Jack & Jill Politics

TV
Has anyone seen the ATT commercial for their 3G system w/ the young sister and the older AA boss? She stumps the white guy who thinks he has the boss' ear. It's DAMN.

Favorite commercial; Kay jeweler. He puts a ring on it. The girl is all out gorgeous.


Show done w/ White Collar. It became white people

AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP!!

This morning we made the decision to remove all Psalms 109:8 designs from CafePress.

The public debate started with questioning if the design was simply intended to be criticism of the President or something much worse. The discourse was surprisingly civil online, given the heated nature of the topic. Given that, and the positions of groups like the ACLU and the Anti-Defamation League, we decided to let the dialogue play out publicly before making a final decision.

Last night we posted a poll on our blog, read through the emails we’ve received and weighed the nature of the calls we’ve received on the topic. In the process we also learned that many of the original designers of the Psalm 109:8 designs had already decided to remove them on their own.

General consensus has proven that the design does point to a broader interpretation of the Psalm and thus has been deemed inappropriate for sale at CafePress.

We try to create an atmosphere of self-expression. Many of the things we encounter are not black and white, but grey. When the dialogue is civil, we want to let the larger community work things out rather than making an uninformed ruling. The dialogue has played out and common sentiment has reached agreement – this merchandise is not appropriate.

Thank you all for your input.

Cafe Press Pulls Psalms 109:8 Designs

---

Any time the citizens of a state, particularly a democracy, invoke their faith to pray for the demise of those they oppose politically, we should be concerned. When the call for such prayers becomes one of the most popular Google searches in the country, we should shake, especially those of us who believe in God, prayer and the Bible. Psalm 109, verse 8, went viral this morning in just that way.

Among the world's top Google searches today are phrases that contain the words "Psalms 109 8", and "Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama". For those of you who may not know that particular verse, it reads "May his days be few, may another take over his position." And before anyone excuses this toxic use of scripture as nothing more than the wish that President Obama not be re-elected to a second term of office, the next verse in the psalm reads, "May his children be orphans and his wife a widow".

Psalms 109:8, An Ugly Prayer for President Obama

Faux-christians and their veiled prayers can easily annoy folks. In this day and age, I'd refrain from doing such things, unless they want "veiled prayers" return...SMH!

A woman who claimed she was raped in 2005 while working in Iraq for a former Halliburton Co. subsidiary has been awarded nearly $3 million by an arbitrator to settle her case.

Tracy Barker had sued U.S. contractor KBR Inc., its former parent company Halliburton and several affiliates in May 2007, claiming she was sexually attacked by a State Department employee while working as a civilian contractor in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

A federal judge in Houston had dismissed Barker's lawsuit in January 2008, ruling she had to abide by an employment agreement she signed that said any claims she made against the companies would have to be settled through arbitration and not the courts.

Court records filed this week show Barker was awarded a judgment of $2.93 million to settle her arbitration claim against KBR.

Woman awarded $3M in assault claim against KBR

---

Courageous woman.

Color of Change needs support to obtain justice for LaVena Johnson who was raped, then murdered in Iraq.

Good for her. stories like this just infuriate me.

At Lincoln University, in Pennsylvania, students who are deemed too heavy must pass a physical-fitness course.

As part of the university's core curriculum, campus health educators weigh and measure all freshmen during the fall semester, and later calculate each student's body-mass index, or BMI. Those with a BMI above 30, which suggests obesity, must enroll in a one-credit course called "Fitness for Life" before they graduate. Students can satisfy that requirement if they "test out"—by subsequently earning a BMI below 30—or by passing a sports course.

As first reported on Wednesday by the university's student newspaper, The Lincolnian, some students and faculty members at the historically black institution have recently complained about the requirement. The newspaper quoted a sophomore who said, "It's not up to Lincoln to tell me how much my BMI should be." In the same article, a freshman asked: "What's the point of this?"

The point is to keep students healthy, says James L. DeBoy, chair of Lincoln's department of health, physical education, and recreation. All Lincoln students have long been required to pass a two-credit course called "Dimensions of Wellness," which covers array of subjects, such as alcohol, drugs, nutrition, and sexual health.

Lincoln U. Requires Its Students to Step on the Scale

I'm not against this in the least.

The PSA is funny and the comments are hilarious from TPM because it shows you how anything Obama does people are thinking first: How the hell the right will say something wrong and the comments are just too funny. Good PSA though

Happy Friday all

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/1...

President Obama and NFL players Troy Polamalu, Drew Brees and DeMarcus Ware are starring in a public service announcement to air during three Thanksgiving Day football games.

The PSA, which promotes Play 60 and United We Serve, encourages kids to exercise and adults to volunteer in their community.

Watch Obama make a slow-motion catch (and try not to cry):

those who complain about this....are trifling.

This is why the wingnuts hate him so much. The man just looks cool whenever he does something.

Besides, like someone said, "how dare he indoctrinate our children about exercising and volunteering".

Hey, y'all....checking in.

Rikyrah, I owe you (and by extension, JJP) an apology...as you said, I should've posted my announcement over here. I know Monie put up one of the earlier stories that was written about it, so figured everyone knew at that point.

Y'all have tolerated me for too long for me to blow you off like that, so I apologize.

Good Luck!

D,

did Jack and Jill email you?

nothing bad, just wanted to ask you some questions.

Nope and nope.

Hey D. Fully recovered and everything returned to "normal"?

(Okay, everyone doesn't know. LOL)

There's no more normal.

I'm looking into running for office next year against Rep. Bobby Scott.

LOL

LOL

LOL


Good luck with that.

Yeah, I know you think I'm delusional. LOL

If it happens, just promise you'll give me more an ear than you gave McDonnell.

just promise you'll give me more an ear than you gave McDonnell.

Why?

I don't even think Town's in the 3rd, so all I can ask for is her ear.

White House Rebuke: Angry Dems Shut Down Vote

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/panick...
First Posted: 11-19-09 05:27 PM | Updated: 11-19-09 07:25 PM

A bloc of African American House Democrats, angry and worried that not enough is being done about high unemployment by the administration, forced the postponement of a much-anticipated vote Thursday on comprehensive financial regulation reform.

The Financial Services Committee had finished hearing amendments around 3 p.m. and recessed, planning to return at 4 for a final vote on the package. But during the break, some of the Democrats on the committee pigeonholed Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and told him they wouldn't vote for the bill because of the deepening problem of unemployment in their districts.

The refusal to vote for the package, a key priority of the administration, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in particular, was portrayed as a direct rebuke of the White House's "lack of response to the economic situation."

"We will not be proceeding to passage today," Frank began. "I have been meeting with members of the committee, particularly the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who have informed me that they are troubled by what they believe is the lack of response to the economic situation that is confronting them on the part of the administration, and therefore do not feel that they could -- in deference to the various constituencies that they represent -- vote for passage."

Wait ... is that ... guts on the part of the CBC?

Yet Artur Davis could vote against health care.

Nice.

Reid, Dems stay cautiously optimistic


By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 11/20/09 11:14 AM EST

He doesn’t have the votes — yet — but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and fellow Democrats projected confidence they could clear the first hurdle for health reform, a rare Saturday vote to open debate on the sweeping measure.

Reid also got one piece of good news as Republicans at least tentatively dropped their plans to force a reading of the 2,074-page bill, in exchange for a daylong debate, starting in the morning and culminating with a vote at about 8 p.m. Saturday.

But reminders of how tough it will be to pass health reform in the end popped up Thursday, as well, as a second member of the Democratic Caucus — Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson — threatened to launch a filibuster to block a final vote, if language restricting federal funds for abortion was not strengthened.

“There are a lot of other things that could keep me from supporting it in the end,” Nelson said.

He joins Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who said he will vote with Democrats on Saturday, but again on Thursday ruled out supporting a bill with any variation of the public insurance option down the road, even if it means killing the legislation.

“I hope it doesn’t happen; I pray it doesn’t happen,” Lieberman said. “But incidentally, I don’t think I would be the only one.”

For Reid, it’s first things first, and that means mustering all 58 Democrats and two independents for Saturday’s vote. A handful of senators remained uncommitted on the procedural vote, though in the day after Reid introduced his bill, there were no major eruptions that seemed certain to derail it.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29746...

19 Nov 2009 11:43 pm
Iraq. Iran. Whatever.

Palin strikes again. Hannity cannot correct her. It would be like correcting the Pope - too confusing for the viewers.

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

What does it matter? They all look alike anyway. Pfft.

I keep on imagine...what if BARACK OBAMA had made that statement?

uh huh

20 Nov 2009 10:06 am
Hockey Mom With A Glass Jaw

Jessica Valenti describes how Palin is trying to have it both ways when it comes to gender:

In her widely watched Oprah appearance, for example, Palin said that she resented people questioning her ability to serve as vice-president while being a mother to five children – something a man would never be asked. But Palin also complained that in her interview with Couric, she thought she would be speaking to the reporter "working mom [to] working mom" and that she was annoyed with "her badgering and questions". In other words, Palin thought that because Couric was a woman, she wouldn't take her job as a journalist seriously. Palin expected a puff piece instead of pesky questions about economics, abortion and Palin's policies – you know, things a "working mom" couldn't possibly be bothered with.

If one started a list of things that Palin wants both ways, it would exceed the list of her 34 documented odd lies.

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

profile of SOS CLINTON IN VOGUE



As Obama's surprise (and reluctant) pick for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton brings her star power and stamina to the global stage.

Jonathan Van Meter reports. Photographed by Annie Leibovitz.
It is a dreary morning in early October in Washington, D.C., and perhaps because Hillary Rodham Clinton is wearing a black Oscar de la Renta suit on such a colorless day, she seems somber. I had trailed her for nearly two weeks this summer in Africa and then again in New York during the United Nations General Assembly, and I had grown accustomed to seeing her in the vivid suits she favors. Africa is nothing if not colorful, and so not only did bright red or teal or periwinkle seem situation-appropriate, but her clothes somehow matched her demeanor, which was almost uniformly cheerful. Sometimes the color/mood connection was made overt: One morning, as her motorcade arrived at the U.N. for a panel on violence against women and girls, she stepped out of a shiny black luxury sedan in a red suit and was met by Esther Brimmer, her Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, also wearing red. "Good morning, Esther," said Clinton. "I see you got the color memo."

Today's memo? Not today. When she walks into one of the many grand diplomatic reception rooms on the eighth floor of "the Building," as everyone calls the State Department, she is clutching a big mug of milky coffee and is wearing no makeup. She looks tired and cranky. She is about to tape three I'm-sorry-I-can't-be-with-you-here-this-evening videos for events she can't attend. This is obligatory drudge work, to be sure, but it's drudgery that requires her to suck it up and find that extra gear: She must be on. Clinton says hello to the group—not her usual effervescent eye-popping hello but a barely mustered blanket nicety. She sits where she is told, facing a teleprompter, and her ever-present and very chic deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, hands her a small case filled with cosmetics. Holding a compact, Clinton puts on mascara, lipstick, blush, and a little powder. She yanks her jacket straight, affixes her mic, and signals she is ready by sitting up and staring directly into the camera. And—click!—just like that, the public Hillary appears: upbeat, reassuring, in control, wide awake, means business. She nails all three videos in one take. Done. Next.

She walks into the adjoining ballroom, where she has been keeping Katie Couric waiting, and sits down to do a lengthy and tough interview on the war in Afghanistan and President Obama's agonizing decision-making process. Not surprisingly, her mastery of the issues is dazzling. Even Couric is blown away. In fact, Clinton is so clearheaded on the subject, so eloquent, that it raises the question: Why hasn't Hillary Clinton been more out in front on the most troubling foreign-policy issues of the day?

During the first several months of Clinton's tenure, there were a lot of raised eyebrows over the fact that she seemed to have a weirdly low profile for the highest-ranking member of the president's Cabinet and the leading spokesperson for the nation's foreign policy. Some even suggested that it was the administration's intention, or that her power was somehow diminished by the fact that there were so many special envoys: Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan/Pakistan, Dennis Ross for Iran, and George Mitchell for the Middle East. "It's just dead wrong," says Madeleine Albright, who reminds me that appointing the envoys was Clinton's idea. "This is the thing that people have to understand about her. She is not into 'I have to be the one front and center.' She wants to solve the problem!"


http://www.vogue.com/feature/2009_December_Jona...

AM: This should've been priority number 1 for this white house. Not the bankers or the financial institutions.

Foreclosures: Prime Borrowers Are The Latest Victim

WASHINGTON — The foreclosure crisis likely will persist well into next year as high unemployment pushes more people out of homes, pulls down housing prices and raises concerns about the broader economic recovery.

The latest evidence was a report Thursday that a rising proportion of fixed-rate home loans made to people with good credit are sinking into foreclosure. That's a shift from last year, when riskier subprime loans drove the housing crisis.

The report from the Mortgage Bankers Association also found that 14 percent of homeowners with a mortgage were either behind on payments or in foreclosure at the end of September. It was a record-high figure for the ninth straight quarter.

The data suggest the housing market and the broader recovery will remain under pressure from the surge in home-loan defaults, especially as unemployment keeps rising. Lost jobs are the main reason homeowners are falling behind on their mortgages.

After three years of plunging prices, the housing market started to rebound this summer. That lifted hopes for the overall economy. But analysts say there are too many foreclosed homes that have yet to be dumped on the market and expect further price declines.

Among states, the worst damage is still concentrated in the states hardest hit from the start: Florida, Nevada, California and Arizona. Together, they accounted for 43 percent of new foreclosures.

One in four mortgages in Florida were either past due or in foreclosure, the most in the U.S. Nevada was close behind at 23 percent.

"There's no indication in this data that foreclosures are going to abate anytime soon," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, who projects that nationwide home prices will fall up to 10 percent before bottoming next fall.
Driven by rising unemployment, prime fixed-rate loans to borrowers with good credit accounted for nearly 33 percent of new foreclosures last quarter. That compares with 21 percent a year ago.

Many laid-off homeowners might be able to survive on their savings for a while, but "the longer the economic situation stays in place, the less likely they are to hold on," said Jay Brinkmann, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association.

In markets where foreclosures already are high and still rising, prices likely will remain soft. That will cause developers to keep their bulldozers idle and prevent the industry from making a big contribution to the economy's recovery.

"Builders only start homes when they can make money," said John Burns, an Irvine, Calif.-based real estate consultant. "In a lot of areas, until prices go back up, construction doesn't make any sense."

The crisis has struck people like Betty Wilson of San Diego. She was laid off a year ago from her job at an insurance company.

Since then, Wilson has managed to pay her $1,090 mortgage bill from collecting unemployment benefits, renting out a room and dipping into savings. But money is running low. She fears she won't make her payment for December.

Wilson, 56, said she has tried to get her mortgage company, GMAC Mortgage, to lower her 6.25 percent interest rate or give her a temporary break from payments. Many mortgage companies will let a borrower skip up to six months of payments, though they require that the money be paid back eventually.

After The Associated Press inquired about her case, a GMAC spokeswoman said Thursday that the company would offer Wilson reduced payments for four months, "while we continue to review her financials for a permanent solution."

After a typical recession, foreclosures peak about six months after the unemployment rate does. But the process could take longer this time, in part because loan-modification programs and new state laws have prolonged the process. Unemployment, now at 10.2 percent, isn't expected to peak until next spring or summer.

Another unknown is the effectiveness of the Obama administration plan to attack the foreclosure crisis. As of last month, about 20 percent of eligible borrowers, or more than 650,000 people, had signed up. But most of those enrolled have been chosen for trials lasting up to five months.

About 4 million homeowners were either in foreclosure or at least three months behind on their mortgage payments as of September, according to the mortgage bankers group. Even if some of them manage to stay in their homes, the market is likely to absorb a wave of new foreclosures. Those properties are concentrated in states like Florida and other already beleaguered areas.

Subprime loans with adjustable rates have fallen to 16 percent of new foreclosures, from 35 percent a year earlier. Loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration also show rising signs of trouble. More than 18 percent of FHA borrowers are at least one payment behind or in foreclosure.

The Mortgage Bankers Association's quarterly survey of 44.6 million loans is considered the most authoritative report on mortgage delinquencies. A separate report, issued monthly by foreclosure listing service RealtyTrac Inc., is based on courthouse filings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/forecl...

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

Ironic its conservatives who are on Geithner's ass. We all should be, and we should beating Barack (lovingly) with sticks till he wakes up. People are hurting. Layoffs, bigshots still in charge and their feet on our necks. No $ for the holidays. And yet we were sucked under with healthcare and mammograms and backing this scumbag Karzai. it's the economy, stupid. Good way to unite folks.
Where is the well oiled machine we saw in the campaign? Goddammit if this leads to a Hucakbee or Palin presidency b/c "change" was some lofty naive farce, I may go postal--or worse, a fraud cooked up by a man who will say anything to feed a need for adoration due in part to his childhood, I will go postal. The holidays are coming, and what is there to celebrate? The mood has switched 180 degrees from this time last year, and I'm sorry to say, it's the prez's fault. So what can he do to lift things (besides have the CIA kill Harry reid and most of the Congressional Democrats, maybe a few incompetent Dem. govs)? Will he even try? I still think there's a method to the madness--not that we even need madness. But very soon I'll have to scratch my head and say there isn't even a method.
Suggestions? Does he have be repudiated in 2010 mid terms to be the true archangel of structure change we need? To grow some balls? To get cagey and savvy? Or do we just stay grim and follow him like th Light Brigade into the Russian cannons?

I'm sorry but upset this morning. Feeling hopeless. I'm seeing too much suffering, powerlessness, overreaching, underreaching, insouciance, naivity, etc. It's like the rise and quick fall of Reconstruction, played out all over again.

Chambers, you always crack me up with the way you put it into words.

"Do I amuse you? Do I f--ing make you laugh?"
--Joe Pesci in Goodfellas

I'm scared. I think our President faces some crazy ass opposition, but (1) you can't come at it with timid and unimaginative almost long minted approaches (2) you have to keep the populist angle to keep the masses on your side (keep the wedge between the white blue collar dumbasses and the rich assholes) (3) mean it when you say change (4) be bold (I don't know if daring every prick out there to blow up NYC during Khalid Sheik Muhammad's trial counts, but hey, it at least shows balls).
He's seemingly killed the feelings and momentum of last year. It's not all his fault, but given his apparent personality, the tenor of the technocrats around him (most of them lofty white liberals) he should have forseen this white revolt, and understand he has no margin of error. Biden was supposed to be his Cheney, and all Joe's done is to be akin to one's loud-ass old uncle or drinking buddy of pop's!

He's got to have some epiphany like King Arthur at the end of the flick Excalibur or else he's a one term president and we all will be eating worse than crow.

I happen to agree with you a lot of the time, Chambers, and I still appreciate the way you say it.

"Does he have be repudiated in 2010 mid terms to be the true archangel of structure change we need?"--The problem is that if he's "repudiated", then he's just going to move further towards the right or towards inaction. It's a no win situation we are in. Indeed, this is the end result of the "Worst of two evils" system we currently have in this country.

"Where is the well oiled machine we saw in the campaign?"

I propose, the "well oiled machine" is fighting entrenched loyal B--- appointees within every facet of government, attempting to reverse B-- lifetime federal job appointments, re-establishing a functional personnel management system in government so that they can hire personnel, fighting fellow Dems to get WH's appointees confirmed, unravelling previous administration contracts that replaced government functions, etc.

LOL - Please: CLinton had to deal with Bush-1, Reagan appointees. Bush-2 had to deal with Clinton appointees and democrats segueing into lifetime federal jobs.

For God's sake: the Democrats have a super majority in congress, Mr Obama is the POTUS, except for Mr Gates all the Secretaries are Democrats. All the Republicans can do is make a nuisance of themselves.

AM: At some point, some of us who care about U.S foreign policy will have to ask: Is SOS Hillary Clinton a rogue agent trying to derail Obama's foreign policy, or whether she's just a foot soldier carrying out the wishes of her boss at the White House? I mean, it's inconceivable that Obama is going around the world talking one game about Latin America and the Middle East (especially the Palestinian-Israeli issue), while his Department of State talks the complete opposite.

Dispatches From The Edge
A Coup At Foggy Bottom?
By Conn Hallinan
Watching the Obama Administration's about-face in the Middle East and Latin America raises an uncomfortable question: have neo-conservative Democrats-a section closely associated with the Clinton wing of the Party- undermined U.S. foreign policy? Whatever the source of the shifts, their effect has been to heighten tensions in both areas of the world and marginalize the U.S.
just as it was beginning to break out of the isolation of the Bush years.

When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton abandoned the White House's demand to halt the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, it not only drew outrage from U.S. allies like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, it brought into question the entire peace process. For the first time in decades, Palestinians are threatening to unilaterally declare a
state, and some are openly raising the possibility of abandoning a two-state solution in favor of a single bi-national entity.

A bi-national solution would "spell the end of Israel as a democratic state," editorialized the Financial Times. "It would come to resemble in many ways the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. If [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu believes that he has achieved a victory by refusing to halt the settlements, he is wrong. It is more like a project of national suicide."
The Economist put the blame squarely on Obama: "From the Palestinian and Arab points of view, his administration.has meekly capitulated to Israel."

The recent announcement that Israel would build 900 units in East Jerusalem suggests that the Netanyahu government feels it can now act without fear of a break with Washington.

If outrage is the reaction to the Administration's U-
turn in the Middle East, shock is the common response in Latin America to the State Department's about face on the Honduran coup.
When President Manuel Zelaya was ousted by the military June 28, the White House joined the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations in demanding his reinstatement. "We believe the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there," said Obama.

Now, according to State Department spokesman Ian Kelly, the U.S. intends to break that pledge and recognize the winner of the Nov. 29 elections, which are being organized by the coup government. According to Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch, demonstrations opposed to the election have been savagely repressed.

So far, only Panama has supported the U.S. position.

Almost overnight, the good will Obama created by his Cairo address to the Muslim world, and his Administration's quick denunciation of the Honduran coup has vanished. What happened?
On Honduras, the Republicans are taking credit for the Administration's change of heart. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) claims it was his hold over two State Department nominees that caused the White House to drop its support of Zelaya. DeMint said he was "very thankful" that Obama and Clinton "have finally taken the side of the Honduran people."

According to COIMER & OP poll, only 22.2 percent of Hondurans support the coup government led by Roberto Micheletto. But it seems unlikely that the White House would cave over two appointments. In fact, the State Department had begun backing away from Obama's statement long before DeMint came into the picture. Zelaya's name was suddenly dropped in favor of a formula that called for a "return to constitutional order."

A muscular foreign policy-and strong support for Israel-are policies that have long been touchstones for the right wing of the Democratic Party. It was the Clinton Administration that first intervened in the Colombian civil war, bombed the Sudan, and launched the war against Serbia. Secretary Clinton, along with other hawks, is pushing for a major expansion of the war in Afghanistan.
It seems more likely that the State Department's support for the Nov. 29 election was a not-so-subtle shot across the bow aimed at countries that the U.S. considers unfriendly.

The recent release of a U.S. Air Force document on current U.S.-Colombian military agreement suggests that the U.S. is indeed preparing to exert greater military power in Latin America. According to Venezuelan lawyer Eva Golinger, the document, submitted to the U.S. Congress last May as part of the 2010 budget considerations, contradicts claims by the U.S. and the Colombian government of Alvaro Uribe that the deployment of U.S. forces in Colombia is solely aimed at local narcotics traffic and terrorism, and will not affect Colombia's neighbors.

The agreement says U.S. deployment in seven bases scattered around Colombia will allow Washington to engage in "full spectrum military operations in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorists insurgencies.and anti-US governments." And further, that the Palanquero Base in particular ".will also increase our capability to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support logistics requirements, improve partnerships, improve theater security cooperation and expand expeditionary warfare capability." *

In a statement that had a strong whiff of the Monroe
Doctrine about it, U.S. Southern Command head General Douglas Fraser warned that Iran's "growing influence" in the region poses a "potential risk." Speaking in Miami last June, the General charged that Iran is building connections to "extremist organizations" on the continent, and has forged close ties with Venezuela and Cuba.

The U.S. recently reactivated the Fifth Fleet, giving it the ability to project considerable naval power throughout Latin America.
The scope of the Colombia base agreement should make a number of countries nervous, especially those that the State Department considers "anti-US": Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Paraguay, Nicaragua, and Bolivia. The term
"unfriendly" could also include Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and even Brazil, which has helped lead a continent-wide independence movement against U.S. domination of the region.

The Bolivian government of Evo Morales charges that
U.S. organizations like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) support a separatist movement in the oil and gas rich eastern provinces of the country. This past April, Bolivian special forces stormed a hotel in Santa Cruz-the center of the anti- Morales movement-and killed several heavily armed mercenaries who apparently planned to sow chaos in the province.

Weapons and explosives used to attack Morales supporters were traced to wealthy business owners who are active in the rightwing separatist Santa Cruz Civic Committee. The Committee has received support from
USAID and NED. Venezuela says that the Colombian bases threaten the government of Hugo Chavez, against whom the U.S. supported a short-lived coup in 2002. Chavez and Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa both charge that the U.S. aided a recent invasion of Ecuador by Colombian troops seeking out members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Ecuador's Defense Minister, Javier Ponce, has requested a meeting with the
President Obama over the U.S.-Colombia agreement.

The atmosphere in Paraguay is tense following the removal of the country's top military leaders by leftist President Fernando Lugo. There have been several coup attempts since the end of the 35-year military dictatorship in 1989, and Chavez recently charged that a plan to overthrow Lugo was recently hatched in Bolivia by "ultra-rightwing elements." Neighboring Uruguay is gearing up for a second round of voting after left-wing former guerrilla Jose "Pepe" Mujica took 47.4 percent of the vote in the first election round. Some of the right-wing in that country vows that Mujica will never be allowed to take power.
An outbreak of coups in all these countries seems unlikely, but is certainly not out of the question, particularly if right-wingers-who dominated the continent throughout the 1980s and `90s-think overthrowing an "unfriendly" government will be met with a wink and a nod from Washington.

U.S. support for the Honduran elections effectively torpedoed a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Micheletti formed a "unity" government excluding Zelaya, prompting the ousted president, holed up in the Brazilian embassy, to announce that the U.S. brokered agreement was "dead." The Honduran congress says it will not consider reinstating Zelaya until after the election.
U.S. isolation on this issue is palpable.

Meeting in Jamaica, the foreign ministers of the Rio Group-every country in Latin America and most the Caribbean-called for reinstating Zelaya. OAS President Jose Miguel Insulza demanded that the Honduran
government be led by its "legitimate" president. Both the UN and the European Union say they will not recognize the Nov. 29 elections.
More than 240 leading U.S. academics and Latin American experts sent a letter to Obama calling on the State Department to denounce human rights violations by the Micheletti government and re-instate Zelaya. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka demanded that the Obama Administration oppose the Nov. 29 election and return Zelaya to the presidency.

Mark Weisbrot, director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, says unless the Obama Administration reverses course, it is going to be "just as isolated as Bush vis-a-vis the hemisphere." Whatever the explanation for the shift in foreign policy , there is little argument about the results: anger, charges of betrayal, and a diminishment of hope, from the Middle East to Latin America.


*Readers can access the report at:
www.centrodealerta.org/documentos_desclasificad....
_____________________________________________
http://www.portside.org/?q=showpost&i=6890Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that will help them to interpret the world and to change it.
Submit via email: moderator@portside.org Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe Account assistance: portside.org/contact Search the archives: portside.org/archive

Obama needs to find an effective way to end the ambiguous and conflicting policy messages. And I never understood the reason he chose Clinton for SoS other than possibly some kind of political consolation prize. She should go now.

Obama inherited a mess from W, but the Honduras situation occurred entirely on his watch. Sure, Clinton is involved but if this trend continues in Latin American policies then the failure is his as well. And the pretty foreign policy speeches will indeed be no more than pretty foreign policy speeches.

Still I don't buy into every implication hinted at by this article and I hope that it is more a matter of his attention being on priorities elsewhere and being forced to rely on Clinton.

Over the last months I've also seen a couple of articles quoting "unnamed sources close to Clinton" that suggest to me that Clinton has a number of close friends and advisors that would like nothing better than to make her look good at Obama's expense. I don't trust her to do what is in her boss's or her country's best interest.

I agree. it's the conflicting messages being sent out by this white house that make me cynical. I mean, this isnt to be overtly critical, but Obama campaigned on a platform of "change", C.H.A.N.G.E. You cant go to Cairo and give a pretty speech regarding U.S policy towards the middle east while your administration does everything in their power to undermine such change.

Clinton, Geithner, and Summers need to go ASAP.

It goes without saying that there's no smoking in class. But there is a good deal of sniffing of leaves, discussion of the finer points of inhaling and debate over which plant gives the biggest hit.

Welcome to Detroit's cannabis college, recently opened with courses on how to grow marijuana – and harvest, cook and sell it too – after Michigan legalised the drug as a medicine.

Students get instruction from horticulturalists, doctors and lawyers as well as hands-on experience cultivating plants and guidance on how to protect their stash from the criminal element.

Students Taught How to Grow Marijuana in Detroit's New Cannabis College

---

Wow, no need for "scripts", just move to Michigan and take a class.

legalize it, decriminalize it and tax it - that's my mantra on marijuana.

but, LMAO about the class.

The Pentagon said Thursday it will scour its procedures for identifying volatile soldiers hidden in the ranks following the Fort Hood shooting rampage and lapses that might allow others to slip through bureaucratic cracks.

"It is prudent to determine immediately whether there are internal weaknesses or procedural shortcomings in the department that could make us vulnerable in the future," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

A 45-day emergency investigation will examine personnel, medical, mental health, discharge and other policies in all corners of the vast Defense Department. It will also look at ways to improve security and emergency response at Defense Department facilities.

"The shootings at Fort Hood raise a number of troubling questions that demand complete but prompt answers," Gates told a Pentagon news conference.

Pentagon looking for Fort Hood management lapses

---

Since 2003, there have been 76 suicides by personnel assigned to Fort Hood, with 10 this year, according to military officials.

From Ohio to Texas, newspapers around the United States are running local stories on a surge in suicides and trauma involving members of the U.S. military.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is looking at the apparent suicide of Army Pvt. Keiffer Wilhelm. At Fort Hood, in Texas, multiple soldiers have committed suicide every year since the Iraq war began, the Austin American Statesman reports. The Indianapolis Star did a four-part series in September that detailed how Sgt. Jacob Blaylock took his own life.

These aren't just anecdotal reports. In 2008 there were 256 suicides in the U.S. military -- and more than half of those were in the Army, the BBC reports.

More than the highest number of military suicides since 1980, when the data was first tracked; it also marks the first time the military suicide rate is higher than that of the general population, according to the Defense Department.

Back on the home front, aggression gone AWOL can also turn outwards -- as happened to Anthony Marquez of Colorado Springs, in an oft-cited story by the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Marquez was the first infantry soldier in his brigade to murder someone after returning from Iraq -- but he wasn't the last. Ten members of his 4th Infantry Division's 4th Brigade Combat Team have been arrested and accused of murder, attempted murder or manslaughter since 2006, the newspaper reports.

What's gone wrong for those who have served in our 20th and 21st century wars?

David Rudd, Texas Tech University professor and an expert on military suicide, told both The Kansas City Pitch that the military mentality of never acknowledging weakness or the need for help can contribute to despair or aggressiveness, and lead in turn to suicide or violent acts.

A 2008 Rand Corporation study found more than 300,000 military service members -- one out of every five who served in Iraq or Afghanistan -- reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or depression.

Yet only half said they had sought help -- which is, by some reckonings, ever-more available.

The Veterans Administration launched a suicide hotline in 2007 that took in more than 100,000 calls in its first eight months, notes Partnership for a Secure America, while September 6 kicks off the Department of Defense' Suicide Awareness Week, as well as the U.S. Army's Suicide Prevention Month.

Across the Heartland, U.S. Military Suicides Spike

Of course they're committing suicide. They're carrying out a god-awful mission. Trust me, they know it. I have one friend that came back suicidal maniac from Iraq. After three tours of duty, he's completely toasted in his head. I cant even begin to imagine the type of sh*t they're going through out there.

This is a witch hunt for soldiers of the Muslim faith. If they do it based on soldiers showing signs of stress anywhere above the the 70% on the scale they are going to lose over 50% in ground based combat units.

Winston Churchill once predicted that it would be possible to grow chicken breasts and wings more efficiently without having to keep an actual chicken. And in fact scientists have since figured out how to grow tiny nuggets of lab meat and say it will one day be possible to produce steaks in vats, sans any livestock.

Pork chops or burgers cultivated in labs could eliminate contamination problems that regularly generate headlines these days, as well as address environmental concerns that come with industrial livestock farms.

However, such research opens up strange and perhaps even disturbing possibilities once considered only the realm of science fiction. After all, who knows what kind of meat people might want to grow to eat?

Advantages touted

Increasingly, bioengineers are growing nerve, heart and other tissues in labs. Recently, scientists even reported developing artificial penis tissue in rabbits. Although such research is meant to help treat patients, biomedical engineer Mark Post at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and his colleagues suggest it could also help feed the rising demand for meat worldwide.

The researchers noted that growing skeletal muscle in labs - the kind people typically think of as the meat they eat - could help tackle a number of problems:

* Avoiding animal suffering by reducing the farming and killing of livestock.
* Dramatically cutting down on food-borne ailments such as mad cow disease and salmonella or germs such as swine flu, by monitoring the growth of meat in labs.

Mad Science? Growing Meat Without Animals

---

So .. the story goes. Yum. Franken food is good for you and we are doing this for you.

When I saw they could grow an earlobe on the back of a lab rat during the '90s, I knew this was coming up next.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1107/features/body.htm

If you’re a bigshot at the IRS there are a lot of things that you don’t have to do. For one, you don’t really have to meet anyone’s expectations. For another, you don’t have to worry about delaying plans just because some practicing CPAs have some silly concerns.

The latest perk of being Doug Shulman? Not having to apologize to anyone.

The Tax Court yesterday ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to order the IRS to apologize to a taxpayer. Caldwell v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2009-169 (Nov. 18, 2009):

The part of Caldwell’s motion which we characterize as a “Request for Apology” asks that we require the IRS to enter into the record “a written apology to the Petitioner, signed by the Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service” …

…

The IRS objected to the Request for Apology on the ground that Congress has not, through section 7430 (relating to administrative or litigation costs) or otherwise, authorized us to grant such relief. [Fn.3] We agree.

There you have it American Taxpayer. Under the law, the IRS doesn’t have to apologize to anyone, despite the evidence that they should probably be apologizing constantly.

That Apology from the IRS? Yeah, Not Going to Happen

nobody should be above the law; especially the law.

Did you hear what John Rogers said? If you weren't paying attention, you may have missed it. He was talking about American business and their "lower cost structure." This is a euphemism. It is business speak for saying that we are paying American workers less and we are working harder. That's the problem with our country in a nutshell. We're working harder than we did in the 50s and 60s and 70s and, adjusting for inflation, were getting paid less. Now, I don't have to tell you that of all the American workers who is being paid less because you already know. We have to do better.

And, they are not through with the American worker yet:

American workers are overpaid, relative to equally productive employees elsewhere doing the same work. If the global economy is to get into balance, that gap must close.

Of course, workers in the United States should earn more than their peers in China, Moldova or Vietnam. Americans take advantage of the higher productivity that makes their country rich: better education and infrastructure, abundant capital and a strong work ethic. But how much higher should American wages be?

American Wages Out of Balance

I was just about to find that piece to reply to ecthompson. When I read it, I was like , ' ain't that a bitch'.

Looking around, it seems that hard work just isn't showing or the results are going toward the wrong areas (upper crust)...

Americans Overwhelmingly Say Obama Bowing To Japanese Emperor Was Appropriate -- Even In A Fox Poll
Eric Kleefeld | November 19, 2009, 3:09PM

Despite a lot of complaining by conservatives, the American people don't actually have any problem with President Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan -- and that's according to the new Fox News poll.

Respondents were asked: "When the president of the United States is traveling overseas, do you think it is appropriate for him to bow to a foreign leader if that is the country's custom or is it never appropriate for the president to bow to another leader?"

The numbers: Appropriate 67%, Never appropriate 26%. Even a majority of Republican respondents were okay with the bow, by a 53%-40% margin. Democrats weigh in at 84%-9%, and independents 62%-30%.

It's very interesting that Fox actually gave the full context of the bow, telling respondents that it would be the country's custom. There's still no verdict, however, on Joe Biden bowing to Jon Stewart.


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/amer...

.......................

as someone on DailyKos pointed out, if this was the poll on FOX, then that's why the media STFU about it.

Alan Grayson: "Today Was Waterloo for FED Secrecy,"
by Badabing
Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 11:45:06 PM PST

This is big news in terms of finally getting somewhere on Auditing the Federal Reserve Bills that currently runs in the form of two bills: One of them is the House bill: RS 1207 with now 311 co-sponsors for the bill, and the other is the Senate bill: S604 in the Senate which now has 30 co-sponsors.

Both bills authorizes the Government Accountability Office to conduct a wide-ranging audit of the Fed's opaque deals with foreign central banks and major U.S. financial institutions. The Fed has never had a real audit in its history and little is known of what it does with the trillions of dollars at its disposal.

As I have stated before, I do not feel that this is a partisan issue. This is an issue about how and who controls our nations money supply and the complete lack of transparency that has been apparent, most especially during the past few years when Congress has been continually rebuffed, stone walled and left in the dark as to what has happened to the trillions of dollars lent out by Ben Bernanke, and the Federal Reserve.

* Badabing's diary :: ::
*

More on the news:

In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter.

A desperate, last-minute attempt to thwart the move came in the form of an amendment championed by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and described by its supporters as more reasonable. On Tuesday, however, the Huffington Post reported that, on a close reading, his amendment would in fact decrease transparency at the Fed by adding additional restrictions.

Backers of the Watt amendment pressed their case on Wednesday by sending a letter from a "political cross section of prominent economists" backing a measure like Watt's. HuffPost reported, however, that those economists might well have be prominent, but they certainly aren't a "political cross section." Seven of the eight economists in question have extensive connections to the Fed -- and half of them are currently on the Fed payroll. Those affiliations were not noted in the letter.

To make a long story short - Watt's 'bullshit - let's keep hiding everything the FED is doing amendment failed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who the hell Watt is working with (his friends on Wall Street and the FED).


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/20/806256...

There are two issues going on here. One is transparancy of the FED. Two, maintaining independence of the FED. Both are under severe pressure because of the economic crisis.
Transparency of the Fed as a rule is not an issue. It is now because the FED is guaranteeing trillions(1,000,000,000,000) of dollars in financial transactions. Among others are the commercial paper markets, keeping money market funds at the minimum value of $1 and lending to banks as a provider of last resort. In order to provide capital the FED is taking assets off the books of financial instruments of extremely dubious value, i.e. damn near worthless in this environment. In effect the financial institutions have transferred the risk to you, the taxpayer and let the bond holders, stock holders off the hook.
The other part of this transparency issue is that people have learned about how the FED system works in more detail. They can see specifically how the NY FED works and its former boss, Timmy Fredo and current Treasury Secretary is responsible in large part for the current mess.
Two is the issue of Fed independence. The purpose of the FED is to manipulate interest rates to keep the capitalist business cycle from running to extremes. As created its independence is designed to keep decisions on their manipulation and timing of these manipulations semi secret from the political system. Facing facts no politician wants to kill prosperity and will do anything to get prosperity going again regardless of the cost(another reason we are in the mess we are in now).
As we know people are beyond angry about this because they fail to see how this helps them at all. Arguing as the administration has that the loss of the system would be worse doesn't mean anything to someone paying taxes on their unemployment compensation and unable to provide for their families. This bill is in a very backhanded way a sop to this anger. Unfortunately if passed it will make things worse for everyone.

It makes things worse because the Obama administration will be exposed for its protection of the investment merchant banks(Goldman, Morgan Stanley) and a few large commercial banks(Citigroup, JPMorgan) at the expense of the financial institutions(CIT) and local banks that actually provide loans to small businesses and the consumer. This loss of credit has made it impossible for either the consumer or small business to spend and create jobs(let's forgo the issue of "good" jobs). With the bonuses being paid to the financial institutions based on government largesse people correctly have deteremined the government is abusing them.

It is a disaster for the FED because at some point interest rates will have to be raised. Higher rates slow economic activity if there is little or no self generated demand. Due to structural issues in the job market these raises will be taking place during periods of high unemployment. The FED will be pressured by politicians not to raise.

Lastly, the exposure of the FEDs balance sheet will not only expose the Obama's adminstration's favoritism but will cause many financial institutions to spiral down in value as the instutions on books will be exposed to the market place. when everyone sees them w/ the more than one to one exposure to Credit Default Swaps the economy will collapse when the world realizes the only one whom can pay for them is the government. The increase in debt our government will have to take on will make us crack whores to the world.

A solution would be for the government to announce the end of the guarantees, go back into the credit card and bankruptcy rules to take the pressure off the consumer and break up the to big to fail institutions especially the investment merchant banks.

What do you think about this 1990 article: The Six Trillion Dollar Debt Iceberg; A Review of the Government's Risk Exposure which in part addresses S&L losses and costs?

The reason I raised this is, haven't there been a cover-up of a pending systemic economic failure for some time?

No there has not been a systematic coverup. Each situation is different although the root causes remain the same; greed, indifference and a intellectual philosophy that has no self control

Watt's a piece of Sh*t.

Regents Raise College Tuition in California by 32 Percent
By TAMAR LEWIN and REBECCA CATHCART
Published: November 19, 2009

As the University of California’s Board of Regents met Thursday at U.C.L.A. and approved a plan to raise undergraduate fees — the equivalent of tuition — 32 percent next fall, hundreds of students from campuses across the state demonstrated outside, beating drums and chanting slogans against the increase.

Isaac Miller and Irene Van, who traveled to U.C.L.A. late Wednesday night in a bus caravan from Berkeley, said they worried about how higher fees would affect illegal immigrant students, who are not eligible for financial aid, and minority students, already dwindling in number since Proposition 209 prohibited affirmative action.

“Diversity is central to this,” Mr. Miller said. “It’s at stake here.”

Mr. Miller and Ms. Van wore shreds of the red armbands adopted at a Sept. 24 walkout, when more than 5,000 students demonstrated outside Sproul Hall at Berkeley.

After Thursday’s vote, as news trickled out to students rallying outside, the chants grew louder and students linked arms to block regents from leaving the building. The police intervened, and as one regent left, about 100 students clustered around him, yelling “Shame on you!”

Mark Yudof, the university president, said the state budget cuts had left the university no choice but to raise fees, and noted that the system received only half as much, per student, from the state as it did in 1990.

“My biggest fear,” Mr. Yudof said, “is an exodus of faculty.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/education/20t...

............................

THIRTY TWO PERCENT?

how in God's name do you think the middle class family, let alone poor students, can handle a tuition hike of 32%

A Crown Jewel of Education Struggles With Cuts
By TAMAR LEWIN
Published: November 19, 2009

BERKELEY, Calif. — As the University of California struggles to absorb its sharpest drop in state financing since the Great Depression, every professor, administrator and clerical worker has been put on furlough amounting to an average pay cut of 8 percent.

In chemistry laboratories that have produced Nobel Prize-winning research, wastebaskets are stuffed to the brim on the new reduced cleaning schedule. Many students are frozen out of required classes as course sections are trimmed.

And on Thursday, to top it all off, the Board of Regents voted to increase undergraduate fees — the equivalent of tuition — by 32 percent next fall, to more than $10,000. The university will cost about three times as much as it did a decade ago, and what was once an educational bargain will be one of the nation’s higher-priced public universities.

Among students and faculty alike, there is a pervasive sense that the increases and the deep budget cuts are pushing the university into decline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/education/20b...

Heard about this on this morning's NPR. Still haven't "solved" the budget crisis in CA...

Guidelines Push Back Age for Cervical Cancer Tests
By DENISE GRADY
Published: November 20, 2009

New guidelines for cervical cancer screening say women should delay their first Pap test until age 21, and be screened less often than recommended in the past.

The advice, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is meant to decrease unnecessary testing and potentially harmful treatment, particularly in teenagers and young women. The group’s previous guidelines had recommended yearly testing for young women, starting within three years of their first sexual intercourse, but no later than age 21.

Arriving on the heels of hotly disputed guidelines calling for less use of mammography, the new recommendations might seem like part of a larger plan to slash cancer screening for women. But the timing was coincidental, said Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel in the obstetricians’ group that developed the Pap smear guidelines. The group updates its advice regularly based on new medical information, and Dr. Iglesia said the latest recommendations had been in the works for several years, “long before the Obama health plan came into existence.”

She called the timing crazy, uncanny and “an unfortunate perfect storm,” adding, “There’s no political agenda with regard to these recommendations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/health/20pap....

Its not the timing that's crazy, its the confusing message being sent about women's health care. Remember, just recently, several states were going to require girls and women ages 9-26 to take GARDASIL to prevent cervical cancer?

that's what came to me this morning. shoving a vaccine down our throats, but don't think the EXAMINATION IS IMPORTANT?

G-T-F-O-H

MICHELLE OBAMA WATCH GETS RID OF RACIST PICTURE OF FIRST LADY IN GOOGLE SEARCH



Google Rocks! Offensive Caricutre of First Lady Removed from Images Search

Google has removed the racist image of First Lady Michelle Obama from their images search.

Google employee Jem left this comment in the Google Web Search help forum…

“If you recently used Google Images to search for the term [ Michelle Obama ], you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the image in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google.

As with Google Web Search, ranking in Google Images results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.

Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results, or images from our Google Images results, simply because the content is in very poor taste or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the image, page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the image.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google Images and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it. We will continue to improve the product based on your feedback to make sure that users find the most useful, relevant images through Google Images.”

I just want to thank everyone, especially the vigilant Michelle Obama Watchers, that took a few minutes of their time to practice a little arm chair revolutionary work for the cause. As far the people who sent those nasty emails and left hateful comments, your karma deal with you.

http://michelleobamawatch.com/2009/11/google-ro...

i disagree with this. When my child grows up, I want her to see what it was like for the first black family; at least in terms of the racist attitudes towards them.

Details of state dinner scarce, White House mum

(AP) – 13 hours ago

WASHINGTON — It's the hottest ticket in town. Just don't ask the White House who got them.

The White House is saying very little about next week's state dinner with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the first for President Barack Obama. Folks aren't talking about the menu, the guest list or even where it's being held. (Hint: That tent going up on the White House South Lawn is a clue.)

But the silence from the White House is only fueling the speculation about who's in — and who's out.

Will talk show maven Oprah Winfrey mingle with as many as 400 guests who huddle under the big top? What members of Congress got the tickets — and which did not? Will the dinner be filled with guests from Hollywood and Bollywood? And how much spice will be added to the curry?

For sure, the dinner is shaping up to be Washington's equivalent of the Oscars. Lobbyists, celebrities and movers-and-shakers all have been calling the East Wing to make sure their high-stlye invites weren't lost. A polite reply lets them know the postal service didn't err.

Obama's big event has been scripted for weeks but first lady Michelle Obama's office isn't dishing details yet. Protocol dictates a strict list of those who must be invited — ambassadors, ministers, dignitaries. Etiquette dictates others, such as prominent Indian-Americans. And — lest we forget this is Washington — politics will play a big part in who gets the rest.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALe...





...............................

JJP WILL be covering the First State Dinner.It is one of the Goosebumps Moments and I can't wait.

I swear I will not be surprised if its regular folks that are at the state dinner. I am waiting for my invite too

I can't wait. I want to her bring the drama with the dress. No plain gown. I want her to really go for it and strut down the runway covered in bows and feathers!! And I do like that she's been wearing her hair up lately and I hope she wears an updo.

Oh, and I hope she does snub the old white Washington elite. I wanna see the grand dames of the black community up in there! Where Dorothy Height?!

I see Sally Quinn and Cokie Roberts standing outside the White House gate looking at all the people who got an invite and tweeting about how ghetto and crass Michelle Obama is and how she doesn't know about protocol.

and you know it..LOL

I'm not kidding...I can't wait, and I'll be glued to c-span that night, because you know, if she's still kicking, they're going to roll out Leticia Baldridge to do commentary.

and, it's a Saturday too...so, no excuses as to why we can't see the whole thing...YEAH

And Cokie and Sally will choke on their Doublemint gum when they see Essie Lou Farmer, 92 years old, from SE D.C., Mechita Rios, ordinary person and Hardeep Patel, local Indian businessman going to the dinner while they are shut out.

Gretchen Carlson of Dummy & Friends will "wonder" if Michelle Obama knows how to set a table or the rules of etiquette.

A chyron on Fox News will mis-identify an Indian American as a "Muslim".

Glen Beck will show a Sikh walking into the White House and scream that "Muslims are being invited to the White House, they're in collusion with Obama."

LOL

that the dinner is for INDIA, also sorta cracks me up. They'll all be holding their tongues, watching so many ' colored' folks being in the White House.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA

Warren Winning Means No Sale If You Can’t Explain It (Update1)
By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- In Elizabeth Warren’s world, credit card contracts would be so simple a teenager could read and understand them in four minutes. Loans would be as easy to compare as toasters, and online credit scores would be free.

“We need a new model: If you can’t explain it, you can’t sell it,” said Warren, 60, a Harvard University law professor who is head of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in an interview.

The 1966 high school debate champion of Oklahoma may get what she wants. The House of Representatives will vote in December on her idea. She suggested a Financial Product Safety Commission in a 2007 article in the magazine Democracy. President Barack Obama proposed it to Congress in June as the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Warren won’t discuss whether she may be a candidate to lead the authority, which would have the power to regulate $13.7 trillion of debt products. A Warren nomination would tell banks that Obama is determined to force reduced checking-account fees and limit lender claims in mortgage advertising, among other measures the industry opposes, said Thomas Cooley, dean of New York University’s Stern School of Business.

“She is an ideological crusader,” Cooley said in an interview. “She is a person who will stir up a lot of trouble.” In a column in Forbes magazine, Cooley accused her of “waging a self-righteous holy war.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109...
.........

oh, you mean she's actually looking out for the little guy, and is quite clear that's where her thinking is, and the basis of her decisions.

Friday, Oct 23, 2009 03:24 PDT
Glenn Greenwald
The unconstitutionality of the congressional GOP's ACORN obsession
By Glenn Greenwald

Yesterday, GOP Rep. Paul Broun had a five-minute dialogue with Rep. Alan Grayson about the unconstitutionality of the Congressional GOP's numerous amendments directed exclusively at ACORN, all of which bar ACORN from receiving any government contracts due to alleged wrongdoing (not adjudicated by any court). While being questioned by Grayson about whether these measures are unconstitutional "bills of attainder" -- acts of Congress that punish specific individuals for alleged, unadjudicated wrongdoing -- Broun was handed a piece of paper, which he dutifully read, claiming that these amendments do not impose "punishment" on ACORN. Instead, he claimed, Congress is merely barring ACORN from receiving government contracts, and since nobody has the "right" to receive government contracts, there is no "punishment" here. It's simply a case of the government exercising its prerogative as to who it will and will not hire.

As always happens, numerous people who never gave a moment's thought to what a "bill of attainder" is rushed forward to declare that Broun was correct, because they want to believe that. But it's false, and clearly so.

Under the law as pronounced by the Supreme Court -- i.e., the authoritative source on this question -- it is "punishment" when the Congress targets specific individuals and denies them even discretionary benefits otherwise available based on allegations of guilty behavior. Just read for yourself what the Court has said. Or -- for those of you who want to argue otherwise -- think about what you're endorsing.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwa...

Nobody who is singled out by the Congress can possibly complain that they are being unconstitutionally "punished" merely because Congress has decided to deny them these discretionary benefits. Is that what anti-ACORN crusaders are prepared to defend?

Well yeah, because they're pretty confident it won't happen to anyone on their side.

Diplomatic Memo
Clinton Emerges as Key Link to Afghan Leader
By MARK LANDLER
Published: November 19, 2009

KABUL, Afghanistan — It is far from clear that President Obama can depend on President Hamid Karzai to bring order to this violent country, but it is becoming clear that he will depend on Hillary Rodham Clinton to be his go-between in dealing with the mercurial Afghan leader.

In a visit to Kabul, during which she held a 90-minute, one-on-one session with Mr. Karzai on Wednesday, and in an intense telephone call a few weeks ago in the aftermath of Afghanistan’s election, Secretary of State Clinton has built an unlikely rapport with the Afghan leader, according to administration officials.

It is a new and risky role for Mrs. Clinton — one that thrusts her into the thick of the administration’s most critical international problem, but that also hitches her reputation to a leader who has often proved unreliable. If Mr. Karzai lets down the White House again, Mrs. Clinton, as his principal intermediary with the administration, could find herself damaged along with him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/world/asia/20...

Leonard Pitts Jr.: Sammy Sosa now a whiter shade of male

By Leonard Pitts Jr.

Updated 4:58 PM Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Dear Sammy Sosa:

Are you happy with yourself now? Are you more confident and self-assured? When you look in the mirror, do you like yourself better, now that you are white?

As you know, photos taken of you at an awards show earlier this month have the whole country talking. Last time we saw you, you were a brown man from the Dominican Republic, star slugger for the Chicago Cubs. Now you are white, facing the camera with a complexion strikingly reminiscent of Dracula’s.

You claim you’ve been using a skin-softening cream and that it, combined with the bright lights under which the photos were taken, made your face look whiter than it is. Which is an extraordinarily lame excuse. Indeed, if that excuse was a horse, you’d have to shoot it.

While it is admirably metro-sexual of you to be so concerned with the softness of your skin, I must say: if I slathered something on my face that was supposed to render it tender and it left me looking like the Joker instead, I’d sue. You, on the other hand, are reported to be considering an endorsement deal.

“Skin softening” my fanny. “Skin bleaching” is more like it.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/columnis...

I read this and Pitts is giving the black american perspective to someone who grew up in a different country. The racial dynamics in the Dominican Republic and Latin America as a whole is nothing like the United States. Sammy doesn't even consider himself black he considers himself Dominican. Now don't get it twisted I'm sure there is some self-hate involved in Sammy's case but he probably doesn't know any better. He grew up in an environment where being black is the worst thing you could ever be. Haitians are hated in the Dominican Republic. I know this guy I met in the military. He is Morgan Freemen's complexion and his mother is from the Dominican Republic and she's black as well. And he hates very dark(Haitians) black people as most Dominicans do while ironically having black blood flow through his veins.

Make sense. I suppose if you look at it from a general perspective, he'd still come off looking rather "peculiar"...then again, with all the popularity of "tweaking" your appearance (plastic surgery, creams, etc.) he'd probably fit in...LOL!

Good morning JJP.

Morning Guns.

Rikyrah, did you hear Tom Joyner talking to the 'Afronauts' this morning? It was so cool! And they're carrying some plant stuff from 3 HBCUs onboard too. You can go to http://blackamericaweb.com to listen again.

Did not hear it, but will check it out..thanks.