The Grammys last week were great

In fact, I had something less than halfway written and then I read Bartcop's take and decided I'd crib it:

Madonna opened the show and she never disappoints. She was all legs and she looked like a teenager up there.

U2 was next with Vertigo, and they always deliver.

Mary J. Blige came out and sang One, and this time, unlike New Orleans, she was free to bust loose and give us her version of the song. Nice.

Kelly Clarkson, and then Ellen introduced Paul McCartney with "This man doesn't need an introduction..." and walked off. Paul did some boring new song, then a blistering Helter Skelter, reminding us that he didn't stab anybody.

Mariah was next, and she was the first big highlight. She sang with more grit and emotion that I've seen from her before, and at the end she went up and hit those notes in that dogs-only area. Damn, can anybody else in the building do that? I don't think so...

Keith Urban and Faith Hill had to follow that -- too bad.

Worse yet was the tribute to Sly Stone. Too many people onstage, not enough hours of rehearsal -- it was a mess. Eventually Sly came out with his white mohawk, which was stunning, but either Sly doesn't sing anymore or they had a world of microphone problems.

I was hoping for a Thankyou Falettinme Be Mice elf, but no. Sly mumbled a few lines then waved goodbye to the crowd and left. The band looked at each other with an "I don't know" look on their faces.

Springsteen did Devils & Dust, like he'd made his own deal at the Crossroads. I kept hearing Dylan -- that's a compliment, Bruce. He closed with a terse "Bring 'em home," which left the censors unprepared to cut his message of peace.

Then Kanye reminded the crowd why the word "show" is in "show business." Golddigger was Shirley the most infectious song of this past year...

Herbie and Christina did Leon, and I said to Mrs. Bart, "Christina has more torch, but Mariah more range than Montana."

Winding down, they seemed to have a Richard Pryor tribute ready to roll, but maybe they were late because they just blew right past Richard. Seems like everybody forgot Richard. SNL could hardly be bothered, Dave was too busy, Leno did 30 seconds, but I guess Richard died when people were busy with other things -- that's sad.

Then they closed with the massive jam to New Orleans and Wilson Pickett.

Still, I thought it was a night of highlights. I was surprised. So often these shows can totally suck.

I thought Christina Aguilera and Herbie Hancock were a little better than Bart thinks, but other than that he's on the money. After Paul said, "This is my first Grammy performance, and I'd like to rock a little," and they lit into Helter Skelter, I was blown. All I could think of was that the song -- together with some '60's-strength LSD -- made Charlie Manson kill people, and how that old man McCartney could still go.

And the whole Sly and the Family Stone thing was just odd.

But I've made sure to catch the Grammys for the last several years because there's always some surprises and it usually knocks your socks off. This year was no exception.

Warning: not to be taken literally

On January 31, 2006, President Bush gave his State of the Union address, and among the issues he mentioned were America's "addiction" to oil. On February 1, 2006 -- less than 24 hours later -- two administration officials, the energy secretary and the national security advisor told us this was not to be taken literally, that these words were only meant to be spoken in terms which the American People could understand. Bush didn't really mean we had to break our oil addiction. It was just an "example", they said, but what they meant was that it was a metaphor, which Merriam Webster defines as 'an elaborate or fanciful way of expressing something <"it's raining cats and dogs" is just a colorful metaphor and not a meteorological announcement> -- see CONCEIT '. So apparently it was only a figure of speech; something between truth and untruth.

This past week Bush spoke in Los Angeles -- presumably to defend his domestic spying program -- and in it he disclosed for the first time a 2002 plot to fly a plane into a building in L.A. Indeed, the president went into more detail than has ever been usual regarding threats to The Homeland, and even told how the plot was thwarted. Almost immediately, the mayor of Los Angeles responded by saying he had never heard about the plot before. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also said he had requested meetings with Bush in the past to discuss homeland security issues and as yet there have been no meetings. However, former administration officials said that there was no direct threat to Los Angeles -- not in 2002, and not at the present time. So was this just another example of something the President said that shouldn't be considered seriously?

We seem to be entering a new realm of administration prevarication. Previously when Bush has been questioned on the "truthfulness" of his statements, his lackeys have been quick to cover it up by saying "the President misspoke". Now the spin is "it wasn't meant to be taken literally." Just an example, random musings, presidential ramblings spoken off the cuff ...

Could this mean when Bush said Iraq had WMDs -- Rumsfeld even said he knew exactly where they were; "around Tikrit" -- that he didn't mean it literally? Was that actually just a postulate, a hypothetical scenario?

How about his statements regarding "not knowing Ken Lay or Jack Abramoff"? Did he really mean that when he said it? Or was it another statement we shouldn't take seriously?

We've been told since the 2000 campaign that Bush is a straight shooter. Over and over again, press secretary Scot McClellan has said, "The President meant it when he said ..." Is 'straight-shooter' a figure of speech? A metaphor?

Perhaps the Traditional Media should consider running a disclaimer when broadcasting a Bush speech, as a crawl beneath his picture: Warning: Not to be taken literally. Or perhaps the corporate press corps could simply ask Bush or designated spokespeople a permanent followup to every other question they ask: "Can we take that literally? Or is it just a metaphor, a figure of speech, a hypothetical scenario, random musings ... ? "

A disturbing hypothetical scenario to consider: when Bush took the oath of office and swore to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States, did he mean it metaphorically?

Was that not to have been taken literally?

Greg Abbott takes on an invisible issue

Ed Ishmael takes him down:

Like most Republican leaders these days, Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott seems scared. He sees the writing on the wall in large urban counties and knows there is little he or any Republican can do to keep those counties from turning Blue. What with Republican corruption, a do-nothing Governor and a Republican- controlled legislature that cannot even fund our schools, the only thing the Republicans have left may well be the one thing Abbott is advocating: voter suppression.

In his recent opinion piece Voter Fraud Must Stop, Abbott takes a well-worn page from the Republican’s playbook and twists himself in knots setting up a straw man -- voter fraud -- which he then attacks. He claims we have an epidemic on our hands but predictably offers no evidence supporting his wild assertion. His attempt would be laughable if it did not involve the denial of voting rights to hard-working concerned Texans and if it wasn’t costing you and me $1.5 million dollars.

If you were surprised by Mr. Abbott’s epidemic alarm, you’re not alone. Even noted experts on Texas politics in general, and on Texas voting in particular, have no idea what he’s talking about. You see, you haven’t heard about this so-called epidemic before because it does not exist.

If you want to understand the smoke and mirrors trick Abbott is performing you must look no further than his own words. He starts his presentation by listing instances he claims prove voter fraud in Texas.

And what is the first example he references? One from 1948. That alone should tell you how weak his coming argument will be.

Go read the whole thing, and then read Phillip Martin's post at Burnt Orange Report, which is quickly becoming the go-to blog on Texas politics. Commenter Sonia cogently explains there why this is garden variety, poll-tax-style voter suppression and intimidation.

I'm guessing we'll be talking about it some at the Tejano Democrats' convention this weekend.

Tejano Dems, Bell/Gamage face off, and the Band of Brothers in DC

The Tejano Democrats are here in Houston to screen and endorse candidates. There are several events open to the public, and lots of candidates for you to see, hear, and meet.

Bob Gammage and Chris Bell debated on a live television feed this afternoon, carried by WFAA in Dallas. BOR live-blogged it.

The Band of Brothers gathering in Washington yesterday was nothing short of awesome.

More on all this later.