>> ^chilaxe:
I think there's an endlessly rich intellectual world lying beneath the surface of politics, but all we ever see of it is the borderline anti-intellectualism of folks like Arianna Huffington arguing that it's actually good for liberals that Van Jones got pushed out of the White House, because he's too awesome to be constrained by such a job.


I really wish someone in a more mainstream media outlet would tap into the intellectual side of governance and political theory. It can be found all over the web (and I like to think in this particular corner of the web), but it's utterly lacking on TV. I suppose Bill Moyer's Journal occasionally dips into that realm, but I'm not sure if there's anyone but me watching that show.

I'm no fan of Huffington either. Huffpo is a decent news site, but Arianna herself seems devoted to making liberals look hysterical.

Oh, and as to your comment about progressives needing to embrace incrementalism, I agree to a certain point. I think it's important that we have people trying to shift the Overton window to the left, but I'd rather they sound more like Anthony Weiner and Alan Grayson than Michael Moore (though Moore is a good guy to have on our side too).

What I don't think we need is this whole segment of the progressive movement that's decided that the only way to move the Overton window to the left is to constantly badmouth Democrats, largely using the exact same attacks the right uses. I don't get that, but I see it happening all over the blogosphere. Lotsa people who claim to be on the left who can't do anything but talk about Obama being a secret Muslim Republican, and Rahm Emmanuel selling us out, etc.

I don't get it, do they think that driving Obama's unfavorables up is going to move the cause forward?

>> ^quantumushroom:
But liberals are not peace-loving, they're surrender-loving in the hopes surrender will bring peace. Oops, the jihadists hate Obama and Iran continues to build nukes, so I guess the liberal appeasement plan aint' working (again). (1) Rush Limbaugh? You've never heard him for more than 3 minutes, and then only heavily filtered through who knows what "unbiased" media sources. (2) There was no Obama landslide, and running an asshole RINO like McCain only proves that fakeservatives don't win elections. The Republigoons ignore conservative principles at their own peril. (3)As for "hatred", for a liberal to accuse anyone... (4) The MSM now play up the kooks threatening Obama just like they played down the kooks threatening Bush. (5) The economy will only recover in spite of Obamarx, who is encouraging this recession. (6) See, he is a bitter, angry leftist radical, but you can only see this by the company he keeps (and hires). (6) He NEEDS chaos to thrive, just like Scum Emmanuel said: never let a crisis go to waste. (7)
Hyperinflation is inevitable. Obama? He doesn't give a damn. (8) I salute the people who oppose degrading America into a socialist swamp akin to the dying nations of Europe. (9)


1. Prove any of this with facts or I say it all exists only in your paranoid fantasies.

2. True, I can't stand Rush Limbaugh. But you know, sometimes it doesn't matter how much context you give a hateful comment. Sometimes, it's just unforgivable and that's it.

3. Firstly, Obama won the popular vote with a 7.2% split and 67.8% of the electoral votes, including several states Democrats hadn't won for a very long time and 1 vote out of Nebraska's 5 votes. I don't care what you call that, call it No Landslide or call it a rainbow unicorn, but the message there is pretty crystal clear and if you're denying it, you're nutty. Secondly, why did you ignore McCain's incompetence in campaigning and Bush's incompetence in governing? We all know Obama won mostly because everyone wanted hope of getting out of the nightmare the Republicans left us. Not because your candidate was too moderate. You know the crazies voted for him hoping he would die soon and Palin would ascend. Stop lying to yourself.

4. I'm a libertarian-leaning moderate. You think anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liberal because you're suffering from dementia.

5. Proof or stfu. Oh, and by the way, Fox News is mainstream media, too.

6. You just proved my point. You will never give the man credit for a recovery even if Jesus comes back and whispers it in your ear. I'm not even going to ask for your proof on this one, because unlike you, I am smart enough to know it's a little too early to know enough about this.

7. First, Raum Emmanuel is not the President, and he's probably in there precisely because he's a bit more aggressive than Obama. If you think he's anything like Obama, it just goes to show how little you know about the kind of person Obama is. You want to know what Obama wants and how he wants to get it done? Read the transcript of his health care speech to congress. He wants CIVILITY, he thinks everyone has good ideas worthy of listening to, and he think we all need to compromise. If you want to understand the truth about Obama's thoughts and ideas, there are books out there that he has written. Two of them. I recommend The Audacity of Hope. You will find in that book the exact opposite of the person you describe.

8. Again, read anything the man has said or written, and you find that you are not describing the man. If you insist on contradicting his own words and thoughts, then you should prove it or give it up.

9. Here's a listing of the UN Human Development report's Quality of Life rankings up to and including United States.

01. Norway*
02. Australia
03. Iceland*
04. Canada
05. Ireland*
06. Netherlands*
07. Sweden*
08. France*
09. Switzerland*
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg*
12. Finland*
13. United States

* Europe.

10 of those countries are in Europe. Now you will invent a reason why this information isn't true and provide no contradictory proof or cite some source that provides no contradictory factual proof.

ps. It amuses me how you told me you would open a trapdoor beneath my feet. I'm going to guess you haven't pulled the lever yet. Also, I asked you to bring some proof. Why did I have to ask you again? Does proof not exist?

People as stupid as you are why this problem exists.

Wow. How can I compete with such powerful logic? I'll humor you even as I pull the lever for the trapdoor under your feet.

That Rush Limbaugh can spew hatred all day long and then claim that the empathetic, tree-hugging, peace-loving liberals are the evil party and there are sheep that hear this abortion of logic and actually BELIEVE it, that's what's causing the problem.

But liberals are not peace-loving, they're surrender-loving in the hopes surrender will bring peace. Oops, the jihadists hate Obama and Iran continues to build nukes, so I guess the liberal appeasement plan aint' working (again).

Rush Limbaugh? You've never heard him for more than 3 minutes, and then only heavily filtered through who knows what "unbiased" media sources.

These extremists and their brainwashed followers are an extremely small minority. You are consistently delusional, so it's no surprise you've decided that you're some how a great driving force in national politics. You lost that election. You got raped in that election. RAPED. The national climate hasn't changed THAT much, even despite your never-ending draw of the victim card and spewing of baseless hatred and lies.

There was no Obama landslide, and running an asshole RINO like McCain only proves that fakeservatives don't win elections. The Republigoons ignore conservative principles at their own peril. Liberals run 95% of the media, including hollywood and teacher-democrat-unionized government schools, and still solidly HALF the country remains conservative. Message FAIL?

As for "hatred", for a liberal to accuse anyone of such a thing has been played out for 4 decades now. Any disagreement with the lefty Party Line earns the dissenter the "hatred" label. It's tiresome, and liberals look especially stupid when accusing someone like Limbaugh of "hatred" while bending over backwards to give terrorists American legal rights.

There are kooks threatening every President. The MSM now play up the kooks threatening Obama just like they played down the kooks threatening Bush.


We all know that if the economy recovers under Obama that you're going to credit Dubya. We already know that, because that's the pattern with absolutists who don't give a shit about reality, and you're obviously brainwashed by a couple of them. Never mind that you're judging the man on policies that have barely had any time to make an effect. And who even knows what social policies you're talking about, since practically nothing has really changed on that front.

The economy will only recover in spite of Obamarx, who is encouraging this recession. See, he is a bitter, angry leftist radical, but you can only see this by the company he keeps (and hires). He keeps the Kool Menthol head and lets his goons, tax cheats and maoists do the dirty work of undermining the Constitution and taxing the people into poverty.

Obummer thinks this high unemployment is punishing those evil capitalists who took more than their fair share. He NEEDS chaos to thrive, just like Scum Emmanuel said: never let a crisis go to waste.

The Treasury is printing Monopoly money and the high price of gold proves confidence in the dollar is shitting the kiddie pool. Hyperinflation is inevitable. Obama? He doesn't give a damn. I salute the people who oppose degrading America into a socialist swamp akin to the dying nations of Europe.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The art of misdirection. While the radical left-wing moonbat media (all but FOX) makes this yet another exploitive Rahm Emmanuel-level "crisis", Obama's failed economic and social policies stack up like dirty dishes. You can't just sweep 10% unemployment and kissing Arab tyrant ass at the expense of Israel under the rug.
Welcome back, Carter!


People as stupid as you are why this problem exists.

That Rush Limbaugh can spew hatred all day long and then claim that the empathetic, tree-hugging, peace-loving liberals are the evil party and there are sheep that hear this abortion of logic and actually BELIEVE it, that's what's causing the problem.

These extremists and their brainwashed followers are an extremely small minority. You are consistently delusional, so it's no surprise you've decided that you're some how a great driving force in national politics. You lost that election. You got raped in that election. RAPED. The national climate hasn't changed THAT much, even despite your never-ending draw of the victim card and spewing of baseless hatred and lies.

We all know that if the economy recovers under Obama that you're going to credit Dubya. We already know that, because that's the pattern with absolutists who don't give a shit about reality, and you're obviously brainwashed by a couple of them. Never mind that you're judging the man on policies that have barely had any time to make an effect. And who even knows what social policies you're talking about, since practically nothing has really changed on that front.

Please, sit down and stfu and next time you deem us worthy to share in your delusional world, please bring some solid proof to back up the dreck. tia

Chapter 1 courtesy of the http://richarddawkins.net/article,4217,Extract-from-Chapter-One-of-The-Greatest-Show-on-Earth,Richard-Dawkins---Times-Online

Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.

Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.

If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaustdeniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.

Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally “respected”.

The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.

It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in many cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions. In 2004 we wrote a joint article in The Sunday Times whose concluding words were: “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.” The last sentence was written by Richard Harries, but we agreed about all the rest of our article. Two years previously, Bishop Harries and I had organised a joint letter to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

[In the letter, eminent scientists and churchmen, including seven bishops, expressed concern over the teaching of evolution and their alarm at it being posed as a “faith position”at the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead.] Bishop Harries and I organised this letter in a hurry. As far as I remember, the signatories to the letter constituted 100 per cent of those we approached. There was no disagreement either from scientists or from bishops.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the Universe up in the first place, and solemnised its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfil some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.

But, grudgingly in some cases, happily in others, thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution.

What we must not do is complacently assume that, because bishops and educated clergy accept evolution, so do their congregations. Alas there is ample evidence to the contrary from opinion polls. More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we — and by implication all of life — were created by God within the last 10,000 years. The figure is not quite so high in Britain, but it is still worryingly large. And it should be as worrying to the churches as it is to scientists. This book is necessary. I shall be using the name “historydeniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs.

To repeat, they constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population. The equivalent figure is higher in some countries, lower in others, but 40 per cent is a good average and I shall from time to time refer to the history-deniers as the “40percenters”.

To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.

Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that’s waiting to happen — one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn’t you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn’t you be going out of your way to counter that already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers? The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some — perhaps members of their own family or church — and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case.

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.

*Not my favourite Yeats line, but apt in this case.

© Richard Dawkins 2009

http://www.videosift.com/playlists/gwiz665/Music-thats-awesome/Tommy-Emmanuel-Plays-Golliwoggs-Cakewalk-on-Acoustic

The video can fold out, but the comments can't while the video is folded out.

On hindsight it does look like Tommy Emmanuel plays loops around ukulele-jake.

The art of misdirection. While the radical left-wing moonbat media (all but FOX) makes this yet another exploitive Rahm Emmanuel-level "crisis", Obama's failed economic and social policies stack up like dirty dishes. You can't just sweep 10% unemployment and kissing Arab tyrant ass at the expense of Israel under the rug.

Welcome back, Carter!

Congrats fjnbk! I thought you had gotten this a while ago
Glad you can live up to my expectations now..

Some of your lovely sifts
http://www.videosift.com/video/Clintons-for-McCain-Biggest-Idiots-in-Existence
http://www.videosift.com/video/Tommy-Emmanuel-Plays-Golliwoggs-Cakewalk-on-Acoustic
http://www.videosift.com/video/Soviet-National-Anthem-The-Red-Army-Choir
http://www.videosift.com/video/Ghostbusters-The-Stay-Puft-Marshmallow-Man
http://www.videosift.com/video/I-am-Locutus-of-Borg-Resistance-is-Futile
http://www.videosift.com/video/Alternate-Ending-to-Star-Wars-Episode-III
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Executor-Enters-with-the-Imperial-March

and loads of awesome classical music!

Your video, "Angelina" Tommy Emmanuel on Korean TV, has made it into your personal Highest Rated Videos listing. Congratulations on a job well done. For you contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

When did Rush Limbaugh go from a radio talk show host to .... anything actually politically interesting?

The absolute lack of objectivity in your media has totally fucked your country in the ass. Shit is almost as entertaining as Jerry Springer.

You're all douchebags for putting up with it. Lucky for the rest of the world we can just kick back and laugh our asses off.

Any possibly interesting points that the Republicans have are completely lost in the ether thanks to a few pundits (and, interestingly, Rahm Emmanuel) creating the utterly bullshit controversy by saying that Limbaugh is the 'de-facto leader of the Republican party'.

Instant bullshit cannon fodder for you guys to fight about while you're country is being looted by corrupt bank executives.

Really, what the fuck does he have to do with anything?

I think I can fill out most of the list:

#1. The House Sergeant at Arms (left), and I think he's accompanied by the Senate Sergeant at Arms.
#2. Special guests
#3. From left to right, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Senator Chuck Shumer (D-NY), and in front of them looks like Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito.
#4. From left to right, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner, and HRC herself (Secretary of State).
#5. In the middle is Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), I'm guessing he's with other House Representatives from NY.
#6. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) currently also Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee (kinda important atm)
#7. From left to right, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). These two are the current Republican House leadership.
#8. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
#9. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who had a brief flirtation with being Obama's Commerce Secretary.
#10. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). He's the current Republican Senate leadership.
#11. Earl Devaney, the new Inspector General Obama was talking about seconds before (who helped bust Jack Abramaoff)
#12. Not sure who the guy picking at his ear is, but the other two are Housing and Urban Development Secretary (HUD) Shaun Donovan, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
#13. Juggs magazine. Or the text of the speech he's listening to. Oh, and it's Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), who's the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee (and former chair).
#14. The infamous Joe Lieberman (I-CT), former Democrat who campaigned for John McCain.
#15. Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA), one of the 3 Republicans to vote for the Stimulus bill.
#16. Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Roland Burris (D-IL) the latter of Blagojevich fame.
#17. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in the middle, not sure of anyone else. He's the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
#18. I'm forgetting his name, but he's a House Republican, and most likely so is the woman next to him.
#19. Peter Orszag, new Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), formerly Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is to his left.
#20. Chuck Shumer again.
#21. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) Eric Shinseki
#22. Not sure, I think he's a House Republican.
#23. Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
#24. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
#25. Don't know.
#26. Don't know. I'll wager a guess it's a House Democrat though.
#27. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)
#28. Don't know.
#29. Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN)
#30. Don't recognize him, but he must be an Obama cabinet member, since that's who he's sitting amongst.
#31. Evan Bayh (D-IN) again.
#32. On the left is Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), not sure who's next to him.
#33. Don't know.
#34. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), buddy of John McCain.
#35. From left to right, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, and Hillary something or other.
#36. I only know the one on the left, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but those are the *cough* Joint Chiefs of Staff; the heads of the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marines (in that order unless I've misidentified the uniforms).
#37. No clue, but it's likely they're part of the JCS organization.
#38. Dunno, but he's sure to be on this list somewhere. To his left is Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio (D).
#39. Don't know. I think that's the Republican House section, though.
#40. Don't know.
#41. Captain Sully Sullenberger. Pilot of this plane.
#42. Mayor Bob Dixon, from Greensburg, Kansas; the city Obama's talking about.

Phew.

Anyone think Bin Laden is still alive?

I think Bin Laden = Emmanuel Goldstein at this point.

There is nothing Barry has ever said that is particularly memorable.

His language is purposely vague so each may read into it what s/he likes.

Except for the crises, of course.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." --Rahm Emmanuel

Osama = Emmanuel Goldstein - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein