IMPALIN’ — Stop Sarah Palin for President in 2012

It’s time to make your best political predictions for 2010 … Will the media stop pretending that Dick Cheney’s opinion has any value? Will they end their practice of playing stenographer for Sarah Palin and her Facebook ramblings? Will they realize that parroting talking points with bothering to fact-check isn’t really journalism? Will they — okay, these are fantasies, not predictions. Hopefully you can do better.

Go here to read the rest:
Political Predictions

Late last year, when Barack Obama trounced the McCain-Palin ticket, a phrase kept crossing my mind” “No More Mister White Guy.” The signs and omens were all around for those who wished to interpret them. A clapped-out white war-hero and his ultra-white, know-nothing running-mate (who’d skinned enough wild beasts and shot enough wolves from her helicopter to be counted as an honorary white “man”) had been defeated, indubitably and unanswerably, by a literal African-American, possessed of a Muslim moniker - not to mention a middle name he shared with a dictator who’d long loomed high in America’s foreign-policy demonology over the previous decade. It could be argued that the single element that shot down McCain’s hopes was the fact that he had attached his destiny and, not unimportantly, the nation’s precarious and uncertain future, to a sub-literate toxic scold of a running-mate, a shrewd but breathtakingly ignorant woman who was happy to stir up the most loathsome, poisonous old ghosts in the American polity in order to rile up her white followers. Millions of moderate Republicans, who frankly should have noticed years earlier that their party had deserted them for the nuttiest fringes of the far-right, saw this as one bridge-to-nowhere too far - they could see that their own party, or the recrudescent Palin fringe thereof, now harbored voters content to call for the assassination, or worse, of the other nominee - and they voted in their droves for the black dude. There were other signs - misleading, as it turned out - that America’s long white-male nightmare might finally be drawing to a close, and not merely the statistical/demographic projection that, within 30 years, whites would merely be the majority-minority in America. White-themed shows like King of The Hill (RIP) and My Name is Earl (good riddance) were cancelled in the run-up to the November vote. Joe the Plumber couldn’t open his mouth without sticking his steel toe-capped work-boot in there. Fox News’s ratings were on the slide as their disgraced and tarnished hero Dubya sloped off to face the enormous condescension of posterity for the next few decades (of course, he thinks it’ll all redound to his historical favor in about a century - good luck with that, G-money!). And in the economic realm, all the many chickens of the last three decades of deregulation, foxes-guarding-the-henhouse and the use of the citizenry as a defenseless and exploitable resource for greedy corporations, banks and sundry species of middlemen, came flocking home to roost. The economy bottomed out in September, and McCain screwed the pooch by “suspending” his campaign, and suddenly everyone could see that this wanna-be emperor, festooned as he long had been with all the regalia of the war-hero (instead of the overpromoted third-generation hothead and hotdog flier he was in reality) was now walking the world clad only in his shredded undies. The result? An absolute rout for the Republicans, a defeat like none since 1964. So with all that to savor, I found myself wondering, albeit only for a blessed short moment, if maybe we would now get a break from Mister White Guy for a while, from his endless conservative, hair-on-fire hysteria and hypocrisy, and his ability to be bamboozled and stampeded into a fearful incoherent, self-destroying rage by any cynical faux-grass roots organization ginned up by the corporate right. Perhaps, I dared to dream, we might now enter a halcyon new age of reason and common sense, of calm voices and measured tones, with an end to all the screaming and name-calling. Boy, did I get it wrong. Since almost the moment Obama entered office, the right-wing white-faced hysteria has been louder and coarser than ever. The Moderate Republican is a vanished species and the dwindling remnant, overseen by mouth-breathing hacks and procedural fanatics risen to prominence during the long dark Republican Night, has reconstituted itself as the Party of No. And their No means No, in no uncertain terms: no to healthcare reform, no to immigration reform, no to any of the desperately needed remedies for a country that has long been crying out for its own bout of glasnost and perestroika, but isn’t about to get it, thanks to these fools. Leading the charge this year were not the politicians but the media stars of the fever-swamp right-wing. Miss McConnell and John Boner were almost as anathema to these people as any differently-pigmented Democrat or “socialist” (a word that made an unlikely comeback this year, if only as a slur). First there was Palin herself, apparently shrewd enough to see that Obama would win and thus anxious to use the scrag-end of the election period to light a fire under the asses of her brain-dead constituency of GED-bereft white bozos, thus igniting a prairie-fire of support that would prove useful in any putative 2012 presidential bid or, more likely, provide her with a fanbase for future product, like her witless autobiography. And so it has proved: almost nothing the woman does, be it resigning from the Alaska governorship because it LOOKED TOO MUCH LIKE HARD WORK, vomiting out her godawful worldview into the tape recorder of her ghost-hagiographer, or composing the single biggest political lie of 1009, the one about death panels, has been enough to raise the collective craw of her fanbase. If you like Sarah Palin and her faux-folksy, mendacious, self-pitying bullshit, then there’s a statistical likelihood that you will also see nothing wrong in depicting the new President with a bone through his nose or gazing hungrily into a cannibal cooking pot filled with white missionaries. They go together like chalk and cheese. Like clowns stumbling out of a little car, the media ass pack suddenly seemed super charged and hyper-emotional, whipping up their people with dark and scary scenarios about the president. They grew so increasingly parodic every day that it seemed anything was possible. Glenn Beck could have ridden onto his set on an elephant, showering the audience with peanuts and no on would have been that surprised. In the mad prophet of the airwaves contest, he took the top prize because unlike Limbaugh and kind of to his credit, he actually is nuts. There was the jacked-up, dough-faced pudge-monster Glenn Beck, the boy who never grew up and never will, who became a cultural icon for the mad-as-hell Right despite having no qualifications bedsides a long and mediocre career as an itinerant drive-time shock-jock (i.e., as a professional attention-seeker, a role he has yet to shed). Somehow this guy hooked himself up to an audience of undereducated fools willing to take his every nutty conspiracy-theory (FEMA camps! Buy gold! Obama’s a racist!) at face-value. And in fact, said audience, soon known to us as the Tea Party gerontocracy, was actually ginned up by Dick Armey - he of the Contract on America and other fine endeavors - and his pals at FreedomWorks, with the backing of the same Koch Industries heirs whose never-idle riches have inseminated half the excuse-making right-wing think-tanks of the last 30 years. It all had as much to do with anything truly grass-roots as Glenn Beck has to do with anything true at all. PT Barnum must be cackling in his grave right now, all his theories having been vindicated daily throughout ‘09 - and Father Coughlin, Joe McCarthy, and George Lincoln Rockwell are probably having a chuckle too. And let’s not forget the elder statesmen. The grand sages. Venerable old white men Anne Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh all left their nauseating, fetid slime-trail all across this year, each vying for the prize for all-round achievement in bottom-dwelling scuzziness throughout ‘09. Limbaugh’s great advantage over his competitors may be the fact that he is literally deaf, and hears nothing, possibly including the sound of his own increasingly ridiculous and reason-free voice. A national audience of ignorant hate-filled old men exactly like Limbaugh eats up anything the man says as he panders wholesale to their basest prejudices and dislike, and the best we can hope for is that said demographic is currently marching, steadily but inexorably, out of the nation’s retirement homes and into its cemeteries. And finally, their acolytes among the public, the men and women who called healthcare reform a variant of National Socialism, who blamed Obama for Dubya’s Wall Street bailout, cursed the stimulus and refused to admit it saved a million jobs, who painted Hitler-mustaches on Obama’s image and favored us with pictures of corpse-piles at Belsen and Auschwitz. These were the people so blind to their own interests that they got up at Healthcare town-halls and screamed down all others, then picked fights, often lost them, only to realize belatedly that they had no healthcare with which to treat their own well-deserved injuries! So No More Mister White Guy , which seemed so ironclad a year ago as McCain flew back to Arizona in ignominy, no longer seems like such a tonic, timely phrase. This tendency, the apparently ineradicable Know-Nothing, John Birch Society strain of paranoia and unhinged loathing in the American political bloodstream is no deader now than when it was first diagnosed by Richard Hofstrader 45 years ago (his famous book, The Paranoid Style in American Politics - http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000908 - published in 1964, still reads like it was written the day after tomorrow). It is stoked and fed by the most cynical, unpatriotic elements in our polity: think-tanks, astroturf groupings with serious money to spread around, grandstanding moral midgets like Beck and Limbaugh, and by a Republican Party under threat from both its vanishing moderate wing and its reckless, almost suicidal rightmost flank. It’s like the end of Terminator 2: as the monster dies it reenacts every last one of its stolen identities before it sinks into the vat of molten steel. But you gotta assume the thing will simply die in the end. …..Right? More on Bill O'Reilly

Read the rest here:
Kara Vallow: No More Mister White Guy

The notoriously failed Kimia II operation in eastern Congo has ended today, December 31. Soundly and forcefully criticized by Human Rights groups for the devastation it wrought on civilian populations, it will be replaced sometime in January with a new mission, dubbed Operation Amani Leo , sources say. North and South Kivu commanders Colonel Bobo Kakuji and Colonel Delphin Kahimbi will have their respective operation zones closed, according to information received from sources close to MONUC. Former Nkunda loyalist Colonel Makenga Sultani will lead a military sector, and this will hopefully reduce and or limit the influence of wanted war criminal Bosco Ntaganda who has established a parallel government administration in Masisi territory, sources add. It was Ntaganda who orchestrated the military coup against CNDP General Nkunda in January 2009. In addition, 180 captured CNDP casualties from the last years of fighting have been relocated into barracks in the Katindo neighborhood 5 km from Goma and at the Himbi District of Goma under the auspices of the “Social Affairs” advisor to Governor Julien Paluku Kahongya, Theophile Mpabuka. A former CNDP official, Mpabuka was kidnapped by Mai Mai at the Kiwanja massacre in November 2009.The Mai Mai executed two of those in custody, tried to kill two others who managed to escape, and released Mpabuka in return for a promise of ransom. The goal of the transfer of the CNDP combatants is said to be so that Ntaganda should “have no reason or pattern” to continue his illegal collection of taxes at the villages Kilolirwe and Mushaki” in Masisi territory. Image: For Information only (from jrs.net) This potential shift in personnel, combatants and allegiances coincides with the end of a controversy-plagued UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo ( MONUC ). A twelve-month extension was changed to a five-month mandate, which will require additional UN oversight. The Security Council approved the resolution to impose the mandate on December 23 after reviewing the recommendations of the Panel of Experts. (See Final Report ) The Council also requested that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon submit a review by April 1. Although critical of MONUC’s role in abuses endured by the civilian populations in eastern Congo, Human Rights Watch cautions that troops should not be withdrawn until some kind of safety mechanism is in place. “The civilian cost of the current military operations in eastern Congo has been catastrophic,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The secretary-general should ensure that MONUC’s new mandate is implemented in a way that ensures peacekeepers do not find themselves aiding those who are committing war crimes.” Human Rights Watch called for MONUC’s conditionality policy that sets out conditions for the mission’s support to Congolese army units to include the removal of Congolese army commanders with a documented track record of grave human rights abuses. Al Jazeera , the only news organizations with consistent video and reports coming out of DRC, released this video today. It sums up the conflict, the spin, and the effect upon the civilian population. If you do nothing else today, watch this report. So what does this all mean? In Congo, nothing is certain, but if ground reports pan out it does indicate that Bosco Ntaganda has outlived his usefulness to the regime of Joseph Kabila. “Regime” is a loaded word, but to call the failed state of DRC a “government” seems to fly in the face of reality there. When Ntaganda engineered a coup against the commander of the CNDP rebel group in January 2009 because of a secret deal negotiated between former enemies in the capitols of Rwanda and DRC, the CNDP was expected to integrate with the Congolese army (FARDC). Talk to the United Nations Mission in Congo (MONUC) or Nkunda loyalists, and the answer morphs from completely integrated to up to 90 percent remaining loyal to Nkunda. According to human rights groups, Ntaganda became the region’s worst nightmare, setting op a parallel administration in Masisi territory. Ntaganda had expected the government of the DRC to negotiate his warrant arrest by the Hague, however the outcry from human rights organizations and especially support from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for his arrest made that impossible. A hardened rebel fighter, Ntaganda won the support of the Congolese government by retaining control of the region as well as some operational successes. That is not all he accomplished. The report of the UN Panel of Experts on DRC details pilfering of funds earmarked for soldiers’ salaries, illegal timber harvesting and sales, smuggling across the Ugandan border at Bunagana, and collusion with the Rwandan rebel army (FDLR). The humanitarian havoc wrought by the FDLR in eastern Congo was the impetus for the disastrous joint Rwanda/DRC operations in the first place. It has become exponentially worse as detailed in human rights reports. Meanwhile, sources say Ntaganda has taken his ill-gotten wealth and purchased buildings, cars, motorcycles, cows, and even a fuel station in Goma. The fuel station should raise some eyebrows. Ntaganda has taken advantage of the frustrations of rebel groups in both North and South Kivu provinces that promises made by the DRC government of Joseph Kabila in March 2009 have not been fulfilled. In order to protect himself, Ntaganda has formed a political collective, CPC, with the support of Ugandan Tutsi generals to fight FARDC. The alleged goal is control of an oil rich zone along the Ugandan border which falls within the confines of Virunga Park, from the Mabenga Bridge on the Rutshuru River to the Ishasha custom station. Here is where it gets really interesting. According to sources, Heritage Oil made a secret visit to the Kasoso stream near the Nyakakoma fishing village. Heritage Oil is the same company that exploited oil in Ituri during 2003-2004. Ntaganda was in Ituri during this same time period. The atrocities allegedly committed by Bosco in Ituri as documented by human rights reports including the following: August 2002: Massacres of civilians, burning of homes and looting in Songolo, Zumbe, Lipri and other villages; November 2002: Massacres of civilians because of their ethnicity, in the towns of Mongbwalu, Kilo and surrounding area in the Ituri district; August 2002 to March 2003: Ethnically-targeted arrests, torture and killings of Lendu and Ngiti civilians 2004: Murder of a UN peacekeeper in June and abduction of another later that year. (Source: International Center for Transitional Justice) Now, sources say that in Goma, Beni and Butembo, petrol with a “light red color, totally different from the petrol normally imported from Kenya,” is being sold. Government sources confirm that Dominion Oil has also been exploring in the same corridor. The Congolese Ministry of the Environment has ensured UNESCO that there will be no oil exploration within Virunga, but exploration maps tell a different story. Sector 4 is the focus. It is in Virunga Park which is to the west of Lake Edward A consideration of the roles of Colonel Bobo Kakuji and Colonel Delphin Kahimbi, and the introduction of Colonel Makenga Sultani to a possible command position is also in order. Kakuji has been the operational commander for Kimia II in North Kivu since March, where many of the atrocities against civilians have occurred. Kahimbi is the Deputy Commander of the Forces Armees de la Republique Democratic du Congo (FARDC) in North Kivu. According to section 184 of the Report of the Panel of Experts, Sultani is a very interesting choice if he assumes command of a military sector. According to interviews with several members of CNDP in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, the decision to remove General Nkunda caused a division within the CNDP officer class, many of whom felt betrayed by General Ntaganda and remained fiercely loyal to General Nkunda, notably Colonel Sultani Makenga, formerly the third most senior officer in CNDP. In particular, these divisions culminated in a near shoot-out between rival factions of CNDP at the Grands Lacs Hotel in Goma on 5 June 2009, following an argument over the control of the smuggling of timber sourced from Rutshuru and Masisi territories through the Bunagana border post. Active CNDP elements have informed the Group that these internal divisions are still significant, although there have also been moves by top CNDP political and military figures to bridge these divides. A fuller discussion of these political movements will also be outlined in the present section of the report. If all of this unfolds as sources predict, will the “divides” be “bridged?” Or is this an occult move by the Kabila government to sit back and see who ultimately becomes the winner in a war that has claimed six million? With Big Oil now in the mix, it is anyone’s guess and everyone’s fear. #### Researcher Sarah Markworth contributed cross-referencing with UN documents to this report. More on United Nations

Excerpt from:
Georgianne Nienaber: Congo: New Year, New Ops, Same Questions, Same Fears

End of the year lists are stupid to begin with. So a list of the top outbreaks of national stupidity in 2009? Shield your brain cells before proceeding, and be sure not to read and drive (actually, that’s good advice even if you’re reading that smart stuff). The Official Network of Stupid This is more of a lifetime achievement award. Fox News has always required its “journalists” to check their brains at the door , but this year Fox reached new heights in depths, going beyond the tradition of labeling every politician in trouble as a Democrat and proceeding to provide fantasy backdrops that inflated the crowd for conservative events. Reality shows have been doing so well for Fox’s entertainment division, it’s clearly decided to use the “news” channel to dabble in alternate reality TV. Fox News proves again and again that it believes the American Public is that stupid. In the last couple of weeks they’ve been trying out new catchphrases. May I suggest: Fox News — because you’ll believe anything. The Official Pundit of Stupid You would think this would be a closely fought battle. With O’Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh still on the air, stupid is well-represented every day (and my investment in microphone spit-shields continues to pay dividends). But for 2009, is there any doubt about the winner of this award? Weeping, wailing, slobbering, and splitting the screen to show a close-up of his bleary red eyes, Glenn Beck is the television equivalent of a geek show. That’s geek in the carny sense. Granted, there hasn’t been any chicken biting… yet . Still, Beck is to be commended for creating a show that acts as a national IQ test. The Official Histrorical Figure of Stupid Sorry, Mr. Godwin, but it appears your law has been repealed. It seems that it’s perfectly OK to make comparisons between Hitler and anyone you want — including the sitting president of the United States — and news programs will report on it in all seriousness. It’s quite a comeback for that paper-hanging son of a bitch, but then, who knew the Nazis had such a good health plan? The Official Story of Stupid There’s a little town just a couple of miles from my home that has an annual festival in support of that most Midwestern of spreads, apple butter. The population of this town is just a couple of hundred, but every year more people show up to celebrate brown biscuit goo than arrived in Washington DC for the biggest of the tea bagger bonanzas.  That’s not the stupid part. The stupid part is that Fox News, which organized the bagger event from start to finish, then wagged its finger at the other networks for not giving it more coverage. Wait, that’s still not the stupid part. The stupid part is that the other networks responded. Which only proves that no one is more experienced than Fox when it comes to knowing how to talk to idiots. The Official Politician of Stupid It’s a rare politician who can turn on the jets and make himself as big of a joke as Joe… Hang on, hang on. Lieberman goes in the article on laughably venal tantrums of 2009. Sorry about that. No, the official politician of stupid is the one who was such a coward he got Google to blur out his house on Google Maps even though its location is taught to sixth graders. This year Dick Cheney, the American ostrich, removed his head from the dirt long enough to complain that other people weren’t brave enough to protect his quivering tail feathers. Put your head back in the hole, Dick, and say hi to the rest of your administration while you’re down there. Bonus stupid to the media that gave him a place to squawk. Sarah Palin No really. That’s the title of the award.

Read the original post:
The Year in Stupid

President Obama : President Obama is the man Americans admired most in 2009, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds … Obama dominates the field among men at 30%, though his support also shows a partisan split. He was named by more than half of Democrats but just 7% of Republicans. While the president’s job-approval rating has eroded during his first year in office, his standing as the most-admired man demonstrates “a very strong fan base,” says Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor in chief. The only past presidents to score higher were George W. Bush in 2001, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and John Kennedy in 1961. And before anyone else says it, yes, this is good news for John McCain. Also, in the right-wing head exploding category, Hillary Clinton edged out Sarah Palin as the most admired woman.

Originally posted here: 
The most admired man in America is …

What was the decade of the ’00s about? What trends showed up in the last 10 years that will set the stage for the ’10s? The following nine trends are a snapshot of some of the driving forces we’re dealing with now at the turn of the decade. 1. The rich got really, really rich, and then got a spanking. During the irrational exuberance of the ’90s and early ’00s, it seemed like anybody should be able to get rich betting on bubbles. Pundits predicted there would be no end to the expansion of wealth and that we had transcended the business cycle. But the dot com bubble burst, then the housing bubble, and the financial bubble. Most of the rich are still rich–the bailouts made sure of that. But driving a Bentley is now considered poor taste, and populist anger is growing. The gap between rich and poor is growing, too, while the ladder out of poverty is splintering. 2. Middle class existence went from steadily stagnant to downright precarious. Necessities like housing , energy , food , education , and medical care all climbed, while incomes stagnated. Families survived by working increasing hours, and by going into debt, using their homes as collateral. When the Great Recession hit, we learned that being middle class had been a bubble, too. And the billions that Wall Street took in bailouts hasn’t “trickled down” to ordinary people or to the real economy . 3. Mother Earth came up to bat. At the beginning of the decade, it was just the environmentalists, scientists, and some very forward-looking elected officials talking about the hazards of climate change , along with the insurance companies that have to pay for the increasing rates of wild fires, floods, and other climate-related disasters. Today, Pentagon brass, business owners, religious leaders, farmers, foresters, and people at all levels of government are seeing the danger and looking for ways to stop the disruption of the climate . The global leaders at Copenhagen struck out, but Mother Earth bats last. 4. We found a new enemy. We called the enemy “terror,” and we made war on it. Rather than use proven counter-terrorism strategies of sophisticated police work plus intelligence, the Bush administration used the shock of 9/11 to justify ultimately futile invasions and occupations . Then they added torture and a crack-down on civil liberties abroad and at home. It’s hard to measure the costs in traumatized civilians and soldiers, the dead and dying, refugees and broken societies, billions of added national debt, and the tarnished reputation of the United States. But here’s one gauge: Invading Afghanistan has already helped bring down one superpower. The ’00s set the stage for us to follow the Soviet Union’s example. 5. First we hated government. Later, we loved it. Government was revealed at its worst during Hurricane Katrina, when sheriff deputies blocked fleeing citizens from crossing a bridge to safety and the federal government offered little more than black booted Blackwater guards to maintain “security” and a morale-boosting “Good job, Brownie!” from the commander in chief. Maybe it’s to be expected that a president who hates government would turn over emergency preparedness to cronies and crooks. On the other hand, when the uber-greed of Wall Street threatened to bring the global economy to its knees, it turned out government could act quickly and effectively to keep the money flowing. 6. The Republican Party collapsed as a trusted force for reasoned governance, driven into the ground by the incompetence of its president, by unjustifiable and devastating military campaigns, and by policies that turned the economy over to corporate powers, who took it over a cliff. Economic fundamentalism and neoconservativism are now understood to be dystopian fantasies, and all that’s left for those who remain in the party is to flail around with tea bagging, climate denial, and attempts to kill anything that doesn’t bolster the military-industrial complex, the wealthy, and big business. 7. The Democratic Party collapsed as a trusted force for reasoned governance when, in spite of having an overwhelming mandate from the American people for real change, elected officials allowed corporations and their lobbyists to call the shots on health care reform, regulation of Wall Street speculation, and climate legislation. The resulting policies shored up the stock market but did little to help ordinary people, who became increasingly alienated from the party. 8. China continued its rapid ascent, moving quietly into position to become the next superpower. The U.S. debt to China, coupled with the transfer of most manufacturing capacity abroad–especially to China–hampered efforts to rebuild the U.S. economy, and weakened our global position. (This is one more outcome of corporate power, to add to 1-7 above.) 9. We began to hear whispers of the End Times, including the best selling post-rapture “Left Behind” series, the new disaster flick 2012, and the prophesies related to the Mayan calendar (Google it, and you’ll get over 8 million hits). The real end times might be more straightforward. At the same time Wall Street wealth was soaring (with a short setback in 2008), the ’00s witnessed a crash in the real wealth that keeps civilizations alive: fresh water, climate stability, trust and solidarity with fellow human beings, reliable public infrastructure, healthy soil and forests, resilient agriculture, sound governance, livelihoods that can meet basic necessities. Our way of life is increasingly precarious as we import much more than our fair share of the world’s declining supply of fossil energy and of other resources, bring the climate to the brink of runaway change. The end times of this consumption lifestyle are, indeed, upon us. But wait, there are signs, too, that people are pulling out of this downward spiral. In the ’00s, people around the world turned away from obsolete ways of life, and went to work building the foundations of a world where our families and communities can thrive along with the natural systems that we rely on. The seeds are already planted. In my next column, I’ll list the 12 innovations begun in the ’00s that we can build on in the 2010s. Sarah van Gelder is executive editor of YES! Magazine , a national media organization that links powerful ideas and practical action toward a just and sustainable world. More on China

Read more from the original source:
Sarah van Gelder: Nine Ways Our World Changed During the ’00s

While that may seem a rather redundant headline the day before a world-wide party is scheduled, it was actually less provocative than my original concept of selling the theme that America needs more than two viable political parties, which was: “Party! Party! Party! Party!” But then I noticed I had already used one exclamation point in a headline this week; so I realized if I ran my original choice, I would be jeopardizing my standing among the Professional Journalists And Wannabes Who Play One On The Web Guild (the beloved PJAWWPOOTWG, pronounced like… um… well, it’s best not to try to pronounce the acronym until you’ve got at least three stiff drinks under your belt). Where was I? Oh, right, party headlines. While my generation was the first to use the word “party” as a verb (known technically as “verbalizing” it… no, wait, that can’t be right… “verbizing” it perhaps?), we were not the first to heartily endorse the concept. When I was growing up, friends of my parents had a sign in their den, over the built-in bar: “I support the two-party system. One party a week is not enough!” Showing that, while the language may indeed change, the party instinct is as old as mankind. Or at least as old as my childhood neighbors (who seemed pretty old to me at the time). Seriously, though (I do seem to be easily distracted today, sorry), since it is the end of the year and we’re all in a bit of a silly mood, I thought I’d posit a scenario that has long been a dream of many voters in America: that we have more than two realistic choices on the ballot when we vote. And while in my own time I’ve seen many nascent “third” parties grow, bloom, and (inevitably) die; it seems to me that we could be on the cusp of our two-party system doubling itself, amoeba-like, within the next year. I don’t make any statement as to the probability of this actually happening, but will instead just throw the idea out there for discussion and debate. Call it “party talk.” The strength of the American two-party political system is that any attempt to grow it into three results largely in one party becoming weaker by the split, and one party staying together — and getting stronger, since their opposition vote is split. After a disastrous election cycle or two, the third-party hotheads sigh dejectedly, and rejoin the party from whence they came, and the system falls back into two-party equilibrium once again. But what if both parties split at the same time? What if we ended up with four parties instead of two? This could avoid the zero-sum nature of attempting only a “third” party. The seeds for the splits are obvious to see, on both sides. Let’s take Republicans first (”take my Republicans… please!” flits through my mind, I have to admit, so here’s a bow to Henny Youngman). The Tea Party movement, while fractious, is a lot stronger than many are willing to admit. A recent poll showed more people self-identifying as Tea Partiers than as Republicans. The problem is, the bigwigs in the Republican Party control the money and the party machine. By “party machine” I speak of all the infrastructure that a national political party enjoys which is so hard for any third-party movement to put together from scratch. These two groups — Tea Partiers and establishment Republicans — are headed on a violent collision course in the primary season next year. Mainstream Republicans know the way the game of politics is played on a national scale, and try to argue for candidates that will have some sort of broad appeal in the electorate, in an effort to retake the independents in the middle. Tea Partiers are concerned with only one thing: purity, above all else. The problem for the Tea Partiers is that they’re largely (at this point) a one-issue movement, with no broader agenda than: “No taxes. Ever.” This leaves them wide open to hijacking by other single-issue Republican subcultures, so it will be interesting to see what sort of stand Tea Partiers take (if they do — the smartest thing they could do is not take a stand at all) on issues like abortion or gay rights, to name just two. But in the clash in the primaries, either the Tea Partiers will win the day, or the Republican establishment will eke out a victory. If the Republican establishment candidate wins, the Tea Party folks will have a choice to make. Either slink back into the Republican Party with their tails between their legs; or, as Sarah Palin would put it, “go rogue” by entering the general election as a third-party candidate. If this happened in four or five Senate races (Florida, Kentucky, California, etc.), and if the Tea Party candidate started beating the Republican candidate (see: this year’s NY-23 congressional election), I could see a general split in the party at large, with elected Republican officials suddenly proclaiming that they, too, are now Tea Partiers, and not Republicans. In this case, the name “Republican” would stay with the national party organization. The new party already has their own name, and would likely want to distance themselves from Republicanism anyway. What would happen, in this scenario, to the Republicans who were left is an open question. They could become the “social conservative” party, devoted to all the hot button religious issues afoot, or they could become the “pro-war” party which advocated the neo-conservative agenda. Or they could become the “we’re the adults here” party, and portray themselves as serious and worthy of office, as opposed to the lunatics in the Tea Party. Over on the left side of the aisle, we have the current situation in the Democratic Party. The Progressives are about an inch away from considering a similar exodus from the party at large. They feel betrayed by Barack Obama, and by the corporate-owned “New Democrat” wing of the Democratic Party. Progressives also feel that they are the core of the Democratic Party, being stymied by the corporatist fringe within. The building frustration among Progressives could lead to an eventual split, with a caucus of House and Senate Democrats proclaiming a new Progressive Party. If enough of them jumped ship simultaneously, they could form a bigger caucus than the remaining Democrats. And, like the Tea Partiers, they would likely bar entry to their party to anyone seen as insufficiently pure — no corporate lackeys in Congress need apply. Which would leave the Democratic Party the “corporate-approved,” pro-business, socially-liberal party. It would also leave them, like the Republicans, with the party name and the nationwide party apparatus. This could lead to elections in which you, as a voter, weighed the Democratic candidate against the Progressive, and the Tea Party candidate against the Republican. Four choices instead of two, in other words. It would free up the true believers on both sides of the political divide to back whomever they wished, without being told by the national party what their only choice is. Now, as I said at the beginning, the odds of this actually playing out in such a fashion are long, at best. What is much more likely (looking at recent history) is that these groups will make a big point, and, by doing so, pull the national party in their direction as a whole. Republicans seem rather terrified of the Tea Party movement within their ranks, and will likely fall all over themselves signing “pledges of purity” with the Tea Party folks next year. They are scared because such a mob mentality is notoriously fickle, and they’ve already set up some epic battles in Senate primaries next year. “Mob” has a long history politically, since the word is nothing more than a shortening of “mobile” — as in a “mobile party” that votes with its feet. And the Tea Party folks look like they may be mobbing in a new direction next year. The Republicans may face the choice of going with the mob, or splitting off from them and disavowing them. Democrats face a similar situation, although the Progressives are not as organized or “mobilized” as the Tea Partiers. But some Progressives are just as angry as the Tea Party folks, and for similar reasons — they feel like their own party is selling them out at every opportunity. Democrats’ own mob is not as cohesive — yet — as the Tea Partiers, but that could indeed change, because the feelings are just as raw. What would this mean, besides more choices on the ballot? It would mean a coalition approach to government, as most parliamentary systems use. On some issues, Progressives would caucus with Democrats to get legislation passed. Both parties could get concessions for their support, with the weight of their voting bloc behind them. On other issues, Democrats and Republicans may caucus together (call it the Big Business Caucus). Progressives and Tea Partiers may find themselves in agreement on, for instance, taking on Wall Street. The sands of alliance would shift, issue by issue. Of course, this could be a giant prescription for total and utter gridlock in Congress. The possibility certainly exists that absolutely nothing would get done under a four-party system, because no one party would dominate on any particular issue. And even if there were splits among Republicans and Democrats, it may lead to the death of one of the major parties themselves, as Republicans all rush to become Tea Partiers, or Democrats belatedly proclaim themselves Progressives. But what interests me is that the possibility of such splits exists on both sides at the same time. The trite “America is divided and polarized politically as a nation” line that journalists love to trot out is even more true than they have noticed. Because not only are we divided in two, across the unbridgeable gap yawning wider every year between Republicans and Democrats, but on each side of the chasm, cracks are appearing within, between two major subgroups. We’re really splitting into four in American politics, in other words, not just two. And whether that results in a formal split which creates two new parties, or whether it winds up just being intraparty feuds that eventually get resolved remains to be seen. Speaking on a personal level, as a politics-watcher, nothing would make my job more interesting than some new players on the field. Speaking as an American, I have no idea whether a four-party system would be any better or worse for the country, or whether it could even work. But it certainly would be fascinating to watch. OK, that’s it. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled party program. Everyone with me? Party! Party! Party! Party!   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com   More on Tax Day Tea Parties

Original post: 
Chris Weigant: We Need More Parties

“Notes From the Cracked Ceiling: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and What It Will Take for a Woman to Win” (Crown, 288 pages, $25), by Anne E. Kornblut: If you thought the 2008 election was a triumph in the cause of getting a woman closer to the White House, political reporter Anne E. Kornblut begs to differ. In her retrospective “Notes From the Cracked Ceiling: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and What It Will Take for a Woman to Win,” Kornblut argues that Clinton and Palin’s candidacies revived old stereotypes, divided the women’s movement and set back the cause of equality in politics. Kornblut, who covers the White House for The Washington Post, is careful not to say that Clinton and Palin lost because they were women, but she makes a compelling case that gender played an outsize role in their campaigns – to their detriment. Strategists refer to the “hair, hemlines, and husbands” phenomenon in explaining the disproportionate attention that appearances and spouses garner when a candidate happens to be a woman. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s campaign, for example, figured out that they could lessen the disadvantage of her beauty by using black-and-white photographs. Other female candidates have sought to bolster their “toughness” credentials – something they generally have to prove, unlike male candidates – by working as prosecutors or signing onto armed services bills. One of the most striking sections of the book lists numerous examples of double standards in the treatment of male and female politicians. Kornblut recalls the persistent questions about the maternity of Sarah Palin’s youngest child, a controversy that was unfounded, while rumors of John Edwards’ love child were for the most part left alone, even though they turned out to be true. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was confirmed despite his tax problems, while the smaller tax problems of would-be performance czar Nancy Killefer doomed her nomination. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was widely criticized for her assertion that she would draw on her experience as a Latina, although it was barely noted when Justice Samuel Alito in his confirmation hearings a few years earlier had promised to draw on his Italian background. When Palin quit as Alaska governor, commentators offered explanations that included attention deficit disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. Neither Bob Dole, Trent Lott nor Newt Gingrich was diagnosed with mental illnesses when they stepped down from their political positions, Kornblut notes. Kornblut’s explanation of the challenges facing female candidates brings to mind a famous analogy in feminist philosophy: If you look at an individual wire of a birdcage, you won’t be able to understand why the bird doesn’t just fly around it, but taken all together, you can see that the wires are confining. A humorous retort to all this comes from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Kornblut asked her about the doubts women have about whether they’re qualified to lead. After rolling her eyes, Napolitano said: “As opposed to, you know, what? Look at these yahoo guys that have been in public office for two hundred years. You think we cannot do as well as they do? I mean, give me a break.” While Kornblut is convincing and nuanced in demonstrating how the cards are stacked against women in politics, her pessimistic thesis in the opening of the book appears to lose steam in a later chapter when she lists promising women who have figured out how to avoid some of the common pitfalls facing female candidates. Kornblut has a tendency to be a tad repetitive and she offers little new information about the 2008 campaign, but this book’s value lies in its detailed examination of the current state of women in politics. More on Sarah Palin

Read more:
Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, And How Women Can Win: "Notes From The Cracked Ceiling"

Or…as I suppose we should call it tonight, the Political Wrap-Up. Seeing as how there is no new polling tonight (save for a mildly ridiculous Rasmussen poll claiming Ben Nelson would lose by 30 points in he ran for re-election), we will stick to the campaign news. And, surprisingly, there actually is some news from the campaign trail today…. CA-19: In a slight surprise, the GOP lost an incumbent in the final days of 2009, as Class of ‘94 Congressman George Radanovich announced his retirement this morning. Radanovich has represented California’s Central Valley for fifteen years. There already appears to be a potentially nasty GOP primary battle brewing, as state Senator Jeff Denham is running with the blessing of Radanovich, who endorsed him in his retirement announcement this morning. Meanwhile, former Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson sounds like a candidate , and appears prepared to thrash Denham along the way. In a radio interview today, Patterson decried Denham as “part of the problem” and “a career politician.” Democrats may well factor into this race, as Barack Obama did win 46% of the vote in this largely Republican district. As of this evening, no first-tier Democrats have emerged for this seat. RI-Gov: While the state GOP appears to be trying to entice 2006 Senate candidate Stephen Laffey into the open-seat race for Governor, another Republican name has surfaced. A top staffer in Governor Don Carcieri’s administration, communications director John Robitaille , announced today that he is considering throwing his hat in the ring. In other gubernatorial news out of Little Rhody, it is now a lock–former U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee will announce an Independent bid for Governor next Monday. NV-Gov: He may be the most unpopular politician in America, and he is doggedly seeking a re-election bid that almost certainly will end in the state’s Republican primary next year, but at least Jim Gibbons got one complication in his bid out of the way–he is now officially, and finally, divorced . The ordeal was 22 months in length, but Gibbons was spared a high-profile trial that would have further crushed his already meager political prospects. The Road To 2012: The critical early state of Iowa has two Republican Congressmen. And one of them is talking sweetly about a contender for the Republican nomination in 2012. A match made in heaven, without a doubt: uber-right winger Steve King hearts none other than Sarah Palin. Texas Politics: A good heads-up during the holiday lull from Benawu : the filing deadline for the state of Texas is coming up next Monday. He issues a potentially perilous warning out of the Lone Star State–as of this week, the majority of the GOP-held seats (12 out of 20) have no announced Democratic opponent.

Read more here:
Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 12/29/09

She can tap dance and sing. She can play the flute and the piano. Okay, she’s better at the flute, which has been her instrument of choice since fourth grade. Did I mention that she’s more than passable at Pilates? If none of this wows you, she’s literally ready to bend over backward while cooing like a dove, making a bubble-popping sound and doing her signature diva impression. All she needs is a stage - any stage. Sarah Bradley , whose birth certificate named her Sarah Ricker , is an aspiring actress who’s waiting in the wings for her big moment. She has great faith that this will happen, but right now she’s working in front of the stage, not on it. Photo by Nancy A. Ruhling Sarah is waiting for the big break that will make her a star. For the last two years, ever since she left Marymount Manhattan College, where she was working on a bachelor’s degree in theatre arts, Sarah has been working for Max Merchandising, a Manhattan company that designs, manufacturers and sells Broadway-show programs, T-shirts, CDs and other memorabilia in theaters. Sarah works 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. in the office then sells the souvenirs on Friday and Saturday nights at showtime. “I get to see a lot of free theatre,” she says, “and I get to meet a lot of theatre people at the opening- and closing-night parties. But it doesn’t give me much time to do what I really need to do - audition.” The three auditions she has been able to make didn’t click. She attended the cattle call for Spring Awakening but got typed out. “I didn’t have the look they were looking for,” she says and sighs. “They wanted someone 18 or under or someone who looks that age. At 23, I’m too old!” When she tried to try out for Shakespeare in the Park’s Hamlet , she was turned away because she doesn’t have an Equity Card. “I really wanted to play Ophelia, because Shakespeare really didn’t flesh her out,” she says. “Many actresses who play her see her only as a one-dimensional damsel in distress. She’s deeper than that.” The same thing happened during the casting call for a regional production of Anything Goes - the show was carding. The experiences haven’t discouraged her. In fact, they have encouraged her not to reach for the stars but to be a star. “I can’t see myself doing anything else in my life,” she says. “So I keep a positive attitude.” Sarah became stage-struck in her first year of high school. “I remember exactly when I knew I wanted to be an actress,” she says. “I was in ninth grade, and I had joined the drama club. I got a part in the chorus of Footloose , and performing before an audience was the biggest adrenaline rush of my life.” She cinched roles in several high school productions, most of them classical musicals, and even started a community theater, Admit One Players, but her hometown of New Windsor, N.Y. is a far cry from the Great White Way. “I love the film and the stage,” she says, her blue eyes turning olive green with enthusiasm. “I’d like to do any kind of acting that also gets me paid. The work doesn’t have to be in Manhattan; I’d love to tour and see other parts of the country. My dream role would be Christine Daae in Phantom . Today’s Broadway is all about the belters, the Sutton Fosters, not the Julie Andrewses of the world. I’m a soprano, and it’s one of the few shows that calls for a soprano.” Acting, at least for Sarah, allows her to let down her long, honey-hued hair. “I love becoming other characters,” she says. “You get a chance to explore parts of yourself and get to show dark parts of your personality that you wouldn’t dare do in ordinary circumstances.” Never mind that nobody has asked Sarah to perform any of the special skills listed on her resume. (”I’d love to show them off,” she confides. “It’s a hoot!”) She’s convinced that the right role will come when the time is right. In the meantime, she’s boning up on acting classes and voice lessons and hoping to be promoted to manager at Max Merchandising so she can work at night and audition during the day. “There are people in New York City who make it,” she says with determination, adding that she’s ready to send out her new headshots. “And I’m going to be one of them.” As proof, she smiles and does her dove coo. Nancy A. Ruhling may be reached at Nruhling@gmail.com. Copyright 2009 by Nancy A. Ruhling

See original here:
Nancy Ruhling: Astoria Characters: The Stage-Seeking Actress

It’s as much fun to choose the worst celebrity books of the decade as it is to pick the best books, though the pool is decidedly smaller for this one. They wrote both fiction and non-fiction and each will stand the test of time–or not. See if you remember all of them and let us know your picks. Get HuffPost Books On Facebook and Twitter! More on Sarah Palin

See the rest here:
Worst Celebrity Books Of The Decade (PHOTOS, POLL)

As might be expected in the week between Christmas Day and New Year’s Day, there is very little campaign news on the docket for this Monday edition of the Wrap. One poll (and not even a campaign poll), and only a small handful of campaign stories are on tap for this Monday evening… NATIONAL: The Winners and Losers of 2009 In one of what will undoubtedly be a series of year-end reflective pieces that will get launched this week, Gallup went into the field earlier in the month to ask voters who they thought were the “winners” and the “losers” of 2009 . There were four “winners”, according to Gallup. All of them had close connections to President Obama, and the President himself even snuck into the category, with significantly more U.S. voters identifying him as a winner rather than those identifying him as a loser: First Lady Michelle Obama : Net +52 (73/21) Sec. of State Hillary Clinton : Net +45 (70/25) Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor : Net +33 (57/24) President Barack Obama : Net +20 (58/38) Gallup also identified five “losers” for 2009. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s status as the #1 target of the GOP this year cost her dearly, as she is the only Dem-affiliated entity that lands on this list. You can click on the link above if you want to know who the biggest loser was. I am choosing not to include them, because (A) they aren’t necessarily political, and (B) their fifteen minutes should have expired last month. In the field of actual politics, here were the four biggest losers, according to Gallup: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford : Net Minus 51 (12/63) Republican Rep. Joe “You Lie” Wilson : Net Minus 32 (29/61) Republicans in Congress: Net Minus 14 (38/52) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi : Net Minus 11 (39/50) Interestingly, the folks at Gallup polled the “Republicans in Congress” but NOT the “Democrats in Congress”. A handful of folks did not earn a majority either way, and thus were not classified as winners or losers. Three of them (Senate leader Harry Reid, talk show mouth Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin) had net negative ratings, while the fourth (Ben Bernanke) had a slightly net positive rating. IN OTHER NEWS…. I haven’t mentioned in the last 72 hours that you can find me on Twitter . So, golly, I should probably refresh your memory. LA-Sen: Could formaldehyde be politically toxic for Louisiana Senator David Vitter? It is becoming more and more of possibility , as the Louisiana Democratic Party is raising hell about Vitter’s apparent effort to tie up the EPA just as it is about to issue new regulations on formaldehyde. Vitter argues that his machinations, which include placing a hold on the nomination of assistant EPA administrator Paul Anastas, are because he wants to make sure the EPA has all of its facts straight before issuing new regulations. Vitter’s critics are quick to point out that it might also be owed to the campaign checks he has cashed from the formaldehyde industry. This issue has immense local political consequences, since tens of thousands of Louisiana natives were housed in FEMA trailers where formaldehyde was present. Some have claimed that they contracted illnesses from their exposure to the trailers. PA-06: The Democratic field in this open seat contest, located in the Dem-friendly suburbs of Philadelphia, keeps getting more and more complicated . Once thought to be a given for former Inquirer editorial board member Doug Pike, it is now a legitimate three-candidate contest. Pike had already been in the middle of a whale of a fight with physician Manan Trivedi, and now he is going to get a second major primary opponent. Lower Merion Township Commissioner Brian Gordon has jumped into the fray, as well. The GOP side is also a messy one, as there are now a half-dozen candidates eyeing the race on the Republican side. NY-01: In a fairly clear sign that the GOP is deadly serious about reclaiming this seat on Long Island, Republican businessman Randy Altschuler has already taken to the air in his campaign against four-term Democratic incumbent Tim Bishop. Bishop has won re-election in this swing district (Obama won here 52-48 in 2008) with between 56-62% of the vote. Altschuler may well be the most well-funded Republican to contest this district since Bishop wrested the district away from Felix Grucci. AL-05: Pity poor Parker Griffith. Not only is it looking more and more likely that Democratic Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks will move from the governor’s race to a challenge against Griffith next year, but it is also looking more and more likely that Griffith is going to struggle to survive the Republican primary . Les Phillip, who along with Mo Brooks refused to stand down as GOP candidates when Griffith announced he was crossing the aisle, is releasing a mailer smacking Griffith around for his campaign contributions to Howard Dean and Harry Reid. In what will be a long series of year-in-review columns, super-pundit Stu Rothenberg lays his ‘09 picks on the table. By and large, his choices are pretty solid, although I will admit I am stunned that he didn’t even nominate Doug Hoffman for Worst Campaign of 2009. It was Hoffman, after all, whose own ego and mouth snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and put a Democrat in the House for the first time in that corner of upstate New York since the age of Lincoln. Given the paucity of campaign news during this week, it is entirely possible that this week’s editions of the nightly Wrap might wind up heading in the same direction.

See original here: 
Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 12/28/09

“But as much as I love New York, New York refuses to be loved. Whenever I’m all warm, fuzzy and ready to give the city a carefree, trusting bear hug, it repels me with some crazy, only-in-New-York type of crap to deal with–like our cab, suddenly speeding up and swerving from lane to lane as though we’re being chased. And I think we are.” And so opens the short story Billy the Kid was Born on Allen Street on a new site of NYC-inspired short fiction, Chronicles of New York (CoNY). Everyone has their NYC story - what’s yours? “If you look close enough at New Yorkers and their interactions, you can take a good guess at what each one is moving toward and what it’s like for them to run into each other on the way there. All the elements of a good story are under our noses everyday,” writes founder and editor Willow Duttge on her site. “And hopefully they will be shared by myself and others on this blog.” Everyone has at least one New York story. You don’t even have to go to NYC to have a personal story about this city. Its tentacles of psychic reach are one of a kind. Paris may be pretty, but New York will come visit you , in some way, shape or form. Imagine all the fiction writers who came to New York with ideas for novels that were never written, because NYC’s stranger-than-fiction face-slaps prevented them from being written: what started out as distractions became too good to ignore. And the city took over the prose. CoNY is a butterfly net of these moments, of these fueling distractions and unforgettable detours. Willow, a beloved, chill, talented, funny, sweetheart of a tenacious reporter, formerly of the now deceased Conde Nast Portfolio , founded CoNY as a way to work on her own fiction. (She is a Sarah Lawrence grad, after all - they get all tweaked out if they’re not writing). Some of the writers on the site are media veterans: journalists, editors, fact-checkers - witnesses to a changing industry who can never lose the need to create. If you have a fictional story inspired by NYC, submit your story ideas to Willow Duttge.

Read the original here:
Andrea Chalupa: Chronicles of New York: Because Everyone Has a NYC Story

Democrats should realize, by this point, that they’re going to have to reposition themselves a bit if they stand any chance in next year’s midterm congressional elections. Fortunately for them, there are two issues out there just begging for exploitation. The first is the Republican Party, who has reportedly decided they are going to run next year on taking something away from voters which Democrats have given them — the healthcare reform bill. And the second is a little-noted bill introduced a few weeks ago by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-OR), John McCain (R-AZ), and Russ Feingold (D-WI), which would bring back a chunk of the banking regulations passed in the Great Depression known as “Glass-Steagall.” Together, these two issues present an opportunity for Democrats to reap some of the populist anger brewing out there in the electorate. Not that it’s going to be easy to do so. The Republicans, after all, are reacting to a movement (the Tea Partiers) which is routinely labelled “populist” itself. But there is populism and then there is populism. After all, both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin — for very differing reasons — were called “populist” by the media at one time or another during last year’s campaign. Populism is not so much a political stance (as “conservatism” is, for instance) as it is a political tactic. Meaning it can be used equally well by either side of our current American political divide. Democrats like to think of themselves as the ideological heirs to the capital-P historical Populism from a century ago. Democrats consider themselves the “party of the common man,” but this routine and facile assumption ignores the “anti-bailout” anger in play today — where Democrats are seen as helping out Wall Street and largely ignoring Main Street. Republicans, on the other hand, see themselves as bringing populism into the modern age, in the form of social conservatives and hot-button issues like gay rights or abortion. Populism, even back in its beginnings, has always had a rather nasty edge to it. Because populists aren’t usually “for” things, as much as they are “against” other things. Historically, one of the main targets of Populism was one which strikes a familiar chord today: elitist Northeastern bankers. Wall Street, in other words. This makes it a good fit for the times, since Wall Street is not exactly beloved right now. Of course, a hundred years ago, this also had an ugly side, as many conflated “elitist bankers” with “Jews.” This type of bigotry has been (so far, and as far as I know) thankfully absent from the populist wave building out there — but there have been plenty of more modern examples of such idiocy as well (such as Auschwitz photos of dead bodies waved at Tea Parties, for instance). But populism, just because it attracts some rather scary fringe elements to it, should not be ignored by Democrats who feel they can just coast on the coattails of the image of the “common man” Democratic Party in voters’ minds. Voters are notoriously short of memory, and are much more likely to be demanding of Democratic officeholders: “What have you done for me lately?” Democrats need to get out front on this. If the healthcare bill that the president signs is the best that could have passed Congress, then you’re going to have to defend it forcefully out on the campaign trail next year. Rather than focusing on the “might-have-beens” in the bill, Democrats need to loudly proclaim the good things it contains. Meanwhile, Republicans are going to paint themselves in a corner by campaigning on repealing whatever passes. Because while there is indeed a lengthy list of “might-have-beens” which did not make it into the bill, there are also a lot of very good reforms of the health insurance industry in there as well, and once voters get used to having these reforms, they’re not going to like politicians promising to take such things away. One of the worst things about the bill hasn’t seemed to arouse much Republican ire yet (although it has raised a lot of ire from both Independents and some Democrats) — the individual mandate. But Republicans are building steam on the issue, so Democrats should expect it to be used against them. The individual mandate isn’t going to be easy for Democrats to tout as a wonderful thing, to twentysomethings who don’t want to buy health insurance. But pretty much everything else in the bill can be proclaimed as a good deal for voters — if Democrats would only make the case for them. Picture a Democratic candidate at a debate next year with a Republican opponent. Here’s how they could make their case: “My opponent wants to repeal the historic healthcare act President Obama signed early this year. This means he is against laws which end the insurance industry’s ability to deny you coverage — yes, you! — for ‘pre-existing conditions.’ He wants insurance companies to be able to deny you the benefits you have paid for, by going back to the days when some insurance company bureaucrat could decide that they weren’t going to pay for your daughter’s treatment when she gets leukemia. He wants to go back to the days when insurance companies could tell you ‘well, we’ve spent a million bucks on your operation, now we’re going to stop paying for you at all… oh, and by the way, you’re uninsurable for the rest of your life.’ My opponent stands against all these things, because he is more in tune with the insurance industry’s future earnings than he is concerned about the voters of this great state being able to get health insurance without having to face bankruptcy. Make no mistake about it, when he calls for repealing the healthcare reform act, that is exactly what he stands for.” Of course, the negotiations between Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on the final bill could help this a lot by front-loading a bunch of the goodies in the healthcare bill so that they take effect right away , instead of in 2013 or 2014. Democrats are going to require some very tangible benefits that voters can already see , or else it’s going to be a much harder sell. And, while it has more than a hint of “too little, too late,” the White House — and Democrats in general — have done a fairly good job of getting out in front of this, for the past two weeks or so. They have been on a real media blitz, trying to shape the story as “historic reform,” and if they keep it up they can indeed make inroads with voters who have not been paying much attention to the details of the healthcare debate until now. President Obama seems to be leaning on two lines in particular. The first is about the bill, and about his own legacy: “I got 90-95 percent of what I wanted.” While this is hard to argue (since he never laid out exactly what he wanted in any sort of detailed fashion, it’s impossible to fact-check), it does move the focus back to the good things in the bill which the media has largely been ignoring all year long. The second line the president is using is all about his legacy: “Seven presidents have tried this, and seven presidents have failed.” This points out the magnitude of the political victory, which may help Obama himself, but will only help Congresscritters campaign on the broader theme of: “Democrats are getting things done, Republicans only know how to say no.” But Democrats need a better issue for next year, because believe it or not, healthcare reform is not going to be the biggest issue in the election. Voters are more forward-looking, and will be concentrating on other things as well. Such as jobs and the economy. But while Democrats may pass some sort of window-dressing bill to stimulate both the economy and hiring, there simply is no magic lever they can pull (on Capitol Hill or in the Oval Office) to create jobs. The economy will do what it will — recover, stay flat, or go down again — and Democrats will either pay the price or reap the rewards, accordingly. But they’ll have a much better chance, no matter where the economy is, if they’re out there fighting the good fight. Which is where Cantwell-McCain-Feingold comes in. It is tailor-made for the anti-Wall-Street rage out there. What it does, in a nutshell, is to move us back a decade. During the Great Depression, regulating banks was all the rage. One of the biggest regulations passed back then was the “Glass-Steagall Act” of 1933 (passed during F.D.R.’s first year in office), which forbade the intermingling of banking and investment firms. This law stayed in place until the 1999, when it was essentially overturned by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This was a modern age, it was argued, and we needed to modernize banking for the 21st century. That old-fashioned Glass-Steagall Act was getting in the way of making lots of money and bringing joy to all. Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed with overwhelming majorities in Congress, and there are plenty of politicians around today (from both parties) who sang its praises back then. What happened, instead of joy-for-all, was a free-for-all — Wall Street taking a decade to “party like it’s 1999.” And we’ve all seen the results of that. Cantwell-McCain-Feingold would change things back. The bankers are already marshalling their forces against it. Which makes it a perfect political issue to jump on — because, these days, if Wall Street is against it, then almost by definition it must be good. Sure, that oversimplifies things, but the bill itself is pretty simple (the entire text of the legislation itself is about a page and a half long). It even has bipartisan support, to a certain extent. Democrats need to pick an issue that is seen in the public’s eye as a full frontal attack on Wall Street excess. This bill is absolutely made to fit. “Glass-Steagall was good enough to get our country through the last century, and it is a lot better than the deregulated mess which followed its repeal. Big banks hate the idea, which is another reason I am strongly for Cantwell-McCain-Feingold. Bring back Glass-Steagall!” Any wave leaves you with two choices: ride with and “surf” the wave, allowing it to buoy you up and carry you far; or have it come crashing down over your head. Democrats are facing a populist wave in the electorate next year. If they realize it, and start acting like they’re responding to it, then they have a chance in next year’s election. The two issues I’ve named are only examples of how to do so — there are other issues out there, which could work out even better politically. Democrats would be a lot better positioned next year if they were seen as donning their armor, mounting their chargers, taking up a lance, and heading full-tilt at Wall Street. But if Democrats ignore the growing Wall Street/Main Street rage and continue to be seen as carrying the water for Wall Street while completely ignoring Main Street’s concerns, then they are going to get swamped by this particular political wave.   [ Note: The Cantwell-McCain-Feingold bill can be seen, with full details, at the Library of Congress' THOMAS site. The site does not retain search links, so you have to go to their main page and click on "Search by bill number" and enter "S2886" to see it. There is a similar bill in the House as well, which you can see by searching for "HR4375", or you can read a good article on the issues involved from Bloomberg.]   Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant   More on Health Care

View post: 
Chris Weigant: Ride The Populist Wave: Restore Glass-Steagall!

William Safire passed away this year, and with him, the hope for another slew of his year-end prognostications. As an insider’s insider he would frequently predict Israeli-Arab detente, Henry Kissinger’s return to the State Department and Richard Nixon’s final vindication. Of course, since much of his insider’s knowledge came straight from Nixon and Kissinger it wasn’t too hard to predict Safire’s success rate. (About the same as Nixon’s second term.) Into this vacuum someone needs to step. Someone who is a complete outsider, who cannot help but see the future as distorted by an optimistic heart. That’d be me. So here’s what I see, clear as daylight, for the first year of this new decade. The Supreme Court: Justice Antonin Scalia is showing signs of serious judicial burnout — ever more sarcastic and intemperate. He’s not enjoying the court and the prospect of having to outlast Obama’s second term, which will end in January of 2017 when Antonin will be 81, grates on him. He’ll be thinking of resigning all this summer, and when the court returns in the fall, he’ll announce. Two weeks later, Justice Clarence Thomas will also resign and the two will make public their plans for a joint memoir and tour via Thomas’s motor home, both to be named, “None of your damn business.” The Senate: Talk of changing the filibuster rules will soon be forgotten and the Senate will settle into an angry mood. The Republicans will slowly come to understand that their solid opposition to health care reform has only enriched their legacy of opposition to Social Security, Civil Rights, and Medicare, each of which has required an entire generation to forget the Republican role. Predictions of Republican victories in the fall will be additionally undercut by the Tea Baggers’ continued purge of the moderates. The opportunity for comedy will continue unabated as new mirthmakers join Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and the ever-sidesplitting Mitch McConnell. They don’t call him the Senate Wit for nothing. The House of Representatives: The fall elections will have only a mild impact in the House, due to the effect of the Tea Baggers driving Republican candidates to the extreme right, and the Democrats eventually learning how to explain the success of health care reform. The Democrats will lose less than ten seats, some of which will be switcheroos of Blue Dogs coming out of the political closet as Republicans. Nancy Pelosi will finally learn to smile as if it doesn’t hurt. The War in Afghanistan: Two things need to happen or the war is toast: First, the Pakistani leadership and the Pakistani people need to start loving us or the Taliban will continue to have a safe haven there, so dangerously near their Dr. Atomic Kahn. A new George Kennan-like containment policy will arise because that is the best we can hope for. Afghan War Part II: Karzai needs to go. Since he can be bought out of his presidency, somewhere around March he’s going to be feeling the urge to retire to San Francisco, where he’ll join his family developing of a new chain of restaurants which may or may not be fronts for drug laundering. If the name of the chain turns out to be “Poppy’s,” consider it a clue. The Commentariat of the New York Times : Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd will write frequently annoying and inane columns that will have intelligent women everywhere complaining that they could do better. Those intelligent women will be correct. Tom Friedman will realize that he’s losing his success rate to the average stopped clock and retire to focus on writing non-political travel books. They will be very short. But somehow still turgid. Paul Krugman will remain correct, but regretfully so, almost all the time. He will learn rigorous new writing discipline, and use the interjection, “But wait” only every other column. Frank Rich will maintain his weekly backwards gaze, reviewing the political theatre of What Just Happened. He will not look forward, since you can’t review something that hasn’t yet taken place. Ross Douthat, the latest and most confusing of the Time ’s attempts to find a conservative voice who can speak without generating those annoying little flecks of foam that form at the corners of the mouth, will resign from the paper and begin his studies for the priesthood by joining Opus Dei. Bob Herbert and Nick Kristof will regularly make us feel angry, guilty and bad. Thanks, I guess. David Brooks will continue his complex and highly public metamorphosis from an acolyte of William F. Buckley, Jr, into some new kind of political exotic that will combine a basic and caring liberal decency tempered by skepticism of big government in general and disoriented by an irrational fear of transitory deficits. A single lunch with Paul Krugman should be helpful, in which case the transition from genuine conservative to genuine liberal will be complete. And those folks over at the White House? The president and his team will refine their new kind of executive branch: policy over politics, deep cool, and long-term thinking. Those in the chattering classes who can only understand what’s going on by noticing what moved in the previous 24 hour news cycle will persist in missing the unfolding tectonics of the new era. What do you see? I can’t wait to hear what you think will (or ought) to happen in the coming year. More on Paul Krugman

Here is the original post:
Gerald Sindell: Fearless Predictions for 2010 and Other Magical Thinking

Congress caves. Surprise! Not. Three weeks ago the House of Representatives passed a far-reaching overhaul of financial practices, including a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers from abusive lending practices, establish new trading rules and deal with the threat of too big to fail. It was heralded in some quarters as the biggest reform since the New Deal. That may well be so, but the legislation goes not nearly far enough. Nowhere is this more evident than when it comes to regulating complex over-the-counter derivatives. I’ll bet you’re not wondering why. But you’re probably basing your view on mere suspicions about certain people being in the pocket of certain other people. The Wall Street Journal ’s  Randal Smith and Sarah N. Lynch confirm it for you: Lobbying by Wall Street has blunted efforts to step up regulation on derivatives trading by carving out exceptions or leaving the status quo in place. Derivatives took blame for some of the worst debacles of the financial crisis. But a year after regulators and critics began calling for an overhaul in the way they are traded, some efforts have been shelved and others have been watered down. … The two main issues concerning regulators were trading and clearing of swaps, which allow investors to bet on or hedge movements in currencies, interest rates and many other things. Swaps generally trade privately, leaving competitors and regulators in the dark about the scope of their risks. In November 2008, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee proposed forcing all derivatives trading onto exchanges, where their prices could be publicly disclosed and margin requirements imposed to insure that participants could make good on their market bets. When the legislation emerged on relatively close vote from the House on Dec. 11, however, those requirements were diluted or gone altogether. A lawyer for one big Wall Street dealer said in an interview that the rollback from the first proposals in Congress was the result of an “educational” process by dealers and customers that resulted in “a grudging recognition” that many uses of derivatives didn’t fit such a strict approach. At one point, House agriculture chairman Collin Peterson (D., Minn.) said he suspected dealers had dispatched their customers to lobby Capital [sic] Hill. When the mark-up begins on the Cantwell-McCain bill that would restore the protections of the New Deal’s Glass-Steagall Act, you can expect - at the very least - dilution again to be the order of the day. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or a marxist to know why. Senator Dick Durbin said it in April : And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place. Some give themselves fancier names than “bank.” But they still have us by the short hairs. And all it takes for them to maintain their grip is a little “educational” effort among the folks we’re told are elected to represent everybody’s interests.

See the rest here: 
Economic Outrage du Jour

SeanieMic is at it again, this time taking on 2009 as the “year of WTF.” Between David after the Dentist, Jon & Kate, the Snuggie, Sarah Palin, and Carrie Prejean, he has a serious point. Read the lyrics below! WATCH: Tweeting, tweeting on my phone Tim McGraw put out a cologne Tiger Woods slept with women A newsguy liked to screw chickens Michael Phelps inhaled and puffed The world said that eight is enough 3 more years till we all die So soak up two thousand and nine Its just two thousand and nine Did you get a flu of swine? In the year two thousand nine Lady Gaga had fd up style Kate & Jon in the checkout aisle We saw some people of walmart The mall cop to call was Paul Blart We all joined the cult of Snuggie And Susan Boyle is fugly Never had a New Moon shrine In the year two thousand nine Its just two thousand and nine Sarah Palin did resign In the year two thousand nine Michael Jackson said goodbye And Obama did kill a fly Please oh please deport Speidi somewhere and I surely wont cry Canada Im sad to say That theres a party in the USA Drinking Loko made from Four To fit in on the Jersey Shore This year made me shake my head I even got a Playgirl spread In the unemployment line Its the year two thousand and nine Its just two thousand and nine Chris Browns CD sales declined In the year two thousand nine Retire, unretire Brett Sully landed but it got wet Kanye got drunk and caused a scene More pageant garbage ms. prejean In any funny situation I say play that Keyboard Cat You want to order tacos from your phone Well theres an app for that Autotune was outta control The Black Eyed Peas did sell their soul That Phillips chick slept with her pops Marker up my face deters the cops In 30 years Ill look back and say to myself remember when? Cause this year really sucked so drink it up for 2010 More on WTF

See more here: 
2009: The Year Of WTF (VIDEO)

For some, the end of the year is a time to think back on all the memorable moments from the previous 12 months. I prefer to continue my contrarian tradition of performing a mental cleanse, removing from my internal hard drive all the things that should no longer be cluttering my mind. Here then is a list of the things I’d like to forget, circa 2009: Glenn Beck’s tears. Glenn Beck’s whiteboard. Glenn Beck’s attacks on Van Jones. Glenn Beck calling Obama “a racist.” Glenn Beck. That Lloyd Blankfein told the Times of London that Goldman Sachs was “doing God’s work.” The $38 billion tax break the IRS just handed Citibank. That the nation’s four biggest banks, all of which took taxpayer money, cut lending by $100 billion over the last six months. That we know as much as we do about David Letterman’s sex life. That we know as much as we do about Tiger Woods’ sex life. That we know as much as we do about Sen. John Ensign’s sex life. That we know as much as we do about Gov. Mark Sanford’s sex life. That we know as much as we do about Nadya Suleman’s uterus. That Sen. Chuck Grassley joined in the “death panel” nonsense, saying voters had every right to be worried that the government would “pull the plug on grandma.” That Rep. Joe Wilson raised millions for his re-election after yelling “You lie!” at the president. Bristol Palin, abstinence ambassador. That Sean Hannity refused to follow through on his offer to be waterboarded for charity, even after Keith Olbermann said he’d donate $1,000 for every second Hannity endured. That Alberto Gonzales, who approved torture, politicized the Department of Justice, and lied to Congress about warrantless wiretapping and pre-war intelligence had the nerve to claim: “I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror.” The endless hours of precious media air time given over to the Balloon Boy hoax. Balloon Boy vomiting on national television. Twice. The number of warning signs exhibited by Maj. Nidal Hasan that were overlooked. That even after credit card reform legislation passed, credit card companies can charge 30 percent interest rates. The toothless stress tests the Obama administration applied to the banks. That Sen. Jeff Sessions argued for keeping Guantanamo open by pointing to the “tropical breezes blowing through” the prison. That Kim Hendren, a Republican Senate candidate from Arkansas, referred to Chuck Schumer at a campaign event as “that Jew.” That waterboarding had been used in an attempt to extract backup for Dick Cheney’s fantasy of an Iraq/al Qaeda connection. The way conservatives played the race card in attacking the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Bernie Madoff’s mistress’ revelation that he “had a very small penis. Not only was it on the short side, it was small in circumference.” That the toughest interview of the year was done by a comedian (Jon Stewart’s masterful evisceration of Jim Cramer). French President Jacques Chirac’s revelation that George Bush told him in 2003 that he wanted to invade Iraq to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse. The revelation that John Edwards had promised Rielle Hunter a post-Elizabeth rooftop wedding featuring the Dave Matthews Band. That conservatives couldn’t contain their glee when Chicago lost out in the battle for the 2016 Olympics despite the combined star power of Oprah and the Obamas. That Nancy Pelosi, who had promised to “drain the swamp” and create “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history,” instead resisted calls to remove scandal-plagued Ways and Means Committee chairman Charlie Rangel from his post. That we are spending $30 billion a year to take on the 100 al-Qaeda members still in Afghanistan — that’s 1,000 U.S. soldiers and $300 million for every one al-Qaeda fighter — in an unnecessary war of choice. The beer summit. Ryan O’Neal’s admission that he hit on his daughter, Tatum, at ex-wife Farrah Fawcett’s funeral. That after an inspiring presidential campaign that promised to take on the special interests, special interest lobbyists flexed their muscles (and their wallets) and showed who really runs the show in DC. Miley Cyrus, pole dancer. The Movie Multiplex from Hell: Bride Wars, The Box, The Ugly Truth, All About Steve, Old Dogs, Land of the Lost . Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew . Sarah Palin’s resignation speech. Sarah Palin’s feud with David Letterman. Sarah Palin’s book tour. Sarah Palin. The look in Neda Agha-Soltan’s eyes just before she died, gun downed on the streets of Tehran. At the same time I never want to forget it.

Excerpt from:
Arianna Huffington: 2009: The Things I Want to Forget

Politifact already named Sarah Palin’s “death panels” claim its lie of the year — prompting an indignant response from the former Alaska governor. Now Factcheck.org has followed suit, calling the claim that health care reform would lead to euthanasia for the elderly and disabled a “whopper of 2009.” The non-partisan group, however, pinned most of the blame on longtime reform foe Betsy McCaughey . “Death Panels” The “pulling the plug on grandma” falsehood really took off once former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin coined the term “Death Panel,” but this falsehood got its first push from former New York lieutenant governor and health care overhaul opponent Betsy McCaughey. She misrepresented a provision (since dropped) that merely called for Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling sessions to help seniors make end-of-life care decisions, such as designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice or writing a living will. McCaughey twisted that into “a required counseling session” that would “tell them how to end their life sooner.” Palin later wrote on her Facebook page that she doesn’t want government bureaucrats to decide whether her parents or child with Down Syndrome are “worthy of health care.” Who would? Certainly not legislators, who didn’t call for the creation of any such “Death Panel” in the health care bills. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Health Care

See the original post: 
Death Panels Lie On Factcheck.Org’s ‘Whoppers Of 2009′

DETROIT — Sarah Thomas made history at the Pizza Bowl on Saturday, becoming the first woman to officiate a bowl game when she worked the matchup between Ohio and Marshall. Thomas is one of five women officiating in major college football, but Pizza Bowl spokesman Tim Moore said she was the first to draw an assignment for a Bowl Subdivision postseason game. “It was an honor,” Thomas said while running off the field with her colleagues after Marshall’s 21-17 victory at Ford Field. Thomas’ position as line judge meant that she spent most of the game in front of the Thundering Herd’s bench, but the Marshall players didn’t pay much attention. “I noticed her before the game, but that was it,” said Marshall running back Martin Ward, the game’s MVP. “Once the game started, she was just doing the job that the line judge does in every game we play. It didn’t matter that she was a woman at all.” Thomas became the first woman to be an official for a major college football game in 2007 and is on the NFL’s list of officiating prospects. The married mother of two young sons is from Brandon, Miss., and is a pharmaceutical representative. “She did a good job,” Marshall coach Rick Minter said. “I didn’t know she was the first woman to work a bowl game, so what an honor to say I was on the same sideline as she was. And, it’s kind of neat that Pam Ward was doing this game on TV for ESPN.” Terri Valenti is believed to be the first woman to officiate a professional game. She was the head linesman earlier this year in a United Football League game. Thomas is a wife and also a mother to two young boys, according to an interview with the referee that was uploaded to DailyMotion in August 2009. WATCH: Interview with Sarah Thomas Uploaded by flg8or99 . - Discover the latest sports and extreme videos. More on College Football

View post:
Sarah Thomas Becomes First Woman To Referee College Football Bowl Game

DETROIT — Martin Ward ran for two touchdowns in the first half Saturday and Marshall held off Ohio 21-17 in the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl. DeQuan Bembry’s interception with 40 seconds left sealed the victory for the Thundering Herd (7-6), who led by three touchdowns midway through the second quarter. The Bobcats (9-5) rallied with Shannon Ballard’s 75-yard return off a fumble in the second quarter, Terrence McCrae’s TD catch and Matt Weller’s field goal. Ohio had chances to complete the comeback but was stunted on the drive before its final possession. The game looked like it was going to be a route when Ward’s 2-yard run put Marshall ahead 21-0 with 7:21 left in the first half. Ward scored on a 12-yard run late in the first quarter and Andre Booker had 58-yard punt return for a touchdown at the end of the quarter. Just when it appeared as if the Herd were going to make the game lopsided, Ballard returned a fumble 75 yards and gave Ohio a much-needed spark. The Bobcats carried the momentum into the second half, when Theo Scott connected with a leaping McCrae in the end zone on an 8-yard pass midway through the third quarter. Weller’s 46-yard field goal made it 21-17. Marshall didn’t have a first down after halftime until its fourth possession, then it negated a 20-yard gain with a holding penalty and was forced to punt. Ohio drove to the Marshall 13 on the ensuing drive – taking advantage of two late-hit penalties against the Herd – but stalled and missed a field goal that would’ve pulled the Bobcats within a point early in the fourth quarter. The Bobcats stayed in the game despite just 123 yards of offense. Marshall didn’t exactly move up and down the field at will, but it scored enough early in the game to win. Brian Anderson was 12 of 17 for 85 yards for the Herd, and Ward ran for 72 yards and two scores on nine carries. Scott was 14 of 26 for 111 yards with a TD and an interception for Ohio. Chris Garrett was held to 30 yards on 10 carries and Taylor Price caught four passes for 49 yards. The schools, located 82 miles apart, played 52 times between 1905 and 2004 in “The Battle for the Bell,” with the trophy symbolizing the Ohio River separating Ohio and West Virginia. They hadn’t played since Marshall left the Mid-American Conference for Conference USA in 2005. Ohio was led by Frank Solich, the former Nebraska coach, while the Herd had interim coach Rick Minter on their sideline. Mark Snyder resigned at Marshall after the season and will be replaced by John “Doc” Holliday, who was an assistant to Urban Meyer on Florida’s 2006 national championship team. Sarah Thomas made history during the game, becoming the first woman to officiate a bowl game, according to a Little Caesars Bowl spokesman. She was the first woman to be an official for a major college football game in 2007 and is on the NFL’s list of officiating prospects. More on College Football

Original post: 
Little Caesar’s Pizza Bowl: Marshall Tops Ohio, 21-17

American music gives us more than enough to provide a great list of songs to play this Christmas. Since I was unable to finish my own Christmas single - maybe I’ll have the time and money next year - I dug up twelve songs from a variety of styles to inspire you on the holiday. One for each day of Christmas … “Santa Claus Go Straight to the Ghetto,” James Brown - “… and tell ‘em James Brown sent you.” A solid funk groove creates the foundation for the Godfather of Soul’s exhortation to the airborne saint. “While Shepherds Watched Their Flocks,” Louvin Brothers - The harmonizing, songwriting Alabama antecedents of the Everly Brothers tackle a classic hymn. If you like it (and their brother harmonies are among the richest ever) you can dive deeper into their Fundamentalist songbook: “Satan’s Jeweled Crown,” “Weapon of Prayer,” “The Angels Rejoic’d,” or even “Don’t Let Them Take the Bible Out of the Schoolroom.” (When it comes to politics, music is a demilitarized zone. Except when it becomes the weapon itself …) “Christmas Done Finally Came,” Jerome Alexander - A New Orleans acapella doo-wop Christmas party song. Exactly what the doctor ordered to lift spirits after a rough few weeks in politics. ” “Nothing But a Child,” Steve Earle - Emmylou Harris provides harmony for this tune’s evocation of the Nativity story, childhood innocence, and the long road back to redemption. Gets to me every time. “Away in a Manger,” Emmylou Harris - Speaking of Emmylou, nobody can breathe new life into an overly familiar song like Emmylou can. This should prove it. “American Jesus,” Bad Religion - For the atheists among us, this song’s worth a spin any time of the year. And despite my past political differences with a couple of the New Atheists, there are other great nonbeliever anthems where this one came from. (Anybody heard “No Voices in the Sky” by Motorhead?) “He’s Alive,” Dolly Parton - If Dolly had been a man, she’d have been recognized as one of the greatest songwriters and singers country music has ever had. Instead she had to become more glittery and over-the-top every year. This retelling of the Crucifixion is pretty over the top, too, and maybe she could have dialed her reading down a notch or two. But melodrama and all, it can make your hair stand on end. Which was the real point of the original story … “Mary,” Patti Griffin - The Christmas story retold with the mother - in fact, the eternal Mother - as the protagonist. A lyrical, feminist, mystical recasting. “Hymn to Her,” the Pretenders - While not specifically about Christmas, Chrissie Hynde nails this song, also about the feminine Divine. And for a straight-up Christmas song there’s always the Pretenders’ “2,000 Years.” “What Do the Lonely Do at Christmas,” the Emotions - A soul ballad for wistful Yule moments. “The Rebel Jesus,” Jackson Browne - JB joins the Chieftains to sing praises for a Middle Eastern insurrectionist, from “a pagan who stands with the rebel Jesus.” We could do with a little driving the moneylenders from the Temple these days, don’t you think? (In fact, let’s give an honorable mention to “When the Dollar Rules the Pulpit” by the Dixie Hummingbirds .) ” Merry Xmas/War Is Over,” John and Yoko - Yeah, I know you’re sick of it. Too bad. Their unique genius in this tune was to make it sing-songy so that it can live forever (just like “Give Peace a Chance.) There’s also Yoko’s beautiful snowbound ballad, “Listen the Snow Is Falling,” with John’s graceful Reggie Young riffs in the background. And in this interview with my friend Denise Sullivan , I love the way 77-year-old Yoko explains that she’s too busy to write a memoir. Maybe later, she says. That’s what I call a role model. (And don’t tell me they’re British or Japanese. They’re New Yorkers, and that’s still America, no matter what Sarah Palin says.) That’s our twelve. Oh, but how could I forget this one? “Would They Love Him Up In Shreveport” by George Jones , written by the great Bobby Braddock. “If they knew He was a Jew/and a Palestinian, too …” So let’s make it thirteen, if that’s all right with you. I know that others, like David Wild, have taken up the habit of creating blogger playlists. They’ve done a great job. But as an early adapter of the genre (for a defense contractor’s lavish party and Valentine’s Day , for example) I felt I had stayed away for far too long. So this was my Christmas present to myself. Hope you like it, too. Happy holiday, haloday, Christmas, Hanukah, Festivus, solstice (soulstice?), or Friday (pick one). ___________________ (More music writing here ) Other Xmas posts: Death of a Torture Victim Cousin Jesus RJ Eskow blogs when he can at: A Night Light The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog No Middle Class Health Tax! Website: Eskow and Associates More on Christmas

Read the rest here:
Richard (RJ) Eskow: An American Christmas Playlist

Earlier this week, I asked for your ideas on what gifts we should give to some of our favorite — and not so favorite — public figures. You dusted off your Santa suits and squeezed down the virtual chimney, loaded with gift ideas. Now it’s time to unwrap the presents. Here are our favorite gifts to stuff into the stockings of some of 2009’s most memorable characters: Chris Matthews: a microphone that cuts off after he asks a question. (submitted by MrJoyboy) Barack Obama: a GPS, to show him the way from Wall Street to Main Street. (submitted by Manx) Barack Obama: a memory improvement course so he can remember what he said during the campaign. (MrJoyboy) Howard Dean: applause for sticking to what is right and not to what we should settle for. (Luis Nobondo) Sarah Palin : a gallon of White Out, the better to rewrite history. (MrJoyboy) Sarah Palin: a clue. Even if it’s just the board game. (TOOO) Wolf Blitzer: a trivia book for his next misadventure on Celebrity Jeopardy. (megalanzero) Joe Lieberman: a heart transplant — to give him something he’s never had. (Manx) Al Franken and Alan Grayson: all the money they need to get re-elected the next time they run. (SKinMN) The Wall Street criminals that lined their pockets with everyone else’s money and brought the economy to the brink: jail time - and lots of it! (sunsethill) Those In Government: the same health care plan that the American people now have. (MichelleMoquin) Glenn Beck: a very nice and cozy (slightly-used) millennium bunker, with padded walls. (RepugsOut08) “Real Housewives” and other reality “stars”: a life — specifically a life without cameras. (Quislet) Michele Bachmann: a six-foot statue of the Minnesota state bird — the loon — for encouraging citizens to protect their freedom by not filling out the federal census in 2010. (offred) American voters: Public financing of all campaigns. (4earth) Teabaggers: a reality check. (timatgonzo) Matt Taibbi: a tool belt with a hammer so he can continue to nail Goldman Sachs to the wall. (inmyhumbleopinion) Any worker making tangible goods and providing necessary services: a banker’s bonus. (Eileen Kasai) More on Barack Obama

Read the original post: 
Arianna Huffington: Newsmakers Roasting on an Open Fire: Your Gift Ideas for 2009’s Naughty and Nice

OK, diversity fans and PC police, here’s the ultimate holiday greeting: you combine the world’s four main holidays celebrated at year’s end: Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and Ramadan, and you get ” Christmahanukwanzaadan “. What’s not to love about this greeting? It’s inclusive! Depending upon which holiday you celebrate, you might choose to juxtapose the sequence. Perhaps you prefer “Ramahanukwanzaachris “. Or maybe ” Hanuchrismaramakwan ” rolls off your tongue more easily. Repeat after me 3 times a fast as you can…… Hanuchrismaramakwan, Hanuchrismaramakwan, Hanuchrismaramakwan . It really doesn’t matter which holiday is mentioned first. It’s all in there. What matters ( or not, depending on your point of view ) is that everyone’s preference is honored. Or you could just take the easy PC way out and wish people “Happy Holidays” like most people do these days. But isn’t it kind of fun to color outside the lines sometimes and tweak people’s minds just a teensy bit and come up with the unexpected? Or maybe tweak them a LOT?! Try out this alternative holiday greeting the next time you’re about to wish someone ” Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays ” and see what kind of reaction you get. I’m betting you get a smile and that’s worth the price of admission isn’t it? Speaking of tweaking the mind and getting a smile, I’ve been tweaking my own mind and smiling a lot this holiday season, all due to the “gift-free” vow I took at Thanksgiving. I can’t help but feel just a teensy bit smug as I cruise past the freeway exit to the Bay Street shopping center and see cars backed up for blocks, inching their way onto surface streets and vying for those ever dwindling spots in the parking garage. I have not missed the shopping part of the holiday season one iota. Nor will I miss the soon to be “exchange season” about to begin on Dec. 26th. Instead, I will be on the northern California coast at one of my favorite spots on the planet, Sea Ranch, enjoying a few days of holiday merry-making with family and friends. This is what it’s all about for me. The older I become, the more happy and satisfied I am with simple pleasures. Give me a raging fire, good food and conversation to match, maybe add a glass of champagne and I am a happy camper. This year, I notice that I’m happy to leave behind the stress of wanting to have the holidays meet some standard I adopted from who-knows-where and from who-knows-who. I know I’m not alone in this. Many of you have written about your own version of re-writing the holiday scripts you inherited from your families of origin. You know the ones: where you gather with people you see once a year, sit around a big table and gorge lots of food, all the while trying to find a way to connect with that one family member who’s views about life and politics are diametrically opposed to yours. You do your best to be polite and not say anything to rile up Uncle Hank, while you listen to him drone on and on about things in which you have zero interest. You paste a generic courtesy smile on your face and utter strategically timed “ah ha’s” every so often to make it appear you’re engaged. Uncle Hank doesn’t even notice that you’re not listening because he’s so self absorbed, he’s really engaged in a monologue and having an ever so good time communing with himself. If you want to tweak Uncle Hank just a tad and get his attention, wish him a Happy Ramachrismakwanzaakuh and wait for him to react. He might even inquire what in the world you’re talking about! This could open a myriad of possibilities for launching into a cultural discourse on the world’s great religions. Or it could end up being a very short conversation before Uncle Hank moves on to investigate the plum pudding, in which case your best bet is to join him and imbibe in some yourself. And while the two of you are munching away, mention Sarah Palin and watch Uncle Hank light up. In this season where Going Rogue is either going vogue for some or going bogus for others, try a little roguishness yourself. Break the rules. Who’s rules are you following anyway? Chances are, if you’re anything like 99% of the rest of the people on the planet, you’re following rules you never formally signed on to. They came pre-installed and you and I just marched in step until we made them our own. So go ahead, break a few this Chrismahanzaakwanadan ( See, it has an infinite number of variations. You could amuse yourself for hours with this.) and stir things up at your holiday celebration. I’d love to hear how you’ll do that. Looking ahead, lest we overlook the obvious, we about to launch ourselves into a brand new decade in a little over a week. A new chapter begins! A clean slate awaits. What are creating for your life starting in 2010? What new territory invites you? We’ve much inquiry to do on this one, so stay tuned and let’s get busy creating the extraordinary. Please drop by the comment section and share your “shake up the holiday plans” and plans for the new year. Do come and visit me on my personal blog and web site at Rx For The Soul . Or send me an email: judith (at) judithrich.com . Become A Fan if you’d like to receive automatic updates here and wake up your Facebook friends by posting this on your FB page. Thanks for the memories we’ve shared in 2009. Frankly, I’m not sad to see it go. It’s been a challenging year for most of us. Still and all, I’m grateful for the many blessings I’ve received this year not the least of which is you and your loyal readership here on the Huffington Post. I’ll be away until after the New Year, so let me take this chance to wish you all a joyous and abundant Sanah Jadidah (Iraq), Saale Nao Mubbarak (Afgani), Xin Nian Kuai Le (Chinese) L’Shannah Tovah (Hebrew), S Novim Godom (Russian), Heri Za Mwaka Mpya (Swahili) New Year. May the new decade greet you with creative opportunities to be more of who you truly are! Blessings on the path, Judith More on Religion

Here is the original post:
Dr. Judith Rich: Have Yourself A Merry Little Chrismahanukwanzaadan

  “Bicycle Christmas lights - drivetrain” (SF Bay Area), by Richard Masoner  (creative commons)   “Santa Claus is coming to town,” by Luke Redmond (creative commons)   “Neighborhood decor” (Chester County, PA), by Sharkey M. (creative commons)   “CTA Holiday Train Interior” (Chicago), by Jovi Girl J/Jen Marie  (creative commons)   “bike santas ride into the park” (Los Angeles), by pinguino k (creative commons)   “The Santa Train” (Chicago), by Sarah Best (creative commons)   “Bike lit up at Peacock Lane Car Free 2008″ (Portland), by npGREENWAY (creative commons)   “Canadian Pacific Holiday Train,” by Eric Begin (creative commons)   “Festival of Rights (13)” (Los Angeles), by digablesoul/al (creative commons) Many thanks to these great photographers for allowing people like me to display their work for you. Kaid Benfield writes occasional “Village Green” commentary on Huffington Post and (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment on NRDC’s Switchboard blog site. He becomes self-indulgent around the holidays.  For daily posts, see his Switchboard blog’s home page .     More on How Tomorrow Moves™

Read more: 
F. Kaid Benfield: Village Green: Happy Cycling & Transit Holidays! (fun photos)

One of the great things about English actress Emily Blunt is that she carries no vestige of her characters beyond the set — especially not when she’s playing the British Queen Victoria. At her roundtables for The Young Victoria , she showed no royal imperiousness, no contempt of the masses, no unwillingness to answer questions that didn’t please her. But her characterization of the youthful Victoria was so dead-on in the award-worthy The Young Victoria that you’d have expected her to be a royal pain. It takes a fine actress to make interesting the story of a young princess who has basically been a prisoner in her own home, trapped by her mother, the Duchess of Kent and lover/consort, Sir John Conroy. When they try to force her to give control of the crown to her mother, she resists. On her 18th birthday, she becomes the Queen — but the power really shifts to her once King William, her uncle, dies shortly after her birthday. Of course, Blunt’s on-screen intensity is what makes the 26-year-old actor such a hit in the films she’s made from her breakout role in The Summer of Love as a well-educated, cynical and deceptive 16-year-old beauty, Tamsin and beyond. She went on to perform key parts in such films as The Devil Wears Prada , The Jane Austen Book Club , Charlie Wilson’s War and Sunshine Cleaning . But nothing has brought her to such public attention as this film — she’s already been nominated for A Golden Globe and a BAFTA award for Best Actress — about the English monarch who reigned the longest and changed her country’s culture. Q: How aware were you of the Victorian period? What were your prior impressions, and how did they change ? EB: I actually had a rather limited knowledge of Victoria and Victoriana — how they created that — and of her and Albert together. I had the image of her as the old lady who’s mourning and dressed in black. So I had no idea about the antithesis of that, when she was young, rebellious, spunky and bright, and she parties all night. It was these elements of her that I never imagined possible, so when I started reading about all of that, I was very surprised to hear about the character traits I never thought we there. Q: What did they do to inform you? Was it just what you got from school? EB: I had no idea, because I took geography, which I thought was the easiest subject compared to history. I took geography and can’t remember any of it. It was probably a stupid thing to take because I think history would have been a better way to go. It certainly would have helped me more with this. But maybe not; we have a whole lot of kings and queens, so I think that I probably would have only known a paragraph about her anyway beforehand.  It was really fascinating…to read about what they did together, really mainly under Albert’s influence, because he was very educated in all these departments — social reform and architecture and the arts and the sciences — and about what they did for poverty. They were very progressive in what they wanted to do for the country. Q: How did the producers help you? EB: Well Julian Fellows [screenwriter] is a historian really; you can’t try out history on Julian Fellows because he will nail you every time. So it was very helpful talking to him and then reading books that he had encouraged me to read: biographies, diaries of hers and letters. The diaries were most helpful to me, because you can learn as much as you want about this history, you can read about it out of your own interest, but it doesn’t necessarily help me with trying to play this person….You have to drop that at some point and make it your own. Another actress would have read the same diaries and had a different take, so it was just my personal take on her, what I felt I could identify with, what I thought was important to bring across. Q: Was it hard to keep that balance to make her relatable? EB: It’s interesting, because I wanted it to be accessible because I feel period dramas can be quite staged almost, and stiff and arch, and I think that that stops people from actually getting in and identifying with what’s going on. But at the same time you don’t want to risk losing those constraints because then you lose the whole nature of the implications of what happens if you do a certain thing in that period. And if you’ve lost any of those constraints and any of the world then it doesn’t become relevant.   So it is a tough balance and Rupert [Friend, who played Albert] and I approached it very similarly. And I was very lucky with him because he is such a natural actor as well, so we sort of fed off each other trying to make those moments incredibly real. Love is this thing that is all about emotions and instinct, and so you can have this flowery dialogue, but at the end of the day, instinctually, it’s about love.  Love is timeless and I think that we really strive for that, to fight against the dialogue, fight against the costumes, try not to be swallowed up by the sets and the opulence of it. I thought this was a love story, but I also thought it was a film about a dysfunctional family and about a young girl who’s in a job where she’s in way over her head. So I tried to approach it in a way that I could understand. I have no idea what it’s like to be Queen of England. Q: Did you feel the chemistry was there between you and Rupert or did you only see it when you saw the film? EB: I think you know it [from the start]. Rupert and I met and we just got on so well and that really helps. When you have a genuine like for that person it gives you a freedom within the scene to try stuff. There’s a lot of trust there so you can improvise moments and they come alive, and sometimes you strike gold and sometimes it’s like watching paint dry, but at least you can try it because you have the trust there with that person. Rupert was wonderful, and it’s just because he was the only guy to play that job because he was so perfect as Albert. He was the last person that came in to read and I was like, “Thank God,” because he just blew it out of the water, he was so fantastic. Q: Lord Melbourne — her early advisor and friend who helped before she got involved with Albert — was the other major male relationship in Victoria’s life. He is so incredible — what a dynamic between the two of you. EB: It’s a really interesting relationship because Melbourne was sort of everything to her. He was a father figure, she was infatuated with him in a slightly teenage way, but she didn’t have those romantic feelings towards him, it was more sort of a teenage crush that developed into very much a real friendship. She had a real love for him but at the same time he was manipulating her and he was toying with that, but he actually ended up having a huge amount of respect for her when he realized he couldn’t do that anymore, the tables turned. So it was an interesting dynamic to get because you wanted to see that there was a threat to Albert, but at the same time that nothing shady was going on. So he was great with that pull because he’d add elements of being vaguely flirtatious but not seedy, and you could see he really liked her but it wasn’t that he was completely trying to sabotage, or use her as a pawn. It was a very complicated dynamic to get [right] and it was mainly on [Paul Bettany] to create that. He created it because it should always have been ambiguous as to what that relationship really was. I thought he was great; it was very delicately done. Q: Did the corset help you find your character? EB: They’re very good in that it transports you to moving a different way, holding yourself differently. You do have to kind of glide with it, so I think it does help me. I usually try and approach characters in that way, I mean everyone’s very different, but I find the physical aspects of creating that person very helpful, like the costumes, the clothes, the way they move, the voice, everything like that. I usually start from that point. Q: Did you ever faint wearing those corsets ? EB: I got close to it. Miranda Richardson was the one who had the closest call, after claiming she was amazing in the corset and that she could take it as tight as anyone wanted. We call it in the UK, she “pulled a whitey;” she literarily went white. She was sitting at the table and she was talking and she suddenly just went…and she was like, “Get me out of it!” and had a panic attack. I was alright; I got very used to it and by about four o’clock, that’s when it starts to hurt. But they look beautiful so you’ve got to just suck it up, really. Or suck it in, as they say. Q: One of the most powerful scenes was between her and King William. Was he as entertaining in real life? EB: Oh he’s so entertaining. She did adore her uncle; he was always wonderful to her and very much a father figure. She was kept back from seeing him and that was always very sad for her. She was kept back from seeing anyone. It was really an oppressive, lonely childhood.  There was one story I read that she was walking with her mother in the gardens — and her mother was reluctant about being there with King William — and he came past in his carriage and he just picked her up and they went on this crazy ride around the gardens in his carriage. So that was her outlet, I think, going to see him. But Jim Broadbent is absolutely as fun as you can imagine. He’s really wonderful. That’s my favorite scene in the film, that dinner scene. Q: What do you think you’d do if you lived in that time? EB: It’s almost an impossible question because I have no idea. I would hope that I could be as forward thinking as she was. She went against protocol and she was determined to make things better and she overrode tradition, and I thought that that was a really wonderful quality for her, and surprising that she had the guts to do it.  It probably helped her not growing up at court amongst those stately manners, from the mannerisms to the etiquette, and I think that she was kind of a loose cannon in a room like that. She had a horrible temper, which correlated as well to how passionate she was as a character. I think that she was a modern girl and I think that she was independent, so I would hope I wouldn’t be manipulated and controlled in a way that a lot of women were in those days. Q: What about handling fame and wanting to be a young person?  EB: It’s funny because I think it is all about choices, from the choices you make as to where you want to go and eat dinner, like don’t go to the scenes, don’t go to where you know people are going to take your picture. Just find a dive bar, why do you have to go to a scene?  Are you talking about me or Victoria? It’s a similar thing. It’s interesting, You have to develop quite a thick skin because people are going to trash you. Not everyone’s going to think you’re great. And I think that that’s important to remember…You’ve got to relinquish that and just let it go, because I have no control over that side of it - of people’s opinions - but I do have control over how much I put myself out there.  I feel that in a way I now lead a similar existence to what Victoria led, although certainly not under the amount of pressure that she was under. I have a good life. It’s not compared to the ridicule that she was put under, but I think it’s that sort of element of a dual existence. You have yourself at home behind closed doors and then you have an awareness when you step outside the house. For me it’s only an awareness. It’s no more than that. Q: Celebrities are always complaining about the downside of dealing with fame and attention and paparazzi. EB: I feel like it’s a really magical job, so the side effect of what comes with that can be good and bad. But what I get out of it is the work. It’s not whatever people think of me…because with that comes bad regard and that willingness to see you fall as well.  A lot of people like to see a fall from grace. There’s a real hunger for that. I’m aware of that, so I try not to buy too much into what people think. But as long as I keep getting the parts that I’ve been lucky enough to play…the variety is what I really strive for, because that’s what I love about the work.  It’s a wonderful job in that everything you go through in life can come out in it somehow. You can have a visceral reaction to so much in life and then put it into your work. Q: What was your impression of Sarah Ferguson and [some others] and did you get to meet any other real-life royals? EB: Sarah was a great support system because she came up with the initial idea, but then she very much took a back step and said, “What do I know about making a film? I know nothing about that.”  But she’d come on set and make tea for everyone. She was always so open and down-to-earth, and I think that you were able to see the humanity in the royal family through her because she would talk quite openly. In a way she identified more with Albert because Albert was the guest in the house and the outsider, and she actually understood his character more. Q: I want to know more about Fergie. She actually came on set and made tea? EB: She only came on twice. She really wasn’t around once we started filming. She was very tenacious with Graham in getting it off the ground, but once we started making it, she was just thrilled to be a part of it. I only got to know her after it when we started doing press. Q: How do you think the royals will react to this movie? EB: The Queen saw it; she liked it. She said she wants to know what happens next. So that was good. Q: Did you get to meet her? EB: No I’ve never met her. Q: Though you haven’t met the Queen, what is your imaginary scenario of getting to meet her Majesty. EB: I’m sure I would botch it up somehow. I’m sure I’d forget to curtsey, or I don’t know what I would do. I’d probably say the wrong thing; I might drop an F-bomb, it could all go wrong. I think it would be nice to meet her in this context because I’ve played a queen and I think I’d feel more at ease meeting her in this context. Q: Did you hear that Lady Gaga met The Queen? EB: Did she meet the Queen? She did not! What was she wearing? Are you serious? Unbelievable. Unbelievable.  More on England

Excerpt from:
Brad Balfour: Actress Emily Blunt Reigns In The Young Victoria

When Lyndon Johnson convinced Congress to pass Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, few suspected it would take four more decades to again pass health reform to cover more Americans that would reach the White House for signing. Medicare and Medicaid didn’t instantly improve health care, but it did strengthen the safety net that protects folks when extraordinary things happen. Yet despite that historic achievement, and the magnitude of the accomplishment, the very real flaws in the bill have been far more in focus than the benefits or the history. Democrats appropriately wanted more. Republicans wanted to lie about what was in the bill, and denigrate what they could not stop. Between the two, the media and the blogs had plenty to talk about. Still, at least for a day, it’s worth focusing on some of the achievements. On the Arena today, I wrote: In the end, Republicans have to decide how far they want to believe their own myths about what they’ve been saying about Democrats. For example, lies about death panels and socialism won’t get anything done (elitists always have trouble with faux populism), but there’s always room for reining in government spending as soon as the recession passes. And in the end, we are going to pass health reform, 30 million people will have an easier time getting insured, the industry will be regulated better (pre-existing conditions and recission), and passing health reform will – thanks to Republicans - be a strictly Democratic achievement that no other President since LBJ was able to pull off. That’s, of course, not the only view of this. Interestingly, though, on our Abbreviated Pundit Roundup yesterday, we highlighted the Republican rumblings that don’t always get covered (despite the facade, there are misgivings in the GOP about how this has played out.) From the predictable ( David Broder lamenting the lack of bipartisanship) to the unusual (left blogs and conservatives making common cause), some of thge commentary that has most impressed me comes from Jonathan Chait , writing about the historic nature of this bill, and where the discussion has taken us. The sum total effect of this legislation is fairly simple. It would redirect a large chunk of the money sloshing around the health care system away from ineffective treatments and toward providing care for the uninsured. On top of that, it would prod the system, in dozens of ways large and small, to adopt cutting edge methods. It is not the kind of plan liberals would create if they could design it from scratch. Rather, it is a centrist compromise of the best variety, combining the ideas of the now nearly-extinct moderate wing of the Republican Party with the smartest bipartisan technocratic reforms. What, then, is not to like? Conservatives have attacked reform with a potent combination of populist attacks against cost controls, aimed particularly at terrified elderly voters, along with more intellectually-respectable attacks protesting the lack of cost control, aimed at winning elite opinion. The first set of attacks whips up fears of Medicare cuts, death panels, or any provision that might cause anybody to lose his employer-sponsored health-insurance. Anything Democrats do to protect themselves against those attacks opens them up to the opposite charge of failing to sufficiently cut the health care budget, and vice versa. In fact, my favorite quote comes from Georges Benjamin (Exec. Dir. American Public Health Association): At three o’clock in the morning when your kid gets sick, you want the help; you need the help. When political rhetoric hits the cold reality of sickness, quality, affordable health care wins every time. The fact is that Americans need the safety net. I cannot begrudge any steps toward making that possible, even if this as yet doesn’t go nearly far enough. But until we have something that does, we need to move the deadlines up, strengthen the affordability, and make this bill better before the President signs it. And for Republicans, they need to guard against reading their own talking points and thinking that’s a substitute for real life. Chait, again: The opponents of reform have succeeded both when they have made the debate too narrow—a skeptical and often paranoid focus on small features of reform ripped out of all context—and when they have made the debate too vague—with broad-brush denunciations of corporatism and socialism. which was also ably summed up by Steve Benen : Progressive activists and progressive wonks are at each other’s throats this week, but they want largely the same goals. Their differences are sincere and significant, but the intensity of their dispute is matched by the potency of their arguments. And then turn your attention to the other side of the divide, and notice the quality of the arguments conservatives and Republicans have offered — and continue to offer — in this debate. Death panels. Socialism. Hitler. Government takeover. Socialized medicine. Incomprehensible charts. Incessant whining about the number of pages in a proposal.   Once can’t help but think that relying on Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as the go-to health care analysts for the GOP isn’t going to turn out well (for them.) Next steps are the difficult reconciliation process, but don’t bet against this bill passing. There’s too much history, and too much Republican effort to scuttle the bill to make that palatable for Democrats. And for the 30 million people that don’t have insurance now, they can’t wait for the perfect bill. Think of them this holiday season as you celebrate with you and yours.

See original here: 
Senate Makes History Sans Republicans

Does Sarah Palin have her own enemies list? You betcha : Approximately 1,000 people attended former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s book-signing event in her hometown of Wasilla, AK … Not every attendee was welcome. Dennis Zaki, an Anchorage photographer and videographer who until recently ran the Web site Alaska Report, checked in at the media table and was told by Wasilla Recreation and Cultural Services Manager James Hastings that he wasn’t welcome. “He said because this is a paid event, they can ban anybody they want,” Zaki said. He didn’t fight it, he said. Zaki said he was told that he and a couple of Alaska bloggers were on the list, with photos to identify them. Hastings defended the move, saying: … it wasn’t in his (Zaki’s) best interest to be here. He and others could have found themselves in a negative situation. Apparently there were fears that someone might ask Palin what newspapers she reads. Also.

View post:
Sarah Palin may not have banned books — critics, on the other hand …

Some of the usual right-wing suspects have decided that what Politifact called the “Lie of the Year” is so delicious that they’re going to use it again. “Death panels,” the label effectively applied in August to health insurance legislation by half-term Gov. Sarah Palin on her FaceBook, is now being attached to the proposed Independent Medicare Advisory Board . The first time around, according to Politifact, the web site run by the non-profit St. Petersburg Times , Palin’s claim managed to cow the easily cowed Senate into dropping the voluntary end-of-life counseling that is included in the House’s version of the health-insurance bill. Who knows what luck the purveyors of this slime will have this time. The real objective is ammo for November. The latest salvo from Palin’s FaceBook page was noted by our friends over at Think Progress : No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. … In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. This recycling didn’t start with Palin, but rather with RedState’s Eric Erickson and Weekly Standard editor John McCormack. But Palin takes it another step, declaring that the IMAB provision proves she wasn’t lying four months ago about “death panels,” and that this is “precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.” No surprise to anyone who’s opened any random page of Going Rogue , she’s lying again. When Palin defended her “death panel” claim on Facebook in August, she specifically cited “Advance Care Planning Consultation” in the House bill. Additionally, as McCormack actually acknowledges, the Senate legislation specifically says that IMAB “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility standards.” There is plenty in (and not in) the Senate health bill to decry, to fight against, to hope is altered in the House-Senate conference bill. But no matter what happens to that legislation, you can expect the “death panel” lie to join all the other soundbite propaganda that now makes up the Republican manifesto.  

Go here to read the rest: 
GOP Recycles ‘Death Panels’ Lie of the Year, You Betcha.

December twenty-first is winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. That makes the 22nd the first day of more sun! Let me spell that out. Beginning this week we’re on a path toward “sun breaks” and dry sidewalks, a time when people will take their fleeces off for long enough to wash them, a time that pet poop will dry out enough that your kids can scoop it off the lawn. Anyone who thinks that winter solstice couldn’t possibly have spawned the rich array of celebrations that we now call Yule and Christmas and Divali and Hannukkah and Kwanzaa never lived in Seattle. Solstice means that within a few weeks the days will be perceptibly longer. It means that by mid- January, it will be easier to see the ice I’m scraping off the windshield with my battered health insurance card. It means that crocuses will come up through the grass if I hurry and get some bulbs planted, and the chickens will start laying again. It means that my crazy friends Sarah and Lee who bicycle to work in the dark and rain soon will be able to bicycle in just rain! Now that’s something to celebrate. But even as I look forward to spring, I can’t help but think that mid-winter, in some ways, shows the human spirit at its best. Remarkably, we’ve managed to take our darkest days and turn them into some of our brightest. Without the lights and parties, December in Seattle would be a time for hibernation. (We Seattleites complain now about getting fat and sluggish from things like too many shrimp cocktails, or glasses of wine, or chocolate truffles. But think about how much more bear-like we’d get if all we did was huddle in bed with Netflix and Costco-sized bags of Pirate’s Booty.) Corpu-locity aside, hibernation would mean missing out on one of the best times of the year. That is because the darkness of this season forces us to look into ourselves and our relationships for beauty and delight. Summer’s pleasures can make us lazy. But now, the garden is soggy with fallen leaves and plants that look like wilted lettuce. The grassy soccer fields are mud-wallows. The street trees are sticks, and hanging flower baskets are gone. The mountain trails are slick and nasty cold making high meadows inaccessible. With the outside world a grey shadow of itself, life becomes what we make it. And so, make it we do. We seek out those we love. We bask in who loves us. We indulge our most superficial material impulses. We have more sex. And we ask ourselves what matters. It is no accident that many of the celebrations around solstice are embedded in spiritual traditions that invite us to examine not only our relationships with each other but our relationship to the universe and the Great Unknown. Many of us enter the new year, with its promise of new life, by making promises of our own: renewed commitments to be better parents or friends, re-engage in a spiritual quest, launch a new project, or simply take better care of ourselves. Since the time our ancestors moved from being hunter-gatherers to being farmers, humans have been bound to an agricultural calendar and a cycle of hard work. During the spring, summer and fall, most of the time was consumed with creating food and shelter. In the bleak wastelands of winter, though, in the lull between planting seasons, came a time to laugh and sing and ask big questions. These days, few of us work the fields, but the rhythm of the year still shapes our lives, and the sun on our faces is one of life’s joys. I wish the media hype-meisters would realize that most of us aren’t interested in squabbling about labels or who owns which dates or rituals, or who copied who when it comes to our celebrations. Most of us just aren’t inspired to spend this season staking out territory. For one thing, all of our mid-winter celebrations emerged from earlier traditions that honored the cycle of the seasons: Christmas incorporates ancient rituals from Yule and Saturnalia. December 25 was chosen to celebrate the birth of Jesus because it already was celebrated as the birthday of dying and rising gods and of the sun. That we borrow from each other and build new on top of old foundations doesn’t make any of these traditions less powerful or delightful or sacred. More importantly, we’re not interested in squabbling over turf because this season is about celebrating what we all have in common. In Seattle, one thing we share is a craving for the sun. But there’s far more than that: The value we place on love. Our delight in giving to each other. Our yearning for wonder. Our longing for fresh beginnings. I personally don’t care which tradition people call on at solstice time, as long as they keep those lights burning. More on The Inner Life

View original here: 
Valerie Tarico: Solstice Is The Reason For The Season!

In an interview with the Financial Times, Governor Schwarzenegger accused former Governor Sarah Palin of accomplishing little in the way of climate change policy, and instead using the issue as a launching pad for her career. In response, Palin posted the following message to her Facebook account Tuesday night: Perhaps [Governor Schwarzenegger] will recall that I live in our nation’s only Arctic state and that I was among the first governors to create a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with climate change. While I and all Alaskans witness the impacts of changes in weather patterns firsthand, I have repeatedly said that we can’t primarily blame man’s activities for those changes. And while I did look for practical responses to those changes, what I didn’t do was hamstring Alaska’s job creators with burdensome regulations so that I could act “greener than thou” when talking to reporters. A climate change sub-cabinet! How’s that for maverick policymaking? But let’s see how Palin’s record stacks up to that of Schwarzenegger in the area of climate change action: Statewide Greenhouse Gas Cap California: Completed; further work in progress In 2007, the Governors of five western states established the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, committing to establish an overall regional goal to reduce GHG emissions within 6 months and to design a regional market-based multi-sector mechanism within 18 months to achieve the regional goal. Alaska: None Carbon Offset Requirements California: Completed; further work in progress On May 23, 2007, the California Energy Commission (CEC) approved regulations that limit the purchase of electricity from power plants that fail to meet strict GHG emissions standards. These regulations, as part of SB 1368, which became law on August 31, 2006, prohibit the state’s publicly owned utilities from entering into long-term financial commitments with plants that exceed 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. Alaska: None Greenhouse Gas Auto Standards California: In progress The proposed auto standard, which the California Air Resources Board approved on September 24, 2004, calls for a reduction of GHG emissions from new vehicles of 22% by 2012 and of 30% by 2016. Nineteen other states have either adopted or pledged to implement California’s proposed tailpipe emissions rule. Alaska: None Climate Change Action Plan California: Completed; further work in progress On April 3, 2006, the California Climate Action Team (at the direction of Governor Schwarzenegger) completed the Climate Change Action Plan, establishing the first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gases. Alaska: In progress On September 14, 2007, Governor Sarah Palin signed Administrative Order No. 238, officially forming the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet. So Palin is right. We are greener than thou. We’re greener than just about everyone, in fact. Throughout his terms as Governor, Schwarzenegger has succeeded in bringing world leaders to the table at all levels of government to in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect our natural resources, and build green economies. Under the Schwarzenegger administration, California signed an agreement with Prime Minister Tony Blair to collaborate, as an independent entity, with the UK and other world leaders on climate change initiatives. California also participated in the launch of China’s first greenhouse gas emissions registry earlier this year. As a lame duck Governor attending one of the most important climate summits of this decade, Schwarzenegger’s got nothing to lose by calling out former-governors-gone-rogue for their failures on this issue. With a 27% approval rating back home, Copenhagen is about the only place in the world where Schwarzenegger can bask in the riches of political capital. At least, to our knowledge, he intends on finishing his term.

More: 
Abby Goldstein: California is Greener than Thou

“Call me, STAT! This is Dennis” Well, that’s one way to find out you are on Sarah Palin’s enemies list. Yesterday morning, while working on my Shanta Claus projects and prepping for my television show, Dennis Zaki called. He and Jesse Gryphen of the Immoral Minority , had driven to Sarah Palin’s Wasilla book signing. Why? Well, it’s like storm chasers in Nebraska…only they’re train-wreck chasers. Me? Well, I’m busy these days and have had Palin fatigue since before most people have even heard of her. Don’t get me wrong…Thanks Sarah! It’s just that I really wasn’t interested. Two weeks ago, I had press privileges at her book signing at Elmendorf AFB that was closed to the public. On that day, I was busy figuring out if my hair was oily, normal or dry. Truth be told, I’m just not that into her. Dennis and I have been friends since the Corrupt Bastards Club Trials. He’s one of my favorite Hardy Boys. I met Gryph last year; we fight about half the time…the rest we spend laughing. I’ll ask Sarah Palin to sign my copy of Going Rogue after it wins the National Book Award for best fiction…it’s richly deserving. Besides, I’m having the “Under the Bus” folks sign it instead; John Bitney, Anne Kilkenny, Andrew Halcro, Lyda Green, Walt Monegan, Trooper Wooten, etc. It’s just more honest. Gryphen and Zaki were booted from the event. My name was on the list to boot if I showed. There’s a fourth unknown and unwelcomed guest..who could it be? Oh, yeah, fellas…the troops are fighting for Palin’s right to ban us from a public event! When the Anchorage Daily News reported on the “Homecoming” event for Palin with the “flocking” of 750 people to the “public” event at the publicly funded Curtis D. Menard Memorial Sports Center with the publicly funded Wasilla Police Officers working security, they made a tiny mention of the bumped bloggers. Nearly 2,000 people showed up for an indoor football game earlier this year at the same complex. Twice as many citizens of Wasilla have become members of the Mat Su Valley Sportsman’s Association as showed up for Sarah Palin’s glorious homecoming. In “Real America” Palin attracted thousands of teabaggers. In “Real Alaska,” the tea bagger capitol and Palin’s hometown, there were more people shopping at Wal*Mart. Whoopie Flippin’ Doooo! Hell of a homecoming, did she get another crown? You could find out what Alaskans really think of Sarah coming home judging by the comments on the Anchorage Daily News website…Oh wait…the ADN decided to ban public comments on the article. Dennis Zaki , Linda Kellen-Biegel , Jeanne Devon and myself all passed the White House Security checks to attend the “closed to the public”troops only speech by President Obama a few weeks ago. The only threat to Sarah Palin by the Alaska Bloggers is the truth. Yes, it’s scary. I guess “Real Alaskans” aren’t allowed near an “author” who once asked a librarian if she’d ban books. Oh, the irony… More on Sarah Palin

Go here to read the rest: 
Shannyn Moore: Palin’s Enemies List: Alaskan Bloggers

The media’s treatment of Sarah Palin and her family has been abhorrent. Like various hard news outlets’ biased and unjust brethren, entertainment outlets have gone out of their way to tarnish Palin’s image. Tabloids and semi-legitimate entertainment programs generate incessant praise for President Obama and his leftist policies, while Sarah Palin is showered with insults and unwarranted slurs. Let’s not forget the ongoing coverage and insensitive questioning of the birth of her special needs son, Trig. Since the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, some of the most glaring examples of the entertainment media’s obsession with featuring anti-Palin coverage have centered on Levi Johnston, the father of Bristol Palin’s baby. Levi, a guy who would be better suited to appear on Tool Academy than on any legitimate hard or entertainment news program, has been reaping the benefits from his connection to Palin. In addition to his highly-publicized Playgirl shoot, Johnston has been making the round on entertainment shows in an attempt to pass off his melba-esque persona as something less than bland. And, surprise! Since breaking up with Bristol, he has received a more-than-warm welcome from entertainment media outlets anxious to find dirt on the former Alaska governor. While there is no shortage in contenders vying for the characterization of “Most Idiotic Entertainment News Outlet,” in my view, CBS’ The Insider takes the cake. The show is described as a program that “…reports on the dynamic world of breaking celebrity news and offers viewers opposing views on everything… Hollywood!” In reality, The Insider touts coverage that is a half-step above highlighting a covert meeting between President Obama and friendly extraterrestrials. This begs the question: Since when is Sarah Palin considered to be “Hollywood?” One could argue that this notion began with the antics of Kathy Griffin’s. In what appeared to be yet another plea for attention, Griffin brought Levi to The 2009 Teen Choice Awards . Clearly, this was little more than a publicity stunt for Griffin, who would probably sell her left kidney if it yielded a decent photo-op. In the grander scheme though, this projected a clear statement to young people: Go ahead and laugh at Sarah Palin. Hollywood’s doing it, so you should too! For what other purposes would it be appropriate to elevate and promote Levi for all of young America to see if not to embarrass the Republican politician? Of course, Griffin garnered the attention she wanted and Levi was portrayed as a bizarro teen heart throb of sorts. You know you’re in Hollywood when…[insert moment of inhumanity and/or insanity]. The Huffington Post penned the play-by-play back in August: Dressed in a pinstripe suit and pink striped tie, the Alaskan teen and father of Sarah Palin’s grandson Tripp arrived hand-in-hand with Griffin, planted a kiss on her cheek for the cameras and did some solo posing as well. Gag me. Anyway, let’s move back to 2009 champion of idiocy: The Insider . This fall, the show decided to reunite Levi and Griffin. During what host Lara Spencer probably mistook as a very riveting and thought-provoking interview, she asked Levi fair-minded questions in the vein of, “Is Sarah Palin really Trig’s mother?” and “Why do you think Sarah Palin is afraid of you?” Following the liberally-driven wingnuttery that ensued during the 2008 presidential campaign, the question about Trig’s birth is breathtakingly cruel and sense-retardant. Spencer’s questioning screamed ratings desperation and showed just how far entertainment media will go to make Palin look idiotic while turning a profit. Now, let’s jump to Andrew Sullivan’s recent appearance on the Joy Behar Show on HLN. Sullivan said, I don`t think [Palin] has much relationship with reality… And I think at some point, if journalists do their job and if brave people stand up and tell the truth, we will find out who Sarah Palin really is. And we currently don`t know. Sullivan and similar journalists are the same figures who conduct significant research on the man who currently leads the free world. Insane. And here , again, the story about Trig’s birth is brought into question. Detached from reality? Maybe Sullivan should explore the mental capacity of his interviewer. After all, who can ignore Behar’s detached-from-reality commentary about people who favor Sarah Palin: Well her people are evil and nasty . They are not nice people. They send me nasty mail and everybody else who talks about it. Anything negative about Sarah Palin, they get hit with this stuff. You know. Ironic that Behar wouldn’t consider her own nastiness as a potential catalyst for negative feedback. Behar has openly called Palin stupid, among other nasally-delivered complements. And the list goes on and on. The entertainment media (which, by my calculation, includes the now theoretically deficient Andrew Sullivan) are intent on making Palin out to be: stupid, evil, incompetent, a mere “Barbie” and insolent, in no particular order. Get over it, Hollywood. Sarah Palin doesn’t share your values. She’s pro-life, pro-capitalism and pro-rationality. Rather than wasting all of your time lambasting her, promoting Levi Johnston and attempting to debunk her GOP politician’s existence, why not divert even a portion of your energy towards examining the man you’ve placed America’s very existence in the hands of. We’ve all got personal dirt. Since you’ll never let up, why not shovel a little less of Palin’s and a little more of Obama’s? A little fair-mindedness is all we’re asking for: Can you deliver? More on Sarah Palin

See more here:
Billy Hallowell: Media Coverage of Pro-Rationality Sarah Palin Is Abhorrent

When Sen. Ben Nelson’s (D-Neb.) abortion language was added to the Senate health care bill, a Republican member of my organization sent me this email: “Don’t blame us. It’s your party and president that started this mess.” Is it me, or is Obama’s health care bill increasingly like the movie Groundhog Day ? Another day, another women’s health smackdown. Ladies, we are a bargaining chip - and apparently, not a very big one. Women’s health is under assault. Mammograms, pap smears, the Stupak Amendment and the Nelson language are all part of the wake up call of our generation. As 2009 draws to a close, women stand at a crossroad of possibility. In 2009, women made significant strides in combating overt sexism and, at long last, elected a woman candidate because of, not despite, her gender. Yet, if women don’t wake up and restructure our activism, the basic privileges and liberties that we have all taken for granted for several decades could well be fleeting. The good news - women have the power to effectuate change. After the 2008 misogyny-fest, we said “no more” to overt sexism. As a result, 2009 might well be dubbed The Year of the Apology . Chris Matthews apologized on behalf of Dick Armey for Armey’s comment to Joan Walsh. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) apologized for calling Fed Adviser Linda Robertson a “K Street Whore.” Letterman apologized (twice) for his “jokes” about Governor Palin’s teenage daughter. Heck, even Chris Brown apologized for almost strangling Rihanna to death. Women also flexed their muscles this year up in Massachusetts where Martha Coakley won a landslide victory in the state’s primary election for Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat. Yes, Coakley is poised to become that state’s first female senator. Yes, Coakley would become our country’s 18th woman senator (a record). But the most compelling takeaway is this: Martha won because of, not despite, her gender. Coakley’s campaign was successfully able to harness the support of women and women’s organizations from around the country. If our country and women were ready in 2008, we could have used the Coakley template to elect our first woman president. And yes, in the last few months we’ve heard a fair amount of “I told you so’s” from Hillary Clinton supporters. But as we embark on 2010, it’s time to put that aside and move forward. In 2010, women need to unite and work to get more women in leadership roles. Why the call to action? I’ll sum it up in one word: Mammogram. The new mammogram guidelines came from a government agency in Obama’s Democratic Administration. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson had actually rebuked a similar recommendation in 2002 under the W. Bush Administration. That the mammogram recommendations were even made public is emblematic of the weakened state of women’s bargaining power. Our saving grace would be our women leaders — of both parties. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) co-sponsored an amendment to the Senate’s health-care bill. Meanwhile, other women leaders, including Senate candidate Carly Fiorina (R-Calif.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), have also spoken out on behalf of women. If not for this bipartisan effort on the part of our women leaders, women in their 40s would have become the first target of health care rationing. And the battle is only beginning. Rationing pap smears has also been mentioned. Question: How is it possible that our country could considering cutting back preventative screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer; yet not a word about taxpayer funding of Viagra? How can this be? The Nelson language is just another notch. And whether or not you are pro-choice, here’s again the takeaway: All aspects of women’s health are under assault. Who knows what will be rationed or taken away next? In 2010, we must elect more women into positions of power. And, we need to reformulate the old game plan of only focusing on Democratic women. It’s a losing strategy. In 2009, we learned that we cannot count on the Democratic Party to stand up for women. We can, however, count on women politicians to stand up for women. For here’s the other aspect: We cannot control the political climate around us. Four of the 10 most vulnerable Senate seats in 2010 are held by Democratic women: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). We need to cultivate and finance women from all parties. We need strong candidates for every political headwind and tailwind. And, yes, we can do this. Our progress in 2009 shows that when women unite around an issue, we will prevail. We said “no more” to the misogynyfest of 2008 and we prevailed. We said “yes” to making history in Massachusetts and achieved that too. In 2010, we must roll up our sleeves - women of all ages - and work to get more women into positions of leadership. Simply put: Our health and well being depends on it. More on Civil Rights

More here: 
Amy Siskind: Abortion Language in the Health Care Bill: Another Women’s Smackdown and What to Do

Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com . For Isaac Francisco Solnit, born December 17, 2009 It’s clear now that, from her immoveable titanium bangs to her chaotic approximation of human speech, Sarah Palin is a Terminator cyborg sent from the future to destroy something — but what? It could be the Republican Party she’ll ravage by herding the fundamentalists and extremists into a place where sane fiscal conservatives and swing voters can’t follow. Or maybe she was sent to destroy civilization at this crucial moment by preaching the gospel of climate-change denial, abetted by tools like the Washington Post , which ran a factually outrageous editorial by her on the subject earlier this month. No one (even her, undoubtedly) knows, but we do know that this month we all hover on the brink. I’ve had the great Hollywood epic Terminator 2: Judgment Day on my mind ever since I watched it in a hotel room in New Orleans a few weeks ago with the Superdome visible out the window. In 1991, at the time of its release, T2 was supposedly about a terrible future; now, it seems situated in an oddly comfortable past. What apocalypses are you nostalgic for?  The premise of the movie was that the machines we needed to worry about had not yet been invented, no less put to use: intelligent machines that would rebel against their human masters in 1997, setting off an all-out nuclear war that would get rid of the first three billion of us and lead to a campaign of extermination against the remnant of the human race scrabbling in the rubble of what had once been civilization.  By the time the film was released, the news of climate change was already filtering out. Reports like Bill McKibben’s 1989 book The End of Nature had told us that the machines that could destroy us and our world had, in fact, been invented — a long, long time ago. Almost all of us had been using them almost all the time, from the era of the steam engine and the rise of the British coal economy through the age of railroads and the dawn of petroleum extraction to the birth of the internal-combustion engine and the spread of industrial civilization across the planet.  They weren’t “intelligent” and they weren’t in revolt, nor were they led by any one super-machine.  It was the cumulative effect of all those devices pumping back into the atmosphere the carbon that plants had so kindly buried in the Earth over the last few hundred million years. The Superdome is, of course, where thousands of New Orleanians were stranded when Katrina, the hurricane that hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, broke the city’s levees and flooded the place. A maelstrom of institutional failures left people trapped in the scalding cauldron of a drowned city for five days while the world looked on aghast. It was a disaster that had been long foretold, and no one had done much to forestall it.  No one had repaired those crummy levees or bothered to create a real evacuation plan for the city — and, unlike the revolt of the machines in T2 , the future actually arrived. Like climate change. For many, it was a foretaste of our new era.  It may not be clear what role, if any, climate change played in the generation of that particular hurricane, but it is clear that, in this era, there will be, and indeed already have been, many more such calamities: the deadly freak rainstorms in Sicily, Britain, and the Philippines this fall, the increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic in recent years, as well as in the intensity of droughts , floods, heat waves, crop failures, and the displacement of populations, as well as the massive melting of glaciers and sea ice in the cold places, rising waters in the coastal ones, and oceans going acidic with devastating effects on marine life. This is the actual nightmarish “movie” of our times.  This is what our less-than-intelligent machines have actually wrought. The World Health Organization estimates that climate change is already responsible for 150,000 deaths annually. Unchecked it will kill far more, and no one’s measuring the despair in the island nations that may disappear and among those who live in, and off of, the melting arctic. Looking at the Superdome during the commercial breaks in T2 , I wondered about the apocalypses already under our belts and the bumpy road ahead. The Governor of the State with the Uncertain Shoreline The plot of the movie, as most of you undoubtedly recall, is that the Terminator, also played by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the low-budget 1984 original , shows up again, sent back from the future 10 years after in the first epic. This time around, he’s not action-heroine Sarah Connor’s nemesis; he’s on the side of humanity, specifically of her son John Connor, the boy with the unambiguous initials who will grow up to lead the resistance to our extermination by machines. Another more advanced Terminator is, in the meantime, also sent back from the future to destroy the messianic boy and his foulmouthed commando mom. The rest of the movie is a feast of shootouts, chases, explosions, and brilliantly plotted action. It was all surpassingly strange and compelling when I watched it, while wiped out with what was probably swine flu, a fever dream of the past’s nightmares that somehow didn’t manage to anticipate our waking hells. Now, of course, the movie’s cyborg star is a major force in the real world.  He’s my governor, more powerful but less charismatic than in his Terminator incarnation.  Recently, he traveled to Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay to release the state’s 2009 Climate Adaptation Strategy , a 200-page document about the array of devastations the state faces and what countermeasures we can take. Early on, that document states: “Climate change is already affecting California. Sea levels have risen by as much as seven inches along the California coast over the last century, increasing erosion and pressure on the state’s infrastructure, water supplies, and natural resources. The state has also seen increased average temperatures, more extreme hot days, fewer cold nights, a lengthening of the growing season, shifts in the water cycle with less winter precipitation falling as snow, and both snowmelt and rainwater running off sooner in the year.” Looking to the future, the report predicted that there would be more fires, less water, loss of coastal lands, and up to $2.5 trillion of real estate put at risk by global warming. The Terminator, or governor, was on the island because, with even modest further rises in sea-level, it will disappear entirely. Hasta la vista , baby . During the years the Bush Administration refused to do anything at all about climate change, Schwarzenegger arrived at the helm of a state that had already developed major innovations in energy efficiency and in creative price-structuring that took away power-company motives to push higher energy consumption.  California had also sought to set new standards for carbon-dioxide emissions from vehicles. The bill to do the last of these was crafted in 2002 by Fran Pavley, a newly elected state assemblywoman from Ventura County. When Obama came into office, the roadblocks were finally removed and the bill became the basis for national regulations that will make vehicles 40% more fuel-efficient by 2016. Pavley and Schwarzenegger were there at the Rose Garden signing of the regulations last May. As Ronald Brownstein reported in the Atlantic this October: “Ambitious new initiatives have cascaded out of Schwarzenegger’s office — including the two measures raising the renewable-power requirement on utilities, a state subsidy program to encourage the installation of electricity-generating solar panels on 1 million California roofs, and in January 2007, an executive order establishing the nation’s first ‘low-carbon fuel standard,’ which requires a reduction of at least 10 percent in the carbon emissions from transportation fuels by 2020. Schwarzenegger signed a Pavley-sponsored bill imposing the nation’s first mandatory statewide reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. The bill required the state by 2020 to roll back its emissions to the 1990 level — a reduction of about 15 percent from the current level. (By separate executive order, Schwarzenegger also committed the state to an 80 percent reduction by 2050.)” It’d be easy to go with the Atlantic and frame the governor as a hero, but he landed in office by promising to cut vehicle taxes and has been in bed ever since with the state’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter and the world’s fifth biggest corporation, Chevron. Even the organization that sent him to Copenhagen, Climate Action Reserve, is backed by Chevron and Shell — and the oil and coal industries have been the biggest domestic roadblocks to real climate-change measures. Nonetheless, at the Copenhagen climate conference he talked about R20, the alliance of states and provinces he’s co-founded to implement climate change measures at sub-national levels. And he has suggested that climate-change deniers like Palin are “still living in the Stone Age.” A Magnitude Shy of What Physics Demands Think of Schwarzenegger as the hinge between the fantasy of Terminator 2 and the reality of our predicament.  Think of Obama… Well, in T2, there’s Miles Dyson, a slender, well-spoken African-American family man who will engineer the computer technology that will create the intelligent machines that will annihilate practically everything. Sarah — Connor, not Palin — sets out to kill him, but her son shows up with his Terminator-Schwarzenegger sidekick, and they instead convince the not-so-mad scientist he’s about to do something terribly, terribly wrong. He then leads them to his workplace to destroy everything he’s ever done. When their violent erasure program sets off alarms that bring in squadrons of cops, Dyson ends up gravely wounded and holding the trigger to set off the explosion that will wipe out the technologies endangering future humanity — and himself. Seeing this movie with its acts of self-sacrifice, now offers an occasion to ask:  when’s the last time you’ve even seen a major politician who’ll put his finger to that trigger with humanity in mind, no less simply do anything that’s bad for reelection? What if Obama would say what he has to know, what they all have to know, that saving the planet from our slo-mo, unevenly distributed version of Judgment Day requires destroying the status quo and maybe changing everything? What if he’d just learn from Schwarzenegger that you can do quite a lot and still survive politically? As a disgusted Bill McKibben recently put it , “Obama will propose 4% reductions in [U.S. greenhouse gas] emissions by 2020, compared with 20% for the Europeans (a number the EU said they’d raise to 30% if the U.S. would go along). Scientists, meanwhile, have made it clear that a serious offer would mean about 40% cuts by 2020. So — we’re exactly an order of magnitude shy of what the physics demands.” Bill, a normally mild-mannered guy who was overjoyed at Obama’s election, called the president’s position “a lie inside a fib coated with spin.” Thanks to a sudden decision earlier this month by the Environmental Protection Agency allowing the executive branch to address the issue of climate-change gases under the Clean Air Act, Obama has apparently been given superpowers to act without being completely hamstrung by a reluctant Congress. Or as the Center for Biological Diversity put it , “President Obama can lead, rather than follow, by using his power under the Clean Air Act and other laws to achieve deep and rapid greenhouse emissions reductions from major polluters.” Will he? Probably not. After all, he’s the man who stood up in Prague last April and said: “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” For a moment, it almost sounded as if he was going to be the action hero of our antinuclear dreams, wiping out one apocalypse that has hung over us for sixty years. And then he added that he didn’t actually expect to see the abolition of such weaponry in his lifetime, though he didn’t say why. Now, we’re in an action movie in which the fate of the Earth is truly at stake, and the most powerful man on the planet has allowed himself to be hedged in by timidities, compromises, refusals, denials, and the murderous pressure of corporations. Those too-big-to-die corporations are the reason why the Senate is unlikely to ratify any climate-change treaty that threatens to do much of anything. Really, corporations — half-fictitious, semi-immortal behemoths endowed with human rights in the U.S. and possessed of corrosive global power — already are the ruthless cyborgs of our time.  They are, after all, actively seeking a world in which they imagine that, somehow, they will survive, even if many of us and much that we love does not. Sorry poor people, young people, Africa, sorry Arctic summer ice, you’re not too big to fail. 100,000 in the Streets Vs. Three Degrees of Heat I wish life on this planet really were like an action movie. I wish that a handful of heroic individuals could do battle with the mightiest of forces and decisively alter the fate of the world — and then we could all go home to a planet that’s safe.  As we know, however, it’s going to be a lot more intricate and complicated than that.  There are millions, maybe billions, of players in this one, and its running time is a lot longer than the two weeks of Copenhagen or the two hours of a movie. For our heroines, we get not the commando-siren Sarah Connor, but the sturdy, ex-middle-school American government teacher and now California state senator Fran Pavley, 61. Really, though, if there’s going to be a superhero in our world, a friendly Terminator to go up against the villains in suits and ties, it will be civil society. Even for the betterment of humankind, civil society won’t get to shoot anyone or drive a truck through a wall.  Instead, it’ll organize, educate, build, and pressure, while working to create models and alternatives. It’ll reelect Pavley and shut down Chevron. There have already been some moments of great drama with this superhero leading the way — the civil disobedience of the Climate Ground Zero mountaintop coal campaign in Appalachia, the Climate Camps in Britain, the Kingsnorth Six climbers who blocked a coal-power-plant’s smokestack in England last October (and were exonerated by a British jury), the underwater cabinet meeting held in the Maldives this October to protest that low-lying island nation’s possible fate. All this was done in part to get people to take an interest in the fate of their planet, which is not so readily reducible to a blockbuster’s plot as we might like. The pivotal moment just came — and went. This week in Copenhagen, the Bella Center conference, in which a new climate treaty was supposed to be negotiated, stagnated while repression around it grew furiously. It stagnated because the rich countries were unwilling to either reduce their own emissions significantly or pledge meaningful funding to help poor nations transition to greener economies. Or it stagnated because the poor countries didn’t consent to be crucified for crumbs. The United States, which just spent nearly a trillion dollars bailing out its floundering financial corporations and spends about $700 billion annually on the military, offered an obscenely inadequate $1.2 billion in aid. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged $100 billion way down the road, but only if an unlikely quantity of factors and conditions were to align beforehand. Outside the center, the Danish police became increasingly brutal as activists from everywhere, representing the poor, developing, and most affected nations, the Arctic, small farmers, indigenous nations, and the environment demonstrated. Inside nongovernmental groups were increasingly excluded from the discussions and then from the actual space itself.  None of this prevented the conference from stalling. On Monday, negotiators from the African nations shut down the climate talks in fury at attempts to undermine the Kyoto accords — a move designed to make the global situation worse at a meeting that was supposed to make it better. On Wednesday, hundreds of delegates inside the Bella Center protested, walking out to join the thousands already in the streets. By all reports the atmosphere was increasingly tense and repressive. Everyone whose opinion I respect deplores what just went down in Copenhagen.  There’s an agreement of sorts, but it was achieved by Obama and a few powerful nations over the objections of the rest in violation of the way the process should have unfolded.  Worse, it contains no binding agreements to limit climate change.  The so-called agreement acknowledges that we should limit warming to two degrees Celsius, but the actual commitments, if honored, would bring the world to 3.9 degrees Celsius (seven degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.  Even two degrees, African negotiator Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping had said, “would condemn Africa to death.”  Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed pointed out that three degrees would “spell death for the Maldives and a billion people in low-lying areas.”  Three degrees, said Joss Garman of the British branch of Greenpeace, “would lead to the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, droughts across South America and Australia, and the depletion of ocean habitats.” All that was achieved was consensus that there’s a problem and clarity about what that problem is:  the refusal of the wealthy corporations and nations to do what benefits humanity and all other species.  Money won.  Life lost.  Copenhagen is over, a battle lost despite valiant efforts, but the war continues.  The crazy thing about this moment in history is that it isn’t at all like Terminator 2 , except that the Earth and our species are in terrible danger, and ruthless superhuman forces push us toward our doom . In the movie, Sarah Connor is the only human being who knows what’s coming, and she’s in an Abu Ghraib-like mental hospital for saying and doing something about it.  In our reality, anyone who cares to know what the dangers are should have no problem finding out.  Most of us have known, or should have known, for quite a long time.  Because we’ve done so little, what a decade ago was imagined as the terrible future has actually, like the Terminator, made it here ahead of time. The learning curve for so many of us, for so many people and even nations, has been speeding up impressively.  If we had 40 years to figure it all out, we might be headed toward just the sort of victory that civil society has, in fact, achieved on so many other environmental and human-rights ideas. But there aren’t decades to spare.  It needs to happen now.  It should have happened even before the last century ended. Even in my fever dream, with the Superdome just out the window, I couldn’t help noting the key axiom repeated in Terminator 2 : “The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.”  So here’s the lesson:  there are no superheroes but us. And here’s the question:  what are you going to do about it? Rebecca Solnit is the author, most recently, of A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster , a book written as a tool for preparing for the onslaught of climate-related disasters in our new anthropocene era.  She’ll continue to work with 350.org and other climate action groups such as Climate Justice Action . Copyright 2009 Rebecca Solnit More on Copenhagen 2009

Here is the original post:
Rebecca Solnit: Judgment Days in Copenhagen

Of all the falsehoods and distortions in the political discourse this year, one stood out from the rest. “Death panels.” The claim set political debate afire when it was made in August, raising issues from the role of government in health care to the bounds of acceptable political discussion. In a nod to the way technology has transformed politics, the statement wasn’t made in an interview or a television ad. Sarah Palin posted it on her Facebook page. More on Sarah Palin

View original post here: 
PolitiFact’s ‘Lie Of The Year’: Death Panels

WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain says he understands why Sarah Palin blacked out his name on a McCain campaign visor so she could avoid recognition while on vacation in Hawaii. The Arizona Republican made the comments about his 2008 running mate on “Fox News Sunday.” Palin blacked out McCain’s name with a felt marker recently, saying she is fond of McCain but wanted to travel “incognito.” McCain said Sunday he has no problems with the blacked-out name and he and his wife Cindy remain close to Sarah Palin and her husband after the presidential campaign. “She is going to be a force in the Republican Party for a long time,” he said. “And the hysterical attacks on her from the left continue to validate that.” But he jokingly questioned discussing Palin’s visor when there are much bigger issues like climate change and health care to talk about. More on Sarah Palin

See the original post:
McCain: Palin Visor Black-Out Makes Sense To Me

CHERRY HILL, N.J. — A slow-moving storm that blanketed swaths of the mid-Atlantic with nearly 2 feet of snow headed northward Sunday, continuing its assault on the East Coast after causing at least five deaths, crippling travel and leaving empty stores normally crammed with holiday shoppers. The storm approached New England on the cusp of the winter solstice, having already caused flooding in South Florida and knocked out electricity for more than 85,000 customers in the Carolinas on Friday. On Saturday, it dropped 16 inches of snow on Reagan National Airport outside Washington – the most ever recorded there for a single December day – and gave southern New Jersey its highest single-storm snowfall totals in nearly four years. Some of the deepest snow Saturday was recorded in the Philadelphia suburb of Medford, N.J., at 24 inches. “For those who are looking for a white Christmas, this certainly will stick around for Christmastime,” National Weather Service meteorologist Bruce Sullivan told AP Radio. Even the NFL, with its hallowed tradition of playing in all weather conditions, including football fields nicknamed “frozen tundras,” pushed back the scheduled start times of games Sunday in Baltimore and Philadelphia. Around New York City, the brunt of the storm hit Long Island, with nearly 2 feet recorded in Upton. Crews clearing roads early Sunday reported whiteout conditions, said Lt. Robert P. Iberger of the Southampton police. Ten inches of snow had already fallen on New York City by Sunday morning, and the storm could be the worst the city has seen since about 26 inches fell in Central Park in February 2006, National Weather Service meteorologist Patrick Maloit said. Transit workers in New York were clearing subway tracks and platforms overnight, and delays were expected on bus, subway and train routes, city transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges said early Sunday. The National Weather Service expected the storm to dump as much as 15 inches in southern New England with the heaviest snowfall expected early Sunday. A blizzard warning was in effect Sunday morning in parts of New York, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. With strong wind gusts to keep the powdery snow swirling, the storm was so bad on Saturday that attractions such as the Smithsonian museums in Washington and the Philadelphia Zoo were closed. The National Mall, normally swarming with tourists, instead was the scene of snowball fights. Not all shoppers were deterred by the snow. “It really helped me get in the Christmas spirit,” said the Kathryn Mariani, who took a train to downtown Philadelphia from her home in the Germantown neighborhood. The mayors of Washington and Philadelphia and the governors of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware all declared states of emergency. In West Virginia, blankets were given to hundreds of drivers, and some motorists were stranded for up to 27 hours on highways, Red Cross spokesman Jeff Morris said. The storm hit on the last weekend before Christmas, a time when roads are traditionally mad with holiday shoppers. But around shopping centers in Philadelphia’s New Jersey suburbs on Saturday, traffic was sparse and slow. Prime parking spots were available all day at the Cherry Hill Mall. And inside, there was no line for a picture with Santa. “It was fantastic,” said Chris Bailey, who got pictures of his 4-year-old daughter Olivia. Shops at the mall and nearby restaurants closed hours early. Salt trucks and plows were out in force. The speed limit was reduced on several roadways, including the New Jersey Turnpike. But those measures didn’t prevent scores of cars from slipping into ditches. One person in Virginia was killed in a traffic accident caused by slick roads, and authorities said the weather may have contributed to another traffic death there. A third death in Virginia is believed to have been caused by exposure. In Ohio, two people were killed in accidents on snow-covered roads hit by the same storm system. In New Jersey, a bus got stuck on snow-covered railroad tracks in Pennsauken and was hit by a train. The 26 passengers were evacuated from the bus 10 minutes before the crash, and the only reported injury was a minor one suffered by the train’s engineer, NJ Transit spokesman Dan Stessel said. Greyhound shut down service in Washington and points north, and ferry service in Delaware and New Jersey was canceled. Airports in the Northeast were also jammed up. Most flights were canceled at several, including Reagan National and Dulles in the Washington area; Philadelphia International; New York’s three major airports and Logan Airport in Boston. The cancellations rippled across the country; more than 150 flights were canceled in and out of Chicago’s airports, as were a handful in Denver. Philadelphia Airport spokeswoman Phyllis VanIstendal said snacks and pillows were being handed out there to travelers stranded overnight. She said with continuing bad weather and planes out of place, problems would continue Sunday. At National, Juan Carlos Franco waited in line Saturday with his wife, 2-year-old son and 6-month-old daughter to rebook their flights to Quito, Ecuador, but was expecting to fly out no sooner than Wednesday. They had checked and rechecked the status of their flight for two days, but it wasn’t canceled until a few minutes after they entered the security line, Franco said. “The backpacks were in the X-ray machine,” he said. ___ Associated Press writers Sarah Karush in Washington; Dena Potter in Chesterfield, Va.; Jacob Jordan in Atlanta; David Porter in Atlantic City, N.J.; Bruce Shipkowski in Trenton, N.J.; Ron Todt and Patrick Walters in Philadelphia; and AP photographer Jacquelyn Martin in Arlington, Va., contributed to this report.

Go here to see the original: 
Storm continues to wallop East Coast, heads north

The failure of world leaders in Copenhagen to come to terms with the climate crisis is provoking anger and disappointment. My colleague at YES! Magazine , Brooke Jarvis, reports on the climate deal and some early responses: Even those who brokered it acknowledge that the deal on the table at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is too weak to stop catastrophic climate change. The deal, brokered between the U.S., China, South Africa, India, and Brazil, has not yet been accepted by the 192 nations represented in Copenhagen, many of which have decried it.  The deal sets no definite target for greenhouse gas reductions. A goal of reducing global carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, present in earlier drafts, was removed. All references to keeping temperature increases below 1.5 degrees Celsius–a key demand of vulnerable countries, including African nations and small island states–were also dropped. It calls for (but does not commit rich nations to) $30 billion over the next two years, followed by $100 billion per year after 2020, to assist poor nations with the costs of adaptation and mitigation. Though some are defending the agreement as a first step, many others, particularly residents of the Global South and climate activists, say that the precedent set by the agreement is a dangerous one. Early reactions Kumi Naidoo, leader of Greenpeace International and TckTckTck: Not fair, not ambitious and not legally binding. The job of world leaders is not done. Today they failed to avert catastrophic climate change… We have seen a year of crises, but today it is clear that the biggest one facing humanity is a leadership crisis. During the year a number developing countries showed a willingness to accept their share of the burden to avert climate chaos. But in the end, the blame for failure mostly lies with the rich industrialized world, countries which have the largest historic responsibility for causing the problem. In particular, the US failed to take any real leadership and dragged the talks down. Climate science says we have only a few years left to halt the rise in emissions before making the kind of rapid reductions that would give us the best chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. We cannot change that science, so instead we will have to change the politics–and we may well have to change the politicians. This is not over, people everywhere demanded a real deal before the Summit began and they are still demanding it. We can still save hundreds of millions of people from the devastation of a warming world, but it has just become a whole lot harder. Civil society, the bulk of which was locked out of the final days of this Climate Summit, now needs to redouble its efforts. Each and every one of us must hold our leaders to account. We must take the struggle to avert climate catastrophe into every level of politics, local, regional, national and international. We also need to take it into the board room and onto the high streets. We can either work for a fundamental change in our society or we can suffer the consequences of one. Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s ambassador to the U.N.: This is completely unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority of more than 190 nations. We have been negotiating for months on one of the gravest crises of our age, and yet our voice counts for nothing? If this is how world agreements will now be agreed, then it makes a nonsense of the U.N. and multilateralism. The agreement talks of setting targets that limit warming to 2 degrees. The leaders of the rich countries should come to Bolivia to see what global warming is already doing to our country. We have droughts, disappearing glaciers and water shortages. Imagine this scaled up three times. We cannot accept an agreement that condemns half of humanity. Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries: This deal will definitely result in massive devastation in Africa and small island states. It has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It’s nothing short of climate change skepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush. Bill Mckibben, founder of 350.org [President Obama] blew up the United Nations. The idea that there’s a world community that means something has disappeared tonight. The clear point is, you poor nations can spout off all you want on questions like human rights or the role of women or fighting polio or handling refugees. But when you get too close to the center of things that count–the fossil fuel that’s at the center of our economy–you can forget about it. We’re not interested. You’re a bother, and when you sink beneath the waves we don’t want to hear much about it… What exactly is the point of the U.N. now? He [also] formed a league of super-polluters, and would-be super-polluters. China, the U.S., and India don’t want anyone controlling their use of coal in any meaningful way. It is a coalition of foxes who will together govern the henhouse. It is no accident that the targets are weak to nonexistent. Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity: We all know what we must do to solve global warming, but even the architects of this deal acknowledge that it does not take those necessary steps. Merely acknowledging the weaknesses of the deal, as President Obama has done, does not excuse its failings. If this is the best we can do, it is not nearly good enough. We stand at the precipice of climatic tipping points beyond which a climate crash will be out of our control. We cannot make truly meaningful and historic steps with the United States pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by only 3 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The science demands far more. The people of the United States voted for President Obama based on his promise of change and hope. But the only change today’s agreement brings is a greater risk of dangerous climate change. And the only hope that flows from Copenhagen stems not from the president’s hollow pronouncements but from the birth of a diverse global movement demanding real solutions and climate justice — demands made with a collective voice growing loud enough that in short order politicians will no longer be able to ignore it. YES! Online Editor Brooke Jarvis wrote this report as part of YES! Magazine’s coverage of Copenhagen . YES! is a national media organization that reports on powerful ideas and practical action that are building a more just and sustainable world.   More on Barack Obama

Here is the original post: 
Sarah van Gelder: Climate Deal Flop Reveals Leadership Crisis

There are days where the punchlines really do write themselves : Sarah Palin released a statement yesterday announcing that she and husband Todd have cut their Hawaiian vacation short, after some controversy over a McCain campaign visor Palin wore with former running mate John McCain’s name blacked out with a Sharpie. The mini-flap began when the pop culture/gossip icons over at TMZ published photos of Palin sitting in Hawaii wearing a McCain visor with the McCain logo blacked out using a marker. This led to the fairly understandable supposition that Palin was taking a little shot at her former ticket mate, resurrecting all the stories of the 2008 campaign about tension between Palin and the McCain campaign apparatus. Not so , protested Palin: “I am so sorry if people took this silly incident the wrong way. I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection.” So why black out the McCain brand on the visor? To just about every media outlet she has discussed this with, she gave the same rationale: she was trying to “go incognito.” Heh. Yeah…right. HuffPo’s Roy Sekoff isn’t buying it : “I don’t [believe her], because her t-shirt said ‘this is America and if you don’t love it, get the hell out’… so that’s always a good way to be incognito.” (Psst….Hey, Sarah! Here’s a wild…some might even say “rogue”…thought: if you want to be nondescript, you always could purchase a plain black visor at any one of a couple of thousand tourist shops on the island. Hell, you might not even had to have left the Honolulu or Kahului Airports to do so.) After the TMZ story broke, and the political outlets quickly lapped it up, Sarah Palin went to a familiar tactic: she quit, cutting her vacation short while complaining the press had made it impossible for her to enjoy her time at leisure. Vis-a-vis “Visor-Gate”, let’s stipulate that there are only a couple of explanations for this, and none of them are particularly laudable for Mrs. Palin. Our own David Waldman was spot on a year ago when he declared Sarah Palin as “The Chiseler Supreme”. Is it possible that Sarah Palin has a garage full of gimme hats, t-shirts, and hoodies from the McCain HQ, all dutifully sharpied to help in her drive to be “incognito”? If that is the case, the hotels that have housed her on the book tour might also want to inspect their inventories of bathrobes. She knew precisely what she was doing. John McCain’s name is still mud with many on the GOP’s right flank, who remain convinced that his insufficient fealty to hard-right ideological mores is what cost them the presidency in 2008. If Sarah Palin is still really thinking about 2012, and making a legitimate bid from her perch as the reigning queen of the Tea Party Republic, a little separation from her former ticket mate would not be a bad thing at all. She has reached the point of obsessiveness about being the center of attention, and knew this would thrust her back into the public conversation. I agree with Sekoff here–her choice of that hat (with it’s redaction) coupled with a t-shirt that reads like it came from the lyrics sheet of a John Rich song is not something designed to avoid attention. Quite the opposite–she is not naive. As potentially clever as her hat trick might have been, it has led to an outcome that is pure comedy. She actually quit a vacation. And, for someone who has spent much of the last few months desperately seeking adulation and celebrity on a protracted book tour, the complaint that she had to curtail her vacation because too many people were noticing her rings rather hollow, does it not?

Read more here:
Sarah Palin Goes On Vacation. And Quits.

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE… Yes, Virginia, There Is Late Night Snark “President Obama says that Congress is very close to getting a new healthcare plan, but due to compromises it ‘won’t include everything that everybody wants.’ For instance, it covers everything except trips to the doctor or the hospital.” —Conan O’Brien - “During the Kennedy Center Honors on Sunday, President Obama presented an award to Bruce Springsteen, saying, ‘I’m the president, but he’s the boss.’ At which point Springsteen ordered our troops out of Afghanistan.” —Seth Meyers - “And what’s Dubya doing now? He’s a motivational speaker. That’s kind of like having Lindsay Lohan as a guidance counselor.” —Robin Williams from Weapons of Self Destruction - “Did you hear this? Arnold Schwarzenegger is criticizing Sarah Palin for calling global warming “bogus.” It’s really confusing. I mean, the last time I saw Sarah Palin fighting with the Terminator, I was drunk on Halloween.” —Jimmy Fallon - “Christmas is only one week away. You only have one more week to trample someone for a Zhu Zhu pet.” —Jimmy Kimmel And this… Stephen Colbert: Dedicated Lieberheads, the real Lieberlovers out there, may notice there’s a subtle shift in Joe’s present position from what it was waaaaaay back 90 days ago, when he said this to his home state newspaper, the Connecticut Post : Lieberman:  I was very focused on a group post-50, maybe more like post-55…and what I was proposing is that they might have an option to buy into Medicare. Colbert: Yes, he proposed an option to buy into Medicare, which technically means that yesterday he threatened to filibuster his own proposal. But that is easily explained: clearly Lieberman has gone from having ‘Joementum’ to having ‘Joementia.’ But I’m sure he’ll get great treatment.  After all, he’s 65—he’s covered by Medicare. — The Colbert Report It’s the last weekend of autumn—don’t forget to move your clothes onto the lower peg. Your west coast-friendly edition of Cheers and Jeers starts in There’s Moreville… [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Read the rest here: 
Cheers and Jeers: Spiked Eggnog FRIDAY!

Amidst all of the spoofs of Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue”, RuPaul comes out and tops them all. The new promo for RuPaul’s show “RuPaul’s Drag Race” features a parody of Palin’s book cover , this one called “Going Vogue”, with RuPaul dressed up as Sarah Palin, creating an awesome and utterly bizarre image. More on Sarah Palin

Go here to read the rest: 
Best Sarah Palin Spoof Yet: Ru Paul In "Going Vogue"

Sarah Haskins explains a few of the lessons she learned while watching hundreds of hours of ads this year. You can check out a new “Target Women” segment every Thursday on “infoMania” at 10 p.m. ET/PT on Current TV and Current.com . More on Advertising

View post:
Sarah Haskins: "Target Women: Lessons 2009"

As someone who worked for Joe Lieberman for more than 17 years, I’m often asked these days, “what’s wrong with your old boss?” Even some fellow former “Lieberstaffers” have been privately critical of his recent actions on health care reform and worried about the effect on his legacy. I understand the concerns and to some extent I agree with the critique of his position on the topic (at my age, a Medicare buy-in sounds pretty darn appealing). But in hearing pundits question Senator Lieberman’s motivations, often suggesting it arises out of a “bitterness” over what happened in his 2004 presidential and 2006 senatorial campaigns, I feel compelled to talk about the Joe I know. The Joe I know is not a bitter man, driven by pique over political slights. He can be a stubborn man, yes, prone to charting his own course (his favorite song is Frank Sinatra’s “My Way”). But to paraphrase an old political quote, stubbornness in the defense of principle is no vice. The Joe I know stubbornly refused to proceed with a vote on Clarence Thomas until a woman named Anita Hill had a chance to testify before Congress. His principled stance, so frustrating to conservatives at the time, gave Prof. Hill the opportunity to make her serious concerns about the Supreme Court nominee known. The Joe I know stubbornly refused to go along with the majority of his party and conventional political wisdom and instead supported the first Gulf War, which was not only the right thing to do for America, it helped keep the door open for Democrats to recapture the White House in 1992. The Joe I know stubbornly refused to accept compromise over the issue of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, drawing a “line in the tundra” and threatening a filibuster to preserve a great national heritage. His fervent support for the wilderness area was loudly denounced by then-Governor Sarah Palin. The Joe I know always puts his faith and his family above politics, often to the annoyance of a media advisor like me. In a political neighborhood where the most dangerous place to stand is between a Senator and a camera, more times than I can remember I had to turn down major media invites because my boss wanted to be home with his wife and daughter, or it was the Sabbath. I do not always agree with Senator Lieberman. I believe he was wrong in criticizing Barack Obama at the Republican Convention, and at other times in recent years, I’ve felt he chose the wrong words or the wrong venue to express his point of view, causing unnecessary headaches for him and problems for the Democratic Party. He’s made mistakes in how he’s talked about health care, too, though at the end of the day, a decent bill will pass (politics is about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the not-too-shabby) and Republicans will have precious little to campaign against next year (as former Senator Bob Kerrey argues here ). A decent policy and political foundation will be in place upon which further improvements can be built. My view of Senator Lieberman is admittedly clouded by personal friendship and gratitude (in the school of political loyalty I’m a little closer to the teachings of Prof. Rosemary Woods than, say, Prof. Scott McClellan). But here’s a prediction: there will come a time in the next year or two when Joe Lieberman will take a stubborn and principled stand in defense of a great progressive cause. Then it will be the right wing’s turn to call him bitter, or worse. But to me, he’ll just be the Joe I know. Jim Kennedy served as a spokesman and speechwriter for Joe Lieberman between 1980 and 1997. More on Health Care

View original here:
Jim Kennedy: The Joe I Know

Huffington Post Editor Roy Sekoff appears on Headline News’s The Joy Behar Show Wednesday night. Among the topics up for discussion are MTV’s new show Jersey Shore and its cast of self-described “guidos” and “guidettes.” Three cast members recently appeared on The Jay Leno Show and showed off their knowledge–or lack thereof–about American history. Roy explained that idiocy is is the group’s brand, and on Leno, the Jersey cast had great branding. Watch the clip below. For the full show, and the panel’s thoughts about Sarah Palin’s most recent exploits, watch Headline News tonight at 9:00 p.m. ET. WATH More on Sarah Palin

View post:
Huff TV: Roy Sekoff On "The Joy Behar Show" Discussing The "Jersey Shore" Cast

Remember just a few weeks ago when political pundits were declaring the demise of the Republican Party? That Republicans were teetering on the edge of insignificance; remember? Well, not to be outdone, Democrats have now stolen the show! Former Democratic National Committee Chairman, and Vermont Governor, Howard Dean has counseled senators to vote no on the latest Senate health reform proposal. As he explained in a Washington Post op-ed piece, “I know health reform when I see it, and there isn’t much left in the Senate bill…this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.” Democratic Congressman Dave Obey, of Wisconsin, was quoted by Politico as saying, “It’s ridiculous, and the Obama administration is sitting on the sidelines. That’s nonsense.” Powerful Democratic Congressmen John Conyers, of Michigan, said, “No public option, no extending Medicare to 55, no nothing, an excise tax, God…The insurance lobby is taking over.” While everyone pretty much agrees health care reform is needed, Democrats have not been able to garner support of the 60 members required to assure passage. Meanwhile, President Obama has been singularly focused on supporting any bill that could be labeled health care reform, but to no avail. Senator Joe Leiberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said no to extending Medicare benefits just three months after he proposed the very same idea. Of course he almost was Republican Senator John McCain’s running mate in 2008. Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson has rejected the public option and wants tighter restrictions on abortion. President Obama has found himself in the position of catering a handful of moderates at the expense of his core supporters. But is any win on health care reform a win? No say liberal members of Congress who are furious. For instance, Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner of New York said, “Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares.” So the White House has found itself deflecting criticism from its own party. White House adviser David Axelrod responded to Howard Dean’s attack, “I saw his piece in the Post this morning, and it’s predicated on a bunch of erroneous conclusions. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said of Dean’s charge that the bill was good for insurance companies, “if this is such a great thing for the insurance companies, why are they spending hundreds and millions of dollars every day to attack it?” Meanwhile, the president began employing some scar tactics, telling ABC Newsman Charlie Gibson, “If we don’t pass it, here’s the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you.” And he said the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory, and if not dealt with, “the federal government will go bankrupt.” As the president ratchets up his rhetoric, his job approval rating has slipped to a new low, 47% according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. The president can find some comfort in the fact that the Congress, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party all do worse in the polls. But Republicans are beginning to build a narrative of a president who is not a leader. And it just may be sticking. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough observes that “No one fears of President Obama.” And conservative columnist Peggy Noonan asked Axelrod, “You are losing the left, you are losing the right, you are losing the center. That looks to me like a political disaster.” Even Democrats like Representative Weiner are calling for leadership; “It’s time for the president to get his hands dirty.” Even if House and Senate conferees are able to hammer out a health care reform bill that passes Congress, its impact is not likely to be felt on Main Street for some time. Meanwhile the president’s image will have been damaged by the lengthy debate, and he will have spent an enormous amount of good will with the public no matter the outcome. This is now President Obama’s ecomony, Obama’s unemployment problem, Obama’s housing crisis, Obama’s deficit, Obama’s wars, Obama’s banking regulatory problem and it will remain Obama’s health care reform problem. Fortunately for President Obama, the party of “no” has weak national leadership. Governor Sarah Palin’s magical book tour has made her a lot of money but it hasn’t converted many voters. However, Republicans will be competitive in Congressional districts across the country. And as the 2010 midterm elections approach, Americans will be asking themselves, “Is this change we can really believe in?” More on Sarah Palin

See the original post here:
Joe Peyronnin: It Is Time Mr. President

Remember just a few weeks ago when political pundits were declaring the demise of the Republican Party? That Republicans were teetering on the edge of insignificance; remember? Well, not to be outdone, Democrats have now stolen the show! Former Democratic National Committee Chairman, and Vermont Governor, Howard Dean has counseled senators to vote no on the latest Senate health reform proposal. As he explained in a Washington Post op-ed piece, “I know health reform when I see it, and there isn’t much left in the Senate bill…this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.” Democratic Congressman Dave Obey, of Wisconsin, was quoted by Politico as saying, “It’s ridiculous, and the Obama administration is sitting on the sidelines. That’s nonsense.” Powerful Democratic Congressmen John Conyers, of Michigan, said, “No public option, no extending Medicare to 55, no nothing, an excise tax, God…The insurance lobby is taking over.” While everyone pretty much agrees health care reform is needed, Democrats have not been able to garner support of the 60 members required to assure passage. Meanwhile, President Obama has been singularly focused on supporting any bill that could be labeled health care reform, but to no avail. Senator Joe Leiberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said no to extending Medicare benefits just three months after he proposed the very same idea. Of course he almost was Republican Senator John McCain’s running mate in 2008. Nebraska Democratic Senator Ben Nelson has rejected the public option and wants tighter restrictions on abortion. President Obama has found himself in the position of catering a handful of moderates at the expense of his core supporters. But is any win on health care reform a win? No say liberal members of Congress who are furious. For instance, Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner of New York said, “Some of us have compromised our compromised compromise. We need the president to stand up for the values our party shares.” So the White House has found itself deflecting criticism from its own party. White House adviser David Axelrod responded to Howard Dean’s attack, “I saw his piece in the Post this morning, and it’s predicated on a bunch of erroneous conclusions. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said of Dean’s charge that the bill was good for insurance companies, “if this is such a great thing for the insurance companies, why are they spending hundreds and millions of dollars every day to attack it?” Meanwhile, the president began employing some scar tactics, telling ABC Newsman Charlie Gibson, “If we don’t pass it, here’s the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you.” And he said the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory, and if not dealt with, “the federal government will go bankrupt.” As the president ratchets up his rhetoric, his job approval rating has slipped to a new low, 47% according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. The president can find some comfort in the fact that the Congress, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party all do worse in the polls. But Republicans are beginning to build a narrative of a president who is not a leader. And it just may be sticking. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough observes that “No one fears of President Obama.” And conservative columnist Peggy Noonan asked Axelrod, “You are losing the left, you are losing the right, you are losing the center. That looks to me like a political disaster.” Even Democrats like Representative Weiner are calling for leadership; “It’s time for the president to get his hands dirty.” Even if House and Senate conferees are able to hammer out a health care reform bill that passes Congress, its impact is not likely to be felt on Main Street for some time. Meanwhile the president’s image will have been damaged by the lengthy debate, and he will have spent an enormous amount of good will with the public no matter the outcome. This is now President Obama’s ecomony, Obama’s unemployment problem, Obama’s housing crisis, Obama’s deficit, Obama’s wars, Obama’s banking regulatory problem and it will remain Obama’s health care reform problem. Fortunately for President Obama, the party of “no” has weak national leadership. Governor Sarah Palin’s magical book tour has made her a lot of money but it hasn’t converted many voters. However, Republicans will be competitive in Congressional districts across the country. And as the 2010 midterm elections approach, Americans will be asking themselves, “Is this change we can really believe in?” More on Sarah Palin

View original post here: 
Joe Peyronnin: It Is Time Mr. President

The following is a conversation between an officer in the United States Army stationed in Afghanistan and a citizen of the United States. A conversation between a soldier, Lt. Colonel Edward Ledford — and a poet, Carol Muske-Dukes. The Huffington Post has generously provided a forum for this timely exchange — comments are welcome. The conversation will be “spontaneous” to the degree that the participants have no pre-planned talking points or agenda. The only “disclaimer” is an official one — the Army has asked that all comments and opinions offered by Lt. Colonel Ledford be identified as entirely his own personal perspective. Thus: “The views (and poetry) published here are those of Lt. Colonel Edward Ledford — they do not reflect the policies of the U.S. Army or NATO.” This is the first in a series of exchanges between the two of us, Soldier to Poet, to be published on the Huffington Post. Carol Muske-Dukes — CMD Lt. Col. Edward Ledford — EL CMD — We met at West Point in 1997. I wrote a quasi-humorous piece for the New York Times Book Review not long afterwards called “Shakespeare Meets the Long Gray Line” about what it felt like to be invited to the U.S. Military Academy to read one’s poetry to a class of 600 or so plebes and answer their questions about poetry — not to mention the thrill of hearing women’s voices calling out orders on The Plain! I brought my teen-age daughter, Annie, with me to witness West Point. You (then a Captain) were our official escort and I described you this way: “After landing in Newark, we easily located Captain Ledford, our escort (he proved to be the only gentleman standing at attention dressed in olive drab with blindingly bright medals and shoes). Captain Ed, as we called him, was a helicopter pilot who had recently seen combat in the Persian Gulf; he was a ‘jump-master’ who stepped out of airplanes for fun (when he wasn’t doing it under orders) and he also raced motorcycles. Typical young hot-shot officer profile, I thought. But there was something else. Captain Ed loved literature. Ever since he’d entered the service — even before — he’d wanted to teach English. Now he was doing it at West Point: ‘My dream is fulfilled’ he told me.” Ed, this is a portrait of you in 1997. I know that your distinguished military career has taken you to many other places — including the Pentagon and beyond — could I ask you to please fill in your background for us? I think that you flew helicopters in some conflicts and also were in the Pentagon when it was hit by the plane on 9/11. You are modest and reluctant to present yourself as a representative “achiever”, as I also know, but could I pressure you a little to talk about what it’s like to be in war zones and what it’s like to ascend through the ranks of the U.S. Military? My hope is that you will be able to answer my questions freely and candidly here — failing that (and because the Army has asked that it be made clear that your “views” and your “poems” are entirely your own –) I’d like to request that when you don’t feel comfortable expressing your opinions in prose, that we move into poetry occasionally? You are a poet (as we will discuss later) — and a self-described “cynic and pessimist” — if you feel yourself perhaps leaning too much toward “official rhetoric”, would you try verse? For example, a haiku: Autumn: West Point speech. Our Commander smiles, leaves fall. Cadets nod. More war. EL — Of course, I never made it to West Point as a cadet — instead, it was the Virginia Military Institute, almost The Citadel, both so southern, so apparently brutal in that first year. Teaching at West Point was something of a dream come true. And it was both the end of the first part of my career and an inadvertent springboard for much of the second part. In Part the First, it was excitement — joining in 1987, I went straight to flight school at Fort Rucker, Alabama, a remarkable place in the middle of nowhere much, but a great place to be a young man, just out of military school, going wild. Back then, and even now, I’m amazed at how flight school proceeded along — from the ground school, into what were then the training helicopters, TH-55’s (one day, they tell us, ok, you’re ready to solo — essentially give us the keys to the thing and send us on our way around the stage field . . . the keys to a helicopter? C’mon). Later, we progress to flying from base out to the stagefields, and back in at the end of the morning — frankly, I didn’t quite get all the traffic pattern stuff, so I just followed the guy ahead of me . . . in hindsight, that was craziness. But graduated, moved to my first assignment, flying UH-1 Hueys (not because they were the most advanced aircraft; indeed, they were remnants from Vietnam, but it seemed to me the iconic airframe going. Most people were begging to get into Apaches or Chinooks or the AeroScouts, but I was very happy with the historic Huey, so I stuck with them for a long time to come . . . not a great career move, however). In any case, Fort Campbell and the 101st Airborne Division took me to places of which a white trash boy from the Appalachians could only dream: Honduras in 89-90, and a few trips into El Salvador. Back in the States, I remember buying my first television a few days into August of 1990 — some guy had invaded Kuwait, a little country that I missed on a geography test in 7th grade (failed geography) — so, I bought a television to keep up (I was trying to live an ascetic lifestyle, reading a lot of Kerouac and Burroughs and Hemingway). You have to understand, in my ignorant innocent mind, there was no such thing as war: it was something we read about in books, and even in The Army, I never expected we would go to war . . . to war? No. Even when things began to unfold, I couldn’t believe we were going to move the entire 101st Airborne Division to Saudi Arabia, and never really believed it until we flew the Hueys down to Florida to load on the slow boat to the Persian Gulf. Desert Shield was a lot of waiting — we lived in a parking garage at the King Fahd International Airport, each getting a parking slot all his or her own. I got the ascetic lifestyle I was seeking. Eventually, we flew up to the border of Iraq and, finally, flew on in (my navigation skills had improved some since flight school . . . only some). Desert Storm was an adventure, though a short one — the logistics and ground convoys could not keep up, of course, so we ate and slept in the helicopters (I actually usually slept on top of mine, to see the incredible skies unimpeded by any sort of man-made ambient light). In the Hueys, we flew a lot of single ship missions, so I got to fly the 2nd Brigade Commander around some, got to fly the Division Commander, then MG Binford Peay (now the Superintendant of VMI and retired 4-star), and we flew to bunker complexes and all sorts of crazy places. We had wired the helo up with a tape player, so we could listen to music as we flew along — and while comparisons to Vietnam are way out of vogue right now, of course flying a Huey listening to Credence Clearwater Revival was a little reminiscent. That war ended. We came home. It set a bad precedent. Wars are not the same. After that, I commanded a Headquarters company, and eventually and as quickly as possible made my way to the University of Alabama Department of English, on my way to West Point. Civilian clothes, no formations, nothing military about it, those 18 months studying were some of the most grueling I’d ever experienced. Terrified of failure, I studied pretty much every free minute, stayed in the library stacks every night until they closed around three in the morning, and studied under some great professors like Pat Hermann, Richard Rand, Don Noble, Harold Weber, Hank Lazer (a fantastic poet and teacher), got married to a girl I’d known since she was 12, and proceeded to West Point. There, of course, I met you, learned how little I knew about teaching, and especially about teaching composition and apparently impenetrable poetry to sometimes cynical and suspicious cadets who firmly believed that they would, by design, fail the first paper, fail the second, pass barely the third, and move to the B-range on the fourth and fifth: the time they invested was too often commensurate with that, as it often turned out, self-fulfilling mythology. The first key was to communicate to them, to let them see, how poetry moves, its power to open and expand and reinterpret what we always already thought that we knew. I loved teaching Dickey’s “The Sheep Child” after showing them a Skittles commercial that portrayed a couple of “sheep-boys” eating Skittles on a stump. They didn’t get the implications of the commercial — I wonder if the Skittles people did — until after we read the poem, and then I’d show them the commercial, again: different interpretation. So then we could talk about myth and the purposes it serves. They got it. Most of them. One of those moments. Farm boys wild to couple With anything with soft-wooded trees With mounds of earth mounds Of pinestraw will keep themselves off Animals by legends of their own . . . And, of course, given my youth, I could identify with Dickey and most all that he wrote. (N.B. The acclaimed American poet, James Dickey, served in the Army Air Corps in World War II and flew 39 missions in the 418th Night Fighter Squadron, based in the South Pacific. — CMD) But there I met another great teacher by the name of Scott Krawczyk, with whom I became friends. After West Point, it was Korea — great first move for a new family, a year away in Korea. Korea was like coming home to someone raised on Donald Sutherland and M*A*S*H* and its off-shoot series (that was good until Henry Blake left). There, again, I was essentially tied up in language, as an Inspector General: we dealt with policies and regulations and interpretations against the actions of Soldiers and civilians and how they all played out. It was about research, often; it was about human stories and dilemmas and temptations and machinations, too often; it was a great drama, most of the time. Korea took me back to Fort Campbell, back to the Aviation Brigade, this time in the UH-60 Blackhawk, the current premier lift helicopter in The Army (it is what you see on television now all the time): much more advanced, more complex, more powerful, more dangerous if you did not know what you were doing. I didn’t, for very long — if you do not fly it constantly, you lose the expertise that Warrant Officers grow: these are spectacularly talented men and women who plan complex missions involving numerous serials of numerous helicopters executed at night, in the rain, hitting every target plus or minus about thirty second — this is precision excellence, and you cannot do that unless you do it every day. They are magicians; they are contemporary knights in many ways. In any case, a fairly unremarkable tour at Fort Campbell led me, fortunately, to Sarajevo in Bosnia for six months. I was there as an aviation liaison with the 3rd Infantry Division, but I did more writing than liaising, just by nature of the requirements in the headquarters in Sarajevo. I did whatever was needed. There, I got the e-mail — Scott Krawcyzk. Scott: Do you want to write speeches for the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Erik K. Shinseki? EL: Yes. Scott: We’ll fly you here for an interview. EL: I’m in Bosnia. Scott: That doesn’t matter. EL: You’re going to fly me to DC from Bosnia to interview for a job? Scott: Yes. EL: I haven’t finished the Command and General Staff correspondence course. Scott: He doesn’t care. He wants someone who can write. EL: I can do that. So I went. Ultimately, I got the job, which put me square in the Pentagon on the 11th of September. That day remains incomprehensible — both in the magnitude of the events and the ways in which it changed all of our lives. The cloud went in front of the sun that day, literally, and it remains there, figuratively, and there remains this inexplicable heaviness about life that will not go away. That day and the action and reactions after it redefine every thing, cause a re-evaluation of every thing, from personal philosophies to humor: nothing is funny in the same way, though things are still funny, but for different reasons. Cynicism is a justifiable disease that eats away at the margins of any joy. We watched the second plane hit the Twin Towers; we felt the foundation of the Pentagon shake, heard glass break, and made furious phone calls out to our families on the way out the door. Then we heard about the towers collapsing, but would not see it until that night, late, when we got home — you just cannot watch that and get your mind around it completely. We watched the walls of the Pentagon sheer off cleanly, leaving that one dictionary standing on the edge of the precipice, open, apparently untouched, the lexicon that would, in many ways, become one of the innumerable victims of that day: Pathogens injected Trojan-horse style; temple walls crumble before a small Lexicon, altered and stable, unsullied, too briefly a miracle (N.B. The lines above are an excerpt from Ed Ledford’s contribution to the Great American Renga, “Crossing State Lines” — a “conversation” poem among 53 American poets and one poet-soldier — soon to be published as part of the AMERICA: Now & Here national arts project. — CMD) We continued to write speeches and letters, and then helped the Chief with letters of condolence, each one personally from him, in fact. And we heard Iraq mentioned, and knew right then we were going to war, again, with Iraq. We knew that. Once that word was thrown out there, there was simply no turning back. We knew that. I don’t know how we knew it so thoroughly, but we knew it as well as I knew I would marry that girl from camp some day — and I did. And so we watched it unfold from the front row. After that, presuming the war would end quickly, I returned to West Point, to teach again, expecting that to be my last tour of duty before retirement. But things dragged on in Iraq, got worse, and a friend, philosopher, and cycling mentor killed himself over there. I felt the tug. You cannot turn away. Marian and I both agreed that I should get back to a Division and offer myself up, whatever they wanted me to do. It turned out to be the 82nd Airborne Division, first as the Division Aviation Officer and, leaving that job for those much more capable in aviation related matters, working engagements, correspondence, speeches and such for the Division Commander. Working engagements, of course, introduced me, ultimately, to some of the key players here in Afghanistan, allowed me to see them up close, and hear them; it allowed me in the shadows to see people like then-Vice President Dick Cheney — our Airbase was suicide-bombed the evening he was there, interestingly — and others. Ultimately, it allowed me, with my retirement paperwork on my desk and ready to head to Portland, Maine and, hopefully, their Law School, to come back to Afghanistan, again, working with engagements, helping with speeches and articles and correspondence . . . whatever I can do. This tour in Afghanistan is the last, to be sure, before retirement, and it is a privileged way to go out, working with the Combined Operational Engagement Cell here at the ISAF Joint Command in Kabul, assisting with speeches and engagements with dignitaries from across the globe in an international headquarters representing some forty-three nations. CMD — Thanks for this background, Ed. I find your candor, your bravery, and in telling your story, your lack of self-centeredness — combined with what can only be described as grace under pressure, extraordinary. After Iraq, and 9/11 — and your survival after the plane crash into the Pentagon, the image (as in your poem above) of the lectern with a dictionary on it left standing in the rubble, remains. That image, of the book of words rising out of the ruins, is as eloquent and near-biblical as your image of the “cloud” covering the sun. That cloud that has blocked our source of light and sense of direction for a long time now, I believe. You say that “the lexicon” has been one of the victims of national catastrophe — and, if we are speaking in an Orwellian sense, about the damage done to language, its collective meaning — I absolutely agree. Speaking of the meaning of words, could we return to West Point for a moment? I have a memory from the time of my visit — about the poetry that was being discussed there, for example — a line from Shakespeare that seems still relevant (in that way that Poetry stays relevant) to current world politics. By the way, when I stood in the cemetery at West Point, I tried hard to connect to a tradition not only military, rather “our” collective history. West Point was Robert E. Lee’s alma mater and the alma mater of Ulysses S. Grant — it was the classroom of MacArthur and Patton and Eisenhower and Westmoreland. But it was also the college of Timothy Leary, James McNeill Whistler and Edgar Allen Poe. (Poe — one of ours, a poet — was third in his class until he was thrown out for drinking brandy and refusing to drill.)”I sing of arms and the man” was written by a poet who wanted his readers to understand war as epic — but the nature of war, how we define it and sanction it — how do we talk about this? ED — We cannot get away from the romanticism of war — indeed, we romanticize it every day, even as we curse the notion. And this war is epic, to be sure — think back to the first act in this play: the 11th of September (certainly, there was lead up to that day, but that was our first conscious recognition of the whole thing, I think), and think of all the lives that one day brought together, all the lives that day allowed to begin actualization that might not have happened otherwise; think of the characters and caricatures and the way the story has unfolded over these nearly ten years, and the multitude of stories — not just the ones reported, but the stories we never hear of the father who dies before he gets home to see his child born, or the father or mother who leave the children behind and die, or are maimed, permanently disfigured, transformed into the monstrous that the children will have to contend with psychologically, or the crippled who will never run again, or who will run again, or the Soldier who loses a leg and then comes back to continue the fight, or the father who goes home to bury his son, killed in battle, and then returns back here to Afghanistan. These are the stories that happen, most every day, and we miss them. And then there are those larger than life leaders — some good, some bad, some indifferent. But once you understand these stories, then epic poetry is not unbelievable; in fact, it tells of the same sorts of truths, and we sometimes call it fiction, but it isn’t really fiction at all, not completely. I guess now is a good time to pick that back up, the singing of arms and of man and this very human struggle. CMD — Yet the line I heard that West Point literature instructors addressed, with their students, is the following line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “Conscience does make cowards of us all.” Hamlet’s character and inability to act has been discussed endlessly — and Shakespeare’s irony in this line is powerful, in that Hamlet kills three people — Polonius, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern — though he cannot seem to confront, face to face, the man who he believes has murdered his father. Shakespeare’s “paradox” here is ironic — he seems to be saying that what keeps our behavior “moral” (conscience) leads to moral condemnation (coward). And what is a coward? If everyone acted by the dictates of conscience, perhaps we would “all be cowards” — cowardliness construed as pacifism, anti-war. What is the “conscience” of a soldier? And is it distinct from his/her individual conscience — or (if not an oxymoron) the conscience of the State? EL: You present a nice line here, and I remember working through this with the cadets on some occasions: “Conscience does make cowards of us all.” Actually, from a soldier’s perspective, the line is a bit paradoxical — the notion that one’s conscience makes one a coward seems contradictory. I associate conscience with something that controls, something that prevents one from acting in a way one believes dishonorable, shameful, immoral or unethical. Contrary to soldier-Hamlet’s position, I’d argue that it is a soldier’s conscience that encourages — literally, that makes or gives one courage. Though I have been in Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Afghanistan twice, now, I’ve never been in what I would call combat or outrageously dangerous situations — not the kind of actions some of these Soldiers experience and that we’ve all read about. But I’ve listened to many of them — old and young — who have been in the gritty white knuckle fighting; they have all told just about the same story: they move in the face of fire, they risk their own lives, to save the lives of those to their left and to their right because of a sense of commitment to one another, because they will not let one another down, even in the most dire circumstances. Indeed, under those circumstances is when a sense of loyalty is most vital: not loyalty to nation or some intangible ideal, but loyalty to your buddy, the guy on whom you depend to live. That is what drives them forward, I think. So, why get up and charge the proverbial machine gun nest? I understand it is because people are counting on you, and worse than dying would be failing, letting your buddy down, living with that. To turn and to run and have to live with that would be hell for anyone with the kind of powerful conscience we are describing. Hamlet’s fear is fear of dying, or of what comes after; he fears that the pain and suffering after death might be worse than that he is now enduring: he wonders, “But that dread of something after death- / / / . . . puzzles the will, / And makes us rather bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of?” It is that fear of the unknown that warns him away from death. For a combat Soldier, it is the fear of the known and shameful consequences, not a fear of death, that drives forward to confront death, that encourages to action, or inaction, depending on the situation, the requirement, the orders. We in the military all take an oath. I think too many of us do not really consider the nature of that action — in short and overly simplified, we swear to obey lawful orders. I’ve heard some contemplate the things that they would absolutely not do, heard them strategize about lawful orders they would ignore in particular situations, even after having taken the oath. In my view, that oath is The Soldiers’ shared conscience. When you stop and think about it, there really is no need for an oath if one is engaging in an activity with which one agrees, no need for an oath if one is pursuing a cause in which one fervently believes. You don’t need an oath for that. You do it. The oath is only valuable, wields its greatest power, when you are commanded lawfully to do that which might completely contradict your nature, your character, your personal beliefs, morals and ethics. That might be charging up a hill, or that might be standing fast when you feel like charging; that might be leaving home and family to go overseas to a war you might question. And that might be going again. And again. And again. You do it because you have to — because you took an oath, because people count on you, because they are going ahead of you, because your conscience, that great, critical, judgmental all-knowing memory and all-seeing eye, demands it, allows nothing else. CMD — Your phrase, “lawfully commanded” — that’s a difficult one for some citizens to grasp, if it is indeed comprehensible at all. There are those who think that all war is unlawful, there are those who question the “lawfulness” of some wars — not all wars. I take your point — that you don’t go there, unless you’re “there” in your mind, and your conscience, by taking that soldier’s oath. But the other elements of how you construct “conscience”, as a soldier, seem less derived from the authority of any State — and more personally derived. That people are “counting on you”, that the burden of loyalty in the buddy system, the soldier’s collective “family”, is on each individual solider — that charging the artillery nest may have more to do with preserving the society of honor and loyalty that extends to the homefront, to those you protect, and for whom you are willing to die. What I’m saying is obvious, I guess. There is no real “abstract” notion of conscience unless you are the author of the oath of loyalty or a politician. Let’s talk about our own contemporary battlefield: the war in Afghanistan, where you are stationed. The New York Times has reported that after 8 years of struggle, more than 800 American lives are lost, more than 200 billion taxpayer dollars are spent — and what progress do we claim? We are dealing with a government that is corrupt, bribed by us to shore up against the Taliban — yet the Taliban seems hardly affected. You are stationed in Afghanistan. Most Americans, including me, are grateful that you are there. Yet, given the recent commitment by our President (and your Commander-in-Chief) to new troop buildup — where do we position our “plain” of conscience? From the Aeniad (which I know they read at West Point as well) — the translator is Robert Fagles: Time and again the Greeks had yearned to abandon Troy — bone-tired from a long hard war — to put it far behind and beat a clean retreat. Would to god they had. EL — In Hamlet’s view, the conscience with which he is dealing threatens to make him a coward, not a hero — he turns away from the unknown. So, given Hamlet’s words as a backdrop, you ask, “Where do we position our ‘plain’ of conscience” as we move forward? The Act III Hamlet would turn from this place: his logic “makes us rather bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of . . . .” This is a status-quo-Hamlet unwilling or unable to take risks, even if those risks might improve his situation. I am not satisfied with “those ills we have” as they relate to Afghanistan, its people, and the region. We can do better here; we must do better here, and I’m convinced — and I am a cynic and pessimist — that the comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that we have adopted, a strategy that makes protecting the Afghan people a first priority, will succeed. Indeed, in my view, we could continue with the status quo here, bring no more resources, continue down the former path, and watch the environment continue to degrade. One of the more apt descriptions of the results of failure here was reported in The Times Online in September: British Army General Sir David Richards “warned that defeat for the international coalition would have an ‘intoxicating impact’ on extremists around the world. Failure for an alliance as powerful as the Nato presence in Afghanistan would convince terrorists that ‘anything might be possible.’” For whatever it is worth, I tend to agree with General Richards’ assessment. President Obama described in his remarks at West Point that with our engagement in Afghanistan “a place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.” That is what we are about — giving the people hope, giving them what an Afghan friend of Sarah Chayes’ called “the courage of flight.” In my view, that’s a high plain of conscience that is not easy to accommodate — it takes some courage and risk. SOLDIER TO POET: end of Part the First. TO BE CONTINUED.

Read more:
Carol Muske-Dukes: SOLDIER TO POET: an exchange

Kos has a piece up today on the problems Massachusetts has been having with cost control and their health care reform experiment. While there are some great points made about over-selling the Massachusetts Miracle as a model for the country, there are some important things to emphasize. First of all, MA has less uninsured than anyone else in the country. A Kaiser Family Foundation report (.pdf) that Kos cites also says Since implementation of the plan began in late 2006, it is estimated that 430,000 people have gained coverage, representing two-thirds of the estimated 650,000 people who were previously uninsured. That’s no small accomplishment. An Urban Institute report goes into more detail: Less than two years after Massachusetts’ 2006 reform law was implemented, 2.6 percent of residents were uninsured—the lowest proportion ever recorded in an American state. Now, you may argue that there’s more people with Medicaid than before so that’s a bad thing, but for those who had nothing, that’s a good thing even though Medicaid is far from the silver spoon insurance that our Senators have, thanks to your tax dollars. Second of all, the discussion of MA’s health plan was centered around cost control and mandates. But mandates are not why so many people in MA are covered, or at least not the only reason. Again, the Urban Institute: The state’s individual mandate alone does not explain this result, since it is not enforced against adults with incomes at or below 150 percent FPL or children. During a multi-day site visit, researchers identified several factors contributing to Massachusetts’ high enrollment, including an intensive marketing campaign; use of data to establish subsidy eligibility for newly-insured residents; an integrated eligibility system serving multiple subsidy programs with a single application; and healthcare provider/community-based organization-driven application assistance. Wouldn’t it be good to get administrative reform that helps us deal with insurance companies and streamlines the application process? I never expected to change the insurance industry into something different than it is (I just expected to regulate them better.) So, covering more people with insurance is potentially good, at least for catastrophic coverage and for encouraging earlier detection of illness. But as Jake and Kos and others have pointed out, “potentially good” isn’t good unless it’s actually good. And if it’s an unaffordable mandate, it’s not potentially bad, it’s actually bad. MA seems to avoid the “terrible mandate” problem to some extent. Third, using MA as an example to compare to the Senate version of health care reform (HCR) is tricky. MA uses Medicaid/SCHIP as a “public option” of sorts, the Senate does not. In fact, I’m still not sure what the dysfunctional Senate is up to today and what they are doing for the public outside of strengthening the private insurance system. Are they proposing Medicare for all like they were last week, or Medicaid as last resort, like MA and the other states do? What do MA residents think? This Rasmussen poll from June shows mixed feeling from the public (I’m shocked!), but like most HCR polls, it needs to be interpreted carefully. By a 37% to 17% margin, Massachusetts liberals consider the program a success. By a 55% to 18% margin, conservatives in the state say it’s been a failure. From a partisan perspective, Democrats are fairly evenly divided with 49% not sure if the reform effort has been a success or a failure. Sixty-six percent (66%) of Republicans say it’s been a failure. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 27% consider the reform plan a success while 41% say it’s been a failure. Even a cursory look suggests similar reflection to current HCR polls; conservatives are against, progressives for (but with doubts.) And given how confusing it is for the politically obsessed here, who are actually trying to follow the shifting sands of the debate, I can’t make any assumption about the knowledge base of the general public when it comes to HCR other than how it affects their own premiums (and even then, unless they are paying the full cost of health care, it’s tricky to know what health care really costs.) One thing we do know — in order to actually get cost control, you have to deliver less services (private insurance pre-certification and denials) or pay providers and suppliers less (Medicaid and to a lesser extent, Medicare), or both. And we also know that Republicans are only for cost control if you don’t try to implement it. If you do, they attack you to score political points (see “death panels”, Sarah Palin on anything, GOP on Medicare cuts (Republicans for socialized medicine!!) and GOP comments about mammograms.) So, I can’t fault any political plan that tries to implement first and save dollars later. It’s the only way to get anything passed in our dysfunctional society. The points about “unsustainable without cost control” is true, but that will require implementation of evidence based medicine and panels that recommend against unnecessary screening, etc. which are always going to be controversial and unpopular, so you can almost never pass that at the same time as reform. And it will require things like importation of cheaper drugs from Canada , something that needs action at the federal (not state) level. As far as the Senate plan goes, it needs affordability, and it needs to help with job lock so that people can feel freer to move. And, yes, it needs to cover more people than are currently covered now. Whether it’s something I can support or not, I can’t tell you until you tell me more about what the plan looks like - not today (it changes hourly), but when it’s ready for a vote. But in looking towards Massachusetts as a model, however flawed, there’s plenty of good there that should not be overlooked.

Read more:
Counterpoint On Massachusetts

Okay. Here’s the deal: the Top Ten Comedic News Stories of 2009 are not to be confused with the Top Ten Legitimate News Stories of 2009. They are as different as night and day. Fire and frogs. Popeye’s chicken and ballet fundraisers. High rise condo balconies and balsa wood furniture. Southern Baptist 4th of July church picnics and snow tires. There were all sorts of heavy- duty stories that impacted the country and the planet. Can’t think of any right now, but trust me, there was a bunch. Rather, the Top Ten Comedic News Stories of 2009 are the accounts that provoked a slow shake of the head and a soft chuckle without having to bear a moral weight larger than Manitoba owing to the extreme unfunny nature of the death, destruction and gruesomeness inherent in the legitimate news. So here is the flip side, the stories from 09 most filled with mirthing possibilities. 10. Governor Mark Sanford (R- SC) and Senator John Ensign (R- Nev) both found to have a bit of a problem in the monogamy department. The GOP breathes a sigh of relief that at least they were caught with women. 9. Beer Summit . Resolution sounded like the set up for a joke. A professor, a cop and a president walk into a bar. Because as we all know, beer fixes racism. 8. Swine Flu . To keep from defaming our proud American factory pig farms, government attempts to change name to SOIV: Swine Originated Influenza Virus. Fails to catch on. 7. Supreme Court Justice Sonja Sotomayor . For David Souter’s replacement, the President chooses a Catholic diabetic woman from the South Bronx of Puerto Rican descent. Apparently that search for the albino midget lesbian unwed Bangladeshi mother with a bum leg and lycanthropy fell just a bit short. 6. Cash for Clunkers . Upon first hearing about the program, many thought it was about raising the per diem for the Senate. Or a recurring entry on a lobbyist’s expense report. 5. Nobel Peace Prize . The outcry from the right made you think the President had been caught naked under a goat at a Junkie Hookers for Satan Convention. Glenn Beck so outraged, it’s a miracle he didn’t pull a Kanye West, rush the award ceremonies and yell how Dick Cheney deserved it more. 4. Tiger Woods . Fall from Mt. Olympus is steep and loud. Maybe Nike will give Elin an endorsement deal. Who wouldn’t want to buy the clubs that beat Tiger? The two have given a whole new meaning to: “Just do it.” 3. Somali Pirates . Who knew piracy was a 21st century career track? What’s next: scurvy? 2. Sarah Palin . Alaska deserves decisive leadership, which is why she proved she’s not a quitter by resigning. More Sarah Logic we city folk just don’t understand. Then she writes a book that sells almost a million copies to non- readers. Queen of the Illiterati. 1. Teabaggers and Health Care Rioters . Easy to understand why these folks are so leery of public health care when you realize how obviously they’ve been failed by our public education system. San Francisco based political comic, Will Durst, writes sometimes, this being a sterling example, and expects 2010 to provide him with even richer grist. Catch Durst in stand- up mode at the 17th Annual Big Fat Year End Kiss Off Comedy Show. Dec. 26- 31. 6 cities. 6 days. 7 comics. 2,347 laughs. willdurst.com or 415.820.9628.

Continued here:
Will Durst: The Top Ten Comedic News Stories of 2009

Last week, my wife and I finally got around to seeing the film Doubt, written and directed by John Patrick Shanley. Based on his own play, it concerns the head of a Catholic school, a veteran nun played by Meryl Streep, who becomes convinced that the new priest (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) is guilty of sexually abusing one of the students. In spite of his protestations of innocence, Streep’s old-school nun has, in her mind, the necessary proof. What is this proof? As she exclaims to a younger subordinate, “I have my certainty!” The film prompted me to reflect on our present, divisive times, and the profound role that a similar adherence to certainty plays in the ugliness of our cultural and political debates. Right-wing idealogues like Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck speak with a certitude that would be hilarious were it not so destructive. Populists like Sarah Palin and Lou Dobbs, who appear to represent individuality and “common sense,” make handsome livings displaying both a certainty about difficult issues and disdain for those who wrestle with their complexity. Meanwhile, on the left, media darling Michael Moore and intellectual darling Noam Chomsky dilute the impact of their often-valid criticisms by posturing with a certainty that borders on arrogance. Which begs the question: whatever happened to doubt? In my view, doubt fuels intelligence. It’s doubt that leads to innovation in the sciences, by questioning the theories that have gone before. It’s doubt that leads to positive social change, by questioning the cultural assumptions that have gone before. It’s doubt that causes us to reflect on both our personal and national choices, and emboldens us to challenege conventional wisdom about “how things are done” or “how things have always been.” In other words, to doubt is to think. I’m not talking about a crippling vacillation in the face of facts, or a reluctance to defend one’s beliefs and values. I’m referring to the ability to consider other points of view as equally valid and relevant. Moreover, we need to understand that who we are—how we were raised, the experiences we’ve had, and the meanings we give to those experiences—contributes greatly to our beliefs. And, most especially, to our opinions. Take those ridiculous “birthers,” who flood the Internet with nonsense about President Obama’s supposedly foreign place of birth. (Even the above-mentioned Dobbs, to his lasting shame, gives these idiots credence.) This is prejudice masquerading as fact. This is what comes of certainty born out of ignorance, fear and hatred. Or consider the global warming conference now taking place in Copenhagen. Reasonable people can disagree regarding policy, the economics, even the politics of the issue. But what we have instead is inflammatory rhetoric and political opportunism. The same goes for the difficult issues of immigration, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and health care reform. Who among us can state with certainty what the best path should be, in terms of dealing with all these dilemmas? Instead of screaming our opinions at each other from behind the barricades of our respective certainty, we should be striving for informed, reasoned debate. Of course, that would be hard. Harder than pointing fingers, exchanging sound-bites on TV news shows, or ranting on talk radio. Harder than spewing hate on the myriad racist, mob-baiting blogs that populate the web. Harder than considering and valuing points of view that deviate from our own; or maintaining some humility as to the validity of our long-cherished opinions. Harder, finally, than tolerating the discomfort of not knowing for sure . About anything. Which means accepting, valuing—even embracing—doubt. And giving up the comforting illusion of certainty. Because, like it or not, it is an illusion. In the words of philosopher Charles Renouvier, “Plainly speaking, there is no certainty. There are only people who are certain.”

Here is the original: 
Dennis Palumbo: A Few Words on Behalf of Doubt…

One of the smarter moves President Barack Obama used during his campaign to lure the interest of the casual voter was to introduce his athletic side and interests into his platform discussions. It started with shooting baskets with Sports Illustrated’s Scott Price , while discussing his background in and affinity for basketball. He threw out a first pitch and donned his beloved White Sox cap; he played more hoops with the University of North Carolina on another primary stop, analyzed NCAA brackets, talked BCS and hit some golf balls for fun. Meanwhile Senator Hillary Clinton looked uncomfortable talking baseball, Senator McCain, despite being an avid outdoorsman, stopped in at a NASCAR event but took his private time hunting away from the cameras, and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin regaled us as a hockey mom. None were as effective with the casual male sports fan as President Obama, and that feeling resonated with a male audience who may not have followed his campaign closely before. It made him much more “one of the guys.” He shoots hoops and likes baseball and talks about it all very comfortably. Did it lure some votes? Probably. Did it detract at any point? No way. So the election comes and goes and the President continues his sports interests … he attends a Wizards game in a turtleneck and sits court-side, and talk of bringing a basketball court to the White House to replace the bowling alley runs rampant. Staff members are frequently seen being part of pickup games on the road. Athletes and teams make a trip to the White House a must stop during their D.C. swings, whether the President is in residence or not. Hall of Famers show up in record numbers, a new office to assist in growing Olympic sport and youth issues is announced. Talk of Opening Day for baseball and Final four predictions abound, despite all the challenges that are ongoing in the real world for the new President. Yes there are the traditional champion’s visits, but the sense of sport for this President (even with his predecessor being a former MLB owner) has never been higher. Even on the international scene, the optimism around the coming vote for the 2016 Olympics, right in the President’s backyard, gives the Chicago bid a welcomed boost. Time then moves ahead, and alas, our sporting President has moved on to bigger issues than pickup ball. Healthcare reform, the repayment of bank loans, and the war in Afghanistan rightfully dominate the agenda these days, and his most forward link to sports lately, August’s trip to Copenhagen to support Chicago’s Olympic bid, ended badly. Has the President abandoned using sports as a social unifier to reach the young male who loved watching him mix it up on the court and play catch? Probably not. Using that sports platform to address the growing issue of childhood obesity in this country, will be a welcomed statement at the right time, perhaps as a part of another step in healthcare. One prominent former athlete, (now NBC broadcaster) Tiki Barber, has made a trip or two to the White House to show his plans to use playgrounds … the plan is called “Play Proud”… as a spot where children in inner cities can resolve conflicts and build a base for healthy play, and that could certainly factor into the administrations’ plans for the future. The Office of Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport, announced in June, is also finding its place amongst those in DC, and could be rolled out on a larger platform as we move toward the Vancouver Olympics in February. All will find its place in time. So has the President stopped being the “sports guy”? Nope. Will we see him dropping in on a Georgetown hoops game, or the NHL Winter Classic or the Super Bowl? Probably not soon. Like all of us he just doesn’t have time right now for catch. That’s also probably a good thing. More on Sarah Palin

View original post here:
Joe Favorito: Has President Obama Stopped Being a Sports Guy? Nah, He’s Just Too Busy These Days…

Another entry for the you-can’t-make-this-shit-up files, Sarah Palin edition: [Rhonda] Halliday was called by a friend at 8 a.m. last Wednesday and was told Palin needed her hair done that morning. Halliday had planned to take her 3-year-old to the dentist for her first filling that morning, but arranged for her husband to get off work for that chore. She was told to meet the group at the Monaco Hotel in downtown Salt Lake City and to just leave her car with valet parking. After being ushered to a room on the 15th floor and given some instructions (don’t talk to Palin unless she talks first) she did Palin’s hair while the former Alaska governor chatted with her family. Then, the Palin party left to get to the book signing at Costco on time. Halliday was the last one out of the room because she had to put her equipment away, then watched as they all drove off without anyone mentioning payment or a tip, which is common when the hairdresser travels to the client for the appointment. When the valet attendant got her car, he said that would be $10. She said she was with the Palin party and assumed they would take care of parking. That was news to him, so she had to fork over the $10. Screwing over a working mom is bad enough, but this: (don’t talk to Palin unless she talks first) Just like all the other regular hockey moms , eh, Sarah?

Original post: 
Don’t Speak Unless Spoken To

With America’s national debate on global warming going bipolar between President Obama’s grand entrance at Copenhagen and the surreality of Sarah from Alaska going rogue on world environmental science by championing the climate deniers, those committed to doing the planet’s serious business should stay focused on one, often overlooked but trackable key factor of climate change–the pivotal role of water. It is through water that global warming destabilizes civilized societies. At Copenhagen last week, Bill McKibben of 350.org warned of a looming, water-related doomsday tipping point that could render future climate change efforts moot–if warming temperatures thaw the permanently frozen Arctic soils to release its methane greenhouse gasses. Water’s central role was colorfully highlighted in the run up to Copenhagen by cabinet members from the sea level Maldives islands and mountainous Nepal who separately held meetings underwater and at the base of Mount Everest’s shrinking glaciers. They are desperate because they are on the front lines of the global warming battle. Along with the billions of other water-distressed people around the planet, climate change is exacerbating today’s mounting crisis of freshwater scarcity by radically altering hydrologic patterns to produce overwhelming flooding, droughts, storms, rising coastal sea levels, as well as the unprecedented melting of Arctic icecaps and mountain glaciers visible in Sarah’s own backyard. While the impacts are complex, they fall unevenly and are further dividing human society–with water rich regions generally getting wetter and arid ones drier. With the growing scarcity of irreplaceable freshwater overtaking oil as a critical driver of world affairs, as narrated in my forthcoming ” Water : The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization” (HarperCollins January 5, 2010), no climate change policy can succeed without parallel policies that help water-stressed partner societies endure the destabilizing shocks to their existing water supplies, and infrastructures. Climate change thus makes global citizens of us all. Not even remote Alaska will be spared the repercussions of failure. Temperatures are rising fastest in the high mountains, accelerating the melting of river-replenishing glaciers from the Himalayas to the Andes, and threatening the lives of the 2 billion people that depend upon them for food, industry, and drink. With global integration, there is symmetrical feedback between the vanishing glaciers and dry river beds and the blowing up of New York’s Twin Towers. Consider what will happen in water-distressed Pakistan–nuclear-armed, terrorist-besieged, overpopulated, heavily irrigation-dependent, and already politically unstable–when its single water lifeline, the Indus River, loses a third of its flow from the disappearance of its glacier water source. Water-rich, temperate southeastern America’s recent episode of rare, prolonged drought followed by intense rainfall and deadly floods was but a mild taste of the pattern that is playing out on much more intense, larger, tragic scales in the freshwater distressed parts of the planet. In places like monsoonal India, Bangladesh, and in Darfur, the destruction of crop and grazing land by epic floods and droughts is spreading horrors like famine, sale of children, disease outbreaks, and a totally new, burgeoning phenomenon in history–climate refugees on a scale of multimillions. Drill, Baby, Drill Sarah reminds me of those reckless Wall Street home loan bankers when she frets about sacrificing short term energy profits by reducing our carbon footprint instead of prudently worrying about the cumulative costs of systemic meltdown in view dead ahead. All Copenhagen climateers know that low carbon energy technologies are critical to controlling global warming. Yet few fully appreciate that ever since the invention of the waterwheel over 2,000 years ago our water and energy infrastructures have evolved into inseparable twins. Energy production is very thirsty–40% of all U.S. freshwater withdrawals from rivers and lakes is used by thermoelectric power plants–while water consumes lots of energy to perform its myriad economic functions. Thus the water footprint embedded in any unit of energy is another bedeviling factor the global warming solutions. The carbon capture and underground storage (CCS) solutions that so many governments are depending on to meet their carbon reducing commitments, for example, require 45% to 90% more water to remove carbon dioxide. In 2008 China halted its big coal to liquids projects not because of environmental concerns but because its water demands–up to 5 times more than conventional oil production–were simply too great to satisfy in its arid northern coal fields. Fear of contaminating drinking water supplies has scotched projects for hydraulic fracturing of deep shale deposits to produce natural gases, and raised doubts whether scrubbing coal-fired chimneys of air pollutants may not simply be exchanging one form of pollution for another. Water’s central role as a planetary climate regulator has thus far saved the Earth from heating up much faster than suggested from the alarming one-third increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide to 387ppm (the highest level in 420,000 years) from the day James Watt’s steam engine inaugurated the Industrial Era. But there is a limit to its molecular capacity to absorb vast amounts of heat in the oceans without heating up itself and to reflect solar rays off ice sheets back into space. It is what President Obama decides to do when all the world’s eyes are upon him at Copenhagen, of course, that matters for the long-term well-being of the planet. Sarah and the climate deniers can ignore the science of global warming if they want to, but hopefully a wiser Obama knows that the rich, temperate world can’t isolate itself from the global feedback loops of disease, wars, terrorism, and environmental crises–and that the triggering agent is often related to water. Within a decade there are likely to be 150 million restive climate migrants roaming the globe. They won’t go quietly, wherever they go. Many of them might even immigrate to Sarah’s Alaska, as the permafrost thaws. More on Copenhagen 2009

Go here to see the original: 
Steven Solomon: Obama, Palin, Copenhagen: The End Of Drinkable Water?

We’ve gone from the Teddy Kennedy health care bill to the Joe Lieberman bill. The Senate proving it’s a failed institution if the Democratic majority can only support legislation that does nothing close to what it’s original intent was meant to be. With senators unwilling to stand up on principle rather than the holy writ of getting any win, no matter what it means. But the anger directed towards Joe Lieberman is off by a branch; where this failure lands is on Pres. Obama’s doorstep, an executive who can’t bring himself to lead. Pres. Obama is desperate for “a win” on health care (and everyone, especially Joe Lieberman, knows it), because he took for granted that it would be easy to get it done. Naive doesn’t even come close to the President’s miscalculation, but that’s what happens when you stand too long looking into the reflecting pool. A commenter who has frequented my blog, a Republican turned Democrat to vote for Barack Obama, wrote this yesterday on my Facebook page: Lieberman is disgusting. I’m furious with the entire Democratic party. To think I switched party for change, what a damn laugh. I agree with Howard Dean. vote down the bill in the Senate. Harry Reid is a creep and a sleaze. These guys all are just concerned with themselves, not the American people. Pres. Obama doesn’t care. It’s a win or bust for him, with the health care train now careening towards an end of the year crash. First Obama let the August recess come and go without a bill. Getting bested by Sarah Palin’s “death panels” squeal came next. The finale of getting beat by Joe Lieberman having operatic overtones, given Joe’s recent history with progressives in Connecticut. Mr. Obama doesn’t care about the deatails as long as he can say he beat seven presidents who failed that came before him. He’s betting history won’t remember the minutia; it will simply be written that it was Barack Obama who got it done. Never expecting Dr. Howard Dean to throw a rhetorical grenade in the middle of his end of the year finale. What it all illustrates is that the Democrats now in the majority don’t have the moral purpose for this fight. They’re not Republicans, who actually are willing to go down fighting, no matter how wrong they are on any given issue. Talking about his grade the first year with Oprah, Pres. Obama said he’d give himself a B+. With a health care “win,” in his eyes, he goes up to A-. If you’re judging through the lens of ego gratification, I’d say he’s right. Late yesterday NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell reporting that abortion is still a sticking point, with Sen. Nelson wanting his own Lieberman prize, but Jonathan Cohn says not so fast . One interesting question is how Republicans Olympia Snowe and, maybe, Susan Collins fit into this picture. She was unhappy with the Medicare buy-in plan, saying she opposed the idea in principle and didn’t appreciate the rush to concoct a compromise. But that effort is now over. The bill that remains looks remarkably like the one that passed the Finance Committee. As you may recall, Snowe voted for that bill. The great advantage of recruiting Snowe is that she supports abortion rights. Remember, she joined the majority of Democrats in voting against Nelson’s amendment that would have introduced language prohibiting the coverage of abortion services within the new insurance exchanges. (Collins did, too.) That would actually produce a bill more liberal than the House alternative, at least on this one issue, with the differences to be settled in conference. This as Pres. Obama says, “We simply cannot allow differences over individual elements from meeting our responsibility to solve a longstanding and urgent problem for the American people.” To women, even some Republicans, reproductive rights aren’t simply “individual elements.” They are longstanding issues over which we have a charge to keep, even if Pres. Obama isn’t interested. The problem isn’t Joe Lieberman, who simply read the political wind to find no will from his adversaries for the fight. It’s Barack Obama. It’s easy to roll a politician who’s only goal is a win, details be damned. More on Health Care

Read more:
Taylor Marsh: It’s Not Lieberman, It’s Obama

IN TODAY’S AUDIO REPORT: Our special coverage of the historic U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen continues; AP finds ‘no fraud’ in stolen climate science emails; New poll finds majority of Americans want a climate treaty … PLUS : Teabaggers in Copenhagen get a taste of their own tea! … All that and more in today’s Green News Report! Got comments, tips, love letters, hate mail? Drop us a line at GreenNews@BradBlog.com or right here at the comments link below. All GNRs are always archived at GreenNews.BradBlog.com . Listen online here, or Download MP3 (6 mins)… Link: Embed: IN ‘GREEN NEWS EXTRA’ : Solar-powered plane has successful test flight; Washington Post Op-Ed editor defends Palin denier column; Climate scientists debunk WSJ “Stalinist” screed; China races ahead of U.S. in green energy; Home weatherization industry one of few primed for expansion; World Bank to fund solar projects in Middle East and North Africa; Plans for new U.S. nuclear plant withdrawn after losing bid for taxpayer loans; Mining company pays record $1.79 billion to clean up hazardous waste across U.S…. PLUS : Top Ten clean technology predictions for 2010…. For additional info on stories we covered today, plus today’s ‘Green News Extra’ , please click right here … More on Climate Change

See original here: 
Brad Friedman and Desi Doyen: Green News Report — December 15, 2009 (Audio)

“WaPost Publishes Palin OpEd on Climate Science , Michele Bachmann Piece on Quantum Mechanics to Follow” - Firedoglake headline . (With apologies to Sarah Palin and her ghostwriter. And Michele Bachmann.) No Solace in the Quantum By Michele Bachmann When a piece of bread dropped by a swallow can stop the universe from being destroyed , the radical so-called “nuclear physicists” who tell us that nothing really exists appear to have hit a tipping point. The revelation that the Large Hadron Collider was shut down last month allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue. “Quantum-gate,” as this incident has become known, exposes a highly-politicized scientific circle at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) - the same circle whose work underlies efforts to foist a bizarre worldview on the public that reflects a socialistic view of the behavior of subatomic particles and cats and threatens lead us down a slippery slope toward fascism. The agenda-driven policies now showing up even in high school textbooks and popular movies won’t change the Newtonian conception of matter and energy, but they would change our society and our children’s minds for the worse. The work of these “quantum mechanics” reveals that they have employed something called an ” uncertainty principle ” to manipulate data and since the 1930s have tried to silence their critics, including the great Albert Einstein, with their blasphemous assertion that God plays dice. What’s more, their work shows that there was no real consensus on the fundamental nature of reality even within the CERN crowd and in other organizations that make up the United Nations’ Ministry of Science, Regulation, Propaganda and Bureaucracy. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates about wave-particle duality going back to an unspeakable ritual called the ” double slit experiment .” This scandal calls into question the U.S. government’s energy, environment, and health-related policies. If we supposedly cannot know with precision where something is or its momentum, it is a license for our government to do anything it wants. Quantum theory says that an observer can literally change reality. What is to stop the Obama White House from sending out teams of ACORN-trained “observers” to “change” our communities into whatever they want? We are now a fraction of a quantum away from tyranny. I’ve alway believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. We must recognize that subatomic physics is still an unreliable and, frankly, somewhat creepy field not in keeping with our American traditions. Scientists are using money taken from the hard work of taxpayers for research into very tiny particles including quarks, muons and gluinos. Those names may be some kind of European-derived code for organizing a fifth column, but never mind that. These crypto-particles allegedly exist for just a few nanoseconds at very high energy states. How do we know they were ever there at all? To put it another way: you will never be able to convince me or my constituents that my cat is alive and dead at the same time . She looks pretty alive to me. Well, asleep. But definitely breathing. Trust me! Perhaps these flaws can one day be addressed with bigger microscopes and better slide technologies. But for the moment, let me just say, we in Minnesota are sensible, bottom-line folk. Seeing is believing. If we can’t say with assurance what happens on scales smaller than the width of my pinkie toe, President Obama, we owe it to the American people to base our policies accordingly. (This post first appeared on my True/Slant blog . No, it is not really by Michele Bachmann.) More on Climate Change

More here: 
John McQuaid: Michele Bachmann, Quantum Physicist

The year began on an uplifting note with Barack Obama sworn in as the 44th U.S. President and the first African-American elected to the nation’s highest office. It was all down hill from there, however. 2009 quickly became known as the year of the Great Recession; with jobs shed at an alarming rate (unemployment the highest its been in 26 years), fears of banks on the brink of insolvency, foreclosures at an all-time high, reduced credit availability for consumers, shrinking investor confidence, and a marked decline in business and consumer spending. It was also the year of men behaving badly, whether it was Alex Rodriquez admitting he took steroids to Mark Sanford flying off to Argentina to fall into the arms of his real “soul mate” or David Letterman’s confession he has slept with young female staffers. These indiscretions, however, pale in comparison with the stunning revelation that Tiger Woods has been leading a double life away from the golf course, one that involves multiple affairs with an assortment of women unbeknownst to his wife Elin. By far, the biggest shocker of the year came during the summer with the tragic news that the King of Pop, Michael Jackson, died from a drug overdose at age 50, just weeks away from launching his worldwide comeback tour. Not all the news in 2009 was so bleak. In fact, there were some remarkable success stories: the world (thanks to YouTube) learned who Susan Boyle was; Brett Favre came back from the dead; Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed as the first Hispanic U.S. Supreme Court justice; and Tom Delay showed America, if only for a brief shining moment before his injury — that Republicans — especially those from Texas — know how to flaunt some razzle-dazzle on the dance floor. So as 2009 draws to a close, I compiled a selection of quotes from leading newsmakers as a way of highlighting some of the biggest news stories of the year. January 20, 2009 “Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America. They will be met.” -President Barack Obama delivers his inaugural address from the nation’s capitol January 29, 2009 “I did a lot of things that were mostly right.” Rod Blagojevich’s comments to the media, moments after the Illinois State Senate removed him from office on charges of abuse of power. January 30, 2009 “We’re going to bring this party to every corner, to every boardroom, to every neighborhood, to every community.” Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, on being elected the first black chairman of the Republican National Committee. February 17, 2009 “I knew we weren’t taking Tic Tacs.” Alex Rodriguez during a press conference in Tampa, Fla., about his admission that he took performance-enhancing drugs while with the Texas Rangers from 2001 through 2003. March 4, 2009 “If only I’d listened to CNBC, I’d have $1 million today — provided I had started with $100 million.” -Jon Stewart scoffing at CNBC’s financial analysts for offering such reckless investment advice and stock market predictions. March, 14, 2009 “We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury.” -Edward M. Liddy, chairman of the American International Group explaining why it plans to pay out $165 million in bonuses despite receiving more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money. April 11, 2009 “I’m 47 years old…I’m trying to be a professional singer…but have never been given the chance before.” Scottish singer Susan Boyle, who gained overnight fame singing “I Dreamed a Dream” from Les Misérables on “Britain’s Got Talent’,’ a music reality show. April 19, 2009 “I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.” Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton, crowned Miss USA, (later dethroned) answer to a question about gay marriage; comments which touched off a stormy controversy, particularly among gay activists. April 27, 2009 “First thing is, I’m annoyed — furious is a better word — that I wasn’t told.” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s response to not being informed by the White House that there would be a flyover by an Air Force One backup and two F-16 fighters through parts of New York and New Jersey. May 9, 2009 “What’s up with all these governors not wanting to take the [bailout] money? Who turns down money? Maybe you should give it to Oprah to give it away. Oprah would say, “OK, governors, look under your seats!” Comedian Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. June 12, 2009 “It is our duty to defend people’s votes. There is no turning back.” Mir Hussein Moussavi, the chief rival to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims there was widespread voting fraud in the Iranian presidential election and was convinced he won by a large margin. June, 25, 2009 “I am absolutely devastated at this tragic and unexpected news’…I’ve lost my little brother today, and part of my soul has gone with him.” Music producer Quincy Jones reaction to the news of the death of pop icon Michael Jackson on June 25th. June 26, 2009 “Those reported cases are really just the tip of the iceberg…We know we’re not tracking every single one of them. ” Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of respiratory diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announcing that the swine flu has infected more than a million Americans, with 3,000 hospitalized and another 127 having died from the novel influenza. June 30, 2009 “This was a whole lot more than a simple affair. This was a love story.” Mark Sanford, South Carolina governor, tells reporters about his extra-marital affair with an Argentine woman, a woman he considered his “soul mate.” July 3, 2009 “I’m determined to take the right path for Alaska, even though it is unconventional and it’s not so comfortable.” Sarah Palin announcing she will step down as governor at the end of the month and transfer power to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell. July 5, 2009 “We misread how bad the economy was” -Vice President Joe Biden’s reaction to news that unemployment had reached 9.5 percent despite a $787 billion infusion of stimulus money during an interview on ABC News. July 14, 2009 “So I was trying to play on her words. My play was — fell flat. It was bad because it left an impression that I believe that life experiences commanded a result in a case.” Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor tells members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that her “wise Latina judge” statement was merely referring to Sandra Day O’Connor’s maxim that a “wise old man and a wise old women will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” July 16, 2009 “Why? Because I’m a black man in America?’ Henry Louis Gates Jr. a Harvard University professor, tells Cambridge police after being arrested outside his home on suspicion of a break-in. August 4, 2009 “Well, then they really didn’t love me in the first place. Whatever.” Brett Favre when asked by sports writer Peter King how he feels about fans who say they are sick of him and don’t love him anymore. August, 4, 2009 “I’ll miss nurturing all the new talent, but most of all being a part of a show that I helped from day one become an international phenomenon.’ Paula Abdul, via her Twitter page, writes about her decision to leave “American Idol” after eight seasons. August 10 2009 “My husband is not Secretary of State. I am.” Hillary Clinton responding to a question from a Congolese university student during her tour of Africa. The student reportedly meant to ask what President Barack Obama thought about the Chinese loan, but mistakenly referred to former President Bill Clinton instead. August 18, 2009 “Conservatives can have fun too.” Tom Delay, former Republican House majority leader, on “Good Morning America” about his plans to participate in the reality show “Dancing with the Stars.” August 18, 2009 “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining-room table. I have no interest in doing it.” Democratic Congressman Barney Frank appearing at a town hall meeting on health care, responds to a Massachusetts woman who asked why the congressman supports what she considers a “Nazi policy.” August 29, 2009 “I will try to live up to the high standard that my father set for all of us when he said, ‘the work goes on; the cause endures; the hope still lives; and the dream shall never die.”’ Ted Kennedy Jr. delivering the eulogy to his father, Senator Edward M. Kennedy who died of brain cancer on August 25, 2009 at age 77. September, 2009 “When I talk to groups of journalists these days about the state of our business, I feel like a motivational speaker in a hospice.” Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times (from Esquire magazine.) September 9, 2009 “You lie! You lie!” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), shouting at President Obama during his State of the Union address after the president informed the Joint Session of Congress that illegal immigrants would not be covered under his health care reform efforts. September 15, 2009 ‘We’re going to have no paper, no printing plants, no unions. It’s going to be great.” Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp., tells audience members at a Goldman Sachs’ annual media conference that devices like the Amazon Kindle will replace newspapers completely in about 20 years. September 23, 2009 “The mayor of Newark, N.J., wants to set up a citywide program to improve residents’ health … The health-care program would consist of a bus ticket out of Newark.” Tonight Show host Conan O’Brien poking fun at Newark’s reputation for being a crime infested city. October 4, 2009 “I got my work cut out for me.” David Letterman after apologizing to his wife Regina for his admitted sexual dalliance with female staffers. October 11, 2009 “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent.” Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, during a phone interview with the New York Times , speaking about the Fox News Channel’s war against the Obama administration. October 19, 2009 “You guys said we did this for the show.” During a live broadcast on CNN with anchor Wolf Blitzer—Six year-old Falcon Heene, aka “Balloon Boy” responds to his father’s question why he didn’t come out from hiding when they called his name. October 30, 2009 “I wish they caught me six years ago, eight years ago.” Bernie Madoff tells Security Exchange Commission inspector general, H. David Kotz during an interview that was made public on October 30, 2009. The disgraced financier was sentenced to 150 years in prison on June 29, 2009 for his ponzi scheme in one of the biggest financial frauds in American history. November 5, 2009 “It’s difficult enough when we lose these great Americans in battles overseas…..It’s horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil.” President Obama addresses the tragedy at Fort Hood Texas, when Army psychiatrist Mark Hassan opened fire, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others. November 19, 2009 “Gender is between your ears, not between your legs.” Chaz Bono talks about undergoing a sex change on Good Morning America . November 19, 2009 “I certainly never could have imagined the yellow brick road of blessings that have led me to this moment.” Oprah Winfrey informs her studio audience that she will end her talk show in September, 2011 after 25 years on the air. December 1, 2009 “Our lives have been destroyed, everything we’ve worked for…” Michaele Salahi, appearing on the Today Show with her husband Tareq, responds to Matt Lauer’s question about the sensational media coverage surrounding the couple slipping past security at a White House State Dinner without an invitation. December 1, 2009 “I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan.” President Obama’s speech at West Point announces the deployment of additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan, beginning in January, 2010. December 11, 2009 “After much soul searching, I have decided to take an indefinite break from professional golf. I need to focus my attention on being a better husband, father, and person.” In a statement posted on his website, Tiger Woods announces his hiatus from golf.

The rest is here:
Bill Lucey:

In what was neither a blast-off nor a crash, The Princess and the Frog marked Disney’s return to 2D animation with $25 million in its debut weekend in wide-release. Mid-December releases are notorious for insanely long legs. The last traditional 2D Disney cartoon to open in this slot, The Emperor’s New Groove (the funniest toon of the decade and Eartha Kitt’s finest hour) in 2000, made 9.1x its $9.3 million opening weekend ($89.3 million). So it’s tough to ascertain long-term prospects for this one. So let’s just concentrate on the opening weekend. First of all this movie is pretty terrific. It’s funny, emotional, scary, and genuinely romantic; so everyone who has kids or likes animation should really make a point to check it out before the end of the year. Second of all, the cold truth is that this opening was actually pretty weak. When you consider the publicity that this film received for its ‘groundbreaking’ African American characters and the buzz over the return to traditional 2D cell animation, I’m pretty sure Disney was hoping for at least a bigger opening than Bolt or Meet the Robinsons . Heck, it barely beats out the October 03 $19 million opening of Brother Bear when adjusted for inflation ($23 million at 2009 prices). And it certainly sold fewer tickets than the various $20-$22 million openings of The Hunchback of Notre Dame , Hercules , Mulan , and Atlantis: The Lost Empire back when Disney was in an alleged post- Lion King ’slump’. Having said all of that, in terms of pure dollars, it still had the biggest 2D opening since Lilo and Stitch , which opened with $35 million back in June, 2002 ($43 million adjusted for inflation). Besides, this film was very much a ‘girl movie’, and there has always been a certain hesitancy for boys when it comes to seeing female-centric entertainment. Girls will flock to The Lion King or Tarzan , but guys have to be dragged to Mulan . I won’t go so far as to say that women (and men) should flock to movies like this in order to convince the studios to make more, as that’s not my business . But I will say that Princess and the Frog is a worthwhile antidote to the discomforting gender politics in New Moon (down a reasonable 48%, new total - $267 million). And the $105 million budget is actually quite a bit less than the $175 million-ish budgets of the recent Pixar or Disney 3D works and/or the Dreamworks features. So it doesn’t have to do Pixar business to make a tidy profit. And, as noted above, it’s a very good movie, so I imagine there’s a decent chance of real legs as it becomes the family movie of choice for the rest of the year. Yes, Alvin and the Chipmunks: the Squeakuel will open big on Christmas Day, but it won’t have the staying power of the first film as there will actually be demo competition this time. If you’re a parent, which film would you rather take your kids to ? And Disney seems to be playing a long game with their prized animation library. No one should have expected Disney to hit Lion King numbers ($41m/$70m adjusted) the first time out anymore than they should have expected Michael Jordon to score 55 points in his first post-retirement comeback game. The traditional 2D animated film started dying out right around the time that opening weekend numbers exploded (summer 2001), so there’s only so much fair comparison to be made between this 2009 film and the films from the lower opening but leggier 1990s. Point being, I sincerely hope that this frog’s legs are strong during the brutal one-two punch of Avatar and Sherlock Holmes over the holidays. Coming in number two is The Blind Side , which dropped just 22% and crossed the $150 million mark at the end of its fourth weekend. It still has a shot at $200 million, if it can keep the screens during the holiday deluge of new releases. And any awards action will surely be of benefit. Expect it to become Sandra Bullock’s highest-grossing film by next weekend at the latest. Not much new to say about it. It’s a darn good movie, far better than I was expecting, and I’m happy it’s doing so well. Third place went to Invictus , the Clint Eastwood drama concerning Nelson Mandela’s (Morgan Freeman) attempts to reunite a post-apartheid South Africa through rugby. With $9.1 million, this film is about in the same opening weekend-boat as Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of our Fathers, and The Changeling . Whether or not this will end up like Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby ($90 million and $100 million respectively) or the other two (less than $33 million and $35 million) will depend on word of mouth and awards-buzz. Still, this may do better overseas where the characters and sport are better known and admired. A Christmas Carol dropped just 12% for a new total of $124 million. It’s still a little ahead of The Polar Express , but it’s likely going to get hammered next weekend when it loses its IMAX and 3D screens to Avatar. Not even the beloved Coraline could survive such a rout. It dropped 54% the weekend that Jonas Brothers: A 3D Concert Experience opened and 85% once Aliens vs. Monsters opened. So this is likely the last decent weekend for the under-appreciated cartoon. Also not in its favor is the fact that Disney will be turning most of its attention to The Princess and the Frog as it attempts the Oscar double-whammy of Up winning Best Picture (could happen) and Princess and the Frog winning Best Animated Film. One could argue that Disney hurt both major cartoons by opening them so closely together, but that’s an discussion for another day. Brothers dropped a disturbing 47% and now sits at just $17 million. It will likely make back its $26 million budget and not much more. Armored dropped 46% and now sits at $11 million. It will struggle to approach its $20 million budget, and that’s a shame. This lean and mean little thriller deserved better, and I sincerely hope it becomes a rental and cable cult film. In the land of limited release, Up in the Air just barely missed the top ten, grossing $2.4 million on just 72 screens ($34,028 per screen). While still impressive, the film’s fate won’t be told until the Golden Globe and Oscar nominations are announced, to say nothing of the wide release on an already packed Christmas day. A Single Man debuted on nine screens for a $216,000 weekend and a somewhat meager $24,000 per screen average. Me and Orson Welles expanded to 40 theaters but mustered just $2400 per screen. Why this theoretical Zac Efron vehicle didn’t just open wide to capitalize on his fanbase, I do not know. But it now appears that said fanbase will have to wait for DVD to see this one. Even more disappointing was the 3-screen limited release of Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones . Battered by mixed reviews and a shifting release date (it was supposed to go wide this weekend instead of January 15th), the film scored just $116,000 for a $38,667 per screen average. With the news cycle soon shifting into all things- Avatar , this $100 million film is pretty much dead in the water until its wide release. Considering the lack of competition this weekend and the lack of positive buzz for this one, it would seem that Paramount made a huge and possibly fatal mistake with their super-limited opening. But the real news of the weekend is the jaw-dropping plunge of last weekend ’s champion of lame, Transylmania . Following a near-record per screen average of $262, the comedy lost 889 of its original 1001 screens. Plunging an unheard of 94% in its second weekend, the film grossed an astounding $15,400 second-weekend. That’s $131 per screen over three days. That’s $44 per day. Presuming four showings, that’s a whopping $11 per showing, or about the cost of 1-2 tickets depending on where you live. If you were lucky enough to end up in one of the remaining 118 theaters, you likely could have done drugs, had sex, committed murder, and/or plotted a terrorist act without any witnesses to speak of. Since Full Circle Films now has nothing to lose, I’d advise them to use these impressive statistics as a promotional tool for the eventual DVD release. “See the film that absolutely no one saw in theaters! Be the first (and last) on your block, township, city, state, and region to see Transylmania !” That’s all that’s fit to print for now. Next weekend gives us the Hugh Grant/Sarah Jessica Parker comedy: Did You Hear About the Morgans? . We also get the limited releases of Nine , The Young Victoria , and Crazy Heart (starring Jeff Bridges as Kris Kristofferson ). As for that other wide release, just remember that the biggest December opening is I Am Legend ’s $77 million. And the biggest opening for a non-sequel/franchise/adaptation/star-vehicle is The Day After Tomorrow ’s $68 million back in May 2004. So don’t starting sounding the bell of doom , ala King Kong , if Avatar only opens to $60 million. The real test will be how much it makes over its second weekend. Scott Mendelson More on The Oscars

See the original post here: 
Scott Mendelson: Princess and the Frog returns Disney 2D animation to the top of the box office. Huff Post weekend box office in review (12/13/09)

The Huffington Post’s William Petrocelli recently recounted meeting Al Gore at a signing for Gore’s new book on climate change, Our Choice . The two men discussed why Gore had written and included a poem in the book. Apparently, when Gore’s editor said no to a chapter of doom and gloom predictions, the dogged former VP decided, instead, to distill the potentially disastrous repercussions of global warming into verse. Gore reportedly first joked to his editor that William Butler Yeats had written the resulting poem, and the choice is fitting. Yeats’ best known work might be the apocalyptic lyric “The Second Coming,” which ends with the Antichrist slouching “towards Bethlehem to be born.” And Gore, too, tries to conjure an apocalypse. As you can see in the poem below, the four horsemen are literally readying their stirrups. One thin September soon A floating continent disappears In midnight sun Vapors rise as Fever settles on an acid sea Neptune’s bones dissolve Snow glides from the mountain Ice fathers floods for a season A hard rain comes quickly Then dirt is parched Kindling is placed in the forest For the lightning’s celebration Unknown creatures Take their leave, unmourned Horsemen ready their stirrups Passion seeks heroes and friends The bell of the city On the hill is rung The shepherd cries The hour of choosing has arrived Here are your tools Gore’s poem has been picked up by a number of media outlets. The UK’s Telegraph ran it as part of its coverage of the Copenhagen summit. It caught Rush Limbaugh’s eye (he called the poem “stupid”). And Vanity Fair’s Mark Hertsgaard dubbed Gore “the Poet Laureate of Climate Change,” lauding the poem as “equal parts beautiful, evocative, and disturbing.” The poem does have some good moments. I like the understated flourishes “thin September soon” and “Ice fathers floods.” But while Hertsgaard sees Gore’s images as “visually specific and emotionally arresting even as they are scientifically accurate,” I don’t. There’s nothing specific about “unknown creatures,” and continents (if we’re being accurate) don’t float. I’m picking on Gore, who humbly said “I’m not a poet, but I did my best,” but the poem’s dramatically-set apocalyptic imaginings (Neptune dissolving in an acid sea!) will surely turn off those predisposed not to believe the polarizing figurehead. Worse, it’s hard not to see hubris in the last stanza, wherein Gore apparently means himself to be the “shepherd” and believes his new book to contain the necessary “tools” to avert catastrophe. It’s a bit cringe-worthy. Is it any wonder that skeptics would be looking for Gore’s foil? So it should be no surprise to see who came floating on the wash of ill-informed and irresponsible journalism spilling from the so called “climate gate” emails. Sarah Palin–apparently now bringing her charm and frightening ignorance to bear for America’s anti-science movement–is claiming that unprecedented spikes in CO2 levels are just “natural, cyclical environmental trends.” Now that’s cringe-worthy. If you step away from the cable news arguments and read a credible opinion on climate change, it’s clear that–this “climate gate” nonsense aside–scientists overwhelmingly agree that global warming is real and that it could have a catastrophic impact on the planet. Gore just needs to stick to facts (and he has so often been effective doing just that). Poetic flourishes aren’t going to help skeptics see reason in an already murky debate. More on Climate Change

See the original post: 
John Lundberg: Gore’s Climate Change Poem Muddles The Debate

I don’t believe in quitting. — John Wooden Last night, I attended a high school basketball game with a group of elementary school boys– a great game in which the Santa Cruz High Cardinals won it with only a few seconds on the clock. It’s still the best ticket in town. At the game, several people joked about a story I had uncovered a few weeks ago on the Huffington Post in which I noted that Sarah Palin had attributed a quote in Going Rogue to UCLA basketball legend John Wooden–one that had actually been made by Native American activist John Wooden Legs . It made for a good laugh and lots of chuckles on Olbermann and late night television. When I got home, I recalled another quote that Palin had attributed to Wooden in her book, in a passage that chronicled her being dumped in 2002 by then Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski as a potential replacement for the U.S. Senate seat he vacated. So I wondered about that one. I Googled the quote: I told Todd, “Coach Wooden said, ‘Things work out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out.’” Sure enough I found the quote attributed to Art Linkletter –and it was cited in a book called Why Winners Win by Art Garner. It’s attributed to Linkletter in several other instances on the internet, but also to Wooden, including the web site on which I had seen the John Wooden Legs attribution. So I posted a HuffPo blog last night entitled “Deja Vu All Over Again,” noting the discrepancy, and woke up this morning to find an email from someone saying, “Hey, I have John Wooden’s book They Call Me Coach , and the quote is in there.” Sure enough, on page 75 of Wooden’s book, written with Jack Tobin, and which I have in hand, Wooden uses the quote as an unattributed epigram for Chapter 10 of his book. Whose quote is it? I have no idea and really have no dog in that fight. I’ll leave it to the Linkletter and Wooden fans to duke it out. My point wasn’t really about who quotes whom properly, it was about all the shameful mistakes, lies and mis-attributions that appear in Going Rogue . The whole book is all so slippery and sloppy that it’s an insult to everything John Wooden stood and stands for–discipline, truth and integrity. Palin’s attribution of a quote by John Wooden Legs as Wooden’s was just plain shoddy and represented utter disrespect on her part for an American icon. Nonetheless, I stand corrected. The original quote may or may not be John Wooden’s, but it certainly appeared in a book under his name. And I thank the HuffPo reader who provided me with the information. As is often the case, there was an added blessing to all this. I went and picked up a hard copy of the Wooden-Tobin book, and also another little jewel shared with me by a couple of friends, Wooden: A Lifetime of Observations and Reflections on and Off the Court , written by Wooden and Steve Jamison. Once again, I strongly suggest that Palin and her writing team take the time to pick up the books and read them, rather than lifting quotes from not-so-reliable web sites. Here are a couple of little jewels from the latter book– real quotes from the real John Wooden– that the former Governor of Alaska might do well to heed: • Nothing is stronger than gentleness. • Too often the big talkers are the little doers. • Promise to give so much time to improving yourself that you have no time to criticize others. • Discipline yourself and others won’t need to. And my final favorite: • Time spent getting even would be better spent trying to get ahead. That’s a winning three-pointer at the buzzer. Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn’s book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be released by St. Martin’s Press in spring 2010. More on Sarah Palin

Read the original: 
Geoffrey Dunn: Sarah Palin, John Wooden, Art Linkletter & John Wooden Legs

The talent sipping cocktails at Gloria Steinem’s brownstone duplex last Tuesday was through the roof. Without emphasizing the evening’s feminist thrust, the gathering, to celebrate Bright Star director Jane Campion, evoked the tradition of Gertrude Stein’s early 20th century Paris salons: novelists Erica Jong, Meg Wolitzer, Caryn James, and Susannah Moore whose book In the Cut had been filmed by Campion were among the mostly female crowd, as was filmmaker Nancy Savoca, actor Sarah Jones, former news anchor and president of The Women’s Media Center Carol Jenkins, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. Jeanne Berney of Apparition, Bright Star’s distributor, hosted. The energy was palpable. In an interesting twist, men were in the kitchen, and serving the yummy hors d’oeuvres. Is it PC to mention that? Yes, we are still mired in this paradox: we want to be honoring excellent work, fine filmmaking without that nod to gender. Do we say, man director? The evening’s engine was Melissa Silverman whose site Women & Hollywood provides industry news. Truth is, Campion remains the only woman director to have won the Palm D’Or at Cannes; Campion is also one of three women directors to have been nominated for Best Director, for The Piano (1993). If nominators are paying attention, Bright Star should be among the ten-along with Kathryn Bigelow’s Hurt Locker and Lone Scherfig’s An Education–listed for Best Picture Oscars. And by the way, note such crowd pleasers as Nora Ephron’s Julie & Julia and Aviva Kempner’s documentary Yoo Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg. Soon to join this group: The upcoming Nancy Myer’s romantic comedy, It’s Complicated–starring Meryl Streep (you can never say enough about Meryl Streep, wonderful too as Julia Child). Jodie Markell’s beautifully rendered feature of a never before made Tennessee Williams screenplay, The Loss of a Teardrop Diamond, is sure to achieve Oscar glory for Ellen Burstyn in a Best Supporting Role. In case you were wondering, Steinem is working on a “road” book. I chatted with Ann Curry about her travels to Darfur, her Today Show coverage shining NBC’s ample light on still the most egregious human rights issue. Simply put, everyone I spoke to in this high-power group is on the move. You can see this post on Gossip Central

Read more from the original source:
Regina Weinreich: Gloria Steinem’s Salon: Honoring Jane Campion

Just when you think it can’t get any stranger in the world of Sarah Palin–with lie after lie piling up like cord wood in the Matunaska Valley–there’s yet another bogus quote from UCLA basketball legend John Wooden in Palin’s memoir Going Rogue , making her two-for-two in misquoting the Wizard of Westwood. That’s good from the free throw line, but not so good in journalism. For the record, as the epigram to Chapter Three, “Drill, Baby, Drill,” Palin attributed remarks to Wooden that had actually been made by Native American activist John Wooden Legs . It made for a good laugh and lots of chuckles on late night television. But remarkably in Chapter Two of Going Rogue , there’s an even weirder and more troubling mis-attribution related to Wooden. Palin recounts her being dumped in 2002 by then Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski as a potential replacement for the U.S. Senate seat he vacated. It’s a real scream. Palin acts not only like she might have been a serious contender (by all accounts she wasn’t), she then goes out of her way to throw an elbow at Murkowski and his daughter Lisa, whom he did appoint to the vacant seat. Okay. We expect that now from Palin. She’s kind of the punk version of Will Rogers: She never met a cheap shot she didn’t like. But then she claims, as a way of tending her wounds, that she and hubby Todd “reminded each other how UCLA Coach John Wooden had captured our thoughts in a book we’d read about him.” I told Todd, “Coach Wooden said, ‘Things work out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out.’” Except that’s not a John Wooden quote. It’s an Art Linkletter quote–and it was cited in a book called Why Winners Win by Art Garner. But it did appear on a website with a slew of faux John Wooden quotes . Yes, this is gotcha journalism–and this is the second time that Ms. Palin has been busted for pulling phony quotes from the internet attributed to Coach Wooden. But this one is worse. She and Todd never said this in the car. They never read a book together about Wooden with this quote in it . It’s a total and fabricated lie concocted by Palin and that crack team of journalists who worked on the book with her: Lynn Vincent , Meg Stapleton and Ivy Frye; and yet another bizarre gaffe that got by all those dutiful fact checkers at HarperCollins. Palin has made up quotes from Plato and Aristotle and lied about scores of people in her book, from her ex-brother-in-law Mike Wooten to John McCain’s top gun Steve Schmidt . But this one has an added stench to it in that she leads us to believe it was actually part of the historic soundtrack in Palin’s political career. My father, who served in the Navy during World War II, had a certain colorful phrase that I cannot repeat in a family blog for this type of behavior. But in translation, he would have noted that a certain part of Ms. Palin’s anatomy is sucking well water. That’s what we call in the biz a “direct quote,” not one of Palin’s fantasy quotes drawn from an irresponsible web site. I have a piece of advice for the Going Rogue B-team: Lose that web page on your bookmarks list. And quit dragging John Wooden into your sleazy and sloppy brand of demagoguery. It’s an affront to his legacy. Palin and Wooden, of course, exist in parallel universes. Wooden was no quitter. His success as a coach and mentor was real. And he would have never tolerated the reckless disregard for the truth that Palin manifests on every page of her memoir. Let us leave with yet another real John Wooden quote from the real John Wooden, provided courtesy of the Christian Science Monitor : Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful. Ms. Palin, beware. Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn’s book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be released by St. Martin’s Press in spring 2010. More on Sarah Palin

See the rest here:
Geoffrey Dunn: Deja Vu All Over Again: Palin’s Second Wooden Lie

The president accepted his Peace Prize by arguing for war . It had really seemed like he would need to thread a needle in Oslo, having to graciously to accept an award for bringing peace to the world while he primes a battlefield. He had to mollify or triangulate his right-wing critics who might see any inclinations toward peace, poetic or policy-wise, ritualistic or real, as evidence of his lack of purpose, will, and fiber. At the same time, he had to deal, although perhaps less so, with his left-wing critics who could soon start to see him, in his military pursuits, as a quisling-like president. In fact, it appeared, when he got the award, that the Nobel committee was purposefully trying to jam him up. By giving him the Peace Prize he would have to make peace, or seem like a terrible hypocrite. His true self, his certain better nature, was, it seemed, being forcibly supported. Well, he told them: Here’s mud in your eye. Instead of being humbled by the prize, and endorsing the virtues of peace, he stood his ground: War is necessary. In a way, it’s a brilliant riposte, coming out against peace. The counterintuitive is always more arresting than the obvious. Saying the unsayable makes you looking doubly strong . Continue reading on newser.com More on Barack Obama

Go here to read the rest:
Michael Wolff: Peace Prize: President Says Piss Off

There are millions of sex slaves in the World - how safe is your daughter? Your sister? Your girlfriend? Emma Thompson, the Academy Award winning actress and activist, spent last week in New York City as the co-creator of a brilliant art exhibition called “JOURNEY”. The exhibition shed light on the darkest corners of human behavior by bringing to life the terrifying, violent journey of the millions of girls who have been trafficked into sexual slavery. Thompson’s project also exposed another important aspect of our human weakness: apathy. Sexual slavery continues to exist because otherwise decent people can’t be bothered to care. As an activist working to enlighten the average citizen about the horrors of human trafficking, I witness this attitude often. The average person will give me kudos for my charity work, even get a little teary eyed as I discuss it, until they can find a polite yet hasty exit, tossing an apologetic “Uhm.. good luck with that!” over their shoulder as they bolt. I was ultimately excited by Thompson’s artistic approach, and that she found a creative way to raise awareness of such a terrible issue: through art. Slavery is an ugly subject, and I certainly understand why good people don’t want to talk about it. We don’t want to believe that human beings can sell each other like commodities. We don’t want to know that millions of little girls and young women are enslaved in situations where they are raped over forty times a day. Perhaps that’s why we call it human trafficking; it’s a phrase that somehow makes torture, rape and slavery more acceptable to our ears. More often than not, I encounter the attitude that sexual slavery is something that happens “over there” - as if it is less monstrous if it occurs in the third world. For Americans, there is some kind of cold comfort in clinging to the belief that it doesn’t happen here and therefore doesn’t affect us. This is a dangerous myth which needs to be dispelled immediately. Sexual enslavement and torture is alive and thriving in the USA, from Los Angeles to New York City, and everywhere in between. Girls are easier to ship than drugs and weapons, and more profitable. The sex slave industry increases every year, everywhere. And it can happen to any of us. I know, because it almost happened to me. I was 21 years old and trekking through the Continent on a Eurail Pass with my childhood best friend. This blissful adventure came to a terrifying halt at an outdoor café in Lisbon one evening when our table was suddenly surrounded by fourteen agitated and threatening men. We would discover later that our attackers were operatives of human trafficking cartels, and that we had been “sold” by the café owner. There is a horrifyingly common practice in areas of the world that attract tourists, from Aruba to Portugal, that entails tipsters earning cash bonuses to spot good candidates for the slave trade - usually young women traveling alone or in pairs. In our case, coloring was a factor: premiums are paid for certain skin tones and eye colors, depending on the customer. It can happen to anyone. We were fortunate in that the incident was witnessed and we were rescued before anything truly terrible happened to us. In another few minutes we would have been on slave ships at the port, human cargo thrown into shipping containers on our way to a fate so nightmarish that I cannot even begin to imagine it. Emma Thompson’s “Journey” used these same shipping containers as the basis of the exhibit, to illustrate how girls are dumped into windowless metal cages and shipped to brothels around the world. I believe that my personal brush with human trafficking was not an accident. I am certain that it was God’s wake-up call to me. I needed to be made aware in an ultimately visceral way that this horror exists on our planet today, and is a greater threat around the world than it has ever been before. I needed to know how it felt to be trapped, terrified and completely helpless. I needed to experience the wrenching realization that my humanity didn’t matter to the desensitized men who saw me only as a commodity, no different from any inanimate object that could be sold for profit, or equally discarded as garbage. I needed to know how it felt to have the hands of vicious predators on me, with no means of escaping them. Currently, over twenty-seven million women and children are enslaved worldwide in conditions that are nearly unimaginable to most of us. Let me repeat that number, because it is really too large to fathom in a single instance: TWENTY-SEVEN MILLION. Slavery is illegal virtually everywhere - and yet it is more common and prevalent than at any period in history. But we can do something about it. We can end human trafficking and sexual slavery. The first step is simply to care. Because I was rescued from this fate by the grace of God, I believe that it is my obligation to work as hard as I can to help others who have been victimized or who are at risk. Like Emma Thompson, I hope to make a difference through my art. To represent my commitment to this belief, I have pledged to donate royalties from my latest book, The Source of Miracles, to charities that support women and children who are recovering from the horrors of human trafficking and sexual slavery. Specifically, I have teamed with Sarah Symons and her worthy organizations, The Emancipation Network and Made By Survivors to create programs that create and sustain employment for women who have been rescued from the nightmare of human trafficking, allowing them to be both safe and self-supporting. I chose to work with Made by Survivors specifically because of their hands on, in the field approach, but also because they have created a program which allows average citizens to care in a painless way. Made by Survivors provides a marketplace for products created by young women who have been rescued or are at risk; they are fighting slavery with empowerment. You can make a difference - even save lives- by simply shopping online. Buying beautiful handmade products, a necklace or a purse or holiday cards, makes you an activist in the global battle to end slavery. It is so simple, yet ultimately powerful. It raises awareness at the same time that it raises funds. Emma Thompson’s “Journey” has run its course, but it is up to us to keep the powerful lessons in our consciousness. The exhibition has gone, but the problem grows each day. You can help. To view the jewelry and support survivors and girls who are risk, visit www.madebysurvivors.com or my own website, www.kathleenmcgowan.com . Together, we can make this holiday season truly blessed as we work toward a real miracle: ending slavery while bringing justice and peace to those who are in need. ** Kathleen McGowan is a New York Times bestselling author. Proceeds from her new book, The Source of Miracles: Seven Steps to Transforming your Life Through the Lord’s Prayer, will be donated to the initiatives of The Emancipation Network and Made by Survivors.

See the rest here: 
Kathleen McGowan: This Holiday Season, You Can Fight Slavery, Rape and Torture - While Shopping

While names like Palin, Romney and Huckabee get most of the attention when it comes to 2012 presidential speculation, a dark horse may be rising out of the Great Plains. South Dakota Sen. John Thune has $5.5 million in the bank, a handsome face, hoop skills that rival the president’s and an upward trajectory in the U.S. Senate. More on Sarah Palin

View post: 
John Thune: The GOP’s Answer to Obama?

While names like Palin, Romney and Huckabee get most of the attention when it comes to 2012 presidential speculation, a dark horse may be rising out of the Great Plains. South Dakota Sen. John Thune has $5.5 million in the bank, a handsome face, hoop skills that rival the president’s and an upward trajectory in the U.S. Senate. More on Sarah Palin

See original here: 
John Thune: The GOP’s Answer to Obama?

I was shocked when I heard that my conservative Grandma had stormed out of church after her pastor denounced “being gay as the worst sin.” My 81-year-old grandmother, who has two gay grandchildren, wasn’t taking any of that shit, and made my mother, my aunt, uncle and cousins leave the church after having attended it for nearly ten years. Doing such a thing in a small town in western Pennsylvania, which fits Barack Obama’s definition of a “bitter town” almost perfectly, is unheard of. It was an absolute scandal throughout the small town where she lives. However, what was even more shocking was that when, at Thanksgiving dinner, I asked my grandmother which book she was reading, she responded, “Glenn Beck’s ‘Common Sense.’” Fortunately, my mouth was full of mashed potatoes so I had a few moments to gather myself before responding politely, “Oh, yes, that Glenn Beck, he’s a passionate fellow.” My aunt, responding genuinely, replied, “Oh, yes, Glenn Beck he really makes you think about things in ways that nobody else ever does. I watch Glenn Beck’s show everyday.” My uncle Billy, a Vietnam veteran who’s been laid off seven times, looking to start a fight, piped up, “Michael, do you like Glenn Beck?” The whole table turned to me, and for the first time in my life I was glad I suffered from a stutter. Fortunately, my grandmother mercifully invoked the “politics and religion at the dinner table” rule before my stammer came to a standstill. There are at least eight million daily followers of Glenn Beck in America, and a good chunk of them are people like my grandmother and my uncle Billy - well-intentioned people that care about their country, their families and their communities, otherwise they wouldn’t watch a show about politics. However, to label all these Glenn Beck followers as unreachable, bigoted racists is an extraordinary dangerous and misleading move for the progressive movement, which aims to include all people. My grandmother’s own vocal protest for gay rights in her church disproved that Glenn Beck followers tend to vote Republican merely because of gods, gays and guns. Sure, this wins over a large portion of them, but it doesn’t explain how the Republican Party is able to win over people like my grandmother, who were once hardcore Democrats and never fell prey to such hate-baiting tactics in the past. My grandmother is a registered Democrat, the widow of a union leader and local Democratic leader, whom my mother claimed must have rolled over in his grave when he heard my grandmother voted for a Republican. My uncle Billy comes from the same place; growing up, he told me that we needed to abolish both parties and form a worker’s party, due to his deep distrust of both major parties. The right has been winning over working-class whites by fostering hate since Richard Nixon. They are good at targeting groups. However, there has always been an equal number of white working-class people who never fail prey to such fear-mongering tactics. They voted for plenty of the most elite sounding northeastern liberals like Michael Dukakis because they knew Republicans were on the side of big corporations - the true elitists. However, this has all changed dramatically in the last 20 years because Republicans are actively targeting those working-class people using a different appeal. The county where my grandmother is from -Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania - in 1988 voted for card-carrying ACLU member Michael Dukakis by an 11 point margin of victory, yet voted for McCain in 2008 by a 17 point margin. What happened in between, you might ask? Tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs disappeared, and Westmoreland County was turned into a degraded version of its former self. Democrats on the national level did nothing in response to challenge the corporate ideology that wiped out their community and their way of life. Glenn Beck followers tend to primarily be these inhabitants of the “bitter towns” who lost faith in government. As my colleague Sara Robinson points out, why would working-class people trust a government that is “so clearly rigged to suck money straight out of their pockets into the tax-free offshore bank accounts of the wealthy - who, of course, turn right around and use that money to buy off our government”? The fight then becomes over who controls government, and cable TV news presents them with faces that fight the Ivy League liberal-elite stereotypes. Glenn Beck and his followers attack liberals as being out-of-touch Ivy League elitists, neglecting to mention that most prominent conservatives are also Ivy Leaguers. We respond by calling the other side “stupid” in cable news sound byte clips, and they respond back at us by calling us “elitists”; this quickly devolves into an endless series of glorified name calling. As Matt Taibbi notes in his must-read piece ” Sarah Palin - WWE Star ,”  about the soap operatization of politics via cable news: What we call “politics” has devolved into a kind of ongoing, brainless soap opera about dueling cultural resentments, and the really cool thing about it, if you’re a TV news producer or a talk radio host, is that you can build the next day’s news cycle meme around pretty much anything at all, no matter how irrelevant … And while some of us are old enough to remember that once upon a time these arguments always had at least some sort of ideological flavor to them, i.e. the throwdowns were at least rooted in some sort of real political issue (war, taxes, immigration, etc.) we’ve now got a whole generation that is accustomed to screaming at cultural enemies as an end in itself, for the sheer dismal fun of it. This is the dilemma that relying on impersonal communications leaves us in. Cable news and other forms of electronic communication tend to win ratings using name calling and conflict. The blogosphere has done incredible things in educating the base, educating a young net savvy generation, funding political causes and holding cable news personalities like Lou Dobbs accountable. However, it hasn’t changed the fundamental dynamic of cultural resentment between social and economic classes that cable news breeds. In some way, the Internet fuels it even more - just Google Sarah Palin and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Cable news breeds a cultural resentment that creates a sense of distrust between college-educated liberals and potential allies in the working-class communities. In order to restore trust in government, we must restore trust in the people that are supposed to run government - ourselves. In his famous book “Bowling Alone,” Robert Putnam shows that trust among people disappears when members of different socio-economic classes don’t interact and get to know each other through social organizations. He aptly names his book “Bowling Alone,” based on the statistics that more Americans are bowling than at any time, but in fewer and fewer bowling leagues. What we need to do to rebuild trust among classes is to bring people into organizations where they can realize through interaction their shared interests. Currently, there is only one place in America where illegal immigrants and Glenn Beck followers sit down together on a regular basis and fight for their collective self interests - the halls of organized labor. Unions unite people behind shared self-interest and a common social purpose: making their jobs better - something we all desire. Through working together, they gain trust of one another and are less likely to be victims of conservative scare tactics. The statistics don’t lie. Obama won by 23 points among white, noncollege graduates who belong to a union, even as he lost by 18 points among all white, noncollege voters . Working-class whites aren’t just more likely to vote for progressives when organized labor is strong, so are people of color, women and young people. As the landslide loss of corporate, anti-workers’ rights Democrat Creigh Deeds in Virginia shows, working whites will vote for Republicans for cultural reasons when a Democrat fails to stand up for them. However, people of color, women and young people don’t have a cultural punching bag in “liberal elites,” so when Democrats disappoint, they simply don’t vote. Thus, keeping people from joining unions and thereby upsetting the conservative ruling class that thrives on cultural resentment is the number one goal of conservatives. The biggest barrier for making strong unions is the fact that 30,000 workers are fired from their job every year for trying to join a union. In the United States, an employer has to post a piece of paper saying they fired a worker for trying to a join. As my father, a union organizer, always said, “If the penalty for robbing a bank was you had to post a piece of paper saying you robbed a bank, we’d all be bank robbers!” Killing the Employee Free Choice Act is the number one priority of the Chamber of Commerce for this reason. It’s more urgent for them to squash than climate change and health care reform put together. They know that increased unionization threatens their whole balance of power. It is time that we realize that the Employee Free Choice Act is this important. The Employee Free Choice Act is not just a union issue. Without a revitalized labor movement, we get bogged down in the cultural wars of TV, and any progressive change we make is unsustainable. We need to create organs of social dialogue. h More on Sarah Palin

Here is the original post:
Mike Elk: My Grandmother Takes a Stand for Gay Marriage in Church Despite Being a Glenn Beck Follower

Editor & Publisher, the journalism magazine that was more recently a powerful force on the Web, died today at the ripe old age of 125 . Its passing was not completely unexpected; this was a publication that has largely flourished in the now comatose format of magazines, writing about the terminally ill business of newspapers, dependent on dollars from the morally wounded world of traditional advertising, including the nearly extinct paid classified ads. Like any old coot that lives into its 100s and had a hell of a good time doing it, it’s kind of a miracle that the damn thing lasted this long. For much of today, “Editor & Publisher” was a top trending topic on Twitter — ironically, a symbol of both its impact and of the massive technological changes that conspired to kill it. While I greatly mourn E&P’s passing, I want to call attention to the splendor of its final years, when it died like a supernova, with a great burst of energy. It’s complicated to write about Editor & Publisher because there were essentially two E&Ps. The first one is fondly remembered by those in the newspaper business who remember when job openings were as plentiful as prairie buffalo used to be, or at least that’s how we remember things. Its classified ads were the place for young reporters seeking jobs in exotic, faraway locales , or at least daydreaming about them before the next school board meeting to cover. I remember this magazine from my early days in the business in the 1980s, well-done but a bit on the staid side, and more Publisher than Editor, especially when compared to the flashier mags aimed more at the Woodstein generation of young reporters, like Columbia Journalism Review. Then in 2002, something happened that changed everything. The Internet age was reaching full flower, and the newspaper business was accelerating, Thelma-and-Louise-like, toward the abyss, just not yet staring over the very edge. That year, Editor & Publisher turned its new editor, the man who would become its last editor, Greg Mitchell , and the seeds of a revolution were quietly planted. There was already talk of “journalism reform” in the air in the early 2000s, but most of it was just that — talk, daydreams of pony-tailed venture capitalists riding to the rescue and funding sleek Web sites with lots of multimedia bells and whistles, even as the real-life world of newspapers plodded along trying to figure out who was left to make the cop calls that night. No one ever dreamed that salvation of the real passionate art of journalism would be a then-55-year veteran, the former legendary editor of the legendary (redundancy intended) 1970s rock magazine Crawdaddy , or that he would be aided by a tiny staff of like-minded pros like Joe Strupp and Jennifer Saba or that his main vehicle would be a creaky Web page which, to be honest, at times seems as far removed in user friendliness from a slick 21st Century Internet site as your kid’s Xbox is removed from Atari’s Pong. The way that Greg Mitchell’s Editor & Publisher lit their flashlight to show a path for journalism out of that abyss was stunning in its simplicity. They didn’t spend hours at power lunches, fretting about making sure every piece was inoffensively 50-50 balanced or any other such distraction. They got up in the morning, went to their office in Manhattan, and they just…did…it. With a small staff and with so many problems in the world of journalism, E&P had a remarkable knack for honing in on, and reporting the heck out of, the few things that were most important, which were not pageviews and clickthroughs, but old-fashioned journalism that was both highly ethical and highly skeptical. They practiced it that way themselves, and they often went after the mainstream media charlatans who did not. Here’s how Mitchell explained his philosophy on journalism in 2004, that the goal was that: “all our coverage on all subjects–is not to be partisan or not to be left or right or anything like that. But we believe in the–what should be the main principle of journalism, besides being accurate and fair, is to be skeptical–to raise questions, to not take what officials say as the gospel truth–unless it’s really proven–if there’s documents.” That seems obvious enough, yet upon his 2002 arrival the world of journalism was turned upside down by the looming war in Iraq, by news orgs that put every presidential pronouncement on Page A1 but buried reality-based skeptics on Page A16 while ignoring both large-scale protests and the lethally wrong suggestion that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11. Almost alone at times, Mitchell and E&P reported critically on the rush to war and on U.S. journalism’s helplessness under that stampede On January 23, 2003, at the height of the media bandwagon, Mitchell wrote a column entitled “On the War Path.” In it, an array of well-known voices, like the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz, the Boston Globe’s Mark Jurkowitz, Arianna Huffington and Richard Reeves voice a host of misgivings that were getting little play at the time: Why was there such little reporting both of the anti-war protests and the deep but quieter misgivings shared by millions of Americans, of why we were attacking Iraq but not North Korea or whether the president’s anger at Saddam was personal? Much of Mitchell’s critical and insightful writing can be found in his 2008 book on the war, called ” So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits — and the President — Failed on Iraq .” When Colin Powell gave his infamous presentation to the United Nations that winter on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction — hailed at the time, largely discredited now — E&P wrote an article questioning both inconsistencies as well as the lack of media skepticism. Mitchell explained later . Now little Editor and Publisher — the next day and the days beyond that — published stories on our website raising those very questions. It didn’t take hindsight. It didn’t take a huge staff. It just took a few journalists who were acting on the principles of journalism — To be skeptical. And if we, little Editor and Publisher, could point out that the case had really not been made or needed to be proven, it made us wonder why some of the bigger outlets just sort of rolled over. And Mitchell and his staff didn’t let up, even — especially, in fact — after President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier with the sign, “Mission Accomplished.” They focused intensively on suicides and other unexplained deaths in Iraq, highlighting articles from small-town papers that would have never received national attention if not for the E&P crew. When an Associated Press photographer captured on film the combat death of an American soldier in Afghanistan, it was E&P alone that asked editors uncomfortable questions about running the photo or not running it. That was what Editor & Publisher was all about in its final years, asking tough questions. Journalism dying? Not as long as Mitchell and his crew had access to nothing more than a notebook and a keyboard. They just did it. And while skeptical coverage of Iraq — and of the coverage of Iraq — was arguably E&P’s mostly valuable contribution to the American dialogue, it was far from its only hallmark. The publication aggressively dealt with the ethical missteps of big media, the kind of things that many newsrooms would gladly sweep under a rug, and it routinely produced some of the best long take-out articles on real journalism reform, on what works and what doesn’t, and why. The main Web site was always low-tech, but in the final months they launched an outstanding blog, the E&P Pub , and Mitchell even became one of the top Twitter users in the media world . And they kept it up until the bitter end; today, after the pending shutdown of the magazine and its related Web sites was announced, there was Joe Strupp with a new article, grilling the Washington Post op-ed editor on why the newspaper published a fact-challenged piece on climate change by Sarah Palin . It’s a sad day, but in a strange way the death of Editor & Publisher gives me hope for the future of journalism. Because they showed us a blueprint, that size or technology is overrated, that a half-dozen people can make a difference just by asking the right questions and by not backing down. And if Greg Mitchell and the others could accomplish this at a small, shrinking trade publication, then I know that it can happen again and will happen again, somewhere else and in some other format — that no-holds-barred journalism is possible even on these weird little newfangled tablets or whatever . Because in the remarkable way that they died, Editor & Publisher showed the rest of journalism how to live. More on Afghanistan

See the rest here: 
Will Bunch: While Dying, Editor & Publisher Showed Journalism How To Live

Want to know what’s going on in Copenhagen at the United Naitons Climate Change Conference? Want to participate? If you’re not already plugged in, the following links will get you started. And, knowing Kossacks, I’m sure there will be some additional links provided in the comment threads. Here’s the daily program . Virtual participation at this site . Live streaming video when the forum is in session. Here’s Common Dreams . Here’s OneClimate.net . Here’s Heat of the Moment: Dispatches from Copenhagen . Here’s featured videos from the The Uptake . Here’s EnviroNationCOP . Here’s Current Green TV . Here’s Climate Progress . Here’s DeSmogBlog . Here’s Grist . For this coming weekend, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse and I have put together a Climate Change Reality blogathon that begins Saturday at 7 a.m. PST and runs until Sunday evening. The more than 20 participants will include leading climate scientists, such as Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Michael MacCracken, the chief scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington D.C., Senator John Kerry and Senator Jeff Merkley, Daniel Kessler of Greenpeace, Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, Pete Altman of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Keith Schneider from the U.S. Climate Action Network, as well as 14 environmental bloggers who regularly post at Daily Kos. A full schedule will be posted later this week. In his diary today,   The Cunctator gave us the skinny on Copenhagen Day Three: Tuvalu, Sarah Palin, And ‘Crazed Hitler Youth’ : “At this morning’s plenary session of the Copenhagen climate negotiations, the tiny island nation of Tuvalu called for strengthening the Kyoto Protocol to limit warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, rather than the current standard of 2 ° C. Their proposal to amend the Kyoto Protocol with a new, legally binding agreement to set a target of 350 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fractured the session, as Tuvalu was supported by other small island states and poor nations in Africa, but was opposed by fifteen richer developing nations, including Saudi Arabia, China, and India.” • • • • • • • Green Diary Rescues appear on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. The diary rescue begins below in the jump. Inclusion of a particular diary does not necessarily indicate my agreement with it. • • • • • • • ScottyUrb has posted the Overnight News Digest .

Original post:
Green Diary Rescue & Open Thread: Hopenhagen

Sarah Palin fans are certain that the economy would be better and the war on terrorism would be won if she was president. The Uptake’s independent reporter Craig Martin Stellmacher visited Minnesota’s Mall of America to cover Sarah Palin’s book signing there on Monday, December 7th. He found thousands of devoted Palin fans lined up, some for hours and some that had traveled for hours across Minnesota to see her. Stellmacher believes the size of the crowd was only topped by that attending Obama’s healthcare speech in Minneapolis this summer. The Uptake reporter stayed clear of the tomato throwing incident but was able to interview two young women who had come to meet Sarah Palin dressed in their own beauty pageant sashes and tiaras. More on Sarah Palin

Continued here: 
Coleen Rowley: What Would Be Different if Sarah Palin Had Become President?

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes” –Mark Twain (attributed) It was only a matter of time before the manufactured controversy over stolen climate emails made its way halfway around the world to Wasilla, Alaska. The right-wing misinformation machine is in full swing. And that machine doesn’t have its final cylinder cranking until Sarah Palin jumps into the fray, which she did today in a mistake-riddled, anti-clean energy Op-Ed published in The Washington Post. Unable to win the climate debate based on facts, science or economics, Palin joins other Republican opponents in attempting to manufacture a scandal by seizing on stolen private emails from University of East Anglia in the UK. But as reported by TIME , the New York Times , and even the Washington Post , these emails do not undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence of global warming. As we saw during the campaign, Palin is attempting to be too clever by half -willing to acknowledge global warming’s impacts on Alaska, while rebuking the sound science that explains it. Palin, who once joined with John McCain in supporting a cap and trade system , is now adding fuel to a campaign run by deniers, big oil and polluters. Thus Palin, who injected life into “the Birther ” movement, and poisoned the health care debate with allegations regarding fictitious “death panels,” is now polluting the clean energy conversation and giving rise to the global warming “Hoaxers.” Ironically, Ms. Palin’s timing couldn’t be worse. Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced their latest temperature measurements, which indicate 2009 is on track to be the either the 4th, 5th or 6th warmest year on record -making this the warmest decade on record. Debunking Stolen Emails: Unfazed, Palin jumps right into the Republicans’ favorite talking points on stolen emails, suggesting scientists manipulated data based on the words “trick” and “hide the decline,” plucked from emails sent in 1999. But facts are stubborn things. Since the time that email was sent a decade ago we’ve seen 9 of the 10 hottest years on record, increasingly powerful hurricanes like Katrina, record wildfires, Alaskan villages falling into the sea, and a 500 year flood in the Midwest. Yet Palin and other Hoaxers really think they have somehow found climate’s smoking gun. But had the Hoaxers performed a simple Google search on the topic being debated in the emails, they would have discovered that the scientific data set was openly discussed and debated in academic journals available to the public for years. (journals including Nature and Geophysical Research Letters ). What’s at issue here? “Hide the decline,” and “trick,” both refer to a public debate over tree ring data and the combination of data sets. Because our direct thermometer record does not stretch back millennia, scientists must use other sources of data to determine past temperatures, including tree rings, which have provided remarkably consistent data for the last 2,000 years. Yet there are some trees in Siberia that had not followed the same patterns as the rest of the trees around the world. Meanwhile data from ice cores, coral reefs, cave measurements and other sources confirm the rising temperatures. As Tina Fey might say, while Sarah Palin might be able to see Russia from her house, she apparently can’t see the climate science forest from the Siberian trees. Attacking Clean Energy Solutions with the Tobacco Playbook: Ms. Palin predictably pivots from the climate email sideshow to attack Congressional efforts to cut pollution, create clean energy jobs and increase our national energy security, including the Waxman-Markey legislation . She also attacks the Obama administration for cutting emissions at home and trying to reach an agreement in Copenhagen . While Ms. Palin is working to boost the Birthers and Hoaxers, President Obama is working to create clean energy jobs. Persuading China and India to join in cutting carbon pollution as part of the talks in Copenhagen would be a historic achievement for President Obama. Perhaps the most telling aspect of Ms. Palin and the Republicans’ attack, however, is the company they keep in this manufactured debate. Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia , desperate to keep Americans buying their oil, trumpeted the stolen climate emails in an attempt to kill a deal at Copenhagen that would reduce the world’s demand for their only export. Who else is standing with them? Like the scene in Casablanca, “round up the usual suspects.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which regularly sued in support of the tobacco companies , is recycling their “hide the cancer” campaign by announcing a lawsuit against the EPA for finding that global warming is a danger to our health and environment. That’s right, the deniers for hire that worked for the smoking industry are now sharing their tobacco playbook with climate opponents. Ironically, this week’s ” endangerment finding ” by the EPA brings this whole story full circle. After all, the office Ms. Palin was trying to obtain last year — Dick Cheney’s — was the source of the greatest climate email scandal of all time. Cheney literally refused to read an email from the Bush Administration’s own EPA that indicated global warming was real and would damage our health and the environment. The Bush White House ignored EPA’s recommendations, ignored its call to action, and did nothing. That’s exactly what Palin and the other Hoaxers want to happen now: Nothing. Time for Action NOT Distraction: Opponents of the clean energy agenda literally do or say anything to prevent the United States from ending our addiction to dangerous foreign oil. The manufactured email scandal is just their latest attempt. If you are tired of distraction, now is the time to call for action. Action on clean energy jobs, action in Copenhagen, and action in Congress. Help push back against the hoaxers with a call for “action not distraction” on your blogs, twitter and emails to friend and co-workers. While the world is watching Copenhagen, we must stand together against the science smear campaign here at home. It’s time for truth to put on its shoes and get into this fight. More on Climate Change

Read the original: 
Rep. Ed Markey: Palin: Birthing Global Warming Denial

Those of you playing at home and counting ethics complaints filed against Sarah Palin on your fingers and toes are about to run out. Yesterday, another ethics complaint was filed against the almost one term ex-governor by her one-time political ally, Republican Andrée McLeod. This particular complaint addresses Palin’s legal defense fund, hubristically named “The Alaska Fund Trust.” Back in July, we learned through a separate ethics complaint which spawned an investigation, that the very existence of the Alaska Fund Trust is most likely a violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. The report of the independent investigation found its way to the media. The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters. An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the “official” legal defense fund. So what did the ex-governor and her long-time friend Kristan Cole, trustee of the AFT do after they received the report? Nothing. The Alaska Fund Trust website is unbelievably still taking donations. They’re still holding out the tin cup and accepting those $5 donations from little old Grannies to pay off Palin’s six-figure legal debt, while the supposed beneficiary of the money is jetting around the country promoting her best-selling book “Going Rogue” and raking in the millions. But, please… keep those donations coming. The latest ethics complaint addresses this lack of response on the part of the Trust and the ex-governor, whom the AFT website still refers to as “current governor Sarah Palin.” News flash folks! She quit five months ago, in case you weren’t paying attention. “Palin continues to compromise the integrity of our Governor’s Office,” says McLeod. “She continues to misuse her official position even though she was told it is wrong to do. What we have is the epitome of a culture of corruption. Why do public officials permit Palin to get away with bad behavior? Why does justice not prevail on the side of the people in the follow through of what has already been established as an unscrupulous pot of money? We still don’t know how much has been collected during her term and who’s been paid from the fund. Why does the administration continue to protect and defend Sarah Palin, even when she’s caught, red-handed, selling out the Office of the Governor?” There always seem to be more questions than answers. Read the entire document —-> Dec 09 Palin Legal Defense Fund complaint More on Sarah Palin

See the original post:
Jeanne Devon ("AKMuckraker"): Millionaire Palin Still Begging Money from the Public - New Ethics Complaint Filed

Establishment Republicans, take notice. The Tea Party is about to steal your thunder. According to a poll by Rasmussen Reports , likely voters in the 2010 congressional elections would rather cast a ballot for a candidate bearing the Tea Party brand than one on the Republican line. In a national survey of likely voters, Rasmussen asked respondents to choose their favored political party for the congressional contests in what pollsters call a generic ballot. In a three-way contest, Democrats fared best, with 36 percent, while a hypothetical Tea Party came in second at 23 percent, and Republicans pulled up the rear with 18 percent. But there is one wrinkle in the Tea Party triumph scenario: There is no political party called the Tea Party, which might lead one to question whether Rasmussen is stirring the simmering pot of Republican Party politics. Although the poll results look awful for Republicans, the absence of an actual established political party called the Tea Party makes the GOP the likely host party for Tea Party-endorsed candidates. While this could lead to some losses in 2010, the net effect will likely be to move the establishment GOP further to the right-wing Tea Party agenda of small government, lower taxes, union busting and virtually no social safety net. Tea Party leaders like to present their movement’s challenge to the GOP as something born outside the beltway, but this is really a fight between Republican Party figures. In addition to former House Majoirty Leader Dick Armey, who served as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Number Two during those heady days of the Republican congressional majority that impeached President Bill Clinton, Tea Party allies include sitting senators and members of Congress. The Tea Party movement made its first electoral mark in last month’s special election in New York State’s 23rd congressional district, where Armey’s endorsement of a third-party challenger to the Republican candidate led to an influx of Tea Party activists campaigning on behalf of Conservative Party contender Doug Hoffman. In his wake, Armey’s candidate drew endorsement from A-List Republicans, such as Sarah Palin and Minnesotal Gov. Tim Pawlenty. When Dede Scozzafava, the GOP candidate, withdrew from the race and endorsed the Democratic candidate, Armey & co. chalked up a win, even though the Democrat won the seat. Armey and the Tea Partiers had effectively put Republican leaders on notice by vanquishing their candidate. “We’ll probably be getting more political in targeted races,” said FreedomWorks Press Secretary Adam Brandon. And they already have. Tea Party movement groups are supporting primary challenges to establishment Republican candidates, such as Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who faces challenger Marco Rubio, endorsed by Armey, in the GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat. Tea Party activists could also, as they did with the Conservative Party in New York State during a special election last month in the state’s 23rd congressional district, work with an established third party in areas where the Republican Party machinery is locked up. READ MORE More on Sarah Palin

View post: 
Adele Stan: Collapse of the GOP? Tea Party Beats Grand Old Party in Poll

“I haven’t been feeling well for a while.” The doctor’s office had a faint smell of rubbing alcohol and Lysol. “I get headaches, am easily agitated, feel frightened and aggressive. I have spasms of energy, then experience an overwhelming sense of dread and get exhausted.” The doctor pulled out the thermometer. “You don’t have a fever.” “Why did you take my temperature that way?” “It saves time - you can’t answer questions with a thermometer in your mouth.” He pulled off his latex gloves with a loud snap. “A lot of people have been complaining about the same symptoms. When did you first notice those feelings?” “A sense of dread came over me a couple weeks before Thanksgiving.” “The holidays are often a difficult time for people.” “It’s not that, I actually enjoy the holidays.” “Think about what else was going on then, what else might have triggered it.” He said with a wink, “I’ll betcha can come up with it.” The headache pains came back. “You betcha” echoed in my head like a chant. “Palin’s book was released.” I blurted. “She was everywhere: television, newspapers, radio and on-line. I couldn’t avoid her. The media was penetrating my skull. Fox News showed huge crowds lined up to buy her book, ‘Going Rogue’.” The only thing going rogue was the truth. The crowd footage shown with the report was from a 2008 McCain Palin political rally, not people lining up to buy her book. Fox called it “a production error”. This was just a little more than a week after Sean Hannity of Fox News showed large crowds allegedly protesting healthcare reform, which were actually crowds from a rally that took place last summer. Hannity apologized for “an inadvertent mistake”. Aren’t all mistakes inadvertent? That is like a hit and run driver who apologizes if they get caught.” The doctor nodded knowingly, “Then what happened.” “Thanksgiving. Will Palin invite Levi to dinner? Will Jon and Kate be together for the holidays? Who cares? That kind of stuff used to be limited to supermarket tabloids and entertainment shows - now it’s on the news. You can’t avoid it. It’s everywhere, like it is something we need to know.” Tiger Woods, a young hyper-talented, hyper-pampered, hyper-money making athlete makes more than a hole in one. His affairs are popping up like quicksand traps in his previously hyper manicured and managed image. One of his mistresses is upset because she is not only the other woman, she is another woman, becoming a face in the crowd faster than she can cash in on her own fame, like the one who said “he is very well endowed”, like the one who is a porn star, you get the idea. Woods is not a politician, financier or someone who is violating the public trust - he is a professional golfer, The trust he has violated is that of his wife, Nike who invested millions to create the pristine image he just destroyed and the public who bought into that fantasy. No wonder celebrities go crazy, the bright lights turn to kryptonite, ultimately weakening them in the eyes of the media that built them up in the first place. I paced the room, feeling both angry and defiant, “As one celebrity tries to maintain their privacy, Tareq and Michaele Salahi desperately trying to become celebrities by crashing a White House party. The media helps them achieve their goal by endlessly discussing the story.” The doctor put down his clipboard. “You’re suffering from “M.R.” “What’s M.R.?” “Mind Rape.” he continued, “It’s the unwanted penetration into your consciousness by aggressive and relentless means. The media has gotten very good at it. It was initially used as a technique to break down prisoners of war. Advertising modified the techniques by adding pretty pictures, music and constant repetition. Politicians and the media have adopted those ideas, which is why news stories now have graphic titles and theme music. All this toxic and useless information weakens your immune system making you susceptible to the next wave of whatever is being hyped.” “What about healthcare or the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or the economy or unemployment or education or -” “Those require way too much work. You actually need to be well informed to have a viable opinion on those issues. How often does the average person get to feel superior to someone like Tiger Woods? Or part of a popular movement that requires no critical thought? Those opportunities are hard to pass up.” Maybe the Salahi’s will crash a Palin book signing, if they can get past the huge crowds of women who had an affair with Tiger Woods. More on Jon & Kate Plus 8

More here:
B. Jeffrey Madoff: Mind Rape

I caught a piece two days ago showing that just over one quarter of Americans know what the public option is. It seems like everyone loves it or hates it, so finding out that so few actually know why they feel that way is incredibly depressing. I’ll take a share of the blame, since it’s my job to explain this stuff, but the media has to take most of it. When I turn on the TV right now, all I really I see is extensive coverage of a golfer’s personal life. When the press does turn to health care reform, it’s often a “serious” discussion of how “many feel it’s socialism”. When did the press stop holding anyone accountable? In this age, when Presidential candidates can be brought low by video taken years before , it’s child’s play to check and see if someone’s argument seems rational. Why then, when it comes to health care, is everyone suffering from memory loss? The most outlandish arguments against health care reform aren’t new. All of them have been seen before. When Medicare - arguably much more comprehensive reform - was fought, cries of socialism and the end of freedom were rampant. Did those prophesies come true? Did any of them? Many of you know that Ronald Reagan recorded a speech for the AMA back in the 60’s which was distributed to be played at coffee parties. If you don’t, take a minute and go read about it . It’s a hoot. Even better, go ahead and listen to it. Here, I’ll make it easy for you: Heard the one about how health care reform may take away the freedom of doctors? It’s not new : But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go. You all remember how after Medicare was passed doctors were prohibited from practicing where they wanted and forced to move where the governments said. Right? No? Oh yeah, it never happened. Have you heard about how the public option is the slippery slope to socialized medicine ? Old news : Once the bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine. Capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned. If only we had listened. Then we wouldn’t have had those decades of socialism after Medicare was passed. Like the 1980’s. When what’s-his-name was President. You know, the guy lecturing us on how Medicare is totalitarianism. Have you heard about how the government is now oppressing those who don’t want reform? It happened before , you know: This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities. We all know how after Medicare passed, it was unsuccessful, unpopular, and quickly repealed by the opposition once they were back in power. No? You mean it’s only expanded since then? That can’t be right. None of these compare to the amazing call to arms that ended Reagan’s speech though. It’s impressive : And if you don’t do this and if I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free. Yeah, if they didn’t stop Medicare, we would have to tell our kids how people were only free in the good old days. Enough. This would be funny if it weren’t insane. Medicare passed. And now today the party that opposed it has declared themselves its “protectors” . Medicare didn’t lead to the end of the medical profession, it didn’t lead to socialism, it didn’t lead to the oppression of anyone, and it certainly didn’t lead to the end of America. We know this. It’s obvious. Look out the window. So why do the media - and anyone else for that matter - treat any of these arguments as serious today? This bill is far less comprehensive, far less radical than Medicare. And yet the same arguments are being made against it that now sound silly when slapped onto Medicare. During last year’s Vice Presidential debate, I watched Governor Palin say : It was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free. Can you fully appreciate the irony here? The candidate of the “protectors of Medicare” was using Reagan’s argument against Medicare to say they should be elected. Freedom didn’t end when the country elected President Obama. We’ll have another set of Congressional elections in 2010 and another Presidential election in 2012. Freedom won’t end if health care reform was passed. Know why? Because it didn’t end with the passage of Medicare. I know this. You know this. The media knows this. When do cries of socialism become cries of wolf? Read more about health care policy and get your questions answered at Rational Arguments . More on Sarah Palin

The rest is here: 
Aaron E. Carroll: News Flash: Medicare Didn’t End Freedom in America!

As someone who used to host a television program on the media and popular culture, I have a problem. I know too much. I know things I should not know. I know things that shouldn’t even be things. I know that Angelina Jolie once had Billy Bob Thornton’s name tattooed on her arm. I know that Lindsay Lohan once drank and drove and was captured by the paparazzi with an inebriate’s grin on her face. I know that Paris Hilton once had a TV show called The Simple Life. I am, as well, plagued by my knowledge of the present. I know there is a famous person named Lady GaGa. I know there are a husband and wife named Salahi who want attention so badly they crashed a party at the White House. I know that the father of Sarah Palin’s grandchild posed provocatively for Playgirl magazine. I am familiar with excerpts from e-mails that Tiger Woods wrote to various mistresses, suggesting acts that are probably still illegal in certain Midwestern states and former Eastern block countries. It is no wonder, then, that I have chosen to take refuge by writing history, immersing myself in centuries past, coming no closer to the present in my recent work than the life and times of Theodore Roosevelt and his relationship to his youngest son. And yet . . . I have brain cells somewhere storing the information that Adam Lambert, a human being who did not exist in the solar system of sensible mortals as recently as a few weeks ago, is one of Barbara Walters’s Most Fascinating People of 2009. I have brain cells elsewhere devoted to the prospect of Kate Gosselin’s getting a reality show of her own. Yet more brain cells report to me on Jenny McCarthy’s breast implants, as do others on Glenn Beck’s book sales and Lou Dobb’s comically intense fulminations on immigrants and Nancy Grace’s future in syndication and Jay Leno’s move to ten p.m. and Jessica Simpson’s absence from this year’s Dallas Cowboys’ games and on and on it goes. I do not want to know this stuff. I do not want to know any of this stuff. This is brain cell kidnapping! But how is one to escape? Preoccupation with the past, as I have discovered, does not work. The trivia of the present is not just on the page and on the air anymore—it is in the air. One learns it by breathing, simple respiration, in the same manner that one inhales the fumes of a truck one is stuck behind in heavy traffic. As a result, I have set a goal for myself. Ignorance. Having just begun the quest, I cannot say how it will turn out. I am not optimistic, but if you don’t strive, you’re not alive. I will take up my lance and ride toward the windmills, determined to become less informed. Someday I want someone to ask me what I think of a Lady GaGa and want to honestly be able to say, “Who?” Someday I want someone to ask me what I think of a Salahi’s vanity and want to honestly be able to say, “What?” Someday I want someone to ask me what I think of a Tiger Woods’s affairs and want to honestly be able to say, “Huh?” Ignorance, according to reputation, is bliss. In this case, however, it is more than that—it is a survival mechanism that must be employed by our nation’s ever-shrinking minority of reasonable men and women for their own mental health, and, even more, for the efficient and productive functioning of society. I realize, of course, that many of you may choose to be ignorant of me. So far, you’ve failed. You’ve read this essay and, if I am fortunate, you will spend a few more minutes keeping me in mind by considering the points I have made. Then, if you’re so inclined, forget you ever heard of me. Do so with my blessings. But devote the brain cells I would otherwise have occupied for purposes that are fruitful, enriching and meaningful. As for me, the moment I finish writing this piece, I will resume reading Terry Teachout’s wonderful new biography of Louis Armstrong, Pops. My plan is to shake loose my knowledge of Jenny McCarthy’s breast implants, among other things, to clear out the space for this story of a man who mattered. Eric Burns is the former host of Fox News Watch, and the author of several books, including Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism.

See the original post:
Eric Burns: In Praise of Ignorance

Fox News reports : A man was arrested for allegedly throwing two tomatoes at Sarah Palin from the second floor balcony during a book signing event at the Mall of America in Minnesota, MyFoxTwinCities.com. reported. Neither tomato came close hitting the former 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, but did hit a police officer in the face, the station reported. The unidentified man may face charges for assaulting a police officer, according to the station. Read the full story here . Minnesota station WCCO reported : Police identified him as Jeremiah Wobbe from St. Paul. They said he was arrested and could face assault and disorderly conduct charges. Officers added that they found two more tomatoes he’d been carrying. More on Sarah Palin

See the original post here: 
Sarah Palin: Tomatoes Thrown During Book Event, Police Arrest Jeremiah Wobbe

The value of individual endorsements, with a few narrow exceptions, is generally overstated. And the bigger the election being contested, the smaller the value of such endorsements. The only thing bigger than a Senate election is a presidential one, so in practical terms, Rep. Barney Frank endorsing Joe Sestak should win the challenger to Sen. Arlen Specter’s seat few votes. Yet Frank may be the first elected Congressional Democrat to endorse Sestak, which is significant. Republicans have been riven for months between the establishment, and teabagger insurgents like Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Sarah Palin. For a party once known for its monolithic unity, DeMint in particular has proven troublesome. The Senator, who recently declared he’d rather have 30 ideologically pure conservatives in the Senate than 60 Republicans who didn’t “believe” anything, has given a credibility boost to teabagger insurgents in places like NY-23 (Doug Hoffman), Florida (Marco Rubio), and is now flirting with backing GOP Rep. Mark Kirk’s opponent in Illinois. DeMint is credited with chasing Arlen Specter out of the GOP by cornering him on the floor of the Senate to tell him he’d be backing Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania GOP primary. Yet for all their troubles in maintaining their united front on the floor of Congress, elected Democrats have remained united on electoral matters. Note how no one came to Ned Lamont’s aid during the 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary, even though he was already a cancer inside the Democratic Party. Even corrupt Democrats get a pass, which cost us William Jefferson’s seat in New Orleans, and could’ve proved troublesome in Al Wynn’s Maryland district until the voters solved the problem by electing Donna Edwards instead. So for the Democrats, it is significant for Franks to endorse a primary challenger. He is the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, one of the most powerful, and he’s bucked his establishment to back an insurgent candidate against an entrenched, White House-backing incumbent. Elected Democrats could certainly use some internal pressure for party unity. Gay marriage failed in New York because promised “yes” votes from Republicans failed to materialize. And why did they chicken out? They were all afraid of being Scozzafava’d. DeMint’s support of Doug Hoffman may have cost Republicans the seat, but it preserved marriage discrimination - a tradeoff they would make any day of the week. We need a little bit of that enforced party unity, and any help we can get from within the caucus helps build credibility for primary insurgents. We need more Barney Franks, particularly one in the Senate, to help provide some much needed tension between elected officials who care about the kind of work Congress does, and a party establishment that is issue agnostic, and cares only about whether an incumbent has an “R” or “D” after their name. “Joe Sestak is a true Democrat who cares about the working families that have been hit hardest by the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration,” Frank said. “He’ll be a reliable vote for Pennsylvania’s next generation instead of having the same loyal Bush Republican we’ve seen over the past generation. I have to say I don’t think it did our profession any good for someone to announce that he switched parties purely so he could survive.” That certainly applies in this Pennsylvania Senate race, but Specter isn’t the only suspect Democrat inside our caucus. Far too many are making common cause with Republicans while pretending to be Democrats. A few more primary challenges might convince recalcitrant Democrats to support their party’s top priorities, and a culture that encourages such challenges, even if it angers the DSCC and DCCC, would certainly be welcome, and clearly help Democrats advance their now-stymied policy goals.

The rest is here:
PA-Sen: Barney Frank bucks establishment, endorses Sestak

2009: Building Change Across The Globe Architecture for Humanity has spent the last decade building a more sustainable future using the power of design. Through a global network of building professionals, the non profit organization brings design, construction and development services to communities in need. It has been a busy year in our office but even more so in the field. Turning ten this year allowed us a moment of reflection but as Henry Kaiser once said, “When your work speaks for itself, don’t interrupt.” Therefore we continued to work tirelessly to design, develop and build stronger and more sustainable communities through the power of thoughtful and innovative architecture. This weekend saw the opening of another building, the Khayelitsha Football for Hope Centre , the first of many youth sports facilities built as legacy projects for the 2010 World Cup. Below is a list of all the projects we’ve worked on this year. They involved dozens of architects and building professionals and hundreds of local construction workers from around the world. We are truly proud of all of them and everyone involved. It is only because of the dedication of our partners and our donors that we are able to achieve this level and quality of work. For the first time in our history we had projects under construction on every corner of the globe. I will continue to update and add project information over the month but if you believe in the need for safe, sustainable and community-led building, think about contributing to us this giving season . Cheers, The entire Architecture for Humanity team. Completed Khayelitsha Football for Hope Centre Location: Khayelitsha, South Africa Client: Grassroot Soccer Design Team: ARG Design (Architect of Record) Eugene da Silva (Regional Program Manager), Kimberley O’Dowd (Program Manager), Sarah Rowden, Oana Stanescu, and Christine Lara (Design Fellows) Biloxi Model Homes Location: Biloxi, Mississippi Clients: Desporte, Nguyen, Odom, Parker, Robinson, Tran and Tyler families Project Partners: Hope Community Development Agency and Oprah’s Angel Network Design Team: Gulf Coast Community Design Studio, Studio Gang, Huff & Gooden, Marlon Blackwell Architect, Brett Zamore Design, CP+D Workshop, MC2 architects (Architects) and Paul Hendershot Design (Landscape Architect) with Kimberley O’Dowd (Program Manager), Michael Grote, Sherry-Lea Bloodworth, John Dwyer, Tommy Calhoun, Nicole Joslin, Nicole Nowak, Brandon Milling, Nadene Mairesse and many, many others. Skateistan Youth Sports Center Location: Kabul, Afghanistan Client: Skateistan Partner: Nike Gamechangers Design Team: Convic Design (Architect of Record), Michael Jones and Elaine Uang (Program Managers) Navajo Straw Bale Housing Location: Navajo Nation - remote sites in AZ and NM Client: Navajo Elders Design Team: Nathaniel Corum (Architect of Record) and Indigenous Community Enterprises Nadukuppam Colony Womens’ Center and Balwadi Location: Nadukuppam, Tamil Nadu, India Client: Nadukuppam Women’s Cooperative plus schooling for their children Design Team: Purnima McCutcheon and local community members Pillaichavadykuppam Community Center Location: Pillaichavadykuppam, Tamil Nadu, India Client: Pillaichavadykuppam Women’s Cooperative plus Children’s Parliament Design Team: Purnima McCutcheon and local community members Thirukannur Women’s Cooperative Location: Thirukannur, Tamil Nadu, India Client: Thirukannur Women’s Cooperative Design Team: Purnima McCutcheon and local community members Kutamba AIDS Orphans School Location: Bikongozo, Uganda Client: Nyaka AIDS Foundation Design Team: Matt Miller (Design Fellow) and Project H Design (Program Partner) Alternative Masonry Units - Domestic Beta Location: Oakland, California Client: City Slickers Farms Design Team: Nathaniel Corum, Michael Jones, Jeremy Fisher and Marisha Farnsworth Alternative Masonry Units - International Beta Location: Bikongozo, Uganda Client: Architecture for Humanity Design Team: Matt Miller (Design Fellow) Appirampattu Community Center - Design Grant Location: Appirampattu, India Client: Villagers of Appirampattu Design Team: Logan Allen, Taiko Sakamoto, James Jamison, Ganesh Bala and Bhaskar Collaborate Office Location: San Francisco, CA, USA Client: Architecture for Humanity and all the Collaborate Office Tenants Design Team: San Francisco community design effort led by Stacy Jed (Project Lead), Beth Morris (Architect of Record), Aaron Lim and Joyce Engebretsen Under Construction Mukuru kwa Njenga Technology Center and Media Lab Location: Nairobi, Kenya Client: SIDAREC Partner: 50 x15 Foundation Design Team: Planning Systems (Architect of Record), The Global Studio (Concept Designers), Isaac Mugumbule (Design Fellow) and youth leaders at SIDAREC Mahiga High Rainwater Court Location: Nyeri, Kenya Client: Mahiga High School Partner: Nike Gamechangers Design Team: Greg Elsner (Design Fellow) and local community members Plastiki Off Grid Habitation (aka. The Cabin) Location: Pacific Ocean Client: Adventure Ecology Design Team: Nathaniel Corum (Design Lead), Michael Jones (Design Fellow) with Andy Dovell (Naval Architect), R. Scott Mitchell, Marisha Farnsworth, Jay Ruskey and USC Students (Design Support) In Development Bamako Football for Hope Centre Location: Bamako, Mali Client: Association Malienne pour la Promotion de la Jeune et de la Femme Design Team: M. Youseff Berthe (Architect of Record) and Michael Heublein (Design Fellow) Haruma Football for Hope Centre Location: Nairobi, Kenya Client: Mathare Youth Sports Association Design Team: Studio 610 (Concept Designers), Andrew Gremley (Architect of Record), Dr. Alfred Omenya (Environmental Consultant) and Isaac Mugumbule (Design Fellow) Cape Coast Football for Hope Centre Location: Cape Coast, Ghana Client: Play Soccer Design Team Joe Addo, Constructs LLC (Architect of Record) Windhoek Football for Hope Centre Location: Windhoek, Namibia Client: Special Olympics - Namibia Design Team Nina Maritz and Paul Munting (Architect of Record) Kigali Football for Hope Centre Location: Kigali, Rwanda Client: Esperance Design Team: APPLY TODAY! Guardians Institute Location: New Orleans, LA Client: Guardians of the Flame Design Team: Rockwell Studio (Concept Designers) Homeless World Cup Legacy Project Location: Santa Cruz, Rio de Janiero, Brazil Client: Homeless World Cup Design Team: APPLY TODAY! Bhawani Orphanage Client: Miracle Foundation Location: Bhawanipur, Orissa, India Design Team: Sarika Jhawar (Design Fellow) Cyclone Nargis Reconstruction Client: ASEAN Location: Burma/Myanmar Design Team: Suchon M., Kidsada P., Tee A. and Nattawut U. Green Charter School Facility Guide Location: United States Client: NCB Capital Impact Design Team: Sumita Mukherjee (Design Fellow) Teton Valley Community School Location: Victor, Idaho Client: Teton Valley Community School Design Team Emma Adkisson, DC Workshop (architect of record) and Section Eight Design (concept designers) Building Tomorrow Uganda School Location: Rural Uganda Client: Building Tomorrow Design Team Gifford LLC Competitions 2009 Open Architecture Competition: Classroom Winner: Teton Valley Community School Design Team Section Eight Design, Victor, Idaho The Community Prize Winner: Seth Shannon, Des Moines, Iowa Publications in Development Design Like You Give a Damn 2 Location: Global Client: various Editing Team: Satu Jackson, Kate Stohr, Cameron Sinclair and Architecture for Humanity On the Boards for 2010 We have a number of projects in development that may move into design phase in 2010. Beyond projects already listed these include school building in Indonesia, Peru, The Philippines and Uganda; A Youth Center in Haiti; A Coastal Access and Restoration landscape Project in Southern California; A Research project on temporary housing for migrants workers; Launch of the Chapter Network (see below); Eight more homes for the Navajo Nation, the launch of the Plastiki and a design studio that will connect architecture students across the Pacific Rim. Chapters With more than 60 local chapters world wide, Architecture for Humanity members continue to provide innovative design solutions for their own communities. The dedicated engagement of these professionals and local stakeholders remains one of the most visible aspects of our organization. Our most active chapters have been involved this year in a wide variety of projects, including design competitions, participation in TEDx presentations, traveling exhibitions and creative workshops. This year we welcome a few new additions to our our chapter family: Adelaide (Australia), Amman (Jordan), Boise (Idaho), Istanbul (Turkey), San Juan (Puerto Rico), Athens (Greece) and Sioux Falls (South Dakota). We’ve also seen renewed efforts on the part of some chapters, including Seattle, Detroit and Portland. In the coming weeks, we will be launching our new Chapters Network web site, a platform dedicated to better support our vast network of chapter members. This new site will become the central meeting point for all our chapters, enabling them to post their events and on-going projects as well as to communicate and share design ideas between one another. We are truly proud and thankful of every chapter member involved in furthering the Architecture for Humanity mission. More on Sustainability

Originally posted here: 
Cameron Sinclair: Building Change Across The Globe

From time to time, I’ll get into a debate with a right-winger about whether Sarah Palin is actually stupid or if liberals are just hopelessly biased against her. They claim this bias comes from the fact that liberals are scared of her electability, her charm, her looks, her femininity, her Christianity, her ability connect to the common man and her overall wonderfulness. So, the theory is that we have all collectively decided that she is the best Republican candidate in some secret liberal meeting and are conspiring against her because we are afraid of how brilliant and electable she really is. Now, there are a couple of problems with this theory. There are no opinion leaders on the left with Rush Limbaugh-like authority who can command all other progressives to think the same thing and use the same arguments against one person. In other words, we all think she is stupid because she is in fact stupid, not because some liberal cabal told us to think that. How come we don’t call Newt Gingrich stupid? Or Dick Cheney or Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or Dennis Hastert? And the list goes on and on of heinous and deplorable right-wingers who are not stupid. We don’t make those charges against those people, because as much as we might not agree with them or like them, we know that they are not dullards. They’re all clever in their own way. Mitt Romney is greasy, Michael Steele is a clown and Tom DeLay is dirty, but we don’t go after their mental acuity like we do with Sarah Palin because they’re not as dumb as her (not even Steele). So, finally we get to the evidence. I thought I’d just do it here and be done with it. Then I can just point people to this post from now on and end this senseless argument. Now, there are a million examples of this, but I thought I’d go with three knockout punches here. In the first video, we have the classic Bush Doctrine answer , where she does not know the basic foreign policy of the Republican president at the time. How could she possibly be running for vice president and not know this? The only thing more unconscionable is the sad excuses her supporters make for this terribly botched answer. In the second video, we have a largely overlooked example of her pathetic lack of foreign policy knowledge. She has no idea what Hamas is or what they have to do with the Gaza Strip. If you’re next door neighbor or plumber doesn’t know this, that’s fine, but they weren’t running for Vice President of the United States. This should be game set and match for anyone, especially self-respecting conservatives, thinking of supporting her. This is when you have to walk away embarrassed. But remarkably, they didn’t slink away embarrassed after this answer, so we have the latest example of her buffoonery. In this interview with Bill O’Reilly, he asks her if she is smart enough to be president. Her answer has to be seen to be believed. Don’t get me wrong, just because you see it won’t mean you’ll understand it. So, I put a transcript of her answer below so that you can try to decipher it in your spare time. Bill O’Reilly: Let me be very bold and fresh again, do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world? Sarah Palin: I believe that I am because I have common sense and I have I believe the values that I think are reflective of so many other American values, and I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the uhm, the ah, a kind of spineless, spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite, Ivy league education and, and a fat resume that is based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans are could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership, I’m not saying that that has to be me. Can anyone really be biased enough to think that was a smart answer? The great irony is that he asked her if she’s smart enough to be president and she gave what might be her dumbest answer yet. That answer was so bad it almost made George W. Bush look smart. Can anyone in good conscience defend that answer and say with a straight face that she should be this country’s leader? If you say yes, then there is no sense in talking to one another anymore because we are not operating in the same reality, or planet. We’ll never be able to agree on anything if we can’t agree that was just about as incomprehensible and stupid an answer as you can possibly come up with. And that settles the debate, because you either live in the reality based world and realize she is obviously not qualified, or in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert you believe that “reality has a well-known liberal bias” and she would make a great president. Watch TYT on You Tube Here More on Katie Couric

See more here:
Cenk Uygur: The Irrefutable Stupidity of Sarah Palin

Chuck Heath’s quip that his daughter Sarah Palin skipped out on her studies after one semester at Hawaii Pacific College because she didn’t feel comfortable around so many Asians was intriguing not because of its blatant racism. The intrigue was that Palin didn’t deny she said it. In a backdoor way she confirmed that not only did she probably say it, but meant it. She said that she much preferred to go to school in Idaho because it “was more like Alaska.” Idaho could never be mistaken as the poster state for a multicultural population mix. The state is mostly white, rural, hard line conservative, and in some places has been a fertile nesting ground for an assorted array of kooky, far out racist, para military groups. During the campaign, Palin took some heat for telling a meeting of Alaska’s black leaders in April 2008 that she didn’t have to hire any blacks. The black leaders had complained to Palin about the invisibility of blacks and minorities on her staff and in state governmental departments. Even more damning, she purportedly told the black leaders that she didn’t intend to hire any. Palin’s campaign manager and a staff representative hotly denied to this writer that Palin had made the comment. However, they quickly declared that Palin was absolutely color-blind in hiring and insisted that she did not push any special programs to boost minority hiring. Palin was as good as her word. There was a glaring paucity of blacks, Asians, Hispanics on her staff and relatively few in top state jobs. Also during the campaign, Palin was mute on the series of racist emails that some state employees sent out on state of Alaska accounts. This doesn’t type Palin as a racial bigot. It does type her as the latest in the long train of rightside GOP politicians who calculate that they can score big with a subtle play of the race card. During the past decade, a parade of Republican state and local officials, conservative talk show jocks and even some Republican bigwigs have made foot-in-the-mouth racist cracks. Their response when called on the carpet has always been the same. They make a duck-and dodge denial, claim that they were misquoted or issue a weak, halfhearted apology. And each time the response from top Republicans is either silence, or, if the firestorm is great enough, to give the offender a much-delayed, mild verbal hand-slap. Palin need not be troubled with apologies, or having to worry about reprimands from GOP leaders. They are scared stiff of her and the millions that she appeals too. This was much evident in the blatant racist signs, posters, and slogans and confederate flags and the separatist Texas lone star flags waved about at the tea party and taxpayer protest marches. Palin gave another wink and nod to the bigots by almost single-handedly reviving the withered on the vine, unabashed, racist tinged, birther campaign. Palin accomplished that neat trick with her off the cuff quip to a conservative radio talk show host that it was “fair game” to the validity of Obama’s birth certificate. Palin again fanned the latent bigotry among her fans with her Going Rogue book tour. She flatly said that she’d avoid the big city liberal media hot beds and tour in mostly small and mid sized towns in the Heartland states. This was a not so subtle code guarantee that her audience would be overwhelmingly white, working class, and conservative. That’s exactly the audience she got. It’s an audience that won’t make her uncomfortable. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book, How Obama Governed: The Year of Crisis and Challenge (Middle Passage Press) will be released in January 2010. More on GOP

Continued here: 
Earl Ofari Hutchinson: Palin’s Uncomfortable Racism

As President Obama quietly watches Senators undermine health care reform, redirects over $30 billion annually from domestic programs to expand the Afghanistan war, and sounds like the Concord Coalition in prioritizing deficit reduction over job creation, we hear little activist protest. Nor have activists publicly mobilized in response to Obama’s caving in to anti-democratic forces in Honduras, his astonishingly low number of judicial and U.S. Attorney appointments, his failure to secure key appointments at the Department of Labor, and other non-progressive actions. While many compile long lists of Obama accomplishments that they believe reflect an extraordinary first year, such cataloging of signed bills, implemented policies and unveiled plans misses the forest for the trees. Why have activists not publicly challenged Obama’s largely following the moderate Clinton-Gore course, and his failure to ignite the grassroots with a sense of ongoing social transformation that Democrats felt in 1965 or Republicans in 1981? There are four key reasons, none of whose legitimacy alters this fact: activists’ continued refusal to publicly hold the President accountable dooms prospects for progressive change. Dramatic Improvement over George W. Bush The chief reason activists hesitate to challenge Obama is that he is an extraordinary improvement over his predecessor. In fact, FDR is the only other Democrat in the past 100 years who has come into office following such an equally scorned Republican predecessor. If Bush is the standard, than nearly everything Obama does can be redefined as transformative progressive change. Under this reasoning, Bill Clinton also implemented a “progressive agenda,” as nearly all of his policies were far to the left of George. W. Bush. In addition to moving the ideological goalposts, Bush also left Obama with such huge domestic and foreign policy challenges that many feel it is unfair to criticize his plans to surmount these difficulties. And with the Republican Party moving so far to the right, criticizing Obama is seen as bolstering the destructive agendas of Michele Bachmann, FOX News and their allies. But activists should be setting the progressive agenda, not allowing it to be framed by Bush and the Republican Party. The notion that any policy to the left of Sarah Palin is now “progressive” guarantees that the Clinton-Gore era will be as good as it gets - a view candidate Obama rejected in defining his candidacy as an “historic” opportunity for change. And those who believe that Obama’s inheriting a mess inhibits progressive policies should recall that one year ago activists were arguing that the economic crisis gave Obama a rare freedom to advance a progressive agenda. And Bush’s failures abroad were said to give the new President an historic opportunity to break from the nation’s endless military adventurism. FDR used an even worse crisis to completely transform the nation’s approach to jobs, social welfare programs, the arts and organized labor. FDR knew that his progressive base would publicly protest anything short of radical reform; to date, Obama has no such fears. Obama Acts out of Principle, Not Expediency Activists are also reluctant to challenge Obama because they believe he acts out of principle. Unlike Bill Clinton, who brought in Dick Morris to promote political expedient issues like school uniforms, and who ended the federal welfare entitlement to ensure an easy re-election, Obama’s non-progressive actions are perceived as reflecting his true views. While nobody becomes President, or U.S. Senator, without understanding political expediency, this assessment rings true. Obama appears to truly believe escalating war in Afghanistan is in our nation’s best interest, and that passage of any health reform measure that increases coverage - with or without a public option - represents transformational change. But Obama’s motives are irrelevant. If activists work to elect politicians, and then do not hold them accountable because of their heartfelt beliefs, then forget about seeking progressive change through elections. Psychological Investment The third explanation for activists giving Obama a pass is the extraordinary psychological investment so many activists have made in the success of the Obama Presidency. After working day and night for months to elect Obama, it is not easy to accept that he is not the President you thought he would be. And committed Obama backers are not about to reach this conclusion in the first year, and when the ultimate outcome of health care and other priorities remains up in the air. And considering that there are not other progressive leaders to step in should Obama go south, activists desperately need Obama to be the progressive leader they thought they elected. Such psychological and emotional factors make the lack of public dissent understandable to date. But once the health care bill is finalized, activists may soon have to come to terms with political reality, and begin publicly demanding that Obama’s actions match his campaign themes. Low Expectations Finally, many seasoned activists had low expectations for the new President’s ability to bring major change. This explains why the laundry list of Obama improvements over Bush are framed as historic progressive achievements, while the President’s failure to pass nearly all of the central components of his campaign platform is attributed to institutional forces rather than strategic shortcomings or a lack of will. But one wonders about Obama’s role in reducing activists’ expectations. When I interviewed SEIU President Andy Stern last March, he envisioned that two of his union’s top three priorities - health care reform and the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) - would pass in 2009 and that comprehensive immigration reform might squeeze in this year as well. Stern joked that so much of the Obama agenda would pass in the first year that there would not be a lot left for the rest of his term. Stern’s high expectations were not unusual. In those days, we were told that Presidents should address the hardest issues in the first year, because it gets tougher when mid-term elections approach. Instead, immigrant families spent 2009 facing job losses and deportation, as the ruthless policies of the Bush era largely continued. While Obama has promised action on legalization of undocumented immigrants in 2010, EFCA is barely even mentioned these days, and there is no current schedule for its consideration. And real health care reform, labor’s top priority, remains on life support. Undermining Progressive Change The most important idea I hoped readers of The Activist’s Handbook would learn is that activists must hold the progressive politicians they elect accountable. Using the first two years of the Clinton-Gore Administration as a classic example, I showed how activists were so fearful of losing “access” and potential support on “their” agendas that they allowed the first Democratic President in twelve years to break his campaign commitments and destroy any prospects for progressive change. And how did the base respond to activists’ failure to hold Clinton accountable? Democrats stayed home in the 1994 elections, handing control of the House of Representative to the Republicans and shifting the nation rightward for nearly fifteen years. Many of the excuses for not holding Clinton accountable are now being made regarding Barack Obama. But those who believe that fear of a Palin Planet will get Democrats to the polls in 2010 are wrong, as scare tactics will not overcome a pervasive sense that the Democrats did not deliver on their pledge to bring “Change We Can Believe In” starting in 2009. Fortunately, President Obama still has time to deliver for his base. But this will require activists and constituency groups to ramp up public demands for such a course, rather than thinking they are helping the progressive cause by making excuses for a president whose inspirational words about social transformation have not been matched by actions. Randy Shaw is also the author of Beyond the Fields: Cesar Chavez, the UFW and the Struggle for Justice in the 21st Century More on Barack Obama

See more here:
Randy Shaw: Activists Are Giving Obama a Pass

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he enjoyed Sarah Palin’s book and thought the former Alaska Governor, who he helped thrust into the national spotlight, had an important role to play in the Republican Party’s future. Asked about his pick for vice presidential candidate during an appearance on “Meet the Press,” the Arizona Republican sounded more like an adoring father than a man frightened by his own creation. “I think that Sarah Palin has earned herself a very big place in the Republican political scene,” McCain said. “I’m proud of her. I am entertained every time I see these people attack her, and attack her and attack her. ‘She’s irrelevant!’ — but they continue to attack her. “We had a wonderful relationship, Todd [Palin], Sarah and I,” McCain added. “I just saw her recently. And I’m very proud of her. And we need a vigorous discussion and debate in the Republican Party. She’s going to be a big part of that discussion and debate in the future.” It was a gracious bit of praise from the senator. Palin’s memoir, “Going Rogue,” contains blistering rebukes of McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign and more than a handful of swipes at the senator’s top aides. Asked about this portrayal during his Sunday show appearance, McCain smiled and ducked. “You thought her book was fair?” asked host David Gregory. “Oh sure, yeah,” said McCain. “I enjoyed her book.” Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on John McCain

Here is the original post: 
McCain: ‘I’m Proud Of’ Palin, Thought Book Was Fair

Did Sarah Palin leave Hawaii because there were too many Asians? In the New Yorker review of “Going Rogue,” Sam Tanenhaus writes that Palin’s father suggested as much to the reporters who wrote ” Sarah From Alaska .” The account contradicts the former Alaska governor’s own description of her reasons for leaving college in Hawaii after only one semester. Palin, though notoriously ill-traveled outside the United States, did journey far to the first of the four colleges she attended, in Hawaii. She and a friend who went with her lasted only one semester. “Hawaii was a little too perfect,” Palin writes. “Perpetual sunshine isn’t necessarily conducive to serious academics for eighteen-year-old Alaska girls.” Perhaps not. But Palin’s father, Chuck Heath, gave a different account to Conroy and Walshe. According to him, the presence of so many Asians and Pacific Islanders made her uncomfortable: “They were a minority type thing and it wasn’t glamorous, so she came home.” In any case, Palin reports that she much preferred her last stop, the University of Idaho, “because it was much like Alaska yet still ‘Outside.’ ” The passage was first flagged by Issac Chotiner at The New Republic , who wondered why it hadn’t gotten any media attention. Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter! More on Bestsellers

Read more: 
Palin’s Father: She Left Hawaii Because Asians Made Her Uncomfortable

WASHINGTON — Sarah Palin poked fun at herself in a speech to journalists Saturday night, drawing laughter when she announced she “came down from my hotel room and I could see the Russian Embassy.” The 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate also joked that she had orginally thought of titling her book “How To Look Like a Million Bucks For Only $150,000″ before settling on “Going Rogue.” In one of the controversies surrounding her candidacy, the campaign spent about $150,000 on her wardrobe. Palin was the Republican speaker at the winter dinner of the Gridiron Club, an organization of Washington-based journalists. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., represented the Democrats. Palin targeted her hosts, Democrats and Sen. John McCain’s campaign staff, as well as herself. If the election had turned out differently, she said, “I could be the one overseeing the signing of bailout checks and Vice President Biden could be on the road selling his book, ‘Going Rogaine.’” Biden has sparse hair. The crack about seeing the Russian Embassy from her hotel referred to Palin having told an interviewer during last year’s campaign that her qualifications for high office included that “you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.” As for her hosts, she said she was glad to be appearing before an elite audience of leading intellectuals, “or as I like to call it, a death panel.” McCain’s campaign staff also came in for a barb from the former Alaska governor when she said she is touring the country by bus as she sells her book. “The view is so much better from inside the bus than under it,” she said, referring to the poisonous relations between her and some of the McCain campaign staff. Focusing on criticism she has received from Steve Schmidt, a senior strategist in McCain’s presidential campaign, she said, “If I need a bald campaign manager I guess I’m left with James Carville,” a Democrat. In her book, she wrote that Schmidt felt she wasn’t prepared enough on policy matters and even wondered if she was suffering from postpartum depression following the April 2008 birth of her son Trig, who has Down syndrome. Palin, who resigned as governor following her vice presidential campaign, is a potential contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. In his remarks, Frank poked fun at new media like Twitter and said he hoped for newspapers to make a recovery. “Maybe I lack intellectual curiosity, but I’m not that interested in what Claire McCaskill has for lunch,” said Frank. McCaskill is one of the most avid users of Twitter in Congress. More on Sarah Palin

See original here: 
Gridiron Dinner 2009: Palin Comes For Russian Embassy, Barney Frank Talks About Twitter

In a video recorded on November 30, 2009 and released Friday by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, former half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin says that America must seek rededicate itself to God and “seek his will” to solve “the great challenges” we face today. Watch the craziness unfold: To Sarah Palin, freedom means the freedom to ignore the First Amendment, the freedom to unite church and state, and the freedom to impose her religious fanaticism throughout America and the world. In short, like so much else in her life, Sarah Palin has absolutely no idea in hell what freedom really is or what it really means. She does understand one thing, however. Sarah Palin isn’t running for Commander-in-Chief in 2012. She’s running to be Cleric-in-Chief.

Read the rest here: 
Palin: America must "seek God’s hand of protection"

Since the November 17 release of former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin’s autobiography, Going Rogue , I have been fascinated by the crowds and controversy that have followed the author at every appearance on her current publicity tour. Now that she is again a private citizen after being a local and state office-holder and former U.S. vice presidential candidate, I have also been intrigued by her unique challenge to recapture her personal brand as a potential future force multiplier. In the interest of full disclosure, I need to make it clear that I do not represent, nor have ever met Gov. Palin - and have not read her book. Like most Americans, all I know about her is from media reports. In fact, throughout my career, I have chosen to stay neutral and non-partisan, following the lead of several high-profile ministry clients who have remained faithful to their calling by intentionally and diligently maintaining a pastoral, rather than political influence. But as she rolled into the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metroplex yesterday to whistle-stop at a local bookstore near my home, I further pondered whether the tsunami of response to her new book reflects whether she has struck a nerve or is creating a wave? Her Zeitgeist role appears to have morphed into an issues watershed, signaling a deeper dynamic and division in our country that transcends faith, politics — and even the liberal-conservative continuum. At the end of the day, an individual’s reaction to Gov. Palin says more about that person’s worldview than any of these other labels and qualifiers. If indeed Gov. Palin is trying to solidify a foundational brand for the future, the title of her memoir seems to be counter-intuitive. The dictionary definition of “rogue” includes,”a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel;” and the adjective forms are not much more suitable, such as “no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; deviating, renegade.” With a denotation conveying such negative baggage, no doubt she is leveraging the political connotation of the word, namely a maverick - a frequent metaphor of the Republican presidential campaign. Reclaiming the Dialogue - Image or Identity? It is axiomatic in today’s ever-changing media culture, that when the dialogue starts to go the other way, it is hard to get it back, which is a fitting portrayal of the challenges Gov. Palin has faced ever since her sudden debut on the national stage. Beyond the obvious and inevitable self-inflicted posturing problems - including depth perception — over the ensuing 16 months, it appears she has had to overcome two handicaps not of her making. First, was a weekly caricature on Saturday Night Live (SNL), as Tina Fey’s masterful portrayal defined her for many - especially younger audiences - and further marginalized her cultural irrelevance, beginning with the first, “I can see Russia from my house!” The second was as a candidate . In her recent author interviews, Gov. Palin alleges that the campaign crafted her image into what they wanted or needed her to be, by telling her what to wear, how to think and what to say in accordance to their understanding of voter preference. As a result of this dual wholesale messaging, arguably the governor did not lose the national dialogue momentum, but rather never had opportunity to initiate it beyond inaccurate or misrepresentative third party characterizations. As the old P.R. adage states, “It’s not that people don’t know so much, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” Reframing the picture from perception to reality of a public persona with integrity like Gov. Palin requires projecting an identity that already exists — not manufacturing an image — emphasizing positive aspects of her influence and impact. Gov. Palin’s “reloading, not recreating” barnstorming tour appears intended to showcase retail message points to allow the American people to directly observe her true character , which observably includes a dynamic and organic dimension of faith. In that context, her talk show secret weapon seems likely to be her authenticity and transparency. In interview after interview, she has revealed a charming - perhaps disarming - personality, exuding a graceful, winsome confidence that puts even detractors at ease and ardent adversaries on their heels. This was perhaps best illustrated in Gov. Palin’s initial pre-taped interview for Oprah . At the top of the program, Oprah Winfrey — who had endorsed fellow Chicagoan Barack Obama in the campaign — gave her guest a stiff, conflicted hug, wrapping one arm around her back while holding up the other hand and pushing her away. But as the program cut away for the first commercial break, the host reached across and grabbed the governor’s hand in a friendly, almost “hey girlfriend” gesture. As a public relations practitioner and counselor, I regularly have opportunity to provide media representation and brand positioning for individuals and organizations at the intersection of faith and culture. In that context, a national religion writer recently asked me whether the launch of Going Rogue and resulting media appearances will establish Gov. Palin as a future Christian leader, in addition to being a political force - or force of nature? But that begs a preliminary question, “What is a Christian leader?” Our firm currently represents several women who definitely qualify for that title, including Anne Graham Lotz, Joni Eareckson Tada and Jill Briscoe — each of whom are identified by their faith, which in turn frames the ministries they lead as their life’s work. Their primary focus is equipping and empowering the spiritual lives of their constituencies, encouraging them to further to make a difference in our world. Conversely, Gov. Palin’s faith informs her worldview, which subsequently influences her politics. She is a politician who models Christian behavior and values to culture and practices faith in action through a message that resonates with people of faith, including the importance of family and the culture of life. So who are these people standing in line to buy Gov. Palin’s book? Obviously, they include individuals who don’t watch SNL or working moms who have to put their kids to bed by 8 p.m., for whom she is an inspiration for juggling home and career. Contrary to what talk show hosts and pundits on both sides of the increasingly polarized media debate would lead us to believe, these people are neither right nor wrong - they just are — and their ranks seem to be growing. Perhaps the better query would be, “Does Sarah Palin represent principle or agent in today’s cultural divide?” -30- Larry Ross is president of A. Larry Ross Communications, a full-service public relations agency that provides cross-over media liaison emanating from or targeted to the Christian market. With more than 33 years’ experience influencing public opinion, Mr. Ross’ mission is to “restore faith in media,” by providing Christian messages relevance and meaning in mainstream media.

See the original post: 
Larry Ross: Is Sarah Palin ‘Going Rogue’ at the Intersection of Culture and Faith or Politics?

Hey, you might recall The Great Schlep from last year, with Sarah Silverman getting the vote out. Its co-founder (Ari Wallach) is rapidly building something similar for health insurance reform. I know he needs help in areas like web, video, content etc. If you are interested in helping you can reach him via:  ari@ariwallach.com I do think we need stuff like this to counter the efforts of astroturfers and front groups who don’t want everyone to have health care. More on Health Care

View original post here:
Craig Newmark: The Great Schlep 2: Health Care Edition

The inaugural # DowningTweet party , like every tweet-up, was an eclectic mix. On one sofa, people from fashion and the arts chat to Mums bloggers and charity workers while R&B singing sensation @ Beverleyknight tunes up. On another, student activists introduce themselves to web entrepreneurs and comedians while technology correspondents try to work out how to sum it up in 140 characters. What brought them all together was a desire to do something to stop the scandal of a woman dying every minute of every day from pregnancy or childbirth-related complications around the world — mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. I have written for HuffPost before about my involvement with the www.millionmums.org campaign and @ WRAGlobal , who tweet out the maternal mortality campaign messages to reach grassroots members in 143 countries. The campaign has real momentum now and # DowningTweet was the latest idea to raise awareness about all these needless deaths, and how simple it is to stop them. I have tweeted for the last 9 months about the causes I am most passionate about and shared with many other Twitter followers what is happening in both my and their lives. I love the humour on Twitter, I love the lack of cynicism, and I love the genuine engagement with many people. The twitter community is full of great people from all walks of life who want to make a difference and they are exactly the kind of audience www.millionmums.org is trying to reach. @ Biz (Biz Stone), who has been travelling a lot as the Co-founder of Twitter, Inc recently came to London — the city with the greatest number of users anywhere on the planet. He always makes the point that twitter is designed both for the greatest reach possible and for local news to be conveyed to local people. So many of the people with the greatest popularity — like @ queenrania and @ stephenfry — are using the platform for social good and making connections that probably would never have happened any other way. I love that I can be friends with @ corybooker , the Mayor of Newark, New Jersey who has given the maternal mortality campaign a big Shout Out, as well as with people like @ amanda (Amanda Rose) who is doing such amazing things with Twestivals. It is Twitter that has brought us together. @ BenjaminCohen , the Technology Correspondent of the UK’s @ channel4news posed the question to me at #DowningTweet about whether my followers come because I am married to Gordon, the British Prime Minister, and share details of my day or because of the strong campaigning message of www.millionmums.org . You would have to ask my followers, but I imagine the answer is a bit of both. What is interesting is the many hats that people wear in their Twittering — their own professional life, their personal thoughts, their causes and their passions. Twitter — in only 140 characters each time — has the space and capacity to accommodate it all. It is always interesting though to meet the people behind the Tweets. I’ve always said Downing Street is a public building without public access so Gordon and I have been determined to throw open the doors to people from all over Britain who are working to make the world better. We do regular tours and charity receptions and events and meetings at Downing Street and it seemed a natural next step to invite some of the country’s most enthusiastic tweeters to visit us at home. Gordon was as delighted as I was to meet in person some of the people whose online campaigns we’ve followed and supported . I was rather nervous beforehand — this felt like unchartered territory for me no matter how many receptions I have hosted before. But as soon as the first person bounced in and said ‘thanks for the invite @sarahbrown10!’ I knew this was a crowd that spoke my language and really wanted to help. @ BeverleyKnight sang beautifully and the crowd seemed to enjoy the festive mince pies made with little pastry birds on top ( tweetie pies ?). I’m pretty sure it was the first time Downing Street has had a temporary tattoo parlour too — for guests to show their support for better maternal health with ‘I love my Mum’ transfers). This Christmas I hope everyone is showing their Mum how much they love her, and that they will have a little time to spare to support all those Mums whose pregnancy puts their health and life at risk. Mums are the greatest and if #DowningTweet has helped www.millionmums.org even a little bit I’m sure it’ll only be a matter of time before Number 10 plays host to #downingtweet:thesequel. Sarah Brown tweets at www.twitter.com/sarahbrown10 and occasionally blogs at www.number10.gov.uk where she lives with her husband British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and their two young sons. She is the Global Patron of the White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood which campaigns for Millennium Development Goal 5 to reduce maternal mortality by 75% by 2015. For latest news and information from Downing Street visit: http://www.number10.gov.uk . More on Twitter

Read the original:
Sarah Brown: Downing Tweet Parties to Support Maternal Mortality Campaign

The Gridiron Club is holding it’s winter dinner this Saturday and have a real odd couple as the featured speakers: Ms. Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate under Senator John McCain of Arizona last year, is one of two guests speakers, who in years past were invited to provide typically humorous speeches. The other speaker this year is Representative Barney Frank, the liberal Democrat from Massachusetts. It’s difficult to imagine two people who have more diametrically opposed view of the world (not to mention personalities and senses of humor). All the ingredients for an absorbing evening of theater and politics. But don’t break out the popcorn: Except these dinners are strictly off-the-record. Nothing that happens is supposed to leave the room — though with journalists being journalists, and Washington being Washington, it’s a good bet that you’ll be hearing something about this by Sunday morning. Perhaps Ms. Palin will break the news and boast of her appearance at the dinner to her Twitter followers. Personally, I’d rather hear Barney Frank’s take on it.

View original post here: 
Talk About Strange Bedfellows

On the heels of the controversial story about emails and data stolen by hackers from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, it has now been revealed that individuals posing as network technicians recently attempted to infiltrate another climate data center operated by the Government of Canada. According to sources at the University of Victoria, two people claiming to be network computer technicians presented themselves at the headquarters of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis and tried to gain access to the data servers. When challenged by an employee, the two individuals hastily left. The timing of this attempted break-in is very suspicious given that it occurred so closely on the heels of the release of hacked emails and data from a similar facility housed at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. The story was also verified by a UVIC spokesperson in an interview yesterday with the National Post. “This is disturbing news and it shows that there is an organized criminal campaign that is going to great lengths to infiltrate secure facilities and steal private data,” said Jim Hoggan, author of the new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming . “We don’t know who is behind these criminal acts, but we hope they will eventually be unmasked by police. In the meantime, what we do know is that the individuals and organizations that quickly launched an online PR campaign to misrepresent the content of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia are part of a decades-long confusion campaign to delay government action on the issue.” The goal of this campaign, which began around the time of the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations, was to assemble a group of like-minded “free-market” think tanks and pseudo-science experts that would call into question the scientific research on climate change, create doubt in the minds of the public and politicians, and effectively delay the introduction of clean energy policies in the United States and elsewhere. It is no coincidence that the groups publicizing the University of East Anglia email hacking story also have a long history of taking money from oil and coal companies to attack the conclusions made by climate scientists. Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow: owns and operate ClimateDepot.com, which has been a main clearinghouse for the right-wing climategate echo chamber. ClimateDepot.com is managed by Marc Morano, former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe. CFACT has received grants from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and well-known right-wing foundations like the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. American Enterprise Institute: Offered to pay “experts” $10,000 to write papers that countered the IPCC reports. AEI has received close to half a million from oil-giant ExxonMobil, former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI’s board of directors. Media Research Center: run by Brett Bozell, this group also operates the popular right-wing blog, Newsbusters.org. The Media Research Center has received over $257,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998. Cato Institute: Is the main front group for the most prolific climate denier, Patrick Michaels . Cato is the second largest recipient of funding the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States). Heartland Institute: Organizes a “denier conference” every year for the past three years. Used to receive funding from ExxonMobil, still recieve grants from tobacco companies and are also a major recipient of grants from the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States). Heritage Foundation: Heritage is massive and operates on about $50 million a year. They have received significant funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies. National Center for Policy Analysis: the NCPA is a small, but very vocal Dallas, Texas-based freemarket think tank and has received over $540,900 from oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998. Competitive Enterprise Institute: The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, especially after their infamous set of television ads with the tag line “C02, We Call it Life.” Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil. Check out Brad Johnson’s post on the Wonk Room for his take: Watergate Redux: Break-ins Reported At Another Top Climate Research Center More on Climate Change

See more here: 
Kevin Grandia: Breaking:Hackers attempt to access Canadian government Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis

New York, New York, you broke our heart this week. That’s right. You smashed it into a million pieces. Like any long-term relationship where the spooning at night has become as natural as the snoring later, it took us a couple of days to fully assess the damage. Hell, who are we kidding? It took a couple of days to realize you were actually even serious . We thought we were on the road to marriage. You were bright. You were beautiful. You were worldly. You were sophisticated. You had a way of welcoming us all, especially those of us who love New York passionately, but will never be New Yorkers, whatever our point of origin. You were everything we’d ever dreamed of. We were expecting to take it to the next level, make a real commitment. Grow old together. We’d even welcomed your ecclectic family of outlying boroughs, towns, and cities. They were mispacha . They were Famiglia. They had us at the “NY” before the zip code, because they made us think of you. We had the ring in our pocket, New York, but you had other plans. This past Wednesday, your state senate defeated the marriage equality bill by a margin of 24-38. It wasn’t even close. And later, when our friends asked us if we didn’t see it coming, we looked at them blankly, with tears in our eyes, and say, “No, we really didn’t. We seriously thought we were good together.” Did we take you for granted? Is that it? Come on, New York. This isn’t you. You’re better than that. In the heart-stopping grief following 9/11, the world stood in awe of the way you pulled together as a city. You bore your grief with such stoic grace. Later, while flyover state preachers and opportunistic Washington politicians at the highest levels picked the gristle from their teeth and sniffed the wind for oil, blood, and billions, perfectly content to leverage your tragedy for their various economic, religious, military, and political agendas, you were already getting on with your life with dignity. Later still, while late-night television carpetbaggers hawked everything from Ground Zero graveyard dirt to “9/11 commemorative coins,” and necon Baba Yaga Ann Coulter hit a home run in the cruelty World Series by mocking 9/11 widows as “enjoying their husbands’ deaths,” you were inviolable. There are so many reasons to love you, New York, besides the obvious ones. For example, because a snowstorm in February in Central Park can be as beautiful as those autumn days when the air tastes like it was uncorked, poured from a champagne bottle, and the light in the Village on those fall afternoons rivals Paris and makes you want to be in love. Because after a time, the constant susurration of traffic and car horns affects us like the sound of waves on a beach at night. Because of the scent of the roasted chestnuts from the street vendors’ carts tells visitors that they’re “back home” in New York again. Because New Yorkers are expected to be rude and standoffish, but actually aren’t. Because New York is about museums, galleries, theaters, and libraries, not megachurches. Because, in New York, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine disgraced beauty queen, home-video goodtime gal, and avatar of traditional Christian morality, Carrie Prejean, being given a thong-wedgie by gaunt poetesses, or intellectuals in dark turtlenecks, in the locker room at the New School the minute she opened her yap about “opposite marriage,” because in New York it takes more than a pair of pageant-bought fake breasts, a fake tan, and a mean streak, to be any kind of success. Because New York is where smart people come to make a big life, not where stupid people go to become famous. Because New York is not La Jolla. Because the Statue of Liberty has been a beacon of hope and freedom for generations of European immigrants who dreamed of a place where they could be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and raise their families with dignity, in the same spirit that their LGBT grandchildren and great-grandchildren do today, as they pursue the right to legal recognition of their families through equal marriage. For many of them (including my maternal grandparents) that place was New York State. For the luckiest of them, it was Manhattan itself. Because over the course of your history, the multicultural, multinational, multiethnic, tributaries that have flowed into New York have formed one of the most vibrant and exciting cities on earth, and one whose citizens have somehow found a way to get along, as New Yorkers. Because we believe that the true spirit of New York was articulated in the powerful, righteous, moral eloquence of Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson in the speech she gave about how her gay brother being forced to live and die in France because of the religious intolerance within his own family. Because we don’t believe that the true spirit of New York was articulated in the craven pandering of Queens Senator Hiram Monserrate, who voted against equal marriage for LGBT couples, and was later involved in an altercation with his girlfriend that required more than 20 stitches over her left eye (and the senator himself sentenced to 3 years probation for assault) but left marriage in New York “traditional,” ie: safely out of the hands of loving gay and lesbian couples seeking equal recognition for their families under the law. And among the reasons we love New York is this one. We know that the best of you are appalled by what happened this week. We know you’ll do a Google search for the names of the senators who voted against equal marriage for their fellow New Yorkers— your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and friends. We know you’ll remember them in the midterm elections, and we know you’ll remind them of what they did. We know you’ll tell them you’d like your reputation back. You’re the New Jerusalem, the shining city on the hill. If the rest of the country holds you to a higher standard on this issue, and feels this loss of yours personally, it’s because, throughout history, you’ve been where some of the best and the brightest have gone to try make the American dream something other than just a dream. You’re New York, for God’s sake. Don’t let NOM’s Maggie Gallagher use you, as she already has, to threaten other enlightened, pro-equality states come election time, like some toxic birthday clown with fistful of black balloons, scaring children at the party. You’re a succulent apple, New York. Seriously. You’re the best we ever had. You complete us. Let’s see if we can move forward together. It’s not worth letting this get between us just so Sarah Palin can feel like you’re finally part of “the real America.” More on Gay Marriage

Go here to read the rest:
Michael Rowe: Why We (Still) Love New York

It’s weird, but there’s something in the popular culture lately that seems to have it out for Christmas. Most of the holiday movies are now about how awful and embarrassing everyone’s family is and what a drag it is to have to visit them. I recently went on Pandora.com and dialed up a mix of contemporary holiday music. I was psyched when up popped a roster of cool artists like Aimee Mann, Dave Mathews, Sting and Sarah McLachlan. Then it started playing. It was the most depressing mix I’d ever heard in my life. Nothing but bleak revisionist versions of old favorites. It really bugged me. Trust me, I know there will never be peace on Earth. I get that “Goodwill toward men” is a distant and doubtful goal, but I do appreciate the sentiment. It’s at least worth thinking about once a year. Plus, it bugs me how people tend to become so self-consumed at the holidays; choosing this particular time to drudge up all their disappointments and doubts. It’s easy to forget this is supposed to be the season of giving. I was reminded of this last year when my dry cleaner and I became players in an odd little drama. I’m not a guy who owns a lot of clothing so when the holiday party season arrives, my dry cleaner and I see a lot of each other. Pretty much every week, I manage to spill or smear something on one of the two decent outfits I own. Fortunately, my dry cleaner (a cheerful Korean lady, appropriately-enough named “Sunny”) manages to keep me looking presentable. Although Sunny always seems to understand everything I say to her, I don’t always fully grasp what she is saying in return. Usually this isn’t such a big deal since we are primarily discussing the location of stains. However, last year as I was dropping off my navy blue blazer, she casually asked if I had gotten my “rent bush” yet. Since I had no idea what a “rent bush” was, I pretended like I hadn’t heard the question and drew Sunny’s attention back to the artichoke dip on my lapel. A week later, she again peered over her glasses and cheerfully inquired, “You no want rent bush?” In my mind, I pictured some kind of miniature Korean Christmas shrub. “No,” I said, smiling awkwardly. “Not this year.” On Christmas Eve, when I stopped in to pick up my grey wool pants, she again asked about the mysterious “rent bush,” but this time her tone seemed shy and a bit sad. Overcome with guilt, I decided to fess up. “I’m sorry, Sunny,” I said. “I don’t know what a ‘rent bush’ is.” Suddenly, her face lit up. Giggling like a schoolgirl, she quickly reached under the counter and retrieved a small inexpensive lint brush with a red bow tied around the handle. “May Krees-mahs!” she shouted as she proudly placed it in my hand. “For all my special customer!” I’m sure I probably got several very nice gifts last year, but the only one I remember is my “rent bush.” I used it all year. Given how uncertain everything is looking these days, this seems like a good time to point out that the holidays weren’t created to stress us out or make us feel like crap. They are not on the calendar to remind us that we are still single or make us wish we got along better with our families. The goal isn’t really to run from store to store trying to find that perfect gift for each of our loved ones; that special something that might make them “happy” (at least for a little while). Lately, I’ve been thinking that the best thing we can give each other is our attention, even if it’s just for a moment. All any of us really wants or needs is to be acknowledged by the other; to be singled out; to know that we show up on the radar; that we are someone’s “special customer.” In my experience, feeling “happy” rarely lasts more than a few days, while feeling “appreciated” can sometimes last until Spring. So my dear readers, although I’m unable to send you each your very own “rent bush,” I don’t want this chance to slip by without wishing you all a very happy (enter appropriate holiday here) followed by a bountiful New Year filled with recognizable love, useful lessons and a truckload of good old fashioned luck. Copyright 2009 Quitcher-Bitchyn Entertainment, Inc. www.daviddeanbottrell.com David Dean Bottrell is an actor (”Boston Legal”) and screenwriter (”Kingdom Come”) who writes a weekly blog about being strangely middle-class in Hollywood at www.partsandlabor.tv More on Christmas

See the rest here:
David Dean Bottrell: Sunny and the Rent Bush

While many are pondering what exactly Sarah Pallin’s approving radio comments on the birther issue and her subsequent “clarification” mean to her possible 2012 run, there is a more fundamental question: what does this bode for our democracy? The answer is this is yet another indicator that extreme is the new mainstream. In a radio interview on the conservative Rusty Humphries show yesterday, the former 2008 Vice Presidential Republican candidate answered a question about her possibly using the President’s birth certificate as an issue if she ran again for office:  “I think the public rightfully is still making it [the President’s birth certificate] an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers.” She continued: “I think it’s a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records — all of that is fair game” She later deftly stated on Facebook that she never directly asked the President to produce his birth certificate or suggest that he was not born in the country. True, she only inferred it, when she could have done what both her running mate, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Ann Coulter all did—reject the lie. Her careful elevation of a foundational conspiracy theory used by extremists to demonize the President as being everything from an illegitimate imposter to high office to a secret radical Jihadist Trojan horse warrants unequivocal condemnation and study from across the political spectrum—just as the horrendous anti-Bush 9/11 truthers do. If you think that these detrimental wacky theories don’t have traction in this troubled decade of ours look at some recent polling numbers, or alternatively read the comments section that will invariably appear below this post. In a September analysis Public Policy Polling stated, “Is extremism becoming mainstream in 21st century American politics? Our latest national poll would seem to say yes- 35% [of] voters in the country either think that Barack Obama was not born in the United States or that George W. Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur so that we could go to war in the Middle East.” Both sides of the political spectrum offer a disturbing picture. One quarter of Democrats think President Bush let 9/11 happen so he could go to war, while a plurality, 42% of Republicans believe the current president was not born in the United States. If that’s not bad enough 10% of voters say that President Obama is the “anti-Christ” with another 11% not sure. Its no wonder that various preachers have outrageously made headlines by publicly praying for the President’s death. President Bush fairs slightly better with only 8% conclusively saying he is in fact the anti-Christ, and another 11% unsure. And here I thought the anti-Christ had to be Gay and (partially) Jewish. If these Biblical “scholars” had thrown in “California resident” I would have advised Adam Lambert to turn down singing at any future Pallin fundraisers. One of the key things our Center analyzes is how the use of tactical falsehoods can create a bridge from the extreme into the mainstream. There are important ramifications at stake here. There is nothing illegitimate about spotlighting a candidate’s views, qualifications, associations, experience, judgment or integrity. However, when clear broad falsehoods become a key currency to delegitimize and demonize institutions and leaders democracy suffers. First, on a micro level, it relieves the accuser of engaging in an actual debate on real substantive issues as well as clearly articulating their own concrete solutions. As analyst Chip Berlet notes, “ Conspiracism is neither a healthy expression of skepticism nor a valid form of criticism; rather it is a belief system that refuses to obey the rules of logic.” It also does something more damaging, but somewhat subtle on a macro level. These broad conspiracy theories loop together to provide a justification for people to reject not merely candidates or single positions, but the elemental processes and institutions of our pluralistic democracy. At their extreme a sliver of those who angrily opt out of these processes and institutions pose a risk of violence to our country because they view these leaders and pillars not as guarantors of freedom, but rather as direct threats to liberty. Oftentimes, bigots will weave their own racial, religious, or sexual orientation prejudices into a folklore that relies upon conspiracy theories. There are several things worth noting. First, conspiracy theories exploit real and sincere fears and disagreements that many mainstream people have about actual leaders, policies, events, trends and abuses of authority. Second, while these theories are often intertwined with a small element of truth, factual gaps are filled with a much larger dose of emotion and wild conjecture. Third, they are usually part of a much more broad tactical assault on leaders and institutions. These theorists offer a convenient tool to attract mainstream converts by appealing to their fears, feelings of disenfranchisement, prejudices and the lure of a simple answer to complex circumstances. Governor Pallin’s statements are particularly disturbing because they constitute a tacit celebrity endorsement of conspiracies by a former officeholder who is viewed as a legitimate political player.  John McCain demonstrated a different approach as his campaign mostly rejected the overt use of the birth certificate and related “issues.” During a rally in Minnesota he took the microphone back from a supporter who said she couldn’t trust Barack Obama because he was an “Arab.” McCain responded , “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign’s all about. He’s not [an Arab].” Notwithstanding, the insulting and regrettable inference that Arabs can’t be citizens and family men, McCain should at least be recognized for his awkward attempt to reject some conspiracy theories. Whatever, you want to say about her parsing of words, Pallin knows her base—82% of those who say that President Obama is the anti-Christ have a favorable opinion of the former Governor.   More on Sarah Palin

See the original post here: 
Brian Levin, J.D.: Sarah’s Dance With Conspiracists

Sarah Palin declared on Thursday that the legitimacy of President Obama’s birth certificate is “rightfully” an issue with the American public, and that it is “fair game” for politicians to question Obama’s citizenship. The comments came during an interview with conservative radio host Rusty Humphries, who asked Palin whether she planned to “make the birth certificate an issue” if she runs for president in 2012. “I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue,” Palin said. “I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers.” Humphries — who began the interview with a rendition of the song “Sarah, Queen Of The Wild Frontier” — followed up: “Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?” “I think it’s a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game,” Palin responded, adding that “the McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don’t think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we’re seeing manifest in the administration.” Palin later referenced “that weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son, and a lot of people that went ‘Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he’s your kid,’ which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one.” WATCH: FactCheck.org has done the most comprehensive debunking of the various conspiracy theories related to Obama’s citizenship. Here is their bottom line: In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is “fake.” We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said. (H/T Ben Smith and Jed Lewison ) More on Barack Obama

More here: 
Sarah Palin Goes ‘Birther’: Obama Birth Certificate ‘A Fair Question’ (VIDEO)

You can mark down Dec. 3, 2009 as the day Sarah Palin reached her kookiest extreme, at least until she outdoes herself again (h/t: Ben Smith ): Transcript:    HUMPHRIES: Sarah Palin here on the Rusty Humphries Show. One of the questions Jason asks is would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?    PALIN: I think the public rightly is still making it an issue. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t know if I would have to bother to make it an issue because I think there are enough members of the electorate that still want answers.    HUMPHRIES: Do you think it’s a fair question to be looking at?    PALIN: I think it’s a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game. You know, I’ve got to tell you too, I think our campaign, the McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that area. We didn’t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don’t think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we’re seeing manifest in the administration.    HUMPHRIES: I mean, truly if your past is fair game and your kids are fair game, certainly Obama’s past should be. I mean, we want to treat men and women equally, right?    PALIN: Hey, you know, that’s a great point. And that weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn’t my real son, and a lot of people that went “Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he’s your kid,” which we have done,  but yeah, so maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one. [Note: Final sentence of transcript edited for accuracy.] You just gotta’ love Sarah Palin. She’s a neverending fountain of crazy. Hopefully it plays well in the 2012 G.O.P. primary because Democrats couldn’t get a sweeter gift than the former half-term governor of Alaska as the Republican nominee. p.s.: Special note for Sarah: in case you hadn’t heard, President Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen , no matter what Orly Taitz says.

View original post here: 
Palin goes birther

Joe Scarborough could be a great Republican presidential candidate in 2012, according to Republican strategist and media adviser Mark McKinnon. McKinnon appeared on Hardball With Chris Matthews Wednesday to talk about Mike Huckabee’s viability as a candidate in the 2012 presidential race in the wake of Sunday’s shootings . After arguing that Huckabee could not and would not win the presidency, McKinnon floated the names of Republican leaders who he believes could compete against President Obama in 2012. Joe Scarborough, the host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe , is one of McKinnon’s top picks. Before he was on TV, Scarborough was in Congress, representing Florida’s 1st Congressional District. Scarborough, a Republican, served from 1995-2001. McKinnon argues that Scarborough is an independent thinker with media savvy who can be called a “genuine conservative.” Scarborough, McKinnon says, “appeals to people like me.” “I think there are a lot of Republicans out there that aren’t happy with the prospective field out there. I think he surprises folks with the positions he takes. I think he’s a genuine conservative, but he also takes moderate progressive positions, and he doesn’t just drink the kook-aid on a lot of issues.” MicKinnon wrote a list of the top-10 Republican presidential contenders for 2012. Among McKinnon’s four classifications of “The Unlikely,” “The Improbable,” “The Impossible,” and “The Probable,” MicKinnon listed Scarborough as “Probable.” MicKinnon’s List : 1. Mitt Romney 2. Tim Pawlenty 3. John Thune 4. Mike Huckabee 5. Sarah Palin 6. Newt Gingrich 7. Haley Barbour 8. Rick Santorum 9. Joe Scarborough 10. Mitch Daniels (Long shot: Michele Bachmann) WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for breaking news , world news , and news about the economy During the 2008 presidential election , McKinnon made headlines for exiting Sen. Jon McCain’s campaign staff after the Arizona senator won his party’s nomination. McKinnon admired then-Sen. Barack Obama and said his departure would be best for McCain. More on GOP

Here is the original post: 
Joe Scarborough For President? Mark McKinnon Floats The Idea On Hardball (VIDEO)

I read (and comment) on Gawker on an crackishly regular basis. I’m also inexplicably drawn to the word “awesome” when it appears in a headline as well as backhanded compliments. So there was no way I wasn’t reading “Google Rejects Awesome People So It Doesn’t Hog All of Them.” Apparently, Google VP Bradley Horowitz doesn’t want his company to hire some really talented unemployed people because they “are actually important to have outside of Google…[It's] important that we not hire these guys. It’s better for the ecosystem to have an honest industry, as opposed to aggregating all this talent at Google.” Ryan Tate writes on Gawker that Google is “turning down job prospects for being too awesome.” Well, that explains everything . Clearly the reason I can’t find a better paying job in my chosen field is because if given the opportunity, money, and happiness, the amount of awesome that would be unleashed would be too much awesome to handle. It’s not my scattershot, “Jack of All Trades, Master of Nothing” resume - it’s the boiling cauldron of awesome. It threatens people. It scares people. Better I’m not hired so all that awesome can remain all pent up and sequestered on Long Island, where any amount of awesome is sucked right into the dirt and consumed by the ultragravity that will keep me here until I die. This greedyass island needs all the awesome it can hold onto because it is so lacking and awesomeless. That’s the real reason I haven’t left yet. Long Island needs my awesome. It’s also why I have so much trouble dating. Yup - way too awesome for that too. Why am I really still single? Because I just can’t find anyone who 1. can compete with so much awesome and 2. can meet the same degree of awesome that I have to offer. I could ugly up, dumb down, surrender all the creativity and talent I’ve cultivated over the years. But seriously, it’s really hard to stifle all this awesome. So I remain single. Awesomely single. But all of my own amazing awesomeness aside, this explains so much about what’s happening in pop culture and politics. This is why they’re making a second Chipmunks movie and not something awesome. Because Hollywood doesn’t want to get too awesome, or else people will start having expectations that it will never be able to live up to. Look at what happens to some Oscar winners - they reach their awesome peak then wittle it all away. Or do they? Maybe they just know they won’t ever be that awesome again. Why did Sarah Palin really quit as governor? Because if she’d finished out her term, she would have been an awesome candidate for president in 2012. Guys - Sarah Palin spared us her awesome. We should really thank her. But ending war, curing cancer and AIDS, stopping corruption and crime - it would make for an awesome world. Too awesome. And in such a world, awesome bitches like me would have nothing left to be sarcastic about. More on Sarah Palin

Read the original post: 
Jamie Frevele: Too Awesome for Everything

Sarah Palin, Chiseler Supreme , is at it again . Watch your wallet around this one, my teabaggin’ friends: Sarah Palin Signing Draws Big Crowds in Tempe The rules for the crowd were laid out by a spokesman for Palin’s book tour, who said no personal photos of the 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate were allowed, but attendees could pose with her and buy photos later from a Web site. What. An. A-hole. It’s baseball card/Star Trek convention rules. Like I said a year ago, Chiseler Supreme. And she hasn’t grown a lick since then. For someone trying to escape a reputation for having a Mickey Mouse operation, charging hard workin’ hockey moms for a grip & grin photo Disneyland-style probably isn’t the best idea in the world. But it sure feels like a Sarah Palin idea!

Here is the original post: 
Nice ta meet ya! That’ll be $15.99! Also!

Yesterday, John McCain launched an attack on the health care bill before the Senate, calling it “monstrous” and an example of “Enron accounting.” This may sound like just another of the hysterical, nonsensical, fact-free rants that have become the foundation of the today’s Beck/Palin GOP. But on this point, you have to pay attention to the Senior Senator from Arizona. After all, if anyone knows Enron accounting, it should be John McCain . Sen. John McCain says he opposes the $307 billion farm bill because it would dole out wasteful subsidies, but his chief economic adviser Phil Gramm also wants to stop its proposed regulation of energy futures trading, a market that was famously abused when Enron Corp. manipulated California’s electricity prices in 2001. Who made the Enron loophole possible? That would be the McCain’s BFF and chief economic adviser Phil Gramm. Oh, and Gramm’s wife just happened to be on the board of Enron. In 2008, long after Enron’s escapades in California and elsewhere, McCain was still defending the “black markets” that made the malfeasance possible. If that’s not enough experience with shady accounting, remember that McCain was also one of the Keating Five . How involved was John McCain? McCain and Keating had known each other since 1981 and had become fast friends. Of all the “Keating Five,” it was McCain who really moved into the life of the Lincoln S&L chief. The two men vacationed together multiple times, with the whole McCain clan (babysitter included) heading out for Keating’s private Caribbean property on Keating’s private jet. McCain didn’t think to actually report these trips, or pay for them, until the investigators were breathing down his neck. And McCain took payment in more than just vacations. Keating and other members of Lincoln’s parent company padded McCain’s pockets with $112,000 in campaign contributions. So when John McCain accuses someone of dirty accounting, we should remember that in this area he’s an expert. Either that, or he’s just a guy who has gone through his whole career saying what other people tell him to say, with no understanding of how his actions helped to wreck the economy. And he’s done it more than once. Maybe someone could pose the question the next time McCain gets some air time on a Sunday morning chat fest. Which is it, Senator McCain: clueless dupe or complicit scoundrel? Whatever the answer, it doesn’t diminish his other title — thundering hypocrite.

See the rest here:
If Anyone Would Know Enron Accounting…

Back to our last post, the writer’s strike was settled and our TV show was going back in production. Well, off to work; maybe the restaurant was only a fever dream of two guys fed up with their existence after 20 years on the set. Anyway, escrow was dead and the show was alive and that was that. Film production is a funny business. I’m not talking about lunch at the Ivy or first class flights to London to urge a writer to hurry up with the third act. The film production I’m referring to is the actual making of the product itself, a process that should probably join sausage and democracy on that short list of things better left unwatched. Unpacking a truck in Malibu at 5 A.M. trying not to spill a paper cup of coffee or roasting in the sun at Vasquez Rocks waiting for the guest star to get out of the make up chair. Is it everybody’s idea of a good time? Decidedly not, but it is not without its charms. There are always a few interesting, witty souls on any set. There is an easy banter and if it’s a good crew, a considerable amount of levity. The paychecks are good too, especially now and there’s that awesome health insurance. What there is not is free time. Sixty-five hour work weeks are the rule and combined with an unpaid hour at lunch and the commute, it makes for precious little “me-time”. From 5 A.M. Monday morning to 3 A.M. Friday night the production company owns you. No seeing the kids, no mid-week meals with the significant other, nada. We were working on the Sarah Connor Chronicles , a Fox show based on the Terminator movies. Sadly it is no longer on the air, a victim, I’m afraid of [network] misperception and unfulfilled expectations. It had a smoking hot robot (played by the fabulous Summer Glau) who, if asked, could rip the beating heart out of your chest and show it to you without a pang of remorse. What more does the American viewing public want? Eight days back into production and Charlie sidled up to me and whispered “I can’t take this anymore, I’m going back with another offer on the Echo Park property.” He was right of course. That feeling of never having left even after a five month hiatus was eerie. Hooray, we were back in the restaurant business and I could strut around my jealous co-workers describing long mornings at the golf course and afternoons with a massage therapist. The only people who didn’t fall for the utopian vision of my future were the two guys on the crew who had already owned restaurants. Hmmmm? Jealousy I presumed. A few words about cocktails, breathlessly digressing from our thrilling narrative. One of the real joys about running the Allston Yacht Club is that it comes equipped with a full liquor license. Charlie and I have always been men who enjoyed a convivial cocktail and now we are able to foist our enthusiasm on an unsuspecting world. Lena Headey, who played Sarah Connor (these were her Chronicles after all) seemed genuinely excited for the new enterprise. Maybe she wanted me off the set, I’ll never know because I heard she had been deported. Anyway, she was once describing her dream cocktail, one that some London Barman had attempted to make her. “It would have Pear and Cucumber and lot’s of vodka of course. And something else …” Her charming English accent drifted off into contemplative silence. I, of course, was up for the challenge and tonight you can walk into the Allston Yacht Club (1320 Echo Park Ave LA 90026 213.481.0454) and get yourself a “Lena’s Holiday”. It is our best selling drink. LENA’S HoLIDAY Makes 1 Peel, seed and chop 1 hothouse cucumber. Put in a blender with a knob of peeled Ginger and 2 cans of Pear Nectar (like Kerns). Blend and strain. Makes enough for about a dozen drinks. 2 oz Vodka 1 oz St Germain (Elderfolower Liquer) 2 oz Pear/Cuke blend Shake with Ice and strain into a martini glass. Garnish with a cucumber slice. In all honesty, creating that cocktail was as satisfying as any day on any film set ever. Pandora’s box had opened and soon we were regaling each other with ginger infused gins and Thai sugar cane liquors shaped into strange and groundbreaking and occasionally even delicious cocktails. I assiduously stayed away from reading cocktail books preferring to use a “blank slate” approach. (Charlie, on the other hand, takes a different approach and thinks about the satisfactions of wine extended into the realm of spirits.) This has probably led to some of my concoctions being undrinkable and others long established favorite (’Eureka! Gin and dry Vermouth … and an Olive). But it’s a satisfying process and you can always find somebody willing to sample even the most unlikely combinations. Look for more drink failures by Bill and Charlie soon!

View post: 
Bill DiDonna and Charles Kelly: But I Digress….

So, not only is Sarah Palin’s new book chock-full-o-crap, so is the so-called bus tour she’s taking to promote it: As much of her entourage, including HarperCollins publicist Tina Andreadis, risked a collective case of White Line Fever, covering more than 3,000 road miles during the book tour’s first week, Sarah Palin herself seems to have remained above it all, apparently cosseted in the luxury of a Gulfstream II 12-passenger jet rented from Universal Jet Aviation of Boca Raton, Florida, at a cost of more than $4,000 per hour. More than two weeks ago, quoting Andreadis, USA Today reported that Palin would be “making two and sometimes three stops a day, traveling in a bus painted with the cover of her book.” And just before the tour started, Palin herself said on her Facebook page: “I’ll post our progress from the road.” To further the illusion, the populist heroine gave televised interviews from the bus, including one to Greta Van Susteren en route to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.   It seems now that Palin hasn’t been on the bus, except for short hops between local airports and hotels and book-signing sites. Instead, as first reported by the Alaskan blog Palingates, she’s apparently been aboard UJT750, the Gulfstream American twin-jet …   Both Palin and the publishing house that has invested so many millions of dollars in her seem to have felt it would send the wrong message to let the “common-sense conservative” be seen winging her away across the country just like any other good old-fashioned Republican CEO. She’s so real and honest.

Continued here:
On The Road With Sarah Palin

Recent straw polls show Sarah Palin with a slight edge over Mike Huckabee for the 2012 GOP nomination. If that doesn’t frighten you enough, there is a plausible scenario where she becomes the default candidate of the Republican Party. So when both leading candidates showed up at Books-A-Million in Birmingham, Alabama last week , I took my camera to get a look at their operations. Neither candidate has declared, but what I saw may be a preview of what’s to come in 2012. I want to stress that I had no intentions of “punking” anyone. Rather, my objective was to get a look at things like media coverage and staff response — the actual elements of campaigning that lead to victory in elections. I was looking, in short, for the permanent campaign, about which my colleague Bob Cesca has declared Palin “comes up empty on everything. ” She’s nothing more than an overrated celebudoof. She’s the equivalent of an ex-reality show star that’s somehow tricked enough people into believing that a convention speech and a series of embarrassing winks qualifies her to be a national political leader — even president — when, in fact, she’s only really qualified to be famous . She’s famous for being famous . (Emphasis mine) Huckabee’s book is literally a Christmas special compared to Palin’s ghostwritten novel. “Her” work has been more than adequately debunked at this point; but Dr. Joseph Suglia, author of the novels Watch Out and Years of Rage , has made this observation about the title: A slight logogriphic substitution would transform “rogue” into “rouge.” The title, then, could be rendered: THE REDDENING OF SARAH PALIN. Red, obviously, is the color of the Republican Party, but it is also a highly sexual color and evokes the menses. (“Rouge,” in particular, recalls a shade of lipstick. Would “rouge” refer to the pig’s lipstick-smeared mouth?). It is, as well, the color of fury, of blood, of rapine and viciousness. It is the color of ecclesiastics, of cardinals. In the iconography of National Socialism, black swastikas were emblazoned on red backgrounds. This is a book that is drenched in red. The color red reappears when Sarah Palin douses herself, Countess Bathory style, in the blood of political martyrdom or of “the popular political blood sport called ‘the politics of personal destruction’” [352]. Seldom has self-imposed victimhood been exploited so meretriciously as it is here. Newsweek ’s take notwithstanding, this is the revelation I had at Books-A-Million: red is also the color of revolution, and the kitchen flirtations of Sarah and Glenn Beck are congruent with the entertainer’s recent efforts to invent a kind of permanent revolution. So take a gander at Sarah’s merch: Her paranoia is palpable. Store staff had many specific instructions, the sign of a very thick rider . Media were kept outside until the event had begun and were given no chance to ask Mrs. Palin any questions. Attendees were given strict rules, including: 9. No photos or video of any kind allowed in the signing area. 10. Please leave large bags and backpacks at home or in your car. You will be required to hand over cell phones, cameras and bags before reaching the signing table. No items besides copies of Going Rogue are allowed in the signing area. During her entire event, security guards were stationed at the stairway door where we gained access to the Huckabee signing without an armband the day before. (Note to the manager of Books-A-Million: the coffee bar employees are way too busy to watch that door for you; and it’s not like they make excellent tips off Sunday crowds in Birmingham. Let’s leave them out of this.) We counted eleven police officers handling exactly the same size crowd that only five had covered the day before, and there was private security to boot. Every Fox affiliate within 250 miles was there on Monday, parked in the same place where Huckabee’s bus sat alone on Sunday. Mind you, this is the same company that employs Huckabee as a talk show host. Rupert Murdoch clearly has a favorite, and her permanent campaign is a mobile festival of diva-driven revolution. Call it Sarahpalooza .   Osborne Ink is a Website of Media Deconstruction   “News that’s fairly liberal but never unbalanced” More on Sarah Palin

Go here to see the original: 
Matt Osborne: Sarahpalooza!