factor. And maybe it isn't: The number of Americans online has grown plenty since 2004, and astronomically since 2000 -- there are a lot more great-aunts sending around e-mail petitions in big, colorful fonts. The Internet is now without a doubt the most effective rumor mill mankind has ever devised. But it's hard to ignore that the rumors about Obama tend to have something to do with his being black. A glance at the Obama-related canards reveals that they mostly fall into three categories, which sometimes overlap: race, religion and patriotism. Part of the odd nature of Internet rumors which holds true here is that even after they've been debunked in multiple places and for some time, they continue to make the rounds. Bill Adair, PolitiFact's editor, likened the chain e-mails to virus-like "organisms," calling them "a resilient form of communication that resists scrutiny" and is essentially unfiltered. "It's not like Hotmail is going to say, 'Well, were not going to deliver that message because it's wrong,' " Adair said. "That message is going to get through, and it's going to be up to the reader to determine if it's true or not." Obama's campaign has set up a rumor-busting task force that maintains a Web page at Factcheck.barackobama.com, to address some of these stubborn allegations. One section, entitled "Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim," collates several articles from national media outlets, including two from The Times, that weigh against the claim. Another section, "Obama Is a Patriot Who Loves His Flag and His Country," has an even larger collection of supporting excerpts. When asked about the churn of questionable rumors, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor was not shy about noting that "disinformation campaigns are the hallmark of some of the most vicious campaigns on the Republican side. It's not something that's new to this campaign, but it may be getting particular attention this round. "It's frankly disconcerting when the press corps start asking about rumors that have no basis in fact," he added, "but it's something that we realized early on would be a problem." Last week one such dubious story made the rounds online -- but this time it was the blogosphere that was cultivating it. Larry Johnson, a former CIA employee and national security analyst, wrote several times on his NoQuarter blog about the existence of a videotape that purportedly showed Michelle Obama using the word "whitey." But, as Reason Magazine's David Weigel pointed out in multiple critiques of Johnson's information, Johnson had no direct evidence of the video. He had not seen actually seen it, he wrote, but rather had "heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape." As Weigel told me over the phone, in the world of professional journalism, "No one who didn't want to just get fired would source a story like that." Weigel also noted in his post that Johnson's account of the tape's key details -- where it took place and which famous personages were in it -- changed over the course of several days, but Johnson's insistence on the tape's existence did not. (I couldn't reach Johnson for a comment.) Still, the rumor made its way onto more than a few blogs, most of which were conservative. And on June 3, Democratic pundit Bob Beckel alluded to the tape on FOX News, again as hearsay and without naming sources. The videotape of the Beckel segment was passed around in various incarnations on YouTube, adding to the speculation but not the evidence. Finally, a McClatchy reporter asked Obama for his thoughts on the rumor. "We have seen this before," Obama replied, according to Politico.com's Ben Smith. "There is dirt and lies that are circulated in e-mails, and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it. "That gives legs to the story," Obama said. And that's precisely the dilemma in reporting on rumors. As Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, explained: "The problem is that if the mainstream media address" a particular rumor, "they run the risk that they're actually going to reinforce it. " On the other hand, she said, in a medium such as e-mail that's largely hidden from public view and for which "there isn't any natural way to make a rebuttal, a whole lot of people are potentially exposed to information that's untrue, and they don't have any way of knowing it." Jamieson and PolitiFact's Adair agreed that peoples' tendency to buy into forwarded information depends largely on who sent it. "When you get the e-mail from a friend of yours, you're more likely to believe it than if you get it from a stranger." Only problem with that, Jamieson said, is that, if you consider its origin, "the stuff you're getting from a friend is from a stranger." This is a campaign in which candidates have been all over YouTube, MySpace and Facebook, and the Web's connective power has awakened a generation of youthful voters. It figures then that e-mail — one of the Internet's oldest technologies — is also the one that's moving the political conversation backwards instead of forward.

With the exception of the first year of MTV's "Real World", I never got into any of the "reality tv" shows...never watched "Survivor", "American Idol", "Bachelor", "Big Brother", Brett Michaels or Flavor Flav...nothing. Nothing, that is, until I discovered "Top Chef" a few years ago. And for me, Top Chef got even better when they got rid of Billy Joel's wife and replaced her with Padma Lakshmi. This season's Top Chef:Chicago is winding down and I can't believe how Lisa is STILL around...this whiny bitch fucked up her rice TWO WEEKS in a row and still got a pass? But I gotta think the end comes for her tonight. I'm personally rooting for Stephanie. And guess what...Padma is a Zeppelin fan...here's an article from today's paper: Top Chef/Padma Likshmi article

Well, that didn't take long. Get ready for all kinds of mudslinging folks...Lee Atwater may be dead and Karl Rove supposedly not involved in McCain's campaign, but you can bet your life the smear tactics style of Atwater/Rove will be in full effect.

Are you kidding? This is exactly the kind of mindless thinking that the article was talking about! Congress is NOT there to blindly follow their President and rubber-stamp his every whim. Congress is there as OUR representatives. And you say the GOP should have defended Bush? What Bush and Cheney and his cronies have done the last 8 years is nigh undefensible. Bush's ratings would have sank with or without the GOP's support. The PEOPLE are sick and tired of Bush/Cheney! Go back and read the article, then read the United States Constitution and learn what your House and Senate representatives are there for...believe me, it is not to be the President's sycophants, and that goes for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, whatever party is in power.

I can concur with your brother's statements, Otto. Zeppelin were loud, but never PAINFULLY so, although Bonzo made sure you felt him in your gut...but Purple in 73 were brutal. What made Zeppelin unique to me, and still does to this day, is how their drums sounded in concert...most concerts you go to and the drums are just a booming presence with no real tone or crispness. You might hear a snare hit or cymbal crash cleanly now and then, but the bottom end is usually a sludgy mess, especially if it's one of those speed-metal bands with a drummer with two kick-drums. Bonzo was a different story, which makes sense as it was Zeppelin's drum sound on their studio records that immediately set them apart from the pack when they first arrived...I don't know if it was the way they mic'd his drums or the way Bonzo tuned them or just some magic alchemy of the band...but you HEARD the drums at a Zeppelin concert better than at any other rock concert of the time. Bonzo had a snare sound like no other and you could always tell when he was hitting the floor toms or the rack tom or the bass drum...it was loud, but a well-defined loud, with crispness and clarity. Anyway, just to ammend my top 5 from above...the next 5 loudest bands I've seen would be: Earth Sunn O))) Acid Mothers Temple Mars Volta Manowar