Jack & Jill Politics

Evening thread is up.

AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP!!

Netanyahu Plans Major Policy Speech On Achieving Peace With Palestinians

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday he will deliver a major policy address next week laying out his proposed road to Mideast peace, after coming under stiff U.S. pressure to freeze West Bank settlement construction and endorse Palestinian statehood.

Netanyahu offered no hint of what he might say. Bound by his hardline coalition and his own ideology, the Israeli leader has resisted the U.S. demands so far, deepening an unusually public faceoff with Israel's most important ally.
Full Story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/07/netany...

Ohioan becomes 1st black female rabbi in US

CINCINNATI — Describing herself as the "new face of Judaism," Alysa Stanton became the first black female rabbi in the country during an ordination in Cincinnati.

Stanton, of Blue Ash, was among 14 rabbis ordained Saturday at the Plum Street Temple. She will serve as rabbi of the predominantly white Congregation Bayt Shalom in Greenville, N.C., beginning this summer.

The Cincinnati Enquirer reported on its Web site that Stanton said her goals are to break down barriers, build bridges and provide hope.

A native of Cleveland, she studied at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, the oldest institution of higher Jewish education of Reform Judaism in the United States
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/N...

Definitely a new face!! May be one of the only "other" faces too. I ain't mad at her though, gotta be included in eerythang.

Ah..it is Sunday. Outside the sun is brilliant - as is appropriate for a Sunday. It's a fabulous day in Toronto!

Right now, south of the border...primarily in Southern states....reams of worshipers are making their way to all-you-can-eat buffets, where they will dine on the bloody ribcage of some unfortunate beast...probably a pig...barbequed...charred to perfection. Their version of the burnt offering.

Educational Equality: The New Civil Rights Challenge
America is still a very segregated country. While people of color must interact with the European descended majority (66%), whites have very little impetus to interact with people of color. Many whites hold very ill-informed ideas about African Americans. One of the most damaging beliefs held by some whites is that blacks do not value education.
Read More
http://eshowoman.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/educa...

Pics of the first family in Paris...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/artic...

Pitts: Lacking facts, try confusion
By Leonard Pitts
The Miami Herald
Updated: 06/06/2009 01:54:25 AM MDT


So Newt Gingrich now says Sonia Sotomayor is not a "racist" after all. She must be trembling with relief.

Gingrich's backpedaling came last week in an article on HumanEvents.com. It leaves just two high-profile Republicans, former Rep. Tom Tancredo and radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh, still clinging to that absurd allegation.

As you know unless you are just back from Antarctica, this sudden spasm of righteous Republican rage is due to a speech Sotomayor gave in 2001 about the role gender, ethnicity and other characteristics play in a judge's judgment. "I would hope," she said, "that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

It is, yes, a wince-inducing statement. You might even call it a tone deaf and culturally chauvinistic one. But does it support comparisons to the Ku Klux Klan such as Tancredo and Gingrich have made? Not in a million years.

The attempt to paint Sotomayor as such represents more than political overreach. No, this is part and parcel of a campaign by conservatives to arrogate unto themselves and/or neutralize the language of social grievance. We've seen this before. They sullied the word "feminist" so thoroughly even feminists disdain it. They made "liberal" such a vulgarity you'd never know liberals fought to ban child labor, end Jim Crow or win women the right to vote.

Having no record of their own of responding compassionately to social grievance (ask them what they did during the civil rights movement and they grow very quiet), conservatives have chosen instead to co-opt the language of that grievance. And if what they did to the language of women's rights and progressivism took some gall, what they are seeking to do to the language of race suggests a testicular circumference of bovine proportions.

There is something surreal about hearing those who have historically been the enemies of racial progress define racial progress as looking out for the poor white brother.

And whatever comes beyond surreal is what describes these three men in particular, none of whom has ever been distinguished by his previous tender concern for racial minorities lied upon, denied upon and systematically cheated of their square of the American Dream, telling us "racism" is what happens when a Hispanic woman says something dumb about white men. We are, after all, talking about a man (Tancredo) who once called majority Hispanic Miami "a third world" country, and another man (Limbaugh) who advised a black caller to "take that bone out of your nose."

These are fighters against racism?

You keep waiting for someone to break up laughing. You keep looking for Ashton Kutcher to say you've been punk'd.

But they are in earnest, and there is a pattern here: The forces of intolerance seeking to redefine the parameters of a debate they can win in no other way. Read the treatises that attempt to make Martin Luther King Jr. an icon of conservatism. Read the ones which claim the relative handful of black-on-white violent crime occurring annually in this country constitutes "genocide." Read the mewling of white victimization that rises any time blacks or browns are perceived as having won some victory over discrimination.

There is to it a breathtaking cynicism and a willingness to manipulate for political gain one of the rawest places in the psyche of a nation. The goal is not to persuade. It is to muddy the water, confuse the debate. Because when you can't win the argument, confusing it works almost as well.

Based on one foolish quote, we have spent a week asking if Sonia Sotomayor is a racist. I'd call that mission accomplished. And I wish Kutcher would come out already.

It's not funny anymore.


http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_12534701

Gingrich: Americans ‘surrounded by paganism.’

On Friday, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Oliver North visited Rock Church in Hampton Roads, Virginia to give a three-hour long lecture on “Rediscovering God in America.” The speakers warned the audience about the “continuing availability of abortion, the spread of gay rights, and attempts to remove religion from American public life and school history books.” The Virginia-Pilot reported that Gingrich argued that, while Christianity is the foundation of American citizenship, Americans are experiencing a period where they are being “surrounded by paganism”:

GINGRICH: I am not a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States because only in the United States does citizenship start with our creator. [...] I think this is one of the most critical moments in American history. We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism.

Huckabee also equated America’s victory against the British in the Revolutionary War with the right-wing’s success in the Proposition 8 fight in California as being miracles “from God’s hand.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/06/gingrich-pa...

Newt, y'all some fickle cats. Make up your minds. Y'all want to "surround" us or do you want us to" surround" you?

It will truly be a cold day in hell before I start taking lessons on morality or religion from Newtie! How he gets out there and does this with a straight face is mind blowing!

Name a Christian holiday not originating from Pagan traditions? Every 10 years you have "the pagans are taking over" crazy guy running in the streets. Don't let your belief hinder anyone else is. "Every man has a right to decide his own destiny".

Funny how we Americans love to carry the ole we are so diverse label but as soon as true diversity show we get timid.

Ok, on one of those-the removal of any sort of religion from the public square-I kinda agree with Gingrich.

Wish I had stayed to hear them speak...had to go to work.

Gingrich can rediscover God by admitting he's an assclown who dumped his wife on her sickbed.

Ok, Truth, we need your directedness towards this!

:)

This is the stuff with which I have serious problems.

There are atheists with dangerous belief systems too. :)

Religion is it's own punishment.

As an aside, I'm sure you know that just because a person uses a "feminine" username, that denotes race, gender etc...doesn't mean that is who they are...you really can't tell anything about a person's true political affiliation either.

IP's however, don't lie.

This kind of thinking is so convoluted it is mind blowing. Its the twistedness that allowed lynchings on Saturday night and church on Sunday.

Obamateurism of the Week? Get your vote in on this weekly poll!

Agains the Right is reeking desperation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/america...

Oprah defends her 'experts' accused of talking nonsense

Controversy rages over dubious medical advice dispensed on show watched by tens of millions

By Guy Adams in Los Angeles

What I find interesting about the media's "LET'S GET OPRAH" meme is the timing.

MSM leading the charge, just in time for the healthcare bill.

I, for one am suspicious of folks who ridicule and mock alternative forms of healing. My own experiences with various forms of healing in conjuction with traditional medicine have proven to be life-saving. It comes down to choices. And I don't want my freedom to choose threatened by corporations.

There's room for all forms of healing, but the medical field, insurance companies and phamacuetical Co. can't afford to let alternative forms of healing taking a cut of their big chunks-o-chedar.

We all know Oprah has a lot of power and the medical world knows it too; after all TENS OF MILLIONS of folks watch her show. she owns her own studio, she's her own woman.

IMO, Oprah's not misleading any one, that is what the MSM, who are owned by the corporations and lobbist who own the health insurance companies and phamacies, who don't want folks educated about preventative and alternative healthcare, or 40 million Americans to have access to SINGLE PAY healthcare.

Oprah = nonsense.

Oprah is empty, she's hungering for something to fill that void. That's why she keeps gaining all that weight and that's why she keeps pushign all of this New Age stuff, because she believes if she stuffs her face and reads THE SECRET she'll become full.

Oprah empty?

Oprah strikes me as one of the most "full" people. Oprah gains weight because she believes without question that she is fat. She is a woman who knows her own mind. And while ideas in the secret are not absolutely scientific, they do jibe with much of the new, and not-so-new thought in quantum physics. But, if you don't KNOW that, that is, if your interests don't lead you to that information, then you're liable to dismiss it as new-age garbage.

Now, for "nonsense" you will have to check the bible...or talk for 5 minutes with your average Christian.

The media is going after Oprah because she is a powerful woman who wields power and TENS OF MILLIONS of people tune in to her show. What ever she showcases turns to gold! $$$$$$$.

Alternative forms of healing is not as new age as folks are led to believe. I've always seen Oprah as someone who shares her knowledge, gives folks more options, and allow them the FREEDOM to make their own life choices.

After 20 years,of public life, I wouldn't expect anything less from Oprah or anyone else but changes. She owns her own studio. She's her own woman. As with Oprah's show and in life, I take what is useful to help me grow and leave what's not.

So, now the MSM is starting their SMEAR Campaign on Oprah.

The healthcare industry in America is the TRUE CULPRIT.

Alternative forms of healing is not as new age as folks are led to believe. I've always seen Oprah as someone who shares her knowledge, gives folks more options, and allow them the FREEDOM to make their own life choices.

I agree. And clearly, it works for her. I rarely catch her show, but admire the woman, and her poise, greatly. And one thing is true, she does not cultivate her own, or the ignorance of others.

Oprah doesn't know her own mind, which is why she runs off touting every pie in the sky "spiritual" theory that comes across her desk.

Anyone who believes ANYTHING coming out of Oprah Winfrey is a silly ass fool.

That's a surprising dismissal of someone as consistently successful, iconic and respected as Oprah. Oprah promotes what she finds useful in her own life, and one cannot argue that her own life is very "full". She is the single most successful black woman in America..a surprising dismissal, indeed! And I might add..very thin gruel.

Perhaps Oprah fans should have you and Justice pray for them instead?

Now, now Town.....are you cultivating your own ignorance?

I stopped watching her a long time ago.

Oprah has totally lost touch with real people and uses her show for her own therapy needs and for her friends to make even more money.

My issue with Oprah is the 'platform' she has allowed Jenny McCarthy to spew nonsense about cures for autism. Jenny McCarthy is really dangerous for families who have just received a diagnosis of Autism. One of the things Jenny usually neglects to mention is that she has the income to waste on the stuff she talks about.

Regular families with children, teenagers and grown children with autism need direct in-home and community supports and interventions to assist with the issues that face folks diagnosed with autism.

Teachers, police, justice systems need training, laws need to be changed. And of course, everyone needs access to affordable health care and fresh vegetables, fruits, fish, meats and grains.

It's Oprah's show, her magazine and her money; she can do what she wants with it.

I, however, don't have to watch it.

We should also remember that she is responsible for that anti woman misogynist and homophobes Dr. Phil becoming a household name. For that alone she owes the world an apology.

I hope I'm not offending anyone but I can't stand him. Ugh!

Ditto!

Interesting....I never watched Dr. Phil, never paid any attention to him.

LOL! And how's that working for ya, Angelar?

Clinton: Obama Has Passed '3AM' Test (VIDEO)

It's been fifteen months since Hillary Clinton charged that Barack Obama lacked the chops to handle a crisis phone call at 3 A.M. And the two have gone from bitter electoral rivals to partners in foreign policy.
On Sunday, Clinton revisited that defining attack affirming that Obama could answer that early morning call.
"Absolutely," the Secretary of State told ABC's "This Week." "And, you know, the president in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has been strong, thoughtful, decisive. I think he is doing a terrific job."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/07/clinto...

oh goodie now that the media has gotten her stamp of approval, i suppose obama can rightfully wear that mantle of president. i'm sure he was feeling mighty insecure, before that genius stephonopolous got that cleared up for us.

George Stephanopoulos can go straight to hell and take Charlie Gibson with him!

LMFAO

I don't think that was her point. This, I think, is her point.

Enough with this fucking shit. I didn't win; he did. And he's doing a terrific job. Next question?

agreed and she said as much multiple times and they still ask her the same question.

it wasn't her point, but it is the point of the idiot punditocracy. the level of condescension involved in stephanopolous pretending that's a serious question to waste her time with, is the point.

No - it's your point. The point of the "idiot punditocracy" IS as you point out - an unbelievable level of condescencion when pretending that any fucking question they ask is serious. OR worthy of serious answer.

I can't tell you how sick I am of seeing the SAME STUPID PEOPLE week after week after week.

maybe i'm reading you wrong, but my comment heavily sarcastic. i don't think he needs her stamp of approval; so no that's not my point. i just think the idiots in the media like to pretend there's drama where there isn't any; and that's why george asked the question to begin with. he acted like she was his teacher giving him a grade; honestly what answer did he expect her to give about her boss?
it's also why their headline takeaway from that interview is "omg hillary totally turned his SOS offer down initially!" the msm treats everything like some high school soap opera. forget north korea, or the middle east; obviously what's truly important is the possibility of lingering primary drama!
i'd love to see their idiocy get smacked down more often, but instead i tend to just not watch their nonsense.

I was being snarky in my comment. And I think I misread the 'he' in your comment.

"Bank Accused of Pushing Mortgage Deals on Blacks"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimor...

"Loan officers, she said, pushed customers who could have qualified for prime loans into subprime mortgages. Another loan officer stated in an affidavit filed last week that employees had referred to blacks as “mud people” and to subprime lending as “ghetto loans.”

What say you, Tavis?

Tavis aint got nothing to say about blacks being referred to as "mud people."

That's Obama's problem. He's holding PBO ACCOUNTABLE, remember.

Tavis: Well I-I-I-..see, lemme tell you something right quick..Uhhhh. Ask President Obama!!

they can't be surprised by this. it was obvious

It also puts the lie to the claim that "the only color that matters is green". If it was all about greed and nothing else, they could just as easily have pushed these loans on whites as enthusiastically as they pushed them on blacks, and made even more money. But, they didn't.

Many people believe blacks are simple-minded, trusting and child-like. Religious beliefs do nothing to counteract that image. If a black pastor can tell his congregation that HIV is an engineered virus intended to harm blacks, and be believed, then why shouldn't a mortgage broker give those same believing blacks a sub-prime mortgage?

nt

Because it's unethical?

Unethical, indeed.

But my point was that what was the "hearth" of the black home(the church) - if you will - doing to counsel, protect it's congregants from this scourge? Really, the church is complicit in the victimization of it's flock.

My point is showing there really is no qualitative difference between believing HIV is engineered, and accepting a sub-prime mortgage when you qualify for better. It's the curse of cultivating ignorance, and those who allow their ignorance to be cultivated in religious matters, will also allow that ignorance to be cultivated in financial matters and ...perhaps deserve it's rewards. But then, I vacillate between seeing the flock as victim, and victimizer of it's own self.

For your critique to really mean anything, the idea that HIV was engineered would have to be conventional wisdom within the black church. Oh- and all, or a huge majority of, the black people who got swindled would have to be really, really devout churchgoers who were really, really devoted to their pastors. In other words, to even say what you said, you had to stereotype black churches in general as places where people are told that HIV was engineered, and you had to stereotype black people in general as people who go to churches where they are told that HIV was engineered, who all believe that, and who have an unhealthy devotion to the pastors of those churches. I really don't think that's accurate.

"Many people believe blacks are simple-minded, trusting and child-like."

You don't say...

I don't have the patience to do an English comprehension class.

Suffice it to say that the central point is the cultivation of ignorance...cultivating ones own, and cultivating the ignorance of others. The idea that HIV is engineered is only an example. There are far more homogeneous beliefs held by the church. That the earth is 6000 years old, for instance. Or that a young girl became pregnant without benefit of sperm. These all fall into the category of "cultivating ignorance".

Note also, that the church is where the much of the black community receives it's information.

The provision of sub-prime loans is merely another form of dogma...and is also a form of "cultivating ignorance". The willingness to believe, blindly.

The submission of oneself to lesser things.

The resistance to new ideas.

The rejection of readily available, and credible information.

The glorification of stupidity.

The friend who pats you on the back, and smiles indulgently when you do something wrong.

Your peers who giggle, and cheer you on when you act a fool, play the class clown and don't pay attention to your lessons....

..You get the picture...

The cultivation of ignorance is like an aura that pervades your life. Don't be surprised when its cultivation in one area(religion) harms you in other ways(finances).

Well, what do you know, I do have the patience after all!

Yes, I DO say:

"Many people believe blacks are simple-minded, trusting and child-like."

...Isn't that one of the major thrusts behind racist ideology?

The level of ineptitude of this Administration to anticipate and handle backlash never ceases to amaze me. I speaking specifically about the closing of Guantanoma Bay and the recent speech to to the Muslim world. To use an old Hollywood phrase, it's like the President is believing his own press-- that he has this unfailing ability to build consensus just by his words. NO! This is politics. Love and loyalty for any president is fleeting at best, but nimbyism is is here to stay. Rather than the story line on Gitmo reading that the President gets support from his Party on the closing of Gitmo; instead, the headlines read he was slapped down by his own Party because he and his administration didn't do the necessary politicson the Hill.

You would think that given that embarrassing failure, they would ENSURE they had American Jewish sign off on his Cairo speech and vital surrogates in place to defend it. YES, he said everything we know to be true and what we all say in private. But what is the prevailing story line now? He went to far. Why wasn't his Jewish Chief of Staff all over the airwaves? Where was Waxler? Where was Schumer? Where are all the white liberals who constantly complain of our one-sided support for Israel? NOWHERE TO BE FOUND! And now this President has left himself wide open to criticism that he's weakening America; trying to weaken Israel; and the crazy speculation that he's a secret Muslim.

lots of really interesting israel talk right now regarding a peace plan and settlements. as with everything, the issues and opinions are not cut and dried on either side as the poll in this piece shows:

Doing The Numbers: Obama's Window
By Bernard Avishai - June 6, 2009, 3:57PM

The many questions in Yediot Aharonot's weekend poll gives us a feel for Israeli society, much like many touches give the blind man a feel for the elephant. My friend Jo-Ann Mort suggests that the key finding is a solid majority for evacuation of settlements; and its is true, and reassuring, that by 52% to 43%, respondents now actually favor a "freeze." But I think we might keep feeling around.

The responses do reveal Obama's window of opportunity. But the window is small and it will take consistent outside power, hard and soft, to pry it open. The questions are themselves a kind of code. The responses reveal a deeply divided country that would prefer not to confront its own divisions.

FIRST, THE BAD news. About 54% approve "natural growth" in the more than 150 settlements that already exist. So saying "freeze" new settlements may simply mean no new settlements are necessary to consolidate Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories, whatever the fate of this presence proves to be. Besides, the majority for a freeze, like the minority against "natural growth," includes Arab respondents. If we are speaking of Israeli Jews alone, the numbers are more discouraging.

To the question, "Should the illegal outposts be evacuated?," 70% say yes and 25%, no. Think of the latter number as the core of the hard right, people who will turn on Netanyahu as readily as they turned on Ariel Sharon if the settlement project is put in jeopardy. When you eliminate Arab respondents, you can assume about a third of Jews. The larger right, about 41%, says Israel should "not agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a peace deal." Think of them as a layer of reactionaries added to the ideologues.

We are not looking here at Pollster.com data about, say, whether Virginia will fall into the blue column. This is not winner takes all. It is loser spoils everything. Israel's right is more like Serbia's in the 1980s than Virginia's in 2008. They live in a world apart. Some 12% say they will "resist" the evacuation of settlers. This is about a third of the third, 600,000 people, as many people as those who lived in the Palestinian Jewish Yishuv in 1948. They are armed. My working hypothesis, based on results of the recent election, is that these people disproportionately live in and around Jerusalem, the territories and in the development towns of the south.

WHICH BRINGS ME to the peace camp. To the question, "Should the birthrate in the settlements be taken under consideration and therefore allow construction for the sake of natural growth?," 54% say yes, 42% say no. The latter number is, in this case, the peace camp's core constituency, people who have come to regard the settlers and the orthodox as a threat to Israel's future and place in the world; they are unwilling to cut settlers any more slack. Their number is almost exactly equal to the 41% who say they are not "disappointed by Obama's policy towards Israel," and the 44% of those who say Netanyahu will "eventually agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state."

But we are speaking here mainly of people in the upper crust of the Tel-Aviv-to-Haifa corridor on the coastal plain, people with their face to America, Europe, and global opportunities. We are also speaking here of Arab citizens who, in a climate of tension, withdraw from ordinary politics entirely. Levels of cooperation between Israeli Jews and Arabs in political life remain slight, even in the peace camp, alas. If the right, opposing the government, provokes open violence, Israeli Arabs will themselves become violent and push the center to the right.

I have said often that the core constituency of the peace camp is very wary of directly confronting the core of the settlers and their sympathizers. The evidence for this fear is in the response to the vague question: "Is Obama's policy good for Israel?" This really translates as, Wouldn't you rather have a president like Bush who just loved us to crazy and helped us preserve the status quo? Some 53% say Obama is bad for Israel, and only 26% say good. There is an inchoate tension underlying this response, not a dispassionate assessment of whether the policy itself is right. There is no other way to explain why only 26% say Obama's policy is good, but some 55% say Israel should "agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a peace deal." (Again, take out Arabs and we are looking at a small minority of Jews eager for a confrontation.)

THE GOOD NEWS is really in the question, "Should Netanyahu acquiesce in Obama's demands or reject these even at the cost of sanctions?" Once the question is, in effect, What do you fear more, a confrontation with the settlers, or a world without America?, 56% say go with America. Note well: the rightist 40% say, fuck it, if America wants a showdown we'll give them one. The swing here, 15-20%, are mainly Russians, more educated Mizrahi Jews, and young people who otherwise imagine themselves strategic hardliners, but cannot imagine Israel as a Western pariah state.

And here, precisely, is Obama's opening. If he can maneuver Netanyahu into becoming, like Tzipi Livni, an advocate for preserving relations with America over any other concern--if Obama can, as he started to even before the Cairo speech, change Israel's national conversation from Iranian power to American power--he can at least hope to get a cooperative government that will enjoy majority support in the face of provocation from the violent minority.

If, for example, Obama and the Quartet can get Netanyahu to sign off on "two-states," which carries greater symbolic importance after Cairo, it seems almost inevitable that Netanhayu will give Livni what she wants to join a National Coalition. Among Kadima voters, 52% to 41%, would want Livni to join.
A unity government organized to respond to Obama will marginalize the hard right in the government, something that cannot be done in the streets--at least, not immediately. It will take a generation of shows of force by international troops and investors, of secular peace and economic growth, to thin out the Israeli right. Ditto Hamas. If Obama started a peace process in Cairo, this is it

Let me say this that Jewish Neocons are the minority;most Jews are liberal Democrats.

from what i saw they had axelrod out there quite a bit, and he's jewish. there are plenty of jewish democrats and moderate jews who have spoken supportively of what he had to say over the past few days as well, even republican dick lugar was praising the speech. from what i've read there was extensive consultation with jewish groups as well surrounding the speech; so just because the msm is spinning it one way doesn't mean the necessary work wasn't done.
but there's also only so much that they can control in terms of who gets booked by the cable networks. if you look at the history of bookings on many of these shows there's a heavy skew to the right, there are weeks where you see nothing but right wing commentators, and that's not just because democrats can't be bothered to get their message out there; the msm is very much stuck in a conservative mindset regardless of which party is in power now, their CW leans right (see josh marshall's great writing on this topic). the white house can try and get their people out there, but they don't make the final decision and they certainly don't control the final schedules of other members of the party.

as for the gitmo vote, it's hard to know exactly what was happening behind the scenes trying to wrangle votes, i've read various speculation about it.
and the crazy speculation about him being muslim, well it's just that: crazy. there's nothing they can do about that; when people want to assume you're secretly muslim because you spoke 5 arabic words, rather than reach the more logical conclusion that you consulted a translator; there's no sense trying to answer that nonsense. some people prefer to think unicorns when they hear hoof beats.

The " the crazy speculation that he's a secret Muslim" has been out there throughout the campaign, those who believe that are the same types screaming for his birth certificate and claim he isn't a U.S. citizen.

As for Israel, I found it interesting that last week Jack Cafferty had one of his questions about our friendship with them possibly at risk because of the President's speech and most of the people who responded were with the President .......that Israel has taken advantage of the U.S. "undying support." According to an article in Haaretz a few days ago the majority of the Israeli public is against new settlements.

I certainly hope the President doesn't ever take his popularity for granted because it would be naive to not know that he is being held to a higher standard than any previous president. But remember that no matter what the President does or doesn't do, his critics are ready to pounce 24/7 and they are well organized about it.

Sorry, I can't cut and paste your exact statement. When you say his
critics are ready to pounce, you're right, which makes it all the more
difficult to understand why the Administration didn't launch an
offensive in advance of the speech to combat the criticisms.
Instead, you see the Administration now on defense putting Axelrod--
good God--on the various cable shows to clarify the what the President
meant. If they are explaining, they are losing the message war.

They had to have known that many if his statements would cause
unease. And would require an offense. When the President says that
"no one nation should decide who gets nuclear weapons." Really, Mr.
President? Then why did you promise AIPAC and the world as a
candidate that YOU would never allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

It's hard for me to understand that when Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary
Clinton and his entire security team read that speech and saw
"slavery", they didn't say, "Mr. President, don't go there...we
understand what your trying to say, but don't go there." And there
were many more moments like that throughout the speech that just made
me cringe and say to myself he was going too far. Not because what he
was saying was untrue, but because he won't get poltical cover from
fellow Democrats. To date, you haven't heard a full throttle defense
of his speech from any Democrat except John Kerry. Not one Jewish
Democrat in Florida has said a word.

What headline are you referring to?
I watched various networks, and read coverage from a lot of different sites regarding the speech, I don't think a majority was negative at all, in fact it was the opposite. Nevertheless, from the respected polls, it would seem the majority of the public doesn't really base their decisions on the shrilling of the mainstream media anyway.

Please sign a petition in favor of President Barack Obama's nomination of "wise Latina woman" Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court. I happen to think that the Court needs a wise Latina woman and I'm sick and tired of hearing Republicans and the media use her self-identification against her as if it were a crime for her to be proud and cognizant of the value of her particular background.

To listen to the Republicans, it's wrong to nominate someone because they're not a white male, and so the only way to prove that you aren't pursuing diversity is to name another white male Justice to a court that is already 77% white male.

Instead, let's engage in some push-back and sign a petition in favor President Obama's choice of wise Latina woman judge Sonia Sotomayor.

already signed a week ago but thanks for posting.

Yes, you MUST take up the cross on this issue.

I signed it!

already signed, Francis, but thanks for bringing it up again. If you could post again in the Monday Open Thread, I'd appreciate it.

Today is the eleventh anniversary of the murder of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas. We need to remember him and the pain in which he died because despite the claims of whiteness we are still very much in a racialized world.

Womanistmusings,

When I heard the news of James Byrd's death, I was stunned beyond disbelief. I cringed hearing the details of his death. It was too much! My God, such horror! And after murdering this innocent man, the murderers dumped what remained of his body & went home like nothing ever happened. To this day, I still shudder just thinking about it and how it could happen again to any person of color at any time.

Thanks for reminding us. I'll go lay flowers on his online grave!

Sasha and Malia become the belles of Notre Dame in Paris stop
BY Celeste Katz
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/0...

I have read in two articles this morning that today is Sasha's eighth birthday. I have also seen it as June 10????

Whatever it is..............Happy Birthday Sasha!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087...

"Today is mother’s day in France and also Sasha’s eighth birthday. Obama is due to end his Paris visit today. The first lady and the girls will return to the U.S. later. "

Feeling the Hate In Jerusalem on Eve of Obama's Cairo Address
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HteXjHh_V-U

my favorite part:

drunk chick bragging about being a political science major while she's sitting in a bar in israel and she has no idea who netanyhu is.

priceless!

You know, this has been making the rounds of the blogs. For me, I have to ask..

I've been Black in America longer than 1 week..

just exactly WHO did this surprise?

It's the reason I didn't post it at JJP.

Sorry.....but was that reggae? lol....that was too much stupidity in under 4 minutes.

Ahem...yes, it was, LOL. That was also some American Jews making racist statements...in what they percieve to be the speaking style of young black men.

They were mighty ignut.

Now, I COULD stereotype after watching that. I won't, but I could.

Almost all great wise beings and paths to God claim that "Thank you" is the greatest of all prayers and if you could pray only one prayer, Then make it "Thank you." rikyrah, i am glad you reminded me of this, this morning. I look forward to your Sunday music ministry, because it always seems to have a personal message for me.

Zackboston,

I also look forward to Sunday Music Ministry and wonder who will Rikyrah have today? :) It is a blessing indeed!

Hat tip Calculated Risk
Is the failure of cram down for first mortgages in Senate motivated by sentiment people abused the situation and shouldn't be helped? An analysis in California
Do these homeowners deserve help?
June 5th, 2009, 3:00 am · 44 Comments · posted by Mathew Padilla, Reporter
(Update: Caution on HELOC calculation.)

Homeowners who treated their houses like cash machines, tapping the equity as home values rose, are among the most likely to end in foreclosure, even more than those who bought at housing’s peak, a new study finds.

Often homeowners have had second, third and even fourth mortgages at time of foreclosure — a trend not adequately addressed by any of the federal or state foreclosure avoidance progams, said Michael LaCour-Little, a finance professor at Cal State Fullerton who authored the study.

LaCour-Little tracked all houses and condos set for foreclosure auctions, known as trustee’s sales, in the first two weeks of November 2006, 2007 and 2008 in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. He is presenting his study today in Washington, D.C. at the mid-year conference of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association.

I plan a bigger story on his findings, but wanted to share a few results now.

For example, for the early November 2008 data sample, he tracked 2,358 properties. Here’s what he found:

•They were purchased at an average price of $354,000 and average year of 2002 (long before the housing peak of 2005).
•Total debt on the properties averaged $551,000 at time of foreclosure. That’s 56% more than the properties were worth when purchased, meaning at least that much was cashed out!
•An automatic valuation model estimated average value at time of foreclosure was $317,000, which suggests a combined loan-to-value at foreclosure of more than 170% ($551,000/$317,000). And that is a conservative estimate. Properties that banks later sold had an average resale price of $271,000!
LaCour-Little is, well, diplomatic in his conclusion that “borrower behavior, rather than housing market forces, seems to be the predominant factor affecting outcomes.”

More telling is a rough calculation the professor did, estimating that for all properties in his study homebuyers made downpayments of $262 million and cashed out $2 billion, for a 40% return on their money over six years.

The professor stops there. But my inference is — are these people government officials should be trying to help keep their homes?

What do you think?

Should government help homeowners avoid foreclosure?
• Yes, because all homeowners are victims and all banks are evil. For realises. Ask Bruce Marks.
• No, lenders made risky investments
• Yes, if made downpayment of 10% or more
• Should be prosecuted for fraud
• Yes
• No
• No, because they're not helping renters!
• No. Both lenders and borrowers contributed to this mess
• Hell No!
• Only if they had a mortgage between 33-50% of documented income and recently had a document job loss/illness
• Yes, if made downpayment of 20% or more
• No! The bank should foreclose on the house and sell it cheap (short sale)
•Add an Answer

View Results UPDATE: It occurred to me after posting this I should have mentioned it is not evident in county records, including those used for this study, how much of a home equity line of credit was actually outstanding at time of foreclosure. The professor figured borrowers facing foreclosure would likely have drawn down the entire line. That makes sense. But lenders have been freezing HELOCs over the past year or so.
http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com/2009/06/05/...

Cramdown failed because the Republican leadership called the banks, that were going to bend recognizing how this could help them, and said if this went through the Republicans wouldn't be there for them to stop regulatory reforms that are coming down the pike. Couple this with the fact that the white house, assuming like Durbin that a deal had been reached, didn't go to the wall for it.

Which just goes to show; it was all about banks wanting to be able to control the shape of eventual regulatory reform and Republicans determined to thwart the president not serve the people.

For years banks have been profiting off of people. I know my bank charges are ridiculous and I am certainly not the only one. Whenever we can help people out we should. As for the renters there needs to be some aid specifically for them as well.

WM, credit union, get into a credit union!!! Low to no fees, reasonable loan rates. Mine actually called me when a check was about to bounce. I was stunned!