Jack & Jill Politics

Just finished watching Murphy Brown: Season One and the same problems we are facing today were the same problems on docket during that show all those years ago. While I am interested in the going ons in Iran; our senators and congressmen need to stop coming together to worry about Iran and solve the problems of this nation. If they can come together so quickly to pry in another country's affairs they can come together and do something about this healthcare situation. They love to find anything that can deter their duty to the American People. TALK HEALTHCARE; IRAN WILL TAKE CARE OF IRAN.

Has anyone read the story of how Mavericks star Dirk Nowitzki's ummm "fiancee" - and that's SO what she was until oh, 2 seconds after she landed in jail because she had some outstanding warrants or something like that...how reportedly Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and others had "warned" him about her and Cuban hired a private investigator and that's when she was miraculously picked up at Dirk's house and promptly put in jail? Its bout as messy as you can get - (and she's black btw..just an interesting tidbit)...but ole girl said she was pregnant, and turns out its true...now Dirk wants sole custody.....aint that sumpthin? He's all but gotten the "father of the year" award in sports media...and I'm bout to throw up.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=427...

Oh and its interesting that the FBI arrested her and are investigating her "threatening" phone calls from jail. Hmph.

It's hard for me to have sympathy for her. I've made it my entire life without encountering the justice system. So, that she didn't take care of her ' problems', while things were good, well..

But, she has nobody on the outside to go to a lawyer, and promise them a bigger piece of the cut for getting her out of jail and getting her paycheck for the next 18 years?

Unless Mark Cuban is somehow holding every attorney that deals in custody and paternity cases hostage, I would think somebody would be going to her.

AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP!!

Rachel Maddow has been FOLLOWING THE MONEY in the Ensign affair case. I'm LMAO at her being serious just reporting the breadcrumbs, but it does make it interesting.

Good information about Iran from The Daily Dish. Some of the pictures and videos are disturbing:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily...

Good info, rikyrah.

There was an Iranian guy on Bill Maher's show last night -- forget his name -- and he said that these protests in Iran will not bring about a real revolution whereas there will be the elimination of theocracy in Iran. After seeing these video shots (I couldn't bring myself to watch the videos) of women being murdered, I think dude might be wrong. The world is watching and they're not gonna take too kindly to these videos of women protesters being killed for peacefully protesting. It's like when video footage of black people being beaten and water hosed in the South for peacefully protesting reached overseas. When that happened, the world had our backs.

please don't let this evil duo be Black:

MUSKOGEE, Oklahoma (AP) — A 23-year-old woman who got a friend to kill her Jack Russell terrier was charged with skinning the puppy to make a belt out of its hide.

Krystal Lynn Lewis and Austin Michael Mullins, 26, were being held Friday in the Muskogee County jail on $25,000 bail each. They were charged with one felony count of cruelty to animals.

A Muskogee County judge ordered a mental competency hearing for Lewis.

Lewis wanted the puppy, named Poplin, killed because it was a gift from a female ex-lover with whom she doesn't get along, said Muskogee County sheriff's deputy George Roberson.

Roberson said Mullins shot the terrier 10 times with a .22-caliber pistol. Lewis skinned the animal at her apartment and nailed the hide to a board.

REALLY? Who the hell even thinks to do that? If you don't want the puppy anymore, take it to the shelter! I'm not even a dog person (I'm scared of them) nor am I some sort of avid animal lover, but people that do stuff like this should be thrown UNDER the jail. And did they really need to shoot the puppy 10 times? THIS is the type of stuff PETA should be outraged about, not a damn fly.

I live in Muskogee and this is the main news.Nothing was in the paper about their color.

Then they must be white....

If they were black, then the faces and or race would have been all over the news.

Just sayin'

and you're right, they are White: http://law.rightpundits.com/?p=530

that's my rule:

if within 8 hours the face isn't plastered all over the news....

they ain't Black.

True. And they would've been in jail.

This is the second cruelty to animals story I've heard this week and they are equally disturbing. The second was the 19 yr old kid in Miami who stole upwards of 20 cats and mutilated (in some cases skinned) and killed them. I am an animal lover. They love you unconditionally. IMO, anyone who purposely hurts, maims, or kills an animal is only practicing for the big kill -- humans. Just about every socio/psychopath serial killer that we know of had a history of cruelty to animals. The penalties for such cruelty need to be stiffer!

Co-sign.

It’s ‘wife camp’ for 10-year-olds
Opinions are divided on a new summer camp for young girls

Two years ago, concert pianist Wonny Song attended a reception in Paris. The host’s 13-year-old daughter greeted guests at the door and made proper introductions. “She could speak to ambassadors, artists, business people—everyone. It really made an impression,” recalls Song, vice-director of the Lambda School of Music and Fine Arts in Montreal.

Inspired by this encounter, Song is starting a new summer program for girls. The goal of Make-over Camp is to instill poise, grace and confidence in girls between the ages of 10 and 14. For two weeks, they will learn to improve their posture, voice, table manners, conversation skills, wardrobe choices, makeup application, hostessing skills and music appreciation. “We see a lot of young ladies who can benefit from a makeover program,” said Angela Chan, director of Lambda and co-creator of the camp. “They need to develop their presence.” Marc McCreavy, an industrial designer and interior decorator, will teach the girls how to host events and decorate a table. “It’s important to learn about appropriate topics of conversation and appropriate attire,” he said.

“This reminds me of my days at French finishing school before heading off to Cambridge,” laughed Alison Silcoff, the leading force behind Montreal’s Daffodil Ball. “They taught me how to enter a room while closing an umbrella. We spent 90 minutes a day on deportment. Back then, a woman was, foremost, her husband’s wife. She was expected to host dinner parties for his business associates. But today, people realize that substance is more important than form. It’s more important to work on your career.”

From a feminist perspective, the optics are dreadful on something called Make-over Camp. “It’s a deficit name,” explained Kim Gordon, head of school at the private girls’ school Bishop Strachan in Toronto. “When our school opened [in 1867], we taught the daughters of Anglican clergy to become wives. We taught all the same things as the camp, like etiquette, grace and confidence. It’s still needed, but in the context of being successful. It’s infused in our curriculum, holistically, through general presentation skills. We see these skills as power tools for girls.”

“I’m sorry, but I cannot call a charm school feminist,” said Carrie Rentschler, assistant professor of communication studies at McGill. “Yes, young girls lack confidence, as we know from studies and books about the Ophelia complex, but the way to solve it isn’t to teach them how to be good hostesses!”

Yet some parents are desperate to help their daughters act in a more dignified manner. “Parents have asked us for this kind of class,” said Holly Potter, of Miss Edgar’s and Miss Cramp’s all-girls school in Montreal. “And our alumni are telling us to teach students table manners for business luncheons and events. We’re looking into starting an after-school program, but it will not involve walking with a book on their heads.” Sam Blyth, director of the co-ed Blyth Academy in Thornhill, Ont., shudders at the thought of a stand-alone class for poise and presence: “There are all kinds of things, outdoor things, kids that age could be doing in the summer. Let them participate, don’t just modulate their behaviour.”

The concept of makeover camp also polarizes parents. While full-time mom Heather Monaco eagerly enrolled her daughter because she’s “looking to raise a little lady,” some parents aren’t impressed. “It reinforces old, gendered expectations about ladylike behaviour,” says Tina Verma, a Toronto mother and TV producer. “Reverting to that 1950s model of repressed housewives is a way of responding to the crisis of the average household—fractured by divorce and busy schedules.”

Teaching niceties to girls alone makes sociologist Marc Lafrance irate. “It might as well be called Wife Camp! Is Betty Draper happy on Mad Men? No! She’s miserable! Things like makeover camp send the message that a girl’s value lies in being entertaining, ornamental, totally innocuous, accommodating and polite,” said the assistant professor of sociology at Concordia University. “I’m also concerned because it targets girls. Where are the boys?”


http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/16/it%E2%80%99s...

That's some creepy shit. Some things seem practical, like it might help develop confidence etc...but I don't think anyone can teach you to appreciate music..you either do, or don't. Sounds like those subjects might produce Stepford like women..

I think this course should be mandatory. Just yesterday I had the misfortune of getting on the train with a bunch of out for the summer teeny boopers. Legs were splayed all over the seats and loud, bawdy language pierced our ears throughout the ride ... and those were just the girls. About as much poise and class as Kathy Griffin. I take that back, even Kathy Griffin would have been embarrased.

Feminism and PCism have a place but in our society's slavish devotion to these concepts what kind of kids have we produced? How will they function in this society? Behaving like a lady and feminism are not mutually exclusive.

There's got to be middle ground between clone-like women and vulgar, loudmouths. I think it's our differences that make us interesting. So what if one woman wants to wear peasant skirts and the other, pencil skirts?

News you DON'T Hear !

Getting to know Iran's Mousavi
"I Never Liked or Trusted Americans"

http://b4bmorenews.blogspot.com/2009/06/truth-a...

Iranians have good reason for not trusting America..

very true.

I don't think anyone thought he liked Americans, I think they think he's the lesser of two evils when it comes to Ahmadenijad (sp)

Obama, the Right and defendants' rights

On Thursday, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), ruled that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access the state's evidence in order to subject it to DNA tests which could prove their innocence. Two lower courts, a district court and the Ninth Circuit, had ruled there was such a right. In reversing those rulings, the Court's majority was composed of its conservative Justices (Roberts (who wrote the opinion), Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy).
Numerous liberal commentators are, rightfully, infuriated by the decision, but have been notably incomplete in their critiques. Matt Yglesias describes the ruling as "Conservative Justices’ Strange Enthusiasm for the Punishment of the Innocent" and argues that ruling in favor of the state over defendants, the executive over the legislature, and the corporation over the individual is "conservative jurisprudence in a nutshell."

Think Progress' Ian Millhiser also blames conservatives for this perverse outcome. Scott Lemieux, in making excellent arguments against the Court's reasoning, similarly writes that "this is your court on conservatives" and concludes that it gives the lie to the John-Roberts-claim that judges are mere neutral "umpires." Several other liberal commentators exclusively blame conservatives for this decision.

There's one important fact missing from all of that analysis: namely, this was yet another case where the Obama DOJ sided with the Bush administration and advocated the position that the conservative justices adopted. The Obama DOJ aggressively argued before the Court that convicted criminals have no constitutional right to access evidence for DNA analysis. Indeed, its decision to embrace this extreme Bush position caused much controversy and anger back in February. Law Professor Darren Hutchinson wrote back then:
"The Office of the Solicitor General has adhered to Bush's position that the inmate does not have a constitutional right to re-test the DNA evidence, even though doing so could establish his innocence and despite the fact that his attorney will pay for the new scientific analysis of the evidence. . . ."

As a state senator, Obama sponsored and lobbied for legislation that gave all inmates a post-conviction right to DNA evidence -- the same right that Osborne asserts in this case. . . . The Bush administration was not required to take a position in this case. Although the Bush administration decided to submit a brief in the case, the Obama administration could have refused to defend it, withdrawn it, or even switched position.

Indeed, the Obama DOJ rejected explicit requests from defendants rights advocates to repudiate the Bush position. Instead, the Obama DOJ announced that Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal would make his debut appearance before the Supreme Court in that capacity advocating the Bush position (and that's what then happened):

The solicitor general's office has turned down a request by the Innocence Project to disavow a Bush Administration stance on prisoners' access to DNA evidence in post-conviction proceedings. As a result, on March 2, Neal Katyal will make his debut as deputy solicitor general by arguing before the Supreme Court in support of the state of Alaska's view that prisoners have no constitutional right to obtain DNA evidence that might help them prove their innocence -- even if the prisoners pay for the DNA testing themselves. . . .

In all of the commentary condemning this decision, the only acknowledgment I saw of the role played by the Obama administration was in yesterday's New York Times Editorial:
We are also puzzled and disturbed by the Obama administration’s decision to side with Alaska in this case — continuing the Bush administration’s opposition to recognizing a right to access physical evidence for post-conviction DNA testing.

Thursday’s ruling will inevitably allow some innocent people to languish in prison without having the chance to definitively prove their innocence and with the state never being completely certain of their guilt.

There may be justifications for what the Obama DOJ did (all other things being equal, government lawyers tend to prefer continuity in positions after changes in administration), but -- as is true for so many controversies these days -- it's rather difficult to heap all the blame on conservatives for something that the Obama administration itself embraces and is working to bring about.

In general, how much one criticizes Obama is largely a function of the areas on which one tends to focus. If I had spent the week writing about Iran, I would be largely defending -- and praising -- Obama's very wise restraint, even in the face of bipartisan political pressure, when it comes to interfering in Iran's internal political disputes. His private and public refusal to cheer on all of Israel's policies is also commendable. Conversely, those who focus on gay issues have been understandably furious with the administration, and in the areas of civil liberties, secrecy, and his Justice Department generally, the administration has been nothing short of abysmal. Criticizing the Right for its support of these positions is understandable, but in our modern political culture, the President is, far and away, the driving force, and those who supported him can have far more of an impact pointing out, rather than ignoring, the role he is playing in advancing these policies.
-- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Obama's DOJ is completely fucked up. Eric Holder is not doing a very good job, or Eric Holder agrees with all of these arguments. Anywhoo, the WSJ had this to add:

Following the ruling, the Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats said they would push for wider access to DNA testing.

"Today's decision is limited: the Court merely spoke about what is constitutional, not what is good policy," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. "DNA testing helps ensure justice is done," he added. While the Justice Department backed Alaska's legal position before the court, he said: "I hope that in light of today's decision, all levels of government will follow the federal government's lead by working to expand access to DNA evidence."

The ruling doesn't block convicts from seeking access to DNA testing. Rather, it leaves the rules up to individual states. Alaska is one of three states -- along with Massachusetts and Oklahoma -- that have no provision for DNA testing. The rules across the other states vary over just how much access criminals are offered, with some offering it only to a relatively small number of convicts.

It's ALWAYS Alaska these days, isn't it? What I don't understand is why the Do"J" is making an argument it doesn't even believe in. You guys should go read the whole article.

What I don't understand is why the Do"J" is making an argument it doesn't even believe in.

That statement by Holder suggests they do believe in the argument, the argument being the constitutionality of it.

As much as the ruling itself is f*cked up I do believe it is Constitutional.The state by way of the 10th amendment has the right to determine their own laws.Now the onus is on Congress to make it a Constitutional right for dna testing then the argument is moot.

Yep.

Muzi: I couldnt help to LOL at this sentence: "Obama's DOJ is completely fucked up. Eric Holder is not doing a very good job, or Eric Holder agrees with all of these arguments..." Isn't it amazing though how Holder's DOJ (or Obama's?) seem to be taking on all these fcked up positions? Whether is rendition, torture, GITMO, Pot, DOMA, DADT.....

but then I remember that as a private Lawyer, Holder furiously defended "Chiquita Brands International," a corporation that uses right-wing paramilitary death-squads against poor farmers, unions, indigenous people, women and children in Colombia....

So why are we surprised that his DOJ is "completely fcked up"?

is it bad that I am completely NOT impressed with the Senate passing a resolution to apologize for Slavery and Discrimination? How about we END the discrimination that is still going on. I don't want an apology, it really means nothing at this point. Sure, once the Black Guy gets in all of a sudden America wants to "apologize" for slavery. Not to mention the fact that they are behind the curve on that, didn't Europe and somewhere else I can't remember right now apologize for slavery a long time ago? What the hell is an "apology" going to do to end the inequality that STILL exists today?

How about the fact that the U.S Senate just approved the administration of the first Black President of our glorious Republic with 105 Billion dollars for war-making purposes, but they'd never assign $.001 for reparations to the descendants of slaves.....

Descendants of slaves don't need MONEY as reparations. They need access to the best education and they need the effects of slavery that are still lingering to be gone. Congress CAN give the best education, but only time will get rid of the stereotyping.

I totally agree with you. But the U.S Congress will do neither. Yet, at the same time, the same MoFos can, with a clean conscience, approve the funding for war and other death-making and death-dealing enterprises.

well... as a bigtime FEDERER fan, i can't say that this news breaks my heart.

this was supposed to be a reply to craighickman. oops!

"Arc Of The Moral Universal"
by BarbinMD
Now that the House has passed their meaningless - one part feel-good, nine parts politics - resolution on Iran, let's let the grown-ups talk. From an interview with Harry Smith of CBS:

SMITH: People in this country say you haven't said enough, that you haven't been forceful enough in your support for those people on the street -- to which you say?

THE PRESIDENT: To which I say, the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.

What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to I think what Dr. King called the "arc of the moral universal." It's long but it bends towards justice.

A-freaking-men. How hard is that to understand, and how embarrassing is it that nearly every Democratic member of the House was too afraid to stand up and say no to Republican grandstanding?

Meanwhile, thousands of people with real courage are taking to the streets throughout Tehran in the face of overwhelming government forces - horrific reports coming from around the city. Follow the story in Zoltan's diary
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/20/744...

Remember all that hyped up talk from those fringed, nutty, right-wingers about Justice Sotomayor being a member of La Raza, where was all this "so-called" outrage when they know AG nominee member of La Raza:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?A...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/28/736...


I swear these people make the biggest deal over the most trivial, non-issue subject with anyone who doesn't agree with them ideologically.

Sorry if this is old news and was posted before, but the more I find read and find about all of this faked outrage and hypocrisy of the right (and yes, I know it's done on the left, but you know the right are self-righteous which makes it much worse IMO), it just sickens me.

From The Empty Wheel

Did the Ensign Confrontation over His Affair Take Place at a “Family” Gathering?
By: emptywheel Friday June 19, 2009 12:05 pm

As I linked to unwittingly in a past post, journalists are particularly interested in Tom Coburn's take on John Ensign's affair because they live together.

Reporters mobbed Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who shares an apartment with Ensign on Capitol Hill. "I'm not answering any Ensign questions," he announced. "You can ask all you want."

That home, of course, is where Doug Hampton claims a confrontation about Ensign's affair occurred in February 2008.

Citizen92 asked a very good question in a past thread--where John Ensign and Tom Coburn share a place together.

I searched and the Hamptons didn’t own property in DC (city). Neither do the Ensigns. Neither do the Coburns. At least under their own names. Any ideas who owns the Coburn-Ensign pad? Or are they renters?



To which I asked whether or not Ensign and Coburn are members of The Family.

The Family, as Jeff Sharlet has reported, is a secretive fellowship that aims to mobilize pseudo-Christian issues to accrue power--what he described "a good old boy's club blessed by God."


They were striving, ultimately, for what Coe calls "Jesus plus nothing" -- a government led by Christ's will alone. In the future envisioned by Coe, everything -- sex and taxes, war and the price of oil -- will be decided upon not according to democracy or the church or even Scripture. The Bible itself is for the masses; in the Fellowship, Christ reveals a higher set of commands to the anointed few. It's a good old boy's club blessed by God.

As Jeff has reported, the Family owns a C Street house in which--at least as recently as 2002 or 2003--Ensign lived.

The brothers also served at the Family's four-story, redbrick Washington town house, a former convent at 133 C Street S.E. complete with stained-glass windows. Eight congressmen—including Senator Ensign and seven representatives—lived there, brothers in Christ just like us, only more powerful. We scrubbed their toilets, hoovered their carpets, polished their silver.

And in his book, Jeff reported that Coburn lived in the house when still a Congressman.

The rules forbid Brownback to reveal the names of his fellow members, but those in the [prayer] cell likely include some of the men with whom he lived in the Family’s C Street House for congressmen: Representative Zach Wamp of Tennessee, former representative Steve Largent of Oklahoma, and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, then a representative …

In other words, the Ensign-Coburn "home" is either still that C Street house, or a place they've moved to together after having both lived in the home owned by the Family in the early 2000s.

Well, so what? What's the significance of the possibility that this confrontation took place at a gathering of members of "the Family," aside from the obvious hypocrisy?

I was interested because, if you believe Hampton's letter was part of a veiled threat to Ensign, then his description of the confrontation may be designed to implicate others beyond Coburn (whose mention may have been a coded reference to invoke their Family-connected home). Here's what Hampton said:

The unethical behavior and immoral choice of Senator Ensign has been confronted by me and others on a number of occasions over this past year. In fact one of the confrontations took place in February 2008 at his home in Washington DC (sic) with a group of his peers. One of the attendee’s (sic) was Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma as well as several other men who are close to the Senator. Senator Ensign’s conduct and relentless pursuit of my wife led to our dismissal in April of 2008. I would like to say he stopped his heinous conduct and pursuit upon our leaving, but that was not the case and his actions did not subside until August of 2008.

Hampton mentions not just Coburn, but "a group of his peers ... several other men who are close to the Senator." Which might be his baseball team, or it might be members of the Family. And Hampton goes on to describe his worries about harm to his family.

The actions of Senator Ensign have ruined our lives and careers and left my family in shambles. We have lost significant income, suffered indescribable pain and emotional suffering. We find ourselves today with an overwhelming loss of relationships, career opportunities and hope for recovery. Our pursuit of justice continues to place me and my family in harm’s way as we fear for our well being (sic).

While the fears could stem from simple Nevada hardball politics, it might also stem from losing ties to a network of power like the Family.

I don't know the answer to the question--aside from the fact that both Coburn and Ensign at least used to live in the house owned by the Family. But it might explain the omerta surrounding Ensign's affair.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/19/di...

Ahh the family.I remember reading about them during the primaries.Guess who else is a member?Hillary Clinton
Hillary's Nasty Pastorate By Barbara Ehrenreich
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich

I was thinking of Hillary Clinton too as I read the above. I'll have to get the book written recently about this group by Sharlet. It is bizarre, these people/member believe they are special and why have prayer "cells?" It sounds like a cult.

Posting this early but for all the Fathers, Happy Father's Day.Enjoy
Color Him Father - The Winstons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=075cR3YIbE8

In case you haven't seen this article.....it is quite a different view than you would see here in the U.S. I enjoyed it.

http://worldmeets.us/nachrichten000031.shtml

Nachrichten, Germany

Sasha, Malia and the Remarkable Mr. Obama



"For men like Obama, politics is a personal and even existential affair. He is just as committed to the United States as he is to his own daughters. When his tenure ends, it is to them that he will be accountable. Perhaps having a perspective longer than the next election isn't such a bad condition for policy making."


By Patrik Etschmayer


Translated By Patrik Etschmayer
June 8, 2009

Switzerland - Nachrichten - Original Article (German)

The young family of Barack Obama: Keeping the President of the United States grounded.

It was a journey through minefields - a series of state visits that offered infinite possibilities for embarrassing, harebrained moments and resentment. At least they would have if the last president of the United States was still in the office.

But Obama breezed through it - all of those potential sources of resentment and alienation, of unworthiness and shallowness, bypassed.

The speech in Egypt was an impressive start, in which he showed humility and strength, admitted to the mistakes of the past and showed a determination to positively shape the future.

The Republicans, who accuse Obama of showing weakness on the part of the United States, fail to grasp that only those who are strong are capable of freely admitting error. It is the weakling who behaves as though they never occurred. In the eyes of the world, Obama demonstrated strength.

Similarly, when visiting Buchenwald, one of Europe's places of horror where racism, ideological and mythical delusion, industrial efficiency, petty-minded subservience and sheer brutality led to one of the most immense mass murders in history.

Obama seemed visibly shaken, showing that the suffering which took place there had moving him deeply.

During his appearance at D-Day ceremonies in Normandy, Obama clearly conducted himself with dignity. He once again made it possible for an American president to be accepted and even regarded with affection - something that hasn't been the case since the turn of the century.

The result is that many people see Obama as authentic and not just someone playing a game who knows he's set for life anyway - like Bush and his cronies. In this he also differs from lots of European politicians, be they Gordon Brown, Silvio Berlusconi or Nicolas Sarkozy.

Many people wonder what trick Obama uses to do this - sure that it must be a stunt, even if he's a first rate actor. But perhaps the answer is much simpler and at the same time, much more agreeable. The likelihood is that there are two answers, and here we can call them by name: Malia Ann and Sasha - the daughters of Mr. Obama.

Since Kennedy's tenure, there haven't been such young children living in the White House. Barack Obama is probably the first president ever, who at one time changed the diapers of his children and who doesn't regard child-rearing as the exclusive domain of his wife. When Obama strives for a safer and more peaceful world, it's in no small measure on behalf of his girls.

When one is heavily involved with the upbringing and education of children, the awareness of human vulnerability as well as empathy for others is strengthened. Of course, this can be interpreted as a weakness, as sentimentality. But this is a misunderstanding. Although his shell might be softer - the core of such a person is all the tougher. Because it's a matter of securing the lives and future of the children he loves so much - and if you threaten them, one best not expect any niceties.

For men like Obama, politics is a personal and even existential affair. He is just as committed to the United States as he is to his own daughters. When his tenure ends, it is to them that he will be accountable. Perhaps having a perspective longer than the next election isn't such a bad condition for policy making. The secrets of the remarkable Mr. Obama are not that big after all … they measure about 4ft 10in and 5ft 4in ... but they certainly have the potential for further growth."

whew! appreciate your sharing this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar... below

"Echoes Of TV's First Lady

In a culture in which every white woman is presumed to be Everywoman until proven out of the mainstream, Obama has brought the normalcy of black women into the broader social consciousness. All it took were her two Ivy League degrees, a six-figure boardroom salary, a Norman Rockwell family, soccer-mom bona fides and an ability to dress herself without the aid of an entourage.

In many ways, the first lady has made people see -- really see -- black women for the first time. For example, when a black model appeared on the May cover of Vogue, news articles credited the "Obama effect," ignoring the concerted lobbying by fashion industry activists that began long before Barack Obama was even a presidential contender.

The role of style in defining the first lady might easily be dismissed as a distraction from more substantive issues. But Williams says the fan magazine breathlessness is significant because "it implies a kind of parity we really needed."

Enthusiasm over glossy-magazine beauty as defined by a darker-skinned black woman has to be seen against the backdrop of history, when black women's appearance was used as a tool of oppression. High culture rhapsodized in love sonnets about ivory complexions, flaxen hair and ruby lips. And today, black women still mostly surface as sidebars in beauty stories.

"Somewhere in the core of it is the question of whether black really is beautiful," Williams says. "That's why I think it's not about superficiality. It's a precarious moment. Only a minute ago, she was Angela Davis."

In a culture in which every white woman is presumed to be Everywoman until proven out of the mainstream, Obama has brought the normalcy of black women into the broader social consciousness. All it took were her two Ivy League degrees, a six-figure boardroom salary, a Norman Rockwell family, soccer-mom bona fides and an ability to dress herself without the aid of an entourage.

In many ways, the first lady has made people see -- really see -- black women for the first time. For example, when a black model appeared on the May cover of Vogue, news articles credited the "Obama effect," ignoring the concerted lobbying by fashion industry activists that began long before Barack Obama was even a presidential contender.

I'm surprised Robin Givhan wrote this.

yep. it's also why i would love to see her wear her hair natural. .i think (hope!) it will happen later though.

Fox News segue: Obama at National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast "reminder that" Obamas don't have "place to pray regularly"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906190033


Funny how those "reporters" over at FOX News want to keep talking about Obama's faith and if and where he's attending church when Pres. George W. Bush "infrequently attended church as president and did not join a congregation in the D.C. area." Like when FOX New's Doocy criticized Obama for National Prayer Day decision:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905070009

It's none of their damn business where the Obamas get their spiritual fulfillment. I think FAUX is a good example of those people we all know who go to church every Sunday but sin just as much (and probably MORE) than everyone else.

Glenn Beck=drug addict
Bill O'Reilly=serial stalker and do unholy things with falafels
Roger Ailles=hatchet man for Nixon

Rush Limbaugh insinuated again that Obama was a secret Muslim because he's not doing all he can for gays because Muslims don't like gays. That was on Thursday's show.

I guess Flush thinks he can win over a few gay activists that are angry about DOMA.

Town, I would ask if you were kidding, but I know that you're not.

One of the Worst Court Rulings Ever
Yesterday's court ruling in Osborne was simply one of the most absurd and appalling rulings I have ever read. Chief Justice Roberts should be ashamed of himself. Because of his ruling, innocent men are going to die in prison or via the death penalty. It really is that simple. What is absolutely shocking about the ruling is how utterly dishonest it is. Roberts is usually a careful judge who at least can state the legal issue accurately. In this ruling, his portrayal of the facts and legal questions in the case is one dishonest statement after another. To wit:
Read More
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/06/one_...

I read somewhere, probably on Politico, that Obama sided with the conservative majority on this case.

Anything by Politburo verify with a least 3 sources.

I would like that link, please.

I ran across this earlier:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/02/obama-adm...

thank you

Off to the jazz fest. rain or shine just no flood.
Happy Fathers day to all you'll holding it down. Remember it's not a job it's an adventure.

Good Morning. The Jazz Cafe is open
Herbie Hancock - Jazz Fusion Cantelope Island
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrgP1u5YWEg

thank you

Yeah!

Herbie Hancock rocks! Chameleon is an all time favorite.

rikyrah, those pictures are most moving.

::

Defending Champion Rafael Nadal Withdraws From Wimbledon