Monday, January 30, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
The Mud Slinger Gets Slung
Ruth MarcusNationofChange / Op-EdPublished: Sunday 22 January 2012
“Are news organizations letting a vengeful Marianne Gingrich exploit Newt’s moment, or are they performing a public service?”
Newt Gingrich Blames Media for a Mess He Created
“By definition, if you run for president, anything is on the table. Ask Grover Cleveland. Ask Andrew Jackson. Anything is on the table. I accept that, but I don’t have to participate in the conversation.”
That was Newt Gingrich, in May, when I asked him about whether intrusion into candidates’ personal lives had gone too far. At the time, Gingrich’s biggest headache was his Tiffany shopping habit, but Gingrich obviously had issues of sexual misconduct on his mind as well: Cleveland was assailed for his out-of-wedlock child, Jackson over a possibly bigamous marriage.
And I thought Gingrich had it about right: When you run for president, you open yourself to the kind of searching scrutiny that a finger-pointing, voice-raised Gingrich condemned at Thursday night’s debate.
“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Gingrich told CNN’s John King.
Gingrich, denouncing the reports from his second ex-wife as “trash” and “false,” continued. “Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things,” he said, to wild cheering from the audience. “To take an ex-wife and make it, two days before the [South Carolina] primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”
And then, to even wilder cheering, the inevitable liberal media attack. “I am tired,” Gingrich proclaimed, “of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.”
Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.
Let’s dispense, first, with Gingrich’s bias point: It plays great, but it’s bogus. The “elite” media love a juicy story, all the better if it’s captured on camera, and its pursuit of such tales knows no partisan bounds. To those who complain about liberal media bias, think back to the crazed scrum of reporters thronging then-candidate Bill Clinton when the Gennifer Flowers story first emerged on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.
Tell me, in the 20-20 hindsight of Monica Lewinsky, were voters better or worse off for having had the chance to assess that “tabloid trash” before Clinton was elected?
This gets to the fundamental question of the relevance of politicians’ personal lives. If you run for president, everything, as Gingrich said, is on the table, but should it be?
I have to admit to a certain queasiness on seeing the ABC “Nightline” interview with video of Marianne Gingrich. “It was occurring in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington,” she recalled. “And he always called me at night, and he always ended with ‘I love you,’ while she was there listening . . . in my home.” This is powerful, uncomfortable stuff. The man does have grandchildren.
It’s unfortunate that the story broke so close to a critical primary. I might not have led the debate with the topic, as CNN did, but it also could not be avoided. King simply asked Gingrich if he wanted to address that particular elephant, and the question may have helped Gingrich more than hurt him.
None of us got into journalism to question ex-wives or poke into the intimate details of politicians’ failed marriages. Are news organizations letting a vengeful Marianne Gingrich exploit Newt’s moment, or are they performing a public service?
Both, probably. Gingrich’s past private conduct may not matter to some voters, either because they do not consider it relevant to his future job performance or because they accept that he has changed for the better.
Others may consider it disqualifying or, if not disqualifying, disturbing. You don’t have to be an evangelical voter to listen to Marianne Gingrich describe how her husband asked for a divorce on the telephone to cringe about such callous self-absorption.
We have learned that character matters in politicians, in presidents most of all. And character reveals itself in a politician’s personal life. Gingrich’s reckless lack of discipline, his grandiose sense of entitlement (He said, “Yes, but you want me all to yourself. Callista doesn’t care what I do,” Marianne Gingrich recalled her then-husband saying of his affair) — all of these are traits that straddle the boundary between personal and political.
Which is why, as Gingrich said, everything is on the table. That his is so crowded with unappetizing morsels is his doing, not the fault of those who report on them.
“Are news organizations letting a vengeful Marianne Gingrich exploit Newt’s moment, or are they performing a public service?”
Newt Gingrich Blames Media for a Mess He Created
“By definition, if you run for president, anything is on the table. Ask Grover Cleveland. Ask Andrew Jackson. Anything is on the table. I accept that, but I don’t have to participate in the conversation.”
That was Newt Gingrich, in May, when I asked him about whether intrusion into candidates’ personal lives had gone too far. At the time, Gingrich’s biggest headache was his Tiffany shopping habit, but Gingrich obviously had issues of sexual misconduct on his mind as well: Cleveland was assailed for his out-of-wedlock child, Jackson over a possibly bigamous marriage.
And I thought Gingrich had it about right: When you run for president, you open yourself to the kind of searching scrutiny that a finger-pointing, voice-raised Gingrich condemned at Thursday night’s debate.
“I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that,” Gingrich told CNN’s John King.
Gingrich, denouncing the reports from his second ex-wife as “trash” and “false,” continued. “Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things,” he said, to wild cheering from the audience. “To take an ex-wife and make it, two days before the [South Carolina] primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”
And then, to even wilder cheering, the inevitable liberal media attack. “I am tired,” Gingrich proclaimed, “of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.”
Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.
Let’s dispense, first, with Gingrich’s bias point: It plays great, but it’s bogus. The “elite” media love a juicy story, all the better if it’s captured on camera, and its pursuit of such tales knows no partisan bounds. To those who complain about liberal media bias, think back to the crazed scrum of reporters thronging then-candidate Bill Clinton when the Gennifer Flowers story first emerged on the eve of the New Hampshire primary.
Tell me, in the 20-20 hindsight of Monica Lewinsky, were voters better or worse off for having had the chance to assess that “tabloid trash” before Clinton was elected?
This gets to the fundamental question of the relevance of politicians’ personal lives. If you run for president, everything, as Gingrich said, is on the table, but should it be?
I have to admit to a certain queasiness on seeing the ABC “Nightline” interview with video of Marianne Gingrich. “It was occurring in my bedroom in our apartment in Washington,” she recalled. “And he always called me at night, and he always ended with ‘I love you,’ while she was there listening . . . in my home.” This is powerful, uncomfortable stuff. The man does have grandchildren.
It’s unfortunate that the story broke so close to a critical primary. I might not have led the debate with the topic, as CNN did, but it also could not be avoided. King simply asked Gingrich if he wanted to address that particular elephant, and the question may have helped Gingrich more than hurt him.
None of us got into journalism to question ex-wives or poke into the intimate details of politicians’ failed marriages. Are news organizations letting a vengeful Marianne Gingrich exploit Newt’s moment, or are they performing a public service?
Both, probably. Gingrich’s past private conduct may not matter to some voters, either because they do not consider it relevant to his future job performance or because they accept that he has changed for the better.
Others may consider it disqualifying or, if not disqualifying, disturbing. You don’t have to be an evangelical voter to listen to Marianne Gingrich describe how her husband asked for a divorce on the telephone to cringe about such callous self-absorption.
We have learned that character matters in politicians, in presidents most of all. And character reveals itself in a politician’s personal life. Gingrich’s reckless lack of discipline, his grandiose sense of entitlement (He said, “Yes, but you want me all to yourself. Callista doesn’t care what I do,” Marianne Gingrich recalled her then-husband saying of his affair) — all of these are traits that straddle the boundary between personal and political.
Which is why, as Gingrich said, everything is on the table. That his is so crowded with unappetizing morsels is his doing, not the fault of those who report on them.
Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable But Corporations Think It Is
Sunday 22 January 2012
“7 signs the corporatocracy is losing its legitimacy ... and 7 populist tools to help shut it down.”
Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable
You may remember that there was a time when apartheid in South Africa seemed unstoppable.
Sure, there were international boycotts of South African businesses, banks, and tourist attractions. There were heroic activists in South Africa, who were going to prison and even dying for freedom. But the conventional wisdom remained that these were principled gestures with little chance of upending the entrenched system of white rule.
“Be patient,” activists were told. “Don’t expect too much against powerful interests with a lot of money invested in the status quo.”
With hindsight, though, apartheid’s fall appears inevitable: the legitimacy of the system had already crumbled. It was harming too many for the benefit of too few. South Africa’s freedom fighters would not be silenced, and the global movement supporting them was likewise tenacious and principled.
Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readers–you! Our only accountability is to the public. Click here to make a generous donation.
In the same way, the legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is crumbling. This system of corporate rule also benefits few and harms many, affecting nearly every major issue in public life. Some examples:
•Powerful corporations socialize their risks and costs, but privatize profits. That means we, the 99 percent, pick up the tab for environmental clean ups, for helping workers who aren’t paid enough to afford food or health care, for bailouts when risky speculation goes wrong. Meanwhile, profits go straight into the pockets of top executives and others in the 1 percent.
•The financial collapse threw millions of Americans into poverty. 25 million are unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work; four million have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Poverty increased 27 percent between 2006 and 2010. And students who graduated with student loans in 2010 had borrowed 5 percent more than the previous year’s graduating class—owing more than $25,000. Meanwhile, those who caused the collapse continue the same practices. And the unwillingness of the 1 percent to pay their fair share of taxes means the the public services we rely on are fraying.
•Scientists say that we are on the brink of runaway climate change; we only have a few years to make the needed investments in clean power and energy efficiency. This transition could be a huge job creator—on the order of the investments made during World War II, which got us out of the Depression. But fossil fuel industries don’t want to see their investment in dirty energy undermined by the switch to clean energy and conservation. So far, by paying millions to climate deniers, lobbyists, and political campaigns, they’ve succeeded in stymieing change.
•Agribusiness get taxpayer subsidies for foods that make us sick; for farming practices that destroy rivers, soils, the climate, and the oceans; and for trade practices that cause hunger at home and abroad.
•Through ALEC, the private prison industry crafts state laws that boost the numbers behind bars, lengthen sentences, and privatize prisons.
•Big Pharma jacks up prices; insurance companies raise premiums and delivers fewer benefits; the burden of inflated care drags down the economy and bankrupts families. But only a very few politicians stand up to the health care industry's war chests and advocate for Canadian-style single-payer health care, which would go a long way toward solving the cost problem.
•Corporations and wealthy executives fund an army of lobbyists and election campaigns, spreading untruths and self-serving policy prescriptions.
It’s not that we, the people, haven’t noticed all this.
In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans said too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations. In a poll by Time Magazine, 86 percent of Americans said Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.
And 80 percent of Americans oppose Citizens United, the pro-corporate Supreme Court ruling that turns two years old today. Eighty percent—that’s among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
Some say corporations have such a strong grip on politicians and big media that it is impossible to challenge them, no matter how many of us there are.
But I believe we can do it. In the past few months, YES! Magazine has been researching ways that ordinary people can challenge corporate power (look for strategies in our spring issue, out in February). And we found that there are actually a lot of tools at our disposal:
•Corporations were created by public law to provide a public benefit. If we the people no longer feel that a corporation is providing a benefit—or if we feel that it is operating in a lawless and destructive manner—we can revoke their charter. That’s what Free Speech for People has asked the attorney general of Delaware to do to Massey Energy, which has been one of the worst culprits in mountaintop removal and which has operated its mines in a lawless and negligent manner, resulting in 29 deaths at the Upper Big Branch Mine.
•We can insist that, in exchange for use of our public airwaves, broadcasters provide free airtime to candidates for public office. If they don’t need to raise millions for media buys, they don’t need to be as beholden to the 1 percent.
•We can get our governments to quit banking with Bank of America and Chase, and start our own state banks—14 states, including California and Washington, are considering such a move. And while we're at it, we can localize food, energy, and other aspects of our economy so local, independent businesses and cooperatives can thrive.
•We can stand up to specific parts of the corporate agenda by engaging in the sort of direct action that halted the KXL Pipeline.
•We can call for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, corporate personhood, and the ridiculous notion that money is the same thing as speech. So far, Los Angeles, New York City, and about 50 other towns and cities have done so far.
•We can use mechanisms like clean elections, electoral transparency, citizen review of legislation, and recalls to keep corporate control of our democracy in check.
•Finally, the reason I am most hopeful today: We can take a cue from Occupy Wall Street and continue to name the source of political corruption—something the political establishment and mainstream media have refused to do. We can occupy homes that are slated for foreclosure, as people have been doing all over the country. We can mic check places like Walmarts that intimidate and fire workers who want to unionize. We can set up tents in public places and in other ways join with the Occupy movement to take a stand for a world that works for the 100 percent—a world where we all benefit.
None of these actions will be easy. It will take time—potentially years of work—to make big change. But just as the legitimacy of apartheid crumbled well before the institutions of apartheid went down, the legitimacy of corporate rule is crumbling. So I’m convinced that, with you and me and all the others out there creating alternatives and taking a stand, we will see change.
Sarah van Gelder will deliver these comments at Seattle's rally on the second anniversary of the Citizens United ruling. Sarah is YES! Magazine's co-founder and executive editor, and editor of the new book: "This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement."
“7 signs the corporatocracy is losing its legitimacy ... and 7 populist tools to help shut it down.”
Corporate Rule Is Not Inevitable
You may remember that there was a time when apartheid in South Africa seemed unstoppable.
Sure, there were international boycotts of South African businesses, banks, and tourist attractions. There were heroic activists in South Africa, who were going to prison and even dying for freedom. But the conventional wisdom remained that these were principled gestures with little chance of upending the entrenched system of white rule.
“Be patient,” activists were told. “Don’t expect too much against powerful interests with a lot of money invested in the status quo.”
With hindsight, though, apartheid’s fall appears inevitable: the legitimacy of the system had already crumbled. It was harming too many for the benefit of too few. South Africa’s freedom fighters would not be silenced, and the global movement supporting them was likewise tenacious and principled.
Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readers–you! Our only accountability is to the public. Click here to make a generous donation.
In the same way, the legitimacy of rule by giant corporations and Wall Street banks is crumbling. This system of corporate rule also benefits few and harms many, affecting nearly every major issue in public life. Some examples:
•Powerful corporations socialize their risks and costs, but privatize profits. That means we, the 99 percent, pick up the tab for environmental clean ups, for helping workers who aren’t paid enough to afford food or health care, for bailouts when risky speculation goes wrong. Meanwhile, profits go straight into the pockets of top executives and others in the 1 percent.
•The financial collapse threw millions of Americans into poverty. 25 million are unemployed, under-employed, or have given up looking for work; four million have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Poverty increased 27 percent between 2006 and 2010. And students who graduated with student loans in 2010 had borrowed 5 percent more than the previous year’s graduating class—owing more than $25,000. Meanwhile, those who caused the collapse continue the same practices. And the unwillingness of the 1 percent to pay their fair share of taxes means the the public services we rely on are fraying.
•Scientists say that we are on the brink of runaway climate change; we only have a few years to make the needed investments in clean power and energy efficiency. This transition could be a huge job creator—on the order of the investments made during World War II, which got us out of the Depression. But fossil fuel industries don’t want to see their investment in dirty energy undermined by the switch to clean energy and conservation. So far, by paying millions to climate deniers, lobbyists, and political campaigns, they’ve succeeded in stymieing change.
•Agribusiness get taxpayer subsidies for foods that make us sick; for farming practices that destroy rivers, soils, the climate, and the oceans; and for trade practices that cause hunger at home and abroad.
•Through ALEC, the private prison industry crafts state laws that boost the numbers behind bars, lengthen sentences, and privatize prisons.
•Big Pharma jacks up prices; insurance companies raise premiums and delivers fewer benefits; the burden of inflated care drags down the economy and bankrupts families. But only a very few politicians stand up to the health care industry's war chests and advocate for Canadian-style single-payer health care, which would go a long way toward solving the cost problem.
•Corporations and wealthy executives fund an army of lobbyists and election campaigns, spreading untruths and self-serving policy prescriptions.
It’s not that we, the people, haven’t noticed all this.
In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans said too much power is concentrated in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations. In a poll by Time Magazine, 86 percent of Americans said Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.
And 80 percent of Americans oppose Citizens United, the pro-corporate Supreme Court ruling that turns two years old today. Eighty percent—that’s among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
Some say corporations have such a strong grip on politicians and big media that it is impossible to challenge them, no matter how many of us there are.
But I believe we can do it. In the past few months, YES! Magazine has been researching ways that ordinary people can challenge corporate power (look for strategies in our spring issue, out in February). And we found that there are actually a lot of tools at our disposal:
•Corporations were created by public law to provide a public benefit. If we the people no longer feel that a corporation is providing a benefit—or if we feel that it is operating in a lawless and destructive manner—we can revoke their charter. That’s what Free Speech for People has asked the attorney general of Delaware to do to Massey Energy, which has been one of the worst culprits in mountaintop removal and which has operated its mines in a lawless and negligent manner, resulting in 29 deaths at the Upper Big Branch Mine.
•We can insist that, in exchange for use of our public airwaves, broadcasters provide free airtime to candidates for public office. If they don’t need to raise millions for media buys, they don’t need to be as beholden to the 1 percent.
•We can get our governments to quit banking with Bank of America and Chase, and start our own state banks—14 states, including California and Washington, are considering such a move. And while we're at it, we can localize food, energy, and other aspects of our economy so local, independent businesses and cooperatives can thrive.
•We can stand up to specific parts of the corporate agenda by engaging in the sort of direct action that halted the KXL Pipeline.
•We can call for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, corporate personhood, and the ridiculous notion that money is the same thing as speech. So far, Los Angeles, New York City, and about 50 other towns and cities have done so far.
•We can use mechanisms like clean elections, electoral transparency, citizen review of legislation, and recalls to keep corporate control of our democracy in check.
•Finally, the reason I am most hopeful today: We can take a cue from Occupy Wall Street and continue to name the source of political corruption—something the political establishment and mainstream media have refused to do. We can occupy homes that are slated for foreclosure, as people have been doing all over the country. We can mic check places like Walmarts that intimidate and fire workers who want to unionize. We can set up tents in public places and in other ways join with the Occupy movement to take a stand for a world that works for the 100 percent—a world where we all benefit.
None of these actions will be easy. It will take time—potentially years of work—to make big change. But just as the legitimacy of apartheid crumbled well before the institutions of apartheid went down, the legitimacy of corporate rule is crumbling. So I’m convinced that, with you and me and all the others out there creating alternatives and taking a stand, we will see change.
Sarah van Gelder will deliver these comments at Seattle's rally on the second anniversary of the Citizens United ruling. Sarah is YES! Magazine's co-founder and executive editor, and editor of the new book: "This Changes Everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement."
Friday, January 20, 2012
Contrary To Republican Opinion, Attack On Iran Would Be Really Unwise!
HomeWarEconomyHuman RightsPoliticsEnvironmentWorldMediaEducationCausesThe BlogsAbout UsDonate..Help Us Occupy San Francisco's Financial District! NationofChange has committed raise $10,000 to stage a mass occupation on January 20th of the Wall St. banks & corporations attacking our communities, homes, education, environment, livelihood, and democracy!
Click here to learn more about the event.
CLOSENationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. Your secure donation is tax-deductible.
Worries Mount Over Blowback of Israeli Attack on IranBarbara SlavinInter Press Service / News AnalysisPublished: Thursday 19 January 2012
“While the Obama administration has repeatedly called Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon ‘unacceptable’, senior officials have also stressed the potential downsides of a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran.”
Post a Comment
Resize Text + | - | R
Plain Text
Print
SHARE Email A former senior adviser on the Middle East to the last four U.S. presidents says that "the negatives far outweigh the positives" of war with Iran and the United States should augment Israel's nuclear weapons delivery systems to dissuade it from attacking the Islamic Republic.
Bruce Riedel, who served on the White House National Security Council and dealt extensively with both Israel and Iran, told an audience Tuesday at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, that while an Iran with nuclear weapons would be a significant strategic setback for the United States and Israel, deterrence and containment were preferable to military force.
He criticized those, including all but one Republican presidential candidate, who discuss an attack on Iran's nuclear installations as though it would be "over in an afternoon or a couple of weeks".
"I don't use the term 'military strike,' " Riedel said. "We will be at war with Iran. Once we begin it, the determination of when it ends will not be a unilateral one… This could become another ground war in Asia."
The global economy would suffer a huge blow from spiking oil prices, and U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan would be likely targets of Iranian retaliation, Riedel said.
The consequences would be especially dire for Afghanistan because Iran could become a second sanctuary, after Pakistan, for Taliban militants. In
that event, "the chances of success in Afghanistan on the timeline the (Barack Obama) administration has laid out is virtually nil," he said.
While the U.S. military and intelligence establishment appears solidly against a war with Iran, Israel's attitude has been ambivalent. A major concern for U.S. policymakers is that Israel might attack Iran without giving the United States warning – and thus the opportunity to try to veto the action.
Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in December that this was a possibility. Dempsey was due in Israel Thursday for discussions about Iran.
The U.S. and Israel were to have staged this spring a massive new joint maneuver to practice intercepting incoming missiles, Austere Challenge 12, but have put off the exercise. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Wednesday said he had asked for the delay, but it is also possible that the Obama administration made the decision to convey U.S. displeasure over Israel's more aggressive posture toward Iran.
Michael Eisenstadt, a specialist on Iran and nuclear proliferation at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Atlantic Council session Tuesday that while a war is risky, so is a policy of containment and deterrence when it comes to Iran.
Both men predicted that 2012 would be "the year of decision for Israel" on Iran, as Iran steadily amasses enriched uranium and moves enrichment into a hardened site at Fordow near Qom.
At the same time, Eisenstadt suggested Iran might be dissuaded from building nuclear weapons by continuing a covert campaign that includes assassinations of Iranian scientists and sabotage of centrifuge parts and computers.
These actions, he said, have shown Iran that its program has been penetrated by foreign intelligence and that Iran would have a hard time building a nuclear weapon without being caught.
Eisenstadt said the U.S. would have to strike a "delicate balance", keeping pressure on Iran but not pushing Tehran so hard that it decides to break out and rush to build nuclear weapons. He conceded that Israel might take unilateral action against Iran despite U.S. opposition, noting that "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."
Riedel said that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be an existential threat to Israel as some Israelis have claimed and that the balance of power would "remain overwhelmingly in Israel's favor" even if Iran acquired nuclear weapons.
Israel, he noted, not only has "the finest conventional military in the Middle East" but has had nuclear weapons since at least the late 1960s and is believed to possess more than 100 bombs. It also has delivery systems from three countries – the Jericho from France, U.S. F-15's and Dolphin submarines from Germany.
Israel neither confirms nor denies that it has nuclear weapons – a policy of opacity that may have outlived its usefulness.
To reassure Israel that it could deter a nuclear Iran, the United States should enhance Israel's naval and submarine capabilities, Riedel said. This would "ensure that the balance of terror is overwhelmingly in Israel's favor."
The comments by the two men added to the growing debate here over what to do about Iran's nuclear program, which Western and Israeli officials contend is designed to build a nuclear weapon.
If the current strategy of ever-tougher economic sanctions and sabotage fails to halt the program in the near future, all but one of the Republican presidential candidates, among others, have called on the administration to prepare military strikes against Tehran's nuclear facilities or, in any case, stand with Israel if it decided to carry out an attack.
Last week, Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham and Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman announced they will introduce a resolution to put the Senate on record as ruling out a strategy of containment against a nuclear-armed Iran which they said would be "catastrophic mistake" on Washington's part.
While the Obama administration has repeatedly called Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon "unacceptable", senior officials, including Dempsey and his boss, Leon Panetta, have also stressed the potential downsides of a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran.
In his remarks Tuesday, Riedel called the Graham-Lieberman approach "stupid".
Click here to learn more about the event.
CLOSENationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. Your secure donation is tax-deductible.
Worries Mount Over Blowback of Israeli Attack on IranBarbara SlavinInter Press Service / News AnalysisPublished: Thursday 19 January 2012
“While the Obama administration has repeatedly called Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon ‘unacceptable’, senior officials have also stressed the potential downsides of a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran.”
Post a Comment
Resize Text + | - | R
Plain Text
SHARE Email A former senior adviser on the Middle East to the last four U.S. presidents says that "the negatives far outweigh the positives" of war with Iran and the United States should augment Israel's nuclear weapons delivery systems to dissuade it from attacking the Islamic Republic.
Bruce Riedel, who served on the White House National Security Council and dealt extensively with both Israel and Iran, told an audience Tuesday at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, that while an Iran with nuclear weapons would be a significant strategic setback for the United States and Israel, deterrence and containment were preferable to military force.
He criticized those, including all but one Republican presidential candidate, who discuss an attack on Iran's nuclear installations as though it would be "over in an afternoon or a couple of weeks".
"I don't use the term 'military strike,' " Riedel said. "We will be at war with Iran. Once we begin it, the determination of when it ends will not be a unilateral one… This could become another ground war in Asia."
The global economy would suffer a huge blow from spiking oil prices, and U.S. personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan would be likely targets of Iranian retaliation, Riedel said.
The consequences would be especially dire for Afghanistan because Iran could become a second sanctuary, after Pakistan, for Taliban militants. In
that event, "the chances of success in Afghanistan on the timeline the (Barack Obama) administration has laid out is virtually nil," he said.
While the U.S. military and intelligence establishment appears solidly against a war with Iran, Israel's attitude has been ambivalent. A major concern for U.S. policymakers is that Israel might attack Iran without giving the United States warning – and thus the opportunity to try to veto the action.
Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in December that this was a possibility. Dempsey was due in Israel Thursday for discussions about Iran.
The U.S. and Israel were to have staged this spring a massive new joint maneuver to practice intercepting incoming missiles, Austere Challenge 12, but have put off the exercise. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Wednesday said he had asked for the delay, but it is also possible that the Obama administration made the decision to convey U.S. displeasure over Israel's more aggressive posture toward Iran.
Michael Eisenstadt, a specialist on Iran and nuclear proliferation at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Atlantic Council session Tuesday that while a war is risky, so is a policy of containment and deterrence when it comes to Iran.
Both men predicted that 2012 would be "the year of decision for Israel" on Iran, as Iran steadily amasses enriched uranium and moves enrichment into a hardened site at Fordow near Qom.
At the same time, Eisenstadt suggested Iran might be dissuaded from building nuclear weapons by continuing a covert campaign that includes assassinations of Iranian scientists and sabotage of centrifuge parts and computers.
These actions, he said, have shown Iran that its program has been penetrated by foreign intelligence and that Iran would have a hard time building a nuclear weapon without being caught.
Eisenstadt said the U.S. would have to strike a "delicate balance", keeping pressure on Iran but not pushing Tehran so hard that it decides to break out and rush to build nuclear weapons. He conceded that Israel might take unilateral action against Iran despite U.S. opposition, noting that "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."
Riedel said that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be an existential threat to Israel as some Israelis have claimed and that the balance of power would "remain overwhelmingly in Israel's favor" even if Iran acquired nuclear weapons.
Israel, he noted, not only has "the finest conventional military in the Middle East" but has had nuclear weapons since at least the late 1960s and is believed to possess more than 100 bombs. It also has delivery systems from three countries – the Jericho from France, U.S. F-15's and Dolphin submarines from Germany.
Israel neither confirms nor denies that it has nuclear weapons – a policy of opacity that may have outlived its usefulness.
To reassure Israel that it could deter a nuclear Iran, the United States should enhance Israel's naval and submarine capabilities, Riedel said. This would "ensure that the balance of terror is overwhelmingly in Israel's favor."
The comments by the two men added to the growing debate here over what to do about Iran's nuclear program, which Western and Israeli officials contend is designed to build a nuclear weapon.
If the current strategy of ever-tougher economic sanctions and sabotage fails to halt the program in the near future, all but one of the Republican presidential candidates, among others, have called on the administration to prepare military strikes against Tehran's nuclear facilities or, in any case, stand with Israel if it decided to carry out an attack.
Last week, Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham and Independent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman announced they will introduce a resolution to put the Senate on record as ruling out a strategy of containment against a nuclear-armed Iran which they said would be "catastrophic mistake" on Washington's part.
While the Obama administration has repeatedly called Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon "unacceptable", senior officials, including Dempsey and his boss, Leon Panetta, have also stressed the potential downsides of a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran.
In his remarks Tuesday, Riedel called the Graham-Lieberman approach "stupid".
The Economy Needs More Stimulation!
Robert J. ShillerProject Syndicate / Op-EdPublished: Thursday 19 January 2012
In his classic Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (1724), Bernard Mandeville, the Dutch-born British philosopher and satirist, described – in verse – a prosperous society (of bees) that suddenly chose to make a virtue of austerity, dropping all excess expenditure and extravagant consumption. What then happened?
The Price of Land and Houses falls;
Mirac’lous Palaces, whose Walls,
Like those of Thebes, were rais’d by Play
Are to be let; . . . .
The building Trade is quite destroy’d
Artificers are not employ’d; . . .
Those, that remain’d, grown temp’rate strive
Not how to spend, but how to live . . .
.
That sounds a lot like what many advanced countries have been going through, after financial-crisis-induced austerity plans were launched, doesn’t it? Is Mandeville a genuine prophet for our times?
Fable of the Bees developed a wide following, and generated substantial controversy, which continues to this day. The austerity plans being adopted by governments in much of Europe and elsewhere around the world, and the curtailment of consumption expenditure by individuals as well, threaten to produce a global recession.
But how do we know if Mandeville is right about austerity? His research method – a long poem about his theory – is hardly convincing to modern ears.
“Follow Project Syndicate on Facebook or Twitter. For more from Robert J. Shiller, click here.”
Harvard economist Alberto Alesina recently summarized evidence concerning whether government deficit reduction – that is, expenditure cuts and/or tax increases – always induces such negative effects: “The answer to this question is a loud no.” Sometimes, even often, economies prosper nicely after the government’s deficit is sharply reduced. Sometimes, just maybe, the austerity program boosts confidence in such a way as to ignite a recovery.
We have to examine the issue with some care, understanding that the issue that Mandeville raised is really a statistical one: the outcome of government deficit reduction is never entirely predictable, so we can ask only how likely such a plan is to succeed in restoring economic prosperity. And the biggest problem here is accounting for possible reverse causality.
For example, if evidence of future economic strength makes a government worry about economic overheating and inflation, it might try to cool domestic demand by raising taxes and lowering government spending. If the government is only partly successful in preventing economic overheating, it might nonetheless appear to casual observers that austerity actually strengthened the economy.
Likewise, the government’s deficit might fall not because of austerity, but because the stock market’s anticipation of economic growth fuels higher revenues from capital-gains tax. Once again, we would see what might appear, from looking at the government deficit, to be an austerity-to-prosperity scenario.
Jaime Guajardo, Daniel Leigh, and Andrea Pescatori of the International Monetary Fund recently studied austerity plans implemented by governments in 17 countries in the last 30 years. But their approach differed from that of previous researchers. They focused on the government’s intent, and looked at what officials actually said, not just at the pattern of public debt. They read budget speeches, reviewed stability programs, and even watched news interviews with government figures. They identified as austerity plans only those cases in which governments imposed tax hikes or spending cuts because they viewed it as a prudent policy with potential long-term benefits, not because they were responding to the short-term economic outlook and sought to reduce the risk of overheating.
Their analysis found a clear tendency for austerity programs to reduce consumption expenditure and weaken the economy. That conclusion, if valid, stands as a stern warning to policymakers today.
But critics, such as Valerie Ramey of the University of California at San Diego, think that Guajardo, Leigh, and Pescatori have not completely proven their case. It is possible, Ramey argues, that their results could reflect a different sort of reverse causality if governments are more likely to respond to high public-debt levels with austerity programs when they have reason to believe that economic conditions could make the debt burden especially worrisome.
That may seem unlikely – one would think that a bad economic outlook would incline governments to postpone, rather than accelerate, austerity measures. And, in response to her comments, the authors did try to account for the severity of the government’s debt problem as perceived by the markets at the time that the plans were implemented, finding very similar results. But Ramey could be right. One would then find that government spending cuts or tax hikes tend to be followed by bad economic times, even if the causality runs the other way.
Ultimately, the problem of judging austerity programs is that economists cannot run fully controlled experiments. When researchers tested Prozac on depressed patients, they divided their subjects randomly into control and experimental groups, and conducted many trials. We cannot do that with national debt.
So do we have to conclude that historical analysis teaches us no useful lessons? Do we have to return to the abstract reasoning of Mandeville and some of his successors, including John Maynard Keynes, who thought that there were reasons to expect that austerity would produce depressions?
There is no abstract theory that can predict how people will react to an austerity program. We have no alternative but to look at the historical evidence. And the evidence of Guajardo and his co-authors does show that deliberate government decisions to adopt austerity programs have tended to be followed by hard times.
Policymakers cannot afford to wait decades for economists to figure out a definitive answer, which may never be found at all. But, judging by the evidence that we have, austerity programs in Europe and elsewhere appear likely to yield disappointing results.
In his classic Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits (1724), Bernard Mandeville, the Dutch-born British philosopher and satirist, described – in verse – a prosperous society (of bees) that suddenly chose to make a virtue of austerity, dropping all excess expenditure and extravagant consumption. What then happened?
The Price of Land and Houses falls;
Mirac’lous Palaces, whose Walls,
Like those of Thebes, were rais’d by Play
Are to be let; . . . .
The building Trade is quite destroy’d
Artificers are not employ’d; . . .
Those, that remain’d, grown temp’rate strive
Not how to spend, but how to live . . .
.
That sounds a lot like what many advanced countries have been going through, after financial-crisis-induced austerity plans were launched, doesn’t it? Is Mandeville a genuine prophet for our times?
Fable of the Bees developed a wide following, and generated substantial controversy, which continues to this day. The austerity plans being adopted by governments in much of Europe and elsewhere around the world, and the curtailment of consumption expenditure by individuals as well, threaten to produce a global recession.
But how do we know if Mandeville is right about austerity? His research method – a long poem about his theory – is hardly convincing to modern ears.
“Follow Project Syndicate on Facebook or Twitter. For more from Robert J. Shiller, click here.”
Harvard economist Alberto Alesina recently summarized evidence concerning whether government deficit reduction – that is, expenditure cuts and/or tax increases – always induces such negative effects: “The answer to this question is a loud no.” Sometimes, even often, economies prosper nicely after the government’s deficit is sharply reduced. Sometimes, just maybe, the austerity program boosts confidence in such a way as to ignite a recovery.
We have to examine the issue with some care, understanding that the issue that Mandeville raised is really a statistical one: the outcome of government deficit reduction is never entirely predictable, so we can ask only how likely such a plan is to succeed in restoring economic prosperity. And the biggest problem here is accounting for possible reverse causality.
For example, if evidence of future economic strength makes a government worry about economic overheating and inflation, it might try to cool domestic demand by raising taxes and lowering government spending. If the government is only partly successful in preventing economic overheating, it might nonetheless appear to casual observers that austerity actually strengthened the economy.
Likewise, the government’s deficit might fall not because of austerity, but because the stock market’s anticipation of economic growth fuels higher revenues from capital-gains tax. Once again, we would see what might appear, from looking at the government deficit, to be an austerity-to-prosperity scenario.
Jaime Guajardo, Daniel Leigh, and Andrea Pescatori of the International Monetary Fund recently studied austerity plans implemented by governments in 17 countries in the last 30 years. But their approach differed from that of previous researchers. They focused on the government’s intent, and looked at what officials actually said, not just at the pattern of public debt. They read budget speeches, reviewed stability programs, and even watched news interviews with government figures. They identified as austerity plans only those cases in which governments imposed tax hikes or spending cuts because they viewed it as a prudent policy with potential long-term benefits, not because they were responding to the short-term economic outlook and sought to reduce the risk of overheating.
Their analysis found a clear tendency for austerity programs to reduce consumption expenditure and weaken the economy. That conclusion, if valid, stands as a stern warning to policymakers today.
But critics, such as Valerie Ramey of the University of California at San Diego, think that Guajardo, Leigh, and Pescatori have not completely proven their case. It is possible, Ramey argues, that their results could reflect a different sort of reverse causality if governments are more likely to respond to high public-debt levels with austerity programs when they have reason to believe that economic conditions could make the debt burden especially worrisome.
That may seem unlikely – one would think that a bad economic outlook would incline governments to postpone, rather than accelerate, austerity measures. And, in response to her comments, the authors did try to account for the severity of the government’s debt problem as perceived by the markets at the time that the plans were implemented, finding very similar results. But Ramey could be right. One would then find that government spending cuts or tax hikes tend to be followed by bad economic times, even if the causality runs the other way.
Ultimately, the problem of judging austerity programs is that economists cannot run fully controlled experiments. When researchers tested Prozac on depressed patients, they divided their subjects randomly into control and experimental groups, and conducted many trials. We cannot do that with national debt.
So do we have to conclude that historical analysis teaches us no useful lessons? Do we have to return to the abstract reasoning of Mandeville and some of his successors, including John Maynard Keynes, who thought that there were reasons to expect that austerity would produce depressions?
There is no abstract theory that can predict how people will react to an austerity program. We have no alternative but to look at the historical evidence. And the evidence of Guajardo and his co-authors does show that deliberate government decisions to adopt austerity programs have tended to be followed by hard times.
Policymakers cannot afford to wait decades for economists to figure out a definitive answer, which may never be found at all. But, judging by the evidence that we have, austerity programs in Europe and elsewhere appear likely to yield disappointing results.
Tea Party Has Been Assimilated!
Skip to Main Content Area
Friday, January 20, 2012 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTIONGet Email Updates | Log In | Register | CONNECT .
HomeWarEconomyHuman RightsPoliticsEnvironmentWorldMediaEducationCausesThe BlogsAbout UsDonate..Help Us Occupy San Francisco's Financial District! NationofChange has committed raise $10,000 to stage a mass occupation on January 20th of the Wall St. banks & corporations attacking our communities, homes, education, environment, livelihood, and democracy!
Click here to learn more about the event.
CLOSENationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. Your secure donation is tax-deductible.
E.J. Dionne Jr.NationofChange / Op-EdPublished: Friday 20 January 2012
“What’s remarkable is that Romney seems to be closing in on a victory at the very moment when he is painting himself as the anti-populist and a tone-deaf economic elitist.”
Where Are the Republican Populists? Photo: Gage Skidmore
Post a Comment
Resize Text + | - | R
Plain Text
Print
SHARE Email Members of the Tea Party insisted they were turning the GOP into a populist, anti-establishment bastion. Social conservatives have long argued that values and morals matter more than money. Yet in the end, the corporate and economically conservative wing of the Republican Party always seems to win.
Thus was Mitt Romney so confident of victory in Saturday’s South Carolina primary that he left the state briefly on Tuesday for a fundraiser in New York. And why not? The power of big money has been amplified in this campaign by the super PACs let loose by the Supreme Court’sCitizens United decision and lax regulation.
You cannot watch the morning news shows in South Carolina without confronting an intricately confusing blitz of ads, some paid for by candidates, others by the supposedly independent PACs. One kind is indistinguishable from the other.
The nature of the ads shows why it would be a major upset were Romney to lose here. Although Romney’s opponents direct some of their fire his way, they are spending a fortune tearing each other apart. Rick Perry’s backers take on both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Ron Paul assails Gingrich and Santorum, too. Romney’s supporters have piled on with ads against Gingrich.
Gingrich flicks aside Santorum and Perry with faint praise in his speeches, as he did at an event here on Tuesday night, maintaining that “the only effective vote to stop Mitt Romney is Newt Gingrich.” And it does seem, from the polls and the buzz, thatGingrich is the only option whose momentum gives him at least an outside chance of getting by Romney. But Santorum and Perry are not giving way, which is why Romney could afford his side trip to Manhattan.
Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.
“People have treated Romney coming in first as a foregone conclusion and gone for second,” said Joel Sawyer, who consulted for Jon Huntsman and is now neutral. “I see that as a fundamentally flawed strategy. A very significant number of Republicans are looking for an alternative, but what Romney’s opponents have done is weaken each other.”
Bob McAlister, who served as the late Republican governor Carroll Campbell’s chief of staff, said a Romney victory would be the result of the conservative split, “not because Romney is so strong or well-liked by South Carolinians.”
Photo: Gage Skidmore
The confusion was obvious at the well-attended event here for Gingrich. Interviewed as they stood in line to shake hands with the candidate, voter after voter said they mistrusted Romney — Scott Gilmer, an engineer, saw Romney as “a whole lot like Obama” — but many expressed indecision between Gingrich and Santorum.
What’s remarkable is that Romney seems to be closing in on a victory at the very moment when he is painting himself as the anti-populist and a tone-deaf economic elitist. Not only did he suggest Tuesday that he pays a low 15 percent tax rate (because most of his income derives from investments); he also dismissed the money he made from speaking fees as “not very much.”
It turned out that, over the year ending last February, speeches earned him more than $370,000. That’s not chump change for most folks.
Think about Romney’s rise in light of the overheated political analysis of 2010 that saw a Republican Party as being transformed by the Tea Party legions who, in alliance with an overlapping group of social and religious conservatives, would take the party away from the establishmentarians. If I had a dollar for every time the new GOP was described in those days as “populist,” I suspect I’d have more than Romney made from his lectures.
Certainly some of the movement’s failures can be attributed to a flawed set of competitors and the split on the right, especially Paul’s ability to siphon off a significant share of the Tea Party vote. That has made a consolidation of its forces impossible. (Romney may owe Paul an appointment to the Federal Reserve.)
But there is another possibility: that the GOP never was and never can be a populist party, that the term was always being misapplied, and that enough Republicans are quite comfortable with a Harvard-educated private-equity specialist.
“Romney is as establishment as they come,” said McAlister. For many conservatives, he added, a fall campaign between Romney and President Obama could thus be a choice between “which of the two establishments do you hate most.”
That’s not where the Tea Party’s promoters said we were headed.
© , Washington Post Writers Group
Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.
Is Digg defining a new direction for the curation economy? And could the new site help us cope with information overload? Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT E.J. Dionne Jr.
E.J. Dionne writes about politics in a twice-weekly column and on the PostPartisan blog. He is also a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a government professor at Georgetown University and a frequent commentator on politics for National Public Radio, ABC’s “This Week” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Before joining The Post in 1990 as a political reporter, Dionne spent 14 years at the New York Times, where he covered politics and reported from Albany, Washington, Paris, Rome and Beirut. He is the author of four books: “Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith & Politics After the Religious Right” (2008), “Stand Up Fight Back: Republican Toughs, Democratic Wimps, and the Politics of Revenge” (2004), “They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate The Next Political Era” (1996), and “Why Americans Hate Politics” (1991), which won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and was a National Book Award nominee. Dionne grew up in Fall River, Mass., attended Harvard College and was a Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford. He lives in Bethesda, Md., with his wife and three children.
Friday, January 20, 2012 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTIONGet Email Updates | Log In | Register | CONNECT .
HomeWarEconomyHuman RightsPoliticsEnvironmentWorldMediaEducationCausesThe BlogsAbout UsDonate..Help Us Occupy San Francisco's Financial District! NationofChange has committed raise $10,000 to stage a mass occupation on January 20th of the Wall St. banks & corporations attacking our communities, homes, education, environment, livelihood, and democracy!
Click here to learn more about the event.
CLOSENationofChange is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. Your secure donation is tax-deductible.
E.J. Dionne Jr.NationofChange / Op-EdPublished: Friday 20 January 2012
“What’s remarkable is that Romney seems to be closing in on a victory at the very moment when he is painting himself as the anti-populist and a tone-deaf economic elitist.”
Where Are the Republican Populists? Photo: Gage Skidmore
Post a Comment
Resize Text + | - | R
Plain Text
SHARE Email Members of the Tea Party insisted they were turning the GOP into a populist, anti-establishment bastion. Social conservatives have long argued that values and morals matter more than money. Yet in the end, the corporate and economically conservative wing of the Republican Party always seems to win.
Thus was Mitt Romney so confident of victory in Saturday’s South Carolina primary that he left the state briefly on Tuesday for a fundraiser in New York. And why not? The power of big money has been amplified in this campaign by the super PACs let loose by the Supreme Court’sCitizens United decision and lax regulation.
You cannot watch the morning news shows in South Carolina without confronting an intricately confusing blitz of ads, some paid for by candidates, others by the supposedly independent PACs. One kind is indistinguishable from the other.
The nature of the ads shows why it would be a major upset were Romney to lose here. Although Romney’s opponents direct some of their fire his way, they are spending a fortune tearing each other apart. Rick Perry’s backers take on both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Ron Paul assails Gingrich and Santorum, too. Romney’s supporters have piled on with ads against Gingrich.
Gingrich flicks aside Santorum and Perry with faint praise in his speeches, as he did at an event here on Tuesday night, maintaining that “the only effective vote to stop Mitt Romney is Newt Gingrich.” And it does seem, from the polls and the buzz, thatGingrich is the only option whose momentum gives him at least an outside chance of getting by Romney. But Santorum and Perry are not giving way, which is why Romney could afford his side trip to Manhattan.
Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.
“People have treated Romney coming in first as a foregone conclusion and gone for second,” said Joel Sawyer, who consulted for Jon Huntsman and is now neutral. “I see that as a fundamentally flawed strategy. A very significant number of Republicans are looking for an alternative, but what Romney’s opponents have done is weaken each other.”
Bob McAlister, who served as the late Republican governor Carroll Campbell’s chief of staff, said a Romney victory would be the result of the conservative split, “not because Romney is so strong or well-liked by South Carolinians.”
Photo: Gage Skidmore
The confusion was obvious at the well-attended event here for Gingrich. Interviewed as they stood in line to shake hands with the candidate, voter after voter said they mistrusted Romney — Scott Gilmer, an engineer, saw Romney as “a whole lot like Obama” — but many expressed indecision between Gingrich and Santorum.
What’s remarkable is that Romney seems to be closing in on a victory at the very moment when he is painting himself as the anti-populist and a tone-deaf economic elitist. Not only did he suggest Tuesday that he pays a low 15 percent tax rate (because most of his income derives from investments); he also dismissed the money he made from speaking fees as “not very much.”
It turned out that, over the year ending last February, speeches earned him more than $370,000. That’s not chump change for most folks.
Think about Romney’s rise in light of the overheated political analysis of 2010 that saw a Republican Party as being transformed by the Tea Party legions who, in alliance with an overlapping group of social and religious conservatives, would take the party away from the establishmentarians. If I had a dollar for every time the new GOP was described in those days as “populist,” I suspect I’d have more than Romney made from his lectures.
Certainly some of the movement’s failures can be attributed to a flawed set of competitors and the split on the right, especially Paul’s ability to siphon off a significant share of the Tea Party vote. That has made a consolidation of its forces impossible. (Romney may owe Paul an appointment to the Federal Reserve.)
But there is another possibility: that the GOP never was and never can be a populist party, that the term was always being misapplied, and that enough Republicans are quite comfortable with a Harvard-educated private-equity specialist.
“Romney is as establishment as they come,” said McAlister. For many conservatives, he added, a fall campaign between Romney and President Obama could thus be a choice between “which of the two establishments do you hate most.”
That’s not where the Tea Party’s promoters said we were headed.
© , Washington Post Writers Group
Join NationofChange today by making a generous tax-deductible contribution and take a stand against the status quo.
Is Digg defining a new direction for the curation economy? And could the new site help us cope with information overload? Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT E.J. Dionne Jr.
E.J. Dionne writes about politics in a twice-weekly column and on the PostPartisan blog. He is also a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a government professor at Georgetown University and a frequent commentator on politics for National Public Radio, ABC’s “This Week” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Before joining The Post in 1990 as a political reporter, Dionne spent 14 years at the New York Times, where he covered politics and reported from Albany, Washington, Paris, Rome and Beirut. He is the author of four books: “Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith & Politics After the Religious Right” (2008), “Stand Up Fight Back: Republican Toughs, Democratic Wimps, and the Politics of Revenge” (2004), “They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate The Next Political Era” (1996), and “Why Americans Hate Politics” (1991), which won the Los Angeles Times Book Prize and was a National Book Award nominee. Dionne grew up in Fall River, Mass., attended Harvard College and was a Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford. He lives in Bethesda, Md., with his wife and three children.
Dennis Kucinich, A Strong Advocate For "We The People" Introduces H. J. Resolution 100, Public Election Financing
Dennis KucinichNationofChange / Op-EdPublished: Friday 20 January 2012
“Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced H. J. Res. 100, a constitutional amendment to rescue American democracy from corporate money’s corrupting influence.”
Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections Photo: Cactusbones
On the eve of the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United, which opened the floodgate of unlimited, shadowy corporate spending in public elections, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced H. J. Res. 100, a constitutional amendment to rescue American democracy from corporate money’s corrupting influence.
“Because of the decision by the Supreme Court majority in the Citizens United case, more money was spent on campaigns in the 2010 election than has ever been spent in a mid-term election.
“Because of the Citizens United case, more money will be spent in the 2012 elections than has ever been spent in an election in the history of our country.
Photo: Cactusbones
“Because of the Citizens United case, American democracy has been put up on the auction block,” said Kucinich.
H.J. Res.100 would require that all federal campaigns –all campaigns for President, Vice-President, Senator and Representative – be financed exclusively with public funds and prohibit any expenditures from any other source, including the candidate. H. J. Res. 100 would also prohibit any expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any federal candidate, so that interest groups will not be able to influence elections. It will maintain the First Amendment “freedom of the press” and preserve the traditional role that the media have played in our electoral process.
“We must rescue American democracy from unlimited corporate money. This is the most fundamental issue facing the future of our nation. With corporate, private financing we have officials working for the interest of corporations. With public financing we have officials working for the public. And public financing will actually save taxpayers’ money, by eliminating any incentive of public officials to reward campaign contributors with taxpayer subsidies.
We must eliminate the influence of money on our elections and on our policy-making. We must eliminate the influence of special interests on our elections and on our legislation. We must eliminate the influence of multi-national corporations and foreign corporations on the government of our country. We cannot wait. We must fight for government of the people, by the people, for the people,” said Kucinich.
NationofChange fights back with one simple but powerful weapon: the truth.
ABOUT Dennis Kucinich
Having been elected to Cleveland's City Council at age 23, Dennis J. Kucinich was well-known to Cleveland residents when they chose him as their mayor in 1977 at the age of 31. At the time, Kucinich was the youngest person ever elected to lead a major American city. Since being elected to Congress in 1996, Kucinich has been a tireless advocate for worker rights, civil rights and human rights.
“Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced H. J. Res. 100, a constitutional amendment to rescue American democracy from corporate money’s corrupting influence.”
Kucinich Announces ‘Game Changing’ Constitutional Amendment to Publicly Finance Federal Elections Photo: Cactusbones
On the eve of the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United, which opened the floodgate of unlimited, shadowy corporate spending in public elections, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced H. J. Res. 100, a constitutional amendment to rescue American democracy from corporate money’s corrupting influence.
“Because of the decision by the Supreme Court majority in the Citizens United case, more money was spent on campaigns in the 2010 election than has ever been spent in a mid-term election.
“Because of the Citizens United case, more money will be spent in the 2012 elections than has ever been spent in an election in the history of our country.
Photo: Cactusbones
“Because of the Citizens United case, American democracy has been put up on the auction block,” said Kucinich.
H.J. Res.100 would require that all federal campaigns –all campaigns for President, Vice-President, Senator and Representative – be financed exclusively with public funds and prohibit any expenditures from any other source, including the candidate. H. J. Res. 100 would also prohibit any expenditures in support of, or in opposition to, any federal candidate, so that interest groups will not be able to influence elections. It will maintain the First Amendment “freedom of the press” and preserve the traditional role that the media have played in our electoral process.
“We must rescue American democracy from unlimited corporate money. This is the most fundamental issue facing the future of our nation. With corporate, private financing we have officials working for the interest of corporations. With public financing we have officials working for the public. And public financing will actually save taxpayers’ money, by eliminating any incentive of public officials to reward campaign contributors with taxpayer subsidies.
We must eliminate the influence of money on our elections and on our policy-making. We must eliminate the influence of special interests on our elections and on our legislation. We must eliminate the influence of multi-national corporations and foreign corporations on the government of our country. We cannot wait. We must fight for government of the people, by the people, for the people,” said Kucinich.
NationofChange fights back with one simple but powerful weapon: the truth.
ABOUT Dennis Kucinich
Having been elected to Cleveland's City Council at age 23, Dennis J. Kucinich was well-known to Cleveland residents when they chose him as their mayor in 1977 at the age of 31. At the time, Kucinich was the youngest person ever elected to lead a major American city. Since being elected to Congress in 1996, Kucinich has been a tireless advocate for worker rights, civil rights and human rights.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
On MLK Day, Romney Campaigning With Anti-Immigrant Official Tied To Hate Groups
On MLK Day, Romney Campaigning With Anti-Immigrant Official Tied To Hate Groups: pOn a day set aside to honor civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., Mitt Romney plans to tout his extreme immigration positions during a campaign stop in South Carolina today — with Kris Kobach, the author of Arizona’s and Alabama’s immigration laws, at his side. He will attack his competitors Newt Gingrich and Rick [...]/p
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Kansas GOP House Speaker ‘Prays’ That Obama’s ‘Children Be Fatherless And His Wife A Widow’
Kansas GOP House Speaker ‘Prays’ That Obama’s ‘Children Be Fatherless And His Wife A Widow’: pThinkProgress reported last week that Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal (R) was forced to apologize to First Lady Michelle Obama after forwarding an email to fellow lawmakers that called her “Mrs. YoMama” and compared her to the Grinch. Earlier that same week, the Lawrence Journal-World was sent another email that O’Neal had forwarded to House [...]/p
Kansas GOP House Speaker ‘Prays’ That Obama’s ‘Children Be Fatherless And His Wife A Widow’
Kansas GOP House Speaker ‘Prays’ That Obama’s ‘Children Be Fatherless And His Wife A Widow’: pThinkProgress reported last week that Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal (R) was forced to apologize to First Lady Michelle Obama after forwarding an email to fellow lawmakers that called her “Mrs. YoMama” and compared her to the Grinch. Earlier that same week, the Lawrence Journal-World was sent another email that O’Neal had forwarded to House [...]/p
Thursday, January 12, 2012
President Obama may be trying to put an end to the giant sucking sound. Yesterday – the President announced a new plan to give tax breaks to businesses that bring jobs back to the United States – while cutting off tax breaks for businesses that ship jobs overseas. “I don’t want America to be a nation that’s primarily known for financial speculation, and racking up debt and buying stuff from other nations,” The President told reporters. Any change in the tax code – especially one that penalizes giant transnational corporations that outsource American jobs by the hundreds of thousands – is subject to the approval of Congress. So we’ll have to wait and see if republicans can get on board with the idea of saving American manufacturing jobs. Well keep our eyes on this one to see if Mr. Obama follows through.
The Corporate Super Court
Since the appointment of justice Clarence Thomas and then Samuel Alito and John Roberts there has been a concerted effort on the part of neo-cons to steer the direction of the SCOTUS in a very specific direction. Most people, especially conservatives felt that the placement of these judges was to drive the court in the direction of dismantling many of the civil rights laws that have been implemented since the 1950’s and 60’s. But the truth of the matter, that is only a small part of what has happened.
The very first thing they did was to overturn the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to recount that state’s ballots for president of the United States. In that ruling they were ensuring that the people who supported them would continue to stay in power. Up until that time the republicans were adamant about states rights NOT being usurped, but now the strategy had been reversed because now they wanted to gain an advantage.
They were the ones who brought the suit, knowing that the court would rule in their favor. I wonder if that is considered a “quid pro quo”? Even if it was and someone brought suit against the Court, who would rule in the case? In recent years we have seen two justices who seems to not mind being in conflict with rulings in their cases. One is justice Alito and soon the other will involve justice Thomas. If these justices refuse to recuse themselves when there is the appearance of conflict, what recourse is there. Not only that, the court is poised to render judgment soon on redistricting in Texas that even though it will disenfranchise many minority voters, it is almost assured that they will rule in favor of the republicans anyway.
The incredible thing about the whole situation is that these are only diversionary issues The real issue is “corporate rights”. Recent court rulings have confirmed this. Since this Court has been in place, no corporation has ever lost a case. Every ruling has been in their favor. There are three that mainly come to mind. The first ruling was that money equals Speech, which then set the stage for the next two rulings. The next ruling was that “corporations are people”. And the last ruling was that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money to influence any election, no matter where the money came from. The only restriction to this last ruling was that the must be independent from the candidate. Already we see campaigns getting around that. One candidate’s father runs a super-pac (political action committee), which can contribute unlimited amounts, and another campaign’s former campaign manager runs another super-pac. So you can see that the SCOTUS is making a mockery out our democracy with it’s rulings. Another ruling waiting in the wings will be the recently signed NDAA bill which will surely be challenged. The law seems to hint that any American has the authority to detain anyone, including an American that it deems to be associated with any terrorist organization. Who’s to say which organization or not? This should NOT happen in these United States! Citizens beware, the court has become too powerful, overruling both houses of congress and the presidency. We elected the president and congress. We DID NOT elect the “Corporate Supreme Court” and if they continue to rule against “we the people” maybe it’s time they went the way of the dinosaurs. Contrary to their rulings, MONEY IS NOT SPEECH, CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE AND CORPORATE MONEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DROWN OUT THE VOICES OF THE CITIZENS of this
The very first thing they did was to overturn the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to recount that state’s ballots for president of the United States. In that ruling they were ensuring that the people who supported them would continue to stay in power. Up until that time the republicans were adamant about states rights NOT being usurped, but now the strategy had been reversed because now they wanted to gain an advantage.
They were the ones who brought the suit, knowing that the court would rule in their favor. I wonder if that is considered a “quid pro quo”? Even if it was and someone brought suit against the Court, who would rule in the case? In recent years we have seen two justices who seems to not mind being in conflict with rulings in their cases. One is justice Alito and soon the other will involve justice Thomas. If these justices refuse to recuse themselves when there is the appearance of conflict, what recourse is there. Not only that, the court is poised to render judgment soon on redistricting in Texas that even though it will disenfranchise many minority voters, it is almost assured that they will rule in favor of the republicans anyway.
The incredible thing about the whole situation is that these are only diversionary issues The real issue is “corporate rights”. Recent court rulings have confirmed this. Since this Court has been in place, no corporation has ever lost a case. Every ruling has been in their favor. There are three that mainly come to mind. The first ruling was that money equals Speech, which then set the stage for the next two rulings. The next ruling was that “corporations are people”. And the last ruling was that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money to influence any election, no matter where the money came from. The only restriction to this last ruling was that the must be independent from the candidate. Already we see campaigns getting around that. One candidate’s father runs a super-pac (political action committee), which can contribute unlimited amounts, and another campaign’s former campaign manager runs another super-pac. So you can see that the SCOTUS is making a mockery out our democracy with it’s rulings. Another ruling waiting in the wings will be the recently signed NDAA bill which will surely be challenged. The law seems to hint that any American has the authority to detain anyone, including an American that it deems to be associated with any terrorist organization. Who’s to say which organization or not? This should NOT happen in these United States! Citizens beware, the court has become too powerful, overruling both houses of congress and the presidency. We elected the president and congress. We DID NOT elect the “Corporate Supreme Court” and if they continue to rule against “we the people” maybe it’s time they went the way of the dinosaurs. Contrary to their rulings, MONEY IS NOT SPEECH, CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE AND CORPORATE MONEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DROWN OUT THE VOICES OF THE CITIZENS of this
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
GOP Strategist Frank Luntz: ‘Conservatives Should Not Be Defending Capitalism’
GOP Strategist Frank Luntz: ‘Conservatives Should Not Be Defending Capitalism’: pLast year, Mitt Romney told a Tea Party gathering, “I believe in free enterprise, I believe in capitalism.” Now, Romney’s practice of “vulture capitalism,” in Rick Perry’s words, is coming under attack. As Rush Limbaugh observed recently, “Here we have capitalism being attacked by Republicans, capitalism under assault by Republicans.” In the face of this [...]/p
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Full-Blown Civil War Erupts On Wall Street – Financial Elite Start Turning On Each Other
Reality Finally Hits The Financial Elite As They Start Turning On Each Other
By David DeGraw - ampedstatus.org
Finally, after trillions in fraudulent activity, trillions in bailouts, trillions in printed money, billions in political bribing and billions in bonuses, the criminal cartel members on Wall Street are beginning to get what they deserve. As the Eurozone is coming apart at the seams and as the US economy grinds to a halt, the financial elite are starting to turn on each other. The lawsuits are piling up fast. Here’s an extensive roundup:
Time to put your Big Bank shorts on! Get ready for a run… The chickens are coming home to roost… The Global Banking Cartel’s crimes are being exposed left & right… Prepare for Shock & Awe…
Well, well… here’s your Shock & Awe:
First up, this shockingly huge $196 billion lawsuit just filed against 17 major banks on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bank of America is severely exposed in this lawsuit. As the parent company of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch they are on the hook for $57.4 billion. JP Morgan is next in the line of fire with $33 billion. And many death spiraling European banks are facing billions in losses as well.
By David DeGraw - ampedstatus.org
Finally, after trillions in fraudulent activity, trillions in bailouts, trillions in printed money, billions in political bribing and billions in bonuses, the criminal cartel members on Wall Street are beginning to get what they deserve. As the Eurozone is coming apart at the seams and as the US economy grinds to a halt, the financial elite are starting to turn on each other. The lawsuits are piling up fast. Here’s an extensive roundup:
Time to put your Big Bank shorts on! Get ready for a run… The chickens are coming home to roost… The Global Banking Cartel’s crimes are being exposed left & right… Prepare for Shock & Awe…
Well, well… here’s your Shock & Awe:
First up, this shockingly huge $196 billion lawsuit just filed against 17 major banks on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bank of America is severely exposed in this lawsuit. As the parent company of Countrywide and Merrill Lynch they are on the hook for $57.4 billion. JP Morgan is next in the line of fire with $33 billion. And many death spiraling European banks are facing billions in losses as well.
Uncle Tom!
Allen West: Military Leaders ‘Should Be Very Careful About Blindly Following A Commander-In-Chief’: pLast week, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) said that President Obama didn’t consult with the military when formulating the new global strategy he announced last week. “I have heard some rumination” that Obama ignored military leaders, West said (of course this is not true). The next day, talking with right-wing radio host Mark Levin, West went [...]/p
More Tax Cuts For The Rich And "Job Creators"!?
Wow! Just listen to the economic proposals the republicans have in mind. At a time when they decry gigantic budgety deficits, they still want to not only extend the Bush era tax cuts for the rich, but they intend to propose even more! That is just too incredible to believe!
But if you think that's incredible, what is more incredible is how working class people are going to their town hall meetings and their primaries and voting for them in droves. What is it about the republicans who want to give money away to seemingly every country on the face of the earth but refuse to help our own citizens, yet they can get such a large amount of people to vote against their own best interests. The truth is they have become quite good at it. They use wedge issues and coded words that appeal to bigots and anything else they have at their disposal and it works almost to the point of brilliance. This time however I believe the American people will finally take their heads out of the sand and finally see what's going on. The fact that Mr. Ralph Nader, former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer and Mr.Ron Paul have shone a light on their foreign policy, the trade situation,and foreign aid that is hurting our economy seems to be having some effect. But will they continue to pay attention or will they return to listening to FOX Nerws for all their mis-information? Only time will tell. But this one thing I can tell, if they continue to believe the republican version of what's in store for the future, theirs won't be that good. More tax cuts for the rich is not what is needed. Tax revenue is.
But if you think that's incredible, what is more incredible is how working class people are going to their town hall meetings and their primaries and voting for them in droves. What is it about the republicans who want to give money away to seemingly every country on the face of the earth but refuse to help our own citizens, yet they can get such a large amount of people to vote against their own best interests. The truth is they have become quite good at it. They use wedge issues and coded words that appeal to bigots and anything else they have at their disposal and it works almost to the point of brilliance. This time however I believe the American people will finally take their heads out of the sand and finally see what's going on. The fact that Mr. Ralph Nader, former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer and Mr.Ron Paul have shone a light on their foreign policy, the trade situation,and foreign aid that is hurting our economy seems to be having some effect. But will they continue to pay attention or will they return to listening to FOX Nerws for all their mis-information? Only time will tell. But this one thing I can tell, if they continue to believe the republican version of what's in store for the future, theirs won't be that good. More tax cuts for the rich is not what is needed. Tax revenue is.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Warped GOP!
Home
There's No War on Religion in America: There is a GOP War on Reality
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 8:31pm. Guest Commentary
MARC PERKEL FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
It's interesting to hear the Republican candidates decry the "war on religion" when it's pretty clear that none of the Republican candidates actually believe in God. From my point of view as a Realist, who puts reality first, if there actually was a God and people had a personal connection to that God then their lives would reflect that. Every one of the candidates are highly dishonest. They lie all the time and they use God's name to make cheap political points. If they actually believed they simply would not behave that way.
What I see isn't a war on religion but rather a war on reality. They don't want you to believe there is a reality out there and that actions have consequences and that in order for humanity to survive and flourish that you have to live in right relationship to reality.
It's not us who is at war with religion. It is those who claim to believe and are lying about it who at war with religion. Religion is more threatened by fake Christians than from those who admit they just aren't believing the story.
There's No War on Religion in America: There is a GOP War on Reality
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 8:31pm. Guest Commentary
MARC PERKEL FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
It's interesting to hear the Republican candidates decry the "war on religion" when it's pretty clear that none of the Republican candidates actually believe in God. From my point of view as a Realist, who puts reality first, if there actually was a God and people had a personal connection to that God then their lives would reflect that. Every one of the candidates are highly dishonest. They lie all the time and they use God's name to make cheap political points. If they actually believed they simply would not behave that way.
What I see isn't a war on religion but rather a war on reality. They don't want you to believe there is a reality out there and that actions have consequences and that in order for humanity to survive and flourish that you have to live in right relationship to reality.
It's not us who is at war with religion. It is those who claim to believe and are lying about it who at war with religion. Religion is more threatened by fake Christians than from those who admit they just aren't believing the story.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Yeah, Right!!!
Address Book Loading....
From
Your Email
To enter multiple email addresses separated by commas (up to 100)
Select names from your address book | Help
Add new contacts to Care2 address book Personal message Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world. We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
Kansas Lawmaker “Sorry” He Called Michelle Obama “Mrs. YoMama”
by Robin Marty
January 6, 2012
11:00 pm
204 comments
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Digg
E-Mail
Text Size: A | A | A | A
.Kansas Speaker of the House Mike O’Neal says it was an honest mistake that he forwarded on an email that referred to the First Lady as “Mrs. YoMama.” The email also included a picture of Michelle Obama and Dr. Seuss’s “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas” with the phrase “separated at birth?”
According to O’Neal, he didn’t fully read the text of the email itself, only the picture. The full text read “I’m sure you’ll join me in wishing Mrs. YoMama a wonderful, long Hawaii Christmas vacation — at our expense, of course.”
“Cartoons are intended to be humorous. This one made me laugh — I’ve had bad hair days too,” O’Neal said in a statement, according to The Kansas City Star. “I forwarded it too quickly, missing the text included in the body of the mail. To those I have offended, I am sorry. That was not at all my intent.”
O’Neal’s half-hearted apology was still more contrite than the statement from his communications director, who said,”Political cartoons are a part of American culture. It’s hard to see how Mike O’Neal poking fun at himself and forwarding a lighthearted political cartoon about the first lady’s extravagant spending of taxpayer funds during a time when many Americans are financially struggling is newsworthy.”
Was the email a simple “political cartoon” as the Kansas Republicans state? Or was the “Mrs. YoMama” taunt a thinly veiled racist remark? If nothing else, that explains why O’Neal is so quick to defend the sending of the cartoon, but clarify that he didn’t read the full text closely.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/kansas-lawmaker-sorry-he-called-michelle-obama-mrs-yomama.html#ixzz1io6q2POz
From
Your Email
To enter multiple email addresses separated by commas (up to 100)
Select names from your address book | Help
Add new contacts to Care2 address book Personal message Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.
Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world. We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
Kansas Lawmaker “Sorry” He Called Michelle Obama “Mrs. YoMama”
by Robin Marty
January 6, 2012
11:00 pm
204 comments
StumbleUpon
Digg
Text Size: A | A | A | A
.Kansas Speaker of the House Mike O’Neal says it was an honest mistake that he forwarded on an email that referred to the First Lady as “Mrs. YoMama.” The email also included a picture of Michelle Obama and Dr. Seuss’s “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas” with the phrase “separated at birth?”
According to O’Neal, he didn’t fully read the text of the email itself, only the picture. The full text read “I’m sure you’ll join me in wishing Mrs. YoMama a wonderful, long Hawaii Christmas vacation — at our expense, of course.”
“Cartoons are intended to be humorous. This one made me laugh — I’ve had bad hair days too,” O’Neal said in a statement, according to The Kansas City Star. “I forwarded it too quickly, missing the text included in the body of the mail. To those I have offended, I am sorry. That was not at all my intent.”
O’Neal’s half-hearted apology was still more contrite than the statement from his communications director, who said,”Political cartoons are a part of American culture. It’s hard to see how Mike O’Neal poking fun at himself and forwarding a lighthearted political cartoon about the first lady’s extravagant spending of taxpayer funds during a time when many Americans are financially struggling is newsworthy.”
Was the email a simple “political cartoon” as the Kansas Republicans state? Or was the “Mrs. YoMama” taunt a thinly veiled racist remark? If nothing else, that explains why O’Neal is so quick to defend the sending of the cartoon, but clarify that he didn’t read the full text closely.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/kansas-lawmaker-sorry-he-called-michelle-obama-mrs-yomama.html#ixzz1io6q2POz
Friday, January 6, 2012
No Iranian Nuclear Weapon's Program
NYT Misleads Readers on Iran Crisis
Paper disappears some inaccurate reporting
1/6/12
In two articles yesterday (1/5/12), the New York Times misled readers about the state of Iran's nuclear program.
On the front page, the Times' Steven Erlanger reported this:
The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign.
There is no such International Atomic Energy Agency assessment. The IAEA report the Times is mischaracterizing raised questions about the state of the Iranian program, and presented the evidence, mostly years old, that Iran's critics say points towards a weapons program. (This evidence has been challenged by outside analysts--see FAIR Media Advisory, 11/16/11.) But the IAEA report made no firm conclusion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, and noted that its inspections of Iran's facilities continue to show no diversion of uranium for military purposes.
Elsewhere in the Times, readers saw this in a piece by Clifford Krauss about a potential conflict over the Strait of Hormuz:
Various Iranian officials in recent weeks have said they would blockade the strait, which is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, if the United States and Europe imposed a tight oil embargo on their country in an effort to thwart its development of nuclear weapons.
Again, Iran has said repeatedly and emphatically that they are doing no such thing.
Interestingly, the Times has changed the Web version of the Erlanger article, removing the relevant paragraph--but without noting the error.
Overstating the case on Iran isn't a new problem at the Times. One story last month (12/8/11) referred matter-of-factly to the "recent public debate in Israel about whether time is running out for a military strike to slow Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon."
With tensions between Iran and the United States rising, and Republican presidential candidates agitating for a more confrontational stance, it is imperative that outlets like the New York Times get the story right. If the Times wishes to do better than it did during the run-up to the Iraq War, it should be more careful.
ACTION:
Contact the New York Times and ask it to investigate and explain the editing of the January 5 front-page article, and to correct both misleading assertions about Iran and nuclear weapons.
CONTACT:
New York Times
Public Editor Arthur Brisbane
Email: public@nytimes.com
Phone: 212-556-7652
Paper disappears some inaccurate reporting
1/6/12
In two articles yesterday (1/5/12), the New York Times misled readers about the state of Iran's nuclear program.
On the front page, the Times' Steven Erlanger reported this:
The threats from Iran, aimed both at the West and at Israel, combined with a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran's nuclear program has a military objective, is becoming an important issue in the American presidential campaign.
There is no such International Atomic Energy Agency assessment. The IAEA report the Times is mischaracterizing raised questions about the state of the Iranian program, and presented the evidence, mostly years old, that Iran's critics say points towards a weapons program. (This evidence has been challenged by outside analysts--see FAIR Media Advisory, 11/16/11.) But the IAEA report made no firm conclusion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program, and noted that its inspections of Iran's facilities continue to show no diversion of uranium for military purposes.
Elsewhere in the Times, readers saw this in a piece by Clifford Krauss about a potential conflict over the Strait of Hormuz:
Various Iranian officials in recent weeks have said they would blockade the strait, which is only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, if the United States and Europe imposed a tight oil embargo on their country in an effort to thwart its development of nuclear weapons.
Again, Iran has said repeatedly and emphatically that they are doing no such thing.
Interestingly, the Times has changed the Web version of the Erlanger article, removing the relevant paragraph--but without noting the error.
Overstating the case on Iran isn't a new problem at the Times. One story last month (12/8/11) referred matter-of-factly to the "recent public debate in Israel about whether time is running out for a military strike to slow Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon."
With tensions between Iran and the United States rising, and Republican presidential candidates agitating for a more confrontational stance, it is imperative that outlets like the New York Times get the story right. If the Times wishes to do better than it did during the run-up to the Iraq War, it should be more careful.
ACTION:
Contact the New York Times and ask it to investigate and explain the editing of the January 5 front-page article, and to correct both misleading assertions about Iran and nuclear weapons.
CONTACT:
New York Times
Public Editor Arthur Brisbane
Email: public@nytimes.com
Phone: 212-556-7652
A Legend In His Own Mind
As I watch former speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, I am struck by the fact that so many people think that he is such a smart person. He keeps bragging about all of the things he has accomplished. Yes he did manage to wrest control of the congress away from the democrats in the 1990's, and besides being half the team in welfare reform, I challenge anyone to give any other accomplishment of his.
I'll tell you what I remember. After they gained control of congress he came up with a really great sounding scheme called "Contract with America". He is really good at that. Even now he comes with great sounding phrases that don't amount to a hill of beans. Then, just like their party did after the last election, they began to abuse what they considered to be a mandate to do whatever they desired.It's deja vu'. I remember Mr Gingrich shutting the government down trying to bend President Bill Clinton to his will. I remember him persecuting the president for immoral acts when he, himself was doing the exact same thing. Not only that, he took it a step further. He was run out of congress for ehtics violations. I don't know about you, but that tells me that he was filled with pride and arrogance. And we finally got tired of the hypocrisy and "threw the bums out".
And now Mr. Gingrich comes back on the national scene, crying alligator tears and telling us how much he has changed, expecting to have a chance to be President of the U. S. Well, I for one, am not having any of that. When I look at him and hear him speak, there isn't the slightest hint of any kind of change. He is still brash and outspoken, thinking highly of himself. We have his word, which in my opinion isn't worth a plugged nickel.
As I watch him artfully dodge the question of "what he has against people on welfare", I wonder how anyone can believe anything he says. It's just like the issue of him lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while collecting money for influencing republican senators in favor of those entities. He then claims he was collecting that cash for being a historian. No matter you call it, he was still collecting cash for services. I guess some just want to believe, but anybody who takes a truly objective look at him can hardly believe that somehow a change for better has occured. I'm skeptical!
I'll tell you what I remember. After they gained control of congress he came up with a really great sounding scheme called "Contract with America". He is really good at that. Even now he comes with great sounding phrases that don't amount to a hill of beans. Then, just like their party did after the last election, they began to abuse what they considered to be a mandate to do whatever they desired.It's deja vu'. I remember Mr Gingrich shutting the government down trying to bend President Bill Clinton to his will. I remember him persecuting the president for immoral acts when he, himself was doing the exact same thing. Not only that, he took it a step further. He was run out of congress for ehtics violations. I don't know about you, but that tells me that he was filled with pride and arrogance. And we finally got tired of the hypocrisy and "threw the bums out".
And now Mr. Gingrich comes back on the national scene, crying alligator tears and telling us how much he has changed, expecting to have a chance to be President of the U. S. Well, I for one, am not having any of that. When I look at him and hear him speak, there isn't the slightest hint of any kind of change. He is still brash and outspoken, thinking highly of himself. We have his word, which in my opinion isn't worth a plugged nickel.
As I watch him artfully dodge the question of "what he has against people on welfare", I wonder how anyone can believe anything he says. It's just like the issue of him lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while collecting money for influencing republican senators in favor of those entities. He then claims he was collecting that cash for being a historian. No matter you call it, he was still collecting cash for services. I guess some just want to believe, but anybody who takes a truly objective look at him can hardly believe that somehow a change for better has occured. I'm skeptical!
Thursday, January 5, 2012
You Won't Believe Germany's Secret!
On the News With Thom Hartmann: Even While European Economy Suffers, Germany Is Surging.
Wednesday 4 January 2012
by: Thom Hartmann, The Thom Hartmann Program | News Report
Even though a debt crisis is gripping the European continent – the German economy is surging. According to the latest economic data – German unemployment fell in the month of December – bringing the average number of unemployed people in that nation to a two-decade low. Economists are now openly wondering just how long the German economy can be immune from the chaos surrounding it in places like Greece where unemployment is at 18% and Spain where unemployment just topped 23%. But the better question is why their economy is doing so well. The answer is they do what we used to do. They protect domestic manufacturing with high barriers to imports, and they encourage labor unions. In fact, nearly the entire German auto industry is unionized, allowing the nation to produce twice as many cars as the United States – while at the same time paying their workers more than $60 on average and still make healthy profits. On top of that – the German government has recession-proof programs like the “short-week” that pays businesses to cut back on the hours of workers rather than lay them off during economic downturns. Plus, Germany's constitution gives the labor force a say in everything from pay to working conditions in the factories they work for. All in all – Germany has given more power and protection to workers in their economy – and as a result their economy is growing. We should be taking some notes over here.
Wednesday 4 January 2012
by: Thom Hartmann, The Thom Hartmann Program | News Report
Even though a debt crisis is gripping the European continent – the German economy is surging. According to the latest economic data – German unemployment fell in the month of December – bringing the average number of unemployed people in that nation to a two-decade low. Economists are now openly wondering just how long the German economy can be immune from the chaos surrounding it in places like Greece where unemployment is at 18% and Spain where unemployment just topped 23%. But the better question is why their economy is doing so well. The answer is they do what we used to do. They protect domestic manufacturing with high barriers to imports, and they encourage labor unions. In fact, nearly the entire German auto industry is unionized, allowing the nation to produce twice as many cars as the United States – while at the same time paying their workers more than $60 on average and still make healthy profits. On top of that – the German government has recession-proof programs like the “short-week” that pays businesses to cut back on the hours of workers rather than lay them off during economic downturns. Plus, Germany's constitution gives the labor force a say in everything from pay to working conditions in the factories they work for. All in all – Germany has given more power and protection to workers in their economy – and as a result their economy is growing. We should be taking some notes over here.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Presidential Authority
TPMDC
Obama Suddenly On A Recess Appointments Roll
President Barack Obama speaks on the economy in Shaker Heights, OH on January 4, 2012.
CLOSE CLOSE StumbleUpon Instapaper digg Brian Beutler- January 4, 2012, 3:38 PM 1770Add the National Labor Relations Board to the list of agencies that will be given new life thanks to President Obama’s decision to thwart Senate Republicans and use his recess appointment power expansively.
The administration just announced that Obama will appoint Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Grifin to the NLRB, preventing it from being crippled indefinitely thanks to Senate Republican intransigence.
One of the board’s members — Craig Becker — had to step aside this week after his recess appointment expired. That left the NLRB with only two sitting members — not enough, according to the Supreme Court, to constitute the quorum the board requires to function.
Republicans were threatening to block Obama’s NLRB nominees in a bid to extinguish the board’s power. So just as with Obama’s decision to recess appoint Richard Cordray to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this move does more than fill vacancies. It actually restores the power the agency was given under the law — power Republicans were hoping to strip without passing new legislation.
That’s the key thread connecting these recess appointments — and why other languishing nominees haven’t been recess appointed. At least not yet.
Obama Suddenly On A Recess Appointments Roll
President Barack Obama speaks on the economy in Shaker Heights, OH on January 4, 2012.
CLOSE CLOSE StumbleUpon Instapaper digg Brian Beutler- January 4, 2012, 3:38 PM 1770Add the National Labor Relations Board to the list of agencies that will be given new life thanks to President Obama’s decision to thwart Senate Republicans and use his recess appointment power expansively.
The administration just announced that Obama will appoint Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Grifin to the NLRB, preventing it from being crippled indefinitely thanks to Senate Republican intransigence.
One of the board’s members — Craig Becker — had to step aside this week after his recess appointment expired. That left the NLRB with only two sitting members — not enough, according to the Supreme Court, to constitute the quorum the board requires to function.
Republicans were threatening to block Obama’s NLRB nominees in a bid to extinguish the board’s power. So just as with Obama’s decision to recess appoint Richard Cordray to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this move does more than fill vacancies. It actually restores the power the agency was given under the law — power Republicans were hoping to strip without passing new legislation.
That’s the key thread connecting these recess appointments — and why other languishing nominees haven’t been recess appointed. At least not yet.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Provocation, Another Call To War!
The new sanctions the Obama administration has put on Iran have already been enough to provoke Iran, but now the administration has decided to send in warships claiming that Iran has threarened to block the Straits of Hormuz. Those actions along with the diversion of the Iowa caucuses will probably give the administration enough cover, since many are paying close attention to thatevent, to claim that iran somehow provoked the U. S. to an act of war. Why is no other country making any claims against Iran except the U. S.?
Monday, January 2, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)