IMPALIN’ — Stop Sarah Palin for President in 2012

Oh, Sarah: Less than a year after then-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) quit the government to pursue other projects, Alaska leads the way in its debt-to-GDP ratio when its unfunded pension obligations are taken into account, followed by Rhode Island, New Mexico, Ohio and Mississippi. In total, Alaska’s debt equals 70% of its GDP. By contrast, California’s is 37%.

Original post: 
Anything I say you screwed up, I screwed up bigger

While a few eco-advocacy groups, like the Pew Environment Group, commended the Obama administration for its oil-drilling decision announced today, the majority, even those that have previously given the President high marks on the environment, are steamed. Marilyn Heiman, director of the Pew Environment Group’s U.S. Arctic program, said : We thank President Obama and Interior Secretary Salazar for protecting Bristol Bay, one of the planet’s richest marine ecosystems. … Bristol Bay must be permanently protected for future generations as the home of the world’s largest wild sockeye salmon run and part of a region providing more than 40 percent of our nation’s seafood. With fish stocks declining around the globe, we cannot afford to put Bristol Bay’s vibrant fisheries at risk. … President Obama should be commended for proceeding carefully on new Arctic leasing until better spill response capabilities are in place and we know how to protect this sensitive region. … Thorough science and planning must come before drilling in any marine waters. There should be no new lease sales in the Arctic Ocean until thorough research determines how such development will affect the traditional way of life of Alaska Natives and iconic species like the endangered bowhead whale. Jackie Savitz, senior campaign manager at Oceana, wrote : Very funny, Mr. President, but tomorrow is April Fool’s, not today. We can’t imagine that you’d go back on your promise to keep the moratorium on offshore drilling. … Oceana disagrees. We can not afford an ‘all of the above’ approach. Expanded offshore drilling will compete with the development of offshore wind for resources like investments, installation ships, technology and maritime expertise, making both oil and wind more expensive and slower to market. … Sadly, we are told this is not an April Fool, so we need your help. Let’s remind Obama to keep his promise. Take action now and let him know that offshore drilling is not the way to energy security. Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said : If we want to boost our domestic oil supply, we should focus on enhanced oil recovery from existing fields, a process that can supply more than 10 times the amount of oil that could be produced by drilling in our oceans over the same period. Turning back the clock and returning to more offshore drilling, meanwhile, will do little to relieve America’s oil addiction. According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, drilling in America’s previously closed ocean areas “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production…before 2030.” Even then, “because oil prices are determined on the international market …any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” Offshore drilling would yield little cost or supply benefit, and yet it would pose serious long-term danger to our beaches and marine life. It also threatens commercial fishing, ocean-related tourism, and recreation industries that contributed more than $128 billion to the nation’s economy in 2004 and supported more than 2 million jobs. In a prepared statement, Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, said : We’re very disappointed to see important areas like the Arctic coast and the Mid and South Atlantic stay open to oil drilling. What we need is bold, decisive steps towards clean energy, like the new clean cars regulations announced this week–not more dirty, expensive offshore drilling. The oil industry already has access to drilling on millions of acres of America’s public lands and water. We don’t need to hand over our last protected pristine coastal areas just so oil companies can break more profit records. … President Obama has taken important steps to combat global warming pollution and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Our nation’s increasing investment in clean energy and efficiency measures make drilling in sensitive coastal areas even more unnecessary. There’s no reason to drill our coasts. We can achieve real energy independence and economic vitality by investing in clean energy like wind and solar and efficiency. This kind of power creates good, lasting American jobs and positions our nation to become a global leader in the new clean energy economy. The new executive director of Greenpeace, Phil Radford, said : “Is this President Obama’s clean energy plan or Palin’s drill baby drill campaign? While China and Germany are winning the clean energy race, this act furthers America’s addiction to oil. Expanding offshore drilling in areas that have been protected for decades threatens our oceans and the coastal communities that depend on them with devastating oil spills, more pollution and climate change.” On the web site of the District of Columbia Office of Environment America, Director Anna Aurilio stated : Environment America is outraged that this administration will substantially increase offshore oil drilling. There is no need to threaten our beaches, wildlife and tourism with oil spills and pollution when we have much better solutions — putting cleaner cars on the road today that will dramatically cut oil consumption; shifting to plug-in cars powered by the wind and the sun that use little to no oil and investing more in public transportation. While China and Germany are winning the clean energy race, this act furthers America’s addiction to oil. Expanding offshore drilling in areas that have been protected for decades threatens our oceans and the coastal communities that depend on them with devastating oil spills, more pollution and climate change. … “Drilling for oil and gas is still a dirty and dangerous business. Opening much of the Atlantic coast to drilling will threaten the last remaining Northern right whales, endangered sea turtles and vibrant tourism economies from Delaware to Florida.

Excerpt from:
Eco-Groups Weigh in on Drilling Reversal

[h/t: Think Progress ] NPR contributor Cokie Roberts took to the airwaves today, joining in a terrific segment about the way female politicians seem to be able to exert some degree of self-control and do their jobs without getting enmeshed in crazy, news-making sex scandals. Roberts primarily discussed similar comments made by both Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who both have essentially made the case that women are far too busy tending to their jobs to have extramarital affairs. Along the way, however, Roberts fired a few shots at her colleagues in the media, holding out Fox News’s Chris Wallace for special disdain. Roberts was played this clip from the Don Imus show, in which Wallace and Imus joked about whether or not Sarah Palin would be sitting on Wallace’s lap during her “Fox News Sunday” interview. Roberts responded: “It’s appalling. It’s just appalling. It really is. You know, it’s the last place that men feel that they can just make jokes. They would never make such jokes about a minority, you’d be in terrible trouble. But you can still make sexist jokes about women and get away with it.” Roberts went on to say that these are the sorts of jokes that men make when they want other men to think they’re “cool,” which I gather is another thing that people like Kay Bailey Hutchison and Kirsten Gillibrand don’t have any time for, either. RELATED: Female Senators Say Women Politicians Have Fewer Affairs Because They’re Too Busy Doing Their Jobs [ThinkProgress] [Would you like to follow me on Twitter ? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here .] More on Sarah Palin

Here is the original post: 
Cokie Roberts Assails Chris Wallace For Palin ‘Lap’ Joke: ‘Appalling’

Judge them by their enemies. More evidence that Barack Obama might be shaping up as a good president is that Norman Podhoretz hates him so much. In a Wall Street Journal column Monday the guru of the neoconservatives declared: “I would rather be ruled by the Tea Party than by the Democratic Party, and I would rather have Sarah Palin sitting in the Oval Office than Barack Obama.” I know that does not properly address all of the serious questions raised about the Obama presidency by progressives, myself included, and as of today we must now add offshore oil drilling to the list. But it is somewhat reassuring that the surviving father of the neocon movement should be left so totally unglued. He is joined in this embrace of the Palin rage by Bill Kristol, whose late father, Irving, was Podhoretz’s comrade in the long march from the far left to the far right. That shift brought the neoconservatives to the pinnacle of power in the Bush administration before they flamed out over the distortions of fact and logic they peddled as justification for the invasion of Iraq. Among other things–and this was particularly important for Podhoretz, who for 35 years had edited Commentary, a leading journal in the Jewish community–the elimination of Saddam Hussein was supposed to leave Israel more secure. Instead, just the opposite has occurred as a consequence of the vastly increased power of Iran in the region thanks to the elimination of its most feared local adversary. Any effort to contain the power of Iran has been compromised by the leading role of the disciples of the Iranian ayatollahs in the politics of Iraq. Obama had opposed that war, but he has certainly done his bit to carry on the Bush policy and has furthered it in Afghanistan as well. There is no sign of Obama abandoning those failed adventures, and his fitful efforts to contain Iran while negotiating a much needed settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict are quite consistent with those of previous administrations. Indeed, the U.S. policy agenda for the region seems to be set by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who, as her warm reception at the recent AIPAC conference indicates, has long been regarded as a fervent friend of Israel. Indeed, from health care, the banking bailout and on to Mideast peace, it is difficult to find a single policy proposal from Obama that Bill and Hillary Clinton had not both previously embraced. So why the particularly strident animus toward Obama? The answer lies in that fear so common to the tea party core–that Obama is a false prophet leading the good God-fearing folk astray. Since Podhoretz claims to be writing out of the Jewish tradition he does not embrace the possibility of Obama being the Antichrist, but his language is as descriptively bizarre. In a WSJ article from last September headlined “Why Are Jews Liberals?” which is also the title of his latest book, Podhoretz complained bitterly, “One of the most extraordinary features of Barack Obama’s victory over John McCain was his capture of 78% of the Jewish vote.” What followed was a self-hating tirade against his own: “Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.” In support of that view he quotes the sociologist Nathan Glazer, who argued that Jews, as opposed to any other immigrant group in America, have ignored their improving economic status and instead consistently supported “increased government spending, expanded benefits to the poor and lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor.” What a great testament to the enduring decency of Jewish values that they have proved so capable of embracing social goals that transcend narrow class interest. What a wonderful refutation of historical anti-Semitism that Jews so consistently ignore personal economic gain to serve the larger good. Not so in the eyes of Podhoretz, who was immensely disappointed that the commitment of Jews to those enlightened views did not dissipate with the nomination of Obama but rather increased somewhat. He bemoans the fact that the vast majority of Jews did not share his fear that Obama was too liberal or anti-Israel, but instead of chalking that up to an honest disagreement he invokes the language of the devil’s deception: “I am hoping against hope that the exposure of Mr. Obama as a false messiah will at last open the eyes of my fellow Jews to the correlative falsity of the political creed he so perfectly personifies and to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.” So what does that make Sarah Palin–the true messiah? More on Sarah Palin

Original post:
Robert Scheer: Sarah Palin, Neocon Messiah

In the wake of the landmark passage of comprehensive health care reform by President Obama and the Democratic congress, I’m reminded of how absolutely necessary the move was. For me, 2009 cemented my view that universally available medical care wasn’t just a rallying cry of the Left, but it was also one of the most basic ingredients of a civilized society. Back in 1994 my mother heard the word every woman fears: Cancer. She was a veteran Los Angeles public school teacher and had always had good insurance, she’d say thanks to her tough union. Kaiser was her hospital and she jokingly boasts to this day to have had about every procedure they offer. But this time, it was her own diligence through a self exam that revealed a small lump in her breast. Sure enough, it was a malignant tumor. She was relatively lucky, probably catching it about as early as you could, having to “only” endure a minor battery of treatments. And for almost the next 15 years she was in remission and cancer-free. But in late 2008 while getting her routine check up, the Kaiser doctors found what they first believed was a benign tissue density. Six months later, after a follow up visit, a biopsy proved it was definitely a new breast cancer. I had never been the same since my mom’s first diagnosis with the Big C. I haven’t gone a week without considering her mortality, but also how lucky she and I both were. She had been fortunate enough to have full medical coverage, something that thousands of American women — many of them moms — don’t. And when she did what all women should do, a breast self exam, she had options for what to do next. She never had to consider if she could simply afford a hospital visit only to be told it was nothing to worry about. Or worse, that they’d tell her it was cancer and she’d almost surely go bankrupt fighting it to stay alive. My mom’s now a two-time cancer survivor. She underwent treatment last year and her disease seems to be cooperating. She’s in good spirits, enjoying her semi-retirement and moving into a new home soon. And I hug her every chance I get. At the same time all of this was unfolding last year, my grandmother got suddenly very sick after nine months in an assisted living facility. Before that, she had enjoyed an amazing and fairly healthy life, skiing and working into her 90s. I last visited her over the summer, taking her to Kaiser for a check up. Unfortunately, within a few months, she had been hospitalized for some kidney problems which then lead to other issues, including pneumonia. I was by her side as she passed away peacefully last October. She was 98. At one point during her long hospital stay, Kaiser’s end of life counseling team (what Sarah Palin would have mischaracterized as a “death panel”) huddled with me and my family in a small room a few doors down from grandmother’s room. It all felt like life imitating the national conversation (The cover of Newsweek at that time was “The Case For Killing Granny” ). I thought about Palin’s disingenuous summer slogan and realized how in the whole debate last year, reality buckled under the weight of hyperbole. The more accurate scenario was that any family in our position would have wanted to know the best life and death options to consider. My uncle and mom (still recovering herself) needed to make some serious choices about their mother’s final days. Hospice care? Nursing home? Comfort care? Let her go with peace and dignity? Could I imagine a system where, in Palin’s mind, a Washington paper pusher would have made these choices for us? Sure, but what’s more likely is something akin to the current system. Insurance companies and hospital administrators are already making decisions on how much care can be provided and at what cost threshold. And, let’s be real, society already does its own cost/benefit analysis for everything from air travel to food safety. As much as end of life choices are some of the most personal, the difficult truth is that somewhere deep in the process, logistics, resources and limitations need to be considered. Not to mention the wishes of the patient. But to act like this doesn’t already involve financial decision making and protocols is fantasy if not convenient fear mongering. Last year, as tough as it was, left me absolutely certain about one thing: There is no way that anybody who had spent hours in a hospital waiting room, or held a relative’s hand while a doctor explained a surgical procedure or a disease, could be anything but a champion for universal health care coverage. At the very least, they’d want everybody to have the same access they received. And hopefully they’d also feel that almost any societal price is worth it to know that all Americans should have at least a base level of care. I can’t imagine what last year would have been like if my family and I had to have fought with an insurance company, or gone into financial chaos over medical bills. Nobody should have to choose between breast exams, end of life care, preventative treatments, and paying the rent. But even with this past week’s historic passage of health reform, some people still don’t see it like that. The roar of “Obamacare” opponents rose up again–and in some even uglier ways than last summer. Thankfully, our better angels, ironically, in Congress, took the first major steps towards a new social contract and a better quality of life for millions. I am not in love with every aspect of the Obama reforms. I’d have actually preferred a strong public option if not a single payer system. And like any fiscally conscious progressive, I’m concerned about waste and taxes as well. But if I ever needed more evidence that universal access to quality medical care is as important as having your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ensured, I got it last year. In the days moments after the House passed the Democrat health care bill, Republicans along with their Conservative and Tea Partying brethren vowed to repeal the soon-to-be-law. As I write this, Senator McCain is on the TV with Sarah Palin promising to fight it into November. I guess my answer to them is, have at it. In my eyes, they couldn’t be more wrong about what makes this country great. And if you’re indeed still against universal coverage, you’ve probably been lucky so far. You probably haven’t found yourself sitting in that hospital bed or waiting room yet, even though someday we all do. If you or anybody you love has ever had good treatment by a doctor or nurse, wouldn’t you have wanted every person to have the same level of care? If there’s one thing I’d like to think the Right and Left humans could agree on, this would be it. At least I’d hope so. More on Health Care

View original post here:
Raymond Leon Roker: Why Health Reform Was the Right Thing to Do

I disagree with House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) that the media and Democrats are “fanning the flames” by reporting harassment, death threats, vandalism, and brick throwing directed at ten Democratic Representatives who recently voted “yes” on the Health Care Reform bill that recently passed in Congress. Isn’t this, pardon the metaphor, like “shooting the messenger”? Are we supposed to ignore this intimidation? Act as though it is not happening? How foolish is that? Also isn’t it a little hypocritical to state a bullet was shot through your office window while declaring we shouldn’t report these matters? Turns out the bullet didn’t go through Cantor’s office but landed nearby and was a stray shot as a result of random gunfire, but let’s not be picky. What the Representative was trying to say was “we Republicans get targeted too”, which I am sure is true. So doesn’t it make sense for Congress to be bi-partisanship on the issue? Neither side should condone bullying, death threats, and acts of violence. Why did it take the Republican leadership in the House four days to come out against it? As far as “fanning the flames”, could it not be argued that yelling out “you lie” to the President of the United States while he makes a speech to Congress and screeching “baby killer” to one of the most pro-life members of the House while debating the health care bill could set a bad example for the followers of these GOP leaders? Is this not more “inciting the rioters” than the reporting of it? I am all for freedom of speech, but I thought there was an unwritten decorum that was supposed to be practiced in the halls of Washington when debating issues. I have never seen such animosity in DC in my lifetime. It also seems the Republicans can’t stop making military references when campaigning against the Democrats. Sarah Palin is constantly talking about reloading (well, she is an NRA member) and on her Facebook page she has a map with crosshairs on the Districts where some incumbent Democrats are running in 2010. Michael Steele has a web site with a “Fire Nancy Pelosi” headline that has a picture of her in front of a blazing background. “Fanning the flames” indeed. He also made reference to putting her in front of a firing line in a recent interview. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was recently quoted as saying Congressman Driehaus (D-OH) was a ” dead man ” after voting for health care. There do not seem to be calls for civility. When Congressmen and women stand on the balconies of the House with signs reading “Kill the Bill” while whipping up the crowd of Tea Party activists right after some of these protesters shouted nasty epithets to black and gay members of the House, it is distasteful at best, reckless at worst. The GOP talking point is that it is a separate incident and only a small minority of fringe tea partiers created this havoc and the movement on the whole should not be blamed. OK then, but how many “separate incidents” does it take to make a disturbing pattern? And why not condemn the actions of the few when it occurs, instead of defending the whole Tea Party? We all know times are tough right now. People are worried about jobs, wars, education, health care, their retirement, debt, foreclosures, natural disasters, greedy banks and corporations, and any number of things. There is much to be angry and skeptical about. But we would all agree, I hope, that violence and intimidation is not the answer from either side of the political spectrum. Cool heads and civil hearts must prevail. Let’s tone down the rhetoric and work together to find solutions to our nation’s problems. Anything less than that is truly “fanning the flames.” More on Sarah Palin

Continued here: 
Joan E. Dowlin: The GOP Is "Shooting the Messenger"

Sarah Palin will host “Real American Stories,” a Fox News special debuting on Thursday. For the premiere episode, which will air at 10PM, the show will include guests ranging from entertainers LL Cool J and Toby Keith to former GE CEO Jack Welch and a Marine Medal of Honor recipient. The episode will pre-empt “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” and re-air Sunday night at 9PM. Palin, a Fox News contributor, has been a ratings hit for the network (not that it needs any help: the network is coming off its most successful quarter ever). More on Sarah Palin

View original here: 
Sarah Palin Hosting Fox News Show ‘Real American Stories’ Thursday

TWITTER: @ GreenNewsReport The ‘GNR’ is also now available on your cell phone via Stitcher Radio’s mobile app ! IN TODAY’S RADIO REPORT: China beats the U.S. — again ; EPA vetoes mountaintop removal permit for first time; Rightwing’s (very mature) response to Earth Hour; Trapped coal miners in China; WV Chamber of Commerce fights against coal miner disability payments… PLUS: Sarah Palin recycles! (2008, that is) … 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’ : IPCC head cleared of financial wrongdoing; Convictions in Rio Tinto mining bribery case; Mandatory solar power building codes for India; Mysterious whale die-off is largest on record; Emission Control Area created around U.S. and Canadian; EPA to crack down on toxic chemicals in water; Oil giant Koch Industries funds climate change deniers … PLUS : News Flash: WMO says world still getting hotter … ‘Green News Report’ is heard on many fine radio stations around the country. For additional info on stories we covered today, plus today’s ‘Green News Extra’ , please click right here … More on China

See more here:
Brad Friedman and Desi Doyen: Green News Report — March 30, 2010 (Audio)

It was almost exactly a year ago at this time that a “controversial” report was released by the Department of Homeland Security. This finding , labeled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” explained that the lunatic fringe might use the recession and ascension of the first African-American president to recruit members and then plan violent attacks on the homeland. Although this effort was initiated under the administration of George W. Bush, the usual bed-wetters on the Right–especially a large Oxycontin-laced, self-indulgent buffoon with the ever-appropriate name Rush–whined and hissed about how it was a political jihad. Here we are a year later, and it is starting to feel very 1995 out there right now. While the Obama Administration and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle genuflect before the NRA, we are not only doing not nearly enough to keep high-power weaponry out of the hands of, for lack of a better word, “evil-doers,” but the NRA is leading state legislatures around by the nose in attempts to actually weaken gun laws we do have on the books. As it was aptly put in in an editorial in the Charleston, WV Gazette: Almost any criminal, psycho, drunk, wife-basher, drug addict or other prohibited person can buy a pistol illegally at a gun show - no questions asked. Test after test has found that many gun show dealers, licensed or unlicensed, sell deadly weapons to practically anyone with money, evading federal laws that forbid sales to the unfit. In fact, once the practices of these gun shows were exposed by undercover investigations , such as those planned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and his organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (Disclosure: I consult for MAIG; I am speaking for me, and only me, in this piece, however), the response was not to make it harder for criminals, terrorists and the mentally unstable to get guns at gun shows. It was to try and pass legislation to make such investigations illegal . Brilliant plan! Sweep it under the rug, and it is sure to go away. It is no matter, that as my friend Brian Rothenberg, Executive Director of Progress Ohio, has said, it is easier to get a gun at a gun show than cold medicine . Or that the recent shooting at the Pentagon, by an anti-government radical and mentally disturbed man named John Patrick Bedell, was able to occur because even after the state of California deemed him mentally unfit to have buy a gun, he just went to Nevada and bought em through the infamous gun show loophole . No background check. No questions asked. And then off to shoot innocent people at the Pentagon. But if you think this is bad, it is only going to get worse. Tea baggers are showing up to rallies brandishing signs with Brownings and the obvious implication. You know, the gun founded by the guy who the state of Utah would like to honor instead of Martin Luther King, Jr . Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann and the rest of the itsy-bitsy IQ brigade now like to put targets on legislators, encourage their supporters to “reload,” and are using other violence-infused imagery. Meanwhile, Christian Militia groups are putting together videos worthy of Al Qaeda while planning to murder Michigan police officers with guns and IEDS . Seriously, stop and watch this spooky video for a second (they even got the German music right!). What has been the response to the crescendo of incidents like these over the past few months? The Obama Administration is missing in action . Meanwhile, Republican legislators, like Senator Tom Coburn, are actively trying to put guns in the hands of the mentally unbalanced . That’s right, Coburn tried to attach an amendment to the health care bill to restore gun rights to veterans declared “mentally incompetent.” Seriously, does the man, and the 45 who voted with him, remember Ft. Hood? The service and sacrifice of veterans must be honored and those who fight for their country must be respected as the courageous individuals that they are. But that doesn’t mean giving those vets who have taken a different path, who have committed crimes, terrorist acts or are mentally unbalanced, easy access to weapons that kill. Timothy McVeigh was a veteran. Lee Harvey Oswald was a veteran. Charles Whitman was a veteran. And guess what? The report issued by Homeland Security specifically spoke of veterans, who might have certain skills and be suffering from PTSD and other ailments, being sought out for recruitment into these right-wing groups. The suicide rate among veterans is skyrocketing too, so perhaps guns aren’t the answer. In fact, maybe if the Right loved veterans as much as they love soldiers (or millionaire estates) we would have fewer of these problems. But that is for another piece. Thankfully, Coburn’s idiotic measure failed, the second time the NRA has lost on the floor of the Senate after 5 years of only knowing victory. So there is the bright side of this. While we have a long way to go to get to common sense, perhaps we’re slowly getting there. Now we need the Obama Administration to get in the fight, as well as Congress. And we all need to be vigilant in this effort. As some in the comments will, I am sure, remind me, criminals and terrorists will still get their hands on guns. Agreed. But should we be helping them? I mean, rapists don’t stop committing rape because we made it illegal, but by making it illegal, it at least makes it harder for them to both do it and get away with it. Shouldn’t we apply the same effort to keeping weapons that kill out of the hands of those who intend to, or don’t effectively know what they’re doing? Common sense folks. Speaking of that, it is amazing how every time a Democrat is elected President Republicans seem to lose theirs en masse. Remember Bush’s big speeches about defeating the terrorists. Well, now the law & order crowd on the Republican Right suddenly loves themselves some criminals and terrorists. They want to do all they can to arm them. Isn’t it wonderful for the rest of us? Which brings me back to where I began. It is starting to feel very 1995 out there . We must do all we can to hold our politicians to account, to do what they can to stop the madness. Starting with (but not ending with) closing the gun-show loophole. Because we all remember how 1995 ended up. More on Michael Bloomberg

The rest is here: 
Cliff Schecter: Courting Another Oklahoma City

“Fox & Friends” co-host Gretchen Carlson Tuesday interviewed two women who say they’ve solved the tea party fashion dilemma: the founders of CoolConservativeGear.com . Carlson introduced Sheila Kinhe and Betsy Gall as “stay-at-home moms” and said the pair launched Cool Conservative Gear in frustration over not being able to find any clothing for conservative women. “[Betsy] hosted this wonderful home party, we had Fox News on in the background, some conservative books and magazines lying around, and some wine, it was great….our friends came and they shopped!” the founders said of their launch party, which sold 100 t-shirts. Kihne and Gall have given their clothing to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Newshounds points out that Carlson did not mention that “stay-at-home mom” Kihne is also Vice Chair of the GOP Third Congressional District in Minnesota and the creator of a blog, The Activist Next Door . WATCH: Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com More on Video

Go here to read the rest:
Cool Conservative Gear: Gretchen Carlson Highlights Tea Party Fashion Site (VIDEO)

Whatever money you have given Planned Parenthood, NOW, and NARAL has gone for naught. All you have to do is ask where were these women’s groups during the health care fight, when they got beat by a minority in Congress led by one man? As for the Democratic Party, the majority who has always told us they support women’s rights were played like fiddles. The so called progressives and “pro-choice caucus” in Congress rendered silent by the few. Speaker Pelosi… well, she served up Rep. Bart Stupak as the hero of health care. However, the Hyde Amendment didn’t have to be codified in health care legislation, but that’s what happened, because women had no champions in Congress. The Democratic Party has come to believe that since Republicans do not stand up for women they have a captive voting block, even if they no longer deserve it. But where are women to go? Who do they vote for if not Democrats, because Republicans certainly don’t support women’s rights, their last nominee, John McCain, even being against the Ledbetter Act for equal pay. Sarah Palin against women’s self-determination, as is every other possible 2012 Republican contender. The right-wing rants about freedoms every day. But the right-wing of both political parties ignore the rights of women every time the topic of abortion is brought up. The word “choice” is used to demean the trauma of the woman in the throes of personal panic, while “pro-life” is used to further stigmatize the woman as being somehow against life, even if her decision is often made to save her own life, physically or emotionally, sometimes both. The woman in peril the primary individual and life in question. There is no one else. If you don’t believe in abortion don’t have one if put in an untenable position, but no one should have the right or power to strip women of their freedoms to control their own body, something a man would never allow. And the continued contention that Bart Stupak and others like him are “pro-life” tells only part of the tale. They are actually pro- selective life . No other person or force, including the government with their concocted health care plan restrictions, should ever be allowed to impede the woman’s decision, even if she’s poor . To do so is to interrupt a woman’s human rights and her freedoms. Democrats have decided that the rights of women are not equal and worth defending. Republicans have always felt that way. Because if every woman in this country doesn’t have 100% control over her own body, regardless of means , she is not free. Wake up and see your 21st century Democratic Party. I know, it’s sobering. The last bastion to protecting women’s rights has caved. But not because they don’t have the majority to protect us; but because they don’t feel our full rights are important enough to fight for and they don’t have the will for the battle. But Mr. Stupak would not have gained so much ground against the freedoms of women if Speaker Pelosi hadn’t sanctioned it, encouraged it and back it. If the so called “pro-choice caucus” in Congress, both chambers, hadn’t failed to stand up for us. The women in politics either too old or too lazy to recall the dangers of not having 100% control over your own body. Some of our menopausal matrons simply not up to the task; while young women yawn in ignorance of what’s being dismantled. None of this would have happened if Planned Parenthood had been doing their job and seen the Stupak healthcare challenge coming. (Whoever has given them money should ask for it back.) If NARAL and NOW hadn’t been rendered to simply squealing at the wind after the deal was done. (Don’t give them another dime when they come calling.) Not at all impressive for groups whose only purpose is defending the rights of women. They all failed miserably. Meanwhile, in a little place called Michigan, Connie Saltonstall has bravely come forward, with the help of Blue America, to challenge Bart Stupak. It’s a long shot, but at least it’s a principled one, and in a year where Bart Stupak has fallen in love with his own image who knows what can happen. I’ve been sending emails to Emily’s List asking them where’s their endorsement? Finally I get a nice email response saying they’re “talking to her campaign” and they’ll keep me posted. They’ve missed the biggest PR opening they could have had, right after the passage of health care when Bart Stupak has been everywhere, which is now followed by an op-ed for the Washington Post . Honestly, you expect this ineptitude on women’s behalf from Republicans, but it’s been a sharp stab of betrayal to see it done by Democrats who hold both houses of Congress and the presidency , while “women’s groups” fumble around for an excuse to cover their flatfooted surprise and incompetence. So, in a season where Rep. Bart Stupak and the minority in the House took down the majority in the Democratic Congress who allegedly support women’s rights, while even wrangling Pres. Obama to help carve away more of what we’ve already won, it’s time to face facts. We continue to deny poor women full freedoms based on their inability to pay for them . Women in America no longer have any political party willing to stand up for our full freedoms. No politicians willing to fight our fights. And there is no women’s movement anymore. Taylor Marsh is a political analyst out of Washington, D.C. More on Nancy Pelosi

See the original post:
Taylor Marsh: There Is No Women’s Movement

My teaching career began in a suburban high school where the lunchroom was a happy place. Posters advertising fruits, vegetables, and exercise covered the walls, and every day the kids could choose from a hot meal or the salad bar. The line for the salad bar was often longer than the pizza line. Few of the kids were overweight, even fewer were obese. I spent the next two years teaching at an inner-city high school where, as my friend Sarah put it, “half the girls in my Algebra class are too obese to fit in their desks.” The cafeteria served hot meals, but fruits and vegetables were few and far between. Posters advertising cookies and pizza covered the walls. Instead of a salad bar, there was a slushy machine. Michelle Obama’s recent decision to make childhood obesity her personal cause struck me deeply. Childhood obesity isn’t just a public health issue, it’s a social justice issue. It disproportionately affects the poor and minorities. It’s also one of those rare cases where the major domestic challenges of our time - education, health care, poverty - intersect, and where small changes can have a big impact. Consider this: a study published this month in Health Affairs found that children from poor families are twice as likely to be obese as children from well-off families (45% vs. 22%). Minority children are far more likely to be obese than white children (41% of black and Hispanic children vs. 27% of white non-Hispanic children are obese). Regardless of race and class, kids who grow up in neighborhoods with rundown housing are more likely to be obese than those in neighborhoods with less decay (36% vs. 31%). Poverty and minority status don’t just cause childhood obesity, though. The biggest problem with childhood obesity is that it doesn’t end when the kids grow up. Obesity can lead to a host of medical conditions throughout the lifespan - diabetes, hypertension, asthma, gallstones - and even to poverty itself. That’s right: obese children are more likely to become impoverished adults, spawning a vicious cycle in which poverty begets obesity, in turn leading to further poverty. How do we break this cycle? The first step is to make healthy food more affordable and available. Not only did my inner-city students have limited options at school, many of them came from neighborhoods where there were literally no grocery stores that sold fresh produce. If kids can’t get fruits and vegetables at home or at school, they’re not likely to find them elsewhere. Another step is education. Researchers at NIH and the University of Pittsburgh found that parental education has more impact on children’s’ eating habits than household income. In other words, if you go to college, your children are less likely to be obese regardless of how much money you make. Targeted nutritional education can also help. School-based programs to combat obesity show promise - a recent initiative in the Philadelphia public schools reduced the number of overweight students by 50% , but unfortunately had little effect on obesity. We’re learning how to mitigate the problem, but we don’t yet know how to solve it. Our First Lady is right to tackle this issue head-on. As our nation works to combat childhood obesity, we must focus especially on low-income and minority communities. We need to ensure that healthy foods are available and affordable, and that all parents understand the consequences of their children’s diets. Those of us working for educational justice need to create schools where salad bars, not slushies, are the norm. Finally, the results from school-based programs show that we need to do more research on what works, especially in communities where many parents haven’t completed high school or college. Our children’s future depends on it - so too, by the way, does our national health care bill. More on Health Care

Read more:
Eric Tipler: Childhood Obesity is a Social Justice Issue, Too

Koch Industries has “become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition,” spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the climate denial machine, according to an extensive report today by Greenpeace.  The Greenpeace report reveals how Koch Industries and the foundations under its control spent far more than even ExxonMobil in recent years to fund industry front groups opposed to clean energy and climate policies.  Koch spent over half the total amount -nearly $25 million - funding climate denier groups from 2005 to 2008, a period in which Exxon only spent $8.9 million. Greenpeace’s attempt to lift the veil of secrecy inherent to a private company like Koch Industries is no easy task.  Because it remains privately owned, Koch faces few of the disclosure requirements designed to increase transparency among publicly-traded companies. That intentional secrecy allows Koch Industries , the second-largest privately-held company in the United States, to fly largely below the public’s radar.  Few Americans have likely heard of Koch, even though it operates crude oil refineries and pipelines across North America and owns such well-known consumer brands as Dixie cups, Brawny and Quilted Northern paper products, Stainmaster carpet, CoolMax and Lycra. The company’s founder, Fred Koch, who once earned $5 million building oil refineries in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin’s reign, was a co-founder of the libertarian John Birch Society.   Charles G. and David H. Koch, two of Fred’s four sons, each now own 42% of the company’s stock.  According to 2009 Forbes rankings, the Koch brothers are tied for the 19th richest person in the world, and for ninth richest American, each worth between $14 and $16 billion, more than George Soros or the founders of Google. The Koch brothers use three foundations to spread Koch Industries’ influence, including support for roughly 40 organizations that doubt or downplay climate change or otherwise oppose policy solutions to build a clean energy future.  Greenpeace also notes that Koch Industries has been the largest oil and gas industry contributor to electoral campaigns since the 2006 election cycle, and its done its fair share of lobbying as well .  During the 2008 elections, Koch Industries contributed over $1.8 million, 88% to Republican candidates. Koch’s political action committee (PAC) also spent more than $2.5 million on contributions to federal candidates for that period, more than any other oil-and-gas sector PAC. Koch Industries has bankrolled Americans for Prosperity to the tune of over $5 million since 2005.  AFP – known primarily for its role in organizing the tea party movement in the U.S. – brought notorious climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton to the Copenhagen climate summit as its guest speaker .  Despite Lord Monckton’s reprehensible behavior in Copenhagen – where he repeatedly compared college students advocating for a clean energy future to “Hitler Youth” and “Nazis” – Americans for Prosperity continues to host Monckton at its events in the United States, including a recent appearance in Wisconsin .  While in Wisconsin on AFP’s dime, Monckton booked a side gig at a GOP fundraiser where he described President Barack Obama as a “monster.”   I wonder if David Koch – the second richest man in New York behind Michael Bloomberg - is even aware that Koch’s funding of AFP is in part providing support for Monckton to run around the world labeling American college students “Hitler Youth” and calling the President of the United States a “monster”? Koch was also one of the funders of the 2007 polar bear junk science “study” authored by prominent climate deniers (including Sallie Baliunas , David Legates and Tim Ball ) that claimed to prove that polar bear populations were not affected by anthropogenic climate disruption in the Arctic.  Dr. Willie Soon , one of the non-peer-reviewed paper’s authors, disclosed in the acknowledgements section that he had received direct corporate funding for the work, stating “W. Soon’s effort for the completion of this paper was partially supported by grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.” Although the paper was thoroughly debunked by actual experts on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, many of the front groups funded by Koch and Exxon rebroadcast the study widely, creating public confusion.  The matter came to a head when Sarah Palin and her officers in the Alaskan government referenced the Soon/Baliunas polar bear paper before it was even published in Alaska’s formal protest of efforts to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act.  Both Soon and Baliunas have served as spokespeople, advisors and/or board members of multiple Koch-funded climate denial groups over the past decade. The Greenpeace report notes Koch’s role in funding the Institute for Energy Research, which was behind the Danish study that attacked the viability of wind power .  Greenpeace also points out the role that Koch’s web of climate denier groups played in supporting, disseminating and promoting the Spanish study attacking green jobs, including AFP, IER and the Heritage Foundation. Greenpeace has helped to shed some much-needed light on Koch Industries with this report, providing several case studies, a detailed look at lobbying and campaign expenditures, and other little known facts about the Koch Brothers’ web of front groups.  If you thought you knew everything about anti-science front groups from hearing about ExxonMobil’s efforts over the years, think again.  This expose of Koch Industries serves up a heaping pile of unsavory evidence that the climate denial industry is alive and well-funded, even with the scaling back of ExxonMobil’s support. More attention needs to be paid to Koch Industries, and this report will hopefully encourage deeper investigation into the Koch web’s confusion campaign. More on Climate Change

Original post:
Brendan DeMelle: Greenpeace Unmasks Koch Industries’ Funding of Climate Denial Industry

Another weekend edition scuttled by the annoyances of glitches and unforeseen circumstances. But, on the positive side, all that means is that there is just that much more to love in the Monday edition of the Wrap… THE U.S. SENATE CA-Sen: PPIC Poll Confirms Boxer In Fight of Her Career Third-term Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer is in the fight of her career politically, according to a poll released late last week by the Public Policy Institute of California. Former Congressman Tom Campbell actually holds a narrow lead over Boxer (44-43) in the poll, while Carly Fiorina trails Boxer by the same one-point margin (44-43). Boxer still holds a more sizeable lead over conservative insurgent candidate Chuck DeVore (46-40). Interestingly, Fiorina has moved back into the GOP primary lead in this poll, while DeVore still languishes far behind both Fiorina and Campbell. DeVore, as it turned out, had a pretty lousy day. It turns out that he had a tangential connection to the day’s favorite story (the $1900 strip club expense for the RNC). The campaign consultant who sought reimbursement from the RNC turned out to have some past business dealings with DeVore. DeVore’s campaign said they severed ties with the consultant’s firm before the controversy erupted and (no shit!) they will not resume a business relationship with the firm. FL-Sen: Republican Domination, and a Crist Comeback A poll out last week by Mason Dixon in the Sunshine State of Florida shows that Florida Governor Charlie Crist might be forging a comeback, contrary to all other polling in the state. The crew at M-D has Crist trailing Marco Rubio by just eleven points (48-37) in the GOP primary. Crist also was the more electable of the two Republicans against Kendrick Meek, doubling up the Democrat (50-26) while Marco Rubio led by roughly half of that margin (44-29). NY-Sen: GOP’s Only Hope Against Gillibrand An Undeclared Pataki The GOP, much like in Wisconsin, is hedging all of their hopes on an undeclared candidate in New York, according to a new Marist poll . Former Governor George Pataki is the only Republican even in the same area code as incumbent Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Pataki and Gillibrand are locked in a toss-up (47-45 Pataki). Among the trio of Republicans who have actually committed to the race, Gillibrand wins in blowouts ranging from 27-29 points. Also, for what it’s worth (which is little), Zogby Interactive rears its ugly head , and gives Gillibrand a solid lead over Pataki. THE U.S. HOUSE GA-09: What’s The Deal With Special Election Change? The special election to replace outgoing (and newly scandalized–as you will read below) Republican Rep. Nathan Deal has been delayed for a couple of weeks, courtesy of a decision made late last week by Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue. The new date will be May 11th. The qualifying period for that race began today, and will run through Wednesday. Democrats can probably write this district off, as it is one of the most Republican districts in America (McCain won here 75-24). ID-01/IL-11/FL-22: Sarah Palin Anoints Trio Of House Candidates Three Republicans in competitive races have accepted the acclaim of one of the more polarizing figures in American politics. Sarah Palin endorsed a trio of veterans in their Congressional bids. They are: Vaughn Ward (ID-01), Adam Kinzinger (IL-11), and Allan West (FL-22). Cozying up to Palin might work in deep-red Idaho, but one has to wonder what the percentage is in cuddling up to Palin in districts where John McCain scored 48% or less of the vote (IL-11/FL-22). SC-05: Another Rumored Democratic Retirement Falls By Wayside Any Democrats nervous about longtime Democratic Rep. John Spratt abandoning a red-leaning Dem district can officially relax: Spratt filed for re-election today. Spratt, in his late sixties, had been one of the Democrats the GOP identified as a potential target for retirement. Spratt faces a serious challenger in 2010 in the person of state Senator Mick Mulvaney, but it is worth noting that Spratt easily rebuffed a serious challenger (Ralph Norman) in 2006, winning 57% of the vote. THE GUBERNATORIAL RACES CA-Gov: PPIC Finds Whitman’s Millions Paying Off In Gov Race The same PPIC poll referenced above looked at the gubernatorial race, and found that Meg Whitman’s obscene flinging of cash statewide has paid off, at least to some extent. The poll shows that Whitman has moved into a 44-41 lead over Democrat Jerry Brown. Brown still has a substantial lead over Republican Steve Poizner (46-31), which shows that the generic Democratic edge is still there, absent a candidate spending a half mil a day in order to flood the zone. One has to wonder, of course, about the theory of diminishing returns and how that will impact Whitman if she insists on the continuation of this strategy. FL-Gov: McCollum Out To A Big Lead, According to Mason-Dixon Is health care a liability for Democrats in Florida? That is a meme being pushed extremely hard by a poll released late last week by Mason Dixon , which has the reform getting crushed by the Sunshine State electorate. It also has presumed Republican nominee Bill McCollum crushing Democrat Alex Sink by a fifteen point margin (49-34). That is an even wider margin than Rasmussen (see the “Ras-a-palooza” below) recorded in their own poll last week. GA-Gov: Deal Gubernatorial Bid Jeopardized By Ethical Morass Adding some intrigue into what had been a fairly pedestrian Republican primary for Governor in the Peach State, Nathan Deal was dinged today by a report by the Office of Congressional Ethics. The O.C.E. released a report detailing ethical issues involving Deal’s apparent use of his position as a member of Congress to keep alive a no-bid state contract that he and his business partners profitted from. It also dinged him for exceeding Congressional limits on outside earned income. Deal is beyond the reach of the Ethics Committee at this point, of course, having resigned from Congress over a week ago in order to focus on his gubernatorial bid. NY-Gov: Same Ol’ Same Ol’…Cuomo Has Huge Lead over GOP Hopefuls Any Republican illusions that luring Steve Levy over to the GOP was going to be the silver bullet to reclaim the New York statehouse appears to be a tad optimistic . Marist polls the state again, and they find Cuomo over 60% against either nouveau Republican Steve Levy (65-26) or more conventional Republican Rick Lazio (61-30). The poll also shows that Levy, for all of the recruitment by certain corners of the NYGOP, gets splattered in a potential GOP primary, losing to Lazio by a 53-21 margin. THE RAS-A-PALOOZA Man, even when the crew over at the House of Ras put out a poll that is, all in all, favorable to the Democrats, it still seems a little…well… off . I don’t know that Dan Inouye would be up 40 points on Linda Lingle, and I certainly question whether little-known Doug Turner is the colossus of the New Mexico GOP gubernatorial field. That aside, the Ras is it’s usual prolific self, with oodles of data between last Wednesday and today. If the spirit of the Ras moves you, you can always check out their data at their website . FL-Gov : Bill McCollum (R) 47%, Alex Sink (D) 36% HI-Gov : Neal Abercrombie (D) 54%, Duke Aiona (R) 31% HI-Gov : Mufi Hannemann (D) 50%, Duke Aiona (R) 29% HI-Sen : Sen. Dan Inouye (D) 65%, Gov. Linda Lingle (R) 25% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 43%, Doug Turner (R) 34% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 45%, Allan Weh (R) 35% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 52%, Peter Domenici Jr. (R) 35% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 51%, Susana Martinez (R) 32% NM-Gov : Diane Denish (D) 52%, Janice Arnold-Jones (R) 30% ND-Sen : Gov. John Hoeven (R) 68%, Tracy Potter (D) 25% ND-AL : Rick Berg (R) 51%, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) 44% RI-Gov : Lincoln Chafee (I) 39%, Frank Caprio (D) 28%, John Robataille (R) 22% RI-Gov : Lincoln Chafee (I) 37%, John Robataille (R) 26%, Patrick Lynch (D) 22% SD-AL : Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D) 44%, Chris Nelson (R) 42% SD-AL : Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D) 46%, Kristi Noem (R) 35% SD-AL : Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D) 45%, Blake Curd (R) 33% TN-Gov : Bill Haslam (R) 46%, Kim McMillan (D) 26% TN-Gov : Bill Haslam (R) 45%, Mike McWherter (D) 27% TN-Gov : Ron Ramsey (R) 43%, Kim McMillan (D) 25% TN-Gov : Ron Ramsey (R) 43%, Mike McWherter (D) 29% TN-Gov : Zach Wamp (R) 42%, Kim McMillan (D) 29% TN-Gov : Zach Wamp (R) 41%, Mike McWherter (D) 31%

View original here:
Polling and Political Wrap-Up, 3/29/10

According to what Sarah Palin is trumpeting (well, bleating would be more melodically accurate) on her and John McCain’s “Tuesdays with Morrie Express” tour, America is alternately at the threshold of Armageddon, under assault by armies of illegals or crushed beneath a commie/socialist/fascist jackboot. What a busy beaver she is! And energized by her enabler, the redoubtable psychorporation Fox News, Sarah is spreading her gospel of Dread and Taxes live and in person while the cadre of Aryan wet-dream anchors at Fox track her every move. If anything puts the lie to her and Fox’s supposedly Christian-based conservative principles it is their decidedly un-Christian approach to Anyone Who Doesn’t Agree With Them; their star Sarah is the coquettish conduit by which hegemonic kinescope-daydreams of old men with hair growing out of their ears stream into the tweaked nervous systems of the Right’s comfortably parochial demographic and wreak havoc upon the rest of the world who humbly strain for enlightenment. But hysterical hyperbole (discounting this, of course) is in direct proportion to fear of losing relevance and the Right is trying like hell to matter. The US is just not a white, hetero, 50’s fantasy (was it ever, really?). But just try and tell that to the desperately white, frantically hetero Tea Baggers who have had their sacks steeping in Sarah’s brain-free broth for so long that they’d hang you in effigy, put you in the stocks and otherwise excommunicate you from the brotherhood of besotted baggery. The ease with which Fox/Sarah has been able to concoct worlds which suit their scenarios as opposed to dealing with certifiable, empirically proven realities puts James Cameron to shame. If anyone knows how to manufacture reality, Roger Ailes does. Though arguably effective merely in terms of TV-Q, Fox (and by extension the GOP), has brought the tone of political and social discourse so low it would take a miracle, a resurrection of biblical proportions to restore it to anything approaching reasonableness (*cough*Operation:Northwoods*cough*) The irony of it all is that most aspersions cast from Fox/Sarah towards any of their enemies has always applied to them and the tighty righties themselves. That’s the madness in humanity’s design: looking ever outward when it should be looking inward. And that unholy two of Fox and Sarah has tapped into the kooky counter culture the way the Good Humor man made any kid automatically badger his or her parents for ice cream money, only the construction and execution of Sarah’s message is slightly less complex than the jingling of bells. You could say that the country is under the spell of one Foxy Lady! More on Sarah Palin

Read more from the original source:
Steven Weber: Foxy Lady!

Cross-posted from TruthDig.com . After days of protests over reform, the Obama administration has, in fact, created a change that many Americans can now see and feel. The new law, though imperfect, represents progress in a new direction. However, it seems that for this step forward some Americans have taken two steps back. The first step back took the form of angry racist and homophobic rhetoric aimed at Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Rep. Barney Frank , D-Mass., on March 20. Lewis was called a “nigger” and Frank was called a “faggot,” as tea party protesters shouted “Kill the bill.” Lewis recalled his experiences as a civil rights activist, saying, “It reminded me of the ’60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean.” Frank was unsurprised but “disappointed” by the incivility. In a related incident, Rep. Steve King , R-Iowa, stood on a balcony during the protests and slapped a picture of Nancy Pelosi’s face. Should we be surprised and disappointed? Probably not. We’ve seen this kind of action before: In 1994, then-first lady Hillary Clinton was burned in effigy by Kentuckians who were against reform. The second step back came as a fax was sent to Rep. Bart Stupak , D-Mich., Wednesday with a drawing of a noose and gallows, labeled “Bart (SS) Stupak.” Stupak is not alone. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., reported that he has received several faxes of nooses on gallows along with letters filled with racial slurs. Rep. Anthony Weiner , D-N.Y., was sent a package containing a menacing letter and a white powder. These symbolic threats have forced many to ask for an acknowledgment of these actions from the GOP and tea party spokespeople — not to mention the sort of strong condemnation they require. Many more are asking what race and sexual orientation have to do with it. The answer? A great deal. Even without a public or single-payer option, the reform law represents a disruption of hierarchy, a need for some extremists to place blame and an important form of identification for all Americans. By extending what has been a privilege of only those who work or can pay independently to roughly 40 million “others” as a right, the health care reform law has flattened out a social hierarchy that enables some Americans to feel and behave as though they are superior to others or that they have done something, other than merely being alive, that earns them the privilege of proper health care. Those who feel superior may say, “I or my company can pay for health care, therefore I am.” But now that the reform bill has become law, many more Americans can say, “I am, therefore I have the right to affordable health care.” By making health care available to more people, those who believe it’s a privilege they’ve earned are now placed on the same hierarchical rung as others who they believe don’t deserve or haven’t earned it. Tied to this sense of hierarchy and privilege is the impulse to place blame. Those who have been fiercely protesting against health care reform may not necessarily see anything wrong with the former status quo. As a result, many, like Newt Gingrich , argue that the U.S. government is guilty of stepping into an arena in which it does not belong, and their response is “hands off my health care.” Some planned to make this position personal by protesting this weekend at the home of Rep. Steve Driehaus , D-Ohio, who has already seen a photograph of his children used in an ad published by reform opponents. And there’s more fault-finding to go around. Countering Barack Obama’s inclusive slogan “Yes we can” is House Minority Leader John Boehner’s divisive and condescending response, ” Hell no you can’t .” The intent is to make Democrats pay for violating the sanctity of a system that supposedly wasn’t broken and to punish the government for overstepping its bounds. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele echoed this sentiment when he told Fox News that it’s time to start “getting Nancy [Pelosi] ready for the firing line.” Sarah Palin also did her part to raise the rhetorical stakes, telling her Twitter followers, “Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: ‘Don’t Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!’ ” Palin continued by referring her supporters to her Facebook page , where she once again makes use of gun imagery and produces a list of 20 potentially vulnerable pro-reform Democrats in Congress. Coincidentally, angry health care reform opponents associated with the Western Rifle Shooters Association are planning an open arms rally to ” Restore the Constitution ” at Fort Hunt and Gravelly Point parks in Virginia. This rally is scheduled to take place April 19, the anniversary of both the Waco siege and the Oklahoma City domestic terrorist attack. Finally, there’s the issue of identification. Those who are hurling hateful words, drawing hateful pictures and carrying deadly weapons are also implicitly sending the message that homosexuals and people of color should not be able to walk around feeling safe. Precisely because our president is multiracial the underlying fear is that Obama is out to empower minorities to the point of discriminating against white heterosexuals. Thus, for extremist health care reform opponents the mere presence of people of color and homosexuals with political clout poses a threat–hence the threats of violence coming from the extremes. The threats are real and have been taken to heart by at least 10 members of Congress who have now requested increased security . So, what should be done? It seems that our current health care debate is making the choice clear. We can seek to eliminate those Americans who do not conform to the status quo–whether actively, through acts of violence and intimidation, or passively, by not giving them access to care that could save or prolong their lives. Or, we can actually create a more perfect union that includes, empowers and involves more Americans and work on healing some old and stubborn scars in our nation’s constitution. More on Barack Obama

See the rest here: 
Marcia Dawkins: Health Care Reform: As America Steps Forward, Some Take Two Steps Back

A question which is causing no small degree of fear among Republican leaders in Washington right now is whether the Tea Parties are going to turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing for the Republican Party. Republican Party wonks are torn between welcoming the enthusiasm the Tea Party folks bring into their “big tent,” all the while worrying that this very vocal group is going to be dictating what is and what is not acceptable in Republicanism from this point on. Which, the seasoned politicians and party hacks know, may prove to provoke a backlash among independent voters, and lead to losing elections Republicans should have won. Call it the old “you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind” problem. So far, Republicans appear willing to walk this tightrope, in anticipation of gaining all those lovely motivated voters — but the saner heads among Republican officeholders are privately planning to give the Tea Parties only early lip service (in hopes of winning the primaries), and then quickly tacking away from them after the primaries are over (in hopes of winning the general elections). How this strategy plays out will be the most interesting dynamic in this year’s midterms. And Democrats should do everything they can to exploit this schism in Republicanland. The Tea Party movement is precisely that — a movement. It is not a centralized party or group, and it really has no easily-identifiable spokesperson, other than Sarah Palin, who (to be charitable) is not exactly known for her ability of being able to provide details on issues or policies. Like any movement, it welcomes just about everyone into its ranks who agrees on a few basic things, and is actually comprised of several smaller entities, some of whom aren’t exactly on the same page when it comes to strategy. Palin herself provided an ironic display of the disjointed nature of the movement (even though the media completely missed this irony) last week, when in the same day she appeared at a rally for John McCain (and against his Tea-Party-type primary opponent), and then later appeared over the state line at a pro-Tea-Party rally in Harry Reid’s hometown. Palin is part of the Republican Party who strongly believes the Tea Parties can be a good thing for Republicans, if the Tea Partiers can be welcomed in and then directed to support mainstream Republican candidates (or “co-opted,” in other words). Voices on the Left delight in ridiculing the Tea Partiers, or painting the entire movement with a wide racist brush. This is due to the nature of the movement, where anybody is welcome. There is indeed a certain racist element within Tea Party rallies, as there is a certain element of wackadoodle-ism. But this sort of thing happens in any movement, from the Left or the Right (although the specific nature of the wackadoodleness does indeed change as you move on the political spectrum). Now, I’m not saying the Tea Party wackadoodles shouldn’t be exposed by the Left, in an attempt to shine the full glare of the media spotlight on the lunacy and nastiness being openly displayed by some Tea Partiers. But the Left itself shouldn’t get complacent in the idea that this is purely a fringe group of crazy folks whose spelling skills (much less political philosophy) leave much to be desired. Because, while the lunatics get a lot of attention, it doesn’t mean that the movement itself is solely comprised of such gadflies. One faction of the Tea Party folks may very soon wrest control of a significant slice of the Republicans’ party machinery away from the “old guard” Washington-insider crowd who has been running it. They are concentrating on what can only be called a bottom-up takeover of the party structure itself. Tea Party folks are snapping up local party precinct chairs, which are largely thankless party jobs taken by people absolutely committed to the party’s cause. But there are a lot of them which are empty, or easily taken over. And these precinct chairs are the ones who get together to decide the state party’s strategies, and (eventually) the national party’s strategies as well. Not to mention which candidates to support. If the Tea Partiers fill enough of these positions, they will gain control of the Republican Party from within. Which is part of the fear, mentioned earlier, that the old guard Republicans in Washington have — all of a sudden, their own cushy party jobs may be put at risk, as well as control of the entire party itself. But that’s more of a long-term threat to Republican party hacks. The more immediate question is what will happen in this year’s midterm elections. The Tea Partiers, so far, have put up some candidates for some very interesting Republican primary races. Since they’re not a national, centrally-controlled organization, this isn’t true everywhere. And these races will likely play out differently in different parts of the country, especially considering which candidates actually decide to fully embrace the Tea Party label in their races. The quality of candidates varies, in other words, for both mainstream Republicans and Tea Party challengers, making it difficult to create sweeping statements about either side in this internecine struggle. There are a few possible outcomes to having a Tea Party challenger in a Republican primary race. The Tea Partier could win the nomination, when running against someone the Republican Party thinks is the best candidate. This may happen in Florida, where Charlie Crist (once thought a shoo-in) may lose his primary race to Marco Rubio, the Tea Party upstart. It could also happen in Kentucky, which would be particularly embarassing for the Republican Party, because the party candidate was hand-picked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and also because the Tea Party upstart is Ron Paul’s son. Of course, in other races, the Tea Party candidate could lose, to Republicans who have been in Washington for decades. John McCain springs to mind as someone who may defeat a surprisingly strong Tea Party primary challenger. This is where things get interesting, because (in states which allow it) the Tea Party candidate, after losing a Republican primary, could choose to run in the general election as a third-party (or Independent) candidate. Even in states where the Tea Party candidate wins the primary, the Republican could choose to go this route as well, and could even win in a general election as such (as Joe Lieberman did over on the Democratic side of things). If there is no Tea Party candidate in the general election (in states which bar candidates who have run in a primary from changing their party to run as an Independent, for instance, or a Tea Partier who just decides not to run in the general election), it remains to be seen whether the Tea Partiers will turn out and reliably vote Republican. They may stay home instead (they likely won’t be voting Democratic, no matter what happens), particularly if the Tea Party candidate lost a nasty primary race to a mainstream Republican. But that’s probably overly-optimistic. Love them or hate them, you’ve got to at least allow that they do have a lot of enthusiasm, and that enthusiasm will likely translate to a big turnout at the polls. The whole political calculus for a general election is a lot different than for a primary. And this is where Democrats could actually benefit from the Tea Party movement. Because if the Tea Party decides to go the third-party candidacy route, it could provide the margin of victory in races that otherwise would likely have been won by Republicans. Third parties split the vote of whatever major party they would normally be voting for. It’s likely, for instance, that Bill Clinton never would have won his first presidential term without the presence of H. Ross Perot in the race. And it may be the only way Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps his job this year (polls show him losing in a two-way race, but edging out a slim victory in a three-way race with a Tea Party candidate). There’s no guarantee of any of this, of course. Lieberman won his last race, after all, and not the Republican candidate. But the general strategy for any political candidate is to move towards your base in the primaries, and towards the center in the general election. Most elections these days are won by the independent vote in the middle, but the problem is that independents don’t vote in primaries. Nobody much votes in primaries, for that matter (a 15 percent primary turnout is considered huge in some states). The ones who do are the loyal, committed base of the party. Which leaves Republicans in a bind. Because the further they tack towards the Tea Parties in the primary season, the further they have tied themselves to the fortunes of the group. And defined themselves as supporting the group’s goals. At the same time, the more the Tea Partiers get unruly and downright hateful at their rallies, the more it scares those independent voters who (in a normal year) would likely vote Republican. Independents, almost by definition, are wary of extremists of any stripe. Remember the “soccer moms” from elections past? Soccer moms think twice about aligning themselves with people who are seen as racist, and they are really driven away by violence or threats of violence. Which is why the Left is smart to continue shining the spotlight on such instances — which even the mainstream media (who has, largely, been much more respectful of the Tea Partiers than they ever have been to movements coming from the Left, I might add) is now regularly pointing out when they cover Tea Party rallies. Come the general election, many mainstream Republican candidates will likely attempt to drop the Tea Parties like a hot potato, but this may prove a bit more difficult than they think. Democratic candidates should try to show the public any radical statements made by Republicans to Tea Party groups during the primary season, because Republicans will likely be trying to distance themselves from such rhetoric after the primaries are behind them. But, even if Republicans are successful at such distancing, it may lead to Tea Party voter disillusionment by the general election. This is the tightrope Republicans will have to walk this year. Convince enough moderates and independents that they aren’t all that radical, while convincing the Tea Partiers that they are indeed just that radical. Throughout it all, the more radical the Tea Party itself gets, the better it will likely be for Democrats in the future, even if they do lose seats this year. The more the Tea Party marginalizes its own movement by allowing racists and hatemongering a platform, the less effective it will prove to ultimately be. And if it leads to even one spectacular instance of violence (or “domestic terrorism” if you will), then the Tea Party movement will likely collapse and have to go through a rebirth phase (with a different label, most likely). But even in the absence of such a tragedy, the saner heads in the Republican Party are right to wonder whether this is going to wind up being a good thing for the party or not. From within or without, the Republican Party itself may become defined by the rigorous standards of the core Tea Party movement. And while that may be good news for them in the primaries — and possibly even in this year’s general elections — it may also guarantee that the party shrinks in appeal to the general public for years to come. What may determine the answer to the question of whether the Tea Parties are a good thing or bad for the Republican Party is how much they manage to appeal to independents and moderates. Independents will likely be the more reachable group, since a lot of them feel disillusioned by both parties. But “moderate” is not exactly the Tea Party’s strong point, meaning they may further drive what used to be “moderate Republicans” (yes, such a species of voter does indeed exist) away from the party, possibly for a long time to come. Which is why the Republicans in Washington (those who know how to broaden their appeal in order to win elections) are so scared of the movement, and why they’re downright terrified of saying anything negative about it (lest they themselves be ousted by the mob). Which all adds up to a fascinating election season, no matter who comes out on top. Because this fight for the soul of the Republican Party may have implications which reverberate for a lot more election cycles to come.   Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant   More on Joe Lieberman

Read more here:
Chris Weigant: Tea Party Excess?

“Hi Mom and Dad. Wow, it’s freezing out there!” “What are you, starting already?” “With what?” “You think snow means the planet isn’t warming?” “No Dad, I just need a tissue. And maybe some hot tea.” “No tea in this house! Those lunatics have blackened the name of tea forever. And tea was already black!” “There’s your brother.” “Hey hi, be right there I haveta charge my Blackberry.” “We’re having blueberries.” “Cool, Grandma! (yipes).” “Maybe you shouldn’t have a phone until everyone in the collective has a phone. Isn’t that how it works?” “Ma, I’m sorry Nader didn’t win, but Obama didn’t win by only one vote. Get off my back.” “Hey Jack, nice day!” “Enjoy it while you can. I’m going to put on suncreen.” “Dad, stop! It’s thirty degrees out there.” “And a hole in the ozone. If I get melanoma it’s not covered. The sun is a pre-existing condition.” “The health bill changed that. There are no more pre-existing conditions.” “Oh, that’s right. I’ll try not to get skin cancer til 2014.” “Everybody better get your abortions in now. Esther? Sophie? Grandma?” “That’s funny to you? That’s a person.” “Dad, you always told me you weren’t a person until you paid off your college loans.” “Who coined ‘abortion on demand’? What a talking point. I can’t even get DirecTV On Demand.” “Stop it and come to the table everybody, it’s ready. Jack, Pa, you’re at the head. Ma, there. Sophie, Esther, here. Ming Na, Wu Chen, Dolores, Mary Rose, Brendan, Abe, Carmelita, Rosita and Jose, come on.” “Looks great, ma!” ” Suavacito .” “Thank you doll.” “What’s that?” “That’s Polar bear, and that one’s baby seal.” “Very funny.” “Well I know you don’t eat beef.” “I thought it’s not a seal until it pays off its passage to Sea World.” “Ha.” “Beef, it’s what’s dead for dinner.” “She’s right. You can have a beef shake by just mixing up growth hormone, antibiotics, poop, steroids and corn.” “Do we hafta hear poop at dinner?” “Steroids. That’s the baseball beef dinner.” “Maybe the dinner should have an asterisk.” “Sea World educates children about wild animals.” “Yes Sophie. Every kid who visits Sea World thinks wild dolphins and whales have a basketball league in the Pacific. And line dance.” “I swam with a whale. Your Aunt Dolores!” “Shut up, Abe. Don’t worry Jessica honey, the brisket has been cooked so long it has no chemical properties of anything that was ever alive.” “Mmm. Who needs a man when there’s meat that will lay on your chest for a week.” “Only Mom could broil the DNA out of a living thing. Forensic Kosher cooking. CSI-Queens .” “Can’t we have one dinner in peace?” “Peace? You support the troops, young lady.” “I do, Dad. They sacrifice to bring democracy, and the Iraqi Prime Minister challenges the election results.” “Well see? We brought American democracy.” “Al Gore should have fought. Stepping aside, biggest mistake in this country’s history.” “WHO NEEDS CARROTS? Brendan?” “The youngest will ask the first of the Four Questions. Wu Chen, are you ready, shana tatelah ?” “為什麼是此晚上不同的？” “Very good! Now Grandpa answers. Pa?” “Мы едим горькAp травы для того чтобы напомнить нас.” “What did Grandpa say?” “Shame on you Esther. You let your Russian go?” “Please pass the matzoh.” “Why not just wait? I’m sure the matzoh will make its way over to you when you’re not looking. It may even take over the potatoes.” “Hey, the matzoh won that territory in 1967. Do you let the neighbors tell you what to plant?” “Father Doolie says…” “Father Doolie? Are you kidding, Mary Rose? Who’s his date at mass today? Skippy?” “Shut your mouth!” “Like the Pope?” “Stop it! The Pope can’t say anything until there’s a full investigation.” “They should let the priests have lives. Then they wouldn’t have to do this.” “Then they wouldn’t be priests. They’d be insurance salesmen.” “Hey, plenty of rabbis have fallen off the path.” “Yes! With hookers, not children!” “That’s a badge of honor?” “Stop. I cooked all week so we could have a nice meal.” “What’s the carbon footprint of this meal, Ma?” “Don’t worry about it smart pants, I traded caps with Mrs. O’Donohue next door. I won’t be roasting anything on December 25th.” “How about I kick you in the ass so we can see the footprint?” “Hey, Abe hasn’t done his ‘Ray Charles reading the matzoh’ joke yet.” “Please, no. Only African Americans can do a Ray Charles joke. I don’t want trouble.” “Can’ 我們全部得到的t ？” “Ming Na is right. We’re all Americans. We should be grateful. We have food, freedom, and God bless, TiVo. Do you know how many countries have to sit through commercials?” ” ¿Qué es el remate de chiste de Ray Charles? ” “Oh. He touches the matzoh and he says, ‘Who writes this shit?’” “Hahahaha!” “Oh dear.” “Here we go.” “Oy, I have to go open my belt.” “There he is, Israel loosening its belt to lie down on the new couch of expanding settlements.” “It’s just a belt, Mary Rose!” “Time for the second of the four questions.” “Maybe we need some new questions.” “Oh Mr. Big Shot. You bloggle for the Huffington Post, so now you’re fit to rewrite the Torah?” “It’s blog , Ma.” “I don’t care what it is. The Torah wasn’t written by someone who writes in his underwear. In the daytime. For free.” “Van Gogh only sold one painting while he was alive.” “How’d that work out for him?” “We don’t need new questions. We need better answers.” ” Usted puede decir eso otra vez .” ” Alavai , Rosita. Such a shana punim .” “Неправильно с этими lunatics, Carmelita?” ” No saben afortunado son , Grandpa.” “Wu Chen, the question.” “為什麼我們吃苦澀草本？” “Pa?” “Вспомнить наше горькое путешествие.” ” Pequeño muchacho muy muy bueno , such a mensch .” “感謝伯父, dude.” “Jose, you’ve been here five years. You think you might speak English?” “Grandpa and Wu Chen like my Spanish. But no worries, I’m not gonna lose my Russian.” “Obama’s anti-Semitic.” “No, he’s not. He’s telling them to stop building so there can be a peace process. Nobody can say anything or right away you’re anti-Semitic.” “I didn’t care for that Sandra Bullock movie.” “You think she’s anti-Semitic?” “That was some husband. Such a pretty girl.” “Never happen. Any progress, the Palestinians attack. I wish Israel didn’t take the bait every time.” “I lost twenty pounds watching the news with dinner. I scream and yell so much all the food falls out of my mouth. I was worried when Obama came in I would stop, but no. Five pounds in his first year.” “What kind of Tostitos are these? Muy bueno .” “Streits.” “I say forget Hillary, let’s send Sarah Palin to the Middle East.” “Are you crazy? She’s an idiot!” “I know. Let’s just send her.” “Hahahaha. Finally Abe, a good joke!” “Happy Passover, salud y amor y tiempo para disfrutarlo .” “Prost.” “Nien Nien nu e. Kong Chien.” ” L’Chaim everybody. And a zeisen Pesach . Next year, hopefully, on beachfront property. Or at least a doorman building.” More on Judaism

Read more from the original source: 
Elayne Boosler: Seder 2010: The Way We Live Today

The National Review’s Kathryn Lopez, literally one of the dumbest people in politics, tweets : there are bigger fish to fry but the president’s leg on the oval office desk is a jarringly perfect image of this administration’s approach How is that jarring, other than the wingnuts still can’t get over the fact that Obama gets to sit in the Oval Office? Yet, this is apparently the latest right-wing freakout . Obama, believe it or not, had the temerity to put his feet on his desk . If this was Sarah Palin, Fox News and company would be waxing poetic about how “folksy” this made Palin. Regular Americans from the heartland put their feet up on desks! But Obama is a Democrat, and this is apparently uppity, because they sure didn’t give a damn when this happened: Of course, no one gave a damn when Bush did it (or Gerald Ford before him), because 1) there were more important things to worry about, and 2) who gives a flying fuck? Just when you think the fringe right has reached peak idiocy, they always manage to top themselves.

Go here to see the original: 
The horrors of (a Democrat) putting his feet on a desk

I have to admit, I’m scared. Yes, there have been assaults on Republican lawmakers, and we are overdue in condemning these attacks. But let’s face it, the vast majority of attacks are aimed at people who voted for health care, not against it. Congressman Bart Stupak, who is nobody’s idea of a liberal, got calls declaring, “I hope you get cancer and die.” There is something very, very ugly going on in America today. This atmosphere reminds a lot of people, including me, of the South’s reaction to civil rights in the fifties and sixties: never give in, and use threats and then violence to resist, if you need to. The analogy is limited; we haven’t seen anything like the level of shootings and church bombings of sixty years ago, but the anger seems similar. And that confuses me. In all fairness to white Southerners, they really were losing something, an enormous structure of status and wealth. Of course, it was based on racism and white superiority, but you could see why they were upset; no one gives up that much easily. So what is the right losing now that is the equivalent, that could spark so much anger? The health care is a compromise, a luke warm one at that. To use an analogy, when I teach about the 1930s, one of my favorite books to assign is Paul Conkin’s, The New Deal. Conkin was writing in the early 70s, when some folks still looked on FDR as a god, who had transformed America. His response was to ask, “So what?” After the New Deal we still had capitalism, we still voted for our elected officials, we still had freedom of speech. The book forces my students to think long and hard about the Roosevelt Revolution’s effect on this country, pro or con. Similarly, we can ask of this health care bill, “What is the bid deal?” One answer as to what they’re afraid of is definitely not the size of the deficit, by the way. The biggest jump in the deficit in recent years came during the Reagan-Bush years. Democrat Bill Clinton gave us a balanced budget, then W. blew it wide open again with a couple of unfinanced wars and an impossibly flawed prescription bill. Somehow none of this seemed to bother John Boehner, Eric Cantor, or the tea baggers at the time. I do think, however, this is an important question to tackle, figuring out what they are so scared of. As a progressive, I need to expose right wing shenanigans. But as an academic, I should be analyzing what is going on, with as much depth as I can muster, trying to further our understanding of what makes this country tick. Some of the answers for why the anger have been discussed already, in many public forums and in previous blogs that I posted. Bigotry of many sorts plays a part in this, as does fear of change. And millions of Americans are hurting in very real ways, with jobs, homes, kids’ educations, all the middle class goals, on the line. But there is something more going on here, and that has been bugging me. A very, very good answer appeared in the New York Times, in a column by David Leonhardt. Leonhardt pointed out the health care bill really is a big deal, because it is the biggest attack on economic inequality since the seventies, reversing a trend under both Republican and Democratic politicians towards greater concentration of wealth. But the columnist went further. He pointed out that more than anything, the bill was attacking the Reagan legacy, in that it was using government to deal with inequality in a big way. I think he has hit on something here, and something big. For the Right, Ronald Reagan is the equivalent of FDR to our side, the president who ushered in a sea change in American politics. And like some progressives, conservatives see Reagan as a god-like figure who can do no wrong. Forget that he was a complex politician; they haven’t had their Paul Conkin yet. And Reaganism hasn’t been fundamentally challenged. Till now. As Leonhardt pointed out, the health care bill really is the first major piece of social legislation passed since the Age of Reagan, the first big, public progressive bill passed and the first major challenge to the principles the Gipper fought for. So what is happening, indeed, is a change of much larger proportions than just the health care bill alone. For the right, this is an assault on Reaganism, an entire approach to governing, to American society and culture. That really is a big deal. Let’s take a look at what Reaganism stands for–accurately or not–in the minds of many on the other side. Let’s see, in other words, what they think is at stake. Reagan was militaristic, a big supporter, both with words and budgets, of the Pentagon. If that is lost, will we become weak? Will other powers push us around? Will our troops–the best we have– be disrespected at home and abroad? An even larger issue is patriotism. Reagan was the best modern president at touting American exceptionalism, the notion that we are different, special, and blessed, more so than any other country in the world. If Reaganism ends, will we lose that pride, will we no longer honor our country in the most fundamental way, lose track of who we are? Take a look at all those textbooks that fail to discuss what unifies us as a nation, that harp on racism and sexism, and how we massacred the Indians. Sarah Palin recently remarked on Sean Hannity’s show that, ” those who love America and don’t want to see that transformation of America into some kind of socialized country,” should fight health care reform. Clearly, to Governor Palin, those who support the health care bill, do not “love their country”. In economic terms, Reagan believed devoutly in mobility, that every American could become a millionaire. He lifted the hopes and dreams of all of us, instead of taking away our wealth and giving it to Big Government, who hands it out to welfare queens. This is hogwash, of course. Under Reagan, hundreds of Marines got blown up in Beirut, undefended, without ever firing a shot. And Bob Gates, Obama’s secretary of defense, has been criticized for spending too much money on femmy things like better base housing and salaries and health benefits, instead of new toys like planes and ships and guns. For spending more on the troops, in other words. Barack Obama, meanwhile, has raised our international prestige higher than it has been in decades. There is a lot to be proud of here. It’s a funny thing; people all over the world, not just in the US, like someone who looks like them. And who treats them with respect, rather than bullying them. I have spent most of my life teaching and writing American history, a dedication to our heritage most tea party patriots can’t come close to matching. I fervently believe in an American nation and its greatness, but I also believe we benefit by telling all the parts of our rich and varied story. When I stated out decades ago, history was about presidents, generals, and Supreme Court rulings. All important items, even today, but that was all we did back then. Some of us took a different approach, writing about workers, in my case those who toiled in the Union Stock-Yards, a smelly lot. But I believed–and still do–that their story should be added to our mosaic. If you disagree, feel free to tell all the daughters and sons of Polish, Italian, Jewish, Greek, Slovak, German, Irish and other workers that their parents and grandparents weren’t worthy of being called important Americans. And in economic terms, historic study after historic study has shown that the Horatio Alger myth was just that: a myth. The odds of jumping from being a farmer or worker to the ranks of the millionaires were dismal. Yes. Andrew Carnegie did make it. But we remember him, in part, because he was so exceptional in this and other regards. Instead the great American triumph was to rise from working to middle class. Not everyone who strived made it; there were literally millions of casualties along the way as workers died and were maimed in horrible factories, with no Workman’s Comp or Social Security to help their families either (a couple of government-run programs, by the way). For those who achieved, the cost was often child labor, and hunger for all. But millions did make it, unlike the class-bound societies of Europe. A nd the big news, to those who fear the boogeyman called Big Government, is that despite what Reagan preached, that mobility ladder is still working just fine, thank you. Why in God’s name do you think all those people are still immigrating to the US today? Yes, there are still terrible obstacles, but an awful lot of these immigrants are jumping on that same ladder, and doing just fine. Take a look at Monterey Park in California, or Queens in New York City, or neighborhoods in Boston, or Chicago, or Cleveland. This country is still fulfilling the American Dream for some–not all, by any means–of those who seek it. And the health care bill won’t deter that, only push some folks up a rung or two. That’s my big problem with Ronald Reagan. A truly gifted communicator–he wrote many of his early speeches–no recent president, with the exception of Barack Obama, has been better at enunciating ideals. The failure was his inability to capture the whole range of beliefs that made this country great. Yes, he enunciated faith in valid virtues such as hard work and independence, but he always left out concepts like the importance of community, or mercy, or consideration for our fellow Americans. He also pandered at times to bigots, as when he followed the instinct of his political supporters, and did not respond to our nation’s worst epidemic since the flu pandemic of 1918-1919–AIDS–because it was associated with homosexuals and Haitians. But look at the list of Reaganisms above. If we really were losing all those things it would be a catastrophe. We really would be forgoing our country. Those who fear the end of the Age of Reagan, without sense or evidence, truly have a lot to be afraid of, hence their incredible fears. I could sympathize with them a lot more if any of what they perceive really was true.

Original post:
Robert Slayton: THE END OF REAGANISM

It seems everybody gets their own pet conspiracy these days: Birthers, Birchers, Deathers, Truthers and whatever you call the people who won’t get their kids inoculated. According to the theories, nothing is as it seems and everyone is in on it. Following this reasonable assumption, I’ve come up with my own. Here it is: former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Congressman Paul Ryan from Wisconsin are all Democratic plants. It’s true. I have proof. The signs are everywhere. It’s so painfully obvious: Who has been a bigger boon to the Democratic Party than Sarah Palin? There’s no way that’s for real. Come on, no one had ever heard of her and then suddenly she’s tanking the GOP’s presidential bid? That’s not suspicious? The press called her behavior “going rogue,” I call it taking orders from the opposition. So you’re going to run for Vice President and you’re not going to read up on the issues? Putin rearing his head? Wear a quarter of a million dollar donated wardrobe while giving speeches about fiscal conservatism? Use the catch-phrase “palling around with terrorists” while you’re schtuping a secessionist ? It’s plain to see: she was working with David Axelrod and David Plouffe to get Obama into the White House. Then with her help, Obama won (of course) by a huge margin. No one figured out that she was a double agent after losing the election? Then just to make the greenhorn Democrats seem more steady at the wheel she quit her job as a governor during one of the worst economic times since the Great Depression. Now she’s out to sabotage the Tea Parties by speaking on their behalf while taking six figure speaking fees from them. How was she not pretending she couldn’t remember a thing like “lift American’s spirits.” It’s insultingly clear! She even stumped for Senator John McCain last week in Tucson and said “some may claim that John was there at that first Tea Party.” Jokes about McCain being old? Really? Doesn’t that sound like something a Democrat would say about him? Yes. Yes it does. And RNC Chairman Michael Steele, are we really supposed to believe in this phony “Bizarro Obama” act? POLITICO stated he’s spending twice as much as his predecessors on private planes, limos and flowers while trying to co-opt populist outrage. And now there are reports the FEC is investigating nearly two grand of RNC donor money being spent at a bondage theme club last February in West Hollywood. The same club Lindsay Lohan frequents just before she checks back into rehab. So far Steele is claiming it wasn’t him, although it still accomplishes his goal as a Trojan Horse. How much more does he need to spell it out for us: he’s in cahoots with the Democrats. He’s been working hard at it too, ” honest Injun .” It’s not like he’s working on the shattered party - he’s writing books and taking speaking fees while chairman. Who is going to come out against empathy when the economy is in freefall besides someone trying to make the DNC look better? “Crazy nonsense empathetic. I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness,” said Steele during the Sonia Sotomayor hearings. I wonder which of Obama’s speechwriters gave him that gem. Do I need to draw a map for you people? Where’s my chalkboard ? I don’t want any of you to freak out since my conspiracy has nothing to do with Nazis or Chairman Mao. Of course, that’s what they’d want you to think. I brought up Congressman Ryan because he outed himself as an Obama plant last week. After health care reform was signed into law, he penned (allegedly) an op/ed in the New York Times. The title of the piece was ” Fix Health Reform, Then Repeal It .” Why would you need to fix something if you’re just going to repeal it? Wasn’t that the unbelievable plotline for the movie Wolverine ?! It doesn’t make any sense unless you’re really in the tank for Obamacare. Clean up the house, demolish it, and then listen to us about government waste. He’s clearly trying to make a mockery of Republicans. Oh yes, we’re through the looking glass here people.

Read the rest here: 
Tina Dupuy: The Latest Republican Conspiracy Theory

Pathetic. Old. Fart. To shore up his right flank in the primary election, McCain has drawn on the support of popular party conservatives, including new Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and Palin, who is appearing alongside him at two rallies this weekend. Palin’s star power proved a clear draw among the crowd in Tucson, some of whom said they had turned out for a glimpse of the former Alaska governor propelled to celebrity by the 2008 presidential campaign. “I just wanted to come and see Sarah Palin,” said Mary Sparks, as she stood among supporters at the rally, some in cowboy hats. “I just think she’s great, I read her book and I’d like to see her as president of the United States.” Kaylie Chriss, a registered Republican, said she remained undecided about who to vote for in the primary election but felt Palin’s appearance would boost McCain. “It definitely helps him,” she said. “It gets him a lot more support from people who may not have heard of him.” Holy f-ing crap! People who might not have heard of him? He’s running for what I believe is his eleventy-fifth six year term in the Senate, and Sarah Palin has to come to town to help in case people in Arizona haven’t heard of him! What’s even more pathetic is that it’s been true for a long time: WaPo: McCain was almost upstaged at the rally here by Palin, who drew rapturous applause from the crowd with her bubbly declaration — twice — that she and McCain were “going to Washington, D.C., to shake things up!” McCain recited a speech he had given earlier in the day about the need to reform Wall Street. A slow but steady trickle of supporters began to file out after Palin’s speech introducing McCain. Radio Iowa blog: The Top Gun soundtrack began playing just about the time McCain’s plane arrived.  Shortly after 11 o’clock (an hur late), McCain and Palin took the stage as the Garth Brooks song “Standing Outside the Fire” played and the crowd cheered. “We want Sarah,” the crowd began chanting as Palin said, “Thank you,” to begin the rally. “Thank you so much Iowa, it is so good to be in Grand Rapids,” Palin said.  OOOPS.  She’s in Cedar Rapids. I look up, about five minutes into McCain’s address and see a steady stream of people walking out of the rally.  They just came to see Palin apparently. NYT: After Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, his running-mate, riveted the overflow crowd at an airplane hanger here for 16 minutes, it was McCain’s turn, and people in his audience began murmuring and drifting away midway through a 14-minute speech that was flat and cheerless. When McCain made his first appearance without Palin, on Monday morning in Jacksonville, he faced an arena that was one-quarter full. Detroit Free Press: Many came to see Palin. “Here’s to Sarah Palin and the old guy,” said Gerald Hunsburger of Holland, who decided to forgo his usual sunny day hobby of boating on Lake Michigan. “She’s energizing.” McCain diminished himself when he morphed from “War Hero” to “Captain ‘Get Off My Lawn.’” All seven of them. (Or however many it was.) What could possibly be worse than that? Finding out they’re all Sarah Palin’s lawns now. John McCain’s going out as Patient Zero in the Palin Virus epidemic. But no one deserves it more.

The rest is here: 
Sarah Barracuda Returns

Big surprise . Teabaggers aren’t real patriots. They’re just unemployed and have nothing better to do with their time than watch Glenn Beck and get outraged about…stuff. At rallies, gatherings and training sessions in recent months, activists often tell a similar story in interviews: they had lost their jobs, or perhaps watched their homes plummet in value, and they found common cause in the Tea Party’s fight for lower taxes and smaller government. The Great Depression, too, mobilized many middle-class people who had fallen on hard times. Though, as Michael Kazin, the author of “The Populist Persuasion,” notes, they tended to push for more government involvement. The Tea Party vehemently wants less — though a number of its members acknowledge that they are relying on government programs for help. The astonishing thing about these teabaggers is that they, like so many Americans, are legitimately hurting in this economy. But because they listen to the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and their elected officials from the Party of No, they think the answer to their problems is to demand that the government stop trying to help them with their problems. And thus, you have people like those featured in the New York Times article, who have lost their jobs and are upside down on their mortgages, calling their congressional representatives for help and at the same time devoting all their free time to organizing protests against their congressional representatives who try to help them. Mr. Grimes, who receives Social Security, has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with the literature of the movement, including Glenn Beck’s “Arguing With Idiots” and Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law,” which denounces public benefits as “false philanthropy.” “If you quit giving people that stuff, they would figure out how to do it on their own,” Mr. Grimes said. Apparently, the New York Times reporter did not bother to ask Mr. Grimes when he would be giving up his Social Security so he can figure out how to do it on his own.

Read the rest here: 
Teabaggers: Unemployed Morons With Nothing Better To Do

I don’t know about you, but I seem to notice that we have more and more people signing up for the Ain’t It Awful Club. I’m sure you know some members. Who knows, perhaps you have a membership of your own. Candidly, I have been known to visit the club myself. After all, in today’s world, we certainly have plenty to complain about, ranging from economic stress and recession, to health care strife and politics reduced to playground name calling. What strikes me most about the Ain’t It Awful Club is the skillful banter between members as they engage in one-downsmanship. In case this sounds a bit removed from anything you have experienced, may I suggest that you can find a local chapter in your office cafeteria, the local Starbucks, or the corner bar. It used to be that members only met after work at a neighborhood pub. However things seem to have deteriorated to the extent that members need to meet more frequently. A typical conversation–aka moan and groan session–starts off with a member complaining about some circumstance, It could be something at work, the politics at the neighborhood school, greedy bankers, or politics in general. No sooner has the initial complaint been registered, the n the next member rejoins with something like, “You think that’s bad? Wait until you hear this!” And downward goes the spiral. Of course, the club now has tiered membership. Gone are the days of the merely local chapter holding court with the turf all to itself. The local bar or coffee klatch now must compete with professional complainers–the radio and TV talk shows, political commentators, bloggers and, of course, our elected representatives. So what’s going on? How is it that we have become a nation besotted with criticism and complaint over reasoned argument and positive action? How is it that we have come to accept argumentative name calling as a worthy substitute for meaningful dialogue? Could it be that we have learned to substitute criticism and complaint for meaningful action? Somehow, tossing around hateful rhetoric has become an apparently acceptable substitute for real engagement. If you’re not sure what I mean, just browse around the pages of the HuffPost. You will find an interesting blend of thoughtful posts (usually viewed by a handful of readers with but a few comments) and hackles raising posts targeting one or more groups (often viewed by thousands upon thousands, accompanied by hundreds if not thousands of comments). Even the comments themselves can be an interesting blend of dialogue and diatribe. Some readers seem to surf for opportunities to show off their ability to be negative in sometimes clever language. What’s up with this apparent rising tide of negativity and personal attack? And why do so many seem to find the attack mentality not only acceptable but attractive? I guess I’m really writing this post to myself. As much as I find all this negativity-laced criticism to be somewhere between offensive and ineffective, I can also see this kind of mindset increasingly present in my own attitudes. I do find it pretty easy to join in one of those Ain’t It Awful Club conversations, adding even more fuel to the political complaints about the brain-dead policies and approaches of any number of politicians. Perhaps adding vitriol to any topic somehow is supposed to add veracity to the argument. Or perhaps vitriolic attacks are meant to indicate some kind of actual engagement. I don’t care whether you think Sarah Palin is evil-on-a-broom or if you think President Obama is the anti-Christ. Both are human beings with some combination of political ambitions and social good mixed in with agendas they are trying to pursue. Disagreeing with their politics or approaches is not only understandable but desirable if we are to continue building something of substance and promise as a society. However, when we add negativity to something we perceive as negative, then we wind up sliding down an impossibly slippery slope. Could we find a way to bring caring and civility into our daily interactions, be they with the airline clerk who had nothing to do with your flight being delayed or with the person on the other side of the health care debate? What might happen if we actually took a few minutes to try and understand what it must be like to be the person on the other side of our criticism? What is it that they care about? And why? I suspect we might find a whole lot more humanness underneath many positions. And, I’m pretty sure we might meet more than a few self-serving, greedy, and uncaring individuals in the process. Could we start a different kind of Tea Party? How about one where we invite the other to join us for tea, rather than seeking to lynch them literally or figuratively? As Abraham Lincoln once said, “I do not like that man. I must get to know him better.” He also said, “Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?” What would be wrong with inviting a few people over to tea and learning a bit more about who they really are, rather than the negative characterizations we hold of them in our minds? What do you think? Could you imagine holding onto your criticisms and negative thoughts about another long enough to get to know them better? Drop me an email or leave a comment here - let us know your thoughts. *** Russell Bishop is an Educational Psychologist, professional life coach and management consultant, based in Santa Barbara California. You can find out more about Russell at http://www.lessonsinthekeyoflife.com . Contact Russell by email at: Russell (at) lessonsinthekeyoflife.com More on The Inner Life

See the original post here: 
Russell Bishop: Do You Belong To The ‘Ain’t It Awful’ Club?

Well, well, I’ve seen poor losers before, as have we all. But these Republicans have been poor losers since President Obama took office and now that their strategy of being the “party of NO” has failed to serve them so far as sinking the Health Care Bill, just look at their behavior. However, they’ve now gone beyond their trademark of “poor losers” to the status of national security threats and homeland terrorists. For all of their screaming and bullying and noise making in the Senate and House during this past year in their efforts to sabotage the Health Care Bill along with anything from the Obama administration, we would now be more than foolish to misinterpret what’s really taking place in front of our eyes: These clever but cowardly Republicans have given the green light to their minions to attack their fellow countrymen who voted in favor of heath care reform in retaliation for their inability to defeat this bill. These Republicans have, in essence, raised a call to arms against their own countrymen and women during a time when this country continues to fight a war started by Republicans for bogus reasons, a fact which we must never forget. Representative Michele Bachman from Minnesota screamed to her constituents recently, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous … Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.” Representative Steve King yelled, “Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s take them out. Let’s chase them down.” And then there’s one of my favorite carnival barkers, Congressman John Boehner, “Take Steve Dryads, for example. He may be a dead man.” Ah, yes. Now, how does one go from being a live man to a dead man, Congressman Boehner? Are you hinting that you or one of your cohorts are arranging for a hit man to show up at his door? Is that what you’re saying here? Are you telling those of us who don’t knuckle under that death threats are what we can expect from Republicans? Apparently. Let’s just consider what the Bush/Cheney administration would do to Democrats or “liberals” who tossed a few bricks into the office windows of Republican congressmen, for example. They would be arrested and labeled as “terrorists”, no doubt about it. Anyone uttering threats to a congressman or woman would be immediately and without mercy tracked down like a fox on a hunt. And who knows where the poor fox would end up, if you know what I’m referring to by that comment. (Remember those concentration camps the Bush/Cheney administration set up overseas for torture in Poland and a few other countries?) And can you even imagine what would happen to a liberal (or any astute American) who tossed out a comment to, oh, say, Rove, such as, “Hey, appreciate your shredding the Constitution. Good job, there. Only thing you did well.” Hum … My guess is that person would end up with a hood over his or her head and never be seen or heard from again. I could be wrong but my memories of the Bush/Cheney love of torture, threats, bullying, lies, and negotiating the law are still all too clear. I live in fear and dread that these monsters will regain control of the White House - a nightmare that just does not stop replaying itself in my dreams. I call it “post traumatic Bush/Cheney Syndrome” and I see symptoms of this syndrome active in many people throughout the country. People are still afraid to speak out, lest they find themselves arrested for being anti-patriotic. Continuing, I wonder what would happen to someone like that coward who accidentally cut the wrong gas line? He was aiming for Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello’s house but ended up at the congressman’s brother’s house instead. That guy must feel like such a silly goose, going to the wrong house and all. I mean cutting a gas line is like “Vandalism 101″ and he blew it. It’s obvious what happened, though. This guy has the same sharp memory as Palin, only unlike Palin, he forgot to scribble the correct information on his hand. Next time you want to vandalize someone’s home, buddy, use lipstick to write down what you need to remember. Pigs love lipstick. I think that’s how the saying goes, isn’t it? Well, whatever. As for Sarah Palin, our Republican Court Fool, here’s a sweet quote from her: “In Alaska, you know what we do with people like that? We hunt ‘em down and shoot ‘em between the eyes.” Note that she is busy trying to backtrack on that remark and a few others like, “Don’t retreat, reload”, saying that she was actually referring to “voting ‘em out at the polls”. What? Since when is “shoot ‘em between the eyes” a slogan for inspiring voting? Is this woman insane or what? Or does she think we are? Or is she coming very close to committing sedition? I remind you that this nation is still at war and inciting acts of violence against the government while the nation is at war borders on sedition. This may not be an anti-war protest in its purest sense but at its core, the ambition to weaken this government is crystal clear. Further, do I sense a threat in these words or am I just reading between the lines? Nope, I think the word “shoot,” means exactly what it says. Is she rallying the troops and suggesting that people plan the murders of their opponents? Is she supporting the assassination of Senators or Congressmen and women who are on the opposing team or, even the President? Exactly what, in her hysterical, arrogant lunacy, is she saying? Her website instructs her fan base: Don’t retreat, reload. The recent visitation of a busload of Tea Party Brown Shirts to Senator Harry Reid’s home state of Nevada, threatening to oust him in the next election, revealed a crowd of angry, raging people on the verge of a fight. All they needed was a lighted match - the right or wrong word said by an opponent and all hell would have broken out. Apparently these Tea Party Brown Shirts are traveling across the country, taking their rage state-to-state, led by Court Fool Palin - or is she now a Reality Talk Show Host? (I can’t keep up with all her avenues to fame and fortune, but it’s obvious she’ll use anything and everything to keep her face in the camera.) Here’s the bottom line, folks: The Republican right-wingers are dangerous. They should be considered homeland and homegrown security threats and we - those of us who live and vote on the other side of the aisle - are their targets. How do I know if one of these gun-toting hysterics won’t let loose and “shoot to kill”, following the orders of their leader, Sarah Palin? And, if Palin’s too busy because of her upcoming Reality television series, I can easily imagine Michele Bachmann or John Boehner giving a “shoot to kill” command to their Tea Party followers. Think about it - do you really feel safe in Michele Bachman’s state of Minnesota any more? I’m not sure we should assume we’re safe anymore at all in our own country. You better check your car bumper stickers to make certain you don’t have one that reveals that you voted for Obama. After all, Bachman’s encouraging her constituency to become “armed and dangerous” Americans. Last time I checked, Minnesota was not a state full of Al Qaeda terrorists, which means if armed and dangerous Minnesota folks are in the mood to go target hunting, people like you and me are in big trouble. I have to laugh when Democrats tell their Republican counterparts to tell these right wing upstarts that they need “adult supervision” in order to quell this behavior. Adult supervision? These people need a lot more than adult supervision. These people need to be arrested - Bush style. You Republicans right-wingers love the Republicans? Try being on the receiving end of Republican justice and see how much you love your Republican Party then. Oh, and here’s a solution to your angst with the Health Care Reform Bill: You tell your insurance company about all your pre-existing conditions that would have previously disqualified you from health care insurance and STAY disqualified. And keep your kids off your health care plan once they turn age-21. Adult supervision - honestly. You’re assuming these Brown Shirt Tea Party hysterics are lucid, educated adults! You forget - lucid, educated adults are exactly what the Republican Party finds most threatening, which is why Republicans love the “No Child Left Behind” program. Their intention is to dumb down Americans for the sake of control - and that is no joke, people. As if all of this brutality we are witnessing across our nation and within the Houses of government is not a horror show in and of itself, the greater truth is that what we are viewing is the authentic underbelly of the Republican Party. Lies, deceitful propaganda (remember death panels?), endless spin devised to contaminate the public mind and continually chip away at public and higher education, and use of brutality and homeland terrorism - this is the true Republican Party. This is a party who loathes the middle class much less the lower middle class and seeks to wage war legally on all Americans that they consider to be free thinkers or free loaders - “free” being the operative word. What we are looking at as we view their constant verbal and now rising physical attacks on anyone they view as an opponent/enemy is just a preview of what these people intend to do to all good Americans - Americans who believe in the rights of this nation and how this government should and must work. Should the Republicans get back into the White House (God forbid) or get control of the House and Senate again, they will initiate legislation to limit the rights of the individuals. Any and all individual rights stand in opposition to the Republican corporate creed. Just review the legislative history of the Bush/Cheney administration and then reflect upon the short and long-range consequences of the recent Supreme Court ruling that gives corporations the right to back candidates with endless financial resources. If that is not a Republican coup, what is? If ever there was a reason to rally support around this administration to ensure it stays in office for two terms, it’s not only because President Obama is a visionary saddled with cleaning up the mess of a post-Fascist administration, but you are now witnessing the true Republican creed in action: When they don’t get their way, they get violent. They believe in the use of threats and they order their constituents to “shoot ‘em between the eyes”. Here’s a warning to all freethinking Americans: You Could Be The Next Republican Target. After all, this is the party that introduced homeland spying, the Patriot Act, and the end to all personal privacy. Given those achievements, it’s not all that far-fetched that they would incite another Civil War, is it? More on Sarah Palin

Originally posted here: 
Caroline Myss: Are Republican Right Wingers Homeland Security Threats?

More on Sarah Palin

Read the rest here: 
Jeff Danziger: Fingernails on the Blackboard

After a week of bricks through windows, spitting and racial epithets at lawmakers, and acts of vandalism, political violence continued to dominate the news Sunday morning political shows, with Doris Kearns Goodwin arguing on Meet the Press that “the tone of recent times really is troubling.” Meanwhile, a new post by Alabama Tea Partyer Mike Vandeboegh and leader of the “Sipsey Street Irregulars” is chilling: This piddling vandalism, these four incidents of broken windows, has scared them to the core. They denounce it because they want to see no more of it. Whether the windows continue breaking is not up to me. But I think I can safely say we got their attention. And that makes the risk of the exercise worth it to me. Certainly it was a success. We merely pinged them and they screamed bloody murder. So what’s the next step after “merely pinging”? Amid all of this, we should look to the lessons of America’s past victims over demagogues. As I argue in a new Daily Beast post : In these charged, uncertain times, we’d do well to recall the lessons of the post-Depression 1930s. This was when the Louisiana Senator and Governor Huey Long prowled the national stage, when the charismatic Detroit “radio priest” Father Coughlin assailed FDR’s “communist” methods in favor of religiously-driven economic populism, and when the anti-Semitic reverend Gerald L.K. Smith agitated audiences across the country. America ultimately emerged stronger than we went in. We directly confronted demagogues like Long, educated ourselves about our constitutional traditions and lawfulness, and tailored reform around action, rather than rhetoric. President Obama isn’t exactly FDR, and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin certainly aren’t Huey Long and Father Coughlin, but the 1930s still hold powerful lessons for our leaders today, grappling with levels of political violence and turbulence unseen for decades. Check out the piece for more. More on Barack Obama

Read the original post:
Mike Signer: Stop the Violence: Taking on Today’s Demagogues

American Cinematheque honored Matt Damon at The Beverly Hilton Saturday night, bringing out all his celebrity friends, former costars and more. Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner, who never do red carpets or public events as a couple, were even photographed together (though they skipped arriving together). Also there were exes Jimmy Kimmel and Sarah Silverman with their new significant others, now-single Charlize Theron without one, and a whole lot of hugging. To hear the no-doubt hilarious toasts made, however, you’ll have to wait. The event is airing on ABC later this spring. More on Jimmy Kimmel

Continued here: 
Matt Damon Honored By Star-Studded Crowd (PHOTOS)

A German friend, a former foreign editor, international affairs scholar and a colleague from my years working in Washington on arms control in the 1960s and ’70s, e-mailed this week to ask what I thought about the passage of the health bills. He wrote, “I am dismayed by the international press which is eager to discount the health success by concentrating on other challenges ahead for the Obama team, as if this was just one of those usual tactical political ploys and not a seminal event, whatever the critique one might have on certain aspects. The journalists are thus contributing to a public sense that politics is just another game with fake money.” Here is my off-the-cuff reply: I have mixed feelings about Obama’s health care victory. It was wonderful that he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (whose arguments were clearly crucial in persuading him to press for action now, while he still has significant majorities in both houses of Congress) were able to pull it off, but now the challenge will be to keep the focus and energy on improving the situation so that some day the US will have a health care system comparable to that existing in every other civilized country, instead of the costly third-world model we have been pretending is modern and efficient. The measures approved on Sunday, though applauded (or deplored) here as a huge march forward, were indeed seminal (Vice President Biden rightly called the accomplishment “a big f***ing deal”) but they are only a first step in the direction of affordable, universal health coverage. They still leave the private insurers and the pharmaceutical industries very much in control of how health dollars are spent in the US. But they open the door to more significant measures if the political will is there. The more immediate concern, and a serious obstacle to further progress, is that the debate and the passage of the bill have become such a polarizing event that there is a growing, unsettling atmosphere of hatred and suspicion in this country that is reminiscent of the days of McCarthy and the red scares that were so pervasive in the US in the 1950s. Congressional Republicans have contributed significantly to this mood by their conscious decision to maintain a unified front against almost every Obama initiative, but they have been backed up by a barrage of manipulative, shameless, deliberate lying on the part of the right-wing media, led by Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News but by no means limited to it, that have led to a broad-based mistrust of everything the Obama administration and congressional Democrats put forth. It’s undeniable, too, that the people most susceptible to these misrepresentations are the less-informed Americans who tend to believe every conspiracy theory put forth by people like Dick Armey, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, who know how to throw red meat to hungry animals. Worse, there are the beginnings of real civil (or uncivil) unrest, exemplified by the so-called “tea party” activists, encouraged by some Republican politicians, who have engaged in racist and ethnic slurs, hate mail, spitting, brick-throwing and death threats directed at Congressional Democrats, both during and after the House debate. Missing in action are almost any outspoken Republicans who recognize that this angry polarization will be a disaster for their own party. They, not just Democrats, must be the ones to speak out publicly against volatile speech and behavior. Anyone who has studied more distant history, even superficially, can see the parallels between now and past periods of economic hardship, with opportunistic politicians seizing on public unrest, ignorance and misunderstanding of facts. A major difference between now and more distant history is that television, which has encouraged simple sound-bite solutions to complex problems, has conditioned so many people to seeing everything as a battle between good and evil, and to accept as truth all sorts of misrepresentations, about the contents and consequences of the health care legislation, and about the motives, intentions and even the legitimacy of the Obama administration, and of Obama himself. Latent racism clearly plays a role, but it is frightening to see the results of recent opinion polls, reflecting such broad scale public ignorance. So many people apparently believe that Obama is a Muslim, a Socialist or Communist, that he was born outside the US and is therefore ineligible to be president, that he will take away their guns, and that Obamacare provides for “death panels” to decide whether to euthanize poor old granny. A majority of Americans now do not believe in evolution, are convinced that global warming is a hoax, and are deeply suspicious of science and scientists, and all the other people they denounce as “elitists.” It’s scary. I hope it doesn’t lead to widespread violence or political assassinations, but could easily imagine both happening. I am saddened by the present trends in Washington and the country as a whole. I remember (perhaps more fondly than the times deserved) how much more civilized Washington was in the 1960s and ’70s, when I was working there. We may have thought the country was being torn apart, first by Vietnam and then by Watergate, but in many ways the situation today is worse. Then at least Republicans and Democrats worked together, socialized with each other, and seemed far less ready to mistrust one another’s motives. People gave speeches or wrote editorials and articles declaring that things were not always black or white, but that there was room for shades of gray. And they were listened to. In the present atmosphere there’s little hope for meaningful and needed environmental legislation, financial regulation, or significant arms control progress. We don’t yet know all the details of the new START agreement, but the modest improvements that appear to have been negotiated may be meaningless if there’s no way to muster the 2/3 Senate vote needed for consent to ratification. And the same is true, of course, of renewed efforts to ratify a comprehensive test ban treaty. I may be overly pessimistic, but at this point I see few grounds for great optimism. To be sure, the passage of the health care bill must indeed be viewed as a seminal event, but seeds for what? What’s needed most right now is reconciliation, but the mood of too many players now is one of intensified confrontation instead.

See the original post:
Tom Halsted: What’s Happening to America? Lies, Threats, and the Health Care Vote

By Geoff Schumacher “This is the Woodstock you’ll remember!” a Tea Party leader shouted at the first in a series of rallies the upstart conservative movement is organizing in more than 40 cities across the country. But for me, and no doubt for many of the estimated 9,000 people in attendance, Saturday’s “Showdown in Searchlight” was better off forgotten. The event was staged roughly two miles outside the town of Searchlight, home of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Along with President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Reid is the Tea Party’s poster boy for everything that’s wrong with Washington. Holding the first event there was a clever idea — taunting the enemy on his home turf — but actually pulling it off turned out to be challenging. Just getting there was a challenge. Some 50 miles south of Las Vegas, Searchlight is a very small town with very few amenities. Its mining boom peaked in 1910, and the town’s been pretty slow ever since. Its sole motel has 21 rooms. Compounding that problem, organizers staged the event about half a mile off the highway, in a secluded ravine accessible only via one dirt road. With thousands of people forced through a single choke point, the traffic jams before and after the event were ridiculous. I rode with three other Las Vegas journalists. We left the city at 8 a.m. It was smooth sailing until 8:52, when we joined the line of vehicles on the highway’s shoulder. We finally parked, in a sea of pickup trucks, SUVs and RVs, at 11:04. Fortunately, this two-hour crawl offered its share of entertainment, as all manner of characters paraded past our car. There was a man with a carefully crafted sign that read, “The Plague: Obama, Reid, Pelosi,” with the names of the Democratic leaders surrounding the familiar skull-and-crossbones symbol for poison. We noted that he probably meant to use the biohazard symbol. There also was a teenage boy playing patriotic tunes on the bagpipes. I appreciated his skill with this difficult instrument, if not the fact that his talents were being wasted on the side of a dusty highway in the middle of nowhere. “Don’t Tread on Me” is a popular slogan among the Tea Party faithful. A pedestrian who stopped to chat with us wore a T-shirt displaying this slogan handwritten below a logo for the Rampart Casino in Las Vegas. One exotic character along the road was an African-American man selling various buttons sporting Sarah Palin’s picture. The fact that the guy was trying to make a buck was not unusual. People were selling souvenirs all over the place. But his skin color was very unusual — I only saw two other African-Americans at the event, a Nevada highway patrolman and a Las Vegas radio host. The lone black man who graced the Tea Party stage insisted he was not “African-American,” he was simply “American.” There also were few, if any, Hispanics or Asians in the crowd. The one Asian woman I saw was the girlfriend of the black radio host. He told us he was there in a reportorial capacity only. Handmade signs were the stars of the rally. Everybody seemed to have scrounged up a permanent marker and some poster board so they could express their views. Some slogans were clever. My two favorites: “Michael Moore Ate Osama bin Laden” and “Stop the Marx Madness.” Another one I give an A for effort: “Harry Reid you suck big time. We are going to vote your pathetic socialist ass out!!! Go back to Searchlight and run for dogcatcher.” But most of the signs and T-shirt slogans were lacking in creativity and suffered from glaring spelling and grammar errors. Some were on the scary side, such as the sign in the back window of a Hummer that read, “Beelzebub Obama,” and another with the now-familiar depiction of Obama as Adolf Hitler. One nativist proudly held up his literary handiwork: “Yes we can kick you out.” The weather was terrible, unusually chilly for late March and very windy. The masses of tires and feet shuffling through the desert quickly built up a dusty, gritty haze. Along with the grime, the quality of the warmup speakers quickly ebbed the crowd’s initial excitement. One unknown Republican after another took the microphone and tried to fire up the crowd with routine quips and broadsides, all with limited success. It was clear the crowd was interested only in the headliner. Cheers erupted when Sarah Palin walked onstage, trying not to let the wind rip away the pages of her speech. Given the conditions, she would have been wiser to write her one-liners on her hand. But the wind wasn’t Palin’s only problem. Because she was focused on reading from her windblown speech, she didn’t speak directly into the microphone. And between the wind and the helicopters hovering overhead, Palin was often drowned out. “We can’t hear you!” many admirers shouted in vain. Palin pressed on, chiding the mainstream media for its “lies” about the boorish behavior of some Tea Party members and predicting the end of Reid’s political career in November. Then she was gone, and people started folding up their lawn chairs and heading for their cars. The main problem with the speeches wasn’t really the lack of depth. It’s pretty hard to delve into the details of any issue when each speaker is given just a minute or two at the mic. The problem was the absence of ideas. Based on Saturday’s rally, the Tea Party seems to know what it’s against — socialism, taxes, health care reform — but it has no clue what it’s for. The people are angry, but they struggle to articulate why. For many, it seems, the Tea Party provides a welcoming umbrella for whatever single issue they’re fired up about, whether it’s immigration, terrorism or the bank bailout. Some Tea Party officials have said they’re fed up with both parties, but as the 2010 election approaches, that sentiment has been squelched, at least in Nevada. Party leaders have shunned a Tea Party candidate, Jon Scott Ashjian, who is running against Harry Reid. The notion of splitting the conservative vote, and thereby allowing Reid to slide into another term, is too much to bear. Leaving the rally was even more excruciating than our arrival. It took us three mind-numbing hours just to get back to the highway. It seemed like it took forever to pass the port-a-potty festooned with a sign that read, “Harry Reid Donation Center.” The most important lesson from the “Showdown in Searchlight” rally was this: If the Tea Party can’t show a modicum of competence in controlling traffic, we sure as hell don’t want them running the country. Geoff Schumacher is publisher of CityLife, the alternative newsweekly in Las Vegas, and a political columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. More on Sarah Palin

The rest is here:
Devils And Dust: The Tea Party Rally In Searchlight

You can tell a lot about a person by his friends. Howard Dean , Michael Moore , Dennis Kucinich and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are my friends. And they’ve all joined our moneybomb at CongressmanWithGuts.com. And you can tell a lot about a person by his enemies. Sarah Palin came to my district two weeks ago, and told her zombie minions to “take me out.” The National Republican Party says that I’m their #1 target in 2010. And now, it’s George W. Bush’s turn. See for yourself: But when it comes to George W. Bush, with enemies like that, who needs friends? What’s he going to do, attackify me? Still, if there’s one thing that’s clear, it’s that the right-wing doesn’t want me in Congress. They don’t want to hear the truth. They don’t want to see courage. So I have to ask you: will you make sure that our moneybomb today is a success? Will you give what you can give, and tell all your friends to do the same. Will you make this George W. Bush video go virusful? CongressmanWithGuts.com. Let’s do it. More on Sarah Palin

The rest is here: 
Rep. Alan Grayson: A Special Message From George W. Bush

Sarah Palin gave a typically fiery speech in support of John McCain’s re-election campaign today in Arizona. At one point, she was interrupted by a heckler, but he was quickly overwhelmed by the roar of the crowd and eventually escorted from the rally. Responding to the heckler, Palin said, “Young man, stick around and listen to what we’re going to say. Sir, maybe you’ll learn something.” WATCH: More on John McCain

View original here:
Palin Heckled At McCain Rally, She Responds (VIDEO)

I bet you think David Frum’s devoted Republican wife would be doing her spouse a solid by closing her MacBook and stepping away from the keyboard. Danielle Crittenden’s shameless attempt to re-brand her Iraq-War-hawk husband as warm and fuzzy is as transparent as the beleaguered Richard Nixon’s desperate invocation of Checkers, his children’s black and white pup. Not once. Not twice. But four times we learn that the Frums are dog owners! They have three dogs! Mrs. F. has taken a stand here for poor David who it seems is being cut loose by his Republican benefactors. This week, he jumped or was pushed from AEI — the so-called “think tank” that paid certain neocons to “think” America into Iraq. Richard Perle, John Woo, Paul Wolfowitz and yes, David Frum: what a roster of foreign policy geniuses. Does Danielle really think his reputation can be re-habilitated? That taking a few easy shots at the GOP’s lunatic fringe and its audiovisual department at Fox “news” makes him a thoughtful moderate? David’s pithy, nonsensical offerings, including the marquee-value “axis of evil” provided Roger Ailes and his androidal half-wits along with the rest of the mainstream media just enough snake oil to lure a frightened, post-911 nation into the Middle East sinkhole. Those who got Iraq right and warned of a quagmire were shouted down by the Bush/Cheney enablers, including David Frum. Interesting that he didn’t ramp up criticism of his party’s gun waving, democracy hating, faction until after it failed to stop President Obama’s health care package. But what if the lunatic strategy had worked? Exactly when did David see the light? Didn’t he support the candidacy of John McCain - the man responsible for giving Sarah Palin and her paranoid fantasies a very loud megaphone? Why didn’t he speak out before? He had concerns about Palin’s vapidity during the campaign but brushed them off by suggesting: “she’ll learn”. What if McCain had won and Palin was actually the VPOTUS now? (Imagine it: secret service code-name MOOSE). Despite these discrepancies Crittenden wants us to believe her husband is just speaking out, “no matter what the consequences to him” for the “ideas” he believes in. How brave. Just what consequences is David suffering for enabling the Iraq war? Is he at least going to admit he was wrong? Is he sorry? Perhaps as a “consequence” he could donate the royalties from ” An End to Evil” to Veterans for Common Sense. Maybe the money from “The Right Man” , Frum’s homage to George W. Bush should be put in trust for military families who need it. My friend, photographer Nina Berman could point him in the right direction. Mrs F. writes that she and her hubby are part of the “conservative movement” - a benign little description that evokes soft, sepia memories of Ronald Reagan. Reading Crittenden’s post, it’s as if the last eight years never happened. Her breezy, we-are-all-friends-here tone just can’t paper-over the thousands of on-going human tragedies caused by the “thinking” and “ideas” of her husband and his former colleagues. Major cognitive dissonance. “Put down your pitchforks,” she pleads. What a bizarre choice of words from a woman who maintains she is a defender of civil debate. Wasn’t the pitchfork the only tool available to peasants who needed to defend themselves? Just asking. Mahatma Ghandi warned against “politics without principle” and he might say that Frum and his fellow Iraq War propagandists have a lot to answer for. But I’m not holding my breath they would even hear the message. I’m sure to the macho folks still at AEI, including the bellicose John Bolton - Ghandi was a wimp. As for David and Danielle - good work keeping this controversy alive! It can only ensure a healthy advance for David’s next book. Has he been on the phone to his agent yet? Maybe David Frum’s next chapter will include a 12-step, foreign policy intervention and rehab somewhere? That would sell. More on Dogs

The rest is here: 
Trish Wood: Hey, Mrs. Frum — It’s a Long Way Down

Sarah Palin and John McCain rallied for the second straight day in Arizona today, this time in Mesa. Take a look back at some memorable Palin-McCain rally and campaign moments and vote on those you find most eventful. And scroll down for LIVE tweets through our curated Twitter lists of Palin discussion and views from both sides of the aisle. More on Arizona Politics

Read the original:
Palin, McCain Rally In Mesa, Arizona: Memorable McCain, Palin Moments (VIDEOS)

TUCSON, Ariz. — Sarah Palin lent her star power among fellow conservatives to former running mate John McCain in his tough Senate re-election campaign, telling a rally Friday that McCain pegged President Barack Obama right when he said the Democrat would swell the size of government. McCain is facing the hardest election fight of his Senate career as he fends off a Republican primary challenge from the right. J.D. Hayworth, former congressman and conservative talk radio host, says McCain is too moderate for Arizona Republicans. Hayworth has tried to build support among conservative activists who identify with the tea party movement. Palin, among the most popular figures with those activists, appeared with McCain for the first time since the pair lost the 2008 presidential election. “Everyone here supporting John McCain, we are all part of that tea party movement,” Palin told the rally. As the former Alaska governor took the stage with McCain, some in the crowd of 4,000 chanted, “Sarah, Sarah,” not the name of the man who just a year and a half ago topped his party’s ticket. Palin said McCain warned the country that Obama’s policies would increase the size of government and the debt, and that the signing this week of a health overhaul law proves McCain right. McCain called for repeal of the health law, which Republicans are challenging in court and plan to make a leading issue in congressional elections. “There’s something going on out there, my friends,” McCain said. “It’s a revolution. It’s a peaceful revolution, but we’re going to take on this Obamacare.” Palin took heat this week when she released a list of 20 U.S. House seats she said conservatives should try to win in the November elections. The list, posted on her Facebook page, featured a U.S. map with circles and cross hairs over the 20 districts. She also sent a tweet saying, “Don’t Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!” Critics said it was inappropriate to use gun imagery, especially as some Democrats who supported the health care overhaul reported receiving threats of violence. Palin called it a “ginned up” controversy and defended her rhetoric. “When we take up our arms, we’re talking about our vote,” she said. Palin said the Republican Party needs new blood and new leaders, “but we also need statesmen and heroes like John McCain in there to help us get through these challenging times.” Hayworth has tried to define himself as “the consistent conservative” in contrast to the “maverick” McCain. Palin was a first-term governor of Alaska when McCain plucked her from relative obscurity to be his running mate. She went on to become a conservative draw and leading Republican critic of Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Before Hayworth left his radio show to enter the race, he used the airwaves to attack McCain’s congressional record, most notably his work with the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on a bill that would have created a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. About a half dozen Hayworth supporters gathered outside McCain’s rally and were unimpressed with Palin’s support for the senator, saying she is helping McCain because he launched her national political career. “It’s disappointing, but a lot of us understand it’s just political payback,” said Jennifer Leslie, 41, of Oro Valley, Ariz. McCain is “calling in his favors.” Leslie carried a sign that said “Sarah supporter for JD Hayworth” and wrote “JD” on her hand. McCain and Palin were raising money Friday night at the same Phoenix hotel where they conceded the presidential election, and planned a rally Saturday in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa. Palin has admonished McCain’s presidential campaign since their loss, citing tension between her advisers and McCain’s. She said she was kept “bottled up” during the campaign and prevented from delivering a concession speech Election Night. She has not criticized McCain himself, however, and the senator has stood by his decision to choose her as his running mate. More on Sarah Palin

Here is the original: 
Palin Rallies Support For McCain

LAS VEGAS — Sarah Palin and thousands of tea party activists plan to descend on Sen. Harry Reid’s hometown in the Nevada desert Saturday to call for the ouster of Democrats who supported the health care overhaul. Organizers predict as many as 10,000 people could come to tiny Searchlight, the hardscrabble former mining town where the Senate Democratic leader grew up and owns a home. But a light turnout or disruptions could lead to questions about the emerging movements’ credibility and direction. Since the health care vote, “Everyone is waiting to see if the tea party movement is reinvigorated or if we’ve resigned ourselves to defeat,” Joe Wierzbicki, a spokesman for event sponsor Tea Party Express, said in an e-mail. The rally that’s been called a conservative Woodstock takes place just days after the historic health care vote that ushered in near-universal medical coverage and divided Congress and the nation. The vote was followed by reports of threats and vandalism aimed at some Washington lawmakers, mostly Democrats who supported the new law. Police don’t expect problems but the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department is sending dozens of uniformed and plainclothes officers to patrol the crowd. Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, is scheduled to appear after spending Friday campaigning for Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who led the 2008 ticket. Now a Fox News analyst and potential 2012 presidential candidate, Palin faced criticism after posting a map on her Facebook page that had circles and cross hairs over 20 Democratic districts. She also sent a tweet saying, “Don’t Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!” She said Friday she was alluding to votes, not guns. A string of polls has shown Reid is vulnerable in politically moderate Nevada after pushing President Barack Obama’s agenda in Congress. His standing has also been hurt by Nevada’s double-digit unemployment and record foreclosure and bankruptcy rates. The tea party movement is a far-flung coalition of conservative groups angered by Washington spending, rising taxes and the growth and reach of government. It takes its name from the Boston Tea Party in 1773, when colonists dumped tea off English ships to protest what they considered unfair taxation by the British crown. The rally kicks off a 42-city bus tour that ends in Washington on April 15, tax day. More on Sarah Palin

Read more from the original source:
Palin, Tea Party Rally In Senator Reid’s Hometown

Molotov Mitchell’s latest WorldNetDaily video is a response to a letter from “Erin, a proud liberal,” who wrote him after she “read about you in Huffington Post and seen several of your disgusting videos.” It seems that Erin read my HuffPo article on Mitchell, for she repeats a couple claims I made in it rebutting previous Mitchell videos: “Obama’s grandmother never said she was born in Kenya,” and “the study you used to support your claim that straight people live longer than homosexuals is from the ’80s before HIV treatment had been developed.” But ol’ Molotov has chosen to respond to Erin, not me. Oh well. On the former claim: “But Erin, according to Kenyan witnesses, that’s exactly what she said. Here’s the link, check it out.” The link he displayed was to an August 2009 WorldNetDaily article by Jerome Corsi repeating the claims of Ron McRae, a Anabaptist minister who claims Sarah Obama said that during an interview with her. But Corsi doesn’t tell the entire story. McRae’s claim has been discredited by a translator during the phone call between McRae and Sarah Obama, who pointed out that the grandmother misunderstood the question McRae was asking. Once it was clear to her that McRae was asking if Barack Obama was born in Kenya, she answered in the negative. Further, McRae is a major Obama-hater , having spread discredited claims and cited “common knowledge” — not any actual, verifiable facts — to back up his claim that Obama was born in Kenya. As to the latter charge, Mitchell first quipped that “I just like everything from the ’80s,” then scrambled for more evidence: “A study in 2005 confirmed the 20-year life expectancy gap between homosexual men and straight men. Here’s the link, check it out.” The link goes to the abstract of a study by Paul Cameron, based on obituaries published in a gay newspaper, the Washington Blade. But as the Box Turtle Bulletin points out , that methodology is flawed: The Blade doesn’t have a general community obituary section. The obituaries they cover are mostly limited to the more well-known members of the local community or prominent national figures. Many gay newspapers do not accept obituaries about just anyone unless they are likely to be known among its readers. And even if they did, surviving family members arn’t likely to be aware of the gay press, and they may not think to place an obituary in the local gay paper. Closeted gays and lesbians would not appear in the gay press simply because nobody would know about them. Older gays and lesbians are more likely to be closeted than younger generations. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Cameron as an “anti-gay propagandist” who “churns out hate literature masquerading as legitimate science. Cameron dresses up his ’studies’ with copious footnotes, graphs and charts, and then pays to publish them in certain journals.” Curiously absent from Mitchell’s response is any mention of his endorsement of the anti-gay Uganda bill that permits the death penalty for mere homosexuality, which HuffPo highlighted — and is the main reason Erin would have been aware of Mitchell’s rantings in the first place. Mitchell then delivers a mini-lecture: “Sweet, sweet Erin, I do not despise you, I pity you. You are a victim of public education, liberal mythology, indoctrination. I prescribe that you stop reading the Huffington Post and start reading ‘Mere Christianity’ by C.S. Lewis, for starters.” Of course Mitchell doesn’t want people reading HuffPo — that’s how people learn he’s relying on unreliable haters and charlatans to back up his claims. Name-checking C.S. Lewis doesn’t change that fact.

Go here to see the original:
Terry Krepel: Molotov Mitchell Responds To HuffPo (Sort Of) — And Still Can’t Stop Misleading

I am in seat 23 E on a flight from San Diego to Dallas. It’s a middle seat. I’m trying to remain composed and tranquil; I am failing. As far as I can tell the baby behind me feels about the same way I do. I thumb through the airline magazine (my regular watering hole for current events), until I start to wonder what viscous substance stuck the pages of the magazine together in the first place. I put the magazine back, stretch into the seat, and rub a sore neck. Out of nowhere, I am struck by a thought. A thought that has boundless implications. A thought that feels more important than the seat belt/life-vest exhibition. So I write the idea on the back of my hand: “Maybe truth is not something that I can possess. Maybe truth is something which possesses me.” I look at the words now scrawled on the back of my hand. I think it over and look away. The clouds are turning colors, blue, grey, green, purple. The sun is setting off somewhere behind me. It’s my favorite time of day. I look back at my hand and read the idea again. “Maybe truth is something which possesses me.” To be possessed by truth rather than the other way round is a thought that goes against much of what I have been taught. In fact, most of my education has been presented as a growing accumulation of truth. Throughout public school, I was graded on my comprehension of the facts. The higher grades were awarded to those who really owned the material. The idea that truth has no owner turns the whole arrangement on its head. Maybe the straight-A students were the ones who surrendered to the system. Maybe they became servants and allowed the information to become their master, devoting countless hours of study to prove their devotion. Perhaps I was too devoted to other things in high school; I was possessed by the Pacific, going surfing whenever I could. I would never say that I owned the ocean, but I would certainly say that the ocean owned me. I surrendered to its call and resisted the truth that high school had to offer. We now have more information than thousands of years of humanity could ever dream of. Without any effort at all, we could know the weather anywhere around the world, the population of Taiwan, or the first lady’s middle name (I’m going to look it up as soon as I get off the flight). With this sort of data at our fingertips, we truly possess more facts than past civilizations would ever hope for. And yet, the meaning of it all is just as elusive as ever. I’m still sitting on a plane unsure as to whether the middle seat is occupying me or the other way round. The idea spins around in my head — so I look to folks that are smarter than me. I turn my thoughts to Sir Isaac Newton and the physical law most commonly associated with his name: gravity. The basic idea of gravitational pull is simple to understand — a clumsy step on the stairs could prove Newton right. And yet this awkward fall does not prove that I am now the proud owner of gravity. No, quite the opposite. I might have a bruise or worse to call my own, but gravity certainly possesses me. I am under the dominion of the truth of gravity whether I fully understand the law or not. I look out at the fading hills and imagine someone driving home from work. He’s going bald quicker than he thinks. He just bought himself a car that screams one thing: MiddleAgeCrisisSportsCar. He begins the drive he takes home from work everyday. The traffic lights, the cars around him, the flat tire…these are all facts that he encounters on the way home; this is the data that he is responding to. He is under the influence of the facts around him. It’s not determinism; free will is still involved. And yet, rarely will he choose to ignore a red light or slam into the car next to him. He does not possess the facts, the facts possess him and he drives accordingly. Our market economy is fueled by ownership. The water we drink, the land that we live on, even our ideas are referred to as intellectual property as our world becomes homogenized into merchandise. These products are to be bought or sold — anyone’s private possession for the right price. But from time to time we ask the question: Who owns who? Is the MiddleAgeCrisisSportsCar the possession of a man who’s losing his hair? Or is our balding friend possessed by his MiddleAgeCrisisSportsCar? Does he give the car her identity, or does the MiddleAgeCrisisSportsCar with her sleek lines and bright red paint lend the gentleman her personality for a brief moment of remembered youth? Yes, our possessions possess us far more than we’d like to admit. And yet, even in our capitalist culture, we don’t think of our friends or family this way. Outside of the greek life at college, most relationships have nothing to do with money changing hands. Yes, you may possess friends, but you would never call these friends your possession. When we fall in love we fall under the spell of another. You might say that your buddy is whipped, “He is possessed. She owns him.” The truth of the one you love is most certainly something that possesses you and not the other way round. I come up for air as the lady next to me, in 23 F is rubbing the perfume from the magazine onto her wrists. Smelling her wrists. Then repeating. She is trying to keep the fragrance with her, to possess the essence of the advertisement. I feel a sneeze coming on. Yes. Here it comes. For a brief moment there, I possessed a sneeze. No, actually I think the sneeze possessed me. The stewardess hands me my orange juice. She sees the writing on the back of my hand and throws me a Sarah Palin comment. Dang it. Chris Martin disclaimers were hard enough. I explain that I’ve been writing things on my hands for a long time. There, good. At least we have an understanding. Now she has the truth. I look back at my hand, even writing this particular truth down on the back of my hand is a reason to think: Do I now have possession of this truth, owning its understanding or am I now temporarily tattooed with this truth, subservient to its reality? My thoughts drift to religion. These are the truths that people live by and hold dear. In many ways, these are the truths that inspire our best and worst moments. The truths that motivate Mother Theresa and start religious wars. How can this be? How can fresh water and salt water come from the same hose? Perhaps it has to do with this concept of possession. If I view the truth as my possession to keep safe, I might feel the need to protect my faith. But if I am possessed by the truth, perhaps this protection is no longer needed. Maybe I am set free from the need to defend the truth, rather the truth defends me. The idea of defending an all-powerful deity feels a bit silly when it’s put out in the wind like that. And yet, that sentiment seems to epitomize much of what religion has come to mean. After centuries of witch-hunts, inquisitions and holy wars, many are still fighting hard to defend their faith in an omnipotent God who has no need of our protection. Maybe we are still protecting our beliefs as though we were the owners of this truth. If our faith is to be more than just a lit match in the powder-keg of differing beliefs, what role does religion play in our modern world? What would it mean to be possessed by truth rather than simply the proud owner of a particular denomination? Maybe we could start with the common ground that we all can call truth. In all of the major religions of the world I find the call to protect the less fortunate. From the Torah: “Learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow.” Isaiah 1:17 From the Koran: “Spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, for the ransom of slaves, to be steadfast in prayer and to practice regular charity.” 83. Section 10 From the New Testament: “Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.” James 1:27 From Buddha: “A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are the things which renew humanity.” The “truth” of loving those around me, the “truth” of seeking justice for the oppressed, the “truth” of a life of service — these are truths to be possessed by: to be a slave in the service of the kingdom of the heavens, to be the servant of all. If the truths in this life have no owner then we are set free: free from the need to defend the truth, free to be possessed by this truth and simply live it out. Truth becomes much too large for me to possess; truth is the beauty and authenticity which possesses me. Maybe the meaning of life is not something that I can control, but rather a reality which possesses me. Maybe there is no life guiding “fact” that I can put in my back pocket, as though I were the sole owner of the universe. Perhaps The-Meaning-of-Life-Himself is asking me the questions. When I look at a sunset, when I hear the songs of the ocean gulls, when I feel the warmth of family and friends, I am reminded of a story that is bigger than I am. Yes, this is my story but not mine alone. Truth was never mine alone. Truth is that which possesses me. Oh and for the record, it’s Michelle LaVaughn Obama. But I think that I might have already known that…

Go here to read the rest:
Jon Foreman: Possessed by Truth

When Alaska Senator Johnny Ellis introduced a bill to subsidize film and television production in Alaska, no one thought then Sarah Palin could be a recipient. She is reported to be in line for $1 million to $1.5 million per episode appearance. I wonder if producer Mark Burnett of Survivor fame has been offered such a deal. The Anchorage Press reported this week : It’s not quite as expensive as it sounds. The state of Alaska’s film subsidy program would allow Burnett, or anyone who hires an Alaska resident as a talking head, to get back 40 percent of those wages, or $400,000. Production companies that shoot between October and March qualify for an additional two percent, and there’s a two-percent rural shooting bonus. So if a company pays an Alaska politician–or an Alaska fifth grader–$1 million to travel to Barrow and chatter in front of cameras about the first sunrise of 2011 next January, the production can qualify for $442,000 in state tax credits. Hedges the bet a just little, eh? It boggles the mind when you think how Alaska has been used as Sarah Palin’s personal ATM machine, More on Sarah Palin

Here is the original:
Shannyn Moore: Governor Grifter TV

A while ago I promised myself I was not going to blog about Sarah Palin. Why feed her bottomless ego? I thought. Why give more ink to an airhead? Even when she invaded my turf in LA before the Academy Awards I didn’t blink. Even when she and her entourage brazenly crashed a celebrity event and then filched some expensive swag, I shrugged. So, what else is new? It just seemed like more of the same from the opportunistic Wasilla mom who’s been cashing in on her fame since she first discovered designer clothes and became an accidental darling of the right. But now Palin’s done something so patently outrageous I can’t be silent, much as I’d like. And I don’t mean the mind-boggling deal she struck with Discovery Channel for a “documentary” series about Alaska on TLC. Though having spent time there in my youth, I do find the idea strangely intriguing. First off, this is the same cable channel that gave us those paragons of good parenting, Jon and Kate Gosselin. So can we be clear about Palin’s new gig? We’re talking reality TV here, people. We have many fine programs that can accurately be called documentary series. Frontline is one. The acclaimed, meticulously produced Life is another. But Palin’s Alaska will doubtless not be winning any Emmys in the documentary category. Beyond semantics, what were the folks at Discovery Channel thinking? Did anyone there consider the irony of hiring a woman to host a “nature” show who disdains nature? I mean, before she fleeced you for more than $1 million an episode, (for that matter, John McPhee would have been excellent, and I’m sure he’d have done it for much less), that maybe it wasn’t the smartest choice given her strange relationship to the truth and her polarizing politics? Did you forget that in her brief and erratic tenure as governor, Palin had a dreadful environmental record, championing such animal-friendly policies as the aerial shooting of wolves? Or refusing to give protected status to such endangered species as the beluga whale? Even now, Palin proudly and avidly flaunts her ignorance about climate change. So good luck with that nature show, Discovery Channel! I’m sure it will be a hit with the NRA and the Al Gore-hating crowd. But my real problem with Palin this week is not her reality show, absurd as it is. But her refusal to take responsibility for stirring up violence on the right with her incendiary rhetoric. Palin has done this before, of course. Most notably when she accused Obama of “paling around with terrorists” when she was running for vice president. Or claimed that the president had inserted “death panels” in the health care bill, precisely so they could kill her Down syndrome infant and her aging parents. Palin was lying, of course, but being the devout Christian that she is, she didn’t let that interfere with her quest for prosperity and fame. Or the anger and ignorance she was encouraging with her repeated attacks on our first African-American president. After the landmark health care vote on Sunday, Palin promptly posted a map of the U.S. targeting vulnerable Democratic members of Congress. To highlight their districts, she didn’t use something all Alaska and folksy like a smiley face or a grizzly bear. No, she marked them with rifle cross-hairs. But I guess she didn’t think the message was explicit enough. So she exhorted her gun-loving followers with this: “Don’t Retreat–Reload.” Cute. This week we’ve seen that words like these have terrifying consequences. In an interview with The National Review John Boehner suggested that Steve Driehaus, a freshman Democrat from Cincinnati, would be a “dead man” if he voted for health care. Driehaus did, and now his family has received death threats. New York Democrat Louise Slaughter received a message saying snipers were going to kill the children of all those who’d voted for health care. Imagine walking outside your house one morning to find a coffin there. That happened to Missouri Democrat Ross Carnahan. Republican leaders have yet to firmly denounce these threats. I guess they’re afraid of looking wimpy or weak and want to keep their jobs. It’s no wonder Palin feels emboldened to demean Obama and attack Democrats with no regard for the consequences. It’s clear she doesn’t care, that she’s willing to say anything. Let’s not forget: this is the college dropout who couldn’t even tell Kate Couric what newspapers she reads. So it’s not like she has a regard for language or facts. With thousands of angry followers on Facebook and Twitter, Palin might no longer hold office, but she’s still holding court. And that combined with her almost gleeful ignorance makes her dangerous. It’s time to call Palin out and hold her accountable. It’s an icky job, but somebody’s got to do it. More on Sarah Palin

Read more from the original source:
Mona Gable: Why Sarah Palin Is Not Only an Airhead But a Dangerous One

PHOENIX — John McCain and Sarah Palin will be back on the campaign trail Friday, their first time campaigning together since McCain lost the presidential election a year and a half ago with Palin as his running mate. This time, they have a different prize in sight: McCain’s Senate seat. The Arizona senator is in the midst of the toughest re-election battle of his Senate career, facing a primary challenge from the right. Former congressman and conservative talk-radio host J.D. Hayworth points to McCain’s reputation for working with Democrats and says he is too moderate for Arizona Republicans. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, joins McCain after an epic battle in Congress over President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, which McCain and Palin both opposed. She’ll help McCain trump his conservative credentials at rallies in Tucson on Friday and the Phoenix suburb of Mesa on Saturday. They’ll hold a fundraiser Friday at the same Phoenix hotel where they conceded the presidential election on Nov. 4, 2008. Hayworth has tried to define himself as “the consistent conservative” in contrast to the “maverick” McCain. The four-term senator has long angered some Arizona conservatives by working with Democrats on issues such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and restricting campaign donations. Before Hayworth left his radio show to officially enter the race, he used the airwaves to attack McCain’s congressional record, most notably his work with the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on a bill that would have created a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Now, Hayworth is hoping to topple one of the Republican Party’s best-known figures by reaching out to tea party groups and other conservative activists. McCain, 73, has thwarted some of those efforts by securing the endorsements of key tea party figures including Palin and recently elected Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. Hayworth, 51, said Palin is repaying McCain for launching her national political career. “We all understand the very human impulse of gratitude,” Hayworth said. McCain shocked the political establishment by choosing Palin as his running mate in 2008. She was a little-known, first-term governor when she gave a rousing speech at the Republican National Convention. Palin has since emerged as a darling of social conservatives and a key Republican critic of Obama and Democrats in Congress. But she’s also been berated as a lightweight not prepared for national office, and she was criticized last year for resigning as Alaska governor before her term was up. Palin has admonished McCain’s presidential campaign since their loss, saying in her book “Going Rogue” that there was substantial tension between her advisers and McCain’s. She said she was kept “bottled up” from reporters during the campaign and was prevented from delivering a concession speech in Phoenix on election night. Palin hasn’t criticized McCain himself, and the senator has stood by his decision to choose her as his running mate, saying he was proud of the campaign and predicting she would be a “major player” in the Republican Party. Palin took heat this week when she released a list of 20 U.S. House seats she said conservatives should target in the upcoming midterm elections. The list, posted on her Facebook page, featured a U.S. map with circles and cross hairs over the 20 districts. Critics said it was inappropriate to use gun imagery, especially as a handful of Democrats who supported the health care overhaul reported receiving threats of violence. McCain defended Palin, saying it was common practice and “part of the lexicon” to refer to targeted congressional districts. ___ On the Net: John McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com J.D. Hayworth: http://www.jdforsenate.com Sarah Palin: http://www.sarahpac.com More on Arizona Politics

See original here: 
McCain, Palin To Reunite In Arizona

by Caryl Rivers A pop quiz: who haven’t you heard much about from the media and politicians in the last year: A) Tea Partiers B) Netroots bloggers C) Sarah Palin D) Wall Street bankers E) The poor. If you guessed E, you get a gold star on your forehead. Since the campaign -and reputation–of John Edwards dissolved in scandal, the issue of poverty has been almost totally absent from the national conversation. We hear about middle-class tax cuts, the squeeze on the middle class, the shrinking of the middle class, and the problems of health care for the middle class. This makes some sense on the part of politicians, because it’s the middle class that votes. The mainstream media was never terribly enthusiastic about covering the poor. The way up the ladder in journalism was always covering politics and wars, not the back alleys of the nation’s ghettoes. One editor I know referred to that beat as “trash can journalism.” But, if only out of guilt, the mainstream media would try to at least pay lip service to the issues of the poor, because there were so many of them–both the issues and the poor. And some reporters did an excellent job. But the new media order that is emerging–the internet with its myriad of bloggers, You Tube, Facebook, Twitter and 24-hour cable –are even less centered on the poor than traditional media. The guilt factor is long gone. As newspapers desperately chase ad revenue, survival is the issue. And since few people who are actually poor have access to the new technology, those voices are even deeper underground than before. (Yes, advocates for the poor do use the new media, but have had little impact on the national agenda.) As Michiko Kakutani points out in the New York Times, ” Technology is turning us into a global water-cooler culture, with millions of people sending each other (via e-mail, text messages, tweets, You Tube links) gossip, rumors and the sort of amusing-entertaining-weird anecdotes and photographs they might once have shared with pals over a coffee break. And in an effort to collect valuable eyeballs and clicks, media outlets are increasingly pandering to that impulse — often at the expense of hard news.” She quotes the comedian and commentator Bill Maher: “I have the theory that news is now driven not by editors who know anything. I think it’s driven by people who are slacking off at work and surfing the Internet. It’s like a country run by America’s Funniest Home Videos.” And who wants to look at America’s mean streets on Home Videos or chat around the water cooler about teen pregnancy or how poor women are increasingly the new class of AIDS victims.? Americans have long had idiosyncratic ideas about the poor. We believe that we are a classless society, that with enough grit and determination, everyone can succeed. In “Framing Class, Media Representations of Wealth and Class in America,” critic Diana Kendall says that the media rarely discusses class in an explicit way, but its framing of stories sends strong messages about who’s good and who’s not, according to their social class. The wealthy are usually seen as successful individuals to be emulated. Even when they crash and burn, like Wall Street bankers, they are admired for their lifestyles. But, say researchers Heather E. Bullock and Wendy R. Williams of the University of California-Santa Cruz and Karen Fraser Wyche of New York University, the media make little effort to openly discuss class privilege, class-based power differences, and inequalities. As a result, the poor are either rendered invisible or portrayed in terms of “characterological deficiencies and moral failings (e.g., substance abuse, crime, sexual availability, violence).” In both frames, the poor are seen as “outsiders” who deviate from middle-class values and norms. Usually, people do make distinctions between the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor The aged (white) widow of a war veteran, the innocent child struck by disease, the hardworking factory worker out of a job, these are deserving folks. Welfare mothers, pregnant teens, and kids on ghetto streets who fall prey to gang culture, these are the undeservers. But even that distinction may be breaking down. In a shocking episode broadcast widely on the web during the health care debate, Tea Partiers in Ohio cruelly mocked a shabbily dressed elderly man in a wheelchair who had Parkinson’s disease. The man held a sign in his lap supporting health care reform, and the Tea Party men derided him as a communist, and mockingly threw dollar bills at him, saying he was asking for a “handout.” In this case, the web uncovered a shocking episode of cruelty and probably elicited sympathy for the man with Parkinson’s. But some argue that, overall, the culture of the web, with its anonymity, peer pressure, and hunger for the new and trendy, can foster a culture of selfishness and cruelty. Or at least, a culture of trivia. Twitter, You Tube and Facebook are filled with funny pictures of dogs, young people partying in silly hats and compromising positions, and tweets about where the latest hot celebrity can be found. Jaron Lanier writes in You Are Not a Gadget that the web “is comprised of wave after wave of juvenilia, with rooms of M.I.T. Ph.D. engineers not seeking cancer cures or sources of safe drinking water for the underdeveloped world but schemes to send little digital pictures of teddy bears and dragons between adult members of social networks.” As for Facebook, he writes, the true beneficiary will be someone who figures out the right business model. “The real customer is the advertiser of the future, but this creature has yet to appear at the time this is being written. The whole artifice, the whole idea of fake friendship, is just bait laid by the lords of the clouds to lure hypothetical advertisers–we might call them messianic advertisers–who might someday show up.” And those cloud lords will have little interest in such boring, unprofitable stuff as stories about poverty in America. We need a news media that will explain that poverty is more about economic structures than about dumb, lazy, undeserving people, and that if we stop screaming at each other (or endlessly amusing ourselves) we can find solutions that really work. I am not, however, holding my breath.

Excerpt from: 
Caryl Rivers: Tweeting for Poor Folks? That’ll be the Day!

Instead of trying to rein in members of his own party who have in recent days deployed violent imagery (like Sarah Palin), House Republican Whip Eric Cantor is now blaming Democrats for “fanning the flames” of violence. Cantor also claims his campaign office was shot at on Monday (Fox initially reported it had been shot at overnight, but later corrected their report). Greg Sargent : Upping the stakes in the escalating political war over threats to House Dems over health reform, Eric Cantor just directly called out Dem leaders for politicizing the violence and intimidation, ripping them for “dangerously fanning the flames.” Cantor, reading grimly from prepared remarks at a presser just now, said his office in Virginia had been shot at and singled out DNC chair Tim Kaine and DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen for milking the violence towards Dems in a “reprehensible” manner. Cantor’s salvo has all the fingerprints of a Karl Rove-style “best defense is a good offense” strategy. Oddly, he’s doing this at the same time that he says he is a victim of the violent atmosphere. Rather than ratcheting up the partisan heat, it would be nice to see Cantor make a joint appearance with other Democrats and Republicans to condemn the increasingly violent tone of our political discourse. Turning this into a “he said, she said” situation just amplifies the dangerous cycle.

Read more from the original source: 
Cantor claims Dems "fanning the flames," says office was shot at three days ago

Call the doctor. This healthcare-cum-abortion debate is sickening. If the historic dust-up proved one thing, it’s that God handles the gavel for the United States government. The First Amendment continues to wilt under weight of marriage equality antagonists. And now with the anti-abortion battle-call to reign in HR3200 , it’s painfully apparent just how little separation there is between church pews and congressional chambers. The Hyde Amendment already bars federal funds from being used to pay for elective abortions. But that’s simply not good enough for those feisty right-to-life folks. They demand the bill’s anti-abortion language be crystal clear, crypt-tight and colossal in its fight to protect that beloved ball of amorphous, macrobiotic goo. Or as pro-lifers call it, a pre-schooler. NPR acutely cited that Hyde is “an agreement between anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights lawmakers that is so delicate it could balance on a pin.” Now if we can only turn that pin inward and pop this carnival balloon chock-full of bunk. Protect life? Respect life? Gimme a break. The very people who prescribe life more than often also prescribe death. And like death row, healthcare — or the dearth thereof — continues to submit massive amounts of American citizens to a point of no return. Although in this case, their only crime is citizenship. Maybe the best way to address this healthcare hot-mess is to explore the ever-bedeviled life-death continuum. For instance, our pro-life pal, Sarah Palin. Sarah’s a good ol’ god-fearing gal who just loves to keep building upon that bundle of little babies. And wouldn’t you know it, daughter Bristol loves to oblige, even at the ripe old age of 17. (Think Obama would’ve even been a political consideration were his daughter 17 and knocked up?) OK. So what if the tables turned? Let’s say Sarah’s reality TV vis-à-vis Fox News programming vis-à-vis pseudo-political career tanks. (Safe to say stranger things have happened.) Then husband, Todd, can’t fish enough salmon out of the Nushugak. (That is happening.) And due to mom and dad’s declining social capital, Hollywood closes the door on Bristol, the aspiring thespian who’s mustered but one teeny acting turn on ABC’s The Secret Life of the American Teenager . (Gonna happen.) Soon enough, the Palin well would dry up. Mom and Dad might have to move their family from the (built-for-free-in-exchange-for-government-contracts) sprawling lake house to a tiny tract home on the North Slope near the source point of Sarah’s beloved Trans Alaska Pipeline. Who knows? They might even have to slaughter wildlife to keep the family fed instead of just for the pure fun of it. If you think this is the stuff of pure fiction, think again. Happens every day. The dark shadows of under-employment and over-inflation consume families of ALL ilk. Having worked at a nonprofit that afforded outreach for America’s chilling number of homeless families, I witnessed the plight of this sinking ship firsthand. The once wanted become perpetually unwanted. Pawns become casualties of kings and queens. Should the Palins suffer such a spiral, God forbid any one of them suffer frostbite or some crippling illness. Free healthcare would suck. It’s just not pro-life enough. The healthcare debacle provides a platform for holier-than-thou preaching the likes we haven’t seen in some time. How is it that something like the on-again off-again political love affair between pro-lifer Reps Michele Bachmann (Republican, MN) and Bart Stupak (Democrat, MI) became more important fodder than rate breaks for small businesses or coverage for pre-existing conditions? And just why does the debate slate abortion as tantamount to fiscal and social accountability? God knows. And that’s not meant idiomatically. According to our Democrat and Republican pro-life politicos, only God actually knows, literally. Well here’s what we do know. Palin’s Alaska is the rape capital of America . By a wide margin. Though one would NEVER wish this upon any soul on the planet — if her own daughter were to tragically suffer such monstrous violence and become pregnant and diseased as a consequence, would the Hyde abortion funding amendment in HR3200 still be up for such debate? And how’s this for further irony? While God continues to consummate the halls of Congress over heavenly healthcare language, piles of priests were being caught with their pants down , AGAIN. Surprise, surprise. Granted these priests were practicing their Tickle-Me-Elmo routines in Germany, but their band of evil brothers has certainly staked its own claim here in the States. Oh, those poor pious souls who manhandle God’s little munchkins. “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,” say the Catholic Bishops. In fact, the sexual abuse committed by their priests is “a general social problem, traceable not to the church but to the sexualization of society, to the zeitgeist, to the sins of the 60’s generation.” So, while the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbies Capitol Hill to fight for the protections of the unborn, their white collared soldiers fight to suppress the rape and brutality inflicted upon those not long removed from the womb. Over 11,000 cases of priestly violence against youth have been reported over the last five decades alone. (And who knows how many tens of thousands of cases still reside in tortured minds with tied up tongues.) That’s at least 200 cases of ungodly molestation every year for fifty years - from one institution! Could you imagine if executives at an institution like AIG inflicted such evil upon that many souls? Our government would never let them off the hook. Bad example. Furthermore, Bishops have the balls to recently declare, “Unborn children remain the persons whose lives are most at risk in America.” Oh really? What about the 62% of Americans whose medical problems led to personal bankruptcy, according to a recent Harvard research study . Better yet, what about the bubbly little boys who attend C.C.D. classes with Father Fondle? Listen, everyone has a right to practice what they believe and as they see fit. But this ain’t fit practicing, folks. Apostolic succession does not grant legislative appropriation nor does it exist above and beyond retribution. Though 25% of Americans are self-identified Catholics, which translates into massive political and financial influence, this argument cannot and should not solely spotlight Catholicism. Religious practices across the board must not continue to morph into mandates for public policy. And everyone from Obama on down should rock that boat. “This is a health bill, not a bill addressing abortion as an issue,” said pro-choice Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison). Nice try, but not true. The House voted 219-212 for HR3200 to move on to the signing desk of our President. If Mr. Stupak and his gang of five weren’t given the royal abortion treatment, Mr. Obama would be counting down the days to early retirement and the American public would be holed up in their cubbies afraid to go outside for fear of catching the common cold. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. More on Health Care

Excerpt from: 
Douglas Forbes: Respect Life? Gimme a Break.

A very interesting poll was published yesterday by Quinnipiac : Only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement, a group that has more women than men; is mainly white and Republican and voted for John McCain, and strongly supports Sarah Palin, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. While voters say 44 - 39 percent that they will vote for a Republican over a Democratic candidate in this November’s Congressional elections, if there is a Tea Party candidate on the ballot, the Democrat would get 36 percent to the Republican’s 25 percent, with 15 percent for the Tea Party candidate, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. And who are these teabaggers, anyway? Looking at voters who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement:   74 percent are Republicans or independent voters leaning Republican; 16 percent are Democrats or independent voters leaning Democratic; 5 percent are solidly independent; 45 percent are men; 55 percent are women; 88 percent are white; 77 percent voted for Sen. John McCain in 2008; 15 percent voted for President Barack Obama. Oh, yeah, that vote was going to Democrats. Not. And the more Republicans pander to the teabaggers to try and get them back, the more moderates will be turned off. Peter Brown in the WSJ puts it thusly: Four in five Tea Party members voted for John McCain in the 2008 presidential race, and George W. Bush in 2004. They report being more likely than the national population to vote. They could be either the bluebird of happiness or an albatross for the Republicans come election time. If the Tea Party folks are enthusiastic about the GOP candidates they could be a boon to Republicans by driving up turnout. But if Tea Partiers are unhappy and run their own candidates for office, any votes a Tea Party candidate receives would more likely than not come from the GOP column. How the Republicans decide to handle the crazy is up to them, but my guess is they are to afraid to disown it. In any case, let’s drop the pretense that teabaggers are anything close to ‘independents’ : A new Quinnipiac national poll provides us a detailed look into the composition of the nascent tea party movement. The conclusion? It looks a lot like the Republican party. Crazy and all.

Original post:
Q-Poll On Teabaggers: Disaffected Republicans Could Hurt GOP House Races

In the wake of numerous death threats and vandalism plaguing House Democrats who voted for health insurance reform, many have been asking if the actions of Sarah Palin and other right-wing pundits cross the line from free speech into criminal speech. Sarah Palin published on her Facebook page a list of twenty Democrats who voted for health insurance reform and who are elected in districts that used to be Republican. Their locations on a map of the United States are marked by crosshairs - a symbol that clearly refers to target practice and violence. These targeted politicians have received death threats. Their offices and homes and the homes of their family members have been vandalized. They are beefing up security measures for themselves and those who are close to them. Sarah Palin might be to blame. But she is not a criminal. The Supreme Court has a high standard for criminalizing speech. Free speech, while not an absolute right, is a highly protected privilege in the United States. Under certain narrow circumstances, the government can punish or prevent speech when “the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” (Schenck v. United States, 1919). This was translated in 1970 into a legal test that demands criminal speech 1) be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and 2) be “likely to produce such action.” (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1970). As Justice Brandeis pointed out in his concurring opinion on the subject of incitement to violence, “If there is time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” (Whitney v. California, 1927). In Brandenburg, this legal test was applied and the Supreme Court found that a call for revenge if “our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race” was not criminal speech. The saving grace for the crazy revenge talk and gun imagery used in Palin’s ad is that it does not create the expectation of imminent harm. Sure, harm has occurred. There have been incidents. But the speech itself does not go so far as to encourage immediate and concrete action. There is time, as Brandeis pointed out, for reasoned discussion and debate. It is a good thing that we don’t criminalize the kind of ads Palin is producing. First, they are expressly political. Political speech is the highest form of protected speech under the First Amendment and that is necessary to preserve democratic function. We simply have to tolerate extreme points of view in order to prevent a tyranny of the majority and repression of the minority. Second, expressions of frustration, anger and wishes for revenge are very different from actions that violate criminal law. We punish actions because the create harm. The speech does not. The only time that we criminalize speech is when the very act of speaking so clearly and immediately leads to harm that there is really no way to separate out the act of speaking and the violence that ensues (according to a seminal essay by Zechariah Chafee Jr., Free Speech in the United States, 1948). That doesn’t mean Palin’s use of violent imagery isn’t offensive. She is a public figure, a former candidate for the second highest office in the country. Her words have a great effect on the public and should be chosen carefully. On the other hand, if we really wanted to hold politicians to a higher standard of speech, we’d have more than just one member of the Republican party to worry about. More on Tax Day Tea Parties

Original post: 
Emma Ruby-Sachs: Sarah Palin Advocates Violence, But Her Hit List Isn’t Criminal

The Tea Party Convention is over. But the war it started is apparently just getting under way. Yesterday, Bill Hemrick, a conservative fund-raiser and the founder of the Upper Deck baseball trading-card company, sued the for-profit convention’s organizer, Judson Phillips, in Williamson County Circuit Court in Tennessee, in a dispute over Sarah Palin’s speaking fee. When Palin agreed to deliver the keynote address at the convention, it put the event in the news. And it was Hemrick, all agree, who provided the $50,000 down payment for Palin’s $100,000 speaking fee. More on Tax Day Tea Parties

More:
Palin Tea Party Convention Speaking Fee Sparks $500,000 Lawsuit Between Wealthy Donor, Organizer

The idea that some may view President Obama as the Anti-Christ is ridiculous on so many levels. The most practical one comes to mind when one remembers the Omen trilogy of movies from the late 70s. Those films chronicled the rise and eventual fall of a son of Satan, Damien Thorn. A main theme of those movies was the fact that anyone who discovered or even suspected that Thorn was the Anti-Christ was quickly dispatched in a particularly supernatural nasty manner whether it be impalement by steeple poles, vivisection by elevator, having ravens peck out their eyes and then being hit by semi-trucks on lonely roads, decapitation by glass panes, or being attacked by a pack of wild dogs. On that note, let me break and say that I am speaking strictly tongue-in-cheek here. The last thing I need is for Andrew Breitbart or Matt Drudge to claim that I am advocating creative deaths for conservatives. Or worse - Michelle Malkin digging through my trash and connecting an empty jar of Metamucil she may find there to an insidious plot. In fact, let me take it further and say that I do not wish any ill will on any conservative I do not wish for Sarah Palin’s new hairstyle to come to life and attack her. I do not wish for Rush Limbaugh’s microphones to come to life and begin strangling him. I do not wish for members of the Republican Party to spontaneously combust And lastly, I do not wish for Glenn Beck to get so caught up in one of his dialogues that his head explodes (I know it’s the wrong horror movie - Scanners - but if this really happened, it wouldn’t be messy. Beck has shown his lack of a brain long ago.) Why the notion that I would wish these things is as zany as thinking that a man who was elected by over 50 percent of the country’s population is secretly the son of Satan sent to issue in the Battle of Armageddon (which when you really think about it, Christians are supposed to win anyway so what exactly are these folks scared of? That is if they are Christians.) Besides, we all know that the true Anti-Christ is the person behind the concept of the Department of Motor Vehicles. But just in case Obama is the Anti-Christ, there are a lot of people in this country who should be afraid of ravens and semi trucks on lonely roads, dogs, elevators, glass panes, and steeple poles, etc., etc.

Original post: 
Alvin McEwen: So President Obama may be the Anti-Christ. Big deal

With several different Democrats receiving threats of violence and receiving protective detail after voting for the new health insurance reform law (I haven’t yet tired of saying that), it’s worth highlighting something that Minority Leader John Boehner said last week about one of the Congressmen who has been subjected to this sort of vitriolic abuse: his neighbor from an adjacent Ohio district, Rep. Steve Driehaus. “Take [Rep.] Steve Driehaus, for example,” he says. “He may be a dead man. He can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati.” As mcjoan noted earlier , Congressman Driehaus has been subjected to a litany of intimidating tactics, including death threats, having pictures of his children used in an attack ad, and having the address of and directions to his private residence posted on conservative blogs–and we’ve all seen how well that worked out in the case of case of Rep. Periello’s brother. Predictably, Driehaus has called Boehner out about his words, which are ill-chosen at best: “I think it’s really important for folks around here, especially leader Boehner, to understand that his words have consequences,” Driehaus said. “Leader Boehner suggested that if I vote yes on this bill and go home to the west side of Cincinnati, that I could be a dead man…. It really calls into question his ability to lead. He should be a statesman.” Driehaus confronted Boehner about the interview on the floor of the House. “I told him it was inexcusable,” Driehaus said. “It doesn’t really matter the way you meant it, nor the way I accept it. It’s how the least sane person in my district accepts it.” That’s a pretty important point, because the least sane person in Western Cincinnati could be a Sarah Palin fan who wants to put SarahPAC’s rifle scope imagery into practice. I’d normally say that it’s up to the minority GOP leadership to take a principled stand in opposition to the violence and the eliminationist rhetoric. But they can’t, and they know it. They’ve spent the entire past year in cahoots with Fox News to convince America that health care reform would turn the United States into the Soviet Union–and they know they can’t back down now without losing their base. The GOP leadership and their allies on Fox and on the AM dial had better pray that nobody gets hurt or killed on account of this–because if that happens, the blood will be on their hands.

View post:
Boehner last week: Driehaus (D-OH) could be a "dead man"

Aravosis reports on the increasing threat to Dem members of Congress. Now we find out that 10 members of Congress have asked for increased security following threats…. Here are Chuck Todd’s tweets on the latest: RT @chucktodd: House Maj. Leader Hoyer says he’s worried about the security of fellow House Dems; Calls on House GOP leaders to join in decrying threats RT @chucktodd: Hoyer says any member of Congress who is concerned about threats is receiving access to security; So far, over 10 members. CBS News has obtained audio of threats made against Rep. Bart Stupak. The calls placed to Stupak’s office reveal the extreme anger members of Congress are facing. “Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother f***er… I hope you bleed out your a**, got cancer and die, you mother f***er,” one man says in a message to Stupak. “There are millions of people across the country who wish you ill,” a woman says in a voicemail, “and all of those thoughts that are projected on you will materialize into something that’s not very good for you.” CBS News also obtained copies of faxes sent to Stupak, which include racial epithets used in reference to President Obama and show pictures of nooses with Stupak’s name. Another of the threatened members, pro-life Rep. Steve Driehaus, spoke with Brian Beutler today : Last week, the anti-reform advocacy group the Committee to Rethink Reform published an ad in The Cincinnati Enquirer featuring a photo of Dreihaus with his children. (Both the Committee and the Enquirer  have retracted and apologized for the ad.) Now, conservatives are planning a Sunday protest outside of his house, after a conservative blog put his address–complete with directions–on the Internet. Speaking to me and another reporter outside the House chamber this afternoon, Driehaus said Republican leaders are to blame for the vitriol–and implied that they will bear some responsibility if reform opponents’ anger bubbles over into violence. “I think if you look at some of the language that has been used by leaders on the Republican side, one shouldn’t be surprised,” Driehaus said. “Unfortunately many of us are now receiving threats, death threats…. These comments that have been made by Republican leaders can serve as–I don’t know if I want to say an excuse or perhaps permission for people who may be unbalanced, who may be calling with these threats.” Rep. Tom Perriello, whose brother’s family has become a target , adds in a statement : “My number one priority right now is ensuring the safety of my brother’s family, and I am grateful to law enforcement for their excellent work,” Perriello said in a statement today. “While it is too early to say anything definitive regarding political motivations behind this act, it’s never too early for political leaders to condemn threats of violence, particularly as threats to other Members of Congress and their children escalate.” Absolutely Republican leaders need to condemn this, loudly and frequently. Or are they going to let Sarah Palin be the only voice of leadership on the issue?

Read the original: 
Threats Against Dems Escalating, Members Receiving Protective Detail

Digby and Turkana note Sarah Palin’s most recent utterance on Twitter: Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: “Don’t Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!” Pls see my Facebook page. Reload? Really? Of all the images to convey about her movement, it is revealing that Sarah Palin chose one associated with violence. Palin’s rhetoric comes amidst a surge in right-wing extremism, a time during which she should be urging cooler heads to prevail instead of fueling the most radical elements of her base. Remember, just a few weeks ago, an anti-tax radical launched a suicide plane attack on an IRS building in Texas. Over the past few days, anti-reform thugs have vandalized Democratic Party headquarters in several states in retribution for the passage of health care reform. And now, today, just hours after teapartiers posted the home address of Democratic Congressman Tom Periello’s brother and told people to “stop by,” authorities found a severed gas line running to the home. No matter that the tea party people mistakenly targeted the congressman’s brother instead of the congressman himself, their goal was clear — to influence the political process through the threat of violence. That’s not just way over the line, that’s terrorism. And I don’t care how much money Sarah Palin might want to make off her political celebrity, if she were the patriot she claims to be, she’d be doing everything in her power to rein in the rising tide of right-wing extremism. The fact that she’s not doing so undercuts everything she’s ever said about loving this country and our political system. At best, she’s a crass opportunist. At worst, she’s palling around with terrorists. Update (11:40AM): Several commenters point out that Palin’s Facebook posted features more violent imagery: a map with gun sights marking the Democratic seats she’s “targeting” for GOP takeover (including Periello’s). Here’s the image ( more at HuffPost ):

Excerpt from: 
Who’s palling around with terrorists now?

During the Bush years, members of the far-right would often suggest that liberals were “with the terrorists” if we merely opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, or if we opposed the policies of the Republican leadership at the time. In fact, any negative criticism of the president whatsoever was considered unpatriotic “while troops were in harm’s way.” That was the line we heard almost daily throughout the previous decade: don’t undermine the commander-in-chief while troops were deployed in battle. Just don’t. Or Sean Hannity will crush you with his mighty hairline! But in general, there was this idea among Republicans that liberals were somehow emboldening the terrorists anytime we suggested that it might be a bad idea to eavesdrop on American telecommunications, or that it might be a bad idea to torture detainees, or that it might be a bad idea to invade Iran after having already invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to varying degrees of failure. Either we were with the administration, or we were with the terrorists . We can debate at another time whether or not anyone is currently “emboldening” Islamic terrorists or putting the troops in jeopardy by constantly accusing their commander-in-chief of hating America, of hating white people, of hating freedom or of hating you personally. The more important discussion during this ground-breaking week in American history is whether or not legitimate Republican and conservative leaders are instigating and inciting violence against the president, against Democrats, against liberals and, in some cases, against children. And they are. It’s inexcusable and it’s unforgivably irresponsible how top-shelf conservative players like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and even some members of the congressional leadership are using coded and not so coded language that speaks directly to a small, but trigger-happy right-wing. Unlike the policy-driven arguments made by mostly pacifistic liberals during the Bush years, this language is a direct and precise emboldening of right-wing extremism — and terrorism. And the behavior from certain elements of the far-right can be defined as such. It’s terrorism. No gray area here. Right-wing terrorism. Obviously, the far-right fringe is out of its mind about healthcare reform. And throughout the week, its behavior has gone from irresponsible, to racist, to unapologetically dangerous. Earlier in the month, the far-right was up to its usual irresponsible behavior — attacking a child . Immediately upon the president mentioning 11-year-old Marcelas Owens, whose mother died due to a lack of adequate health insurance, the usual suspects kneejerked into their predictable roundelay demonizing a little boy as yet another public enemy. In previous years, wingnut bloggers like Michelle Malkin have gone so far as to stalk children who somehow associated themselves with the Democrats. Glenn Beck once targeted and outed a Muslim parochial school in Northern Virginia and noted its specific location. World Net Daily printed the name of a school that performed a musical with gay themes last Thanksgiving. Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh have targeted principals and members of a kindergarten class for singing a song about the president (you know, the commander-in-chief who we’re supposed to support no matter what, especially while troops are in harm’s way). And now they’re questioning the veracity and patriotism of Marcelas Owens and figuratively jotting him down on their enemies lists — knowing full well the kinds of gun-toting, reactionary freaks who take their words as gospel. Elsewhere, Rep. Louise Slaughter received an assassination threat against the children of lawmakers who supported health care reform . I don’t mind reporting that, mixed in with the usual array of angry far-right blasts, I’ve received several death threats via email. One email ended with a warning that I should “check on the kids.” Stay classy, wingnuts. In the eyes of way too many far-right Republicans, this is a war. They believe the Obama administration, progressives, liberals and Democrats are destroying America and replacing it with some sort of weird chimera composed of communism, socialism, Maoism, Nazism and — shock horror! — social justice . On Capitol Hill last weekend, teabaggers were showing how not-racist they are by shouting racial epithets at African American members of Congress and spitting on them. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck seemed to believe that somehow Congressman John Lewis had no right to lock arms and march in the style of a civil rights activist , even though Lewis is, you know, one of the most well-known civil rights activists in the history of civil rights activism. “How dare he!” Beck screamed at his audience. Mix this behavior into the same psychobomb of outrage that included printed signs held up by tea party activists calling for gun violence as a means of stopping healthcare reform. “Warning: If Brown Can’t Stop It, A Browning Can.” (For what it’s worth, “a Browning” includes any number of types of firearms manufactured by the same company.) Once reform passed through the House, and amidst an atmosphere of violent rhetoric, House minority leader John Boehner described the passage of healthcare reform as “Armageddon.” The end of the world. In the parlance of the Bruce Willis movie of the same name: a global killer. At around the same time, Tucker Carlson’s cheap knock-off of the Huffington Post, the Daily Caller , published a front page banner headline implying that armed IRS agents in riot gear would be fanning out across the nation and into your neighborhood in order to force you at gunpoint to buy health insurance . Literally, war. Sarah Palin reacted by urging her Twitter followers to “RELOAD” (her caps) and to target specific politicians. She included a link to a map of the U.S. pinpointing specific districts using actual graphics of rifle crosshairs. Elsewhere, reports of vandalism against various Democratic offices were reported across several states in the east and Midwest. In a rare display of honesty, a far-right militia operative named Mike Vanderboegh claimed responsibility . Tell me if this doesn’t sound like the maniacal threats of a terrorist: “We can break their windows,” he said. “Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary.” Violence and intimidation as a means of achieving a political end. And they haven’t even ruled out the “muzzle of a rifle.” How is this not terrorism? And conservative leaders were outraged when Homeland Security released a report about right-wing extremism last year. Who us?! was the general reaction. At the very least, Secretary Napolitano deserves an apology. The far-right is out of its mind with talk of violence and armed insurrection. There’s no way to shove it all back into its crazy bottle. But what can and should be done at this point is for conservative leaders to stop inciting the extremism and, instead, to help marginalize the crazies. The only way to slow down this tide of right-wing terrorism is to strip it of its legitimacy — legitimacy it’s deriving from leaders like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and John Boehner. Instead, let’s debate policy. Let’s argue about the politics. Let’s vigorously disagree about the future of America. But let’s agree, however, that violence, racism, vandalism and, yes, terrorism should never be part of the equation. As leaders of the Republican Party, as leaders of the conservative movement in America, these men and women have a responsibility to verbally disarm the right-wing radicals and extremists who are well-known for their love of guns and of their predilection for violent intimidation. Terrorism. Yet so far, conservative leaders have only made matters worse. Don’t miss tomorrow’s Bob & Elvis Show. Live 10 a.m. EDT . Follow Bob on Twitter. Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog! Go! More on Health Care

Here is the original post:
Bob Cesca: Right-Wing Terrorism Stoked by Conservative Leaders Again

Discovery is really interested in paying $1.2 million per episode ? Sources say Discovery Communications has edged out rival A&E Networks in the bidding for the project, titled “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” An agreement could be announced in the next few days. It’s still undecided which network in the Discovery suite would air “Alaska,” which is being produced by Mark Burnett Productions. Although travelogues are on brand for the Discovery flagship, having Palin as a centerpiece also makes the show a fit for mom-friendly TLC. Clearly nature docs are still viable for the company — Discovery’s latest effort in genre, the miniseries “Life,” just debuted to 11.8 million viewers on Sunday night. Of course, the miniseries “life” is really good. But the best part about this would be forcing Palin’s fundie base to watch Discovery channel, where they might accidentally stumble unto, you know, science . That could prove unintentionally hilarious, as is the fact that the Discovery Network might pick up a show hosted by a creationist .

Original post: 
Discovery network interested in Palin nature show

Conservatives were outraged at our January poll suggesting that Republicans were batshit insane. But it wasn’t so much the results which they challenged, but the veracity of the pollster and of us. Rather than argue that Republicans weren’t birthers (they are), they tried to discredit the organization commissioning the poll (us). Well, another non-partisan pollster, Harris, has reported similar results : * 67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist. * 57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim * 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was “not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president” * 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is “doing many of the things that Hitler did” * Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama “may be the Antichrist.” The GOP base is full of all-out lunatics, motivated and fueled by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the rest of the neo-Birchers of the conservative movement. As long as they hold sway with the Republican Party, compromise will be impossible. They won’t allow it.

Read more here: 
Confirmed! GOP batshit insane

Few of us think of eating out as being an inherently risk activity. It’s not rock-climbing, or bungee jumping. But in fact, at least 40 percent of all foodborne illness outbreaks in the U.S. can be traced to food served in restaurants . Given that the average consumer eats restaurant-prepared food at least five times per week, that’s a lot of chances to get sick. On March 16, New York City decided to do something to protect its millions of residents–and millions of tourists–by requiring critical food safety information right in the window of every restaurant. A letter grade placed in the window will show consumers just how well (or poorly) a restaurant performed on its most recent city health inspection. Thanks to the New York City Board of Health, consumers will have an important clue as to what’s happening behind the scenes–and whether the health inspector thinks the restaurant needs to clean up its act. An attractive décor and server’s smile doesn’t always indicate a sanitary establishment. Restaurant inspection grade cards have been used with great success in a few other places. In Los Angeles County, where consumers have enjoyed access to inspection information for 11 years, the health department has documented a 20 percent decrease in hospitalizations due to foodborne illness. That same drop has not been seen in parts of the state without grade cards. It’s clear that grade cards perform two critical functions: providing consumers with information and spurring restaurateurs to upgrade their food safety practices. So why aren’t all cities using grade cards? Some are: Las Vegas, St. Louis, and the entire state of North Carolina, to name a few. But the restaurant industry has been mostly resistant, with only a few courageous restaurateurs willing to buck the National Restaurant Association and support giving consumers the information they deserve. Chef Tom Colicchio, of Bravo’s Top Chef and owner of several New York City restaurants, was one of those few industry proponents, arguing that “anything that is going to encourage people to clean up their act and protect the public is a good thing overall.” The industry worries that grade cards will serve as a scarlet letter, taking a snapshot of performance and branding the restaurant with it for all eternity. That fear is misplaced. A 2003 study of the Los Angeles grade card system found that restaurants with an “A” grade saw an increase of revenue by almost 6 percent, and even revenues at “B” grade restaurants stayed flat. Further, New York City has designed a clever reinspection system that allows restaurants a grace period to protest a low grade without posting it, while cleaning up and getting a second inspection. Of course, just because a restaurant makes an A doesn’t mean no one will ever get sick. That’s why our food system needs the reform that the Senate is considering now–to create preventive controls and require companies to identify and reduce the risks of their products, so that food can be made safe before it ever reaches the restaurant kitchen. Grade cards are just part of a working food safety system–the part that consumers can see and weigh when they are making their dining decisions. It comes down to this: eating out shouldn’t be a risk. But if you’re going bungee jumping, don’t you want to know the safety record of the guy hooking up your cord? This article was co-written with CSPI Food Safety Staff Attorney Sarah A. Klein. More on Food Politics

Read the rest here:
Michael F. Jacobson: Letter Grades Make Restaurants Safer

Once again Democrats waste time talking about process, while Republicans spin their lies about supposedly bad outcomes. I sat through the House debate on CSPAN on the healthcare security bill yesterday. Democrats repeated the phrase “health care reform” dozens and dozens of times, thereby missing a real messaging opportunity. No serious messaging strategy can possibly be built around the phrase “health care reform.” Why? First, “reform” is a process, not an outcome. No one serious about moving public opinion talks about process over and over again. They talk about the benefits that reform brings, outcomes the public cares about. Second, most of the public likes their health care, so the phrase “health care reform” is not intrinsically positive and, in fact, is probably negative for much of the public given the more effective conservative messaging. If you spend half your scarce messaging time talking about “health care reform,” while your opponent spends all of their time messaging on negative outcomes that the public worries about, you are fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Here a quiz: 1) What’s worse from a messaging perspective, “the public option” or “cap-and-trade”? Hint: Both are process. 2) Tell me in one sentence what team Obama says is the benefit of passing a health care reform bill. 3) Tell me in one sentence what team Obama says happens if we fail to pass the climate and clean energy bill. On health care, no simple, repeated core message exists, so the whole effort is a muddle. Like the 99% of people who aren’t expert on health care reform, only very recently — 12 months too late — have I begun to develop a clear idea of what this plan is or what it would actually do. The problem is, many if not most people could probably care less about the uninsured — they just don’t want to join that group — and while people may say they want cost containment, in fact they don’t want their own costs “contained,” they only want their premiums lower. They do want security about their healthcare. Again, the single phrase that the Democrats repeat most often is “health care reform” whereas the single phrase that Republicans repeat most often is “government takeover.” Is it any surprise the polling on this bill is so bad? As Frank Luntz — the bane of climate progressives (see Bush climate speech follows Luntz playbook: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah.” ) but an undeniably astute conservative messaging guru — has said: ” There’s a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time .” Duh. A vote for this bill is a vote for health care security. You get to keep your health care coverage if you like what you have — and they can’t throw you off of it if you get some expensive disease or get fired. And you get access to health care coverage if you don’t have it, and they can’t keep it away from you if you have a pre-existing condition. And this bill keeps whatever health care you have or get affordable, so you don’t have to compromise your health to pay for other necessities. Health care security. Health care security. Health care security. On climate, at least we have the simple positive message: clean energy jobs, jobs, jobs. Plus energy independence/security. That is a key reason public support has held firm even in the face of a multimillion dollar campaign of fraud and disinformation by the fossil-fuel-funded right wing: Overwhelming US Public Support for Global Warming Action Memo to policymakers: Public STILL favors the transition to clean energy GOP-learning voters support bipartisan action on energy Voters in Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and global warming New CNN poll finds “nearly 6 in 10 independents support cap and trade” Ironically, many progressives don’t even know how strong the polling remains for the clean air, clean energy jobs bill that increases energy independence while preserving a livable climate. But the health care debate does show that even half-assed messaging — with conviction — coupled with an intense political effort can deliver legislation when progressives have large majorities. Now Obama needs devote as much effort to climate and clean energy as he has to health care. If he can’t pass a more popular bill that already has bipartisan support — and which is more important to the health and well-being of future Americans — then his tremendous health care success will not save his presidency from being judged a failure. More on Green Energy

Continued here:
Joseph Romm: Health care security bill passes in spite of dreadful messaging

It’s a 350-mile march from Bakersfield to Sacramento if you stop in the small towns along the Highway 99 corridor. I’m a retired teacher and clinical social worker making that march with other teachers and public service workers to sound an alarm in the heartland of this state that the California dream of opportunity and the good life is fading. It’s time to wake up and do something about it. We’re in the second week of our 48-day trek, and my feet are showing the wear. But though I’m tired, my spirit is soaring with the warm reception we are receiving in the San Joaquin Valley. Money for our schools and public services has been slashed, and more draconian cuts are threatened in the immediate future. Public worker layoffs are leading to overcrowded classes and lost course offerings, to cuts in essential services to the frail elderly and disabled and the shattering of safety net services. These cuts affect all of us, and the quality of life and standard of living we have worked so hard for decades to achieve is at risk. That’s why I’m dedicating my March and April to march — for our future. As we move up the state step by step, we are met by passersby who stop to cheer us on with warm words, water and snacks. Churches honor us in their services. Schools host us for the night. Students have come knocking on our RV door to invite us to a local play production. A town chief of police has paid a friendly visit to show his support. When I read a banner that said, “March For Those Who Cannot,” I felt a tug at my heart. I knew I was doing the right thing. It was written on the banner by in-home care workers in Los Angeles at the rally the day we departed for Bakersfield to begin the march. It may come as a surprise to Californians to know that our state ranks 48th in the nation in the number of state employees per resident, and that our K-12 schools are nearly last in the nation in per pupil spending. So, we don’t have a “spending problem,” as our governor asserts. We’re actually behind almost all the other states in spending for our essential services. What can we do? Alright, I’ll say the forbidden word — taxes. We need to restore taxes on the highest incomes and on large corporations that for years have enjoyed tax cuts. We regular taxpayers have been hoodwinked into carrying more than our share. For example: Individuals who make over 250,000 per year and couples who make over500,000 have enjoyed tax cuts for almost 20 years. We need to raise the levels by 1-2 percent to they’re at the same levels as they were under President Reagan, which will bring in5 billion a year. Close corporate tax loopholes. The average taxpayer doesn’t have them, why do we extend them to the stockholders of the wealthiest corporations? Enact a tax on oil severance in our state, which is the only state that does not have this tax. George Bush’s Texas and Sarah Palin’s Alaska both tax oil taken out of the ground; why shouldn’t California? Besides restoring lost taxes, it’s crucial that the State Legislature be able to pass a budget and raise revenue with a majority vote (50 percent plus one). Presently, a required a one-third-plus-one radical minority can, and does, freeze decision-making. That minority effectively controls the Legislature. An initiative now is being circulated for the November ballot to restore a more democratic process. I may be retired, but I can walk. And I’m going to walk a long way before it’s over.

More: 
Anna Graves: My Feet are Tired, but My Dream for California’s Future is Strong

BAGHDAD — Dr. Abbas al-Sahan’s patient wasn’t a war victim. She didn’t have a scar that needed cosmetic surgery. All she wanted was a cute nose. And she got it. Speaking after the surgery, bandages and swelling gone, 23-year-old Sarah Saad Abdul-Hameed was ecstatic. Friends who visited “were surprised with the change in my face,” she said. “They compared my nose to Nicole Kidman’s!” Even in the worst spasms of violence that followed the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, cosmetic surgery didn’t go out of style. Now, as the country has quieted down, nose jobs, Botox and liposuction are all the rage. Al-Sahan, one of Baghdad’s premier plastic surgeons, said he averages about 20 cosmetic surgeries a week – 70 percent on women. During the height of the fighting, reconstructive surgery for the wounded made up the bulk of his practice, but now most of it is cosmetics unrelated to the war, he said. “When there’s a good security situation and good economic improvement of the country, the work will grow,” he said. Interest in plastic surgery has blossomed since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, and the end of economic sanctions that isolated Iraqis from the influences and pop culture of the outside world. Also, doctors who fled the violence are trickling back. But availability of cosmetic surgery is limited – al-Sahan says fewer than half a dozen cosmetic surgeons operate in the country – and patients have to provide their own Botox or silicone. Al-Sahan’s clinic in the upscale Mansour neighborhood, with its worn sofas and stairwell smelling of cats, hardly evokes “Nip/Tuck,” the American TV show about high-end cosmetic surgery. Still, his waiting room on a recent afternoon was so full that clients spilled out into the hallway. Most of Baghdad’s cosmetic surgeons play dual roles: they do reconstructive surgery, mostly on war-wounded patients, at government hospitals, and cosmetic surgeries at private hospitals. The cosmetic surgeries tend to be their bigger earners because patients pay cash – around $600 for a nose job. Breast augmentation costs $1,200, and clients must import the silicone from abroad. Botox, injected to relax muscles and head off wrinkles, can be found in Iraqi pharmacies. Demand cuts across all religious divides, but all the same, Iraq being an overwhelmingly Muslim country, some have inevitably sought guidance from the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country’s most revered Shiite religious figure. The verdict on his Web site? Hair implants are preferred over a wig, which can fall off during prayer. Liposuction to remove fat, and surgery to make breasts smaller or bigger, are OK as long as female patients go to a woman doctor. But cosmetic surgeons in Baghdad say patients rarely raise the religious question or demand a particular gender of surgeon. Many bring pictures of famous people they want to look like – Lebanese pop stars Nancy Ajram or Elissa are the most popular. Cosmetic surgery requires an artist’s touch, says al-Sahan. “If you have no art in your brain and your hand, I don’t think you can do aesthetic surgery,” he said. “No nose is like another nose. Every patient is a particular case.” A 30-year-old woman said she was having trouble with a prospective suitor’s mother who didn’t like her nose. “I am getting older and time is running out. One should take care of oneself to look more beautiful,” she said, adding she saw no religious issue at stake. She requested anonymity, saying she didn’t want it known that she was getting a nose job. “Day after day, the number of clients is increasing,” said an Iraqi doctor, Falah Abdul Hussein al-Shimmari, who runs an outpatient clinic in Baghdad. “Iraqis were deprived before of such cosmetic services because they were unable to travel,” he said. “But after the war, there has been some openness to the outside world. People are becoming interested in having such plastic surgeries.” Another change is that doctors, one of the most targeted professions for kidnapping during the insurgency, are coming back from self-imposed exile. Al-Shimmari spent 2005-2007 in Lebanon, dubbed the plastic surgery capital of the Middle East. But security is still a concern. Al-Sahan will not advertise his clinic address or the hours he works at the hospital in case kidnappers have targeted him. More on Health

Go here to read the rest: 
Iraq Plastic Surgery Boom

Tonight the House of Representatives passed historic legislation with President Obama’s health care package and some pundits are saying the battle for health care is over. But far from being over, I’m afraid a deeply partisan battle-dare I say it-a war is only just beginning because of the manner in which this victory was won. I say this because of two friends of mine: Betsy and Robby, my formerly apolitical friends who have been radicalized by the experience of the last 15 months and if they are any indication of the mood of the country, and I believe they are, the Democratic party is in for a political wake-up call of historic proportions in November. Robby has been my neighbor for nearly seven years. He’s a solid family man with a wife and two daughters who looks after his neighbors and is the guy you turn to when you need some help in the neighborhood. Until very recently he expressed almost no interest in politics. In fact I never knew exactly what party he supported and the subject of politics rarely came up. But today, if you visit his Facebook page you will see that he has been completely radicalized in a manner that would make Glenn Beck proud. His online profile features taunts of Al Gore and global warming, shout outs to the man whom he hopes will be his next Senator, Chuck DeVore and this tribute to Sarah Palin: “Go girl, let ‘em keep talking s*** while you keep kicking their a**.” If Robby was formerly apolitical, my friend Betsy was uber-apolitical. Her uncle is a prominent judge and I used to marvel at how in spite of that she had absolutely no interest in politics or current affairs. But Betsy too has been radicalized. The last time I spoke to her a year ago she was her same apolitical self: a recently married mother-to-be anxiously awaiting the arrival of her first child, but yesterday she left me a voicemail telling me she now adores the Fox News Channel and watches Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly all the time and really, really loves Beck’s show. Something is happening in America: the radicalization of people like Robby and Betsy that President Obama and this administration ignore at their own political peril and the passage of this health care legislation without a single Republican vote portends serious trouble for his party with voters like these. I’ve previously written about the possibility of Democrats being in serious danger of losing between 75-100 seats in the House and maybe as many as 10 in the Senate. Crazy, I know, but no more crazy than a Tea Party candidate winning Ted Kennedy’s seat. After this vote, I think I may have underestimated. And if Betsy and Robby are any indication, even Senators like Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer, their representatives in the Senate, are in for the political fights of their lives from these radicalized voters. Republicans hope for and Democrats dread a repeat of the 1994 elections in which the GOP gained 52 seats in the House, but, if these two are any indication, 2010 may be ‘94 on steroids, led this time not by outraged Conservatives, but rather by independent, formerly apolitical, non-voting Americans like Robby and Betsy who have been radicalized by the likes of Beck into voting in numbers that may create majorities in both houses that could very well be capable not only of rolling back this health care bill, but overriding a likely Presidential veto. More on Ted Kennedy

Here is the original post: 
Mark Joseph: Healthcare Reform & The Radicalization of Betsy & Robby

In the face of Sunday night’s historic House vote on health-care reform, former Alaska governor and losing VP candidate Sarah Palin — clearly eyeing a bid for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination — has been waxing apoplectic on her Twitter account about the impending legislation. She also mixed up several word salads in a review with O’Reilly that was so garbled that even O’Reilly had to cut her off several times. Palin — whose duplicitous allegation of “death panels” helped establish the rancorous tone of the national debate over health-care reform — has consistently shown her capacity for deceit throughout the debate. The truth never seems to get in the way of her ugly and relentless political opportunism. Her latest Twitter posting wallowed in the same shameful duplicity of her “death panel” hyperbole — which earned her the dubious award of Lie of the Year from PolitiFact.com. Apparently, Palin is working on a two-peat in 2010. Yesterday she tweeted: Shocking new questions re:whether military healthcare plans r protected under Obamacare. How will underpaid troops afford their own purchase? [sic] Palin then posted a Twitter link to a National Review blog raising the issue of whether military health care plans would be covered under “Obamacare” — the derogatory term that the right-wing has labeled health care reform legislation. As is often the case with Palin, it was as duplicitous as it was disingenuous. Palin — who her former aides in Alaska say was often “clueless” about the legislative process — was apparently unaware that the House was in the midst of passing legislation yesterday (by a bipartisan vote of 403 to 0) that specifically protected all members of the military from any requirements mandated by the health-care legislation. John Rowan, head of Vietnam Veterans of America, lauded the passage of the House legislation and said that it “ensures that health care programs for veterans, active duty military, retired military, and their families/survivors will not be affected negatively by the pending health care reform legislation.” He labeled Palin’s assertions — and others who joined her in raising such allegations — a “false alarm.” The VVA does not appreciate spreading rumors that are not accurate by any political partisan from any point of the political spectrum. Issues affecting veterans and their families are not, should not, and must not become partisan footballs to bat around. VVA decries any effort, by anyone, that would do just that. Retired U.S. Army General and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric K. Shinseki was also appalled by the unfounded charges. Fears that Veterans health care and TRICARE will be undermined by the health reform legislation are unfounded. I am confident that the legislation being voted on today will provide the protections afforded our nation’s Veterans and the health care they have earned through their service. 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 2010. More on Barack Obama

More: 
Geoffrey Dunn: Palin’s Latest Health Care Lie

Geraldo Rivera criticized Fox News host Bret Baier for his interruption-heavy interview of President Obama Wednesday. Friday morning on radio program “Brian and the Judge,” Geraldo — a Fox News host himself — said that Baier should have treated Obama with more respect. “At a certain point, you gotta recognize…when the President seemed exasperated and frustrated and unable to complete a sentence, I thought at some point you gotta make a difference between the guy who’s the senate whip or the house whip, or the assemblyman, the leader of the state senate,” Geraldo said. “He’s not a mayor, he’s the President.” Former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino disagreed. “There’s not a single reporter who ever interviewed President Bush who would have done anything different,” she said. “I was there for 7.5 years, I watched them all…Diane Sawyer, others, they’re aggressive and they should be. “The only place I’ve seen that is Sarah Palin,” Geraldo responded. “Sarah Palin’s the only one who gets beat up the way Bret Baier beat up Barack Obama.” “I don’t think he beat him up,” Perino said. “He asked him some questions that the White House did not prepare the President for. That’s a staff problem. Geraldo ended by comparing Baier to Keith Olbermann. “I’ve done some of the most aggressive interviews ever on television, I’ve been down people’s throats, I’ve had my hand around their neck, I’ve had my nose broken,” he said. “Point: there is some decorum and if that same thing happened to George Bush and I was watching that, I think that everybody at Fox News would’ve said, ‘Hey, that Keith Olbermann went way too far.’” “You can’t compare Bret Baier to Keith Olbermann!” Perino responded. LISTEN:

Go here to see the original: 
Geraldo Criticizes Bret Baier For Obama Interview (AUDIO)

ShoWest 2010 ended it’s four-day celebration of films, filmmakers and, of the most important people there in the process of making and showing a film — the theater owners. The final day featured two films. First up, at 10 am, was The Back-Up Plan , with Jennifer Lopez and Alex O’Loughlin, a romantic comedy set in New York City. At 4:15 they showed Disney’s Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arteton, Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina. The Back-Up Plan opens April 23; Prince, on Memorial Day weekend. Between the two films was a luncheon hosted by CBS films — Back-Up’s studio — where we were introduced to more of their upcoming releases and to several of the stars. Amy Baer, president of CBS Films, talked about how the corporation had the advantage of cross-promoting films. For example, Lopez guested on the CBS’ hit sitcom, How I Met Your Mother and the film was promoted during sports events and other CBS programming. Next up for promotion was Beastly, , set for summer release and following in the tradition of the Twilight films — somewhat scary, off-beat and built with deep appeal to teenage moviegoers. The film stars Vanessa Hudgens is the girl and Alex Pettyfer, the Beast. They, along with co-star Neil Patrick Harris, were there to talk about the film. Third in the CBS Films line-up was Faster starring Dwayne Johnson and Billy Bob Thornton. They were there (photo above) to introduce the trailer for the movie that’s slated to be released November 19. After lunch it was Warner Brothers’ turn to crow and rightfully so. In 2009 the studio had its biggest year ever — $2.13 billion worldwide gross — and, in fact the biggest take of any studio. Warners president of domestic distribution Dan Fellman attributed their success to “a balanced release slate. There was something for everyone — The Hangover, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes. Alan Horn, Warners president and COO began by noting that from the 1928 technology that ended the silent era through 1953’s film House of Wax,

The rest is here:
Ellen Sterling: ShoWest Day 4: The Party Ends With Day-Long Celebration

Twitter is so many things to so many people: infomercial, backyard fence, brain dump. The funny, famous, famous for the wrong reasons or simply very useful have thousands of followers, but who do THEY follow? Deposed “Tonight Show” star Conan O’Brien follows only one person, LovelyButton, a seemingly nice and happy 19-year-old named Sarah Killen in rural Michigan. Her own list of followers shot way up when O’Brien recently plucked her from the twitosphere because he felt bad about not following anyone as he madly tweets away his contractual obligation to stay off television for a few months. Certainly not the most out-of-whack in that department, the movie critic, blogger, book writer and cancer survivor Roger Ebert, who lost his voice as a result of his illness, tweets regularly to 112,201 followers. The Oscars helped bump up his follower feed as he tweeted away on awards night. Ebert’s a busy guy online, but he follows only 59 on the massively popular micro-blogging tool. “For me, it’s a matter of signal to noise ratio,” Ebert said in an e-mail of his Twitter portfolio. “I don’t care about what anybody is doing moment to moment. I want to learn something, or be entertained. The twits I follow are a virtual Algonquin Round Table.” Yes, he calls them twits. He’s kidding. So who gets thumbs-up from (at)ebertchicago? Here’s five: KELLY OXFORD Calgary stay-at-home mom of three, blogger, recently joined Ben Stiller, Sarah Silverman, Diablo Cody and 136 other Twitter users for “Night of 140 Tweets” to benefit the Haiti relief effort. Each recited a signature tweet before a live audience in Hollywood. Why he follows: “(at)kellyoxford is way funny.” One of Oxford’s tweets: “I don’t think vomiting is a side effect of pregnancy, I think it’s a side effect of knowing there’s a human growing in you.” Followers: 16,061. Following: 151. HUGH HEFNER Playboy founder, star of E! reality series “The Girls Next Door.” Why he follows: “(at)hughhefner is enjoying an idyllic golden age, watching a movie every night, playing (board) games in the Game House with many girlfriends, although Crystal Harris is his One True Love.” One of Hefner’s tweets: “My 12 year seperation from Kimberly Conrad ends in March with all economic concerns resolved. Free. Free at last.” Followers: 226,026 Following: 2. ERICA KENNEDY Novelist, blogger, Kennedy gave up the “let’s all be fabulous in Prada” New York lifestyle for new digs in Miami. Why he follows: “(at)feminista09 has an attitude, is funny, irreverent.” One of Kennedy’s tweets: (at)juliaallison how could any1 tell Kate Winslet, after they’re married (!), that he can’t be w/one person for the rest his life?” Followers: 1,766. Following: 517. DAVID LYNCH Creator of the films “Eraserhead” and “Blue Velvet,” co-creator of “Twin Peaks,” woodworker. Why he follows: “(at)DAVID_LYNCH is steadily enigmatic. He doesn’t share a lot of his inner thinking.” One of Lynch’s tweets: “Someone asked if I liked wool as well as wood. The closest I’ve come to this is many times, I’ve felt like a sheep in today’s world.” Followers: 242,310. Following: 29. HARRY STEPHEN KEELER Fantastical writer whose heyday was in the 1930s, known for his “web-work” of twisting plots in pulp and mystery, died in 1967, a fan tweets under his name. Why he follows: “(at)HarrySKeeler is the reincarnation of the oddest and most prolific Chicago novelist of all time. He tweets verbatim from his countless and lurid mysteries: `He tricked me into crossing the city today in a distinctive clown suit.’” One of the site’s tweets: “He was finger-man in that snatch–as well as inside wire. And I’ve got him by the nerts.” Followers: 793. Following: 8. More on Playboy

Read the original post:
Roger Ebert Names His Favorites To Follow On Twitter

Marchesa was responsible for some of the Oscars’ most popular looks (including Sandra Bullock’s and Vera Farmiga’s ), so how do you feel about the dress Sarah Jessica Parker donned on Thursday night to the ShoWest awards ceremony in Vegas?

View original post here: 
Sarah Jessica Parker’s Marchesa Dress: Love It Or Lose It? (PHOTO, POLL)

Everybody, please sit down, I have something to share with you: As of this blog, I am going to focus on a single area of concern–TEENAGERS–for the foreseeable future. Yes, you know me as the gadfly who holds forth on everything from pink pubic hair to Sarah Palin (I can’t wait till I can write blog about them both in the SAME post!) But I have been working on my next book, GIRLFRIENDS’ GUIDE TO TEENAGERS, for a couple of years now, and it occurred to me that perhaps you readers might want to weigh in with your opinions, personal stories and guidance. Just to refresh your memory, or inform those of you who don’t know me as the author of the GIRLFRIENDS’ GUIDES series, I birthed four kids in six years (singletons all) and recently barely survived having an 18, 16, 14 and 12-year-old at the same time. My marriage ended shortly after that, -but that was probably just coincidental. Now I have a 22-year-old son, a 20-year-old daughter, an 18-year-old son and a 16-year-old daughter. The bigger the kids, it turns out, the bigger the problems–but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. As usual with my GIRLFRIENDS’ GUIDES, this book is not a “parenting guide,” but rather a survival guide for us moms (and dads) who are alternately terrified of and disgusted by teen behavior, who secretly want to be teenagers again, and who yearn to protect their teens from the mistakes we parents made all those years ago. While this book will cover teens of all ages, I’m particularly focused on the parents of pre-teens for two reasons: First, because the dread is so profound at the very beginning of “Mr. Teen’s Wild Ride” and the indicators are so vague. Second, because I believe that if a parent has any chance in hell of influencing a teen’s behavior, they’d better get their licks in before 8th grade–aka ARMAGEDDON! What I’d like to ask of you this week is for you to share your top fears, concerns and non-negotiables as far as your teen’s behavior is concerned. Let me start with some of mine; starting with the biggest worries to the lesser ones: 1. That My Teen Will Die. There, I’ve said the unspeakable bogeyman. We rarely voice this terror, but it’s implied in our fears of drunk driving, drug use, reckless behavior and, of course, DEPRESSION–that could lead to a teen taking his or her own life. 2. That Someone, a Stranger or a Friend, Will Abuse My Teen 3. That My Teen Will Be a Party to an Unwanted Pregnancy 4. That My Teen Will Get Kicked Out of School and Have No Job Prospects 5. That My Teen Will Sincerely Believe that Oral Sex Is Not SEX 6. That My Teen Will Have an Eating Disorder–No Matter if it’s Obesity or Anorexia 7. That My Child Will Get a Sexually-Transmitted Disease That Sticks Around AFTER Antibiotics 8. That My Child Talks to Sexual Predators Online and Meets Up With Them 9. That My Child Really Means it When He/She Screams, “I HATE YOU!!” There, that’s a start. Now let’s see what you all can add or reiterate to that list. I’m forever grateful, and, NO, I will not be sharing my royalties with you. More on Parenting

Read more: 
Vicki Iovine: Girlfriends’ Guide to Teenagers: Help Me, PLEASE!

Pop quiz: Who has better hair than Sarah Palin, also seems to believe their proximity to another country makes them qualified to run a country and who, judging by the amount of untrue and contradictory statements they’ve said on the issue, might have a “secret plan” written on the palm of their hand? If you guessed Texas Governor Rick “Most Likely to Secede” Perry, then you’d get an A+, which is a better grade than most Texas students are getting these days after Governor Perry’s rejection of government funds destined for Texas classrooms. Folks, it’s serious down here. If you thought George W. Bush was bad, please consider the following: Governor Perry is the Joker to Bush’s Lex Luthor. In Perry’s latest campaign stunt, Texans get to bear witness to a campaign move with tragic, costly repercussions. Perry is serving up Republican surf and turf — anti-immigration and homeland security — in a new “secret plan” to increase border security due to rising border crime rates. The only problem? As the McAllen Monitor reported Thursday , local police officials are saying that Perry’s claims of spillover violence are “ridiculous.” Even Republican Senator John Cornyn told reporters at one point during a conference call that “As far as the Texas border is concerned, we have not had spillover violence, per se.” The McAllen Monitor pointed out additional inconsistencies in Perry’s quixotic efforts: “How many Americans will have to die before our federal government takes serious action along the Texas-Mexico border?” Perry said in a statement issued Monday. “For years, they have failed in their vital duty to secure the border, resulting in escalating violence.” Meanwhile, during campaign stops as recent as last week, he continues to tout a 60 percent drop in border crime overseen by his administration. If all this contradictory gunslinging sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve seen this episode before. Remember The One When Iraq Had WMD’s, even though everyone knew they didn’t exist? There’s no doubt that the situation in Mexico is dire and frightening. But playing off of Texans’ fears, particularly when you’re not actually doing anything else for them other than the occasional false conviction and execution, is getting old even to those living near the supposed “spillover” violence. From the Monitor: Describing the border region as plagued by drug violence has needlessly scared residents of the area while contributing to misperceptions in the rest of the country about the realities in the region, Hidalgo County Sheriff Lupe Treviño said. “How can you claim that the crime rate in this whole area has dropped, while at the same time saying that crime is out of control?” he said. “Explain that to me.” Governor Perry needs to lose in November and, judging by these kinds of political moves, knows he might. He faces perhaps his first true challenge in Democratic nominee Bill White, a former Mayor of Houston who organized over 100,000 volunteers in response to Hurricane Katrina. While Perry was content to make inaccurate claims, White has seen the messes that our Texas GOP villains tend to make and, as his Katrina efforts have shown, has experience in cleaning them up. He took the time Thursday to phone up Secretary Napolitano to ask for more resources at the Texas border. “Secretary Napolitano told me this request would receive serious consideration,” White said, as reported by the Burnt Orange Report . “She also told me she would give a similar response to the Texas Governor if he talked to her about it, which he has not.” For Governor Perry, it seems, Texas’s homeland security is worth a whole lot of rhetoric but not even a phone call. Spread the word: Governor Perry has got to go. Otherwise, we’ll have another four years of the Joker — and that’s nothing to laugh at. More on Rick Perry

Excerpt from:
Rachel Farris: Rick Perry’s Secret Plan for Texas Border Security: "Ridiculous"

Name the movie with the following plot… In a dystopian future, organ transplants have become a commodity and the giant corporation that sells them sends out repo men to take back hearts, kidneys and other innards from customers who aren’t paying their bills. Actually, that summary describes two completely unrelated film projects with two completely different creative teams from two different movie studios. Striking similarity in both the premise and in aspects of the marketing campaigns for the two films has caused confusion, bad feelings and an uproar on the Internet. One of the films is the Jude Law / Forest Whitaker sci-fi action film Repo Men , which opens this weekend on 2600 screens. The other is Repo! The Genetic Opera , which opened in November 2008 in 11 theaters. Let’s start by discussing the smaller film — Repo! The Genetic Opera. That film had its origins as a stage play by Darren Smith & Terrance Zdunich that they performed in small theater spaces around Los Angeles starting in 2000. And it is a opera - a rock opera where all the dialogue is sung. In 2002, Smith and Zdunich met director Darren Lynn Bousman, who loved the stage piece and helped take the piece to bigger venues. It played Off-Broadway in 2005. Bousman began a very successful horror film directing career. His first three films opened at number one at the box office - part of the massively popular franchise Saw II, Saw III and Saw IV . And since, Bousman made the fairly unusual step for a working director of wanting to do something less commercial. Bousman said, “My dream growing up wasn’t to make sequels. My favorite film as a kid was The Who’s Tommy, a film that’s pretty hard doesn’t really fit into any category easily.” So in 2006 Bousman, Smith and Zdunich began work on Repo! The Genetic Opera, first as a short film and then in 2007 as feature. A horror rock opera about organ repossession isn’t exactly the world’s most commercial premise and the cast included Zdunich, Sarah Brightman, Paul Sorvino and Paris Hilton. The inclusion of Hilton turned out to be a mixed blessing. She’s actually well cast in the film, is only in it for about ten minutes but when the film was released, maybe reviewers took it as a opportunity to ignore the film and savage Paris Hilton. Bousman went from films that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars to a opening gross of less than $55,000. Bousman says, “The phone stopped ringing.” But then something happened — the film found its audience. Bousman started doing midnight screenings, sometimes literally driving to the theater with film reels in the trunk of his car. Bousman and Repo! ’s creators Smith and Zdunich believed in the film, and after a nationwide roadshow a devoted following begin to build, calling themselves “The Repo! Army.” There are over 36,000 Repo! fans on Facebook currently and there’s a real sense of community. As Bousman says, “People come to a Repo! show, and they can look different and act different without being made fun of or picked on. I was at the airport once and a guy came up to me, pulled up his sleeve and his arm was covered in Repo! tattoos.” So when The Repo Army began hearing about Universal’s big-budget Repo Men, their outsider community immediately begin to suspect the worst - that a big studio had stolen the central premise from the film they loved and turned it into a more mainstream, commercial film. Then something else strange happened…The Repo! Army, which largely consists of the people who were the victim of bullies, started to become bullies themselves. They assumed that Repo Men - a film none of them had seen, remember - was what they suspected to be; a sleazy Hollywood ripoff. Many of them begin to take it out primarily on Eric Garcia, co-author of the Repo Men screenplay and author of the book Repossession Mambo that the screenplay was based on. The Repo! Army went to war, and began posting negative reviews of Garcia’s work on Amazon , started letter writing campaigns against journalists writing about Repo Men! and threatened protests. A blog posting showing similarities between the two projects fanned the flames even further. The facts are important here and I’ve conducted extensive interviews with a number of people including Bousman, Zdunich and Garcia. The bottom line; nobody ripped off anybody’s concept. Period. The two pieces were developed independently and even the implication that Garcia may have plagiarized any aspect of Repo Men from Repo! The Genetic Opera are not only false but to an author like Eric Garcia, personally and potentially professionally devastating. Eric Garcia didn’t come out of nowhere to write Repo Men — he was already a successful author, whose novel Matchstick Men was made into a 2003 Ridley Scott film. Garcia wrote the story that contains the premise of repossessing body parts in 1997. I’ve read the original 13 page story and I interviewed Robert Kurtzman, a well known special effects artist and filmmaker who read the original story in 1997 / 1998. Further, Garcia mentioned the novel Repossession Mambo in an interview in 2001. He and Garrett Lerner, an established writer from projects such as House M.D . and Smallville , wrote the screenplay based on Garcia’s then unpublished novel, released last year. Smith, Zdunich, Bousman, Lerner and Garcia all met together for the first time at a Los Angeles diner a few weeks ago to discuss the controversy but since that meeting, the attacks from fans have continued and feelings of the creators of the two films are still raw. We live in a world where there are still people protesting about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. People like conspiracy theories and sometimes they hold onto them tightly, long past the point where they make any sense. And just because our brains can process something doesn’t mean that the emotions that have been stirred up settle as easily. This was a depressing piece to write. There were really no bad guys here. There are artists like Bousman Zdunich and Garcia - all really nice, creative, passionate smart people and there are fans who have found a community. All good people, none of whom started out with bad intent and all of whom would probably be friends under different circumstances — and they are all varying degrees of suspicious, upset and angry. In the end, they all won and got their films made and they all know this intellectually, but the feelings remain. Given all that, there might be some hope here. I’ll end with this quote from Repo! The Genetic Opera’s director, Darren Lynn Bousman. “I consider myself lucky to have such a rabid fanbase as the REPO ARMY. I hope, and urge them all to support REPO MEN, as it helps bring awareness to our movie as well. In the end - we are all artists here, in love with our art. Bashing REPO MEN is the exact opposite thing that I want fans to do… Repo! The Genetic opera is about acceptance, not alienation.” Repo Men opens this weekend at a theater near you. Repo! Revolution is a screening of Repo! The Genetic Opera at 20 theaters on March 19th. What are you going do? Go watch that film with Jennifer Aniston and the dude from 300 ? C’mon. Organ repossession! More on Plagiarism

Original post:
Lee Stranahan: Repo Men vs. Repo! The Genetic Opera: Behind The Controversy

Ryan Grim wrote a great piece on my dust-up with Sarah Palin. More than 4000 of you commented, and more than 450 of you tweeted about it. We actually have video of her speech. And here is my full response. “I got to meet quite a few candidates who are lining up in a contested primary who want to take out Alan Grayson. And I think Alan Grayson — what can you say about Alan Grayson? Piper is with me tonight, so I won’t say anything about Alan Grayson that can’t be said around children. [Good one, Sarah!] But thank you, Florida, for allowing candidates in a contested primary to duke it out over ideas and principles and values, all with the same goal, and that is unseating those who have such a disconnect from the people of America. That’s what the goal is here in this race against Alan Grayson. Please fight hard, and do this for the rest of the country. Fight hard, and send a conservative to Washington, DC.” Palin, the former half-term Governor, current-nothing and future-even-less, charmed the all-Republican audience with her folksy folksiness and her homespun homespunnery. Atypically, Palin was wearing clothes that she had paid for herself. At the end of the event, she shared her recipe for mooseface pie. In response to Palin’s attack on Rep Grayson, Grayson actually complimented Palin. Grayson praised Palin for having a hand large enough to fit Grayson’s entire name on it. He thanked Palin for alleviating the growing shortage of platitudes in Central Florida. Grayson added that Palin deserved credit for getting through the entire hour-long program without quitting. Grayson also said that Palin really had mastered Palin’s imitation of Tina Fey imitating Palin. Grayson observed that Palin is the most-intelligent leader that the Republican Party has produced since George W. Bush. When asked to comment about what effect Palin’s criticism might have, Grayson pointed out, “As the Knave’s horse says in Alice in Wonderland, ‘dogs will believe anything.’” Earlier, as the Orlando Sentinel reported, Grayson said, “I’m sure Palin knows all about politics in Central Florida, since from her porch she can see Winter Park,” which is part of Grayson’s district. Grayson said that the Alaskan chillbilly was welcome to return to Central Florida anytime, as long as she brings lots of money with her, and spends it. “I look forward to an honest debate with Governor Palin on the issues, in the unlikely event that she ever learns anything about them,” Grayson added, alluding to Politifact’s “liar, liar, pants on fire” evaluation of much of what Palin has said. Scientists are studying Sarah Palin’s travel between Alaska and Florida carefully. They hope to learn more about the flight patterns of that elusive migratory species, the wild Alaskan dingbat. Help send a message that Sarah Palin won’t soon forget. On March 27, we’re going to drop another money bomb I need you to make a pledge to give to the campaign on that date. Together, we can beat back Sarah Palin and the special interests. More on Sarah Palin

See original here:
Rep. Alan Grayson: Grayson versus Palin: The Director’s Cut

Produced by HuffPost’s Citizen Reporting Team Could Senator John McCain be out of a job before the general election in November? According to a new Rasmussen poll , John McCain holds only a seven point lead over his Republican challenger, former Congressman and radio talk show host J. D. Hayworth. The poll results show a startling drop in support for Arizona’s senior senator; McCain led Hayworth by over 20 points just four months ago. Probable Democratic challenger Rodney Glassman released a statement saying the Rasmussen poll showed that Arizonans are “ambivalent” about both candidates and not happy about a choice between “Washington insiders in the Republican primary.” Challenger Hayworth has certainly been very visible of late. Earlier this week he gave an interview on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show and another on a Florida radio station. The Orlando interview resulted in a whole lot of attention for the former Congressman, due in large part to his statement about the definition of gay marriage. Hayworth claimed the Massachusetts Supreme Court defined marriage as “the establishment of intimacy.” Maddow told Hayworth he was lying, since that phrase was never used to define marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in any ruling. In the radio interview, Hayworth said, “I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, you could marry your horse.” If Rasmussen’s latest poll is accurate, Hayworth’s publicity tour may be having some effect. But is Rasmussen accurate? That’s a question usually asked by Democrats. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com earlier this year discussed Raasmussen’s supposed right-wing bias, saying in part, “They have a knack for issuing polls which tend to dovetail with conservative media narratives.” But Time Magazine too questioned their impartiality, once describing Rasmussen as a “conservative-leaning polling group.” If Rasmussen does lean conservative, those particular pollsters might be very happy to see Hayworth win the primary; McCain is widely viewed by most conservatives as a traitor to the cause. Desert Conservative website says: “McCain will state he’s a Reagan Republican, but nothing could be further from the truth.” Another conservative website, The Reality Check , goes much further down that rhetorical path, mocking McCain’s “cretinous, liberal, anti-American foreign policies” and blasts Sarah Palin for supporting him. “She’s just another RINO (Republican In Name Only) endorsing another RINO,” says one post on the site. “She’s endorsed a strident liberal who’s trying to enrich himself with taxpayer money.” Hayworth is upfront about his own desire to appeal to that right wing discontent. His website’s banner labels him “The Consistent Conservative.” McCain has countered by accusing Hayworth as being less a consistent conservative and more a member of the far right fringe of the GOP. Earlier this year McCain linked Hayworth to the birthers , saying Hayworth “can run from his record but he can’t hide.” In a recent press release, Democrat Glassman says, “[Both men] are trying to create an image of something they are not. Both McCain and Hayworth would be better off if they owned up to their years in Washington and explain what they’d do with six more.” If this latest poll from Rasmussen is correct, there may be a major political story unfolding in the Grand Canyon State. More on Eyes and Ears

View original here: 
Marlene H. Phillips: Could McCain Lose His Primary? Latest Poll Says It’s Possible

The assumption that terrorism and radicalisation is specific to a certain racial profile, religion and ethnic name is undermined by the arrest of two white American women allegedly conspiring to assassinate a Swedish cartoonist and the recent attack on the IRS building by a disgruntled Texan American. Alleged ring leader Colleen Larose, popularly known as “Jihad Jane” and Jamie Paulin Ramirez (”Jihad Jamie”), recently exonerated of all charges, are as American as Apple pie and The Liberty Bell due to their blonde hair, blue eyes, and white skin. However, the women’s conversion to Islam and embrace of radicalised politics represent to many an unfathomable juxtaposition. The US department of justice proclaimed: “This case also demonstrates that terrorists are looking for Americans to join them in their cause, and it shatters any lingering thought that we can spot a terrorist based on appearance.” This revelation immediately creates an exaggerated and fictitious paranoia in some that the average white American neighbour could secretly be a stealth, Islamist jihadist willingly ready to explode at the drop of a satirist’s paint brush. It also rationalises “western” Europe’s hysterical fear about its impending transformation into “Eurabia”, and condones its prejudicial and reactionary behaviour that has lead to the banning of minarets and hijabs. In America, the sensationalised curiosity surrounding Jihad Jane’s revelation can be ascertained from her Google search, which has yielded 1,760,000 hits, and by her front page appearance on nearly every major media outlet. Whereas a search on Joseph Stack, the disgruntled and suicidal Texan who flew a plane into an IRS building killing one and injuring 13, has only netted 430,000 hits. The existence of such white, radicalised identities reveals several important realities. First, the necessity to racially profile Middle Easterners and Arabs, and the subsequent erosion of civil liberties to protect our “safety,” becomes moot in light of Jihad Jane’s whiteness. Her seven co-conspirators arrested in Ireland, five of them recently released without charge, all come from varying ethnic backgrounds. If we are to racially profile all suspicious individuals based on this revelation, TSA might as well show the “special security” love to nearly every airline passenger. Will Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, who have advocated unfettered profiling against Middle Easterners, call for similar treatment against middle aged, white women and men? Perhaps President Obama should amend his recent security measures, created after the arrest of the Nigerian underwear bomber, and extend special pat downs and heightened profiling to individuals returning from European countries, not just the 14 mostly Muslim countries currently targeted. Second, terrorism comes in all shapes and colours, but it is easier and more comfortable to label it as such when it’s wrapped in a Muslim package. Even though the “war on terror” has made the word almost meaningless, “terrorism” is specifically defined by the United States as a “violent act … intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population … [or] influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”. In comparison to Jihad Jane’s alleged assassination attempt, Joseph Stack’s kamikaze into the IRS building seems more apt to fit the definition. Specifically, Stack outlined his intentions and grievances in a detailed 3,200 word manifesto proclaiming his hatred of the government and the IRS in particular. However, Representatives, such as Republicans Steven King of Iowa and Massachusetts centrefold Scott Brown, have been slow to label him a terrorist and even empathised with him. “It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, [the IRS is] an agency that is unnecessary. And when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America,” said King. One wonders if Joseph Stack was named Yusuf ibn Stack and a practising Muslim if he’d be afforded such sensitive understanding. Considering America’s violent history with rightwing, anti-government extremists, most notably Timothy McVeigh, one hopes the government is actively concerned about Joseph Stack’s sympathisers and supporters, “who are looking for Americans to join them in their cause.” It seems radicalisation and extremist ideology is a non-discriminatory disease that increasingly preys on isolated, lonely and angry individuals, regardless of colour or religious belief, who perversely justify the use of violence as means of furthering their agenda. Ultimately, the US government must finally heed its own advice and seek colour blind security procedures and policies that effectively isolate radicalised elements within its society instead of marginalizing its own citizens based purely on race or religion. Originally published in The Guardian More on Terrorism

Go here to read the rest: 
Wajahat Ali: ‘Jihad Jane’: Not the Usual Suspect

Two reports out this morning tend to confirm what has been the trend for eight months. A slow economic recovery is under way, but employers have yet to take the emerging signs of improvement across a broad range of indicators as reasons to begin hiring in large enough numbers to make a dent in the gigantic pool of out-of-work Americans. That pool now contains 8.4 million, plus another 8.8 million underemployed, and millions of difficult-to-count “discouraged workers” who want jobs but have given up looking. The Conference Board issued its report on the leading economic indicators, which shows a small uptick, continuing the trend of nearly a year. A slow recovery is expected this summer , and economic conditions will moderately improve in the near term, the Conference Board said Thursday, reporting that the index of leading economic indicators rose 0.1% in February. … “Going forward, the big question remains the strength of demand,” said Ken Goldstein, economist at the Conference Board, a private research organization that analyzes a broad range of economic data. “Without increased consumer demand, job growth will likely be minimal over the next few months.” “We don’t expect this to be an especially strong recovery,” said Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg, Florida, who accurately forecast the LEI increase. At the same time, “growth is still positive,” he said, and the index “is still consistent with a gradual economic recovery.” If that sounds familiar, no you haven’t mistakenly logged into a web site from October. The same sort of thing was being said then, too. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor released its report on unemployment benefits. First-time claims and continuing claims were both down slightly , but continuing claims were slightly up, indicating a plateau in this metric, which has been moving in a relatively narrow range for months after dropping from the stratospheric levels of early 2009. Bloomberg reported : The economic recovery may be emerging but it looks to be a jobless recovery, at least so far. Markets were little changed in reaction to today’s report which was accompanied by benign consumer-price headlines. This news was consistent with that released earlier in the week by the Federal Reserve, which noted that the “labor market is stabilizing. Household spending is expanding at a moderate rate but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit.” It’s also consistent with the news that while the overall economy will be doing far better by the end of 2012, the job market will remain short of full recovery even then. The noted doom-and-gloomers who made this sobering assessment ? The White House’s economic team of Tim Geithner, Christina Romer and Peter Orszag in testimony before Congress this week. They praised the administration’s efforts last year of preventing the Great Recession from turning into something far worse by, among other things, saving or creating 2 million jobs. It is, as they rightly pointed out, good to remember just how close to the precipice we were 15 months ago and, while they didn’t mention it, what things would look like now if John McCain and Sarah Palin had somehow managed to persuade voters that they should run things. Geithner, et al., predicted that about 100,000 jobs a month will be created on average in 2010, 200,000 a month in 2011 and 250,000 a month in 2012. That’s obviously a vast improvement over the 330,000 jobs lost on average each month in 2009. But it’s also strong evidence of a “jobless recovery.” In a shallow recession, the predicted level of job creation would improve the situation in a hurry. But the losses during this recession have been huge. And the situation is unlikely to be helped significantly by the welcome but weak bill signed today by President Obama in hopes of accelerating job growth. The Outlook Here’s the problem. The 100,000 per-month jobs gain in 2010 only keeps up with what, in the past, has been the increase of new entries in the labor force from population growth. In other words, it has in the past taken, more or less, 100,000-125,000 new jobs a month just to keep up. So creating 1.2 million jobs this year would be the break-even point. Some analysts say, however, that the 100,000 increase might be met by 100,000 retirements as the first wave of the baby-boom generation starts opting out of the labor force. If this pans out, then there would be an actual net gain of 1.2 million jobs. Using this same scenario for the succeeding two years, and sticking with the government’s own estimates, would give us a gain of 2.4 million jobs in 2011, and a gain of 3 million in 2012. Total three-year gain: 6.6 million jobs. Which, given the loss of 8.4 million, would leave us 1.8 million jobs short of where we were in December 2007. Which means that 60 months after the recession began, and 42 or months or so after most economists now think the recession technically ended in the summer of 2009, we would still be nearly 2 million jobs short of where we were when the downturn got under way. To reiterate, this is not news from so-called doom-and-gloomers but from the Obama administration’s own economic team. Perhaps they are being cautious, wanting to avoid what happened in early 2009 when they – and almost every private predictor – estimated the high point of unemployment would be 8%. Better not to promise too much and hope for better. When the next monthly jobs report comes out April 2, there will be some understandable exuberance since it could show as many as 300,000 new jobs created in February and March. That will be good news, but it’s certain a big piece of it will be temporary since 100,000 of those will be Census jobs that last only five to 10 weeks. Nothing yet hints at anything better than the estimate that Geithner, et al., are predicting. As noted by many progressive analysts, what’s really needed is a direct job creation program that puts to work millions of Americans in the public sector until the private sector comes back more strongly. Because, as The Wall Street Journal and others have argued, “about a quarter of those 8.4 million jobs eliminated since the recession began won’t be coming back” at all. They need to be replaced. Until they are, the pain and suffering of long-term unemployment needs to be relieved. That pain and suffering can last well beyond an economic recovery. As Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan AFL-CIO, recently wrote , children whose parents are unemployed for an extended period are more likely to drop out of high school and less likely to go to college. Young people who begin their work lives in a time of long-term joblessness will earn less during their entire careers. Older workers who lose their jobs are at great risk of never again being hired at the same salaries. The societal damage can span decades. None of that matters to either the obstructionists in the Party of No Way, No How or the faint-hearted among Democrats in Congress. One side hopes to benefit electorally from the chaos so they can get back to wrecking the middle class and making life even more comfortable for the Top 10%. On the other side are too many folks whose preferred policy approach is crossing their fingers when they don’t have them stuffed in their ears.

More here: 
Two New Reports, More Talk of ‘Jobless Recovery’

Vice President Joe Biden delivered some very funny one-liners Wednesday night at the 2010 Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner. While Biden certainly ventured into tongue-in-cheek territory with some of his jokes, he seemed to be well-received by the crowd of journalists, celebrities, and their guests. Bill O’Reilly, Evan Bayh, John King, Dana Bash, Jesse Jackson, Fred Thompson, Kathy Griffin, Leon Panetta, and more could be seen in the audience. Biden laughed at one point when a photo of him with White House gatecrashers Michaele and Tareq Salahi flashed on the screen. Watch Biden’s routine , or scroll down for highlights: Biden on his trip to Israel: • It’s great to be back at a place where a boom in housing construction is actually a good thing. • Trying to negotiate a lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israelis is tough, but it’s a hell of a nice break from health care. Biden on Liz Cheney & the “Al-Qaida 7″: • I understand Liz Cheney is in the house… Liz has been on a tear lately. Now, she’s questioning if Tom Brady is a real Patriot. Biden on Obama leading the Saint Patrick’s Day Dinner: • You know, the truth is I can’t believe I’m here with you guys tonight. Here I am, the first Irish-Catholic Vice President in the history of the United States of America. Barack Obama is the first African-American President in the history of the United States of America. He’s hosting the Saint Patrick’s Day Dinner and I’m here with you all. Go figure. He’s with my base. I’m with his (the press). Biden on Fox News: • You all know Saint Patrick was credited with banishing snakes from Ireland. But you guys all know the truth — sometimes — there were never any snakes in Ireland. Saint Patrick just made that up. Which for the first time explains, I realized, why he’s the patron saint of Fox News. Biden on Dick Morris: • Dick Morris is quick to point out everytime I put my foot in my mouth. Well Dick, at least it’s my foot. Biden on Eric Massa’s shower story: • Look, Rahm was only pointing his finger. Biden on GOP complaints that the health care bill is too long: • Put yourself in their spot. Just ask Sarah, that’s a hell of a lot to write on the palm of your hand. Biden on the Recovery Act: • Republicans say it hasn’t created one job. Well, tell that to Scott Brown. Biden on his dog Champ: • You can see he’s a Democratic dog. He’s biting the hand that feeds him. Biden on Tiger woods: • The job does have some perks, like when Tiger Woods came to see me and gave me some tips. Hey guys, they were golf tips. More on Joe Biden

More here:
Joe Biden At 2010 Radio & TV Correspondents’ Dinner: VP Biden Jokes About Israel Visit, Naked Rahm, Tips From Tiger Woods (VIDEO)

Awww, man. On March 17, I friended Sarah Palin on facebook. After expressing my opinion that President Obama is the emergency room surgeon who is getting blamed for the conservative Republican car wreck, she promptly blocked me. But I want to rejoin the real America, so will you help? GO TO Sarah Palin ’s FACEBOOK PAGE. MAKE FRIENDS WITH HER. JOIN THE OTHER 1+ MILLION FOLKS WHO ARE ALLOWED TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES. Let me know what it’s like to be included in the group with the cool kids and whether I can get a second chance … More on Sarah Palin

Go here to see the original: 
Donnie Fowler: Sarah Palin Blocked Me From Facebook

In their opening remarks, the 2010 Whitney Biennial curators Francesco Bonami and Gary Carrion-Murayari confessed that they approached the selection process (gasp) open-mindedly, without a preconceived theme. Fortunately, the exhibition itself faithfully reflects their intent, presenting a resonant sampling of contemporary art practice. That is not to say that the show selection is thematically unfocused or ungrounded. To the contrary, much of the work manifests a rediscovered attention to physicality in various ways: in its preoccupation with human vulnerability, in its juxtaposition of figuration and geometry, or simply in its palpable materiality. Notable examples include “H.M. 2009,” Kerry Tribe ’s double film projection about an epilepsy patient who lost his short-term memory in experimental brain surgery and Nina Berman ’s arresting images of former Marine sergeant Ty Ziegel, who was severely disfigured in a suicide bombing in Iraq; R.H. Quaytman ’s series “Distracting Distance,” which riffs on the physical act of perception; and Suzan Frecon’s huge minimalist paintings, which embrace the labor intensity of making an art object that is intended to last. Other work has a more tangential but still evident connection to the body. A case in point: the Bruce High Quality Foundation ’s projection of a sardonic video on American history onto the windshield of an old hearse. The overarching emphasis on the body, combined with provocative content, signals an optimistic new direction that reframes two enduringly important aspects of contemporary art: the senses and the visual, as opposed to merely the cerebral; and collective optimism, as distinct from unbounded egos. Unlike the last Biennial, which offered very few canvases, 2010 features paintings around every corner. In line with the broader theme of physicality, the inclusion of so much painting signals the importance of sustained physical engagement and a renewed interest in the lifespan of the art object. Here are images from the eighteen painters (and artists who use related media) included in 2010–an impressive, thoughtfully curated exhibition. ” 2010: The Whitney Biennial ,” Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, NY. Through May 30, 2010. Note: Excerpts about each artist are pulled from the Whitney’s press materials and link to the full text. “Scott Short considers the concepts of authorship and reproduction. He begins by photocopying a blank piece of colored construction paper onto a blank piece of standard copy paper–a method that results in seemingly random black-and-white patterns printed on the copy paper. He then copies that copy, repeating the process multiple times and continuing the random patterning process. Once the artist selects a final permutation, the abstract image is then photographed, formatted as a slide, and projected onto a primed canvas. In the final stage, Short painstakingly recreates this image, taking care to remain true to the particular patterns and shapes generated by the machine.” Charles Ray presents a room filled with flower paintings on paper. “Aurel Schmidt ’s intricately detailed drawings include objects and creatures such as flies, condoms, and cigarette butts that are pieced together to form larger figures. Master of the Universe: FlexMaster 3000 is a portrait of the Minotaur, the half-man, half-bull mythic creature who represents both creation and destruction.” “The central motif in R.H. Quaytman ’s series is the Marcel Breuer-designed window in this space, which appears in Quaytman’s restaging of the Museum’s Edward Hopper painting A Woman in the Sun (1961). The artist K8 Hardy stands in for the woman in the sun. Silkscreened optical patterning attunes viewers to the physical act of perception, while trompe l’oeil depictions of the panel’s edges remind the viewer that the paintings are physical objects rather than simply images.” “Dawn Clements draws directly from objects or images; she never invents elements to complete a picture. Her dedication to working from images–in this drawing she uses parts of My Reputation paused on screen–often results in gaps or omissions and a flattening of space and time. The result is an image that appears seamless but is in fact uncannily distorted–a constructed portrait of a space, both physical and psychological.” “Roland Flexner expands the definition of drawing by creating intricately detailed works of ink on paper using only his breath, chance, and gravity as tools.” “Jim Lutes integrates representation and abstraction through his use of images and lyrical marks in the same pictorial space.” ” Suzan Frecon plans her images carefully, first deciding on the dimensions of the work and the paint colors to be used (often grinding her own pigments to achieve the desired effect). She then figures out the precise imagery in sketches, using geometric formulas as well as her own visual intuition to create related forms in which dissonant features are suspended in balance.” “In these enigmatic portraits Storm Tharp investigates the performance of identity and the point where the myth of a person supercedes reality and becomes truth.” “Maureen Gallace finds inspiration in the modest edifices and rural environs of her native New England. She paints intimate landscapes featuring serene, unpeopled houses. Deceptively effortless in their appearance, Gallace’s paintings take shape through careful observation and decisive omission.” “Inspired by the seventeenth-century Spanish still-life tradition, Lesley Vance carefully arranges and lights objects such as fruits or shells. The artist then photographs these arrangements, and the resulting images serve as the basis for her abstract paintings.” Sarah Crowner “Tauba Auerbach ’s methodical compositions deconstruct the conventional ways visual and perceptual information is conveyed. To produce these paintings, Auerbach manipulates large pieces of raw canvas into various configurations through folding or rolling. She then lays the canvas out flat and paints its surface with an industrial spray gun aimed at different angles to achieve a trompe l’oeil effect. By creating an object in which two supposedly discrete states–flatness and three¬dimensionality–are merged, Auerbach confronts the limitations between these states, revealing an ambiguity that is often overlooked.” “Robert Williams ’s watercolors picture a world in which the laws of physics wreak havoc on suburban neighborhoods and tommy gun-wielding cowboys with tomatoes for heads haunt the forests.” “Reminiscent of Dadaist photomontages from the 1930s such as those by German artist Hannah Höch, Ania Soliman ’s montage is a hybrid of two digital images, sourced from the internet. The accompanying panels of text are written by the artist and informed by her research and impressions on the subject of the pineapple and its historical significance.” “Julia Fish produces paintings that approach abstraction but in fact derive from the imagery of her home, studio, and garden. Her most recent series, Threshold , comprises six paintings (three of which are on view in 2010 ) that depict the space between two rooms.” “Verne Dawson investigates the continuities between ancient culture and contemporary life through myths, folktales, and traditions that have vanished or become detached from their origins and meanings. Dawson is also concerned that we have lost our connection to the natural rhythms that governed our ancestors’ lives.” George Condo Note: Not all images shown are in the exhibition. Roundup of early 2010 Biennial reviews and articles: Holland Cotter: At a Biennial on a Budget, Tweaking and Provoking Todd Eberle: The Whitney 2010 Ambienalle Charlie Finch: The Thrift Shop Biennial Howard Halle: The Whitney finally figures out how to put on a Biennial Paul Laster: Surveying the 2010 Whitney Biennial Jerry Saltz: Change we can believe in Sebastian Smee: Whitney show is an anthem to the awful Linda Yablonsky: Women’s Work

More:
Sharon L. Butler: A 2010 Whitney Biennial Biopsy

Billionaire Meg Whitman, the seeming political cipher who would be governor of California, is purchasing endless amounts of unanswered advertising. It’s propelled her into a slight lead over Democrat Jerry Brown in the new Field Poll, something which Brown (who’s held, lost, and held again leads in many campaigns) told me weeks ago that he expected. Yet she has serious problems. At this past weekend’s state Republican convention, she tried to deal with two of them: Her avoidance of the press and her mysterious motivation as a newfound politician. Billionaire Meg Whitman, introduced by her mentor, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, laid out a program of big business conservatism at last weekend’s California Republican Party convention banquet in Santa Clara. As a character, Meg Whitman lacks evident psychological credibility. Why is someone with no engagement in public affairs before her sudden leadership role in the 2008 Republican presidential campaigns — someone who couldn’t even be bothered to vote, and can’t say how long she’s lived in California — suddenly running for governor of the state? Conservative Republican and former presidential candidate in 2008, Mitt Romney, Whitman’s business mentor, provides the answer. It was his idea that Whitman run for governor, and he convinced her to do it. Whitman served as a national finance co-chair for Romney, who hired her at Bain & Co., before serving as national co-chair of the McCain-Palin campaign. Romney spent this past Friday night, his birthday, as it happens, appearing with Whitman at the banquet of the state Republican convention in Santa Clara. In her address, Whitman laid out a sweeping agenda of massive tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks right out of the Romney playbook. Naturally, in her time with the press afterward, no one asked her about it — instead focusing on process questions about why she is now talking to the press. Before she spoke, Romney made a lengthy introduction of Whitman in which he laid out the rationale for her candidacy. After both of them spoke, the duo engaged in a carefully staged question and answer session with a fawning right-wing radio host. The evening was essentially a dual event: Romney for president (many think he is the Republican frontrunner to take on President Barack Obama in 2012), and Whitman for governor. It really was the Mitt and Meg show, with the leveraged buyout artist-turned-conservative presidential candidate as the intellectual author of the Whitman candidacy and Whitman the very admiring protege of mentor Mitt and the Bain way of the world. Something with clear national implications. As godfather of the Whitman campaign, Romney argued that she is the only Republican candidate who can beat Jerry Brown in the mostly blue state, California. Why? Because she has the resources to purchase endless amounts of advertising, and she is a woman. In Romney’s view, her having been a CEO is something of a double-edge sword. Romney acknowledged the obvious. It’s a difficult time to be a CEO running for office. So he positioned her as “a different kind of CEO,” one who eschews big corporate perks. Whitman, he declared, was CEO of “the people’s company,” eBay, where she “created one million jobs.” The 2008 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney appeared on his birthday with California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman in this discussion of the wonders of corporate America and the evils of labor unions. In reality, Whitman was very big on corporate perks, and the idea that she created a million jobs is a simply fantastical notion. In Romney’s view, it’s very important to elect Whitman governor of California, for the Golden State “is in worse shape than Greece” as far as being a threat to a prosperous global economy. What California needs, he said, is strong medicine: Big tax cuts, big regulatory rollbacks, and the defeat of its labor unions. In her very tepidly received speech, Whitman — whose campaign theme song is, appropriately enough, “Taking Care of Business” — echoed Romney’s themes and expanded upon them. Long pushed for specifics beyond her repetitive mantra of more jobs, better education, and cutting the budget, Whitman delivered. The former Goldman Sachs board member outlined a program of big tax cuts for the rich and corporations. She claimed that eliminating the capital gains tax and instituting another round of tax cuts for corporations — the state just granted big corporate tax cuts last year as part of its barely cobbled together budget deal — will create millions of new jobs and actually decrease the state budget deficit. What those cuts will actually do is cost the state billions in revenue, adding to an already yawning budget gap. In this gauzy ad, entitled “Executive Leadership,” endorsers from Meg Whitman’s past and present payrolls describe her as a great corporate executive. Whitman also issued a clarion call for an end to all new regulations in California. Regulations, she claimed, cost California “four million jobs.” She also reiterated her call for the rollback of AB 32 , California’s (and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s) landmark climate change program. She has not yet endorsed a proposed initiative to end the program, funded by two Texas oil companies, perhaps mindful of private polling showing it to be unpopular. After proposing to add to the state’s budget deficit with new tax cuts for wealthy investors and corporations, Whitman claimed that she has a plan to balance the budget. First, she will eliminate the jobs of 40,000 state employees . Which ones? That’s very unclear. In any event, that only saves a few billion. So where does the bulk of the saving come from? Whitman claimed that she can cut $15 billion through the use of technology and through various unspecified efficiencies involving that old standby, “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Which, even if true, would still be short of the mark. Billionaire Meg Whitman’s bizarre press conference that wasn’t, last week in Oakland. The massively self-funding candidate for the Republican nomination for governor of California laughs oddly when asked to answer questions. She also launched attacks on public pensions, welfare, illegal immigration, and, of course, all unions, private as well as public — the evident source of all evil in California. She dismissed her Republican primary opponent, super-rich state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, just endorsed last week by California conservative icon Tom McClintock, as a closet “liberal.” And she tried out a new attack slogan on Jerry Brown: “Way Too LIberal For Way Too Long.” Perhaps it was too much corporate conservatism and not enough grassroots conservatism, but the response even from this banquet crowd to Whitman’s speech was notably tepid. Perhaps it’s a lack of electricity about Whitman as a candidate. She’s no Ronald Reagan as a speaker. And she’s hardly a Scott Brown in regular person appeal. She hasn’t improved as a public speaker since her first state Republican convention speech of February 2009. That, at least, was an improvement over her speeches from 2008. Perhaps it was the teleprompters. Those can be difficult to use. And reading aloud with feeling is a knack that many simply don’t have. Intriguingly, the campaign provided her with recessed teleprompters which were only visible to those in the front of the banquet hall. But there was no need for any subterfuge, as I doubt that anyone watching imagined that she was doing anything other than deliver a prepared text, a rather well-done text at that. When he spoke the next night, Whitman’s rival, Poizner, did better. He was more relaxed, using neither a teleprompter nor a prepared text. He got a better response from the crowd than Whitman, but didn’t really break through. In a development that Whitman, perhaps envisioning herself as one of the “Golden Parachute Twins” this fall, undoubtedly did not like, the star of the convention turned out to be Carly Fiorina, the ex-Hewlett Packard CEO running for U.S. Senate. The current leader in the GOP primary, ex-Congressman Tom Campbell — who Whitman’s camp helped persuade to make the logical move and drop out of the governor’s race — had a much smaller presence and was overshadowed. Worse still for Campbell, he is struggling with his past involvement with a convicted jihadist terrorist. He’s had to change his story repeatedly to try to explain the controversy away. Meg Whitman, whose involvement in public affairs has been so slight that she’s barely voted, sang the praises of controversial environmental advocate Van Jones, who she met on a cruise ship, last May. This year she wants to roll back California’s landmark climate change program. Fiorina’s speech, delivered without a teleprompter (though she used some notes on a stool, to which she circled back from time to time), delivered in a theater-in-the-round set-up, was a big hit. As was the new film from “Demon Sheep” creator ad man Fred Davis. Featuring a giant Hindenberg head of Senator Barbara Boxer, floating across the country from Washington to California, making various pronouncements, it’s a clever enough skewering of Boxer and promotion of Fiorina’s pseudo-populist, anti-big government themes. Having been flushed out into fleshing out her program will prove to have been a mixed blessing. An unalloyed blessing, at least for the moment, is Whitman’s newfound engagement with California’s diminished press corps. Whitman stepped back from the abyss of totally post-journalism politics, but launched into a new phase of peekaboo politics. At the end of last week, I wrote, in no little amazement, of Whitman’s near meltdown into possibly terminal arrogance in stiffing the press. After inviting some of the San Francisco Bay Area press to an essentially meaningless event, Whitman proceeded to refuse to talk to them or allow them to watch her tour of a railroad facility in Oakland. Then she and and her campaign were busted in a faux town hall, which was really the setting of a campaign infomercial with pre-selected questioners, pre-fab questions, and multiple takes to get the right “spontaneous” action. Then the campaign announced it would not hold a press conference at the Republican convention, understandable as she had bombed out in the face of persistent substantive questioning at both party conventions last year. Whitman press secretary Sarah Pompei, in charge at the Oakland debacle, explained why there would be no press conference. “We didn’t think we needed anything formal,” Pompei told me. “Meg’s going to be around. There will be plenty of opportunities to talk with her.” The next day, Whitman arrived at the convention hotel hours before her events. Only a few of the 60 or so journalists registered for the convention were there to see her little arrival rally at the hotel entrance. There they found themselves gathered by a Whitman senior advisor, Rob Stutzman, a former communications director for the state party and Governor Arnold Schwarzengger, into an unscheduled session with Whitman. Not in the press room, but in a private room. Whitman held forth for about an hour. Based on the reports, those reporters who were there were happy to be invited. This latest effort from zany ad man Fred Davis, creator of the notorious “Demon Sheep,” helped ex-Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina score big at the California Republican Convention. One daily newspaper, which whined for weeks about being stiffed by Whitman, handed out fawning “awards” after the convention, thanking her campaign for the free drinks and citing the billionaire for best “press conference” and for being “best-dressed” in her black Armani suit. Say, I was wearing a black Armani suit, too. Where’s my “best-dressed” award? After Whitman spoke at the banquet, Stutzman, again clearly big-footing the everyday press operation, beckoned reporters to another unscheduled press availability on stage. Notably, the questions focused more on process than policy. No one asked Whitman about the huge tax cut program and the big regulatory rollback she had just outlined, nor her sweeping and dubious claims about these programs. I didn’t ask, either. If I had, the questions would have been asked. I won’t be at many of her events. It’s the job of the local press to press her on the issues. Aside from her Friday night banquet appearance, contrary to Pompei’s suggestion, Whitman was not much in evidence at the convention, which she left altogether after a breakfast Saturday morning with Romney and their supporters. Also not much in evidence, in this case, not present at all? Whitman’s controversial chief strategist, Mike Murphy, former chief strategist for Schwarzenegger. Stutzman and Murphy were partners in the D.C. Navigators consulting and lobbying firm after their dismissal by Schwarzenegger. They both previously worked for Mitt Romney. Whitman avoided debating Republican rival Poizner at the convention, but did debate him before a private fundraising group on Monday night in Orange County. Frankly, the event was something of a farce. Far more people would have seen the debate, which was not televised, had it taken place at the convention. There were also far more press in attendance in Santa Clara. I watched the debate on a live webcast, the only way it could be seen outside the hall in Costa Mesa. Actually, I should say that I tried watching it. For a big money group, the New Majority — joined by the California Chamber of Commerce and California Association of Realtors as the co-sponsors — did a remarkably inept job of operating a webcast. It cut out entirely about 20 minutes in, then played intermittently after that. It would be nice to say that the shockingly bad transmission kept viewership down. However, there were only about 1700 people viewing when the transmission was first lost. From what I could tell, viewership topped out around 2000 at the debate’s height. As for the debate itself, there were no knockout blows landed. Whitman nearly knocked herself out, however. First when she didn’t know how to use her microphone. Again when she nearly knocked the water over. But she seemed to do fine. In contrast, Poizner was much more relaxed. He zinged her as a liberal masquerading as a conservative. She zinged him as a liberal masquerading as a conservative. I think you see where this is going. Both sides claimed victory. The press on hand proclaimed it a draw. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California’s landmark climate change program into law on Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay in 2006. His would-be Republican successors want to do away with the program. For his part, the governor that Whitman and Poizner are trying to succeed, Arnold Schwarzenegger, pushed back hard against their big push for a rollback of environmental regulations. Schwarzenegger did not attend his party’s convention. He did tour the Green California Expo on Tuesday morning. In contrast to the notable lack of electricity around Whitman, it was a tumultuous, slow walk with a large entourage, festooned with cameras, interrupted by countless well-wishers. Schwarzenegger stopped at many displays of what looks like a vibrant emerging green technology sector in California. He also pushed back hard against the forces that want to roll back California’s landmark climate change program, AB 32. “It’s an amazing experience to come through here, and see the technology moving so quickly. All the innovation, and we see because of our policies that we have put in place, people are saying this is where we want to do business, no matter where they come from around the world. Because they know that we stay with the policy moving forward. “I think that the Californian people are very much for protecting our environment. And for supporting AB 32. I think Californian people are outraged that Texas oil companies are coming to California to try to change the law and affect policies in California. “I mean, it’s outrageous. And so this is why I think all of us, environmentalists and ordinary citizens, we all will be out there defending AB 32, this historic, landmark policy that rolls back greenhouse gases and protects the environment.” Schwarzenegger noted California’s long history as a leader, especially on energy. “This has been what we do here. Energy conservation. The state has been number one, 40 percent more energy efficient than the rest of the United States, for a long time. (Note: The strategy was established by Jerry Brown.) And the great thing about AB32 is job creation, look around here. Every one of the businesses that I visited want to expand. The only place that is creating jobs now is the green sector. So why would I want to go and undo that? Why would we want to go back to the Stone Age?” You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes: www.newwestnotes.com. More on John McCain

More here: 
William Bradley: The Mitt & Meg Show: "Taking Care of Business"

Martin McDonagh is famous for dark, bloody humor. The curtain opens in Lieutenant of Inishmore with a dead cat dripping blood and ends with bullet-riddled bodies. In between, he has mocked the romance of violence. His most mature work, Pillowman , is an unflinching, layered examination of emotional pain, art and betrayal. As outrageous as his characters may be, his craft as a playwright, and the skill of a good director, make the outsized characters three-dimensional and meaningful. By contrast, A Behanding in Spokane , now playing at the Schoenfeld, his first set in the U.S., is a one-joke skit. As expected, there are body parts strewn across the stage, but the characters and situations are punch lines rather than engaging or enlightening moments. Those expecting vintage McDonagh will be disappointed. Carmichael (Christopher Walken) is a zombie-like psychopath searching for the hand that was violently removed from him as a child. His 47-year quest to retrieve it leads him to a seedy hotel room, perfectly rendered by set designer Scott Pask. Two young, incredibly dimwitted scam artists (Anthony Mackie of The Hurt Locker and Zoe Kazan of It’s Complicated ) try to con this maniac into thinking they have it. That plan goes awry and the threats of retribution, which should create a sense of suspense, are predictable and repetitive. The sloppy direction by John Crowley relies on the reputations of McDonagh and Walken to produce unearned laughs. The one amusing wild card is Sam Rockwell’s solid performance as a hotel receptionist whose offbeat eccentricity fulfills the promise of what makes McDonagh’s works unique. Carmichael is angriest when recalling that the bullies who removed his hand waved goodbye with it. It’s a dark, unexpected twist. The audience can see the rest of the play’s gimmicks from a mile away. Conversely, Sin, , based on an Isaac Bashevis Singer short story, is set in a small town in late 19th-century Poland. This folk tale, included in Singer’s short-story collection Gimpel the Fool , involves a Jewish villager tempted by the devil and his demons. In the aptly named Sin , at the Rose Nagelberg Theater at Baruch College, Satan (Grant James Varjas) is at war with God. The play is billed as a “mystical comedy,” and marries occasional humorous moments to poignant ones. Satan wants to prove that a person will choose evil over good if the opportunity presents itself. To revenge himself on God, he enlists two demons in his personal vendetta: the temptress Shifra (Sarah Grace Wilson) and the softhearted Dvoyre (Jessiee Dantino). His battleground in Sin , adapted from The Unseen , is a couple, Nosn (Paul Collins) and Royze Temerl (Suzanne Toren), happily married for 40 years. Their affection is so genuine, it’s cruel when the inevitable happens: The husband is led astray by his lust for Shifra, played with zest by Wilson. Her occasional foray into leather is an added bonus for the costume designer. The play needs a little cutting, though the performances are sound, save for Varjas’, who offers a rather weak Satan. Even Nosn’s quirky business rival, Moyshe Mekheles (Pierre Epstein), rings true. Directed by Kent Paul in a two-tier format, Sin effectively captures Singer’s world — the quirkiness and pathos of ordinary life. Lady Rizo, a sexy cabaret, correction caberlesque artist, aims for the jugular. She marries burlesque’s naughtiness to cabaret’s torch. She and her Assettes are renown for belting out interpretations of classic scorchers and pop tunes alike. Their dress code is slinky, the language is brazen and the performances have earned raves. It’s not every Web site that welcomes its fans with: “Lady Rizo loves you. The Assettes wanna spank you!” This round, her big lashes and baudy bravado are bewitching audiences solo in Lady Rizo: Unescorted . Once the lights dim, Lady Rizo, a denizen of the night, will hold court on March 19 and April 23, 10 p.m. at Joe’s Pub.

See the rest here:
Fern Siegel: Stage Door: Behanding in Spokane, Sin, Lady Rizo

New Conservative Group Decries Tea Partiers for Not Being Conservative Enough March 12, 2010, Placer, California — The Home Front Protection Front (HFPF) held its founding conclave today at the Ebeneezer Rapture Holy Christ of Jesus Church. It was attended by thirty-five area residents, who reported feeling called to form a new political movement, disgusted with what they denounced as the “stench of liberal compromise” emanating from the Tea Party Movement, Glenn Beck, and the Republican Party. From the dias, 53-year-old grocer Hephaestus Boont declared, “I’ve devoted my life to these clowns — the John Birch Society, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, the Tea Parties. But I’ve had it! Today’s so-called conservatives are not conservative enough! We need a group that will be truly uncompromising in its convictions, in its right-wingltasticness.” One organizer, who asked not to be quoted by name for fear of the Jews in the NSA finding her house, said, “America is at stake and we will fight to the death to defend our way of life. We believe that the true measure of womanhood is to churn your own butter while giving birth. I voted for Sarah Palin, but I don’t believe a woman’s place is to kill a moose. We should leave that to the menfolk.” The bulk of the day’s sessions were devoted to working through the minutiae of the movement’s political program. Platform upon platform were ratified establishing principles of unity such as Indoor Plumbing is a Gay Conspiracy, Blacks Belong in the Zoo, Manifest Your Destiny, and Honey-Baked Ham is Great. During a particularly heated debate, Alexander Kennebunkport explained, “I have a life-sized cardboard Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in my living room window to scare away predators. No, I don’t have health insurance. When I go to work every day at the quarry, I think how much I hate the communists at the Federal Reserve. How can we ever live truly free if we’re not back on the gold standard in a barter economy?” The convocation adjourned early due to an inability to agree on whether to call themselves a movement or a party. Round the clock mediation is scheduled where the parties hope to break the impasse and move forward to debate whether their logo should be a confederate flag embedded inside a US flag, or Christ in the boat with George Washington crossing the Delaware. Nato Green is a San Francisco-based stand-up comedian who performs with Laughter Against the Machine. More on Tax Day Tea Parties

See more here: 
Nato Green: New Conservative Group Decries Tea Partiers for Not Being Conservative Enough

Here’s more evidence that the passage of health care reform may weaken rather than strengthen tea party enthusiasm: the turnout at Tuesday’s health care protests was smaller than expected . As you can see in this video, even Fox was caught off guard by the tiny turnout: Obviously, it will take some time for things to play out, but at least politically speaking, all indications are that the passage of health care reform could demoralize the Republican tea party base. It may turn out that their high point was the election of Scott Brown…who showed his gratitude to tea partiers by voting for the Democratic jobs bill. Maybe they should talk with John McCain and Sarah Palin — after all, they do know something about peaking too early.

Originally posted here:
Weak tea

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The teen father of Sarah Palin’s grandson has been ordered to make interim child support payments of $1,750 per month to Palin’s daughter. The amount is 20 percent of 19-year-old Levi Johnston’s adjusted annual income as set out in Alaska statute. Bristol Palin, also 19, is the oldest daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008. Tripp, the son of Bristol Palin and Johnston, was born in December 2008. Johnston’s payments are based on estimated income of $105,000 and are retroactive to May 2009. The payments are slightly lower for January through April 2009 because of Johnston’s lower income. Palmer Superior Court Judge Judge Kari C. Kristiansen set a trial date in the matter for Sept. 23. More on Levi Johnston

See more here:
Levi Johnston Child Support Verdict: Johnston Must Pay $1,750 Per Month To Bristol Palin

PHOENIX — John McCain and Sarah Palin are scheduled to campaign together in Arizona next week for the first time since they conceded the presidential election in Phoenix in 2008. Palin and McCain will be at a rally and picnic in Tucson on March 26, followed the next day by a rally in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa. McCain and Palin have had a couple of public appearances together, including a dinner in Washington, but the Tucson and Phoenix events are their first return to the stump. The former Republican presidential candidate is facing the toughest re-election battle of his Senate career. Former Arizona Congressman and talk-radio host JD Hayworth is challenging McCain in the Republican primary. ______ On the Net: Event Page: http://www.johnmccain.com/sarah More on John McCain

More here:
John McCain And Sarah Palin To Reunite

Watch as Robert Gibbs goes into the belly of the beast to deliver the news that health care reform is going to become the law of the land — and it will become law of the land within the next week: The subtext of Gibbs’ statement couldn’t be more clear. Not only did he basically declare victory on the question of whether health care reform would pass, but he did so on Fox News, the biggest media cheerleader against reform. In political terms, Gibbs wasn’t just saying “we won” — he was also saying “you lost.” Despite months of biased coverage , partisan political attacks , and a steady stream of outlier polls from Rasmussen, despite the best efforts of Sarah Palin, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell, Republicans lost, demonstrating their political impotence beyond any shadow of doubt. Thus far, the conventional wisdom has been that Republicans are enthusiastic and Democrats are demoralized. Thus far, that conventional wisdom has also basically been accurate. But the thing you have to remember is that thus far the Democrats have failed to pass health care reform. Republicans were actually winning, against all odds. But in this coming week, all that changes. Health care reform will pass. Democrats will have demonstrated their ability to tackle big issues. Republicans will have demonstrated their irrelevance. After reform passes, there might be an initial surge of excitement among Republicans, but that will quickly fizzle in the wake of the GOP’s failure to stop reform. If you want to preview the reaction of the GOP base, check out the comment thread on Fox’s coverage of Gibbs’ appearance. Instead of reflecting enthusiastic GOP tea partying, that thread is filled with comment after comment from Republicans angry at Fox and the GOP for failing. That sort of reaction is not surprising; nothing encourages finger pointing more than losing. Moreover, it’s a blow to the confidence of the Republican base in their party’s ability to get anything done, or, as the case may be, in their party’s ability to block Democrats from getting anything done. Meanwhile, Democratic voters will finally be assured that their party can tackle the big issues, and get something done. It’s not that anybody believes this bill is perfect. It’s not. But it’s progress. And it’s a sign that on the next issue, instead of just talk, we’ll be able to make progress as well. The confidence that instills in Democratic voters will serve the party well in 2010.

View original post here: 
Health care reform & the coming Democratic surge

The media does a pretty good job covering the major news stories. Sometimes, however, they miss some. My mission? To search for the most interesting stories not covered by traditional news outlets — and present them to you. Here, then, are this week’s news items the media missed — presented in quick & easy, photo & caption format — perfect for today’s busy professional — and for you! Enjoy! George W. Bush planning to write book about his White House years. Tiger Woods has plastic surgery in attempt to make things right with Nike. Congressman Eric Massa proving he can grope and fondle something besides other men. Waterboarding political prisoners to be replaced by placing Health Care Bill on top of them. Sarah Palin explaining the type of men that don’t intellectually stimulate her. U.S. Customs Agents accuse Chinese designer shoe manufacturer of “something fishy.” California becomes first state to allow vegetables to marry. Toyota praised for new truth-in-advertising campaign. Woman stumps man who was singing, “Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better.” International Most Boring Book Festival Off to Strong Start. More on Week In Review

Read the original post: 
Mark C. Miller: News the Media Missed This Week!

“I don’t know whether you fully understand that I have just been shot; but it takes more than that to kill a Bull Moose.” With these fighting words, Teddy Roosevelt shrugged off an assassination attempt by a deranged Milwaukee saloon owner and — bullet still lodged in his chest — launched into a ninety-minute address railing against the corporatism and corruption that dominated both parties in Washington. The year was 1912, a time of widespread discontent among both Democratic and Republican reformers. With his fiery speech, the former president established the Progressive Party, known affectionately as the Bull Moose Party, thus initiating a political movement that would stridently challenge corrupt political bosses, big corporations and a pro-business judiciary over the next dozen or so years. Though Roosevelt fell short of his goals, many of the Progressive Party’s priorities, such as the direct election of U.S senators, workers’ compensation and women’s suffrage, became law within the decade. Nearly 100 years later, his speech and his Bull Moose Party platform still speak to many of contemporary Americans’ deepest concerns. A century ago, Roosevelt explained the need for his third-party candidacy: The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly what should be said on the vital issues of the day. These words ring truer today than they have in quite some time. Trillions of taxpayer dollars are propping up a financial sector bloated with profits; but Congress, looking ahead to the midterm elections, is too paralyzed to act decisively and help relieve ordinary Americans suffering through the recession. To make matters worse, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United overturned a century’s worth of campaign finance law, giving corporations more influence in elections than they’ve had since Teddy Roosevelt delivered his Bull Moose speech in Milwaukee. During Roosevelt’s presidency, a conservative Supreme Court comprised of railroad lawyers consistently blocked dozens of progressive federal and state legislative proposals. The pro-corporate Supreme Court appointments of Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft, who filled six vacancies, did nothing to temper progressive outrage. True to form, Roosevelt jumped into the fray, decrying the Supreme Court’s out-sized role as a barrier to social justice. In his Progressive Party convention speech, Roosevelt declared: The American people, and not the courts, are to determine their own fundamental policies. . . . The stick-in-the-bark legalism, the legalism that subordinates equity to technicalities, should be recognized as a potent enemy of justice. Even more boldly, Roosevelt went on to argue for referendum to recall Supreme Court decisions, presaging by several decades his cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s high-stakes attempt to pack the Court in response to its intractable opposition to wildly popular New Deal reforms. Today, after Citizens United, Teddy Roosevelt’s proposal seems eminently reasonable. Roosevelt entered the Republican presidential primaries in 1912 and easily vanquished Taft, winning nine state primaries. Robert LaFollete, more progressive than Roosevelt, won two states, while Taft won only one. The party was still in the grip of conservative bosses however; reading the writing on the wall, Roosevelt bolted from the Republican Convention to found the Progressive Party. The Progressive platform minced no words, declaring: “To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.” Roosevelt was not immune to charges of “radicalism”, the common label affixed to anti-corporate populists then and now, but Roosevelt’s patriotism was unimpeachable; he was a war hero, the leader of the world famous Rough Riders. He had been one of the most popular presidents in American history. His platform was appealingly dubbed the New Nationalism. Nevertheless, sidelined for the final weeks of his campaign by the injuries he sustained at the Milwaukee speech, Roosevelt placed a distant second to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, winning 27% of the popular vote and eighty-eight electoral votes. It may have been a small consolation, but he did beat President Taft, who became the only incumbent ever to come in third in a presidential election. Roosevelt successfully tapped into a rich vein of American outrage over corporate influence in politics, but it is important to remember that he wasn’t the first — and certainly not the last — great American leader to recognize the threat. Alexander Hamilton wrote that at the Constitutional Convention: “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.” Thomas Jefferson believed that “banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” Abraham Lincoln fumed, “The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity . . . It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.” Franklin Roosevelt declared, “Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob…” Dwight Eisenhower famously warned, “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Many of our greatest leaders have recognized, and worried deeply about, the unchecked influence of corporate power on our political processes. Today, an overwhelming majority of Americans are coming to the same conclusion, supporting limits on corporate spending in elections, particularly for foreign companies, government contractors and bailout recipients. But Americans are up against formidable opponents in the corporate-dominated Republican Party, the corporate-influenced Democrats, an ideologically driven, right wing Supreme Court, and a powerful army of business lobbyists. This is just the kind of opposition that would have gotten Teddy fired up. It’s time to revive the spirit of the Bull Moose. Americans are ready for real reforms to the most pressing problems of the day, but the Republicans and (most) Democrats are too busy thinking small. Without a leader of Teddy Roosevelt’s massive statute, a Bull Moose movement today could never survive as a viable third party, but it could wake up and mobilize a lot of disillusioned Americans. One hundred years later, it’s time to bring the Bull Moose back! Dan Firger and Janos Marton are both members of the Bull Moose Movement. Visit bullmoosemovement.wordpress.com to find out how to get involved. More on Sarah Palin

See the original post: 
Daniel Firger: Why We Need a New Bull Moose Movement

New Rule: Let’s not fire the teachers when students don’t learn - let’s fire the parents. Last week President Obama defended the firing of every single teacher in a struggling high school in a poor Rhode Island neighborhood. And the kids were outraged. They said, “Why blame our teachers?” and “Who’s President Obama?” I think it was Whitney Houston who said, “I believe that children are our future - teach them well and let them lead the way.” And that’s the last sound piece of educational advice this country has gotten - from a crack head in the ’80’s. Yes, America has found its new boogeyman to blame for our crumbling educational system. It’s just too easy to blame the teachers, what with their cushy teachers’ lounges, their fat-cat salaries, and their absolute authority in deciding who gets a hall pass. We all remember high school - canning the entire faculty is a nationwide revenge fantasy. Take that, Mrs. Crabtree! And guess what? We’re chewing gum and no, we didn’t bring enough for everybody. But isn’t it convenient that once again it turns out that the problem isn’t us, and the fix is something that doesn’t require us to change our behavior or spend any money. It’s so simple: Fire the bad teachers, hire good ones from some undisclosed location, and hey, while we’re at it let’s cut taxes more. It’s the kind of comprehensive educational solution that could only come from a completely ignorant people. Firing all the teachers may feel good - we’re Americans, kicking people when they’re down is what we do - but it’s not really their fault. Now, undeniably, there are some bad teachers out there. They don’t know the material, they don’t make things interesting, they have sex with the same kid every day instead of spreading the love around… But every school has crappy teachers. Yale has crappy teachers - they must, they gave us George Bush. According to all the studies, it doesn’t matter what teachers do. Although everyone appreciates foreplay. What matters is what parents do. The number one predictor of a child’s academic success is parental involvement. It doesn’t even matter if your kid goes to private or public school. So save the twenty grand a year and treat yourself to a nice vacation away from the little bastards. It’s also been proven that just having books in the house makes a huge difference in a child’s development. If your home is adorned with nothing but Hummel dolls, DVD’s, and bleeding Jesuses, congratulations, you’ve just given your children the gift of Duh. Sarah Palin said recently she wrote on her hand because her father used to do it. I rest my case. When there are no books in the house, and there are no parents in the house, you know who raises the kids? That’s right, the television. Kids aren’t keeping up with their studies; they’re keeping up with the Kardashians. We’re allowing the television, as babysitter, to turn us into a nation of slutty idiots. By the way, one sign your 9-year-old may be watching too much One Tree Hill : if she has an imaginary friend with benefits. More on Bill Maher

Continued here:
Bill Maher: New Rule: Let’s Not Fire the Teachers When Students Don’t Learn — Let’s Fire the Parents

In advance of the upcoming baseball season, the right-wing blogosphere has gone viral with a parody of Ernest Thayer’s immortal “Casey at the Bat,” with Barack Obama replacing the Mudville slugger striking out with the tying runs on base. Here’s the progressive response, with all due apologies to Grantland Rice. (And if some enterprising young filmmaker wants to get Red Sox fan Matt Damon to narrate the retort at Fenway Park, have at it.) OBAMA’S REVENGE: A POLITICAL PARODY There were saddened hearts in D.C. for a week or even more; There were muttered oaths and curses–every Liberal in town was sore. “Just think,” said Rachel Maddow, “how soft it looked with Obama at the bat, And then to think he’d go and spring a Chi-town trick like that!” All his past fame was forgotten–Beck dubbed him a hopeless “shine.”* Fox called him “Strike-Out Obama,” from O’Reilly down the line; And as he came to bat each day his bosom heaved a sigh, While a look of hopeless fury shone in mighty Obama’s eye. He pondered in the days gone by that he had been their king, That when he strolled up to the plate he made the blue states ring; But now his nerve had vanished, for when he heard Republicans hoot He “fanned” or “popped out” daily, like some state legislative recruit. He soon began to sulk and loaf, his political eye went lame; No home runs in either house were chalked against his name; The fans without exception gave Howard Dean no peace, Even Olbermann kept clamoring for Obama’s quick release. The Liberal squad began to slump, the team was in the air; Their playing went from bad to worse–with not a vote to spare. “Back to the woods with Obama!” was the cry from the Chris Matthews show. “Get someone with left field power, and let that moderate go!” The lane is long, Hartman has said, that never turns again, And Fate, though fickle, often gives another chance to men; And Obama smiled; his rugged face no longer wore a frown– The pitcher, Screwball Sarah, was coming back to town. All Congress had assembled–ten thousand fans had come To see the crazy twirler who had put Obama on the bum; And when he stepped into the box, the multitude went wild; Palin doffed her cap in proud disdain, but Obama only smiled. “Play ball!” Alito’s voice rang out, and then the game began. But in that throng of thousands there was not a single fan Who thought that the Liberals had a chance, and with the setting sun Their hopes sank low–Limbaugh & Co. were leading “four to one.” The last half of the ninth came round, with health-care reform on the floor; But when Joltin’ Joe Biden hit safe, the crowd began to roar; The din increased, the echo of ten thousand shouts was heard When Palin hit Pelosi and gave “four balls” to Rahm the Nerd. Three runners–nobody out–three runs to tie the game! A triple meant the highest niche in the Liberals’ hall of fame; But here the rally ended and the gloom was deep as night, When Barney “fouled to catcher” and Reid “flew out to right.” A dismal groan in chorus came; a scowl was on each face When Obama walked up, bat in hand, and slowly took his place; His bloodshot eyes in fury gleamed, his teeth were clenched in hate; He gave his White Sox cap a vicious hook and pounded on the plate. But fame is fleeting, as the wind and glory fades away; There were no wild and woolly cheers, no glad acclaim this day; Anne Coulter hissed and groaned and clamored: “Strike him out!” But Obama gave no outward sign that he had heard her shout. Palin snarled and cut one loose–across the plate it sped; Another hiss, another groan. “Strike one!” Alito said. Zip! Like a shot the second curve broke just below the knee. “Strike two!” Alito roared aloud; but Obama made no plea. No roasting for Alito now– his was an easy lot; But here Screwball Sarah whirled again–was that a Wasilla rifle shot? A whack, a crack, and out through the space the leather pellet flew, A blot against the distant sky, a speck against the blue. Above the fence in deep left field in rapid whirling flight The sphere sailed on–the blot grew dim and then was lost to sight. Ten thousand hats were thrown in air, Roger Ailes threw a fit, But no one ever found the ball that mighty Barack Obama hit. O, somewhere in this favored land dark clouds may hide the sun, And somewhere bands no longer play and children have no fun! And somewhere over blighted lives there hangs a heavy pall, But Liberal hearts are happy now, for Obama hit the ball. ———— *Yes, sports fans, that’s precisely how it appears in the original . More on Barack Obama

See the rest here:
Geoffrey Dunn: Obama’s Revenge: A Political Parody

Karl Rove has very few regrets. At an intense Q&A yesterday, the senior adviser to President George W. Bush defended the Administration on everything from the Iraq war, to campaign tactics, to its response to Hurricane Katrina. On the invasion of Iraq, Rove said that one of the few things he would have changed is coming out against the critics — including Democrats who had voted for the invasion — sooner when it was determined that there were no weapons of mass destruction. “You’ve got to either hold everybody accountable, or you’ve got to drop this myth,” said Rove, who recently admitted to the error. “This pernicious, corrosive, hypocritical lie that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction.” The event, which took place at the 92Y in Manhattan was in honor of the release of Rove’s new memoir , Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight , was hosted by CNN’s Gloria Borger and covered a broad range of topics. For every tough question Borger threw at him, Rove had a defense. Nasty campaign tactics against John McCain in 2000? It was an individual who Rove knew nothing about, and McCain should have seized the moment, not played victim. Swift-boating John Kerry? It was a group that Rove knew nothing about, and their most effective ad was just using Kerry’s own words against him. When Borger suggested that was still a low blow, Rove retorted: “I guess using John Kerry’s own words against him was kind of a low blow.” He questioned the assertion that Bush “cherry picked” intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war and said that Congress had access to the same intelligence the administration did. When asked about Katrina, Rove cited the inaccurate information the administration was receiving from local authorities. The financial collapse? “It wasn’t the banks that brought this on. What brought this on primarily were the excesses of two government-sponsored enterprises: Fannie and Freddie,” he said. Rove got off a number of zingers (when asked by an audience member about Vice President “Darth Cheney” he corrected, “No, no, no, no, no. You’ve got it all wrong — I’m Darth Vader, Cheney is [Emperor] Palpatine”). When Borger asked him jokingly, “now that the [2000 election] is over, where are the Florida ballots?” Rove answered, “In my garage,” to uproarious laughs from the audience. He described Al Gore as, “one angry dude.” But not everyone was a fan. At one point a protestor interrupted the event unfolding a sign and shouting “war criminal” before being escorted out, and throughout the event, members of the audience lobbed occasional comments as Rove spoke. He acknowledged the negative opinions many have of him but said, “If I were to react to what people said about me, I’d be in the fetal position.” When asked about whom he would have chosen as his vice presidential nominee in 2008, Rove said it would not have been Palin but would have likely gone with Romney. Though he joked that the McCain campaign didn’t call him too much for advice. Rove expressed disappointment in the way President Barack Obama had emphasized his centrist credentials while campaigning, but tacked left once entering office. When Borger suggested that Bush had done the same thing, Rove disagreed, saying that “No Child Left Behind” and social security reform were centrist efforts. Asked about Liz Cheney’s ” Al Qaeda 7 ” commercial about the loyalties of Justice Department lawyers, Rove avoided taking a firm stance, but said, “How comfortable as a country would we be if we said, ‘the lawyers from Enron… let’s put them on the SEC and have them help determine policy regarding these same kinds of frauds’?” Rove predicted that if health care reform passed, the House would go Republican in the midterm election. He added, “Whatever method they use in the Senate to pass it, we will use to repeal it.” More on Health Care

Original post:
Karl Rove Terms Al Gore "One Angry Dude," Claims Missing Florida Ballots From 2000 Election Are "In His Garage"

Sarah Jessica Parker joined the ‘Real Housewives’ at Bravo’s 2010 Upfront Party at NYC’s Skylight Studio Wednesday night. Sadly she did not pose with them on the red carpet. Also in attendance were Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves, who gave birth to their second child in January. Bethenny Frankel showed off her baby bump and Kandi Burruss showed off her body. PHOTOS: More on The Real Housewives

See the rest here:
Sarah Jessica Parker Parties With The Real Housewives (PHOTOS)

Sarah Jessica Parker joined the ‘Real Housewives’ at Bravo’s 2010 Upfront Party at NYC’s Skylight Studio Wednesday night. Sadly she did not pose with them on the red carpet. Also in attendance were Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves, who gave birth to their second child in January. Bethenny Frankel showed off her baby bump and Kandi Burruss showed off her body. PHOTOS: More on The Real Housewives

Read the original post:
Sarah Jessica Parker Parties With The Real Housewives (PHOTOS)

Sarah Palin will appear at a fundraiser for Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) in April, Bachmann’s re-election campaign announced on Thursday. The event, to be held at the Minneapolis Hilton Hotel, will feature a dinner, reception and “photo opportunity,” according to a statement from the campaign. The price of a ticket to the fundraiser has not been released. Bachmann’s campaign said that “plans are in the works for a rally” with Palin, but nothing firm has yet to be posted. According to the Bachmann campaign, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman and several members of Congress are part of the host committee for the fundraiser. More on Michele Bachmann

Read the original post: 
Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann Team Up For Fundraiser

WASHINGTON — Over the years, “Little Billy” learned much from the country’s top minds. Secretaries of state, touched by the 10-year-old’s handwritten letters on grade-school notepaper, wrote back advising him how to settle a treehouse dispute with his sister. O.J. Simpson’s lawyer told him how to get off the hook on accusations he destroyed a doll. A publisher of racy magazines, asked whether there was a version for kids, told him to read the Sears catalog instead, and “you’ll be 18 before you know it.” Billy also turned to twisted minds for their counsel. He wrote to notorious criminals asking whether he should stay in school. Son of Sam told him not to waste his life, like he did; the Unabomber merely wished him luck. It was all a big setup. Little Billy was actually grown-up Bill Geerhart, punking the famous and infamous by writing letters to them asking questions out of the mouths of babes. Their correspondence back – humorous, head-scratching, poignant – is compiled in a book, “Little Billy’s Letters,” out this week. Geerhart, who admits to a history of making crank phone calls and other mischief in his youth, collected the letters over 15 years, starting in the mid-1990s while he was killing time as an unemployed writer in Los Angeles. Most of the letters in the book go back to a time before e-mails took over written communication. But some are recent. In 2008, Sarah Palin’s dad, Chuck Heath – handling the deluge of mail for his daughter, the Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate – declined to take Billy hunting wolves by air. “No wolf hunting from helicopters here,” scribbles Heath. For career advice, Billy – who was leaning toward convenience store clerk because he would have access to video games on the job – polls those in other fields, including assisted-suicide figure Dr. Jack Kevorkian. From his prison cell, Kevorkian responds, “sometimes I wish I was a 7-11 clerk!” As Billy mounts a campaign for third-grade class president, he gets good-luck wishes from former President Gerald Ford and former Vice President Dan Quayle. Less civic-mindedly, Billy writes to Anheuser-Busch asking “if there is a beer for kids” just as he asked Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt about porn for the pint-sized. No dice. Flynt writes that Billy could subscribe to Hustler when he turned 18: “Until then, you should read the Sears & Roebuck catalog.” An Anheuser-Busch executive rats on him, sending his parents a brochure on how to talk to kids about drinking. Robert Shapiro, member of the legal “dream team” that won O.J. Simpson’s acquittal in the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife and her friend, was full of ideas when Billy wrote to ask for help defending himself against allegations that he – not his dog – destroyed his sister’s doll. “Is there any forensic evidence that will support your theory that the dog killed the doll?” Shapiro replied. “Were any scraps of doll clothing found near his dog house, perhaps? How about tooth marks on the doll’s remains (assuming there were remains)? If so, a good forensic dentist should be able to match them to the dog.” David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam slayer who killed six women in a late-1970s rampage in New York City, tells Billy, “don’t do self-destructive things” and opens up about his own grief and guilt. Murderous cult leader Charles Manson merely beefs that he’s not getting his Los Angeles Times in prison. Seeking the wise counsel of retired diplomats for how to stop incursions by his sister “Connie” into his treehouse, Billy gets former secretaries of state James Baker and Henry Kissinger to bless a handwritten, one-year “treaty” that would keep Connie out – though Baker thought it should last two years. Probing the high court’s opinions of McDonald’s menu items, Billy learns that then-Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor favors the Big Mac, while her colleague Clarence Thomas replies, “I like almost everything there.” And when his beloved dog “Tippy” dies, Billy is gently consoled by cryonics company executives who learn that he has put the animal in a meat freezer and wants to bring it back to life. Geerhart, who works as a record producer in Los Angeles and is curator of a Cold War pop culture Web site, once had Little Billy’s exploits catch up with him. As Billy contemplated which religion to join, he asked officials at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to verify that “you get to wear cool underwear and have extra wives.” The inquiry earned Geerhart a visit from a pair of Mormon missionaries wanting to meet the youngster. Geerhart concocted an excuse for Billy’s absence and dutifully snapped a picture of the tie-clad missionaries in his disheveled apartment. Naturally, he includes the photo in the book. ___ EDITOR’S NOTE – “Little Billy’s Letters” is published by William Morrow. It runs 240 pages and sells for $19.99. More on Authors

Continued here: 
‘Little Billy’ Punks The Famous In Guise Of A 10-Year-Old

The arrival of the new American Ambassador to Australia was breathlessly welcomed by the Australia media pack in late 2009. Jeffrey Bleich, an American lawyer from California, assumed his position in Canberra and was introduced to the country through an interview on the public broadcaster ABC. After the reporter Leigh Sales congratulated Bleich on his appointment, he was treated to softball questions and allowed to outline, unchallenged, the Obama administration’s agenda. Sales and Bleich joked over the ambassador’s Elvis obsession but substantive questions were almost absent (or follow-ups probing Bleich’s non-answers). No comments about Obama’s continuation of Bush administration policies towards indefinite detention of terror suspects and warrantless wiretapping . On the eve of Obama’s first visit to Australia in late March, the Sydney Morning Herald’s political editor Peter Hartcher informed his readers that, “the remark by the US ambassador to Australia that his kids are brushing up on their Wii skills is a marker of the rejuvenation of the alliance.” Hartcher wrote: “By bringing his family, Obama will give a new generation of Australians a sense of connection with their country’s chief ally… Where the relationship between [former Australian Prime Minister John] Howard and [George W.] Bush was forged in the fire of September 11 terrorism and the Afghan and Iraq invasions that followed, [Australian Prime Minister Kevin] Rudd and Obama have developed a post-crisis partnership.” Both leaders would be able to “share satisfaction in the early progress of the new strategy in Afghanistan.” The American/Australian alliance has always been built on supporting Washington’s wars, despite public opinion often opposing these engagements (such as the current Afghan deployment ). After the humanitarian and military disaster in Iraq, the only reason to maintain Australian troops in Afghanistan is to try and regain Washington’s credibility ; a difficult task when civilians continue being killed . Australia’s objective has therefore nothing to do with bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan . Furthermore, Australians troops are suspected of committing war crimes in the country and military lawyers are inadequately trained to assess possible breaches of humanitarian law in the field . A senior Australian Army media adviser who served in Afghanistan and Iraq accused the Australian government of a culture of excessive spin and unnecessary secrecy , lying about local engagement with the civilian populations and obscuring the mission’s purpose. There is little discussion in the corporate media over what Australian troops are actually doing in Afghanistan. Instead, the public are mostly treated to articles advocating military escalation. Take this recent piece by Rupert Murdoch columnist, Greg Sheridan , arguing that, “a serious ally would take the lead in a province, as we did in Vietnam.” Public opinion, or morality, is damned. America has consistently thanked Australia for its reliability. George W. Bush awarded John Howard the Presidential Medal of Freedom in early 2009 . Bush said that, “He [Howard] never wavered in his support for liberty, and free institutions, and the rule of law as the true and hopeful alternatives to ideologies of violence and repression. That’s why I called him a man of steel.” Howard was a full backer of Bush’s “war on terror”, including Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition . Britain’s Tony Blair and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe were also awarded at the White House ceremony. Managing the alliance between America and Australia takes little work or imagination from Washington. They have a country desperate to keep on its good side, able to offer its own thoughts but likely to fall into line, no matter what. Washington rightly believes that Australia watches over the Pacific, influencing and pressuring small nations heavily reliant on foreign aid. Some mainstream commentators have suggested that Obama’s upcoming trip should allow serious discussion about China and energy co-operation . But Obama’s fortunes are dwindling in America and key policies, on health and climate change, are stalled with little positive resolution expected any time soon. Although a senior Australian minister claimed last week that Obama’s visit would “generate a great deal of interest from the Australian public “, I know of a number of anti-war groups who will peacefully protest America’s ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and support for Israel. Australian backing for America isn’t automatic and requires constant massaging by embedded journalists. The Australian-American Leadership Dialogue is a regular and private gathering of the political elites from both countries. Senior journalists, most of whom never disclose their participation, regularly return from meetings praising American initiatives. As far as I know, there has never been a comprehensive article in the mainstream press that debunks the agenda of the Dialogue or the opinion-shapers involved. Instead, we are treated to occasional references without context . Australia has long suffered from an inferiority complex towards its super-power boss. Disagreements aren’t unknown between Washington and Canberra - Kevin Rudd refused to help re-settle released Uighur detainees from Guantanamo Bay despite a request from the Obama administration - but Australia is far more comfortable seeing America as an irreplaceable friend who supposedly shares the same values. China is only a vitally important trading partner. There is no doubt that Obama himself remains popular in Australia - his allegedly charming demeanour is still profiled in gossip magazines - but the mainstream media reports the torturous progress of the Democrat’s health care bill and the political effectiveness of the Tea Party movement . Obama’s upcoming visit will be primarily an opportunity for Kevin Rudd in an election year to bask in the glow of a President whose popularity is diving in America but remains buoyant globally. At a time when America’s ability to shape events in vast swathes of the world are in decline, including throughout South America and the Middle East, Obama will be pleased to visit an unquestioning ally. More on Barack Obama

See the original post here: 
Antony Loewenstein: When Barack Obama goes Down Under

Mainstream press will ignore this story or botch it by repeating unfounded and misleading allegations against the group. In the latest of a slew of actions exonerating ACORN of wrongdoing, yesterday U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon granted a permanent order against the United States government for withholding funds from ACORN. In its decision, the court found that the U.S. Congress singled ACORN out for punishment in the absence of any judicial, or administrative, process adjudicating guilt. The judge declared the act of Congress was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. ACORN had sued the federal government in November 2009 arguing that Congress violated the Constitution by illegally targeting the group. Yesterday the judge upheld her earlier December 12, 2009 decision, which temporarily blocked U.S. officials from enforcing the funding ban on ACORN as well as a ban on ACORN’s right to enter future contracts with the federal government. The judge said it was “unmistakable that Congress determined ACORN’s guilt before defunding it.” In her thirty-three page opinion, Gershon said Congress had relied on unsubstantiated accusations to cut off ACORN’s funds. Republican conservatives claimed Congress had to act to protect the taxpayer’s money. Gershon countered saying, Congress can’t “rely on the negative results of a congressional or executive report as a rationale to impose a broad, punitive funding ban on a specific, named organization.” The judge also noted that federal contractors could be suspended or debarred, but agencies needed to follow the federal rules in the Code of Federal Regulations. “[T]he existence of [these regulations] militates against the need for draconian, emergency action by Congress,” she added. The judge said relief in this action would make clear that Congress was wrong to pass judgment on ACORN and wrong to single it out for punishment on the basis of that judgment. Moreover, according to the judge, the record establishes that Congress damaged ACORN’s reputation. Gershon held the harm to ACORN’s reputation persists because the OMB and other government agencies never cancelled their instructions to stop funding after it notified “hundreds, if not thousands, of recipients.” The judge said this well publicized action by Congress has damaged ACORN’s ability to obtain funds not only from the federal government, but also from foundations and individual donors who are fearful of being tainted as an affiliate of ACORN. Foundations such as Ford and Mott Foundation cut off ACORN’s funds. As my upcoming book SEEDS OF CHANGE, The Story of ACORN, America’s Most Controversial Anti-Poverty Community Organizing Group documents (http://www.vanderbiltuniversitypress.com/books/387/seeds-of-change), for 40 years ACORN has been the most effective national anti-poverty organization in the country. Since its founding in Arkansas ACORN has been criticized by business leaders, Democrats and Republicans for its direct action tactics and its populist anti-poverty agenda. It has long worked on the forefront to protect homebuyers from unjust foreclosures fueled by reckless lending practices and inadequate government regulation. In many cities and states, ACORN pioneered campaigns to increase workers wages and prevent unnecessary foreclosures by organizing homeowners and tenants, and pressuring lawmakers to enact laws protecting consumers from foreclosure scams. By the fall of 2009 ACORN and its sister organization ACORN Housing had helped prevent housing foreclosures for eight thousand homeowners by obtaining favorable mortgage changes, It rescinded sales, restored titles to owners, and negotiated new, affordable mortgages. In California, ACORN sponsored a bill to protect consumers from rip-offs by mortgage brokers–for example, by prohibiting brokers from steering borrowers toward loans that are most costly rather than loans they qualify for. ACORN worked for two years to ensure the bill’s passage in December 2009, despite the opposition of the powerful bankers and brokers. Its organizing, self-help and empowerment strategies dispel the conservative myth that we can only help the poor through private soup kitchens and charity and the liberal myth that the solution rests simply with more government services. Beginning in 2008, it has come under a ferocious attack for voter registration fraud and claims it violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities. But the attacks on ACORN are not really about bogus names on voter registration forms or staff members providing bad advice to a phony prostitute with a video camera. ACORN has long faced harassment from certain businesses, conservative activists, and intellectuals who attack it for ideological reasons, calling the group “socialist,” “left-wing,” and “opponents of the free market.” Businesses that pay low wages have long opposed ACORN’s efforts to raise wages for the working poor. Banks, private mortgage companies, and payday lenders have fought ACORN’s campaigns to strengthen government regulations on the financial services industry on behalf of consumers. For years conservative politicians have opposed ACORN’s success at registering low-income, mostly minority voters, who they fear are more likely to vote for Democrats than GOP candidates. What most Americans know about ACORN is based on recent controversies manufactured by the group’s long-term enemies. Many defense contractors have committed crimes and drug companies have pled guilty to criminal fraud under the federal false claims act stealing billions from the taxpayers by ripping off Medicaid and Medicare yet Congress never passed a bill debarring them from federal contracts. These attacks on ACORN have been part of a broader effort by the Republicans and businesses opposed to Obama - first as a candidate, then as President - and to associate him and his liberal policy agenda with “radicals” and even “socialism.” The war on ACORN was obvious when on October 15, 2008, in the third and final presidential debate with Obama, John McCain–reflecting the years of groundwork by conservatives and Republicans in demonizing ACORN–charged that ACORN was “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” At rallies and press events, McCain and Palin repeated this charge and demanded that Obama disclose his ties with ACORN.3 Criticism soared after two right wing activists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, who despised and feared ACORN, lured a few ACORN staff in three offices into providing questionable, even outrageous advice on tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution. Fox, the New York Post, CNN, and other mainstream media picked up on the story. Even though the employees did not create client files or bills, file tax returns, sign or submit loan documents, or arrange bank loans, the doctored and misleading videos were shown around the clock by Fox, CNN and on the blogosphere. The Washington Post contributed to a feeding frenzy with a September 20 headline blaring, “For ACORN, Video Is Only Latest Crisis,” which read like an indictment prepared by the Republican Party. This led to a rush to judgment by the U.S. Congress to strip federal funding from ACORN, and block future grants. ACORN was unprepared to deal with the relentless, mostly unfounded daily attacks on its credibility by the right-wing media and conservative politicians, and the mainstream media’s general acceptance of the right wing’s demonizing and ridiculing of ACORN. UPI, Reuters stories and even the New York Times repeatedly reported incorrectly that O’Keefe went into ACORN office dressed as a pimp, when in fact as Hannah Giles admitted the images of O’Keefe in an outlandish pimp outfit–a top hat, cane, huge sunglasses, white fur coat–were edited in later. Besides Congress cutting off funds to ACORN, the cartoonish pimp costume cost ACORN its reputation. It was aimed to implant in the public’s eye that ACORN’s African-American intake staff were buffoons. In December the truth started catching up with the slurs on ACORN’s reputation. On December 7, 2009 an independent report by the former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, cleared ACORN of any illegal conduct. The report found: “While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers.” His report also noted that the videos were doctored and misleading. “The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O’Keefe’s and Ms. Giles’s comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.” Harshbarger report also noted: “Although Mr. O’Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student - in slacks and a button down The report also acknowledged that ACORN had already begun to implement many of the management and oversight reforms urged by Harshbarger. The report reinforced criticism of the mainstream media’s handling of the story, including the way CNN played the “prostitution scandal” videotapes over and over again. As Joe Conason reported, “… the ACORN videotapes were an exercise in propaganda not journalism.” The mainstream press continued to botch the ACORN story. For example, the Associated Press story of the Harshbarger Report published in the Washington Post didn’t mention that the conservative videographers rebuffed attempts by Harshbarger to interview them and refused to permit him to review the unedited tapes so he could compare the raw footage with versions that were released. Most major news outlets did not even mention the report. The Harshbarger report, which came on the heels of a successful ACORN lawsuit in Ohio that brought the state into compliance with the public agency vote registration provisions of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), brought some hope to ACORN’s members that public opinion might shift in ACORN’s favor. Soon after Harshbarger refuted the charges of financial wrongdoing and voter fraud against ACORN, a nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report (CRS) released on December 22, 2009 found no evidence of voter fraud associated with ACORN and “no instances in which ACORN violated the terms of federal funding in the last five years.” Moreover, the report found that the two conservative activists who secretly videotaped conversations with ACORN workers and distributed those recordings on the Web without their consent violated laws in Maryland and California. CRS also noted that as of October 2009, ACORN had been subjected to at least 46 federal, state, and local investigations with only 11 still outstanding. Only one state, Nevada, actually brought charges against ACORN and those were based an ambiguous law that prohibited paying staff to register voters. Despite the fact that the CSR report was a comprehensive source for fact-checking the allegations aimed at ACORN, the New York Times buried the story in a short article on page 15, and USA Today noted it in a seven-sentence news brief. CNN took just a few seconds to mention the report, again playing a clip of the infamous undercover video. Most of the major news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, ignored the CRS report. Time magazine and U.S. News & World Report used their end of the year round up spinning the ACORN story as a scandal. Last week, the New York District Attorney for Brooklyn, Joe Hynes, cleared ACORN of any criminality. Since September 2009 Hynes’ office investigated three ACORN employees who had been secretly videotaped by the phony pimp and prostitute, who came to ACORN’S Brooklyn office, seeking advice about how to purchase a house with money generated by their ‘business.’ The DA’s investigation found no criminality and an official with the prosecutor’s office said, an unedited version they reviewed showed that the truth had been sliced and diced. But the damage has already been done. In Brooklyn, ACORN has been forced to regroup and re-brand under a new name: NY Communities For Change. And the group is facing a serious ability to function in various chapters around the country as funding sources dried up. ACORN had been defamed and the positive news failed to undo the damage. The rush to judgment against ACORN threatens its very existence. By any measure, the barrage of subpoenas, investigations, castigations, and hasty official actions of questionable legality are far out of proportion to ACORN’s lapses and ignore the enormous good that the organization has done. The onslaught recalls the voter fraud claims against ACORN in Florida and New Mexico in 2004. Only later, in 2007, did the public learn that all charges against ACORN in 2004 had been dropped and that U.S. attorneys had been fired for resisting White House pressure to prosecute ACORN on trumped-up charges of voter fraud. In addition, as Katrina Vanden Heuvel said what happened to ACORN was “…reminiscent of the McCarthy era when individuals and organizations were ruined by allegations that ran as front page news, while later evidence that vindicated them was relegated to the back pages. There was little accountability for the false accusations, little redemption for those whose lives had been shattered.” Three events are sure to follow this decision. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and other right wing Republicans will attack Gershon’s decision and note that Bill Clinton appointed her. They will also repeat their talking points against ACORN– unfounded statements criticizing ACORN–and the mainstream press will merely regurgitate the criticisms of ACORN without investigating the truth of these statements. And Democrats and the Obama administration will once again fail to come to ACORN’s defense. According to an Associated Press, the government planned to review the judge’s ruling and consider whether to appeal. Bill Quigley, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represented ACORN, was quoted in the Associated Press saying: “The judge’s ruling is a complete rebuke to the right wing’s smear tactics that unfortunately Congress fell for. This is why we have a system of checks and balances.” More on Glenn Beck

Continued here: 
John Atlas: ACORN Wins Another Victory: Judge Says the Government Can’t Cut Funding

UNITED NATIONS - It took a while for the United Nations to acknowledge errors by its Nobel-prize winning climate panel and order an independent review. But the study will not tackle past mistakes and probably will not change the minds of skeptics or Americans in a Luddite mode — despite overwhelming evidence from an overwhelming number of scientists that global warming is largely man-made. After ignoring negative disclosures, a spokesman for the U.N. Environment Program, Nick Nuttall, said at a meeting of environment ministers in Bali, Indonesia, two weeks ago that a body to be appointed by independent scientists would “review and strengthen” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN-backed research body made up of several thousand scientists analyzing the cause and impact of climate change. And on Wednesday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the InterAcademy Council , one of the world’s most prestigious groups of scientists, would conduct the review. The Council, based in Amsterdam, comprises national academies of science from 15 nations, including the United States. But Robbert Dijkgraaf, a mathematical physicist who co-chairs the academy, told reporters the review by volunteer scientists would not attempt to analyze the mountain of data accumulated by the UN panel. Instead they would recommend that future reports used proper procedures to identify errors, to ensure that climate change issues would be scientifically presented and to recommend accountable management and administrative structures. The object, he is said, is “forward looking” and “not go over the vast amount of data in climate science.” The review is due at the end of August, before the UN panel begins to organize work for another report due in 2013. Nevertheless, the errors in the UN panel’s fourth 2007 report (3,000 pages citing 10,000 scientific papers) raised questions of trust. One was that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, a claim that has been widely discredited. Glaciers are melting, from Antarctica to the Himalayas, but won’t vanish, according to some sources, until 2350. And the report said 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the real figure is about half. Another was the disclosure of hacked emails from Britain’s University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that purportedly showed that some scientists manipulated data. There were also charges that the chairman of the UN panel, Rajendra Pachauri of India, did outside consulting work as an environmental adviser to companies that may conflict with his climate panel duties. Pachauri stood next to Ban at the United Nations when the secretary-general said the IPCC panel’s work was the most authoritative source for assessing climate risk. “The earth’s climate systems are warming above and beyond natural variability. Human activities are contributing significantly to that warming through the emission of greenhouse gases,” Ban said. The secretary-general said nothing had been revealed that alters that consensus but admitted there were “a very small number of errors” in the fourth report. Meanwhile, the Copenhagen accord now has the support of China and India as well as the United States. But whether it will turn into a legally binding treaty is debatable. In Washington, even relatively tame climate legislation passed the House of Representatives last summer but has little chance of being approved in the Senate, stunning Europeans, especially Germany which is trying to organize meetings among naysayers. Led by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales at the negotiations in Copenhagen, the newly-named Alba or Bolivarian countries are challenging capitalism and promoting a redistribution of wealth as a solution to climate change. In addition to Venezuela, they include Cuba, Bolivia, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Antigua and Barbuda, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. The next world climate summit is in Mexico in November. Still back at home, the skeptics are gaining with figures like Sarah Palin calling mistakes in the report “junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood.” The confusion is evident among the American public where a number of polls show only about a third believe in the reality of climate change. “That’s what happens when you spend week after week dwelling on the cracks in the case, no matter how small they may be,” said author Bill McKibben, writing on TomDispatch. More on United Nations

See original here:
Evelyn Leopold: UN Reviews Climate Report — But Will It Appease Skeptics?

During the Winter Olympiad out here in California, it became obvious that a big part of Meg Whitman’s strategy for getting elected Governor of California was going to be flooding the zone with ads, drowning out her opponents with her burgeoning bankbook. Yesterday, Californians got another insight into Whitman’s recipe for victory in 2010: avoid unscripted situations with the press, even at the risk of looking completely ridiculous : Reporters from Bay Area media outlets — TV, print and radio — turned up for Whitman’s advertised campaign stop in Oakland, where the former eBay CEO had announced a campaign stop and press event. But once at the Union Pacific Railroad site, the assembled reporters were not allowed to view her tour — and herded into a holding room instead. Then came the news that Whitman also wouldn’t take questions; reporters had been called in to “see” her make statements on “how she could be helpful as governor” on jobs and the economy, Whitman spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said. Veteran reporters, who included KTVU’s Randy Shandobil and KPIX’s Hank Plante, were among the crowd that wasn’t amused. Question: is Whitman a candidate for governor, or a museum piece to be “watched” by reporters? In case there was any doubt that the press did not take well to being reduced to the role of stenographers for the Meg 2010 campaign, check out this absolutely withering treatment of the event by the aforementioned Hank Plante of KPIX. The commentary by the anchors at the close of the video is particularly devastating: (Notice that while the YouTube clip is merely a re-airing of the KPIX evening news segment on the Whitman event, it is being shopped around on Youtube cheerfully by the campaign of GOP rival Steve Poizner. They clearly know an opportunity when they see it.) KPIX, not content with merely kicking dirt on Whitman for her campaign’s poor behavior during the press availability, portrayed it as part of a pattern, courtesy of a quip from Democratic consultant Dan Newman: NEWMAN: She refuses to release her tax returns…refuses to release documentation about her flights on the corporate jet for personal purposes. She refuses to tell us what happened on the board of Goldman Sachs at that critical time. The rationale given for Whitman’s refusal to take questions was an unyielding schedule. But the Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci was not so sure about the validity of that excuse: Reason, we were told: Whitman was running late. But Whitman lingered for some time with railroad officials in the same room — just feet away from the press, who refused to leave. Finally, they were herded out, at which point Whitman’s campaign drew the blinds and put up a movie screen to block them from seeing the candidate. Whitman did sit down to talk for 30 minutes with the Chronicle’s Republican op-ed columnist, Debra J. Saunders — but the rest were shut out. California is on the DK/R2K polling calendar, with results coming soon. Given her multi-million dollar advertising blitz during the Olympics, it would be shocking to see Whitman leading Democrat Jerry Brown (who seems to be intent to become the first Governor elected without anyone actually knowing he is running for the job). The question is: can Whitman maintain enough of a reservoir of goodwill with voters if she continues to refuse to speak to them beyond anything other than rehearsed press availabilities and 30-second/60-second advertisements?

Go here to read the rest: 
CA-Gov: Meg Whitman’s Press Strategy for 2010

With over 100 advertisers (and counting) abandoning Glenn Beck’s show, it’s obvious that what’s left is the dregs of the world, like these guys . But the gold dealers dominating the ranks of his advertisers have new competition : Yup. All those Beck viewers are suckers, because their gold stockpile will be worth less than seeds ! But that’s not all! You know how Obama wants to steal your guns and shit? That’s not all he’s trying to confiscate! Phew! That’s a relief. Because as we all know, the Second Amendment protects an American’s right to bear arms … and seeds! Then again, no seeds are truly indestructible. They are, after all, living things. The Glenn Beck patriots can’t just wait for the apocalypse, and then plant them in the ground. Of course, they don’t need to wait long. Obama is obviously a one-termer, so will need to trigger the end of the world before Sarah Palin can take him out in 2012. So we’re pretty much talking two years before the End of Times. Better to start planting now, before the first nukes strike. They they better hope the apocalypse happens during rainy season, because it’ll be tough to irrigate a whole acre without electricity. (And that’s assuming they don’t need municipal water.) On the plus side, they won’t have any trouble with fertilizer. p.s. Given that they are a Glenn Beck advertiser, this should go without saying, but yes, they’re a scam .

Read the original: 
Time to stock up on "survival seeds"!

With over 100 advertisers (and counting) abandoning Glenn Beck’s show, it’s obvious that what’s left is the dregs of the world, like these guys . But the gold dealers dominating the ranks of his advertisers have new competition : Yup. All those Beck viewers are suckers, because their gold stockpile will be worth less than seeds ! But that’s not all! You know how Obama wants to steal your guns and shit? That’s not all he’s trying to confiscate! Phew! That’s a relief. Because as we all know, the Second Amendment protects an American’s right to bear arms … and seeds! Then again, no seeds are truly indestructible. They are, after all, living things. The Glenn Beck patriots can’t just wait for the apocalypse, and then plant them in the ground. Of course, they don’t need to wait long. Obama is obviously a one-termer, so will need to trigger the end of the world before Sarah Palin can take him out in 2012. So we’re pretty much talking two years before the End of Times. Better to start planting now, before the first nukes strike. They they better hope the apocalypse happens during rainy season, because it’ll be tough to irrigate a whole acre without electricity. (And that’s assuming they don’t need municipal water.) On the plus side, they won’t have any trouble with fertilizer. p.s. Given that they are a Glenn Beck advertiser, this should go without saying, but yes, they’re a scam .

Read the original here:
Time to stock up on "survival seeds"!

As Hollywood settles back into a more quotidian routine, its Oscargasm finally over and the glitz and glam neatly folded away till another season, it’s a good time to take a look back at a few of this year’s awards season highlights. And while the Academy may have swung its gates open to a list of ten best picture nominees, I don’t believe in grade inflation. So, for old time’s sake, here is a list of five memories from awards season I’ll definitely be taking with me. The Ladies Have It Perhaps the best news from this year’s awards season is that the glass ceiling for female directors has finally been shattered. It seems no accident that Barbara Streisand was chosen to announce the award for Best Director, since she was famously slighted by the Academy for her 1983 film Yentl , which earned her top directorial honors that year at the Golden Globes. Bigelow is only the second woman to have ever been nominated for Best Director, behind Jane Campion (who was nominated for The Piano in 1994), and her win is even more historic as she claims a producing credit for The Hurt Locker as well. And it was endearing to see a stunned Bigelow, who had clearly not expected to win either honor, hold an Oscar in each hand amongst the cast and crew of her finely made film. Sarah Palin’s Gifting Lounge Romp Oh, Alaska. While former Governor Sarah Palin may be able to see Russia from the privacy of her own home, she was most assuredly in public when she rode in on a moose, kids in tow, through some of this season’s gifting lounges . Presumably the Fox News host was searching for a few items to fill in the gap left by the GOP’s repossession of her $150,000 campaign wardrobe . So, like other celebrities, Palin stocked up at lounges across Los Angeles like GBK’s W Hollywood-based lounge, which also raised $300,000 in support of the charity Help for Orphans ’s relief efforts in Haiti. The Indies win the Best of Ten This year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences blew open the field of potential best picture nominees to ten for the first time since 1944. While the larger field did ensure the inclusion of boxoffice favorites like Avatar , it doesn’t seem to have effected the overall outcome of the kinds of films which took away top honors. The Hurt Locker , with barely $16 million in boxoffice swept Best Picture, Best Editing and Best Original Screenplay, while director Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to net honors as the top helmer in the business. (Even the award for Best Adapted Screenplay went to an indie scribe, Geoffrey Fletcher for Precious: Based on the Novel Push By Sapphire .) For all the talk of the death of independent film, that genre still seems to have a chokehold on the industry’s top accolades. Two for the Price of One This year’s Oscar co-hosts Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin can pat themselves on the back, as the ratings for the telecast increased for the first time in recent memory. I’d wager that the bump in the ratings was probably due in larger measure to the fact that the Best Picture category was stocked with boxoffice performers, but all the same Baldwin and Martin kept the telecast moving fairly swiftly, entertaining enough, and antic free–that is, until a personal matter between Music for Prudence director Roger Ross Williams and his co-producer Elinor Burkett spilled over Williams’ mother’s cane and onstage during Williams’s acceptance speech for Best Short Documentary. Mo’Nique’s Screaming Orgasm And finally, though she may have just won an Academy Award for her portrayal of an abusive welfare mother in Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire, but as part of this year’s Awards Roundtable series, Mo’Nique provided viewers with a decidedly more spirited performance while discussing what it’s like for actresses filming sex scenes. More on Oscars 2010

More: 
Fabio Periera: Five Memories from My First Awards Season

Senator Blanche Lincoln finds herself in the political version of a perfect storm. Her home state of Arkansas is centrist. Predictably, Republicans are chastising her vote for Obama’s health care legislation. Progressive organizations, unexpectedly, are throwing millions of dollars behind a male Democrat to challenge Senator Lincoln in a primary. And shockingly, a women’s organization dedicated to getting women elected says she deserves it . Despite all the darts being thrown at Senator Lincoln from seemingly every direction, I’ll stand with her. And here’s why you should too. Women’s representation in the U.S. Government is a national embarrassment. We rank 84th in the world in women’s representation in government — behind such “modern” countries as Pakistan, China and Venezuela. While the governing bodies in countries like France and India are working on legislation that would force gender equality in positions of power, here at home, even under a Democratic president and Congress, we have no such legislation even contemplated. So what exactly do our organizations that consider themselves “progressive” stand for? Somehow in the rebranding from liberal to progressive, we left something behind: gender equality. How can an organization, or for that matter a political party, consider itself modern, progressive, advanced, or liberal if it does not prioritize gender representation? How can the organizations which are funding a primary challenge to Senator Lincoln ignore the fact that only 17% of our Senate is women? It would be progressive to get that down to 16%? I know, I know, it’s not our culture, it’s just that Senator Lincoln is just not the “right woman.” She has her faults and that is why we simply cannot support her. We have to wait for the right woman. Well, who pray tell is this right woman? Because the right women wasn’t Hillary or Sarah or Martha. Could it be that this “right woman” phenomenon is just a socially acceptable byline for our internalized sexism? If our country hopes to move forward, then we need to change the status quo. I won’t bore you with the numerous studies detailing why so few women run. Or why when women do run they are treated much more harshly than their male counterparts. But, I will proffer this: we start somewhere. Here’s a thought: women’s organizations should support women. Does that mean that every women’s organization needs to support every woman? No. But as my dear, departed mother taught me: ” if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all. ” That, at least, is a start. Here’s another thought: having more women in positions of power for BOTH parties is good for women and women’s issues. Why wouldn’t we work towards getting more women elected in both parties? Don’t we see example after example after example of women crossing party lines to vote together for women’s issues? And since we’ll never be able to control the political headwinds, doesn’t it behoove us to have as many women as possible running on both tickets in each election? True, not every woman candidate has the exact policy profile we desire. Does any male candidate? Perhaps in the short-term, we’ll have to be a bit more flexible and forgiving of our women. At least until we can get some semblance of gender equality. And, in the mean time, I’ll stand with Senator Blanche Lincoln and hope that you will too!

Original post:
Amy Siskind: Why I Still Stand With Blanche Lincoln

Ever since Sarah Jessica Parker visited Magnolia Bakery on Sex and the City, cupcakes have been America’s trendiest treat. Trendy may be bit of a misnomer then, since the so called “cupcake craze” has been growing for over a decade and shows no signs of fading anytime soon. However, it is exactly that special mix of hipness and surprising longevity that makes cupcakes something really sweet — a great fundraiser. Cupcakes for a Cause™ is an annual national fundraiser for Cancer Care for Kids® built precisely on that notion. It began in 2004 in the birthplace of cupcake mania, New York City, with 12 local bakeries that sold cupcakes adorned with the signature Cancer Care for Kids smiley-face and donated a portion of the proceeds to the program. The company provides free professional support services, like counseling and financial assistance, to children affected by a cancer diagnosis, either their own or that of a family member or loved one. As the country’s love affair with cupcakes grew, so too did the campaign and the funds raised for the program. In 2009, for the week-long campaign in September there were over 365 participating bakery locations nationwide, featuring famous bakeries such as Baked in Brooklyn and Charleston, Georgetown Cupcake in Washington, D.C., and SusieCakes in Los Angeles, as well as several in-store bakeries in supermarkets like Whole Foods Market and Cub Foods. In addition to the bakeries, the campaign now includes a number of other fundraising vehicles: Bake sales: Student and community groups, companies, and individuals across the country host bake sales, with a free, downloadable bake sale kit supplied by Cupcakes for a Cause and its bake sale sponsor (in 2009, it was Reynolds Baking Cups®), and donate the proceeds to Cancer Care for Kids e-Cupcakes: Anyone can visit www.cupcakesforacause.org and send their friends and family these cute, virtual cupcakes for free. In 2009, 1-800-FLOWERS.COM ® donated1 per e-Cupcake for the first 5,000 sent. Cupcake in Bloom™: In 2009, for the first time, non-edible Cupcakes for a Cause were available for purchase during Cupcakes Week - 1-800-FLOWERS.COM ’s Cupcake in Bloom. During the month of September, 10% of net proceeds from the sales of these cupcake-shaped floral arrangements benefitted Cancer Care for Kids. With multiple cupcake-based fundraising channels, the 2009 campaign raised nearly $100,000 for Cancer Care for Kids. And that’s what makes this campaign such a sweet success — it’s not just about the cupcakes but about who they help — children and adolescents who are coping with cancer. Whether they have cancer themselves or are grappling with a parent, sibling, or other loved one’s illness, children have specific needs in terms of understanding cancer and the challenges it presents. The Cancer Care for Kids program strives to address their concerns. Cancer Care ’s professional oncology social workers help families navigate the often complex issues they face when coping with a cancer diagnosis though age-appropriate counseling, therapeutic recreational activities, educational materials, and financial assistance. The 2010 Cupcakes for a Cause Week will be September 20-26, during Childhood Cancer Awareness Month. As this unique fundraiser enters its seventh year, CancerCare looks to continue its growth, mirroring the ongoing expansion of the cupcake market itself. Because if we can help provide free support services for children coping with cancer while enjoying a delicious and chic treat, well that’s just the frosting on the cupcake!

See the rest here:
Christina Wyman: A Sweeter Kind of Philanthropy: Cupcakes for a Cause

Socialist. Death panels. Downright evil. Those are just some of the talking points Sarah Palin uses to describe the Democrat’s health care plan. Well, I wonder if she was quite so outspoken when she was in Canada receiving medical attention? She said that her family used to go to Canada to get medical care when she was growing up. And she admitted that she found that “kind of ironic now.” Well, it’s more than ironic, it’s downright hypocritical. It’s time we stop letting Republican propaganda define our health care policy. Click here to stand up for the public option by signing our petition. Everyone deserves a chance for better health care, like Sarah Palin received as a child. I’m tired of seeing this debate framed by Republicans like Palin, who are more interested in protecting the health insurance companies than they are in bringing better health care coverage to millions of Americans. It’s time to fight back. Click here to stand up with millions of Americans for the public option by signing our petition on countdowntohealthcare.com. More on Sarah Palin

Here is the original post:
Rep. Anthony Weiner: Sarah Palin’s Trip to Canada

As a vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin condemned Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as a “dictator” and called for “energy independence … to allow us to be less and less reliant on someone like Hugo Chavez.” Venezuela, one of the top suppliers of oil to the United States, “wanted to use energy sources as a weapon” under Chavez, she said.

More:
Todd Palin’s Iron Dog Team Sponsored By Venezuela-Owned Lubricant Brand

In informal discussions with people, I often shock them when I relate the simple fact that Jewish rabbis spoke Arabic and lived in the Arab-Muslim world. So conditioned have we become to Jews being Ashkenazim from Eastern Europe with their lox and bagels, chopped liver and matzoh ball soup, that it is startling for many to find that Jews once lived in the Arab world and acculturated to the norms of those places. In the immigration to America, many of our grandparents were native speakers of Arabic - even that American Jewish icon Jerry Seinfeld, on his mother’s side, comes from Syrian Jews who spoke Arabic and ate Arab food like kibbeh and samboosak! The reason that Arabic-speaking Jews are a strange thing to many is that Arabic is considered in some Jewish circles to be the language of the “enemy.” The very definition of the word “Sephardic” has taken on a European gloss when in reality it was first and foremost part of the Arabic civilization of al-Andalus. The figure of Moses Maimonides (ca. 1138-1204), perhaps the greatest post-Talmudic rabbi, exemplifies the complications and pitfalls involved in the Arabic articulation of Judaism. It can be said without exaggeration that to know Maimonides is to know Judaism. Never has such a figure become as central to Judaism as he has. And yet Maimonides, like many other religious giants, has been transformed and co-opted by reactionaries in order to suit their own agendas. Maimonides’ great genius was in the creation of a synthesis that my teacher Jose Faur has called “Religious Humanism.” Taking the parochial traditions of Judaism, its laws, its rituals and its particular understanding of God and the Covenant, and merging them with philosophy, science and history, Maimonides’ Religious Humanism was of a piece with the civilization of the Arabic Mediterranean world he lived in. But if you were to look for books that presented the teachings of Maimonides from this standpoint, you would be frustrated. The two most accessible studies of Maimonides over the past few decades completely ignored the Arabic context of Maimonides’ teaching by situating him in the context of Ashkenazi Orthodoxy: Isadore Twersky published his Introduction to the Code of Maimonides in 1982 and David Hartman issued his Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest in 1977; both books have been perennial best-sellers and are routinely assigned to undergraduate students. It is therefore a very good thing that we now have two books which bring the work of Maimonides to a general audience without eliding the Arabic cultural context so critical to his teachings. In the work of Maimonides, the Muslim Ibn Rushd - better known to Westerners as Averroes - and the Catholic Thomas Aquinas, was generated a creative synthesis that was predicated upon the many advances being made in places like Cordoba, Baghdad and Cairo. And it is in Cordoba and later Cairo that Maimonides lived his life. The polyglot nature of this Arabo-Mediterranean world is crisply formulated by Joel Kraemer in his definitive biography Maimonides: The Life and World of One of Civilization’s Greatest Minds (Doubleday, 2009): From the ninth to the twelfth century, Islamic culture burgeoned, as scholars translated philosophy and science from Greek into Arabic, appropriating the ancient heritage creatively and critically. Scholarship, literature, art, and architecture thrived. The Islamic world surpassed Europe in culture and learning. In Spain, especially Toledo, and in Sicily, scholars translated Arabic philosophy and science into Latin, as Islamic culture became the bridge between the intellectual heritage of antiquity and the West. The transmission of learning from Greek into Arabic and then from Arabic into Hebrew and Latin and other European languages was a momentous achievement of human civilization, and it was vital for the formation of European thought in the medieval period. Kraemer has presented the general reader with a vigorous portrait of a Jewish sage whose relevance for our time is critical. His Maimonides is a figure who rejects superstition and religious fundamentalism in favor of a deeper and more penetrating understanding of the tradition. For all his brilliance, Maimonides has been repaid with a combination of scorn, mischaracterization and apathy. A number of his philosophical and scientific works were placed under ban by rabbis in the orbit of Franco-German Judaism. Bowdlerization of his work continues to this day. A welcome addition to Kraemer’s definitive biography is Sarah Stroumsa’s Maimonides in his World: A Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker (Princeton University Press, 2009). Srroumsa’s book is the perfect complement to Kraemer’s portrait. The book delves into even more detail to discover many of Maimonides’ innovations and the way in which they were enabled. Critical to Stroumsa’s reading of Maimonides is her insistence that it is impossible to understand any of his texts without taking into account the scholarship of the Arabo-Islamic thinkers of his day: Maimonides’ theory of religion was profoundly affected by his uncensored reading in what he believed to be the authentic ancient pagan writings. His interpretation of biblical precepts was the result of discoveries he believed himself to have made in the course of these readings. Furthermore, his legal methodology was conditioned by his immersion in Almohad society, and by his encounter with Muslim law in general and with Almohad law in particular. To fully understand Maimonides’ legal writings and to duly appreciate his tremendous contribution to the development of Jewish law, all these elements, seemingly external to the Jewish legacy, must be taken into account. Maimonides is thus just the sort of religious visionary that our times call for. Beyond this, Maimonides provides those who remain stymied by the binary division of Jew and Arab with another possibility: A fusion of Jewish and Arab-Muslim culture that is grounded in the realities of history. In these two books we can better come to terms with a forgotten history that brings together Jews, Christians and Muslims under the rubric of Arabic civilization. As Kraemer so expertly states: Although many states, ethnic groups, and religions emerged in the Mediterranean region, political boundaries did not stifle free movement and did not interfere with the unity and autonomy of religious and ethnic groups. Rather than remain chained to a model of culture and civilization that separates the protagonists in the Middle East conflict, perhaps it is high time that we traveled back in time to rediscover the legacy of Maimonides that is so richly detailed in these wonderful books. More on Religion

Here is the original post: 
David Shasha: Moses Maimonides: Arab Jew, Religious Humanist

Sarah Palin’s recent statement that, presumably during her childhood, she and her family used to cross the border from Alaska to take advantage of Canada’s health care system is not really a gaffe or a verbal slipup, but offers an interesting insight into Palin. It is not exactly surprising, or even”ironic,” to use Palin’s words, that somebody who has made a name, and a great deal of money, for herself by linking health care reform to some kind of socialist bogeyman, used to take advantage of socialized medicine. Speaking to a Canadian audience and reminiscing about traveling to Canada for health care as a child is the kind of thing we might expect from a progressive supporter of health care seeking to stress the need for a better health care reform system in the US. Had, for example, Anthony Weiner made this comment while on the Canadian side of the border near New York, you can be sure that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and, yes, Sarah Palin would be seeking to red bait him out of the congress. There will, of course, be no such consequence for Palin. While it is easy to point out the absurdity of somebody who, as a child, was made aware of the shortcomings of the American health care system spending so much energy fighting against the need to change that system, or to mock Palin for seeming to be unaware of just how telling this statement is, it also suggests a few of her political strengths. From the time she became a national figure slightly more than 30 months ago, Palin has been, political opinions aside, a confounding mix of political positives and negatives. She is clearly an effective communicator who is able to connect with audiences, albeit within a somewhat limited demographic bandwidth. She has been reasonably successful in turning her most glaring political weakness, her seeming lack of knowledge of public policy, into a strength. She has done this by constantly reasserting her identity as an outsider to explain this away. Like former President Bush, Palin is rarely burdened by any doubt or sense of nuance, so is able to appeal to voters seeking clear, concise and accessible explanations, regardless of if they are wrong. Palin’s ability to turn weaknesses into strengths makes her a potentially formidable politician, but she is weakened by an unwillingness to truly prepare, study or learn. She has been able to hide this by challenging her critics, but one wonders how much more effective she would be if she immersed herself in the study of even a small number of issues. This latest episode plays very well into Palin’s strengths. It is easy to imagine that in the unlikely event that she was challenged for her statement, she would reply that she is not a Washington insider who studies everything her opponents say waiting for a gaffe, but is out there talking to real people. She would avoid the question of how she evolved from a young person who left the country due to the weakness of the American health care system to a middle-aged person who believes that changing that system puts us on the road to Stalinism by asserting her outsider status. The likely lack of fallout around this issue underscores another of Sarah Palin’s surprising political strengths. Although she has been surrounded by bad stories and mini-scandals for about thirty months, including: attacks from former aids to John McCain , reports of spending extraordinary amounts of RNC money on clothes and makeup , an unexpected resignation from her position as Alaska’s governor punctuated by an almost surreal resignation speech , various issues regarding her family and her one time son-in-law to be and others, none of it has ever really stuck. Palin is a polarizing figure — and will likely remain that way as long as she is on the national stage — but she is also something of an unsinkable one. A key to Palin’s resilience may have been revealed in this latest comment. To Palin it was a throwaway line, good for building a folksy rapport with a Canadian audience. Referring to this as “ironic” is sufficiently cryptic that it is not clear what it even means, but it is clear from her lack of effort to distance herself from this remark that Palin is not really aware of how revealing this admission is. Palin is a complicated political figure, but she may be of less off an ideologue than first thought. Clearly, a true right wing ideologue would probably not have made this revelation. The informality of Palin’s revelation, and her seeming lack of understanding of what it meant, suggests that for Palin, the right wing populism, while fun and easy, is not really grounded in anything other than the advancement of Sarah Palin. More on Sarah Palin

Read the original:
Lincoln Mitchell: Sarah Palin’s Canadian Health Care

Today, President Obama welcomes Mauricio Funes, the president of El Salvador, in what is his first meeting with a Central American head of state at the White House. The Center for Democracy in the Americas has reported on the development of the Funes administration from the time we monitored the elections which brought him and his party, the FMLN, to power through his inauguration to the early successes of his term. Now, Linda Garrett , our organization’s El Salvador consultant, has written an analysis of the issues likely to arise in this meeting and why it important - if not remarkable - that they are meeting at all. Thirty years ago this month Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated by a right-wing hit man with a bullet through his heart as he celebrated Mass. His murder shocked the world. El Salvador spiraled into the chaos of a long civil war, with Washington supporting succeeding conservative governments and the military against the leftist guerrilla coalition, the FMLN, in one of the final confrontations of the Cold War. Now, following twenty years of conservative administrations the FMLN is the party in power and its candidate, Mauricio Funes - a former journalist, not a member of the party - is the democratically elected president of the country. And today President Mauricio Funes will meet with President Obama, the first Central American leader to be received in this White House. The two have much in common: both are young, smart, center-left pragmatic leaders who have assumed power in the midst of severe economic downturn. Both face challenges from the right and left as they attempt to build post-ideological consensus for domestic and foreign policy programs and strategies. They also have a shared interest in helping El Salvador address issues like security and fostering economic growth. To the surprise of many, El Salvador under the leadership of this center-left president and a party representing a former guerrilla army is becoming the most reliable Central American ally of Washington. But whereas the Bush Administration could count on former Salvadoran governments to send troops to Iraq and in essence, as one analyst said, “to act as the lapdog of the State Department,” President Funes is attempting to build a balanced, independent foreign policy. During his first eight months in office the president and his foreign minister Hugo Martinez have normalized diplomatic relations with Cuba, Vietnam and Libya while simultaneously making clear that he looks to Brazilian president Lula de Silva and to Barack Obama as his models for governance, not Venezuela’s president Hugo Chávez. As the Salvadorans pursue an open, non-aligned diplomatic strategy, realities on the ground in the U.S. and in El Salvador require the presidents to forge a close, mutually beneficial relationship. Among the issues of concern that will surely be on the agenda when the two presidents meet is immigration. An estimated 2.5 million Salvadorans live in the United States and the remittances they send home - over $300 million last year - keep the country afloat. Of those 2.5 million, 240,000 benefited from the TPS (Temporary Protection Status) granted in 2001 after Hurricane Mitch. Leaders of the Salvadoran community argue that these hardworking taxpaying immigrants should be given legal residency status. And though immigration reform seems unlikely this year, Salvadorans hope the TPS can be extended in order to legalize the status of more Salvadorans. This is not just an immigration issue, but also a security issue. Some 20,000 Salvadorans are deported from the U.S. every year. Some of the deportees have criminal records or are alleged gang members, and are dumped off planes at Comalapa Airport with nothing but bus fare and no hope for honest employment; many have never lived in the country and have no family, nothing except gang connections. And this has repercussions for the U.S. El Salvador is considered one of the most violent countries in the hemisphere - with an estimated 17,000 known gang members on the streets and 10,000 in prison. According to a recent survey by the mainstream newspaper La Prensa Grafica, nearly 1/3 of all residents of the capital have been affected by criminal activity during the past three months. Though gang activity represents only part of the problem - organized crime has infiltrated government institutions - the situation is so serious that President Funes has ordered the military to participate in joint operations with the National Civil Police. Despite criticism from human rights organizations, and Funes’ understandable reluctance to order his troops to patrol the streets given the history of abuses by the military, the president had few options. The violence could derail his social agenda and destabilize already debilitated government institutions. The bottom line is that increasing violence in El Salvador provides additional opportunity for drug and human trafficking, money laundering and other illicit activities that filter north. Central America is the south to north funnel for cocaine and heroin traffic and thus a security priority for the U.S. The FBI, ATF and DEA are all on the ground in-country and El Salvador hosts the DEA’s “Cooperative Security” monitoring station for the region. But more assistance is needed including funding and technical training for the under-equipped and poorly paid police force. Beyond security, the two nations are also intertwined financially. El Salvador has been on the dollar economy since 2001 and is vulnerable to fluctuations in the U.S. financial system. The crisis in the north also means fewer jobs for immigrants and a reduction in the crucial remittances returned home. President Funes inherited an enormous financial deficit but he and his economic cabinet have skillfully earned the confidence of international financial institutions and of much of the domestic business sector, though some investors say they need greater legal reassurance that their investments will be protected. From immigration to security to economics, the two presidents clearly share great interests and opportunities, but at a higher level, what is most remarkable is that they are meeting at all. We share a complex, sometimes excruciatingly painful history. Many Salvadorans suffered as a consequence of U.S. policy in the 1980’s and some in Washington may be uneasy with the new Salvadoran government. But as the Obama administration recognizes the importance of developing consequential relationships with the southern hemisphere, El Salvador can be a key ally. So why should we - and President Obama - care about El Salvador? One Salvadoran analyst put it this way: “Our impoverishment and/or extinction can destabilize the entire region and this can affect you, Mr. President…For this reason we come to request your aid while we are still living.” More on Latin America

View original post here: 
Sarah Stephens: Why should we care about El Salvador?

Wow. She touched on climate change, saying that her skepticism has been proven by several recent controversies and that money shouldn’t be spent on “pie-in-the-sky, snake-oil ideas.” The vocal opponent of health care reform in the U.S. steered largely clear of the topic except to reveal a tidbit about her life growing up not far from Whitehorse. “We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,” she said. “And I think now, isn’t that ironic.” Who is “she?” She is Sarah Palin. Sarah “Death Panels” Palin. Sarah “Socialism” Palin. Sarah Palin’s freeloading family used to border-hop for Canadian socialist, single payer, death panel health care for themselves, only to return to the U.S., where she grew up to dedicate herself to denying affordable care to you , largely by hoping you’ll believe that the Canadian health care she crossed the border to get sucks so badly, it’ll kill you. Oh, not to mention the favorite Republican claim that passing health care reform in this country will supposedly rip off taxpayers by making health care available to border-hoppers! Who here lives up near the border? How does this work? Was Palin’s family sticking Canadian taxpayers for the bill, or do Americans pay up front for treatment in Canada? Palin thinks the word for this is “ironic.” I think of it more in terms of “going to Hell.” But that’s just me. Religious freedom and all that. (h/t to @Will_Bunch )

Read more:
I got mine. The rest of you can drop the f*@# dead!

My favorites of the Our Gang short films of 75 and 80 years ago (back when “gang” was an innocent term), were the ones where Spanky McFarland became a 9 year-old Ziegfeld, and staged big shows full of all-kid casts on make-shift stages. Well although the Kodak Theater in Hollywood is hardly a make-shift stage, this year’s Oscar producers, Adam Shankman and Bil Mechanic, were so dedicated to the Quixotic task of luring in young viewers, that we were given a show full of presenters that appeared to have gone through puberty during the rehearsals, and I felt like I was seeing The Oscars as produced by Spanky McFarland. Also, bear in mind as we go along that Shankman and Mechanic promised to speed up the ceremony from last year’s, which was just winding up as this year’s attendees were arriving. They opened with the Best Actor and Best Actress nominees all lined up together on the stage. Why? They didn’t even do anything. Were Shenkman and Mechanic just bragging that they’d gotten them all to show up, even though everyone knew who was going to take Best Actor weeks ago? Neal Patrick Harris, in the world’s gayest tuxedo (really, Liberace’s ghost was calling it over the top.), did a fairly pointless opening number, the gist of which seemed to be trying to justify having two hosts, when Steve Martin has shown before that he is perfectly capable of hosting alone. Throughout the evening, Martin was consistently funny, even if his two-facelifts-too-many countenance now looks like an old Chinese man. Baldwin was amusing, but not as funny as Martin, and this was a comedy team that had no need to exist. Penelope Cruz had the honor of being the first person to completely blow a scripted gag. Don’t hire her for comedies. Christopher Plummer was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for playing Leo Tolstoy, one of those truly magnificent writers no one ever actually reads. The first non-surprise of the evening was Best Supporting Actor going to Chrostopher Waltz. The show’s script actually said: “Penelope Cruz gives Best Supporting Actor to Christopher Waltz.” The other nominees had to have presenting gigs to even get them to show up. Waltz showed during his acceptance speech that only someone who could brilliantly play a Nazi could convincingly praise Quentin Tarantino, the most overpraised man in Hollywood. (And that is a hotly-contested title.) Ryan Reynolds introduced the first of the 87 movies nominated for Best Picture, the wretched, two-dimensional, aren’t-white-conservative-gun-nuts-wonderful-people, feel-good movie for Red States, The Blind Side. In the animated bit for Up , Edward Asner got to say “Stop it, Doug,” which is practically my catchphrase around the house. It was interesting to hear people clap for The Secret of Kells , as though they’d seen it, or even heard of it. Now if it had been The Secret of the Krell , I’d know it was that they’d wiped themselves out 20 million years ago by unwittingly unleashing their Id monsters. The category Best Song has changed over the years from actually the Best Song to Least-Forgettable “Song” Stuck Into the Closing Credits in Hope of a Nomination. Frankly, no one has taken this category seriously since it was won by It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp , which didn’t even have a melody. We saw the winning song, The Weary Kind from Crazy Heart , sung for a few seconds by that famous recording artist Colin Ferrall. I have all his album. Winner T-Bone Burnett (Does it say that on his birth certificate?) did the too-cool-for-school affectation of wearing sunglasses indoors at night. He made the mistake of letting his co-winner, Ryan Bingham, say a few words first. Oops. No two-winners-speaking here. What are we, the BAFTAs? T-Bone was whisked off the stage without getting a word in. In the Original Screenplay nominee excerpt from A Serious Man , we read “She hands him a glass and sits on the couch next to him,” while on the screen we saw the actress playing the role sit an the couch and then hand him the glass. The actress’s refusal to do the scene as written ruined the shot, and clearly cost this film its Oscar. As written, performers, do it as written! (And bless comedy goddess Tina Fey for being genuinely funny, as usual.) When did Molly Ringwald become a middle-aged woman? Since the great Mary Travers died last year, Molly has appropriated her look. She and Matthew Broderick presented a special tribute to the late John Hughes. How does Hughes outrank the other great talents that died last year? He was okay I guess (his films did little for me. I liked Planes, Trains & Automoblies , but only because I’ve had sex in all three, once on the same day. Well, more than once.), but Hughes was no Jean Simmons or Larry Gelbart or David Brown or Karl Malden. And then, after the Hughes montage, they brought out every person who had ever appeared in one of his films, and had them go on about him at greater length. This was reaching the point of being an insult to the other greats who died this year who only got 5 seconds each in the montage later in the show. I’m sorry, for me Hughes peaked back when he was writing for The National Lampoon . And is this what they call speeding up the ceremony? During the Short Animated Films (you know, cartoons) montage, the usually-brilliant John Lassiter said: “You know one of the things I like best about short films? They’re short.” I half-expected him to add, “and they’re films.” Later he added: “Tools never make great films.” Don’t let James Cameron or Quentin Tarantino hear you, because those tools both think they’ve made great films. And actually, some films are made by no one but tools. The Oscar for Best animated short went to Logorama , a film with more product placement in 16 minutes that 10 entire seasons of Survivor. So Roger Ross Williams was starting to accept his Oscar for Best Documentary Short for a film titled Music By Prudence , when what I assume was his co-winner, Elinor Burkett, rushed up on stage, shoved him aside, interrupted him by talking over him until he gave up and shut up, and then blathered on, under the delusion that anyone was paying attention to anything but her incredible rudeness. My condolences to Williams if he has to work with this insufferable woman. They not only played over her, but had to shut off her mike to finally get her silenced. Ironically, the presentation for short films was particularly long, as not only are there three awards to give out, but the winners are seated at The Los Angeles Music Center, 10 miles away, and we had to wait until they were bussed to the stage. Ben Stiller came out made up as a smurf, and made random noises, saying that this had seemed a better idea at rehearsal. They must have been doing some heavy drugs at rehearsal. But then, when isn’t Ben Stiller doing a bit that “seemed like a good idea at rehearsal”? Star Trek won Best Make Up for pointlessly concealing Eric Bana’s great beauty, although I think that should have been punished, not rewarded. The look-at-the-script-while-we-watch-the-scene-it-became bit was repeated for Best Adapted Screenplay, but it would have made more sense to show us pages of the original, and then the adaptation, so we’re seeing the essence of adaptation. Someone needed to think this through better. The award went to Jeffrey Fletcher for adapting the movie Precious, based on the novel Push by Sapphire from the novel Push by Sapphire. And I’d thought it was an original screenplay. He cried, so now I know where Mo’Nique gets it. He wrote her Golden Globes tears for her. Queen Latifah came out and told us about the Oscars which were handed out in stealth way the hell back on November 14th to Gordon Willis, John Calley, Lauren Becall, and the great, underrated-because-he-won’t-allow-you-to-overrate-him Roger Corman. I was disgusted when these awards were handed out so surreptitiously at the time, and wrote a column about them, especially Roger Corman, called The Stealth Oscars , which you can read by clicking on it. Shameful. Only two of the stealth winners, Lauren and Roger, even got to go to the real Oscar ceremony, and they weren’t allowed to come up onstage or speak. They’re old. I’d rather listen to Roger and Lauren, both genuine movie legends, than to Zoe Saldana, Amanda Seyfried, Miley Cyrus, or Taylor Lautner, all of of whom did get to speak, and none of whom had the slightest idea who Lauren Becall or Roger Corman even are. As Robin Williams came out to hand out Best Supporting Actress, towels were being handed out, sandbags were being piled up, and dykes were being asked to lie in front of the stage. It was almost as though all were resigned to Mo’Nique taking the award. During the nominees montage we got to see Maggie Gyllenhall being moved by her own performance. Who knew Crazy Heart wasn’t a one-man show? Sure enough, Mo’Nique Based on the novel Push by Sapphire won. She’s learned from the reactions she received to her sodden Golden Globes acceptance speech and her stern angry SAG Awards acceptance speech. This time she took a solemn approach, appropriate to the seriousness in which she holds herself. (This woman is actually a stand-ip comedienne? I’ve watched her accept three awards now - thank Heaven she didn’t attend the BAFTAs - and I’ve yet to hear her make even one joke, or go near getting a laugh, or even a smile.) No, this time she was in full-of-herself mode, with how significant and important she sees this meaningless publicity moment as. And she’d also learned not to improvise her speech. Clearly every word of this one was written, memorized, and rehearsed, in the sure and certain knowledge that she had it in the bag. First she closed her eyes and stood solemn and serious, like a preacherette waiting to deliver God’s Word, basking in the standing ovation that her section of the audience had started, and the rest of the sheep in the room reluctantly joined in. (This was not one of those the-whole-audience-leaps-to-its feet-cheering-spontaneously moments. It was serious, dutiful, and rehearsed.) Once everyone was aware that she was Mother Theresa reborn, she began speaking quietly, forcefully, and seriously. It was a more calculated performance than the one in her bleak, depressing movie. “First I would like to thank the Academy for showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics.” I loved the “it can be,” not “it is” but “it can be.” Secondly, what politics? Were the Republicans pushing for Maggie Gyllenhall? Frankly, I was beginning to think maybe it was just the opposite. But this speech was clearly going to be about the performance: the one she was giving as she spoke. “I’d like to thank Miss Hattie McDaniel for enduring all that she had to, so that I would not have to.” Hattie never heard of you, Mo darling. But yes, let’s thank Hattie for having a nice life as a movie star, as Hattie herself pointed out, making a fortune playing maids instead of a pittance being a maid. One thing Hattie never was was full-of-herself. The next lines were more mysterious, and more unintentionally funny. (Nothing like an un intentionally funny stand-up comedienne.) “Tyler Perry and Orpah Winfrey, because you touched it, the whole world saw it.” Dare I ask what “it” is? Whatever “it” is, I don’t want to watch Tyler Perry touch it. However, if she meant the movie, the “whole world” hasn’t seen it. I certainly haven’t and won’t. This week Entertainment Weekly described Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire thusly: “A harrowing nightmare of domestic abuse so bleak that it’s a miracle director Lee Daniels finds a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.” I spend money on movie admissions for a good time, not for bleak, harrowing nightmares of domestic abuse, fun as that sounds. And even if it were something I’d want to subject myself to, Mo’Nique’s I’m-Elinor-Roosevelt-and-Mother-Theresa-combined full-of-herself acceptance appearances would put me off forever. She then thanked her lawyer (That was a True Hollywood Moment), her BET family, her Precious Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire family, and finally her husband, to whom she delivered this gem: “Thank you for showing me that sometimes you have to forgo doing what’s popular to do what’s right, and baby [looking at the Oscar in her hand] you were so right.” So her winning an Oscar was what it was all about? In any event, Mo, you made a movie, a successful movie. You weren’t feeding the hungry in Haiti, or getting medical supplies to the survivors in Chili, or even marching for civil rights, facing bigoted cops and angry lynch mobs. You were making a movie. You had a trailer, crafts services, and a personal assistant, if not several. And now you have an Oscar. I’m told you gave a very good performance. You certainly proved yourself an actress as you accepted. But it’s an Oscar, not a Nobel Prize, or sainthood. Over yourself, get you must. At least she bestowed God’s blessing on everyone this time, rather than thanking God for her award. Apparently God didn’t arrange for this one. And, of course, she said not a word about the other nominees in her category. After all, they were all whores who were doing what was popular, and depending on politics to win, while she was an artiste doing what was right, and receiving her just-if-barely-adequate reward. Thank Heaven she can’t get an Emmy for it too. At least this is her last award show coronation, I mean acceptance speech, that I’ll have to endure. Best Production Design went to The Smurf Movie. Oh well, when you have to design a whole planet from scratch, it is a large job. Two winners got to speak. The first designer began kissing James Cameron’s butt, but before he could nauseate the whole room, he was shoved aside so a co-winner could make it about his own overcoming of a death-sentence-illness to survive to this triumph. Though I don’t know who he was, nor what his illness was, it’s more enjoyable to listen to than people praising Cameron’s genius. James can handle that himself better than anyone. Best Costumes went to The Young Victoria , for digging through the trunks in the attics at Windsor Castle, to unearth out the musty outfits Queen Victoria Principal made the British People pay for a century ago. Three time Oscar Winner Sandy Powell graciously acknowledged the designers who do less-showy work on cheaper, contemporary films, who usually go unrewarded. (Let’s face it, the Costume Oscar almost always goes to Costume Movies), though she honestly said she was keeping the award. You see Mo’Nique, that’s how you accept an award graciously, modestly, and with humor. There was an unintended irony to Sarah Jessica Parker Broderick presenting Best Costumes while she was being strangled by her own gown. At least I assume it was strangling her, as otherwise her reaching up to adjust the sash cutting into her throat while her co-presenter Tom Ford spoke was just deliberate upstaging. Surely such a seasoned pro wasn’t so small as to deliberately try to draw attention away from her co-presenter? Yes, it must have been her gown attacking her. Adorable infant Taylor Lautner took time away from doing a late term paper which will be 50% of his grade to introduce a time-wasting-but-enjoyable montage tribute to horror movies with the odd statement: “Although the most popular genre of movie is horror…” Oh really? That will be news to makers of comedies, women’s melodramas, gangster movies, even westerns. I love them (Well, I love classical ones. The torture-porn trash of film makers like Eli Roth just revolt me. I loved the new The Wolfman .), but they’re hardly “the most popular genre of movie.” Lautner and his co-presenter, Kristin Stewart star in those atrocious Twilight movies, and which are full of vampires and werewolves, they are not horror movies. They are horr ible movies, but their genre is fantasy tween Mormon romance porn. Lautner went on: “…somehow [horror] doesn’t seem to command the respect it deserves.” Of course, many feel it does command “the respect it deserves,” though I am not one of them I still feel Boris Karloff was robbed when he wasn’t nominated for Bride of Frankenstein . Some Academy historian should have vetted Kristin’s speech, and prevented her blatant error: “It’s been thirty-seven long years since horror had it’s place on this show, when The Exorcist

More here: 
Tallulah Morehead: The Our Gang Oscars.

The Times March 06, 2010 - Ginny Dougary Pauline Prescott talks to Ginny Dougary about public humiliation, private anguish - and why her husband now does the housework Pauline Prescott and I have been instructed to keep the volume down by a prefectorial therapist down the corridor from our tiny “treatment” room, where we are sitting opposite one another across a table, mercifully, rather than a collapsible massage bed. For one of us, at least, the pre-emptive admonition is redundant. Paul, as she is known by her husband (she calls him Prescott, as in, so she says, “Move it, Prescott”) has the dulcet tones that our greatest playwright celebrated, “Her voice was ever soft/ Gentle and low, an excellent thing in a woman.” The former Deputy Prime Minister, however, unlike Shakespeare, apparently ticks off his wife for speaking too quietly. Well, tick-off shtick-off… Since Traceygate, the balance of power in their 50-year marriage has, Mrs Prescott confirms, shifted (irrevocably, one suspects) to her advantage. She has just emerged from a photo shoot in one of the elegantly dilapidated rooms of the House of St Barnabas in Soho, formerly a home for the homeless, still a charity, and now doubling as a pop-up private members’ club for the metropolitan chic crowd. Her appearance is, as ever, immaculate. Unaccustomed as she still is to her turn in the limelight, however, Mrs P had a slightly wobbly moment in the ladies’ loo worrying that she didn’t look groomed enough (as if) for the photos. Pauline’s appearance is - to use her favourite word - absolutely “fab”: the familiar jeujed-up raven mane, spidery eyelashes (a mixture of falsies and natural, truly fabulash), a tailored black trouser suit and fitted cream shirt (Jaeger), and a trio of black patent-leather accessories - a wide belt with a Courrèges-ish silver clasp, faintly dominatrix spike-heeled ankle boots, and a big slouchy shoulder bag. Talk about the “wow!” factor. Her style has often been commented on - not always kindly - but this has more to do with its almost anachronistically high-maintenance glamour, particularly in the UK, where the prevailing look is more understated. In Italy or even New York - with her Nancy Dell’Olio nails’n'lashes femininity - Mrs P would blend in just peachily. She looks great at 71 but, boy, she was something else in her youth. The cover of her new and first book, Smile Though Your Heart Is Breaking - a none too oblique reference to her husband’s two-year affair with his secretary, Tracey Temple - has a photograph of her as a wide-eyed ingénue, recalling a young Jean Simmons or Elizabeth Taylor (whom Pauline was often said to look like, although when John was wooing her, she tells us gamely, he said she reminded him of - what a charmer - Joyce Grenfell). In another life, although she has no regrets at all about having been a full-time mother and housewife, Mrs P would have liked to have gone into fashion: “When I get up in the morning, it’s fashion TV straight on. I love all that. Yes, well, I could have done that. That’s probably what I would have done.” As a designer? “Not particularly, well, sewing clothes - I just love to wear them. I love Valentino and if I was to choose somebody to dress me, it would be Armani - I just adore his clothes. But I’m also wearing clothes, since I can still get into them, that I’ve had for about 30 years. Vintage, you know, and when I put them on, people say, ‘Wow! Like that suit!’” She was dead chuffed that Sarah Brown had invited her to the next evening’s Fashion Relief charity show to raise funds for Haiti, and the following day’s newspapers showed shots of Pauline alongside the PM’s wife and Naomi Campbell. John Prescott was also handsome as a young man, the couple cutting a considerable dash as they jived around the dance halls of Chester: “He was so much like Robert Wagner. Oh very much, and Dirk Bogarde - a cross between the two,” Pauline says. I ask her, rather baldly, whether she feels he has lost his looks. “Well… ah… we all get older. But, I mean, to me, he’s my John and…” But you can still see him objectively - the weight gain and so on? “Yes, he has put on weight but he has diabetes, you know. I think he carries it well. He’s very fit, actually. [They jived together at their local Chinese restaurant the previous week.] He goes to the gym and that sort of thing. But looks are only skin-deep. That’s what they say, don’t they?” She likes people to be smart - not surprisingly, since she makes such an effort herself - but they don’t have to be beautiful or slim. In fact, she says - and this is unexpected - John met Gok “How to Look Good Naked” Wan, the other day: “And he said, ‘He’s the most charming young man’ - they got on extremely well.” After the Prescotts’ television forays into programmes on class and the North-South divide, is it possible that John and Gok are going to do a TV show together? What an amazing idea… “No, I don’t think so,” Pauline laughs gaily but not entirely unequivocally. Actually, her husband is full of surprises. Who would have thought, for instance, that John Prescott would have any interest in reading the seminal feminist novel The Women’s Room, by the American author, Marilyn French, which honed in on the frustrations and depressions of a generation of stay-at-home suburban moms. “It was a staggering revelation to me that someone could feel like they were in a trap and couldn’t get out of it,” he said. “It must be terrible, absolutely terrible.” More intriguing is the question of who pressed the book on him since it wasn’t his wife, who hasn’t read it herself: “No, I didn’t make him read it, actually I don’t read books very much, quite frankly,” she says. “I’m a great television person, really.” Her husband apparently is a great reader, mainly biographies: “He’s absolutely Oliver Cromwell mad… He was his hero, and Churchill, as well.” Pauline had her first brush with women’s lib in the late Sixties, when she worked as a hairdresser to support John, who was studying economics and economic history at University of Hull: “There was this whole women’s group sort of thing, and I was asked to join them to [protest] against this pub that men used to go to where women weren’t allowed in, but I said, ‘Why shouldn’t the men go there for a drink? I don’t give a toss!’ I mean, I go for a drink with my female friends and it’s nice to be on your own without men, isn’t it? You don’t need to be escorted. Afterwards John said, ‘You didn’t go down at all well with the sisters, Pauline.’” After the news of his affair broke, four decades on, it was another group of “sisters” (Harriet Harman, Tessa Jowell, et al) who phoned Pauline to offer their support: “They’ve been great with me, absolutely lovely, and I got on well with all of them.” Up to now, Pauline Prescott has been the most discreet and private of politicians’ wives. “I’ve always kept my distance and people have thought, I’m like a bit of a mouse, maybe,” she says. “You can cause a great deal of embarrassment to your husband when he’s in the position he was in, and if I had given my views… Well, I don’t always agree with John, you see, so…” It was her boys, as she still calls them, who encouraged her to do the book - “Go on, Mum, go for it!” - after she had been approached by various publishers. She has two sons by Prescott, Jonathan, 47, a businessman who now acts as her agent (negotiating a fee of £350,000, not far behind his father’s £500,000 book deal in 2008), David, 40, a former journalist who is hoping to become an MP, when his father stands down after 40 years representing Hull East, and Paul Watton, 54, the son of a married US serviceman, whom she had given up for adoption. Their happy (newspaper-orchestrated) reunion, some years back, was the subject of a prolonged media blitz. Pauline is full of praise for her book’s ghostwriter, Wendy Holden, and - with characteristic modesty - feels that it was she, not Holden, who was fortunate to be paired with such a collaborator. “You know she did Goldie Hawn’s book,” she says. “And after me, she went over to do Barbara Sinatra!” How did she find the experience? “Well, I said, ‘I’ll probably clam up and end up stuttering,’ but it was like an unlocking - it just all flowed out. It’s been very therapeutic - we laughed, we cried - places that have been locked up for years because, of course, my boys didn’t know about my baby Paul… Lots of things like that. “For years, people had never really asked me a great deal about my point of view, apart from my friends, and I’ve always kept quiet because of John. And I’m speaking because you’re asking about me basically, aren’t you? And so, yeah, I can let out my points of view now, without causing any embarrassment to John.” One of the problems with this sort of book deal - the perils of Pauline, indeed - is the commercial quid pro quo, meaning Mrs P has had to invade her own privacy to a degree and dwell on matters that she would rather not have in the public domain. Although she writes about the affair in her book, she is not really comfortable talking about it, certainly not the specifics: “I don’t want to get in to too much depth about that. I have described how I felt about the affair and I accept the fact that he had it but the personal stuff - it happened and that’s it. End of story. I don’t bear any grudges and I don’t want to get into anything else about that.” It would obviously have been easier to handle if the Prescotts had not been so much in the public eye, but she says: “When it happens to a woman, it’s devastating no matter who they are. But when you have to do it in the eyes of the media… I mean, the next day it was just bedlam outside my house - it’s in a cul-de-sac and all the camera people were there.” How could we forget it? John had fled to Dorneywood but Pauline insisted she had done nothing wrong and was damn well going to stay put in her own home and - what’s more - go right ahead and have her new, swanky downstairs loo installed. I tell her that we all loved her for that; it might just have been her finest hour. Certainly, there could be no question that Mrs P would be leant on to do one of those grisly “Disgraced MP embraced by sorrowful but forgiving family” photo opportunities. “That was like my mum,” she says. “My mum was so feisty. It’s sort of like a northern thing… Just get on with it. “But your self-esteem does take a hell of a battering… My boys and my daughters-in-law and my friends were a huge help and the letters I received! I tried to answer them all… But if you could just pop this in” - I’m happy to oblige - “‘Thank you to all the people who wrote to me.’ You know, you can’t run away from things because it’s always there to meet you.” There was more northern grit in her insistence on reading every newspaper exposé: “John said, ‘You’re putting yourself through an awful lot more pain.’ I used to sit at home watching what was going to be in the papers on Sky. I saw the whole lot. You can’t confront anything until you’ve seen exactly what you are going up against, frankly.” She holds no truck with the idea that the loneliness of the Westminster lifestyle - the late nights, work stress, separation from your family and so on - might be tough on a red-blooded man. In fact, she gives me an hilariously old-fashioned look when I go down this path. “No, if a man wants to do it, he’ll find a way of doing it. You can travel and it can happen at any time, can’t it? “And let’s face it, I’ve been married all these years and I have never had an affair.” Have you ever been tempted? “No.” Have you never even been attracted to another man? “Oh, yes! I’ve looked at somebody and thought, ‘You’re handsome.’ You still do, don’t you? But I think about what I would be losing and I don’t think it’s worth it, quite frankly. And to lose the respect of your family, as well.” Has John regained that respect? “Yes, he has because he was deeply, deeply ashamed and sorry. Some people thought, ‘A bit of a doormat, hanging on there,’ and that sort of thing. But you don’t throw your life away. You like your lifestyle and all that, and you’ve got your family to consider. I couldn’t have accepted it if there had been love involved - and John said there was no love, and so I have accepted that.” You said that if it had been “a quickie in a cupboard” you could have handled that. “No, funnily enough, I didn’t really say that. I didn’t check that in the book and it was Wendy who put that in. It wouldn’t have been my terminology to describe it that way. But if it had been once at, like, an office party - I could have accepted that. What was hurtful was the deceit of the whole two years.” The affair seemed to have happened around the same time as the newspaper revelations about Pauline’s son, Paul, about whom John had always known. “Yes, it was, funnily enough, and some people have said to me, ‘Oh, did that trigger it?’ But no, because our marriage was good. It has always been good. That’s why it was like a bolt out of the blue. “What he did was very wrong and dreadfully humiliating, you know, and I don’t and won’t forgive him because, in my mind, to forgive is to condone. I’m sad when I think about it - I just think about what we had - but I’m not bitter. If I felt bitter about it, then I couldn’t have stayed with him - so you just move on from that.” Do you talk about it any more? “You can’t not talk about it and we have been very open. People ask me for advice and I say, ‘Well, you know, frankly, you have to…’” She stops. “Sorry, give me a minute. It still gets to you.” Oh, I’m sorry. “No, no, it’s all right. No, it’s OK. We speak openly about these things… but you don’t dwell on it. If you keep going on about it, then you can’t move on, can you? But you don’t just say, ‘Right, I forgive you,’ and then forget it.” Do you understand why and how it happened? “Not really, because I couldn’t have done a thing like that.” Do you believe that men are different, then? “Yes, because they can block it off and it’s sort of on one side, in a little box over there. They musn’t have a conscience. But women can’t do that, can they? I don’t know. I couldn’t. “And I’m not judgmental about people - I’m really, really not - but I couldn’t live with myself. I’d have to tell and clear my conscience immediately. I’d want to be, sort of, ‘Forgive me, please.’” When you insisted that he didn’t resign over the affair, how much of that was about you not wanting to give up the lifestyle? “I’ll be honest, I enjoyed it, obviously. John’s brilliant and I was very proud of him being Deputy Prime Minister. We were together as a family unit and we’d all worked very hard for what he’d done, and I didn’t want to see it thrown away, just because of that [the affair]. He’d earned it. And it was coming on to an election, so you can’t do that. He would definitely have resigned but I said, ‘No!’ And so we sat down with the boys and had a proper discussion about it.” Incidentally, Pauline would like to point out that her husband, like the “very charismatic, warm, lovely” PM, “is so well thought of on the world stage. It’s just our own people that mock them. That is what annoys me. With John, they make him out to be stupid because of the way he can’t put his words together. No problem connecting with people, though!” I wonder how her husband has changed towards her. She says that he has always been thoughtful - although he’s not particularly touchy-feely, more of an “actions speak louder than words” man: buying flowers and bringing her cups of tea in bed. She says in her book that, post-Tracey, she has become stronger and he has become softer. To me, she says: “I think he appreciates me more, and doesn’t take me for granted. He’s very, very thoughtful. He likes to surprise you and take you somewhere nice. He’s a very, very kind man and fond and, quite frankly, if he sees you’re tired, it’s not a case of, ‘Oh, that’s your work, woman.’ “Actually, the other week, I said to John that I was so far behind in my housework - it’s a big house, and I’ve never had any help for it - and I said, ‘I’ve got to wax this whole floor, can you put the wax on?’ So he does jobs like that. And then I said, ‘And while you’re down there, wash the skirting boards.’” Well! That truly is a shift in the power dynamic, isn’t it? (I’m thinking Joseph Losey’s The Servant, here.) She laughs: “But it’s true. I’m not just saying that.” What intrigues me about her husband are his neuroses behind all that strop and swagger. Just the other week, he gave a classic Prescottian performance on Newsnight - eyes blazing, jowls quivering - defending Gordon Brown against the PM’s would-be nemesis, Andrew Rawnsley. But to read about his crippling social awkwardness - an inability to enter a public room, for instance, without his wife going in first (”He gets very self-conscious, even now,” she says) - let alone the bulimia in such a big, macho fisticuffs fella, is as fascinating as Tony Soprano’s reliance on his shrink. It was Pauline’s mother, interestingly, who first spotted her son-in-law’s odd behaviour around food. “Yes, my mum picked that up and said, ‘Keep any eye on him, Pauline, I think something’s wrong there.’” Had her mother come across bulimia before? “No, she just noticed little signs and she was very wise.” It seems strange to me that Pauline hadn’t observed something herself, on his breath for instance. Anyway, she says, “He’s completely through that now.” His favourite dish of hers is lamb hotpot, “but in my fridge, I always say, ‘Look, you make your own choice here,’ because you can’t treat people like children, can you? There’s the naughty bits - and, I mean, I love my naughty bits, too - but there’s always loads of fruit at the bottom.” (I ask her about her famous sandwiches - much commented on for their perfect crustless triangles. “Isn’t that funny? Do other people do big doorsteps or something? Shall I tell you who taught me? John did, because he used to be a waiter at sea and everything was done in style and, you know, even my boys do the most wonderful sandwiches. It’s good presentation.”) Is she able to explain why her husband has these hang-ups? “I don’t really know, only John can answer that. He is quite a complex character, I suppose,” she says. “But I’m a great believer that these things stem from childhood. You know, he saw his father, Bert - a big philanderer - kissing a lady, when John was young, and he went to the police station and said, ‘Arrest my father,’ and I think it all stems from that.” It was his mother, Phyllis, however, who told a journalist about Pauline’s baby, Paul, which is how the story got out. “Well, yes, that was upsetting. I wasn’t happy about it at all. And after all those years, yes, it was rather sad.” Had Phyllis lost it mentally? “No.” So she knew exactly what she was doing? “Oh, yeah.” What on earth was her motivation? “The sensationalism of it? It is strange, actually.” But then, since it seems that her natural inclination is to be both fair and positive, Pauline lists Phyllis’s virtues: “She came from strong mining stock and was a brilliant woman and a brilliant mother. She liked to control and when I came on the scene she was not, you know, happy [particularly with an out-of-wedlock baby in tow]… But knowing all that was going on with the father, she did keep the whole family of five children together, and John was the head of that family. “She was a very kind lady, too. I used to make my clothes, but she was a wonderful seamstress and used to make them for me, too. She worked at a mental hospital in Chester and not only did she teach the patients dress-making but she put on a fashion show for them with a catwalk and everything. She was a good mum, really, and I did tell John, ‘You weren’t very warm about your mum in the book.’” Old habits die hard, and although, perhaps for the first time in the past four decades of public life, Pauline feels she can speak her own mind, she is still protective of her John. So when I ask her what she thought of him telling Tony Blair that the way the former PM paraded his deputy’s working-class credentials made him feel “like a performing seal”, her first response is, “How bloody stupid!” then, “Oh, I can’t really give a view on that.” Who was on the phone more to her husband, Tony or Gordon, in Prescott’s role as a sort of marriage counsellor? “It was pretty even-stevens - it was, well, I knew quite a lot of what was going on then, but you don’t really say - but it was an interesting time, you know… to say the least.” Like she says, looks are only skin-deep and I think her looks had distracted me from her qualities as a person. Pauline has none of the chippiness or awkwardness of her husband - who also emerges as a more three-dimensional human figure after talking to her - but is hugely appreciative of all the good things that have come her way. If he is a glass half empty, she is a glass half full, and that just might be the secret of their long marriage’s equilibrium. She seems pretty convinced that her husband will go into the Lords - “They want him to go into the Lords and it’s common knowledge that he would like it.” So you will be Lady Prescott, how cool is that? “My God, yes! He’s leader of the Council of Europe, so he’ll still do that and he’s very much into the environment and works with Al Gore [her favourite world figure: "He is a very handsome man"] so that’s what he’ll do from the Lords when he steps down.” Prescott used to joke that his wife didn’t need to be a Lady since she was already one, and I see what he means. She has a natural dignity and grace, with no hint of brashness. She reminded me of the actress Gina McKee, that same soft northern voice and manner, with the occasional glimpse of Alison Steadman (circa Abigail’s Party). She’s also fun, telling me how delighted she was to be told “by someone from gay liberation that I am a gay icon”. She is having the time of her life, right now, and like “the sisters” and her sons, one wants to urge her, “Go for it, Pauline!” “Do you know what? I’m getting very feisty in my old age,” she says. “It’s a different ball game because people know me for me now. I’ve never craved attention nor have I shunned the limelight. Parliament and so on, I just adored all that. And even now, I’m not thinking, ‘Right, where’s this going to take me?’ If things happen, they happen and, quite frankly, at my age - you know - I don’t need anything, do I? But I must say, I’m enjoying this.” Fab. * * * Smile Though Your Heart is Breaking by Pauline Prescott, published by HarperCollins, is out now http://www.ginnydougary.co.uk

Read more here: 
Ginny Dougary: Pauline Prescott: ‘John would have resigned over his affair’

Good job Kathleen Sebelius ! The Secretary stayed on message as MTP host David Gregory hammered away at her. At last our team’s word magicians seem to be getting something right. Have they finally communed with the average citizen and their financial fears, or was this a fleeting aberration? There is only hope (no pun intended) because we’ve been losing the battle of word speak to the American public on so many issues, including health care insurance reform. One wonders how this happened with a President known for his masterful ability to communicate — which is the great irony of the Obama administration. Where are the mighty and masterful word guys? And why did they send only this messenger to the Sunday political talk shows? Is this the right venue, or was this a test for a bigger and broader message campaign this week on health care reform? Was Sebelius the sacrificial lamb? That is, let’s see if she sinks or swims because she’s good and will survive with a little water damage — right? Well thank goodness Sebelius stayed on message, and won’t be water boarded. But now, does she get to be poster “Barbie” as we enter the home stretch of health care reform? Or will the spin doctors roll out a cabal of white men with plain speak? Or better yet, why are we at the point that we need OUR version of a poster “Barbie” (code word for a white, middle class female) to break through the Southern white male noise machine against this legislation? Madame Secretary of Health certainly is OUR version of Barbie. She is competent, and more Hillary Clintonesque than the former Governor of Alaska - the illustrious Sarah Louise Palin. Maybe it’s a good thing that OUR version trumps competence over fanfare and jiggle. But one asks, is this the right time for competence over amusement — on even the most serious of issues? Or better yet, are OUR spin doctors smart enough to give Madame Secretary of Health the material necessary to pull it off? We will certainly see as we careen toward the Congressional spring recess. More on Health Care

Go here to see the original:
Michelle Kraus: New Buzz: Health Care Security on Meet the Press. Will it work and will the messenger be successful?

My first act of civil disobedience was a protest I led in fifth grade against a teacher who wouldn’t call on the girls as often as the boys. And I was angry. In high school, when I volunteered for Planned Parenthood, I walked past the throng of anti-choice protestors, with their disgusting signs and false pamphlets and atrocious chants about “baby killers,” and I donated my time and money and put a bumper sticker on my car. And I was angry. In college, I watched the theft of the White House. I watched the Republican aides from Capitol Hill stage their faux protests in Florida, waving signs that said “Sore Loserman.” And I was angry. In the fall of 2002, I attended my first anti-war protest in Golden Gate Park, when the drumbeats for war against Iraq were growing louder and louder. And I was angry. In 2004, I wrote my first response to a blog posting about how all the dirty fucking hippies were anti-American because they dared to criticize George W. Bush’s illegal war in Iraq. And I was angry. And I became Angry Mouse. Why are you so angry? Who among us followed the 2004 election and didn’t feel inspired by Howard Dean because of his raw anger at what we were witnessing done to our country? Dean was mocked by the right (and the traditional media, and even many on the left) because he was “too angry.” But it was his anger that resonated with us, that spoke to us, that drove us to take our feelings of helplessness and frustration and do something with it. Because we were angry. Who survived the Bush years without feeling a tremendous sense of outrage? Who among us watched the Republican National Convention in 2008 and didn’t feel seething rage at the blatant bigotry and ignorance espoused by a party that has long capitalized on anger? I made my first donation to Barack Obama’s campaign after I watched Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech at that Convention. It wasn’t inspiration that motivated me. It was anger. We were riveted when Barack Obama stood on that stage in August of 2008 and shouted, “ENOUGH!” We cheer when Keith Olbermann delivers his Special Comments. We rejoice when Rep. Alan Grayson blasts the Republicans for their “die quickly” answer to our health care crisis. We applaud when Rep. Anthony Weiner stands on the floor of the House and insists, repeatedly, that every single Republican is in the pocket of the insurance industry. We cheer, we applaud, sometimes we even weep with relief to see our anger articulated because we know it is true and right. They speak for us. They say what we cannot, or will not, say. It is not their anger that defeats us; it is the suppression of our anger. It is the misguided belief that if we bury our anger, tone it down, find a way to support our positions without the passion, it will somehow serve us better. We buy into the myth that anger is unhealthy. Unproductive. Wrong. Why are you so angry? We like to think of ourselves as somehow above it. We don’t need to be angry; we have facts on our side. We don’t need to be angry; we have justice on our side. We don’t need to be angry; we’re right. And our righteousness should be enough. But we sacrifice anger at our own expense. Because anger is what motivates us to act. It converts our frustration and feelings of helplessness into something productive. When faced with a stressful situation, we can be paralyzed by our fear or proactive in our anger. And fear never got anything done. But anger? Anger begets action. Anger is a natural reaction to seeing something we know is wrong. How we express our anger matters, but that feeling, that raw emotion, is important. It’s necessary. And who among us who reads the news, who sees the injustices in our country and around the world, does not feel anger? Why are you so angry? The warning is in my name. I’m not Complacent Mouse. I’m not Easy Going Mouse. I’m Angry Mouse. And I don’t mince my words in the hopes of converting anyone who blushes at a four-letter word or wishes I’d tone down my anger. I leave the calm and moderated tones for the sedate NPR commentators, the too-cute-by-half columnists at the New York Times, the oh-so-reasonable talking heads on the Sunday talk shows, the members of Congress who insist upon referring to each other as their “esteemed colleagues from the other side.” Yes, I’m angry. Angry at a two-party system that favors corporations over people; angry at a justice system that most severely punishes those who are least able to fight back; angry at the media who refuses to call a lie a lie; angry at a health care system that allows private corporations to profit by allowing the sick to suffer and die; angry at the terrorists who want to deprive women of our reproductive autonomy; angry at the misogynists who want us to know our place; angry at the Democratic leadership — and yes, even some of our fellow “progressives” — for treating women’s rights as a fringe issue; angry at anyone who feels the need to question whether it’s really necessary to be so angry. You’re goddamned right I’m angry. And you should be too.

The rest is here: 
You Sure Are Angry

Oscar alumni Joel and Ethan Coen … Oy those two, oy. What an elusive duo they can be. Like it was surprising they even sat down with us, at a roundtable no less, to talk about their latest pic, A Serious Man . But at the end they allowed no photo…? They don’t want us to show their shana punim? Perhaps they are stacking Oscars like so many Torah that they want something to remain elusive about them. After having riddled their films with the snarky sort of humor that could sometimes be tagged as Jewish — a bit sardonic, something unforgiving yet with a heart and soul beneath the hardened crust — the Coen boys strip away the goyish drapings (witness The Big Lebowski or Fargo ) and reveal their Yiddishe kop through this decidedly Hebraic film. However tribal, it got this directing and writing sibling team yet another Oscar nom for Best Picture, and a whole slew of other trophies to boot. But ain’t that the Coens! They did it in 2008 for No Country For Old Men and virtually shaped a new genre. Though called auteurs, the brothers make films that actually sell tickets and draw huge followings. No less a talent than Jeff Bridges was rallied by the Coens’ directorial embrace, and he’s been quite the dude ever since. Balancing a love for black comedy with a skill for telling homage-laden crime tales, the 50-something Coens’ catalog undulates between the two genres. As for this year, A Serious Man appears to be their most autobiographical comic turn, yet one that draws on their dark vision-making as well. Opening with a sequence entirely spoken in 19th century Russian shtetl, Yiddish, the film shifts to mid-20th century America and to physics professor Larry Gopnik (Tony Award nominee Michael Stuhlbarg ) who has just been told by his wife Judith ( Sari Lennick ) that she is leaving him for the pompous older neighbor Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed ). With a household full mishegosh — there’s Larry’s unemployable brother nebbish Arthur ( Richard Kind ), pot-smoking pisher son Danny ( Aaron Wolff ) who’s screwing up his bar mitvah lessons, and nudnick daughter Sarah ( Jessica McManu s) kvetching about her nose more than her family’s trauma — this schmendrick fantasizes abut screwing his sexy goyish neighbor while schvitizing about his pending tenure hearing and ever-growing complications. Q: What were your bar mitzvahs like? Do you remember the passage you had to read ? EC: God no. JC: No. Q: So what was the experience like for you guys? Did you read just the [Haftorah]? Or did you read from the Torah too? EC: You didn’t read all the Torah portions. One or two; I can’t remember. JC: But it was pretty typical, conservative congregation, circa 1967. I don’t know what they do now, to be honest with you. I mean I’ve been to a few in New York; they’re not that different. There wasn’t anything out of the ordinary…I with I could say something interesting happened. Q: You didn’t feel the competition to see if you got more presents than the other kids? EC: Yeah, with your peers you compare what the haul was. Q: And between the brothers as well? EC: No because there are three years’ difference, so not so much. As in the movie, we each got a kiddush cup from the Gift of the Sisterhood. Q: Do you still have them? EC: Joel has his. I don’t know what happened to mine. Q: You love using local actors rather than the better known New York/LA ones. How do you think that added to the feel of the movie ? EC: Midwestern Jews is a different community, is a different thing than New York Jews, LA Jews. It’s just different. It’s the whole Midwestern thing. It isn’t just about a Jewish community. The geographic thing is kind of specific, so that was important to us. JC: That area happens to be a place where you can find lots of good local…it’s not true everywhere. But you can find lots of very, very good local actors there. So there’s a practical reason as well as an aesthetic reason. EC: Yeah, it’s a largely local cast. Sari Lennick, who plays the wife, she’s great, she lives there. Ari Hoptman, who plays the head of the department, all the kids were local. Q: What about Michael Stuhlbarg — he’s like a local New York actor known in theater, but another unknown in genera l. EC: Well Joel knew him, slightly. We’d both seen him in a few plays, and you knew him from the project, right? JC: Yeah, I knew him from stuff he’s done in theater and from the Second Street Project. Q: Are you involved in that as well? JC: Well I’m not but my wife [actress Frances McDormand who has starred in several of the Coen's films] has been involved with it for 20-something years. Q: They went up to your place in the country? JC: Yeah. How did you know that? Q: He’s one of the Second Street Project guys. Do you have any more theater projects coming up [for example, Ethan had a set of three one act plays, Offices , directed by Neil Pepe and produced by the Atlantic Theater Company]? EC: Yeah maybe; I don’t know. Yes, hopefully. But nothing definite. Q: From growing up Jewish, and having friends and family who are Jewish, you learn a lot of cultural Judaism . But you also had a lot of authentic religious Judaism in the movie, really hardcore Jewish, insider information. How much of that is from your educational experience or did you have to research a lot of it? EC: We didn’t do any research per say. Once the script was written, when we started actually making the movie, there were a couple of people who kind of were our Jewish technical advisors, helping us with language and liturgical stuff with the service and whatever. And of course a raft of translators for the Yiddish beginning of the movie. A raft of dueling Yiddishists; everybody had an opinion about what form of Yiddish we should use. JC: We actually did have one problem we brought to a fluent Hebrew speaker, which was we had the specific problem of wanting to have a Hebrew expression, or translation of, “help me” that was exactly seven letters long. So that’s something that we came up with ourselves. We wanted it to be a phone number. That was the main thing really. EC: There was a cantor and a rabbi as well, Dan Sklar, who helped us with that, and with a lot of stuff. Q: So where did this fractured story come from? JC: It’s always a really hard question to answer because you don’t really know, is the truth of it. You start to think back on it and you impose more order and rationality on it than actually occurred when you were thinking it up. I think it just came from, we had an idea a long time ago that maybe we would do something. We were thinking about short films years ago and there was a particular rabbi in our town, not our rabbi, who used to meet with bar mitzvah kids after the bar mitzvah and he was sort of a sphinx-like Wizard of Oz type character, and we thought that might make an interesting short movie. This was years and years ago. Somehow that idea found its way into this story. And there was another part where we were thinking it would be interesting to do something set in 1967 in that community. Then part of it came from thinking about the music of that period, and the combination of Jewish liturgical music and cantorial music and the Jefferson Airplane, we thought that was sort of interesting. Just a bunch of different thinks. Q: Out of all their songs, why “Somebody to Love”? EC: It could have been any of a number of songs I guess, we just kind of focused on that early because it’s so much of that time. I mean that time really specifically, not even just ’60s but spring of ‘67, it’s just so much of that, so smacks of the time. And also we use the lyrics, they kind of pay off in the end in a way that it became clear it was useful. Q: Were you big Jefferson Airplane fans? JC: Not particularly. I mean we listened to them. I wouldn’t say we were big Jefferson Airplane fans though. EC: But obviously they were a big Top 40. JC: Yeah we did listen to them on the radio. EC: There was also, the rabbi’s rap at the ending with the kiddush cup, that was verbatim from our bar mitzvahs. It was the same thing every Saturday. Rabbi Arnold Goodman. Q: One thing that underlies the film is this feeling of cultural shift. Like the Jewish neighborhood with the goyim moving in there was a shift. And as you pair the liturgical music to the Jefferson Airplane. there’s the cultural shift of the ’60s. What did you feel was important to say about that, particularly in a Midwest city like your hometown of Minneapolis, Minnesota. EC: It was sort of the opposite in the Midwest. In the community that we lived in, the Jewish community was sort of centered in part of the downtown area for many years, and then it shifted out to the suburbs. So it wasn’t that there was a Jewish community in the suburbs and it became less Jewish, these new developments were sort of populated by Jews. It’s also a mistake to say that the Jews were in any way a majority of even that community. I mean, we grew up in a community that was predominantly non-Jewish, it’s just that the Jews were a big and significant minority, and the community itself is one that is fairly cohesive. The Jewish community was part of what was sort of bounding your experience. But yeah, you’re right, that idea of, well the way we had sort of talked about it is sort of the idea of the post war thing where populations, in terms of minorities in the cities, were shifting, and also culturally things were shifting, and that was sort of interesting. I don’t think we thought a lot about it but we liked that period in a general way for that reason. Q: Was it like a Levittown situation which is widely regarded as the archetype for the explosion of postwar suburbs throughout the USA? EC: I guess a little bit. There were big developments that were being put up out in the suburban tracts of drained swampland or prairie. That’s kind of how it was. JC: Yeah, it was a little bit post-Levittown, but the same thing. Q: You portray the Hebrew school as obviously a torturous experience of learning Hebrew. I don’t know if either of you went to Hebrew school, but were you engaged by anything from your Hebrew school or Jewish educational experience? EC: Yeah that Hebrew school, that was it for us. After regular school you go to Hebrew school. JC: Hebrew school was something we desperately tried to get out of for years and years and years, but it was a requirement. Q: Your film moves Jewish issues to the center of the story. Is there a connection between this and the Yiddish Policemen’s Union , the 2007 detective novel by author Michael Chabon? EC: That’s kind of a coincidence too that the producer Scott Rudin acquired that novel and then just hired us to write the script. Since we know and had done a movie with Scott I think we were the obvious choices for him. No, it wasn’t design on our part. Q: Do you think you’re going to help people better understand the Jewish experience or do you think you’re going to confuse them further? JC: Well it wasn’t really our intent to have people understand the Jewish experience exactly. It’s just a context for a story that we found very interesting because of our own direct experience with so much of where the story takes place and the kind of community and family that it takes place in. But you’re always trying to being specific, whether it’s about your own experience or whether it’s a context that you don’t have any experience in whatsoever. That kind of specificity is important for the story, and it becomes part of what the story is about, absolutely. Q: In this film, Larry’s neighbor is seen hunting with his son. In No Country for Old Men , Josh Brolin is seen hunting at the beginning of the film. Is this a coincidence or do you guys have a love for hunting that you like to put into your films? JC: No, it’s just a coincidence. Josh hunting antelope at the beginning of No Country for Old Men, we didn’t write that story; that’s in the book. EC: The next door neighbor is just, hunting is a goyish activity. JC: In the Midwest in that period; a lot of hunting. More on The Oscars

Here is the original:
Brad Balfour: Oscar Alumni Joel & Ethan Coen Make "A Serious Man" No Laughing Matter

(EXT. Kodak Theatre - Open on celebrities, showing their solidarity with the vast unemployed of America by wearing only half as much jewelry; cut to Gabourey Sidibe, eager to embrace all the rich, complex roles Hollywood has to offer young, overweight African-American actresses; cut to Harvey Weinstein, remembering when he mattered, and sending last-minute e-mails under the pseudonym “Not Harvey Weinstein” to Academy members, insisting that anyone who votes for The Hurt Locker is made of poo) Announcer (voice-over): Welcome to the 2010 Academy Awards, a celebration of monstrous, gasp-inducing creative bankruptcy which you continue to watch year after year like the pathetic, salivating dogs we have programmed you to be! (INT. Kodak Theatre - Cut to Academy members planning to expand next year’s Best Picture category to fifty nominees, so they can include made-for-TV movies, YouTube videos, and snuff films; insert Bruce Vilanch-written Kanye West/Sarah Palin joke here; cut to fanboys and serious Sight and Sound -reading film scholars alike debating the intrinsic merits of Quentin Tarantino’s oeuvre, then realizing just how much of their lives they have wasted) Announcer (voice-over): And now, the President of the Motion Picture Academy: A Guy No One Outside of the Industry Has Heard Of and Even Those In the Industry Have No Idea Who He Is! (A Guy No One Outside of the Industry Has Heard Of and Even Those In the Industry Have No Idea Who He Is enters; cut to George Clooney, bored with trying to arrange a telethon to save Chile and, instead, having sex with many beautiful women because, hey, he’s George Clooney; cut to Bloh’Mee, a Na’vi warrior, filing a lawsuit against James Cameron, claiming Avatar appropriated his life story) A Guy No One Outside of the Industry Has Heard Of and Even Those In the Industry Have No Idea Who He Is: Once again, we gather to celebrate the art of motion pictures, movies, and films, and salute an industry whose talent, imagination, and continual creative daring can be seen in the upcoming remakes of Clash of the Titans , Nightmare on Elm Street , Red Dawn , The Karate Kid , and Tron . And now, a montage of films in which white people help black people and feel really good about it! (cut to Chuck Workman montage of The Blind Side , Conrack , Mississippi Burning , The Soloist , and Pippi Longstocking ; cut to George Clooney because legal requirements demand that we cut to George Clooney as often as possible; cut to backlash against The Hurt Locker backlash) Announcer (voice-over): And now, your Oscar hosts…Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin! (Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin enter; cut to Kevin Smith being asked to leave the Kodak Theatre, not because of weight issues but because he is a horrible, horrible filmmaker who, by the way, sure has been awfully quiet since the stellar reception for Cop Out , huh?; cut to Vu!@oo# Z**e/kr$on, filing a lawsuit against Neill Blomkamp, claiming District 9 appropriated his life story and unfairly portrayed extraterrestrials who look like praying mantids) Steve Martin: Good evening, I’m Steve Martin. Alec Baldwin: And I’m– (Alec’s cell phone rings, he answers) Alec Baldwin: Yes? What? You thoughtless little pig! Never interrupt me when I’m co-hosting the Oscars! Did your succubus mother put you up to this? I’ll kill you! I’ll kill all of you! (Armed guards taser Baldwin while Steve Martin calmly opens his laptop and works on an essay about Charles Burchfield for an upcoming Whitney Museum exhibit; cut to Oscar producers Bill Mechanic and Adam Shankman calling back-up hosts in this order: Ricky Gervais, Neil Patrick Harris, Sarah Silverman, Alex Trebek, the cast of Jersey Shore , Norm Crosby, a sheet of bubble wrap, Gary Busey, Jay Leno) Announcer (voice-over): And now, for anyone watching this at home who is under the age of 70, please welcome…Robert Pattinson! (Robert Pattinson enters as teenaged girls across America wet themselves on cue because teenaged girls sure like guys who play vampires; cut to the ghost of Adolf Hitler, filing a lawsuit against Quentin Tarantino, claming Inglourious Basterds appropriated his life story; cut to Oscar Death Reel and curiosity over whether or not it will include Patrick McGoohan since the Academy fuckers left him out last year; cut to backlash against the backlash against The Hurt Locker backlash) Robert Pattinson: The nominees for Best Supporting Actress are Mo’Nique and–oh, whom are we kidding? The Oscar goes to…Mo’Nique! (Monique goes to podium, gives tearful speech as her husband apparently gets to have sex with all the women he wants and she doesn’t mind–neat!; cut to a special John Hughes tribute because John Hughes so very, very richly deserves a separate tribute section at the Oscars as opposed to hacks like Billy Wilder, Paul Newman, and Ingmar Bergman who didn’t get one after they died) Announcer (voice-over): And now, please welcome two of the hottest and most talented stars in Hollywood…Megan Fox’s breasts! (Megan Fox’s breasts bounce to the podium, heaving and oscillating in frenetic rhythms; cut to backlash against An Education because, well, it was feeling left out of the whole Oscar backlash department) Megan Fox’s Breasts: The nominees for Best Supporting Actor are Christoph Waltz and four actors who aren’t Christoph Waltz. And the Oscar goes to…Christoph Waltz! (Christoph Waltz goes to podium; cut to montage of lovable movie Nazis: Erich von Stroheim as Colonel von Scherbach, Kenneth Mars as Franz Liebkind, Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth, Michael Bay as himself; cut to Christopher Plummer, 82, for whom this will probably be his last shot at an Oscar and who wasn’t even nominated for The Man Who Would Be King or The Insider because the Academy SUCKS BIG ELEPHANT COCKS!! But, I digress) Announcer (voice-over) And now, a man who is talented and clearly has noble humanitarian intentions but whom we still want to repeatedly punch in the face until our fists hurt…please welcome Sean Penn! (Sean Penn enters, exhausted after swimming directly to the Kodak Theatre from Haiti, subsumed in a glow of self-righteousness and Paco Rabanne; cut to some screenwriter somewhere vomiting as he or she adapts the latest novel that Nicholas Sparks shit on the floor) Sean Penn: The nominees for Best Actress are Sandra Bullock, Helen Mirren, Carey Mulligan, Gabourey Sidibe, and Meryl Streep. And the Oscar goes to…Sandra Bullock! (Bullock goes to podium, burns negatives of All About Steve ; cut to Meryl Streep who deserves seven Lifetime Achievement Oscars for the last 29 years of graciously smiling as she loses to inferior actresses; cut to Barbara Walters finishing her last Oscar special, then being lowered by crane into a barrel of formaldehyde) Announcer (voice-over): And now, please welcome one of those British actresses who seems all genteel on the outside but, man oh man, just give me fifteen minutes with her and I would disappoint her spectacularly…Kate Winslet! (Kate Winslet enters and I will say nothing bad about her or her proclivity for disrobing, which I encourage her to do as many times as possible in the upcoming Mildred Pierce mini-series, but for purely artistic reasons, of course; cut to Ryan Gosling because I’m curious what he’s up to) Kate Winslet: The nominees for Best Actor are Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Colin Firth, Morgan Freeman, and Jeremy Renner. And the Oscar goes to…Jeff Bridges! (Jeff Bridges accepts his Oscar, relieved that he doesn’t have to continue hearing how underappreciated he is; cut to Academy members, relieved they can now go back to giving Best Actor Oscars to Brits playing Americans and Americans playing a variety of famous dead people in biopics) Announcer (voice-over): And now, please welcome a man who can still kick your ass anytime anywhere and you’ll like it and ask for more…Clint Eastwood! (Clint Eastwood enters, taking time off from producing/directing/scoring seven more films, climbing Pikes Peak, and wrestling a grizzly bear; cut to Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Bogdanovich, and William Friedkin at home, waiting for the phone to ring; cut to the 700th promo for Dancing With the Stars ) Clint Eastwood: The nominees for Best Director are Kathryn Bigelow, James Cameron, Lee Daniels, Jason Reitman, and Quentin Tarantino. And the Oscar goes to…Kathryn Bigelow! (Kathryn Bigelow accepts her Oscar; cut to Barbra Streisand still fuming that she didn’t win Best Director for The Mirror Has Two Faces ; cut to James Cameron’s ego exploding out of his chest and impaling Nicolas Chartier; cut to Lauren Bacall, Roger Corman, and Gordon Willis denied their rightful two minutes of Honorary Oscar TV face time as we salute Jimmy Stewart’s getting a cut of the profits from Winchester ‘73 with a musical number featuring the cast of Glee and Shamu the Killer Whale) Announcer (voice-over): And now, please welcome the most beloved star in the world…Betty White! (Betty White enters, strangles a baby, blows up a basket of kittens, and spits on Kate Smith’s grave–and everyone loves her even more; cut to Eric Rohmer in the afterlife, revealing he was quite a fan of Bride Wars ; cut to Kevin O’Connell who isn’t nominated this year but, damn, the guy has just lost so many times) Betty White: The Oscar for Best Picture goes to… The Hurt Locker ! ( The Hurt Locker producers accept their awards; cut to Hollywood applauding a film about the Iraq War that didn’t suck quite as much as all the other films about the Iraq War, then encouraged to produce a zillion more films about the Iraq War because, you know, Americans want more than anything to see films about unpopular wars) Announcer (voice-over): And now, ladies and gentlemen, straight from Atonementpalooza 2010 (**Sponsored by Red Bull. Red Bull! When you’ve got to atone, atone TO THE EXTREME with Red Bull!!**)…Tiger Woods! (Tiger Woods enters; cut to Kodak audience members unsure of how to respond to Woods’ presence, calling Roman Polanski on speed dial for his advice) Tiger Woods: Many of you here lead lives of extraordinary privilege and temptation. You think normal rules of behavior do not apply, as I thought they did not apply to me. I am here to plead with you–look at yourselves and look at the people who admire, even worship you. Think of the images that you project to them, the hedonistic excesses you embrace, and then ask yourselves…Is this the legacy I want to leave? Is this how I want to lead my life? Isn’t there another way? (Cut to audience, seriously considering Tiger’s words) Tiger Woods: Hey, I’m just fuckin’ with ya’! Keep doing what you do best! Whooo, yeah!! (cue “Any Way You Want It”; cut to Tiger having sex onstage with the female cast of Nine ) More on Avatar

Here is the original post: 
Spencer Green: The Way the Oscars Should Be (And Actually Are)

If you’re a young whippersnapper, you may find it quaint how many people of my age cohort – I’m a third of the way through my seventh decade – are still kind of blown away by the speed with which information travels these days. Those of us who grew up in an era when a 17-inch black-and-white television was still a luxury for many Americans and 2500 jam-packed daily newspapers provided our primary connection to the outside world, today’s media bonanza can be quite stunning. Here at Daily Kos, being plugged into a networked community of liberal and other Democrats adds to this abundance by providing connections that extend the power of our work as political activists and feed our passion and compassion as political junkies. Even amid the numerous civil wars and “pie fights” that have been with us from the get-go around here, the capacity of those connections to make progressive political themes “go viral” and to let us have an impact on national discourse has been nothing short of mind-boggling for some of us old farts. Community power. I was reminded once again of that last Sunday when I wrote a diary called Got a Favorite Progressive State Blog or Two? The idea behind this was to help Kossacks get plugged into progressive blogs in their back yards (or places they find politically interesting) in preparation for the 2010 elections. I’ve always followed a handful of such blogs, and when John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, I found myself along with thousands of others reading a humorous, sharp-edged blog called Mudflats for the inside skinny of Alaskan politics under its wacked-out governor. With Thomas “Tip” O’Neill’s notion that “all politics are local” firmly in mind, I provided some seed corn in the form of a few links to other state progressive blogs and asked readers to provide links to the same in their own neck of the woods. The results of that request, plus additional poking around on my part, can be read in the list compiled below. There are only four missing pieces: the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Maryland. If you know of progressive blogs focused on politics in those realms, add them to the list. If you, too, can’t find one, you might think of starting your own. Go exploring in the listed blogs below and you’ll find quite a number of people you’re familiar with, Kossacks providing insightful, delightful and sometimes infuriating information about what’s happening in their states, with predictions about what’s likely to happen. Everything from tidbits to full-blown investigations. The only problem with this endeavor is that these local blogs can become quite addictive. For instance, there’s Desmoinesdem , who blogs Iowa at Bleeding Heartland . A recent entry : Congratulations to the same-sex couples who received marriage licenses in Washington, DC today, the first day same-sex marriage became legal in the capital. The city council had approved same-sex marriage rights last fall, but “because Washington is a federal district, the law had to undergo a congressional review period that expired Tuesday.” The weddings will begin on March 9 because of a mandatory waiting period. One person who wasn’t celebrating today was Representative Steve King. He complained yesterday that Republican leaders in Congress didn’t push “hard enough” to overturn the D.C. city council’s decision on marriage equality. There’s RDemocrat , who cross-posts at DK from the The Hillbilly Report . Writing wonderful stuff like this: The Kentucky Senate race was getting quite boring. Leave it to eccentric, Looney Tune Jim Bunning to heat things up. One would like to think that the outgoing Senator who was shunned by the McConnell machine because he is a can or two short of a six pack decided to shake up this race but then you realize that well, Bunning is a can or two short of a six pack. However, his callous, uncaring and hypocritical “stand” earlier this week against the nation’s unemployed has indeed ignited the Kentucky Senate race, which quite frankly was becoming a yawner. And there’s Sean Soendker Nicholson’s Fired Up Missouri , where, if you’d been reading yesterday, you would have learned about the wackery of Missouri’s 9th District Republican Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer: President Obama is neither a Democrat or Republican…I truly believe he’s a socialist, in the traditional sense of the word.  He believes in the goodness and greatness of government. He truly believes in this way of life. Click to see the whole list, alphabetized by state. I know you’ve got others to add.

Original post: 
Community Power! Progressive State Blogs

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Comedian Kathy Griffin brought her “Life on the D-List” show to Sarah Palin’s home state Friday, skewering the former Alaska governor at a raucous show in Anchorage. Griffin was escorted on stage by Playgirl model Levi Johnston, who fathered a child with Palin’s oldest daughter and is involved in a child support battle with Bristol Palin. Earlier in the day in Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, Griffin said she went to her house and left a note inviting the Republican leader to the show. She asked the crowd to look around and see if anyone was doing a pageant wave. Griffin welcomed news that Palin is trying to shop a reality show or docudrama about Alaska. She called that a “gift from God,” all wrapped up with a ball on top. More on Sarah Palin

See more here: 
Kathy Griffin Takes On Sarah Palin In Her Own Back Yard

In a widely viewed article on CNN last week, Professor Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics announced the results of a study which he claims proves that atheists are smarter than believers. Despite the obvious flaws of the study — that the subjects were all American, that the IQ test was the base of measurement, that the IQ variance between believers and non believers was only 6 points, and that Kanazawa drew startlingly unsubstantiated conclusions from the limited results (wildly asserting that the evolutionary basis of all human religion is paranoia) — and despite the fact that some members of the scientific and atheist community immediately distanced themselves from Kanazawa’s flawed methodologies, the article made the predictable rounds on atheist sites and blogs, along with a lot of self-congratulatory chatter. Many of the comments to my response on Huffington Post last week were from atheists gleefully agreeing with Kanazawa’s conclusions. As I note in all my posts about religion and atheism, I am probably not what most atheists have in mind when they think of a “believer.” I was raised in a Buddhist household in an arguably atheist spiritual tradition. I have studied eastern spirituality off and on for most of my life, and am certainly not a rabid believer in the generally perceived sense of the word. I do not believe in an interventionist deity in the traditional Judeo-Christian vein, but I do in fact believe in a greater consciousness and I do follow a specific spiritual path. I have no love for the Palin-esque creationist crowd, I believe in the findings of quantum physics, and I have a great deal of respect for many atheists. In fact, among my social circle, I — as something of a believer — am definitely the exception rather than the rule. Everyone, I hope most atheists would agree, has the right to believe what they believe as long as it does not harm anyone else. Everyone, as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others, is entitled to respect. I do not ridicule the atheist position, even though I do not agree with it. And I certainly don’t see myself as smarter than atheists based on a judgment of their worldview. Unfortunately for atheists however, much of their position is based on the negation of other people’s belief, which tends to let them drift into the realm of claimed intellectual superiority and ridicule of believers fairly easily. And even more unfortunately, those atheists who do claim such superiority currently occupy the spotlight and shape the debate. Perhaps no-one is a bigger proselytizer of atheism’s intellectual superiority than Christopher Hitchens, who has been repeatedly quoted as saying that he has no respect for anyone who believes in God. Bluntly dismissing the worldview of 4+ billion people might be expected from a sensationalist such as Hitchens, but sadly his view seems to be all too common among the atheist community. I’m all for atheists believing exactly what they want to believe and all of us getting along as friends and colleagues. But when atheists choose to go down the road of intellectual superiority, and choose to ridicule religion while holding science on an untouchable pedestal, they are guilty of the same myopia that they accuse fundamentalist believers of. This view turns a blind eye to the cultural and social factors behind atheism of which they are inheritors, and to the darker side of science’s historic claims of superiority. Bluntly, the culture from which modern atheism has sprung — science and academia — has a long history of distorted claims of superiority that well-meaning atheists would do best to avoid. It may shock some people to learn that Satoshi Kanazawa’s previous controversial study, which some atheists are certainly aware of, used the exact same inverse logic to draw the conclusion that sub-Saharan Africans are impoverished because… well, because they are dumb. Kanazawa’s predecessor, Richard Lynn, who conducted a similar study on atheism and intelligence in 2008 and whose results were similarly questioned by the scientific community, has made a career in labeling people who don’t look or think like him as inferior. Lynn, a strong proponent of the Bell Curve — a flawed metric beautifully dismantled in the groundbreaking work “The Mismeasure of Man” — is known for his studies on intelligence and its relation to the size of the human head. He has conducted studies that conclude that men are smarter than women, that lighter skinned blacks are smarter than darker skinned blacks, that rich people are smarter than poor people, that equatorial natives are dumber than their northern counterparts, and that pygmies and bushmen are only marginally smarter than the mentally handicapped. A longtime critic of immigration who leveled his complaints specifically on the African immigrant community because of their intellectual inferiority, Lynn was quoted in 1994 saying: “Who can doubt that the Caucasoids and the Mongoloids are the only two races that have made any significant contributions to civilization?” Of course, if we want to dig deeper, the scientific community’s time-honored tradition of finding supporting data that proves that people just like them are superior to people who look, act, and believe differently is nothing new. At the height of the British Empire’s rape of the African continent, captured natives were studied extensively in order to demonstrate the inherent racial superiority and intelligence of Europeans. Countless scientific papers were written on the subject of European racial supremacy — both physically and intellectually — over “primitives.” The genetic superiority of whites was a special area of study of Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin, who first propounded the idea of eugenics, or selective breeding in order to increase favorable genetic traits. According to Wikipedia, Eugenics is now “widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people. The ‘interventions’ advocated and practised by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups—-such as the Roma and Jews—-as ‘degenerate’ or ‘unfit’; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.” Extremely controversial due to this sordid history and its post-war categorization as a form of genocide, eugenics is the subject of Richard Lynn’s upcoming book. Darwin himself was not immune to the conclusion that whites were a superior race. In his writings, he speaks repeatedly of the civilized vs. savage races, and surmises that Africans and Aborigines are closer in genetic make up to mountain gorillas than they are to Europeans. Darwin also speaks of the intellectual superiority of the European races and even the genetic superiority of Englishmen to Irish. “The very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life. [Therefore] the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: ‘The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits…” Such assumed superiority among the Western academic and scientific community was not limited to race; it also targeted belief. When British academics first encountered the vast spiritual traditions of the Indian subcontinent — which they collectively labeled Hinduism — they unleashed the type of venom that can only come from people who are terrified of what they do not understand. Stating Hinduism was only fit for “uneducated women and peasants,” one British academic quoted in Sir John Woodroffe’s treatise on Shakti worship went on to label the Hindu texts “the drivel of madmen” and “nothing but superstition, mummery, idolatry… a mixture of nightmare nonsense and time-wasting rubbish fulfilling no useful purpose” that could not even hold a candle to the “social and intellectual superiority” which Europeans enjoyed. Such colonial garbage would hardly be worth mentioning, if it didn’t read so much like a Christopher Hitchens article on religion. Around the same time in Germany, an upper class academic atheist named Marx declared religion as the opiate of the masses, words which were later used as justification for the persecution and extermination of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists under Soviet rule. That persecution continues in Totalitarian China and in Chinese-occupied Tibet, in which religious belief is seen as a threat to state power. In a common atheist argument, the superiority of the atheist stance is justified by the atrocious things that have been done in the name of religion, which — according to flawed logic — makes the entire nature of belief questionable. But generally removed from atheist scrutiny are the horrendous things that have been historically carried out by scientists. I am certainly no fan of the abominations of the church, but the scientific community also has its share of blood on its hands. A decade after American scientists developed the ultimate killing machine known as the atomic bomb, the U.S. conducted nuclear tests on the island of Rongelap Atoll and moved the islands indigenous inhabitants back to the blast site so that scientists could study the effect of radiation on a human population. The lead scientist on the project declared that while the test subjects were primitive and not comparable to Americans, they were “better than mice.” In the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, scientists held a group of syphilitic black men over many years and withheld treatment so they that they could observe the natural course of the disease, which they did as scores of the men suffered horribly and died. Scientists design landmines that have no other purpose than to remove limbs from children, they synthesize poison gases to destroy civilian populations and strip forests of green, they design bigger and better assault rifles and plant electrodes into the brains of rhesus monkeys and house cats. Most atheists will agree, as I pretty much do, that these are all horrible things but they are far outweighed by the benefits that science has brought to humanity. Most believers will say the exact same thing about religion. There is measurable good, in the form of charity, community, inspiration, and humanitarian aid that comes directly from religious teachings. All of this is merely to say two things: One, that science has no right being placed on an unassailable pedestal. The exact same ridiculously negative lens Hitchens et al apply to religion, when applied to science, yields the same results. And two, that atheists should avoid the superiority argument at all costs. Unlike Hitchens, who uses religion’s atrocities to draw the conclusion that religion is bad, I am not attempting to create a logically flawed argument that says that science is bad or that atheists are racist — and of course most atheists, who tend on the liberal side as I do — would be shocked at the suggestion that class or race play any role in their worldview. But there is a sensitivity here that the atheist community would do well to heed. It is a fact that modern day atheism grows out of the academic and scientific community. In America and Western Europe, it is no secret — and it is even an issue among the community — that the majority of atheists today are white, are middle or upper class, and are college educated. Of course in and of itself this fact means exactly nothing. However, when atheism’s mainly white, mainly upper/middle class, mainly educated adherents start to claim intellectual superiority over believers, that’s where the waters get dangerous; that’s where they start to drift into Richard Lynn territory. When Chris Hitchens — a British academic whose sense of superiority is undisguised — berates a Muslim man for his superstitious and backward belief, it sounds… colonial. If we are going to move to a place of mutual respect between atheists and believers, then both sides need to remove the sensationalist jargon. It is clear that there are vast reforms necessary in many religious institutions. But it in no way behooves the atheist to flaunt his self-perceived superiority in front of believers, particularly when, like it or not, that superiority is born out of a culture and community with a long history of flaunting its superiority — namely science and academia. As much as the history of science is a history of enlightenment and discovery, it is also a history of gross generalizations, blunders, prejudices and fallacies that are eventually proven wrong. Certainly there is enough self-reflection in this group of intelligent adherents of science to recognize that what they think they know about belief today may not in fact be the whole picture or may be disproven tomorrow? It is my belief that the positive check on religion that atheism has to offer, and the true spirit of inquiry and wonder that is delivered by science, can be great forces for religious reform. But if it starts from a place of implied superiority and lack of respect, then there’s not really anywhere to go. My challenge to the atheist community is this: I know that there are atheists out there, who, like Carl Sagan, revel in the wonder of the manifest universe and can imbue some of that wonder upon all of us. Let’s hear the positive voices of your community, lest the dialogue be dominated by those who only are out to pick a fight, to point out the flaws, or claim superiority when none exists.

Original post: 
Josh Schrei: A Little Matter of Science, Superiority, and Racism: New Atheism’s Dangerous Waters

Big River Trailer from Wicked Delicate Films on Vimeo . Frustrated swimming pool owners in thousands of backyards across this country have posted a sign that pleads “We don’t swim in your toilet, so please don’t pee in our pool !” The message is crude but clear. Nobody wants to wallow in somebody else’s waste–or our own, for that matter. So why do we treat our seas like sewers? Why do we contaminate our streams, rivers, lakes and oceans with a horrible hodgepodge of chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plastic debris and waste? Evidently, the world’s waterways are a giant toilet into which we can dump anything and everything, and then simply flush it all “away.” As if river currents and rolling waves will pull our pollution into some giant cosmic garbage disposal. Industrial agriculture’s synthetic fertilizers have given us lush green lawns and amber waves of grain. But the run-off from all those yards and farms seeps into our water table and feeds the “red tides”, those toxic algae blooms that cause massive die-offs of aquatic plants and animals. Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, the filmmakers who fondly documented their brief stint as Iowa corn farmers in King Corn , explore agribiz’s downstream downside in Big River . In this thirty-minute sequel, Cheney and Ellis revisit their Iowa acre and trace its toxic trail all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. The film will make its Manhattan debut on March 15th at the Brecht Forum, followed by a panel discussion with Cheney, Ellis, King Corn director Aaron Woolf, Hudson Valley farmer and MacArthur genius Cheryl Rogowski, and Steve Rosenberg of Scenic Hudson. The screening is a benefit for the Food Systems Network NYC , a non-profit organization whose members (myself included) are dedicated to bringing fresh, wholesome foods to all New Yorkers and supporting our region’s farmers, both urban and rural. Cheney and Ellis have chosen to go the grassroots route with the release of Big River , organizing screenings across the country in churches, schools, community centers, libraries, boardrooms and so forth. So if you’re not in New York, check out their website to find a screening near you . Environmentalist Bill McKibben calls the film ” a sharp and clever reminder that nothing ever really goes away, certainly not the soup of chemicals we’re pouring on our fields.” And Big River is more timely than ever in the wake of a flood of stories this past week about our nation’s troubled waterways. When Cheney and Ellis revisit Iowa, they discover that Atrazine , the herbicide they relied on to grow their corn, has tainted the local creek. Just this week, scientists reported that this widely used weed-killer, which has contaminated the tap water of millions of Americans, is “chemically castrating”–and even feminizing–male frogs . Their gender is literally reversed to the extent that they can bear eggs . Atrazine is a known endocrine disrupter and suspected carcinogen. The European Union banned it back in 2004. Researchers in the US have called for a ban here, too, citing studies that have linked it to “human birth defects, low birth weight, prematurity and low sperm count.” Nonetheless, we apply about 80 million pounds of Atrazine annually, and the Environmental Protection Agency has long insisted that it poses no risk. In October of last year, however, the EPA announced that it would “reassess atrazine’s safety, including its cancer risk.” But there’s only so much the EPA can do to defend our waterways, because, as the New York Times reported last week in the latest installment of its superb Toxic Water series , the Clean Water Act doesn’t give the EPA the authority to pursue some of the biggest offenders: Thousands of the nation’s largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act’s reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law. The result?: Some businesses are declaring that the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising. Companies that have spilled oil, carcinogens and dangerous bacteria into lakes, rivers and other waters are not being prosecuted, according to Environmental Protection Agency regulators working on those cases, who estimate that more than 1,500 major pollution investigations have been discontinued or shelved in the last four years. Some members of Congress are trying to remedy this egregious state of affairs through a piece of legislation called the Clean Water Restoration Act , but as the Times reported: …a broad coalition of industries has often successfully lobbied to prevent the full Congress from voting on such proposals by telling farmers and small-business owners that the new legislation would permit the government to regulate rain puddles and small ponds and layer new regulations on how they dispose of waste. Glenn Beck is warning that passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act will result in the government regulating virtually every body of water larger than your birdbath . This could conceivably include the puddles of crocodile tears that Beck routinely weeps, and maybe even the pools of drool that accompanied his ick-inducing interview with Sarah Palin . Allowing the EPA to prevent industries from polluting our waterways is just bad for business, according to Beck. Never mind that letting manufacturers dump toxins into our waters is bad for us . For wingnut pundits whose populist veneer is thinner than the chocolate shell on an M & M, the concerns of common citizens must never be allowed to trump the needs of commerce. It’s a view evidentally shared by mega developers the Toll Brothers, who withdrew from a proposed project along the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn last Tuesday after the EPA finally declared the famously fouled Gowanus a Superfund site. Thanks to “years of discharges, storm water runoff, sewer outflows and industrial pollutants, the Gowanus Canal has become one of the nation’s most extensively contaminated water bodies,” the EPA declared. The Toll Brothers had grand plans to build 450 housing units and 2,000 square feet of retail space there. “We’re extremely disappointed in the EPA’s decision,” David Von Spreckelsen, a Toll senior vice president, told the Wall Street Journal . “It’s going to have a big impact on the properties along the canal…It’s unlikely you are going to see development there for many, many, many, many years.” Admittedly, this news is a colossal disappointment for all those would-be home buyers who longed to live by a canal whose signature stench betrays its industrial past : a heady blend of “cement, oil, mercury, lead, PCBs, coal tar, and other contaminants.” But as the New York Times reported last year , “Studies have shown that property values decline after a Superfund listing but rebound after the cleanup, sometimes to far higher levels.” Given the choice, most folks prefer their creeks and canals to be contaminant-free. Sadly, too many communities haven’t got a choice. They’re up a rancid river without a paddle, while Glenn Beck piddles on the truth and peddles his twaddle about puddles. Originally published on The Green Fork

Original post: 
Kerry Trueman: Our Toxic Waterways: Flushing Away Our Future?

(No, it didn’t actually happen. It’s The Onion , of course! But apparently that didn’t stop some Palin fans from believing it was the real deal!)

Read the original: 
Obama Caught Lip-Synching Speech

Noted comedian, and HuffPost blogger, Harry Shearer joined Lawrence O’Donnell, who was guest hosting “Countdown” last night, to critique Sarah Palin’s comedic debut on “The Tonight Show.” Noting that this was not just her first time on “The Tonight Show” but actually her first time doing a comedy routine anywhere, Shearer said ” all I could think of when I saw that was Bill Clinton on the Arsenio Hall show, probably the first network gig he’d ever had as a saxophone player… It’s like that paved the way for this. ” As for the performance itself, Shearer gave her a B for delivery but a C- for material: “I would fire her writers. That was lame material. Watching her perform I now understand why TLC canceled the Miss America pageant.” WATCH: Visit msnbc.com for breaking news , world news , and news about the economy More on Sarah Palin

Read the original here: 
Harry Shearer Grades Palin’s Standup Comedy Performance On ‘Countdown’ (VIDEO)

Sarah Palin aligns her public image with the heartland, but it appears the former Alaska Governor has gone Hollywood. And when she leaves, she may be taking some of it with her. On top of an appearance on the Tonight Show and rumors that she’s shopping around a TV show with reality producer Mark Burnett , Palin and her entourage were seen partaking in one of celebrity’s lushest rituals — the Oscar gifting suite. While the group was loading up on freebies, the Los Angeles Times reported that, “Palin’s middle child, Willow, got her hair styled, receiving a blowout from Erick Orellana of the Chris McMillan Salon (Jennifer Aniston’s longtime hairstylist).” The Times also indicated that Palin was supposed to donate $1,700 along with all of her gift items to the Red Cross, which is currently helping with relief efforts in Haiti and Chile. But E! Online insists, “we can assure you she did not give up any of her swag.” They quote an unnamed vendor who claims that upwards of 20 people from the Palin camp swarmed the event. “They were like locusts,” he told the entertainment news outlet. According to AOL’s Pop Eater , publicist Ben Russo of EMC/Bowery said, “she kind of cleaned the place out.” They list out a number of her swag-grabs, including United Hair Care products, jewels from Pascal Mouawad, Skagen watches and a whopping 40 pairs or AIAIAI earphones. It didn’t stop there. HollywoodLife.com reports that she also picked up a blue Kenya robe from designer Jenna Leigh, facewash and a pair of foam Bandal sandals. Or, in common-sense language, Palin and her handlers, “practically cleaned out the suite.” Another unnamed source from HollywoodLife.com says that the former Vice Presidential candidate was intent on spreading all that wealth around her own circle. “She insisted every person in her huge entourage get something, and there were assistants, nannies, security - insanity!” The same source also said that security swept the venue and would not allow photos, which are often expected by companies to use as promotion in exchange for the free products. More on Sarah Palin

See the original post:
Palin At Oscar Gift Suite: Sarah Palin And Entourage ‘Like Locusts’

Sarah Palin is making the most of her time in LA. Fresh off her appearance on the “Tonight Show,” Palin is meeting with network executives to pitch a reality show alongside “Survivor” creator Mark Burnett. Entertainment Weekly’s Michael Ausiello reports that Palin and Burnett are shopping a “TV docudrama about Alaska” to executives at Fox, CBS, and NBC. According to one of Ausiello’s sources, the show is a “planet-Earth type look” at Alaska. The Live Feed’s James Hibberd reports that Palin and her family would appear on-camera on the show. Palin has been a ratings magnet almost every time she’s been on TV. Her appearance on the “Tonight Show” Tuesday night drew 5.8 million viewers and helped Jay Leno beat David Letterman in his first week back on the show. Palin also lifted Oprah’s ratings as well as the ratings of various shows on Fox News, where she recently signed on as an analyst. More on Sarah Palin

View original post here: 
Sarah Palin Reality Show? Palin Shopping Alaska TV Docudrama

As a political phenomenon, the Tea Partiers are more colorful than mysterious. They are not really a new or post-party phenomenon, but are the latest incarnation of the populist conservative wing of the Republican Party, the political descendants of Richard Nixon’s Silent Majority or the angry white men who catapulted Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party into control of the congress in 1994. Tea Partiers will vote overwhelmingly for the Republican Party in November, or they will stay home. Very few will vote Democratic; and third party rumblings that have not yet died awa y, will do so in the next months. The most interesting, and probably important, impact the Tea Partiers will have will be in the Republican primaries. As the more radical wing of the party demands more radical and ideologically rigid nominees, the party will have to either accede to these demands and risk nominating less electable candidates, or risk losing the energy and enthusiasm of the Tea Partiers. While the power of the ideological base of both parties can be overstated, parties also overlook these voters at their own peril. What makes the Tea Party movement distinct from any radical elements within the Democratic Party base is that the Tea Partiers are very clear in their intention to fight for the future not just of the country, but of the Republican Party. For Tea Partiers, Republicans who are merely conservative such as Charlie Crist, are as much the enemy as liberal Democrats like Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. In this regard, they are not dissimilar to the right wing Republicans who viewed the liberal, Rockefeller Republican wing of their party as the enemy almost fifty years ago. That generation of radical Republicans foisted Barry Goldwater on their party. Goldwater was, of course, trounced, by Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but if ever there was a movement which lost the battle but won the war it was those right wingers who after seeing Goldwater lose badly, reaped what they had sewn a few short years later with Richard Nixon’s victory in 1968, and more importantly, the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s. Interestingly, although the Democratic Party is often portrayed as disorganized and beholden to its radical base, while the Republican Party is viewed as the more orderly and disciplined party, the reality is not so clear. The far right Republican base has been willing to challenge incumbent Republicans in primaries. Currently Marco Rubio’s campaign against Charlie Crist in Florida and J.D. Hayworth’s challenge to John McCain in Arizona are examples of this. There are Democratic examples as well, such as Ned Lamont’s campaign against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut in 2006 and Bill Halter’s current campaign against Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, but in recent years it seems as if Republican challenges of this kind have been more frequent. More striking is the willingness of conservative leaders and organizations to take on mainstream Republicans. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and other leaders of the far right, for example, do not just attack Democrats, but go after moderate Republicans as well. It is different on the Democratic side where voices of the left tend to fall into line much more quickly behind often conservative leaning Democrats, or sublimate there voices to those of the party. A good example of this is the recently shut down Air America network which sought to bring progressive voices to the public, but was too closely tied to the mainstream of the Democratic Party to have a real impact. The far right understands that they cannot have a conservative country without having a conservative party, while the equivalent lesson has still not sunk in with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party who too frequently conflate Democratic victory with progressive victory. Winning control of the senate in 2006, for example, was a Democratic victory, but as has become unmistakably clear, it was not a progressive victory. Making this distinction does not mean that progressive Democrats should always demand ideological purity from their candidates or refuse to support moderate Democrats. When all is said and done, even the Tea Partiers will back away from some of that kind of rhetoric. However, it means that progressive Democrats will never have a progressive country until they are willing to fight for a progressive party. That will entail demanding more from elected Democrats, approaching elections strategically and not giving in to the electability argument from centrist Democrats quite so frequently. The strength of the Tea Parties is that they are not afraid to challenge their own party. This may make them seem extreme, or even dangerous, but the mainstream of the Republican Party cannot ignore their energy or numbers. Until there is a progressive force willing to play a similar role in the Democratic Party, a progressive party, and country will remain elusive.

Go here to see the original:
Lincoln Mitchell: What Progressives Can Learn From the Tea Partiers

This year’s Academy Awards race is rife with political undercurrents and controversies: veterans’ groups debating the accuracy of The Hurt Locker ; conservatives complaining about Avatar ’s “mystical mélange of trite leftist themes”; a black critic saying of Precious “Not since The Birth of a Nation has a mainstream movie demeaned the idea of black American life”; and another critic lambasting The Blind Side for “peddling the most insidious kind of racism, one in which whiteys are virtuous saviors, coming to the rescue of blacks who become superfluous in narratives that are supposed to be about them.” At least Hollywood has been quicker to embrace reform than DC. While Senate rules and parliamentary procedures have helped gridlock the president’s reform agenda, the Academy, faced with declining approval ratings, expanded its Best Picture field to 10 nominees, and changed the voting system to require the winner to garner at least 50 percent of the vote (Hollywood’s version of reconciliation). So with the Oscars coming up on Sunday, it’s time again for our annual salute to — and mashup of — this year’s noteworthy achievements in the worlds of politics and entertainment, which are getting more and more alike every day. The envelopes, please…. Rewriting of History: Best: Brad Pitt and his team assassinate Hitler in Inglourious Basterds Worst: Rudy Giuliani and Dana Perino claim there were no terrorist attacks on the U.S. during George W. Bush’s presidency in Untruthful Bastards Sex Scene: Best: Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried in Jennifer’s Body Worst: John Edwards and Rielle Hunter in their homemade tape Bang-to-Buck Ratio: Best: Paranormal Activity , which cost under $20,000 to make and has grossed over $180 million worldwide Worst: The War in Afghanistan, where we are spending $30 billion a year to take on the 100 al-Qaeda members still there Dancing: Best: Michael Jackson shows he still has it in This Is It Worst: Tom DeLay shows he never had it on Dancing With the Stars Creative Story: Most: The Time Traveler’s Wife Least: Toyota blaming fatal sudden acceleration problems on ill-fitting floor mats Original Score: Best: Michael Giacchino’s rousing music for Up Worst: Former Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis’ $83 million retirement package Convincing Performance: Most: Jeff Bridges as faded country singer Bad Blake in Crazy Heart Least: Glenn Beck walking back his claim that President Obama is “a racist” Editing: Best: The Hurt Locker ’s keep-you-on-the-edge-of-your-seat pacing Worst: Fox News touts large crowds at Tea Party rally, and splices in footage from a larger event held months earlier to sell the lie Biggest Fantasy: Movies: Avatar Politics: “Death panels” Best Serious Performance By a Funny Person: Movies: With her devastating turn as an abusive parent in Precious , Mo’Nique goes from standup comedian to Oscar frontrunner Politics: With his endless-recount win over Norm Coleman, Al Franken goes from Stuart Saves His Family to United States Senator Use of a Foreign Location: Best: Rome , as seen in Julia Roberts’ Duplicity Worst: Argentina, as seen in Mark Sanford’s Duplicity Short Subject: Best: Kavi , about a boy born into slavery in modern India Worst: Conan O’Brien’s run as host of The Tonight Show Lamest Speech: Movies: George Clooney’s backpack rap in Up In the Air Politics: Sarah Palin’s explanation for her resignation Most Honest Performance by a Child: Reel: Max Records for his note-perfect turn in Where the Wild Things Are Real: Balloon Boy Falcon Heene, for outing the hoax and vomiting twice on national television in Where the Wildly Irresponsible Parents Are Crime Scene: Best: The hidden room in the field in The Lovely Bones Worst: Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates’ porch in This Is What Happens to Black Men in America Use of Profanity: Best: “I know that you disapprove of swearing so I’ll sort that out: You are a boring F, star, star, cunt!” - Peter Capaldi in In the Loop Worst: (tie): “Fucking retarded!” - Rahm Emanuel to liberal activists; “Tough shit!” - Sen. Jim Bunning to Democrats trying to get him to drop his objection to extending unemployment insurance Improvised Scene: Best: Sacha Baron Cohen’s Bruno hits Milan Fashion Week in a Velcro suit Worst: Joe Wilson yells “You lie!” during Obama’s joint session address on health care Bad Guy: Most Charming: Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds Least Charming: Dick Cheney Performance as a Philandering Husband: Best: Bradley Cooper in He’s Just Not That Into You Worst: (tie) Tiger Woods, David Letterman, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, John Edwards Accent: Best: Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela in Invictus Worst: Orly Taitz as herself in Birther Performance as a Bloodsucker: Best: Robert Pattinson in The Twilight Saga: New Moon Worst: (tie) America’s credit card, mortgage, and payday loan companies Tensest Interview: Reel: Col. Hans Landa’s multilingual questioning of a French dairy farmer in Inglourious Basterds Real: Jon Stewart’s masterful evisceration of Jim Cramer on The Daily Show Parent/Child Relationship: Best: Maggie Gyllenhaal and her son Buddy in Crazy Heart Worst: Mackenzie Phillips and her sex partner dad John in WTF ? Romantic Couple: Most: Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci in Julie & Julia — she knew the way to his heart was through his stomach Least: John Ensign and Cynthia Hampton — his parents knew the way to her heart (and her silence) was $96,000 All right, HuffPosters, now it’s your turn. List your Political Oscar picks in the comment section and we’ll publish the best ones later this week.

More here:
Arianna Huffington: Political Oscars 2010: The Envelopes, Please…

Sarah Palin’s penchant for duplicity followed her to Hollywood and the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, on which she predictably praised the Tea Party Movement and heralded “the fairness, the balance” at Fox News. She even did a stilted turn as a stand-up comic–dishing out sophomoric digs at Congress and the White House while joking about eating moose. Hardy har. Palin’s appearance boosted Leno’s ratings and drew lots of ink from the very mainstream media that she so despises–though neither her host nor the dreaded MSM called her on a bold-faced lie she uttered in the middle of her cozy tete-a-tete with the newly recycled Leno. Apparently, John McCain’s former running mate just can’t seem to help herself when it comes to doling out deceit. Palin, of course, has made a career out of playing the victim, and she went into the act once again with Leno, whining about how her recent Family Guy imbroglio didn’t provide “an opportunity” for her “to follow up and kind of elaborate” on the issue. Say what? She’s got a special slot as a “contributor” on Fox News, where the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and her new tag-team partner Glenn Beck lob softballs to her while she’s standing in the snow in Wasilla. No opportunity, Ms. Palin? Really? But the real lie came with her explanation of how the controversy got started. She claimed it began by… a special-needs family asking me what I thought about the episode. I commented and then that gets out there in the blogosphere, it gets out there in the different forms of the mediums [sic] that we have today. And then it’s left there–not an opportunity for me to follow up and kind of elaborate on what I really meant and what I really thought of the thing. She commented ? It gets out there in the blogosphere? As if Palin played no role ? While she may indeed have been asked “to comment,” Palin posted the Family Guy complaint on her Facebook page. She also posted a response from her daughter Bristol (who she wants the media “to leave alone.”) She then gave a very angry interview about it to Fox News. She’s the one who made it an issue. She’s the one who sent it “out there in the blogosphere.” And she has had every opportunity to follow up and elaborate –on her Facebook page, on Faux News, on Leno. And she never did. Not because she didn’t have the opportunity. But because she chose not to. It’s yet another Palin lie. Moreover, Dave Itzkoff of the New York Times pointed out that the paper “had previously sought comment from Ms. Palin about the Family Guy episode…but neither her press representative nor her political action committee replied to requests.” No opportunity? Who does she think she’s fooling? It’s kind of like the “Bridge to Nowhere” which she didn’t oppose…then did oppose. She didn’t have the opportunity….but then she had the opportunity. And she didn’t take it–”to follow up and kind of elaborate”–whatever “kind of elaborate” means. 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 2010. More on John McCain

Go here to read the rest: 
Geoffrey Dunn: Palin Lies on Leno

BURBANK, Calif. — Sarah Palin says she’s going to play Tina Fey in an upcoming Las Vegas show. Just kidding. The former Republican vice presidential nominee turned into a standup comic on Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show” Tuesday, dropping one-liners about the White House, Congress and Fey — the “Saturday Night Live” star known for her impression of the former Alaska governor. But before Palin hit the stage alone, she sat down with Leno and talked about her role at Fox News and about the Tea Party movement. Leno asked Palin what she thinks about joining the media by becoming a Fox News analyst. Palin told Leno that she’s there to build trust in the media. “I think that the mainstream media is quite broken and I think that there needs to be the fairness, the balance in there. That’s why I joined Fox.” Leno laughed. When asked about the “beautiful” Tea Party movement, Palin described it as a group of “many, many independent people, not excessively partisan, not one side or another.” Palin acknowledged that if the movement were to become a political party that it would probably hurt Republicans. As part of her standup routine, Palin told Leno’s audience she planned to speak at a gun-rights convention: “Be there or else,” she warned them. She said Alaska is different from California. In Los Angeles, “when people have a frozen look on their face, I find out it’s Botox.” And she’s happy she’s not vice president. “I would not know what to do with all that free time,” she quipped. In remarks taped for broadcast later Tuesday, Palin said the White House health care plan reminds her of acrobatic flips done by snowboard champion Shaun White. And she joked that it’s so cold in Alaska it’s “5 degrees below Congress’ approval rating.” She had some fun at her own expense, too. Palin became fodder for late-night TV jokes when she was spotted looking at notes written on her palm during a speech in Nashville. She said she picked up the habit years ago from her father, a teacher, and “I’m going to keep doing it.” Earlier, she flashed her palm, which had “Good evening and welcome to ‘The Tonight Show’” written on it. WATCH: Palin’s appearance WATCH: Preview of Palin’s appearance (Standup previews): More on NBC

Excerpt from: 
Palin Does Standup Comedy On Leno’s Tonight Show (VIDEO)

With Democrat Jerry Brown finally declaring his candidacy for California governor today and billionaire Meg Whitman’s super-rich Republican rival Steve Poizner starting his own TV ad campaign against her, this seems a good time to talk about a big new negative theme about the rather tarnished Golden State. Is California America’s first “failed state?” That’s what a lot of people are saying. So I talked about that with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger; the governor he replaced, Gray Davis; and a famous former governor favored to be the next governor, Jerry Brown. It’s a hot topic. You see it suggested in the press. It’s spinning into the very high-stakes California governor’s race. There was even a formal debate about it in late January in New York City. Jerry Brown announced his candidacy for Governor of California, emphasizing that he brings “an insider’s knowledge and an outsider’s mind.” Schwarzenegger in particular was very struck by that debate, sponsored by Intelligence Squared, as he told me when we talked about it the other day. The event dripped with irony, as it featured Schwarzenegger’s brother-in-law, Bobby Shriver, as the most prominent member of the team of three arguing that California is America’s first “failed state.” And it featured Schwarzenegger’s one-time bitter opponent, former Governor Gray Davis — removed from office in the famous 2003 California recall election that swept Schwarzenegger into power — as the most prominent member of the team of three arguing that California is nowhere near being America’s first failed state. Schwarzenegger acknowledges the obvious, that California state government is gridlocked on fiscal issues, and is very slowly recovering from the global financial meltdown, which he says has removed “a third of the wealth” in California. The near commensurate drop in state revenues, says Schwarzenegger, “is caused by this loss of wealth.” The state’s revenue is heavily dependent on the income tax, which in turn is driven by high-income individuals. If their fortunes are down, so are state revenues. Which led to last year’s program, painstakingly cobbled together by Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders, of unpopular budget cuts and unpopular tax hikes. “California is not a ‘failed state,’” insists Schwarzenegger. He sees it as a state with great strengths, which he is happy to rattle off in the vein of last October’s Time magazine cover story on the state’s splendiferous assets, and which anyone who pays attention to California can imagine. And he sees it as a state with an increasingly dysfunctional political system. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signs California’s landmark climate change program into law on Treasure Island in San Francisco Bay. His would-be Republican successor, billionaire Meg Whitman, wants to do away with the program. Which is not the same as a “failed state,” a term of art that describes places like Somalia, or Afghanistan when Al Qaeda had its bases there. There’s no fundamental breakdown in the social or political order. Obviously there are no warlords in California, no gunfire ringing out during the day or night, no looting, no problem in going about one’s daily life. The basic services all work. The only one I have any trouble with in my middle class life is the Department of Motor Vehicles, largely due to budget cutbacks, but it still works, too. If I weren’t involved in following and analyzing politics in California, I could easily be blithely unaware of the meme that I live in a “failed state.” If words have meaning, and they do, the notion is simply non-serious. That’s why, in the Intelligence Squared debate in New York City, Economist correspondent Andreas Kluth tried to redefine the term, to a “failed state” being a state that “can no longer address or solve the problems it faces.” In reality, that redefinition doesn’t work, either. California addresses its problems, just not very well. Will it end up solving them? It had better. Meanwhile, its economy, the world’s eighth largest, is beginning to power out of the global recession. Kluth, like many media elites, lays the blame for dysfunction in state government at the feet of the voters, “the inmates (who) run the asylum” through the direct democracy of ballot initiatives. Bobby Shriver, who complained that he was tired of being known as JFK’s nephew, Sargent Shriver’s and Eunice Kennedy Shriver’s son, Maria Shriver’s brother, and really, especially tired of being known as Arnold Schwarzenegger’s brother-in-law, decried the problem of homelessness in Santa Monica, where he’s a city councilman. Santa Monica, like San Francisco, has been a magnet for homeless people for decades. He also decried the lack of art education in the schools and the large number of emotionally troubled people in the Los Angeles County Jail. None of which evokes Somalia. The third debater in favor of the notion of California as America’s first “failed state,” entertainment writer Sharon Waxman, was perturbed by the time it takes to drive from Santa Monica to the Staples Center, where the Lakers play. Which was amusing to me, since I can recall taking five hours to drive from downtown LA to Santa Monica on a Friday afternoon. That was over 20 years ago. She also decried movie and TV productions going on location rather than shooting in LA. Former Governor Gray Davis discusses Arnold Schwarzenegger, the ups and downs of the California economy, a budget proposal of his own, the car tax, and his former boss, once and perhaps future Governor Jerry Brown. Davis, a native New Yorker, was joined in arguing against the the “failed state” notion by environmental advocate Van Jones and Lawrence O’Donnell, the MSNBC commentator and former West Wing producer who long worked for New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. O’Donnell, needless to say, saw the irony in holding such a debate on the woes of California in New York, where two governors have gone down in two years and it took an inordinate amount of time to oust a state Senate president on corruption charges. Davis tells me that he agrees that California’s state government, marked by extreme partisanship on the right and the left — with Schwarzenegger usually somewhere in the middle though frequently on the side of the corporations except on environmental matters — is hamstrung by legislators from gerrymandered districts unwilling to compromise and by the unusual requirement of a two-thirds vote to pass a state budget. But he thinks that the real effect of the dysfunction of state government, exacerbated by the big economic downturn, lies in its present inability to continue funding the expanded obligations it has taken on, obligations that many other states have never tried. The veteran Democratic politician, who served as Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial chief of staff, state legislator, and state controller and lieutenant governor before winning two terms as governor, now thinks that the state Legislature should be made part-time. “Nothing gets done in the first few months of the year, so send them back to their districts where they can spend time with the local people, not the lobbyists,” Davis says. “Let’s make the Legislature more accountable,” he says, “and let’s save the Legislature from its own worst instincts.” By which he means the desire by Democrats and Republicans to account for all revenue by pushing more spending programs and tax cuts. Which, not coincidentally, was the thing that he unsuccessfully grappled with in his foreshortened governorship. He thinks that legislators are made more accountable by redistricting reform, a Schwarzenegger initiative victory in 2008 (which won’t take effect until the next election cycle) to take the drawing of district lines out of politicians’ hands, and by an open primary. In an open primary, which was proposed by Schwarzenegger — Jerry Brown tells me that he supports it — the top two finishers regardless of party affiliation face off in the general election. The idea, say Schwarzenegger, Brown, and Davis, is to force candidates to appeal from the beginning all voters, not just the partisans who tend to turn up in party primary elections. The initiative to establish an open primary is on California’s June primary ballot. Davis thinks that these things will affect “10% to 20%” of the Legislature, going at least part of the way to re-establishing the more productive political atmosphere that existed in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s. As for saving legislators “from their worst instincts,” Davis agrees with his former rival Schwarzenegger that the tendency to spend all available revenues on expanded programs and tax cuts is best dealt with by establishing state spending limits and a rainy day fund. Brown notes that he set up his own rainy day fund the first time he was governor. That proceeded to evaporate, however, in what is another story. As for the notion of California as America’s first “failed state,” what Brown thinks is that the political system in Sacramento is in “breakdown” but the elements for “breakthrough” are in place, with California coming out the other side in strong shape. With, naturally, himself as governor. One person who does buy into the “failed state” notion is billionaire California Republican gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman, the former national co-chair of the McCain/Palin campaign. She intends to run against Brown for governor. That is, if she can get through her own party primary. She and her camp tried mightily to clear ex-Congressman Tom Campbell and super-rich state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner out of the Republican primary field. Poizner remains, and he has just launched a big TV advertising campaign, including some notable knocks on Whitman who until lately has had the run of the airwaves for months. Billionaire Republican candidate Meg Whitman dashed away from reporters after giving a non-answer to the one question allowed in her only press availability in months. That question had been cleared in advance with Whitman’s staff. Whitman ripped Arnold Schwarzenegger on February 16th in an appearance before the Contra Costa County branch of the Commonwealth Club in Lafayette. Asked about Schwarzenegger’s tenure in office, which began with the state in grave crisis before his landslide victory in the 2003 recall of Governor Gray Davis, Whitman described it as “not good.” Whitman, who has had no previous involvement in California’s public affairs herself and falsely claimed in her first TV ad to have lived in California for 30 years (it’s more like 20), did allow that Schwarzenegger has done “a couple of very good things.” What are they? Reforming the workers compensation system and promoting the development of water infrastructure. Which happen to be parts of her customary big business agenda. Actually, Schwarzenegger has had quite a few big successes, including California’s landmark climate change program, leadership on the expansion of renewable energy, clean fuels, and green tech job development, the world’s biggest stem cell research program, education reforms, some fiscal reforms, and the biggest infrastructure investment program since the 1960s heyday of the late Governor Pat Brown, Jerry Brown’s father. Whitman, however, is against much of that. Whitman’s Republican rival, super-rich state Insurance Commissioner, says California has big problems. His solution? Big tax cuts. “In the end,” she said, “the leader of this state has to be accountable for the results, and the results are not good.” She cited high unemployment and troubled schools as the chief examples of Schwarzenegger’s poor tenure. Needless to say, it’s non-serious of Whitman to blame Schwarzenegger for the state’s unemployment rate, which is due to the near collapse of the global economy and the polices of George W. Bush. And she has a great deal to learn about how education works in California. She currently acts as though she can lay off school employees as part of her drive to solve the state budget crisis by cutting state workers. (There are two problems with Whitman’s view: First, she doesn’t have the authority to fire school employees. Second, the entire state workforce could be laid off and it wouldn’t solve the shortfall.) Actually, there are a number of mistakes that Schwarzenegger has made as governor. Fortunately for Whitman, if she wants to talk to some of the people responsible for them, they are very close at hand. In the ranks of her own campaign advisors. Whitman chief strategist Mike Murphy was Schwarzenegger’s chief political strategist (after his recall election victory) when, riding high, he made some of his biggest mistakes in 2004 and 2005. Murphy egged Schwarzenegger on into needless political confrontations, did not support the lapsed California Performance Review which Whitman touted last year as a panacea for the budget crisis (it isn’t), and embarrassed Schwarzenegger by blatantly advertising his closeness to the Governor’s Office in soliciting clients for his lobbying work. It’s increasingly evident that there is a great deal that Whitman does not know about what has gone on in California, even in the recent past. Before deciding she wanted to be governor, she’d never so much as written an op-ed piece on the woes of the state about which she now professes such concern, and where she has so seldom voted. So her position in the debate over California doesn’t seem all that relevant, but for the fact that she might be able to acquire the governorship of California through her massive spending, even though Barack Obama crushed Whitman’s candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin here and remains quite popular. As for that late January debate in New York, the pro-”failed state” side won over the high-powered California defenders of Gray Davis, Van Jones, and Lawrence O’Donnell. At least in the vote of the Manhattan audience, which O’Donnell described to me as “a Woody Allen crowd.” You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes … www.newwestnotes.com. More on John McCain

View original here:
William Bradley: The California as First "Failed State" Debate: Schwarzenegger, Davis, Whitman, and Jerry Brown

As Obama’s first year in office wraps we have to wonder how he squandered such a great opportunity to produce real “change,” the theme that inspired his campaign. Those who expected it are disillusioned; those who didn’t gloat on the marooned administration. The election rhetoric made many believe something was coming. In the final stretches of the campaign he indicted a failed generation of neoliberals that began with Reagan for taking us on the wrong course. But now Democrats frantically read focus groups and polls, perhaps even tea leaves, to keep their jobs. Obama’s “army” has been left out of the picture, yet to find its war. Progressives, still hopeful the speeches and policies will coincide, appear stymied at the administration’s steering of mostly the same course.              Is this betrayal, or the proverbial idealist facing unexpected obstacles once in power? Did we misunderstand what he represents?              He said in his chat with Republicans after the State of the Union address that he’s not about ideology but working together with all parties to solve problems. He’s a healer, as perhaps his choice of Rick Warren to kick off the inauguration showed. But this doesn’t mean he’s neutral and balanced. He coddles and courts the Republicans who are way out on the right. What if he at least glanced left on occasion and built on the passion in his speeches about the host of problems we face? What would his problem solving look like then?              Leaders inspire others to change course through their passion about certain ideas, so what does it mean to lack ideology? Ideologies are a narrowing of ideas, but they bear some relation to ideas. The bearer pushes something. It’s like someone saying they aren’t political when they merely support an agenda that doesn’t have to be identified since it’s the one that’s in and the majority simply does your bidding. Obama claims to lack ideology but he’s also devoid of passion. He never makes firm cases for positions, floating feelers for focus groups to test and interests to engage instead, letting well-funded lobbyists and other players decide what will work best. Generalities floated during the campaign galvanized troops, but specifics that could translate them into action were not forthcoming.              Obama’s appointments were an early eye-opener. They were far from neutral choices, but a slate of dittos from the team he replaced. This was particularly distressing since there was the expectation he would do something about the mortgage crisis other than send checks to banks like Paulson; that he would push for some form of public fix of the health care system; that he would quickly move to get out of Iraq, and likely not increase the military budget; that he would re-regulate the financial industry, the cause of the whole mess, especially since deregulation was the centerpiece of the failed system he rejected.             No question there are obstacles to getting this done, but Obama’s first year actions seem close to Republican ones, especially when it comes to defense. They’re pitifully close to George Bush. What better homage than to tap him as a figurehead in the Haiti response! The post-Scott Brown health plan emerging from the “summit” this week is basically the one the Republicans proposed as an alternative to the Clinton plan in the 90s. His economic policies are filter-down retreads. The congressional black caucus has nearly abandoned him since he’s virtually ignored the plight of African-Americans. Some reverse racist!              Had McCain-Palin won, things would likely not be very different. They would have propped up large corporations and defense, probably even doled out stimulus money, though less of it. Obama’s stimulus program lacks even the fumes of the Great Society anyway, certainly the parent New Deal, providing minimal funds to the states. It basically props up the existing order.             It’s because Obama is so near to the Republicans on policy, talks liberal some of the time, and keeps things vague, that they can strike at him assured he can’t come back with much. He politely sidesteps charges of being a fascist or a socialist. But they hardly need substance to continue the badgering through other means, getting mileage calling him liberal from those on the right who don’t need much convincing.              The chair of the Orange County Republican Party said recently in an interview with Larry Mantle on KPCC’s Air Talk that while Obama campaigned as a moderate, he’s governed as a liberal; he’s just another tax and spend Democrat. When pressed for an example, he just stuttered and changed the subject. The rant about his “socialism” produced the same clichés, that he’s increasing big government and “taking away our freedom.”              Rush Limbaugh aptly called him a “post-accomplishment” and “post-racial” president. He and others know that most people don’t sit around and evaluate facts and policies since they have neither the time nor the preparation. But many are receptive to clichés passed down by elites. We learned from Bush that saying something over and over again convinces people it’s true. And if folks miss Obama’s occasional liberal clichés then Limbaugh and the gang will make sure they get repeated for them.             Obama’s outreach to the Republicans is notable however in trying to heal the political body. His predecessor inflamed the red/blue state rift. So rather than simply try and ram his “change agenda” down Republican throats, which would have deepened the polarization, Obama apparently felt a responsibility to console the losers and make them players. They still aren’t playing, but these gestures suggest Obama is a team player, and should deflect some blame to the Republicans for inaction.              Reaching out to his adversaries, and those responsible for our problems, to push forward needed change is also intriguing. So the administration turned to the drug and insurance industries for advice on how to reform health care. And it let those who defaulted our lives and swapped our fortunes through financial speculation take charge of the repayment plans. And it gave the prior administration’s head soldier the nod to solve our “wars on terror.”              After all, they might’ve seen the light and their actions filtered down to shape his version of a better society, whatever that is. It would have been an amazing coup; giving the bad guys a chance to be good guys. Many fence-progressives feel this was a great idea since the system doesn’t change that easily, and the problem is also with the bureaus and Congress. There’s no question that Obama faces considerable blockages.              But it’s also a stretch to believe the system will correct and regulate itself. The industries and bureaus Obama defers to are delivering more of the same. Some say we need a movement to pressure him in a “progressive” direction. Others that it is simply difficult to govern, and we need to be more patient. We do await the movement that will push him to do what he seemed to promise in that magical campaign.              But the campaign was fueled by a movement of sorts, the vast recruitment of mostly the young–those who inevitably make up movements–through the internet. This sizable “army” helped get Democrats their majority in Congress, and now the administration has virtually abandoned them, according to Micah Sifry ( To the Point , KCRW, Santa Monica, 1/29/10). Though a substantial outsider force for change during the campaign, once the election was over the “army” was incorporated into the Democratic National Committee. As Tim Dickinson says in Rolling Stone , this people-powered revolution became part of the amorphous mass of partisan bodies and lost its edginess. From engaged activists they became receptacles of emails, retired into a shadow of its previous self (”No We Can’t,” 2/2/10).             Obama has freely made his choices. He didn’t side with the move to deny Bernanke another term. He was against moves to audit the Fed, as well as the more aggressive plans to regulate the financial industry. The problem is he accepts the center as the space to start the problem solving. It sounds so right. The center is where differences are worked out and leaders find common ground between opposing parties. But there’s a difference between ending up in the center versus beginning there. This talk manages the consent of the players who’ve staked claims on the wealth and power with just enough reform to make changing the rules of the game unnecessary.             Obama’s position on health care has taken the public option, and obviously single payer, off the table. What criticism of the insurance companies there is gets drowned out by the assumption that reform needs to happen within the private system. They get what they want before committees sausage the product. He rants about banks and borrowers being collectively responsible, but talks little about the plight of homeowners.             When I hear the word centrist I think of Gray Davis, former California Governor who was recalled for the Terminator. He was a problem-solving “new Democrat” who believed in practical solutions. In office the utility deregulation framework engineered by both Democrats and Republicans in the 90s unraveled. Privatized companies gobbled each other up, leaving weakened competition and eventually fewer players and a mess of too-big-to-fail survivors that threatened the state with insolvency if it didn’t bail them out. Mr. Davis never minced his words, sending checks to those who caused the crisis. California then experienced a huge budget shortfall, leading to mass layoffs and extensive cuts in education and social services.             Working out serious differences through compromise is key to a functioning democracy. But this requires a reasonably equal field of players who have the ability to influence decisions. The voices that mostly matter now are those funded by the corporate elite that owned most successful candidates even before the recent Supreme Court decision that removed obstacles on campaign financing. Privatization is the enemy of democracy. It’s because Charles Grassley and the other players drafting health care legislation can legally deposit funds from lobbyists that skews the voting proportions and mocks the spirit of compromise.              So if Obama wants real compromise he must at least bring the weight of ideas from the side wanting change to battle those who fiercely resist it, and have extraordinary power to influence others. The center unfortunately is where leaders have often hidden their sectarian beliefs in what they claim are practical, value-free decisions.              We got a glimpse of this attitude after WWII when Daniel Bell and others argued that our socio-economic system had reached such a level of success and affluence that all problems had become mere technical ones. There was no need for alternatives since our brand of capitalism had proven to be the best. If there were any imperfections remaining, like scarcity in income and resources for some citizens here and there, this could be alleviated with policies crafted fairly and objectively. This was also about sending a message that there was no need to get attracted to social democracy, an alternative that appeared to be increasing in popularity elsewhere.              The end of the Cold War in ‘91 was another moment when this was especially appealing, as the popularity of Fukuyama’s “end of history” notion shows. Soviet Communism’s collapse was proof positive the system left standing was the best.              But the end of ideology is the ideology that supports the alignment of power that takes place behind the talk. Not only do leaders in love with the center (who always promise reform) avoid discussing the structure of society. Their value-free rap also monopolizes the discussion and lets the privileged have their way so that “solutions” mostly benefit them. Health care is another example. Obama pitches the need for universal reform from the center while the industry’s players can do what they think necessary to reform itself.              The avoidance of the structure of society has a long history. It comes from the first celebrators of industrial capitalism, like Comte in the early 19th century who augustly claimed that progressive improvement was built into the system that survived the ruinous transition from feudalism–and so must be the best!–and therefore all that remained was to twist out the facts usable for eliminating the minor aberrations, the messy exceptions, that inevitably trail progress. Herbert Spencer’s dog-eat-dog diatribe was only a few tracts away.             One of the most famous early tourists of America, Alexis de Tocqueville, found the perfect lab in the 1830s to reflect on these concerns. His very first chapter of Democracy in America identifies our “philosophical method.” We distrust ideas and preexisting formulas about society, living in the moment and relying on our own individual opinions, which are a sort of “intellectual dust” that’s “unable to cohere.” And the result of this “independence of mind” is that “interests” bind us together, not ideas.             As individuals we may not have read the right books or sifted through the best arguments, but we know what’s right. We merely perform under the hand of god and progress toward more perfect unions and complete bank accounts, doing the things that matter on the spot. It’s about what’s happening now. No need for last year’s news or power shifts, let alone the relevance of what happened in the previous generation that locked in the power that narrows the ideas available and restricts present options. Does anyone remember the $700 billion bailout, or even care whether the disappearance of this money, or whose pockets it ended up in, has anything to do with the nature of the recession the media mostly ignores?             Tocqueville felt it was our “equality” that kept us fixed on the present and future. We were not bound by class and could effortlessly move on toward the next opportunity. The 1830s was when European immigration was gearing up, pulled by promise but pushed by economic collapse. The prospects for transcending your origins and bypassing your neighbor were real. But is it our very real myth of equality, inherited from these circumstances, that now keeps us pitched toward the future and fuzzy about present and past?              The bad is only ever temporary. We will all be somewhere else better down the road. So the news doesn’t have to give us the depressing stories that advertisers feel dampen the urge to buy, but which unfortunately also might educate us and help solve important problems. Keep the messages upbeat, especially since the chaos of the recession threatens to disrupt our ways of thinking and doing and make us disbelievers. Ignore the foreclosure crisis; focus the great opportunities for those who can buy the foreclosed properties! The next boom is right around the corner once we flush all the impediments, the homeowners who shouldn’t have bought, the “losers” who couldn’t bypass their neighbors, out of the system.              Like those frequent ups and downs at the gas pump that picture the idea of a free market, centerspeak mimics the core values of the American experiment: freedom, equality, fairness. It says we should all stream into the main and most evident spaces and arenas. Fringes are un-American. We weigh options on both sides, but avoid rigid position-taking within either. The middle, not the ends, is what matters. This is where the mass of individuals lay, the groups of ordinary people who make up the middle class, Obama’s rhetorical target. It’s where the common resides, not the special and preferential, as in common denominator, the everyday essence of the American republic.              While the connotations reel from the metaphors, the “interests” that comprise the power structure, the PACs and think tanks and institutes and lobbyists that mostly represent business and elite labor positions and have most of the funds, get going. It’s these voices after all that are dictating the legislation while bipartisanship and compromise, the center’s official rap, distracts us.              As Arianna Huffington said on This Week recently, when responding to the issue of why real “change” is not occurring in the Obama administration, we get bipartisanship when the laws are voted on, but lobbyists are the ones writing them! Splitting the difference in negotiations about issues that have been legislated in advance by interests outside of the body which supposedly represents the people in the middle, is illusory democracy. The content of legislation needs to be shaped by the larger plurality. And we could use a different batch of voters in Congress as well.              We really need a third party that represents those left out. Most other advanced industrial nations have multiple parties, and certainly one that represents middle class interests better, and especially worker interests. Such a represented chunk of the citizenry could add to the plurality and at least force the administration to negotiate with those on the forgotten side.              Just as the economic “recovery” can occur without the nearly 20% who are under-or-unemployed, in the broken system Obama brokers, those in power, or claiming it, don’t need all of these forgotten citizens to maintain their positions and get reelected. They only need media blitzes and astroturf flare-ups to engineer the appearance of an army of support to hold on. And for well over a generation the system has done without a significant number of citizens who’ve become apathetic, driven from the voting booth by a sense of disillusionment about their chances to influence the process.              Which makes the fate of Obama’s “army” all that more tragic. An inspired mass of activists wanting real change, and led to believe they could help shape it, they’ve become another alienated group.              Obama’s “liberalism” is actually consistent with structural and demographic shifts that have been underway for some time. According to Eric Foner in a recent piece in the Nation , he’s far from being a New Deal liberal. Obama came of age in the Democratic party when labor was no longer a significant part of its base, and so issues of inequality, unemployment and workers’ struggles have not taken priority. His perpetual referencing of the middle class as the designated target for change meshes with this assessment. And certainly the lower middle portion, these days not too close to any middle, has fallen into the bottom rung that’s of little interest to the Democrats. Obama’s sympathies are mostly with the upper range of the middle. If Obama has a liberal twitch, Foner concludes, it can be seen in talk for the issues of women’s reproductive rights, gay rights, environmentalism and racial and ethnic diversity (2/1/10).              All well and good, even if most of this thus far is talk. But liberal rhetoric has a better chance of finding fruition if power and resources are not stacked so much on one side. Very little can change without resources or firm legal changes in rights. Obama’s optimistic encouragement of individuals to act and do things on their own is commendable, but until the system provides more options we can’t expect much real progress.              Right at the top of the AOL homepage every day, ads proclaim that Obama encourages moms to go back to school. But since there’s been no change in the tax structure and a revamping of budget priorities that can release more funds to the responsible authorities, business as usual has led to mass layoffs of personnel, class cuts, and larger sizes for the classes that do remain. Some climate for returning to school!              We’re being pelted with commercials to read more. Well, with nearly 20% of the working population effectively out of work, it’s indeed a good time for it. But what about the exorbitant cost of books caused by the oligopoly that produces them? What about the shrinkage of alternative periodical distributors caused by the same oligopoly? Antitrust regulation lays dormant. The aspirants can of course go to the public library, where due to severe budget cuts there’s been a freeze on new books and periodicals for some time, as well as fire sales on existing stock.              Until there’s something done about the way wealth is accumulated and distributed, the tax structure, unfair competition, usurious interests rates, financial speculation and other matters, individual initiative can’t lead to much of substance on a broad scale. The only way that individuals can be all they want to be is to join the military.              Just letting things take their course, allowing the “free” market do its magic, makes matters worse in a world that Paul Krugman ( New York Times , 2/10) calls “lemon socialism,” where the losses from economic activity are borne by taxpayers, and the gains by the corporate elite. This amounts to no less than a redistribution of wealth upward.             It’s Obama’s refusal to confront these fundamental structural flaws, particularly the “free market” that he railed against in the campaign, hesitantly marooned as he is in the center, that makes change virtually impossible. But blame the shift in liberalism that’s made Democrats so similar to Republicans, and whose weakness has allowed the extreme right to gain footing. The tea baggers are only the most recent symptom of this weakening, and whose ranks reflect significant numbers of Obama voters, as well as Democrats and independents.             But post-Scott Brown, isn’t Obama changing, some are saying? He’s endorsed the “Volcker Rule” according to Robert Scheer (Truthdig, 2/2), which involves restoring the “spirit, if not the letter” of Glass-Steagall, the legislation from the 30s–repealed under Clinton–that prevented commercial and investment banking from merging. But then eight days later in an interview with BusinessWeek , he endorsed the multimillion dollar bonuses paid to Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon and Sachs’ CEO Lloyd Blankfein because they are “savvy businessmen” and he doesn’t “begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free market system.”             A few days later he came out to the cameras fuming about Anthem’s decision to raise premiums on health policies by 39% in the face of record profits in the previous quarter. So much for universal coverage and those deals made at the White House to cooperate on passing a health care bill that would control costs!             Tomorrow’s another day. Back and forth, up and down: whatever gets you through the election cycle and satisfies this or that potential focus group… More on Barack Obama

Read more here: 
John O’Kane: Ideallergy

John Kasich, who served nine terms in the House before becoming a Fox News host, is now testing whether the revolving door between politics and the media works in both directions. It clearly goes one way, with many former elected officials having followed a path into cable news. Recently ousted New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is now reportedly in talks with CNBC, while former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has become an MSNBC regular. And Fox now has a trio of prominent former Republican officials: Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich. More on GOP

See the rest here: 
John Kasich’s Fox News Platform May Help Campaign For Governor

Oh no. Another celebrity is telling us what to do. This time it’s Lady GaGa. Somewhat unbelievably, the 23 year old pop sensation, famous for her pants-free onstage cavortings, has warned against the dangers of casual sex. Speaking at a function for AIDs charities in London yesterday she said that young women should be careful chossing partners to have sex with. ” If you can’t get to know them, you shouldn’t have sex with them, ” she said. She also urged girls to carry condoms and get regular AIDs checks. “You are not invincibe,” she added. Fair enough, you might say. It seems like decent advice. Well yes it does, but that is an accident. What Lady GaGa is really saying is: I am celibate so you must be too. . “I’m single because I don’t have the time,” she explained. “You know what? It’s OK. Even Lady GaGa can be celibate.” This is in fact simply meglomania disguised as social concern. If Lady GaGa decides to resume her bisexual habits would she recommend that too? I have interviewed many famous people and they were all different. But not one of them had a monopoly on how best to live your life. Quite the reverse - a great many of them were, no surprise here, very insecure people. It is a trait amongst the clueless, to immediately recommend for humanity the small life lesson that they have only just learned. At best it’s infuriating, at worst you end up with Sarah Palin. My rule of thumb: whatever celebrities tell you to do, do the opposite. Happy shagging. More on Sarah Palin

Read the rest here:
Andy Pemberton: Lady GaGa Has Told Her Female Fans To Be Celibate. Is It Any Of Her Business?

Jay Leno and NBC may be trying to win back fans lost during the Conan O’Brien debacle, but this doesn’t seem the best way to do it. In his “Tonight Show” return, Leno promoted Tuesday’s lineup, which includes Sarah Palin . In hyping Palin’s appearance, he said she “has never been on a late night show.” Palin, of course, appeared on the “Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien” in December alongside William Shatner, where she read Shatner’s autobiography. Nikki Finke writes that Leno’s statement is evidence of “NBC/Leno erasing all trace of Conan.” NBC had already gone out of its way to “erase” Conan from the web , removing every single “Tonight Show” that he hosted from Hulu and NBC websites. In January, Leno told Oprah that he did not call Conan during their intense late-night drama. More on Conan O’Brien

Read more: 
Jay Leno Disses Conan For Palin Promo

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) ripped into fellow Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin in a recent interview, saying she’s not “presidential” and accusing her of simply trying to sell books.

More here: 
Tancredo Blasts Palin As Not ‘Presidential,’ Rips McCain As ‘Nasty’ And ‘Mean’