TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | January, 2011

Our Stunning First Lady Upstages the Presidents

**updated**


First Lady Michelle Obama is wearing Alexander McQueen.

Nice touch. Kenneth Roth, executive director for Human Rights Watch, was among the guests at the state dinner this evening.

The food sounds sumptuous, lobster my favorite, but the entertainment is right where my music tastes live. Jazz.

The theme for the evening was “quintessentially American,” with a menu that featured farm-fresh vegetables, poached Maine lobster, dry-aged rib-eye with buttermilk crisp onions, topped off by old-fashioned apple pie with ice cream. The entertainment, in the White House East Room, was the most quintessential of American music — a parade of jazz greats, including Herbie Hancock.

Meanwhile… Chinese Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo remains in jail.

Hey, but not to worry, we get to keep the pandas five more years.

UPDATE: In a stunning example of stupidity, promoting the announcement through hyperbole today, a wingnut radio station, then Daily Caller, trumpeted by Rush Limbaugh, wrongly implied the “Governors Highway Safety Association” was attacking the First Lady over her obesity “Let’s Move” campaign. However, TPMMuckraker got a different story. Talking about the wingnut radio station’s characterization, the group responded, “that’s ridiculous.” Of course it is, but right-wing radio doesn’t deal in facts. It’s about emotion, thus their Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity program is killing people!

“That makes it seems like we’re blaming Michelle Obama’s program,” GHSA executive director Barbara Harsha told TPM. “That’s ridiculous.”

Photo via Huffington Post.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Let’s Talk Civility and Our Healthcare System

TM NOTE: Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

In the House today in a very emotional moment Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz of Florida let it be known in a very powerful way how disgusting the GOP has been in using the term “killing” in the repeal debate:

Wasserman Schultz said Maisch wanted the health care reforms signed into law by President Obama in March kept in place, and that the Arizona grandmother bemoaned the tone of the repeal debate led by the new Republican House majority. “[Maisch] wanted me to share that she wanted us to choose our words more carefully,” Wasserman Schultz said. “She had planned to tell Gabby, amazingly even before this tragedy, how inappropriate she thought [it was that] ‘job-killing’ was part of the title of this legislation.” – “Dem Rep: Tucson Hero Wants Health Care Bill Kept In Place”

Political language is one thing, but National Nurses United (part of the California Nurses Association) organizer Donna Smith writes for Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) on civility. Civility of American healthcare that is. Kudos to Donna for she really lays it out: how cold and often cruel American healthcare can be, the realities patients are faced with, the lack of compassion in this monstrous system we have.

Donna Smith does justice and gives voice to the millions of Americans such as myself who have long suffered under our insurance practices, poor government oversight or protection of patient rights, and the fate of bankruptcy simply because we happened to get very sick.

Take it from a guy who weekly is a patient in the Dr.’s clinic, this woman gets the world so many of us are living in.

The repeal debate is a pathetic theatrical distraction from the endemic problems our medical care systems face. America is talking civility these days. So when does demand for civility finally help make concrete changes to our healthcare practices?

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Sect. Clinton Slaps Cheney

**updated below**



In an interview that included yet another comment from Clinton that she wouldn’t commit to a second term at State, she leveled a signature Hillary retort to former Vice Pres. Dick Cheney reiterating his opinion that Barack Obama will be a “one term president.”

“I am pleased that former Vice President Cheney is healthy and resuming public activities, but I could not disagree with him more,” Clinton said of Cheney’s one-term claim. “I think President Obama has been playing the hand that he was dealt by the Bush/Cheney administration very well indeed.”

There has not been a more incompetent president in my lifetime than George W. Bush. Richard Nixon was corrupt, but not even he measures as low as “W.” on the scale of embarrassments.

As for Dick Cheney, he is a dishonest man who is responsible for manipulating intelligence, as well as the outing of a covert C.I.A. operative on behalf of a president that lied this country into the most disastrous foreign policy blunder in our lifetime: the Iraq war.

Good for Sect. Clinton for calling Bush and Cheney out.

Oh, and to add one other thing, now that Sen. Joe Lieberman has dealt with his inability to get reelected. Perhaps Sen. McCain floating him for the next SecDef will stop the nonsense that Hillary should be considered or even wants the job.

UPDATE: Transcripts of Clinton on ABC’s “Good Morning America”, CBS’s “Early Show,” and “Today.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

The Visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao (bumped)

**UPDATED with “U.S.-China Commercial Relations Memo from White House**
–originally posted at 6 a.m. EST–

“We want to sell you all kinds of stuff.” – Pres. Obama (at joint press conference where Pres. Hu, more here)


Also see CSIS primer on Hu’s visit.

This is the eighth meeting between Presidents Obama and Hu.

It’s the first formal state dinner in 13 years, with Pres. Obama giving China what George W. Bush denied. These things matter very much to the Chinese. Speaker Boehner has refused to attend, snubbing the President’s invitation, but also the privilege of his office, choosing to continue his small mindedness.

Economics is on everyone’s minds, because China’s cheap labor is hurting any efforts by businesses to commit to a “made in America” policy. Because let’s face it if the U.S. doesn’t start making things our prowess in the world will sink. Economics is power.

Ahead of Hu’s visit, China announced $600 million worth of deals with undisclosed U.S. businesses, with potentially more to come, according to Reuters. Our trade deficit with China is set to hit $270 billion this year.

Pres. Obama simply must engage Pres. Hu on human rights, especially where Liu Xiaobao is concerned.

It is time for President Obama to stand up to China over its shameful human-rights record. Last week the Obama administration was talking up its human-rights stance and raising expectations that the president would be more demanding. He met personally with five Chinese human-rights advocates for an hour at the White House, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a speech at the State Department that the U.S. would continue to defend Chinese bloggers, political activists and religious believers persecuted for challenging the ruling party dogma.

The Hill blog also mentions the deplorable statement of Sect. Clinton in 2009, when in representing the Obama administration she said human rights shouldn’t “interfere” with trade and other issues of commonality. Let’s hope that’s history.

Diplomatically, China’s cooperation on sanctions against Iran last year was important, with a meeting in Ankara coming up soon, so undoubtedly this is something Obama wants to get assurances will continue.

Robert Gates said recently that he judged there to be a “disconnect” between China’s military and political leaders. This was revealed when President Hu didn’t seem to know China was testing their stealth J-20 as Gates was visiting.

“The civilian leadership seemed surprised by the test,” Mr. Gates told reporters on Wednesday morning in Mutianyu, during a visit to the Great Wall outside Beijing. – Test of Stealth Fighter Clouds Gates Visit to China

As for China’s environmental push, what’s happening in the cities is key:

People who live in the biggest cities are most likely to recycle, volunteer for environmental organizations and participate in other “green” behaviors, found a new study, which surveyed urban dwellers in a variety of Chinese cities.

Yesterday on the Fox News Channel their entire plan seemed to be to saber rattle on China’s military. No doubt there’s been very scary developments with regard to South China Sea territory squabbles, but the marketing plan on China on Fox is unhelpful. I know, big surprise.

It’s a critically important visit for Pres. Obama and this country, because in the world of power China’s got the edge right now. Let’s hope Pres. Hu’s public statements about “common ground” is real. Because there is no doubt Obama is a man with whom Hu can deal if he tries.

The White House memorandum on “U.S.-China Commercial Relations” was released just moments ago (updated at 11:00 a.m. EST).

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Unexploded Bomb in Spokane Labeled ‘Domestic Terrorism’

But Jared Lee Loughner, who stalked a Democratic congresswoman, then murdered half a dozen people, putting Rep. Giffords in a trauma ward fighting for her life, with many others wounded, is simply a “shooting” or reduced to an alliteration: “The Tucson Tragedy,” on many cable networks.

From MSNBC:

A backpack found along the route of the Martin Luther King Jr. march in Spokane contained a bomb “capable of inflicting multiple casualties,” the FBI said Tuesday, describing the case as “domestic terrorism.”

“You could describe it as an improvised destructive device … or improvised explosive device.”

This is very serious, however, it didn’t come close to the damage one man did in Arizona.

The chief investigator for the sheriff’s department here has for the first time publicly described the brief and gory video clip from a store security camera that shows a gunman not only shooting Representative Gabrielle Giffords just above the eyebrow at a range of three feet, but then using his 9-millimeter pistol to gun down others near her at a similarly close range. – Video Captured ‘Calculated’ Gunman in Tucson

One targeted people at random during a MLK parade; the other admitted to a “planned… assassination” of one politician, but didn’t care who else got hit, all of whom were at a political event.

They are both acts of domestic terrorism.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

A Good Day: Boehner Kills ‘Job Killing,’ Conrad to Retire, Lieberman?, Sander Slams WH on Social Security

TM NOTE: Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist, weeknights 6 pm EST.

Yesterday I talked about the GOP trying to repeal the entire healthcare bill and undo whatever progress is there for millions of Americans. That study I cited debunking Boehner appears to have Boehner changing a bit of tone here for he now is calling the health law “job crushing” not “job killing.” More on the change in tone. Facts are a very stubborn thing:

Boehner’s folly:

…as evidence of a slight rhetorical shift,” according to CNN, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, “abandoned labeling the current health care law as ‘job killing,’ and instead called it ‘job crushing’ and ‘job destroying’ in a new message posted on his webpage.”

“Repealing the job crushing health care law is critical to boosting small business job creation and growing the economy,” Boehner wrote in the post. ..

Even Former Senator Majority Leader Frist is telling Boehner to give up this repeal the whole health law thing!

Economists are also weighing in again today making Boehner look like the fool he is on this so no wonder he is shifting tone.

Come on Boehner, where are all those jobs you said conservatives know how to create?

From AP Factcheck:

The Republican translation (on job killing) doesn’t track, said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute. “People voluntarily working less isn’t the same as employers cutting jobs,” he explained.

For example, CBO said some people might decide to retire earlier because it would be easier to get health care, instead of waiting until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.

The law “reduces the amount of labor supplied, but it’s not reducing the ability of people to find jobs, which is what the job-killing slogan is intended to convey,” said economist Paul Van de Water of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In very important breaking news for progressives a enemy of the New Deal with influence on the Hill, Senator Conrad is retiring and wont run in 2012. And a bigger bonus? It’s being reported Lieberman is to announce he will retire on Wednesday. Lieberman is a traitor to his party and progressives. Perhaps he has determined he cannot win in 2012 given that polls show him so despised after his betrayals, especially since his antics on the healthcare bill. Hopefully a real Democrat will take his place. We do not need the likes of these two any longer on the Hill. Give me a Republican vowing to cut SS than a “Democrat” pressing to do so. Beware Senators Baucus and others.

Sen. Conrad’s eyes have always been on harming the New Deal and Great Society. He approves the Obama Work till You Die Deficit Commission recommendations. Today he announced retirement from the Senate , thus he isn’t running in 2012. Democrats will have to field a strong candidate in such an open seat. But this favored to go GOP. Better to have such a senator replaced with a real Republican opposed to Social Security programs than this one I say.

Austerity is disastrous for anyone in politics who wants to get re elected and perhaps Conrad senses this as well. If he implements a Grand Deal dismantling parts of the New Deal he is toast. Any Democrat right now considering joining austerity fan clubs better buck up, the consequences they face will be being voted out in 2012.

Report from North Dakota:

BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad said Tuesday he will not run for re-election in 2012, saying he will concentrate instead on reducing the national debt and dependence on foreign oil.

“It is more important I spend my time and energy trying to solve these problems than to be distracted by a campaign for re-election,” the Democratic incumbent said in a statement sent to supporters. He currently chairs the Senate Budget Committee.

Conrad, 62, was elected to the Senate in 1986, when he was serving as state tax commissioner. His announcement followed last year’s decision by North Dakota’s other Democratic senator, Byron Dorgan, not to seek re-election. Dorgan was replaced by Republican John Hoeven, who had served as North Dakota’s governor for the past decade.

Conrad, Dorgan and former U.S. Rep. Earl Pomeroy made up North Dakota’s all-Democratic congressional delegation for 18 years. Pomeroy was defeated last November by Republican Rick Berg in a bid for his 10th term.

Conrad already had a prospective Republican challenger, state Public Service Commissioner Brian Kalk, who said last week he was forming an exploratory committee to test support for a Senate race.

Conrad said he would serve out his term….

In Conrad’s first campaign, he promised not to seek re-election unless the nation’s budget and trade deficits had been brought under control.

More on Conrad and Lieberman in the days ahead as they are central to any Grand Bargain to be crafted on the New Deal.

Perfectly timed, Senator Sanders, champion of the working class, comes out again swinging at Obama on Social Security. His points are worth noting. He is taking on austerity madness today:

Sanders Urges Obama to Save Social Security:

In a letter to the president, Sanders referred to what he called “worrisome reports” that Obama is considering cuts in Social Security. “I hope that information is wrong and that you will stand by your campaign promises to strengthen Social Security,” the senator said. “I urge you once again to make it clear to the American people that under your watch we will not cut Social Security benefits, raise the retirement age or privatize this critical program.”

A White House fiscal commission appointed by Obama recently called for changes in Social Security. A change in how Social Security is funded as part of the tax deal Obama reached in December with congressional Republicans was another warning sign, Sanders said. Another red flag was raised when Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee evaded a direct question about Social Security cuts. “Let’s not rule everything out,” Goolsbee said during a Jan. 7 interview on CNN. On Capitol Hill, House Speaker John Boehner repeatedly has said he supports raising the Social Security retirement age to 70.

In fact, the Social Security trust fund has a $2.6 trillion surplus projected to increase to more than $4 trillion by 2023, the senator noted in his letter. The 75-year-old system will be able to continue to pay every nickel owed to ever eligible recipient for at least another 26 years. “All of us want to work in a bipartisan manner when we can, but needlessly cutting Social Security benefits when that has nothing to do with our deficit situation is not good public policy,” Sanders said.

In Sanders’ letter he says forsaking SS for bipartisanship is simply wholly unnecessary. He also cites instances where in 2008 Obama promised he would NOT touch SS. Even on Meet the Press he said so. Remember austerity is for losers. Do austerity like this and your odds of winning re election drop big time.

With Boehner on defense now on his “job killing” healthcare law campaign, Conrad retiring in 2012 with a chance to put in a populist Democrat, Lieberman maybe out as well, and Sanders publicly pressing the White House on the foolishness of any bargain on the New Deal, I would call this a good day for progressives.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Obama’s Wall Street Shout Out

Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences. Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression. – Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System

Anyone think this op-ed and the accompanying Executive Order was coincidentally dropped just when Chinese President Hu Jintao arrives for his state dinner?

Billed as the most important state visit of the Obama presidency to date, there can be no doubt that U.S. – China engagement is critical to our economic recovery. There’s just been no evidence yet that China is interested in a symbiotic understanding of equal partnership. CSIS has written a “Memorandum to Hu Jintao: What Do the Americans Want?” Interesting, if only we could get the Chinese President to read it.

New chief of staff Bill Daley wasn’t around when the work on the regulatory reform began, but given what Obama’s saying, as well as the Executive Order, it’s something he would wholeheartedly approve.

It couldn’t be a better day for this to break, at the same time Pres. Obama’s approval across the board has risen, after his midterm “shellacking.” The reach out to big business also coincides with David Plouffe coming in and Obama Inc. gearing up the 2012 campaign.

In full, Obama’s Executive Order:

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review – Executive Order

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to improve regulation and regulatory review, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. General Principles of Regulation. (a) Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science. It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.

(b) This order is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. As stated in that Executive Order and to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

(c) In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated

present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.

Sec. 2. Public Participation. (a) Regulations shall be adopted through a process that involves public participation. To that end, regulations shall be based, to the extent feasible and consistent with law, on the open exchange of information and perspectives among State, local, and tribal officials, experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole.

(b) To promote that open exchange, each agency, consistent with Executive Order 12866 and other applicable legal requirements, shall endeavor to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process. To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment through the Internet on any proposed regulation, with a comment period that should generally be at least 60 days. To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall also provide, for both proposed and final rules, timely online access to the rulemaking docket on regulations.gov, including relevant scientific and technical findings, in an open format that can be easily searched and downloaded. For proposed rules, such access shall include, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, an opportunity for public comment on all pertinent parts of the rulemaking docket, including relevant scientific and technical findings.

(c) Before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, each agency, where feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views of those who are likely to be affected, including those who are likely to benefit from and those who are potentially subject to such rulemaking.

Sec. 3. Integration and Innovation. Some sectors and industries face a significant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping. Greater coordination across agencies could reduce these requirements, thus reducing costs and simplifying and harmonizing rules. In developing regulatory actions and identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization. Each agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.

Sec. 4. Flexible Approaches. Where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, each agency shall identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. These approaches include warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements as well as provision of information to the public in a form that is clear and intelligible.

Sec. 5. Science. Consistent with the President’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,

“Scientific Integrity” (March 9, 2009), and its implementing guidance, each agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency’s regulatory actions.

Sec. 6. Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules. (a) To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Such retrospective analyses, including supporting data, should be released online whenever possible.

(b) Within 120 days of the date of this order, each agency shall develop and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a preliminary plan, consistent with law and its resources and regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.

Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For purposes of this order, “agency” shall have the meaning set forth in section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866.

(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Rachel Maddow’s blog says Obama is responding to Darrel Issa’s request to business, basically saying the President is giving them what they want.

Remember when Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) asked the business world to tell him which rules Congress needs to change? Mr. Issa made his request as part of assuming the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Today, President Barack Obama responds, tacitly, to Rep. Issa’s appeal.

Sunlight Foundation weighs in as well, also explaining how it this will be implemented. Salon.com has a write-up, too.

But we are also making it our mission to root out regulations that conflict, that are not worth the cost, or that are just plain dumb. – Pres. Obama

Can’t wait to find out which regulations Obama judges as “dumb.” Except that it sounds to me that any regulation in his “root out” campaign qualifies. Coming from a conservative Democratic President, this isn’t very comforting.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Sen. Marco Rubio, Just Say No

Plurality thinks Tea Party has “crossed the line”: The Post poll also finds that a plurality, 49-39, think the Tea Party’s political discourse has “crossed the line,” and finds more think the GOP has crossed the line than Dems, 45-39. – Greg Sargent, The public agrees: Political climate can cause political violence.

Yesterday it was reported that newly elected Republican rock star Sen. Marco Rubio was still “mulling” whether to join the Tea Party caucus.

After the Tucscon domestic terrorism tragedy, a Washington Post/ABC poll shows 52% now have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party, with Obama’s approval among Republicans going from 8% at the midterms to 22% today, with his disapproval down 10 points from its high in the summer of 2009, rising. For those of you not aware, this was just before Sarah Palin’s “death panels” squeal hijacked health care and the Democratic message, with Palin’s power taking off. By a margin of 58% to 40%, Obama’s improvement is significant, at least in this snapshot of time, since the midterms, “Americans say he understands the problems of people like themselves.”

So, today Joe Scarborough writes a very timely post that’s actually a warning to Republican hopefuls, stating the reasons why it’s a very bad idea for Rubio to sign on to the Tea Party caucus.

But before you and the pack of right-wing polemicists who make big bucks spewing rage on a daily basis congratulate yourselves for not being responsible for Jared Lee Loughner’s rampage, I recommend taking a deep breath. Just because the dots between violent rhetoric and violent actions don’t connect in this case doesn’t mean you can afford to ignore the possibility — or, as many fear, the inevitability — that someone else will soon draw the line between them.

[...] Who, other than Palin’s most strident supporters, was not troubled by the bull’s-eye target over Giffords’s district? Or the political advertisement promoting the removal of Giffords from office with the firing of a “fully automatic M16” with her opponent? Or the gunned-down congresswoman’s own warning to NBC’s Chuck Todd that violent words have consequences?

And who on the right is really stupid enough to not understand that the political movement that has a near monopoly on gun imagery may be the first focus of an act associated with gun violence? As a conservative who had a 100 percent rating with the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America over my four terms in Congress, I wonder why some on the right can’t defend the Second Amendment without acting like jackasses. While these types regularly attack my calls for civility, it is their reckless rhetoric that does the most to hurt the cause.

We know Palin won’t call out irresponsible language or lead the discussion back to civility, but who will?

Where was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who covets the moral authority to lead his party in 2012? Is there anything — anything at all — a member of his own party can say that offends this man?

As for Palin invoking “blood libel,” Scarborough had this to say:

In Palin’s Facebook manifesto last Wednesday, she didn’t condemn extreme speech and its potential for violence. Instead, she seemed to say, “Deal with it.” Then she proved it, ineptly and offensively naming herself the victim of a “blood libel,” which generations of persecuted Jews know carries connotations much more serious than a drop in the polls.

Texan4Hillary, a movement progressive who writes a nightly post on what it’s like to be in the activist community, had this to say about Palin’s use of “blood libel” in the comments this morning (slight edits):

… as a Jew and a historian on anti-Semitism and Holocaust- I must say I’m taken aback here. You say she didn’t mean to use blood libel in the historical term? The only context I know the painful term “blood libel” is used in is about how throughout history Jews were accused by Christians for using gentile blood in making matzah etc. See Christians labeled Jews as blind to the correct ways of the Church and Christ. Thus they must be persecuted harshly. Blood libels were used to scapegoat innocent Jews for society ills. Thousands died. Worse the blood libel has been used very recently in Turkey, Syria and Gaza. This term is still a tool of hate being employed in the modern world friend.

Palin’s use of the term blood libel is to me offensive and shows total disrespect for the Jewish people and their experience. By using this term Palin insults and inflames pure and simple and there is no excuse for that. Who next will get shot with folks like Palin ratcheting up rhetoric like this? Suddenly the Right thinks its the victim like the Jews?! How can one remotely compare? Using phrases like “blood libel” and “pogrom” (which is one I’m seeing being used by the Right) belittles, demeans and defames the millions of Jews who were tormented, persecuted, and often murdered. Walk through t he gates of Auschwitz or the grounds of Babi Yar and tell me there is any true moral use for these terms being applied by the Right. But the Right of course does not care who it insults.

[...] Palin wants to see Thatcher when she goes to Europe. I suggest she see other site as well. Dachau. Auschwitz. Stuhoff. The old ghetto in Prague. See what real blood libels and wild persecution did to a people and why it is abhorrent to twist the term to suit some poor excuse of a defense.

Scarborough’s point that Republicans need to start looking like grown-ups instead of unhinged carnival barkers is a good one.

However, nothing will stop Sarah Palin, who after a brilliant foundation laid in 2010, has now decided to identify with the wingnut radio crew instead of a politician who has answers to America’s problems. It’s working with die hard conservatives, but not anywhere else. Back to the WashingtonPost/ABC poll:

In contrast to glowing reviews for the president, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (R) draws more negative than positive evaluations of the way she has handled the tragedy. About 30 percent give her positive marks, while nearly half – 46 percent – disapprove of her actions. About a quarter in the poll expressed no opinion. Fewer than half of all Republicans approve of Palin’s handling of the matter, with positive marks rising to just 56 percent among conservative Republicans.

It gets worse for Mrs. Palin:

The internals of the new Post poll show that only 30 percent approve of Palin’s handling of the shooting, while 53 percent approve of its handling by the news media, which Palin has criticized for supposedly trying to blame her for the massacre.

Palin lost to the very media she’s condemning daily, another very bad sign for her, though her standing with conservative Republicans proves she still may have a shot with presidential primary voters even if the public at large doesn’t accept her, no doubt yet another reason Joe Scarborough is pleading with his own side for sanity.

One thing Hillary Clinton always knew how to do when the press was bearing down on her was turn the conversation around to what she cared most about, which was always issues facing people, not her own personality cult.

Sen. Marco Rubio is as conservative as they come and he’s got the potential to be a leading light on the Right. Of course, the Left no doubt hopes he throws in with Sarah Palin and the “armed and dangerous” wingnut radio crowd. But anyone who wants the Republicans to actually do something about their unhinged brethren and sisters should be rooting for Rubio to simply say no.

Read full story · Comments { 25 }

David Frum to Sarah Palin: ‘Stop talking now”

If Sarah Palin ever used her time on the air to turn the conversation away from her own defense to talk about an issue I think the world would stop on its axis to commemorate the moment. It’s always about her.

On Sean Hannity’s Fox News show on Monday, Sarah Palin defended herself.

In the 30 minute interview, Palin also addressed the criticism she has faced for her video response to the shootings posted last week on Facebook. Critics particularly took issue with the former governor’s use of the term “blood libel,” a phrase that for many conjures anti-semetic connotations.

“Blood libel obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands. In this case, that’s exactly what was going on,” she said, adding later, “Just two days before an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal had that term in its title. And that term has been used for eons.”

… “I am not ready to make an announcement about what my political future is going to be. But I will tell you … I am not going to sit down. I am not going to shut up,”she said.

Sarah still doesn’t understand what “blood libel” means or refers to, but she’s doubling down anyway. As for the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, it was written by Glenn Reynolds and was full of holes you could drive a F150 through.

It’s funny how the Tea Party Right thinks there are only two volumes: squealing something like “blood libel” or disappearing into silence. Patrick J. Buchanan even invoked “lynch mob” over the weekend.

But I assure you, nobody thought Sarah Palin would ever choose to shut up. She simply doesn’t have the impulse control or discipline.

At least she admitted it was a crosshairs graphic, which makes her defenders look stupid, though her excuse was everyone does it. I don’t think anyone else has ever named specific politicians to be “targeted,” let alone followed it up with “don’t retreat, reload” rhetoric.

Read full story · Comments { 23 }

Healthcare Law a ‘Jobs Killer?’

TM NOTE: Texan4Hillary offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist, weeknights 6 pm EST.

Sorry Mr. Speaker, no.

The healthcare law is very flawed. The mandate making Americans buy from a cartel is abhorrent. But it does have some redeeming qualities bundled in it and the Right wing lies on the law must be debunked. The Right’s effort to repeal the entire thing is outlandish, especially since the mandate is based on the GOP’s own plan for healthcare coverage back in the 1990s. Even polls show most Republicans against full repeal.

One redeeming quality is after all the shouting over the public option the law contains a vast expansion of government insurance- Medicaid- to 15 million more Americans. This is one cost saver in the bill because it is cheaper to insure folks via government run insurance than paying private insurance cartels to cover you. Now just imagine if everyone was insured by say Medicare? The savings would be enormous.

Alas the Democrats abandoned their opportunity to expand Medicare to all Americans. Teddy Kennedy and LBJ intended for Medicare to be the plan to cover everyone but when trying to get it passed in the 1960s they had to compromise -Medicare would have to be for older folks. The hope was younger people would demand Medicare after seeing the great benefits their grandparents got. So instead we got this for now as we keep fighting to expand Medicare.

Speaker Boehner and his GOP buddies are lying and these lies must be called out. They call the law a “jobs killer” and a “budget buster.” As you will see this is FALSE. Progress is at least made in the law for some and Boehner is way off. Annenberg does a report debunking these GOP lies about the law. Snippets below on how it doesn’t kill jobs or break the bank. Oh and a late breaking story- the GOP will try and undo a central provision of the bill which, if sucessful, would further hike premiums. See below for clips and links for the details on all this.

From Factcheck: A ‘Job-Killing’ Law? House Republicans misrepresent the facts. Experts predict the healthcare law will have little effect on employment.

Independent, nonpartisan experts project only a “small” or “minimal” impact on jobs, even before taking likely job gains in the health care and insurance industries into account.

The House Republican leadership, in a report issued Jan. 6, badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect “will probably be small.”

The GOP also cites a study projecting a 1.6 million job loss — but fails to mention that the study refers to a hypothetical employer mandate that is not part of the new law.

The same study cited by the GOP also predicts an offsetting gain of 890,000 jobs in hospitals, doctors’ offices and insurance companies — a factor not mentioned by the House leadership.

There’s little doubt that the new law will likely lead to somewhat fewer low-wage jobs. That’s mainly because of the law’s requirement that, generally, firms with more than 50 workers pay a penalty if they fail to provide health coverage for their workers. One leading health care expert, John Sheils of The Lewin Group, puts the loss at between 150,000 and 300,000 jobs, at or near the minimum wage. And Sheils says that relatively small loss would be partly offset by gains in the health care industry.

Yep. This bill despite how flawed it is reduces lower wage jobs. What other Right wing lies about this health care law are being set up this week?

…is the health care law really “job-killing” as claimed? We find that to be another case of exaggerated and misleading labeling.

Job-Killing?

To support its claim, the GOP report first cites the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — but the report badly misrepresents what CBO actually said.

House GOP Leadership, Jan. 6: The health care law will cause significant job losses for the U.S. economy: the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the law will reduce the “amount of labor used in the economy by … roughly half a percent…,” an estimate that adds up to roughly 650,000 jobs lost.

In fact, CBO did not predict a 650,000 job loss. The Republican report cites a CBO report from August, which actually said that the economy will use less labor primarily because many people will choose to work less, or retire early, as a result of the new law. (See Box 2.1, pages 48 and 49.) What CBO projects is mostly a reduction in the supply of labor, which is not the same as a reduction in the supply of jobs.

CBO, August 2010: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.

CBO said one reason fewer people will choose to work is that many low-income people will have more money in their pockets as a result of the law expanding Medicaid and providing federal subsidies for many who buy insurance privately. “The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources,” CBO said. “Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market.”

Another reason that people might work less is that the new law requires insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, and also limits their ability to charge higher rates for older persons who buy policies for themselves. “As a result, some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would,” CBO said.

So actually the law will reduce some folks from needing to work due to the subsidies for insurance and expansion of Medicaid. Speaker Boehner is lying.

Speaker Boehner claims the healthcare law is “budget busting.” Really? If the GOP repeals the law then uh we got a big new hole in the deficit. Tax cuts for the rich are fine for the Right but not expanding Medicaid, building 10,000 community health centers or helping millions get private insurance.

Budget-Busting? No. Budget saving? Yes.

The Congressional Budget Office officially scored the new law as self-financing, projecting that it would actually reduce the deficit over the first 10 years — and beyond. And so it should surprise nobody that CBO said Jan. 6 that repealing the new law, as Republicans propose, would increase the deficit. CBO’s latest figures project that repealing the new law will increase the deficit by a total of $230 billion over the next 10 years (through fiscal year 2021). So keeping it in place would help the budget, not bust it.

So what does the House GOP have to say when confronted with this report debunking their lies to scare the American people? You guessed it, bull.

A ‘Job-Killing’ Response

When we laid out some of our findings to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office, spokesman Brad Dayspring, told us: “This is a job-killing law, period. Anyone who argues otherwise is ignoring the construct of the health care law and the widely accepted facts.”

A late story today is that the Republicans eye fast tracking an effort to kill the key provision in the bill that makes health insurers spend more of your money on actual healthcare and not the profit line. The Republican Right is doing what it does best. From the Hill:

Republican Conference Secretary John Carter (R-Texas) is trying to build momentum for a Congressional Review Act (CRA) challenge to a recent regulation that requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of their premium dollars (85 percent in the large group market) on healthcare services….

Carter used the annual Republican retreat this past weekend to try to generate support for a CRA challenge to the so-called medical loss ratio (MLR) requirements for insurers, spokesman John Stone told The Hill.

On Wednesday, Carter reintroduced a resolution disapproving of the MLR requirements, which were published in November. The requirements aligned closely with recommendations made by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners….

“By pledging to repeal health reform, House Republicans would eliminate this important protection and allow insurance companies to continue unlimited spending on CEO bonuses, profits and lobbying — and less on patients’ health care,” said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) in November after the MLR regulations were issued.

Both parties seem so invested in corporate interests that neither is ready or willing to propose killing the mandate provision. everyone can be insured without a mandate or being fined. It is the mandate with no public option that has so many Americans infuriated. Either the Democrats kill the mandate or add a public option. Until then a hefty electoral price will be paid.

Too bad the Democratic Party ignored the progressives who showed poll after poll revealing that the health bill without a public option was disastrous and toxic to the fortunes of the party of FDR. Too bad Boehner is not going after the mandate; instead he is mislabeling the whole bill and foolishly arguing to repeal it with nothing to replace it. Americans need work, not a campaign to repeal a law without any proposal to cover Americans in need of insurance.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Ehud Barak Quits Labor, Netanyahu-Lieberman Hardliners Win

From my viewpoint, this picture by Tess Scheflan perfectly encapsulates Ehud Barak’s actions.

According to varied reports, Labor is either like Tunisia, “divided into militias,” or an ameba, take your pick.

One thing Ehud Barak quitting Labor and forming Atzmaut means is that the hardliners against negotiations with the Palestinians are in charge until we see the next move in this act.

But I guess Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is breathing a little easier today, especially if you listen to his adversaries inside the Israeli Knesset. Having Ehud Barak leave Labor to form his own “Independent” faction is a lot better than seeing your own government collapse, but also consolidates the hardliners. I think Netanyahu is underestimating Barak, but who isn’t at this point in his career? From Haaretz:

“We set out today toward independence,” the 68-year-old Barak said in his official announcement at the Knesset. “We are creating a faction, a movement and eventually a party that will be centrist, Zionist and democratic.”

“The top priority [of this movement] will be first and foremost the state, then the party, and only at the end, us,” Barak told reporters. “We invite anyone who believes in this path to join.”

“The State of Israel is faced with tests that are not simple” with regard to policy, defense and society, Barak said, declaring: “We are ready to confront these.”

Tzipi Livni’s response is below.

Livni told a Kadima meeting that, “This is a bad day for the Netanyahu government but I believe it’s also a hopeful day for Israel.”

She added, “Today, clearer than ever, we’ve seen which representatives use shady political wielding, and which are our representatives of truth. Netanyahu’s government is a narrow government that falls apart from the inside, lacking any other choice, due to political decay and an absence of either a vision or path.”

“Today, Kadima again calls out loud, crystal clear and stronger than ever, for elections,” Livni added.

“We will continue and work according to our principles, our values, and we will guard and advance our vision, defend democracy and the Israeli public from this awful government,” she stated. “This government today needs to return the choice to the people and initiate new elections. This time not only will we win in the elections but we will also lead the next government.”

The rest of the JPost article is filled with invectives including comparing Labor to “naked spineless, invertebrate mollusks,” and statements showing a general freak out amidst Kadima MKs.

Kadima MK Yohanan Plessner said “it is a sad day – a day which brought the end of a party that established the state of Israel – and a day in which the political culture in Israel reached a new low of filth and loathing. It is now clear that the only legacy of the Netanyahu government is of political dealing and buying fragments of parties at the expense of the national interest,” he said.

All this has a back drop of Ms. Livni’s recent accusations about the Netanyahu-Lieberman government’s actions to investigate the funding of civil and human rights groups.

Her party, Kadima, would oppose the establishment of a parliamentary commission of inquiry into groups such as B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, she said. Her comments followed an attack by the foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, whose party sponsored the bill, on rightwing opponents of the measure. He said they had “bleeding hearts” and were harming the “national camp”.

In a statement Livni said: “An evil spirit has been sweeping over the country, and it is our duty to stand up against this wave. Kadima cannot be a passive participant in this process; our public duty is not to be part of such a thing and stand against it … Those sparking the flames are the members of the Netanyahu-Lieberman government, whether silently or in complicity with elements in the Knesset [parliament].”

Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government is dependent on the support of Yisrael Beiteinu, Lieberman’s party, and many commentators say the extreme right in his coalition is making the running on policy. The centrist Kadima party has refused to join the coalition while it contains Yisrael Beiteinu.

As well as citing the bill passed by a large majority last week to set up an investigation into the funding of rights organisations, Livni pointed to a video death threat issued against deputy state prosecutor Shal Nitzan for investigating two racist, anti-Arab Facebook groups. Netanyahu called for a police investigation into the video.

On another angle, SecyClintonBlog, who also has a post up on this subject, and I chatted briefly about Jennifer Rubin’s post today on anti-Semitism. But you should be forewarned to take Dramamine before reading it, as getting hooked into anything Rubin writes on Israel – Palestinian issues is taking a ride on a Middle East hamster wheel. You invariably end up at the “what the consequences are for those countries if they perpetuate anti-Semitism” and “alleged ‘Islamaphobia’” stalemate that should make anyone queasy.

The hard right line of Netanyahu-Lieberman, with Livni paralyzed, gives Ehud Barak an opportunity, especially since he’s stressing security, minus the thug tactics of the Netanyahu-Lieberman government. I utilize the conflation of these men because Netanyahu cannot prevail without Lieberman, which should tell you a lot about the situation in Israel on any number of fronts. It’s just one reason, post midterms and looking to ’12, I don’t think talks will amount to anything. Israel’s waited this long and after the settlement freeze fiasco Netanyahu-Lieberman have nothing to lose by waiting out and hoping Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or someone Israeli centric will take over in ’12.

It’s also why in the light of what’s happening in Tunisia, but also Algeria, Mark Lynch may be on to something, at least as far as the action being on the Arab side.

If these protests continue to spread, both inside of countries and across to other Arab countries, then we really could talk about this being Obama’s “Arab Spring,” only with the extra intensity associated with climate change. Arab regimes will do everything they can to prevent that from happening. Most everybody is carefully watching everyone else to see what’s going to happen, with news traveling across borders and within countries through an ever-growing role for social media layered on top of (not replacing) satellite television and existing networks. I’m not hugely optimistic that we will see real change, given the power of these authoritarian regimes and their record of resilience. But still… interesting times.

The reason I’m skeptical about an “Arab spring,” to use Lynch’s words, is that back in my world of political analysis, especially when it meets foreign policy, I just don’t think Bill Daley and David Plouffe will encourage Pres. Obama to go out on a limb on foreign policy to support anything Arab, spring or otherwise. In practical political terms we’ve entered the season of the conservative Blue Dog reign, a place where nothing progressive grows.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall writes about what seems to me the obvious reality of the Israeli Labour Party finally fizzling out with Ehud Barak’s move today.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Dr. Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy


more at Huffington Post

Dr. King’s rhetoric was forged in fire and brimstone on the altar of confrontation. King was destined to pave the way, not just for Barack Obama, but for another Democratic president back in his day, which is why I run this piece I wrote years ago every year on this day. It took the collision of two great men to dismantle the prejudice of America’s political history, even if civil rights remains a scarred wound that doesn’t take much to rip open.

Dr. King was forever challenging the U.S. media, but there weren’t many in the establishment that didn’t feel Dr. King’s heat. It’s certain that President John F. Kennedy did. But King lived in times of volatility, cataclysmic change and violent national shifts. He was a powerfully effective man of peace in a time of country and cultural wars.

Some believe that President Kennedy’s presidency was owed, at least in part, to Dr. Martin Luther King. In a moment of stunning political pressure inside his own camp, candidate Kennedy reached out to Martin Luther King when he was convicted of a probation violation after participating in a diner sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia. Forever the political pragmatist, Kennedy saw the light, with a big push from Bobby, and interceded on behalf of King to get him released from Reidsville Prison. That, as some tell it, changed history. King as an ally brought out the black vote, helping to defeat Nixon. But there were many other fault lines in 1960, including Texas, Illinois, but especially West Virginia, that played their part, too. So I’ll let you be the judge of whether King helped elect Kennedy. He sure didn’t hurt him. Neither did Kennedy’s pledge to right the wrongs being done to blacks.

However, once president, Kennedy was simply too obsessed with foreign policy issues to turn his attention to the home front. He just didn’t get the importance of King’s fights down south, at first, especially when juxtaposed against the crisis brewing overseas. The challenges escalating between East and West Germany kept JFK’s attention focused on nuclear confrontation, then came the Cuban Missile crisis. But eventually, JFK began to finally understand that the home front matters as much as what’s happening “over there,” especially in the face of horrible prejudice. Kennedy was a man who could change and he did.

Known as the Birmingham Campaign, King altered history and shifted Kennedy’s thinking along with it. His famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is now legend. It was King’s incarceration in Birmingham that led Coretta Scott King to call President Kennedy, which resulted in him interceding once again on King’s behalf, forcing the Birmingham bigots to allow King to talk to his wife.

The March on Washington and King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” worried President Kennedy at the time. He was understandably concerned about violence breaking out, but eventually King won him over.

Watching the brutality in Birmingham and the subsequent political push from King and other civil rights leaders changed Kennedy forever. Months before King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, on June 11, 1963, JFK proposed action that would offer “the kind of equality of treatment which we would want for ourselves.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. had gotten through to Kennedy, revealing something from which J.F.K. had once been distanced, a world away.

John F. Kennedy’s address that June:
Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Arizona Shooting Victim Arrested for Death Threat Against Tucson Tea Party Co-Founder

“nobody was threatening Gabby.” – Tucson Tea Party co-founder, Trent Humphries (h/t Frank Rich)

Oh, those wacky conservatives over at Tucker Carlson’s place. They just can’t help themselves. That Mr. Fuller’s violent rhetoric was spurred on by getting shot never enters the minds of Carlson & Co., which has resulted in his involuntary commitment to “a county mental services unit,” according to CNN.

The flashback quote above from the Tea Party co-founder who was threatened yesterday was made after a gun was reportedly dropped by an attendee at a previous meet-up with Gabrielle Giffords.



How ironic the Right, who weren’t even bothered by a gun dropping at a Giffords event, and squealed violent hate speech rhetoric didn’t have an outcome after she was shot and almost mortally wounded, is now raising the roof about the latest example of offensively dangerous rhetoric that just last week they were saying doesn’t matter.

They can’t have it both ways.

So, now the Right is finally wailing about dangerous hate speech, but only because the hate speech has been focused on one of their own, though the real reason they’re talking about the incident is to use it against the Left.

Fuller’s hate speech should be condemned on all sides, as should the crosshairs targeting action and rhetoric of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman and Sharron Angle, but the Right can’t be bothered with consistency.

One can only imagine the Right’s reaction if one of their own had been targeted with crosshairs on a poster by a politician encouraging “don’t retreat, reload,” which ended up with one of those politicians shot and fighting for her life in the hospital, with others killed, including a young girl. All happening in a come “armed and dangerous” atmosphere egged on by powerful Tea Party politicians like Sarah Palin and Rep. Michele Bachman.

From KGUN9-TV, the very channel name illustrative, but we are talking about Arizona.

Two things are clear from Saturday’s ABC News town hall meeting in Tucson. One: Tucsonans are eager to move forward and recover from last week’s horrible shooting rampage. And two: that process is going to be slow and painful. That latter point was driven home by the arrest of a shooting victim, who threatened a speaker during the taping of the program.

… On the front row was Kenneth Dorushka, who was shot shielding his wife from Loughner’s gunfire; and J. Eric Fuller, who was shot in the knee.

… That’s where the atmosphere turned tense. When Tucson Tea Party founder Trent Humphries rose to suggest that any conversation about gun control should be put off until after the funerals for all the victims, witnesses say Fuller became agitated. Two told KGUN9 News that finally, Fuller took a picture of Humphries, and said, “You’re dead.”

The threat from Fuller is inexcusable.

I wonder if it will shut up the “civility is censorship” lunatic fringe Right, the same crew who thought crosshairs “targeting” politicians wouldn’t have “consequences,” as Rep. Gabrielle Giffords herself warned.

Judging by Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller headline, Human Events, Michelle Malkin and others hanging on to false equivalencies, it seems not.

Mr. Fuller, a 63-year-old disabled veteran, is a Giffords supporter, who when interviewed last week also had this to say about the Tea Party inciters. Via Democracy Now:

“It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Fuller says. “Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled.”

America is hearing him now.

It’s very convenient for the Right to rise up on the dangerously unhinged death threat from Mr. Fuller, said in the light of day at an ABC News town hall in Tucson.

However, the Right has no credibility on calling out Fuller, because their indignation at his use of violent rhetoric only reared up when it was focused at one of their own and they’re using it only to attack the Left.

It’s all so predictable. The Right is nothing if not opportunistic and hypocritical.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

The Sunday News Early Bird Round-Up

Good morning and welcome to Sunday!

On this day in history, January 16, 1547, Ivan the Terrible was crowned czar in Russia.

Here are some morning links:

~Remember that billion dollar, taxpayer-funded, high-tech security fence being built along the Arizona/N.M. border to keep people from entering illegally? Well, the Obama administration has canceled the project because it turns out it was yet one more taxpayer-funded boondoggle that wasn’t working as planned. The question is, what took so long to kill the project and do we get our money back?

~The U.S. government has slightly eased travel restrictions to Cuba. I wish they would completely rework our policy towards Cuba, it makes no sense to me given that we are more than happy to do business with oppressive communist governments when it suits our economic needs/desires.

~Sean Hannity has a brilliant foreign policy idea to help prevent rising gas prices: re-invade Iraq and Kuwait because those ungrateful sheiks need to repay us for their liberation, dammit!

~The balance of power has again shifted in Tunisia as Prime Minister Mohamed Ghannouchi, a close ally of the former president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali (now in Saudi Arabia), stepped down and handed power to the current speaker of the Parliament, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Meanwhile, you can bet the farm that right now there is major anxiety in repressive regimes in the region as they watch the popular uprising unfold. Many are shocked and saying they didn’t think it was possible. The U.S. is also on shaky ground as we have long backed the repressive Tunisian regime for our own political expediency, a fact which has not gone unnoticed in the Arab world and the word they are using to describe our selective policy of democracy promotion in the Arab world (and even elsewhere): hypocrisy.

~Ok, this is important- the Jets v. Patriots playoff today. As a Bostonian I am rooting for the Pats (naturally) and I want it on record that I am sick of the Jets’ Rex Ryan’s smack talk.

~The Washington Note deconstructs the hype about China’s growing military might. It’s an interesting read.

~Never underestimate the power of the GOP to do everything in their power to stall progress. AmericaBlog Gay reported on Friday that Rep. Duncan Hunter plans to introduce legislation next week to stop the repeal of DADT and in so doing, undo the will of the American people.

~I really don’t think Charles Krauthammer gets it. It’s interesting how some on the right are so defensive and afraid of the implications of toning down the rhetoric. It probably has something to do with the fact that violent symbolism and reckless, irresponsible rhetoric has become their calling card, without which, their whole anti-government “brand” would be seriously diminished. Were some too quick to politicize the events in Arizona in the immediate aftermath? Yes. But lets keep in mind that part of the reason the debate instantly turned to the significance of the dangerous, gutter-level rhetoric that has become all too commonplace was because the Congresswoman who happened to have had an assassin’s bullet removed from her head had herself raised concerns over being a target on Sarah Palin’s infamous midterm hit-list. At the time, Giffords had called for more responsible debate and toning down the rhetoric. Is Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or the Tea Party responsible for what the troubled Jared Loughner did? No. But is it really too much to ask to take this opportunity to step back and realize that our political opponents are not enemies or targets or traitors or evil?

~Robert Naiman makes an interesting comparison between the events in Tunisia and the potential for significant civil unrest in Haiti if their isn’t a new election there, one that actually reflects the will of the people.

~Sssshhhhh! We’re quietly extending the PATRIOT Act even though we know law enforcement is abusing it’s authority under the Act’s most controversial provisions. And yes, Obama will sign this one too despite campaign pledges to reform the Act so as to try to protect civil liberties.

~House Speaker Boehner turns down yet another Obama invite- this time to the State Dinner for China. So much for even the pretense of bipartisanship.

~In case you missed it, in a jaw-dropping editorial this week, the Washington Times defended Sarah Palin’s tone-deaf use of the phrase “blood libel” by saying “the latest round of an ongoing pogrom against conservative thinkers.” Yes, they said pogrom. Here is the Wikipedia definition of pogrom with some historical context, specifically as it has been applied to Jewish people, resulting in horrific violence. So, what loaded, totally inappropriate term will be used next to describe the victimhood of poor Sarah Palin? Genocide? Holocaust?

~I was actually watching this Chris Mathews episode the other night when the word “crackers” escaped the motormouth and I found myself almost instinctively recoiling and thinking “no he didn’t.”

~Rachel Maddow did what I thought was a really great segment about how the conventional wisdom on gun control has become radicalized over the past 5 or so years. You can see the video here. As someone who was taught to respect, and responsibly handle, guns at a young age because we had my father and grandfather’s rifles and handguns in the house, I think that reasonable restrictions on high capacity magazines and assault weapons does not trample rough-shod over Second Amendment rights. Maddow also points out the disturbing and extreme rhetoric of many in the GOP/Tea Party who have expressed that the primary purpose of the right to bear arms (without any limitation) is for the overthrow of the democratically-elected U.S. government, should they deem that necessary. On the other side of the coin, John Meacham, a gun owner himself, makes the argument that the Assault Weapon’s Ban is a reasonable restriction on gun ownership.

~The stuxnet worm that infected Iran’s nuclear facilities appears to have been a joint US-Israeli project according to today’s NYT. The article is a fascinating look at the ins and outs of cyber warfare and of course the unasked question is “what if we get hit with something like stuxnet by our enemies?

~Congresswoman Gabby Giffords continues to make good progress in her recovery. Doctors performed a tracheotomy on Saturday and she has apparently been weaned off the ventilator and is able to breath on her own.

~The referendum in Sudan came to a close on Saturday and results will not be available for some time. But there is still one big question mark- how will the issue of Abyei be resolved?

The End.

Cross-posted over at Secretary Clinton Blog

Read full story · Comments { 20 }

Queer Talk: What Can You Say to Hate?

–bumped–

“Queer Talk” now appears every Saturday afternoon.

To anyone aware of the “Reverend” Fred Phelps, and his (primarily family members) Westboro Baptist Church (independent and unaffiliated), of Topeka, Kansas, the announcement of “God Hates” protests at funerals of victims of the shootings in Tucson was not a surprise. This is the same group that picketed the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, carrying their typical signs, including “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

With this national moment’s focus on “civility,” and with Phelps not surprising insertion of WBC into Tucson, I started thinking about responses to hateful (not simply angry) words, not just toward Queerdom, but toward whichever group such words are directed. Do you give the attention obviously desired, by responding? Do you ignore them? The arguments for providing no attention are persuasive, and in terms of actually standing across from the Phelps clan, the people with whom I’ve stood have made that choice. We did fill the silence with quotations about equality from a wide variety of people, MLK to Audre Lorde, among others. And I find myself now thinking of something Lorde has written: “Your silence will not protect you.”

On Thursday, the day WBC was scheduled to protest at the funeral of nine year old Christina Greene, the group announced they would not, in fact, do so. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, the group agreed to skip the funeral “in exchange for air time on 102.1 The Edge in Toronto, Canada, and an interview with KXXT-AM in Phoenix on Saturday morning.” Later, The Capital Journal reported that WBC had received another offer by nationally syndicated talk show host Mike Gallagher, in exchange for their agreement not to picket any of the funerals of the six victims. “(Shirley) Phelps-Roper (a daughter of Fred Phelps) said the decision boiled down to the church being able to communicate its message with as wide an audience as possible. She said Gallagher’s radio audience is estimated to be about 10 million people.”

The Journal also reported that “four other Westboro Baptist members on Friday will travel to Washington, D.C., in order to picket the memorial service for Richard Holbrooke … as well as protest at American University and an Islamic center in Washington, D.C.” This is standard practice for WBC.

Such deals are one solution, keeping the message of hate away from family and friends, and that’s a good. It gives the message of hate several media opportunities, and that might well be troubling to many, a kind of “reward” for the hate. Free speech, of course, involves compromises.

Phelps, (many but not all of) his 13 children, their spouses, and their children are, from my perspective, one of the more virulent and venomous sources of hate speech. They’ve had decades of practice. Broadly, there is a sort of continuum of hate speech. In fact, the “view” of LGBT’s ranges from totally supportive to totally judgmental, from “religious” or other philosophical / ideological positions. Phelps is an extreme, of course, though he does not directly call for the killing of those he claims God hates. Of course, proclaiming that “Fags die. God laughs” does seem to make the preferred outcome obvious.

How do you handle hateful, judgmental words? LGBT’s have been dealing with that dilemma for a long time, as have many other groups. And at least at one time or the other, probably everyone of us. The “how to” fits within the broader national struggles with conversation, particularly political conversation, with the underlying values, and with the practical meaning of “free speech.”

Phelps has websites, “GodHatesFags” and “GodHatesAmerica.” I don’t encourage a visit. I’m actually hesitant about including any of their language, but some is necessary in order for this to make any sense. Prepare to skim and skip if it gets too much, but these are quotes from the flyers and video WBC posted announcing the Tucson protests. The words here are the norm for them, though they are not the worst.

From the Phoenix New Times, excerpts from the flyer:

“THANK GOD FOR THE SHOOTER — 6 DEAD!”
“God appointed this rod for your sins! God sent the shooter!”

According to Shirley Phelps-Roper, the shooting of Rep. Giffords and the murder of Federal Judge John Roll are a punishment of “God,” because of earlier free speech ruling by a Baltimore judge. “That’s why that judge (Roll) is dead. He doesn’t care about free speech.” She continues to say that Jared Loughner is a “tool of god.” He’s “bat-shit crazy … but god sent him. And (god’s) sitting in Heaven laughing at you!”

Before the change in plans, WBC was asked why they would protest at the funeral of a nine year old girl. Phelps-Roper “We’re connecting dots for you rebels … [Greene] was appointed when she was born for this — she just happens to be the one God chose to make an example.” Thankfully that, and other, protests didn’t happen. But there will be more “funeral protests,” and protests at other sites and events with the same words of hate.

There are response, in years past and now related to Tucson. In this case, Arizona state Sen. Kirsten Sinema initiated action that led to Gov. Jan Brewer signing into law “emergency legislation …. Unanimous votes by the House and Senate on Tuesday sent the bill to Brewer. It took effect immediately with her signature Tuesday night. The new law prohibits protests within 300 feet of a funeral or burial service.” Similar laws have been enacted in about 40 other state. “Other legislation (via The Southern Poverty Law Center) sparked by Phelps’ protests includes the federal ‘Fallen Heroes Act.’ Passed in May 2006 after Phelps made headlines targeting the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, it prohibits protests within 300 feet of any national cemetery from 60 minutes before to 60 minutes after a funeral.”

The Anti-Defamation League provides extensive information about WBC, including its claim to have “staged over 40,000 total protests over the years in more than 600 cities across the United States and … in Canada, Jordan, and Iraq since 1991.” Those numbers probably can’t be verified, but even if exaggerated, the protests certainly have been widespread and frequent.

Early on, the only attention they got was local. It was in 1998, when they protested at the funeral of Matthew Shepard, that they got a nationwide reaction. They didn’t stop protesting at churches, schools, city halls and elsewhere whenever they identified a “fag” issue (which they attach to basically any and everything), and protests at funerals of AIDS victims were not unusual. It wasn’t until they began picketing at the funerals of servicemembers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, though, that they succeeded in getting more consistent and widespread attention. Clearly they like it. The murders in Tucson were just another opportunity for them. Like, for example, Katrina’s devastation was something to “celebrate.”

Queerdom didn’t receive much attention until the Stonewall Riots in NYC, in 1969, widely seen as the beginnings of the LGBT civil rights movement. The “Anti-Gay Movement,” as SPLC calls it, followed, with one early version that of Anita Bryant’s 1977 “Save Our Children” national campaign. “Not only were homosexuals ‘sick,’ ‘perverted’ and ‘twisted,’” she claimed, “they posed a very real threat to American families.”

Basically, things continued with the same kind of accusations about “homosexuals” that are ridiculous but have a very serious side. The “religious right” gained significant power, through some very smart political strategies (start local and build from there; use of “talk radio” and “televangelism”) — Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Family Research Council and others don’t have the same high visibility as in the 1990s, but all you had to do was listen to the recent arguments against the repeal of DADT to hear their continuing influence in politics and policies.

Over the decades Queerdom developed its own strategies. One tactic devised in response to WBC’s protests at services of victims of AIDS was for a group of people to stand between the WBC group and the entrance of wherever the service was being held. Before the laws mandated a distance of 300 feet (the specific distance may vary) the epithets yelled could still be heard, though not as well as the group creating a living barrier between hate and families sang hymns or whatever was appropriate.

It is, obviously, a matter of compromise, give and take … just as are the deals that kept WBC from Tucson funerals. Phelps and family, and whoever else, can say what they want, with all the hate they find necessary. But the family and friends are provided a buffer against the hateful words. Finding that “free speech” balance is an ongoing struggle across the nation. It’s about actions and responses, and more fundamentally, about the values and principles that support them.

“Your silence will not protect you,” Audre Lorde says, and that makes a lot of sense to me. Of course, how we fill the silence does matter.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Newt Gingrich and Right Aim to Kill State Pensions & Unions

The Right is moving fast to deal the ultimate blow to the American worker: kill unions. How? Since the 900 billion dollar tax deal had zero money to help broke states feed their children or keep people employed they have an opportunity to kill unions in California, Illinois and elsewhere. Newt leads the charge- pushing GOP congresscritters to propose legislation that forces states to kill their pension systems for public employees. Destroy the pension destroy then destroy any attractiveness for folks to teach etc and thus you get far less in unions!

Stone cold baby. Newt thinks its a great idea and is pushing it all over- and sadly we are seeing too many governors and others attacking public workers with layoffs, firings and cutting pensions. Like they are the problem. This is very very dangerous stuff. One would hope Obama and the Dem senate could kill such a proposal. but there many others: like if a state declares bankruptcy the government will bail them out, in return the state must become a right to work state.

Oh and destroying all this cripples the Democratic Party’s ability to win elections on the ground. And peoples’ lives.

On Newt, Gingrich seeks bill allowing state bankruptcy to avert bailouts – Move afoot to help states escape benefit obligations:

Former House Speaker and possible GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich is pushing for federal legislation giving financially strapped states the right to file for bankruptcy and renege on pension and other benefit promises made to state employees.

Proponents of the measure — which include Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington lobby group that fights tax increases — said the legislation is desperately needed to clear the way for struggling states to slash costs before they go belly up, and should be regarded as a preemptive move that could preclude the need for massive federal bailouts.

“It’s in the short-term and long-term interests of government workers and taxpayers to start those reforms now, rather than having to pick up the pieces after a crash landing,” ATR President Grover Norquist said in an interview.

“We are working with people inside and outside of Congress on this issue,” said Joe DeSantis, a spokes-man for Mr. Gingrich…

Stone cold Newt and his minions are swarming to take apart the unions and what security public employees have in a one two punch.

According to a transcript of the speech on Mr. Gingrich’s website, www.newt.org, he said: “I … hope the House Republicans are going to move a bill in the first month or so of their tenure to create a venue for state bankruptcy, so that states like California and New York and Illinois that think they’re going to come to Washington for money can be told, you know, you need to sit down with all your government employee unions and look at their health plans and their pension plans and, frankly, if they don’t want to change, our recommendation is you go into bankruptcy court and let the bankruptcy judge change it, and I would make the federal bankruptcy law prohibit tax increases as part of the solution, so no bankruptcy judge could impose a tax increase on the people of the states.”

And check out this:

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. — who introduced legislation late last year that would require state and local plans to disclose their finances to the U.S. Treasury — had no immediate comment on the bankruptcy proposal, said his spokesman, Andrew House. “He’s aware of the proposal, but has yet to take a public position on the issue,” Mr. House said.

The Nunes bill, which also would bar federal bailouts of public plans and deny a federal tax exemption for bonds issued by governmental entities that don’t comply with the new disclosure requirements, will be reintroduced on Jan. 19, Mr. House said.

Mr. House said finances of state and local governments will be a hot-button issue on Capitol Hill this year. “The whole area of how to deal with soaring debt at all levels of government and the consequences to the national economy will be the subject of hearings in multiple committees,” Mr. House said. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who co-sponsored Mr. Nunes’ bill, and became chairman of the House Budget Committee earlier this month, was also mum on the bankruptcy proposal.

Others on the Right have just as terrible ideas as old Newt, see Ohio’s John Kasich.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

My $0.02: In Memory of MLK and Jeannette Rankin

"Martin Luther King, Jr." by Danny Daurko (click image to visit fineartamerica.com for a larger view)

Good morning, news junkies!

Today is January 15, 2011… Eighty-two years ago, in 1929, Martin Luther King, Jr. was born. Thirty-nine years later, in 1968, the Jeannette Rankin Brigade gathered in DC to protest the Vietnam War (links go to two great photos). At the end of the march, the 88-year old Rankin–on behalf of a delegation of women that included Coretta Scott King–presented to then-House Speaker John McCormack a petition calling for an end to the war (link takes you to another amazing photo).

I dedicate my Saturday offerings this weekend to Dr. King, his family, congresswoman Rankin, and everyone who stood with them in the fight for nonviolence, a movement largely spurred on in the twentieth century by Gandhi and his strategy of nonviolent resistance — satyagraha.

And, with that, I’ll dive right into my current event picks, the first of which takes us to Gandhi’s homeland. From earlier in the week, at the NYT Opinionator: “A Light in India,” in which David Bornstein discusses the exciting new ‘frugal innovation’ of turning rice husks into electricity that is “reliable, eco-friendly and affordable for families that can spend only $2 a month for power.”

Husk Power is bringing electricity AND jobs to poor villagers — what a story! Check it out.

The top story on memeorandum right now is the developments coming out of Tunisia with President Ben Ali fleeing amid protests. Mother Jones‘ Nick Bauman has a helpful primer up which brings the Wikileaks connection into focus: ” What’s Happening in Tunisia Explained.” Joe Coscarelli at the VV‘s Runnin’ Scared blog also has a post up called “Tunisia in Turmoil: Where to Learn the Most Quickly” with some good links to CNN, Salon, and an AOL News piece by Theunis Bates.

Is a video game really grist for a reality show to "bring Pac Man to life"? Click on image to read the rest of the story.

Also, saw this story on Runnin’ Scared while I was there — it’s a bizarre headline that I heard yesterday as well: “Pac Man to Get Reality Series…” I’m a child of the ’80s. I grew up on Pac Man. I really don’t get it. The blogger at VV says suggests that this is the moment “‘reality tv’ jumped the shark.” Funny, I would have said that television jumped the shark with infotainment and reality tv!

And, while we’re on the subject of games–in national political news, looks like the RNC played musical chairs on Friday. “CNN: RNC bounces Steele, taps Wisconsin GOP leader as new chairman.” The NYT has more info on the new head of the RNC, Reince Priebus.

Over at US News & World Report‘s Washington Whispers blog, Paul Bedard has the scoop on Ron Reagan’s upcoming book: “Reagan Son Claims Dad Had Alzheimer’s as President.”

I have a lot of ground to cover from this week, so stay tuned for more after the fold.

There are several headlines of interest on the AZ shooting circulating at the moment, I am just going to link to a few of them briefly:

In an Online Game Forum, Tucson Suspect Lashed Out” (NYT); “Tucson Shooting Survivor: ‘It Looks Like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the Rest Got Their First Target’” (Democracy Now interview with survivor Eric Fuller). From the Gray Lady op-ed section: Charles Blow: “The Tucson Witch Hunt” — Blow basically criticizes Dems for counterproductively turning what I call the Sarah Palin footnote (and it is valid and constructive to discuss as a footnote, imho) into the entire byline of the Tucson story (not so constructive); Bob Herbert: “Helpless in the Face of Madness” — Herbert takes on the issue of gun control and asks, “Are we really helpless in the face of the astounding toll that guns take on this society?”

Susie Madrak started an interesting discussion on gun control at C&L yesterday — “A Modest Proposal: What If We Required Mandatory Gun Insurance?” Be sure to take a look at the comments. Some of them are a hoot. Here’s a taste:Not a mandatory insurance fan.. I think we should all have equal access to free weapons. Why not socialize all violence?”

Speaking of ever-present violence, sad story from across the border this week. In an ugly twist of fate, the BBC reports that Mexican activist Susana Chavez, who herself led protests against the unsolved killings of hundreds of women in Juarez, has been identified as the victim of a gruesome murder.

Peter Daou also has a powerful read up right now called “On human violence.”

Next up, two MLK-related stories… first, an unsettling statement from the Obama Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh Johnson, made at the Defense Department’s commemoration of King’s legacy on Thursday: “I believe that if Dr. King were alive today, he would recognize that we live in a complicated world, and that our nation’s military should not and cannot lay down its arms and leave the American people vulnerable to terrorist attack.”

If Dr. King were alive today, I think he would be speaking out against the American war machine and advocating for America’s marginalized, who have been ill-served by unnecessary war. I think it is quite sad and revealing to see someone from the current Administration posit otherwise. D-Day at FDL has more on the context of Jeh Johnson’s remarks, but I have to say that Johnson’s acknowledgment of King’s belief in nonviolence only makes the above statement even more jarring.

Here’s the other MLK-related item, as reported by Veronica Roberts at allvoices.com — “Snowday Makeup In Tennessee Causes Controversy: Should Schools Open On MLK Holiday?” This story gets curiouser when you delve into it, because apparently the decision to open the schools on MLK Day came from Jimmie Garland, who is himself chairman of the local NAACP chapter.

Obama, Hillary, and Bill, at the Holbrooke memorial.

In other memorial news, at Politics Daily, WH correspondent Alex Wagner reports on Friday’s gathering at the Kennedy Center in honor of a foreign policy giant: “Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton Pay Tribute to Richard Holbrooke at Memorial.” Wagner quotes Obama as saying, “Richard possessed a hard-headed, clear-eyed realism about how the world works. He was not naïve. But he also believed that America has a unique responsibility in the course of human events.”

I doubt there was any mention of Holbrooke’s dying words about ending the war in Afghanistan–if there was, it was probably passed off as a joke between him and the medical staff again. I did catch most of Hillary’s remarks on C-SPAN, and they were very moving (video here). You could tell this is not just a brilliant statesman that many people in the room had lost but a friend and a fixture in their lives. RIP, Ambassador Holbrooke.

Here is a handy State Department link on Holbrooke’s passing, btw. Lots of links to official statements and tributes.

In Texas news, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) announced this Thursday on facebook that she will not be running for re-election in 2012. As one of Kay’s constituents, I’m not sure how to feel about that. From the WSJ‘s Washington Wire: “The 67-year-old Texan is a social moderate, fiscal conservative and the Senate Republicans’ longest-serving woman.” I’d rather have Hutchison as my Senator than a tea partier. On the other hand, if Democrat Bill White makes a go for Kay’s seat, this could get interesting.

Tom Jensen at Public Policy Polling had this to say about Hutchison’s plans for retirement: “The fact that someone like Hutchison who has generally been among the more popular Senators in the country and has always won by wide margins has been at least partially pushed out by the Tea Party is indicative of a new reality for Republican Senators- pretty much no incumbent is safe if these folks decide to target them.”

Keeping my fingers crossed that some genuine liberals break through during the next primary cycle and that the tea party continues to expose its ideology for the callous, irresponsible social darwinism that it is underneath the small gov’t rhetoric. (Truly “small” government would stay out of our bedrooms and our uteruses.)

Oh, and hey, remember when the Obamaphiles used to scream bloody murder at any mention of DLC? Ezra Klein has something for the kiddos that they’ll have to read with their blinders on: “The White House brings in Bruce Reed.” This story dovetails right into a Roll Call headline that caught my eye on Monday: “Bitter Blue Dogs Ready to Cut Deals.”

Wise words on the subject from Glen Ford over at BAR: “Indeed, in order for Obama to reach his comfort zone, it was necessary that the Democrats be defeated. Only then could New Democrat Obama’s collaboration with the GOP in furtherance of corporate rule appear to be an act of statesmanship, a grand compromise (as the tax deal was pitched) in the interest of orderly government by the ‘grownups.’”

Briefly, a bit of comic relief — in”WTF, how did this person get elected” news, via Reason.com’s Hit & Run blog: “Iowa Legislator Seeks to Criminalize Cocktails.” Hmm, makes me think of the RNC cocktails that the Boehner of our existence was having instead of attending the Tucson memorial.

In economic headlines, from Arvind Subramanian at the IIE — “Is China Already Number One? New GDP Estimates.” From the link: “When the presidents of China and the United States meet next week in Washington, neither will likely be aware that, measured in terms of purchasing power, it is Hu Jintao not Barack Obama who represents the world’s largest economy. Some time in 2010, the Chinese economy overtook that of the United States. My calculations of GDP for 2010—which of course are subject to the uncertainty associated with all such exercises—are based on new estimates of GDP that will soon be published by the Penn World Tables (PWT) under the guidance of Professor Alan Heston at the University of Pennsylvania.”

Staying on the wonkish track but turning to science news, from Tuesday’s Gray Lady: “ESP Report Sets Off Debate on Data Analysis.” In a nutshell, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology will be publishing a study this year purporting to prove the existence of extrasensory perception, and this report has sparked the age-old controversy in social science research of whether to measure the significance of results by classical significance testing or Bayesian inference. This story ties in to an earlier one about the scientific method and the decline effect — from last month in the New Yorker,The Truth Wears Off” (h/t to commenter Inky).

Both stories, with their focus on research, vaguely reminded me of an NYT story from last Saturday that I had wanted to touch on but didn’t have time to weave into my roundup then: “Journal Showcases Dying Art of the Research Paper.” William Fitzhugh, publisher of said journal , says he recently inquired to a NJ high school department head as to whether he assigned research papers: “‘Not anymore,’ Mr. Fitzhugh quoted the teacher as saying. ‘I have my kids do PowerPoint presentations.’”

What do you guys think? Is powerpoint an adequate substitute for a research paper? Personally, I had to write several research papers in my AP classes in high school and didn’t do powerpoint until college, and even then only as a supplement to present actual papers I had to write first. I can’t imagine doing one in lieu of the other.

Click book cover to go to the Amazon listing.

Two fascinating art reads, one from a couple of weeks ago in the NYT Sunday Book Review: “The Nonconformist,” and another from last weekend at the NYT Lens: “Adding Islam to a Latino Identity.” The former is a review of Phoebe Hoban’s biography of the artist Alice Neel, titled Alice Neel: The Art of Not Sitting Pretty, and the latter is an interview with freelance photographer Eirini Vourloumis featuring a slideshow of some of her work.

While I’m at it, if you missed C. Roger Denson’s spotlight on Shirin Neshat’s stunning photography and films over at Huffpo at the end of last month, you need to go see it now!

If you’re in need of a super silly pick-me-up, try the Craig Ferguson and Lauren Graham puppet show. It’s from a little over a year ago, but my sister recently pointed me to it, and it left me in stitches. (Here’s Part 2 of the puppet show).

I’ll close with some Hillary fluff from NYDN‘s Gatecrasher: Designer Diane Von Furstenberg looks toward Hillary Clinton for political inspiration…Diane Von Furstenberg surprised us at Tuesday’s YMA Geoffrey Beene National Awards Scholarship Dinner when we asked her which contemporary political figure inspires her. We half expected Mrs. Barry Diller to name Michelle Obama or Carla Bruni, but she shocked us by choosing Hillary Clinton. Will next month’s DVF fall 2011 collection be filled with boxy pantsuits in radioactive pastels? We wonder, especially after von Furstenberg told us at the Waldorf that our nation’s secretary of state is ‘the most amazing woman in the world.’”

Have a great MLK weekend, and as always–if you get a chance, please stop by in the comments and share what you’re reading and ruminating on this Saturday.

Originally published by Wonk the Vote at Let Them Listen. Crossposted at Sky Dancing and Liberal Rapture.

Read full story · Comments { 27 }

Yes. She Did!

SecyClintonBlog and Wonk the Vote both wrote about this earlier in the week. I decided to join in today, because it’s a perfect way to end a tough week.

The Advocate has Hillary on its front cover hailing her as the administration’s most fierce advocate for GLBT rights. You should read the whole thing. It’s long and gives many examples of Hillary go all out around the world to promote gay rights in ways no other secretary of state has done. Here are some snippets of real progressive advocacy for rights of all gay people.

‘Gay rights are human rights.” With that declaration — and the team she has assembled at the State Department—Hillary Rodham Clinton has elevated the dialogue on LGBT rights around the globe.

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Is the Right Speechless Without Hate?

“…civility is censorship…”
- Rush Limbaugh show, 1.13.11 (1:30 p.m. EST)



It would be one thing if the quote above had simply come from Rush Limbaugh. It’s quite another for his listeners to confirm it, which is what happened yesterday on his show, with Limbaugh wholeheartedly agreeing, amidst a defensive onslaught of talk radio babble that had the right-wing leader hailing Sarah Palin, while pronouncing her a victim.

After Palin dropped “blood libel” into the American dialogue on the Arizona terrorism tragedy, she’s been fighting for her political life even harder than she was when the crosshairs “targeting” signaling out Rep. Gabrielle Giffords sent Sarah fleeing into hiding. Since then, she’s not only sent a message she doesn’t plan to back down, but she’s betting she’s got Republican primary voters behind her, at least the ones she’ll need in the early states.

The Republican and Tea Party Right have decided to gamble on Pres. Obama’s “it did not” caveat on hate speech causing Loughner to snap, as well as some polling they feel bolsters America supposedly doesn’t care about the Right’s hate speech.

The Hill announces today that former governor Palin is set to give an address at a gun convention in Nevada. If that doesn’t spell defiance you aren’t savvy to the Right’s dictionary.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will deliver a keynote address to a gun convention later this month.

Palin (R) will speak to the Safari International Club (SCI) in Reno, Nev. on Saturday, Jan. 29, according to the group’s website. The organization bills itself as “the leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and promoting wildlife conservation worldwide.”

There’s a hint in Palin’s choice to do this address that she and her people think there has been overreaching in the criticism of her crosshairs targeting, as well as on her “blood libel” charge. That to back down would be a political catastrophe for Palin. So, in the spirit of the old Lee Atwater, attack, attack, attack it will be.

I’ve known quite a few hunters who were committed to “wildlife conservation worldwide,” with Sarah Palin’s actions to date, especially as governor, being the antithesis of what that means. A conservationist doesn’t use loopholes in federals laws to got wolf hunting from helicopters.

The comment on Rush’s show is the leading edge of where the Right stands today after the Arizona domestic terrorism tragedy. They’re not “retreating” from their rhetoric, they’re “reloading.”

That Rush and his audience, which can easily be said to be representative of the entire Right’s thinking, believes civility means you’re being censored reveals something stark about the campaign we’ll see waged going forward.

There’s been a lot of career obituary writing lately where Sarah Palin is concerned. Now, she may not run for president, but there’s absolutely no evidence, example A “blood libel,” example B her upcoming key address at the Nevada gun convention, that Palin is backing away from considering a presidential run. As I’ve written, it’s clear establishment Republicans are sending the message she cannot win, which hardly stops her from running. Democrats, including in the media, are saying the same thing, but also proclaiming she can’t win. This judgment is made not only prematurely, but through a very rosy picture of the Right and the base who votes in primaries.

Rep. Keith Ellison posits that Palin may have hit the end of her political ride. The announcement of Palin talking at a gun convention proves otherwise. It’s also wishful thinking from someone who hasn’t studied what drives the Right, which now has a majority in the House and, they think, the ultimate weapon to take it all home in 2012. What they call “Obamacare” and a campaign that won’t sound rabid as much as reasonable to many who are against the bill and want it repealed.

If Sarah Palin runs she can win the nomination. Can she win the presidency? I appreciate the rush to proclaim it impossible, but George W. Bush taught us even the incompetent and morally bankrupt can prevail in today’s scorched earth politics, from which the Right has no intention of retreating. But Sarah doesn’t think from the end, she thinks from the possible, taking on the immediate challenge and worrying about the future when it becomes today. Sarah Palin would make history with the nomination.

So, the clarion call has gone out far and wide. “Civility is censorship,” proclaimed by Rush Limbaugh and his talk radio audience, which is shared by Rush, Laura Ingraham, Larry Elder, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin and on and on, aided by their cable outlet Fox News.

This means that when Pres. Obama takes on the topic of civility in his State of the Union message all out political war will be proclaimed and 2012 will have begun.

It will take a lot more than Republicans and Democrats sitting next to each other to change our current trajectory.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

This Week in Headlines













































Read full story · Comments { 6 }