No Time For Passivity

"When they go low, we go high," Michelle Obama pompously declared at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. As diagnosis, it still applies. As prescription, it is awful. This is how you do it:

"Kevin McCarthy is a liar and a traitor," Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren maintained on Sunday's State of the Union on CNN. Three things:

1) Bad grammar- she meant "Kevin McCarthy is a liar and traitor." ("Liar and a traitor" implies two individuals.);

2) The subject is not a traitor because treason is defined in the US Constitution as "aid and comfort" to the nation's enemies to the enemy" and the USA is not officially at war with anyone;

3) The subject is an obvious liar.

The first two points are irrelevant. Kevin McCarthy is a liar, and protesting that he's not a traitor draws attention to the fact that he is a liar and to provoke further discussion about whether or not he is a traitor.

It would not be a good look. The Republican Party knows that and as of this moment, is mum about the accusations leveled by Warren.

This is a rare play run by Democrats, who are rarely on the offensive and are content with their status as punching bags as long as they're lauded for occasionally fighting back.

Syndicated columnist Jennifer Rubin, who no longer considers herself a conservative and supports Joe Biden, lavishly praises Michigan Democratic State Senator Mallory McMorrow and Missouri state Representative Ian Mackey. The latter

went viral by denouncing the persecution of LGBTQ Americans. Addressing his Republican colleague Rep. Chuck Basye, who sponsored an amendment to a bill to prohibit transgender girls from participating in sports, Mackey noted that Basye’s gay brother had delayed coming out for fear of Basye’s reaction. Basye began his response with “If I were your brother, I would have been afraid to tell you, too."

When McMorrow was attacked in a fundraising email by a Republican colleague as one who would "groom and sexualize kindergartners," she responded  with a statement which included 

I know that hate will only win if people like me stand by and let it happen. So I want to be very clear right now: Call me whatever you want. I hope you brought in a few dollars. I hope it made you sleep good last night. I know who I am.

My, "I hope it made you sleep good last night" is going to strike fear into the hearts of Republicans.  This passive-aggressive response is more typical of Democrats, as we can glean by reaction to US Representative Madison Cawthorn, a right-wing Republican from North Carolina. 

Upon standing in 2020 as a 25-year-old for election to the House, former classmates of the dropout from Patrick Henry College circulated a letter noting

Cawthorn’s time at PHC was marked by gross misconduct towards our female peers, public misrepresentation of his past, disorderly conduct that was against the school’s student honor code, and self-admitted academic failings. During his brief time at the college, Cawthorn established a reputation for predatory behavior. … We urge the voters of North Carolina to seriously reevaluate Madison Cawthorn’s candidacy in light of who he really is.

Last month, Cawthorn charged

The sexual perversion that goes on in Washington, I mean—being kind of a young guy in Washington, where the average age is probably 60 or 70 and I look at all of these people, a lot of them I’ve looked up to through my life … then all of a sudden you get invited to, ‘Oh, hey, we’re going to have kind of a sexual get-together at one of our homes, you should come!’ And I’m like, ‘What did you just ask me to come to?’ And then you realize they’re asking you to come to an orgy.

Or the fact that, you know, there’s some of the people that are leading on the movement to try and remove addiction in our country, and then you watch them do a key bump of cocaine in front of you.

And now, this:

              

            

This, too:

            

Dude has been a sexual predator, apparently drives with a revoked license, allegedly runs an office with more liquor bottles than water bottles and illegally fires a female staffer, and now

New photos show Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn dressed in women's lingerie, chugging wine and surrounded by women - just weeks after he accused his GOP colleagues of inviting him to cocaine-fueled orgies.

The photos obtained by Politico how the 26-year-old Republican with a vacant look in his eyes, wearing women's hoop earrings and a woman's necklace along with a bra and lingerie set.

Screenshots of the photos were provided to the outlet by someone who used to be close to Cawthorn and his campaign. A second former confidante of Cawthorn verified the photos. It's unclear when they were taken, but he appears to be sitting in his wheelchair, indicating they were taken after the car accident that left him paralyzed in 2014.

If this were a Democrat, Republicans already would make sure Americans believed the Democratic Party were infested with liars, rapists, drug addicts, and perverts.  The GOP wants Americans to think of Democrats as "groomers.". Christina Pushaw, press secretary to Florida governor Ron DeSantis, has responded to Democratic opposition to the state legislature's "Don't Say Gay" bill by charging "If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children. Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn’t make the rules..."

But this is what leading Democrats have had to say about Madison Cawthorn:

Crickets. Their mouths are shut. Notwithstanding Senator Warren, relatively few Democrats have denounced Kevin McCarthy. Even fewer have even mentioned Madison Cawthorn.

In the latter's case, that may be in part because the LGBTQIA+-friendly Party probably is loathe to criticize a man who enjoys wearing sexy woman's clothing, But this isn't a case of sexual preference, generally determined at birth and beyond personal choice. It's personal choice, and one the vast majority of voters would find odd, were Democrats even to mention it. Additionally, it's Madison Cawthorn, and his behavior has been atrocious at every turn. He is- or should be- a poster boy for hideousness. News flash: he's a bad seed, or at least as much as is imaginable.

This is a case for political behaviorists or even social psychologists. Democrats rag on President Trump or his enablers, Steve Bannon, Steve Miller, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and the whole roster of rogues. But they are unable or unwilling even to question their colleagues in the House of Representatives or the Senate. It shouldn't be up to Elizabeth Warren to save the country from the likes of Kevin McCarthy and Michael Bloomberg. Her colleagues need to step up, go low, and save this nation's democratic institutions.

 

Share |

Say Their Names

Say her name. Say his name. Aja Romano (I've said her name) of Vox has explained

After all-too-common acts of police brutality against Black women, the hashtag #SayHerName” now peppers social media timelines. The phrase, codified in 2014 through Kimberlé Crenshaw’s Say Her Name campaign, serves as a long-standing reminder that Black women are often erased as victims of police violence. Following the March 13 shooting death of 26-year-old EMT Breonna Taylor by Louisville police while she slept unarmed in her bed, that’s exactly what her family wanted: for the world to remember her story and know her name.

Arizona Republican senator Martha McSally, 3-4 weeks away from losing her seat to Democrat Mark Kelly, won't say the name of the most important (and evil) man in America.

AZ Republican won’t say “Trump” during debate https://t.co/5LkaiJnt5q

— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) October 7, 2020

It's difficult to utter the name "Trump" or "Donald Trump" or even "President Trump." Nancy Pelosi will, Joe Biden less often, and Democrats' most beloved family finds it even more difficult. Barack Obama has avoided it whenever possible and now, in an otherwise excellent speech, so has his wife.  One of the highlights was

Only a tiny fraction of demonstrations have had any violence at all. So, what the president is doing is, once again, patently false. It’s morally wrong and yes, it is racist, but that doesn’t mean it won’t work.

 But the lowlight was that while Mrs. Obama mentioned "the President" or "the President's" in reference to Donald Trump twelve times, she did not say the name at all. She did not utter the words "Donald Trump."

It's disingenuous to contend "we all know who Michelle was talking about." Viewers knew also whom Martha McSally was talking about and we know when talking of violence by police against black women, Breonna Taylor is Exhibit A.

However, the words on the back of the jerseys of some NBA players read "SAY THEIR NAMES." If asked, they'd first say "Breonna Taylor."  And for both supporters and opponents of this President, it should be Donald Trump, at least two or three times in the space of twelve references. Mentioning "Donald Trump" isn't illegal and- unless he is still President in, say, nine months from now- it never will be.

 

Share |

Zero Tolerance For Me, Not For Thee

The last few years have demonstrated that among the most stupid and most harmful remarks made by a celebrity Democrat in recent years was Michelle Obama's "when they go low, we go high."  And so on Friday night, a few minutes before he made a ridiculous remark about Denmark and health care, Donnie Deutsch on Real Times' Overtime recognized (with context beginning at 0:03 of video below) that Democrats

need to play a little dirty. "When they go low, we go high." (Instead) when they go low, go to the side and give them a noogie when they're not looking. I mean, that's the answer. You don't go to a gunfight with a knife. If the other guy's got a gun, you gotta bring a gun. That's it. It's simple.

(Noogie? Well, O.K.)

Nonetheless, if they're true to form, Democrats will disregard that advice in favor of Mrs. Obama's recommendation.  And so it is that

Freshman Rep. Katie Hill is resigning from Congress after facing allegations of inappropriate sexual relationships with staffers in her office and on her congressional campaign.

“It is with a broken heart that today I announce my resignation from Congress. This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do, but I believe it is the best thing for my constituents, my community and our country,” Hill wrote in a letter announcing the news after it was first reported by POLITICO.

“This is what needs to happen so that the good people who supported me will no longer be subjected to the pain inflicted by my abusive husband and the brutality of hateful political operatives who seem to happily provide a platform to a monster who is driving a smear campaign built around cyber exploitation,” Hill added.

Full evidence is not in but it appears that Hill, though acting inappropriately, is more the victim than the perpetrator. Nevertheless

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has taken a hard line in sexual harassment cases, said in a statement that Hill had made the right decision in stepping down.

"[Hill] has acknowledged errors in judgment that made her continued service as a member untenable," Pelosi said on Sunday night. "We must ensure a climate of integrity and dignity in the Congress, and in all workplaces.”

Hill was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegations of an improper sexual relationship with a male congressional staffer, a claim she denied. Hill admitted to and apologized for an “inappropriate” relationship with a female campaign staffer earlier this week.

Conservative news outlets, pandering to their "family values" voters," responded as expected as

In a statement earlier this week, Hill blamed the ongoing scandal — which included several nude photos of the lawmaker published in conservative online news outlets — on an “abusive husband” whom she is in the middle of divorcing.

Hill's resignation may not have been necessary if Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats had not established a de facto zero-tolerance policy, which is helpful when one wishes to ignore facts of a matter. However, it appears the "climate of integrity and dignity in the Congress" applies only to one party:

Yet, Duncan Hunter is still in office, despite being indicted for wire fraud, falsifying records, campaign finance violations, and conspiracy from misusing $250,000 in campaign funds for personal expenses.

— Chris Lu (@ChrisLu44) October 27, 2019

Share |

Civility Politics

Let us now praise the ever-hopeful and idealistic Michelle Obama.

While campaigning for a Virginia state House candidate, former Attorney General Eric Holder said

They have used the power that they have gotten for all the wrong things. They want to keep themselves in power. They want to cater to the special interests. It is time for us as Democrats to be as tough as they are, to be as dedicated as they are, to be as committed as they are.

Michelle always says- Michelle Obama, I love her, you know she and my wife, like really tight, which really scares me and Barack but Michelle says "when they go low, we go high." No, no.

When they go low, we kick them. That's what, that's what this new Democratic Party is about. We're proud of hell to be Democrats. We're willing to fight for the ideals of the Democratic Party. We;re proud our our history, we're proud of our present and we're proud of the future that we can create for this country and we're not in this just to make a statement. We're in this to win, alright?

To her credit, Michelle Obama responded. To her discredit, she was wrong when she stated

Fear is not — it's not a proper motivator. Hope wins out. And if you think about how you want your kids to be raised, how you want them to think about life & their opportunities, do you want them afraid of their neighbors?”

Hope worked for Senator Obama in the fall of 2008. By the fall of 2012, the bloom was off the rose, Obama's margin over the GOP opponent declined, and only Chief Justice John Roberts' vote to uphold the the President's Affordable Care Act saved the nation from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. In July of 2016, 62%-70% of Americans were "dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time."

Still, President Obama- as is his style- went high and, running for a third Obama term, Hillary Clinton did, also, Unfortunately, her (ultimately winning) opponent did not:

“One of the candidates, as you recall, was predicting that the election was going to be ‘rigged’ in some way,” said Jeh Johnson, the former secretary, referring to President Trump’s unsubstantiated accusation before Election Day. “We were concerned that by making the statement we might, in and of itself, be challenging the integrity of the election process itself.”

Mr. Johnson’s testimony, before the House Intelligence Committee, provided a fresh insight into how the Obama administration tried to balance politically explosive information with the public’s need to know.

Ian Bremmer recalls

The U.S. government under Obama knew what the Russians were doing. Obama was warned repeatedly by Eastern European governments that Russia was meddling in their own elections. And while Latvian elections don’t exactly rank high on the list of an American president’s priorities, the White House could have guessed what the Russians were gearing up to do — and should have sent them a forceful message to knock it off. Obama apparently issued a direct warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin when they met in person in September 2016, but it came too late and had little effect.

So give Michelle Obama some credit. It's not all of us who can convince themselves that the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter bunny exist, and that the American people are yearning for happy talk from politicians.  With any luck, however, she will convince few other Democrats and Eric Holder's clear notion of reality will prevail.

Share |

Failed Strategy

Adoration among Democrats or liberals for an important couple has been a fixture of Democratic and liberal politics.

Sean Illing of Vox recently interviewed Roosevelt University political scientist Sean Illing, author of "It's Time to Fight Dirty," which urges Democrats to recognize that Republicans are fighting a procedural war rather than a policy war.

We cannot, Faris realizes, "restore order by respecting rules that are not respected by Republicans" and thus he recommends Democrats institute several changes, including: 1) breaking up California into six states, which he believes would yield 12 (rather than the current  two) Democratic senators; 2) granting statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which he argues would result in four Democratic senators; 3) eliminating the filibuster, so progressive policy may be legislated; 4) packing the Court with additional (left-wing) Justices.

Evidently, Faris proposes additional moves in his book. Such procedural changes obviously would require a significant control by the Democratic Party, whether in the legislative branch or the executive (depending upon the particular measure).

The change in focus itself is arguably more important than his specific recommendations, of which I believe #1 and #2 are superior to #4, which I prefer to #2.

I haven't read Faris' book and thus am otherwise unfamiliar with his reasoning. But what I find most intriguing about the interview is omission of a critical name by both interviewer and interviewee, although the latter maintains that Democrats must fight dirty as do Republicans.

That name is Obama- and not primarily Barack, whose addition to the discussion might have sidetracked it.

It was convention time on July 25, 2016 when Michelle Obama declared "How we explain that when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don’t stoop to their level. No, our motto is, when they go low, we go high."

Cheers, applause!

The following day, Steve Benen wrote "no speaker in Philadelphia offered a more powerful indictment against Trump than the First Lady."

In October, Mrs. Obama delivered what a headline writer referred to as "Michelle Obama's powerful New Hampshire speech" which included

Now, we need to recover from our shock and depression and do what women have always done in this country. We need you to roll up your sleeves. We need to get to work. Because remember this: When they go low, we go …

Audience: High!

Yes, we do.

Following that speech, the Atlantic's Adrienne LaFrance gushed "The speech has been called “remarkable,”powerful,” “desperately needed,” and possibly disastrous for Trump" and noted

It has become an unofficial anthem for the Clinton campaign: “When they go low, we go high.” The applause line originated with Michelle Obama, in the remarks she gave at the Democratic National Convention in July. Since then, Clinton has frequently invoked the phrase on the trail.

The irony, of course, is that "going low" in the campaign delivered the presidency to a crude and rude habitual liar while "going high" brought an unexpected and devastating defeat to Mrs. Obama's own party.

We should have learned during the previous eight years that when one side fights dirty, the other side will lose playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules. The election provided confirmation. The last 18 months have provided further confirmation.

With an upcoming controversy over a Supreme Court confirmation, the Democratic Party has been provided another opportunity to wise up and invoke the Faris doctrine rather than the Obama doctrine.  Activists could, for example, promote a third party candidacy in the Senate campaigns in West Virginia, Indiana, and North Dakota, where center-right Democratic incumbents have taken Democratic voters for granted.

Opponents obviously must be bold and wise however they fight the Trump appointment to the Supreme court.. But for now, it is as clear as it is unacknowledged: Michelle Obama's strategy leads only to defeat and despair.




Share |

When They Go Low, Go Lower

"When they go low, we go high," Michelle Obama declared at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Campaigning three months later with Hillary Clinton

Our vote is the ultimate way we go high when they go low!” she announced. “Voting is our high!”
She updated the call-and-response, then, yelling, “How do we go high?”
“We vote!” came the answer.

Her presidential candidate won a plurality of votes but lost the election to Donald Trump, aided by Vladimir Putin and James Comey.  Still with no clue in January, Mrs. Obama in an interview with Oprah repeated "When they go low, we go high."

That's not the approach favored by The Rude Pundit, who argues

Forget about the odious cabinet picks, forget about the business conflicts, forget all that other shit that people either don't care about or don't understand so they don't care about it. Instead, hammer Trump and the Republicans on the one goddamned thing that is easy to understand: Was Trump elected because of the Russians? 

On every news show, in every appearance, in constant tweets and all over social media, demand, again and again, for an investigation into Russian hacks. Be as fucking hysterical and hyperbolic as needed. Go fucking nuts. When a Republican accuses Democrats of playing politics, respond with something like "Oh, so you're just fine with Russia electing the president of the United States?" And if they try to evade, push them to say "yes" or "no." Whose side are you on? Russia or the USA? And if you're on the side of the truth, then you should be demanding an independent investigation, no? 

Trump's loathsome idiot hordes will choke on their own troll phlegm in rage, but they're just cult members now,...

Less profanely, Dana Beyer of Gender Rights Maryland remarks

The government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is perishing at the hands of a small proportion of its people, and the apathy of its majority. Drastic measures are needed. The Marquess of Queensberry Rules no longer apply.

Hit below the belt.

When you hit below the belt, do it repeatedly. Stressing the need of the Democratic Party establishment to frame its message more effectively, cognitive linguistics devotee and author George Lakoff explains

Repetition is a way of changing people’s brains. What Trump was doing all through the nomination campaign was that every day he managed to get on TV, and he would repeat different things that activated the same moral framework, and it really worked. In addition you have particular frames that were repeated: “Crooked Hillary,” “crooked Hillary,” “crooked Hillary,”  over and over. There wasn’t anything Hillary did that was crooked. But he kept saying it until people believed it. And they believed it because it was heard enough times to strengthen the neural circuitry in their brains. It wasn’t just stupidity. It’s simply the way brains work.

"Corrupt Donald" won't do because the adjective already has been practically trademarked by Trump.  "Devious Donald" is inadequate and "Terrible Trump" might only endear the President-elect further to his cultists. "Vladimir Putin" has the advantage of both linking Trump to the Russian despot and reminding voters that his election is tainted.

"When they go low, we plunge under the ground beneath them so that the earth swallows them," says Rude Pundit.  "Vladimir Trump wouldn't meet with the approval of Michelle Obama or even Barack Obama but, given the results of the last eight years (Congress in January 2009 below, Congress in January 2017, below that), that would be a good sign.

'




Share |

Paving The Way

Tom Englehardt rhetorically asks

Can there be any question that, in the 15-plus years since 9/11, what was originally called the "Global War on Terror" has become a permanent war across the Greater Middle East and Africa (with collateral damage from Europe to the Philippines)?  In those years, staggering sums of money -- beyond what any other country or even collection of countries could imagine spending -- has poured into the U.S. military and the arms industry that undergirds it and monopolizes the global trade in weaponry.  In the process, Washington became a war capital...

Additionally, he notes

.... the president, as Michelle Obama indicated recently when talking about Trump’s victory with Oprah Winfrey, became, above all, the commander in chief.  (“It is important for the health of this nation,” she told Winfrey, “that we support the commander in chief.”)  The president’s role in wartime had, of course, always been as commander in chief, but now that’s the position many of us vote for (and even newspapers endorse), and since war is so permanently embedded in the American way of life, Donald Trump is guaranteed to remain that for his full term.

He could have added that Donald Trump's credibility (his legitimacy, presumably, already having been established) was enhanced when the First Lady (shoveling it, second video below) referred to him as "commander in chief" as she argued

... because no matter how we felt going into it, it is important for t he health of this nation that we support the commander-in-chief. Wasn't done when my husband took office but  we're going high and this is what's best for the country.

So we are going to be there for the next president and do whatever we have to do to make sure that he is  successful because if he succeeds we all succeed.













He will not be Commander in Chief for Michelle Obama, myself, nor probably for you because he is entrusted under the Constitution to "be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."  That leaves out most of us. Questioning our President, we learned in junior high civics class, is our patriotic duty.  Questioning the "Commander in Chief," however, can be distorted as practically treasonous. Good thing we won't have an authoritarian in the position.

Pledging loyalty to President Trump is not surprising coming from an Obama. As seen in the video below, The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur recognizes "the Obamas don't want to rock the boat. They hate to rock the boat. It's like their least favorite thing on earth."

Not only like their least favorite thing, it is their least favorite thing, as the last eight years and the transition have demonstrated.   Uygur concedes the Obamas must be civil, even helpful, during the transition but thereafter Uygur wants

to fight back against these dangerous ideas- and again to be fair to the Obamas, it's a super tough line to walk. But you know sometimes I get the  sense from the Obamas that you know we're comforable. We tried to fight them and we did our best but we're going oto be O.K. Good luck to the rest of you.

He is

hoping that when it is appropriate President Obama speaks out and speaks out clearly and loudly... that he just doesn't retire to a corner and have the Republicans yell at him "remember, ex-presidents aren't allowed to say anything."

A sentient being the past few decades, Uygur refers to Limbaugh's warning to Obama that he not criticize Trump after the inauguration  and notes "we've seen this trick a thousand times."

Having observed President Barack Obama for over 2900 days, we have reason to conclude: good luck with that thing about ex-President Obama speaking out "loudly and clearly."













Share |

Just Plain Foks

"It's time," a guy may say, to call "bull_ _ _ _ on that."

It's time to call it on Michelle Obama (photo below from Getty Images).  Vox reports that in an interview with Variety magazine, Mrs. Obama stated "My mom says it all the time: 'People are so enamored of Michelle and Barack Obama.'"

Imagine your neighbors, the Owens, telling you: "My mom says it all the time: 'People are so enamored of Jack and Jill Owens."  Humble folk, your neighbors, who know lots of odd people who use the word "enamored."

That statement at least has the advantage of being, in spirit, undoubtedly accurate.  But Mrs. Obama continues

And she says, "There are millions of Michelle and Barack Obamas." We’re not new. We’re not special. People who come from intact families who are educated, who have values, who care for their kids, who raise their kids — if you don’t see that on TV, and you don’t live in communities with people like me..."

There are millions of Michelle and Barack Obamas who, truth be told, are very impressive individuals.   As of 2013, Michelle Obama's net worth was estimated to be approximately 11.1 million dollars and that of her husband (as she would consider it) a paltry seven million dollars.

Unfortunately, the figures for this nation I could easily obtain were for 2009 and for individuals rather than households. Still, they are worthy for comparison with fairness compelling me to use the lower figure, Barack's $7,000,000.  In 2009 there were 320,277 individuals in the USA with equal or greater wealth.

It is difficult to determine their precise standing if Michelle's greater wealth ($11.1 million dollars) were added to Barack's wealth and the household figure of $18.8 million were compared to that of other households seven years later, during which wealth of the richest Americans climbed.  However, given  that the $7,000,000 was the lesser figure and relatively few homes feature two very wealthy individuals, their combined wealth compared to that of other couples would be far more impressive than that of Barack's alone.

One conclusion is clear and certain: there are not millions of Michelle and Barack Obamas. Take away their wealth, a move they would understandably find distasteful, and BO is one of 44 individuals ever to be President, and MO one of 45 First Ladies, of the USA ever.

But, gosh, there are millions of us, just average Americans, Michelle Obama assures us. No doubt you have several neighbors in the same class.  And yet, people are so enamored of us!

As much as the very rich claim they are just like you and me, normally something happens to them on the way up. That is nothing they should apologize for, nor anything they should deny. And if anyone reading this is convinced that were I so advantaged I would be even more self-delusional as Michelle Obama, please feel free to convey to me the mere $7 million or so Barack H. Obama is worth. Stocks, bonds, property, cash, or anything else would be gladly accepted at this blog's address.

I'll send you a nice thank-you note. As Donald Trump would say: believe me.

Share |

Not About Pro Football Or Sexual Preference.

There may be no better time to ponder something insignificant than the day after Christmas. Or at least that's the excuse here.

For Politico, however, it was Christmas Eve when Jennifer Epstein wrote

In all, Obama has gone to services on about 6 percent of the Sundays of his presidency and just once on Christmas Day, in 2011, which also happened to be a Sunday. George W. Bush, by contrast, went to church on close to 30 percent of Sundays during his eight years in office.

But to hear his people tell it,  there does seem to be a spiritual (whatever that means) side to the President.    Epstein adds

“The president’s faith has deepened in the second term; he’s said as much,” said Joshua DuBois, a longtime spiritual adviser to Obama who led the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships during the president’s first term.

“The president’s Christian faith is not connected to or dependent upon anyone else’s beliefs about him, any particular policy issue, any moment in the news cycle or anything else,” DuBois said. “The president’s faith existed long before the While House and will continue after he closes the door to the White House for the last time”....

But the president embraces his faith in other ways, people who see this private side of him say.

DuBois, an ordained Pentecostal minister, and Joel Hunter, a Florida megachurch pastor, are Obama’s two closest religious advisers. A larger circle — which includes evangelical activist Jim Wallis and civil rights movement leader Joseph Lowery, among others — marks the president’s birthday each year, and many in the same group attend the Easter Prayer Breakfast and other White House events throughout the year. Keeping up a practice that DuBois began during the 2008 campaign, they also send Obama daily devotionals — prayers, poems and other messages — that he reads on his BlackBerry.

“Reading scripture every day yields a certain amount of personal growth, and he’s done this every day for years,” Hunter said. At prayer breakfasts and other gatherings, Hunter has seen “a man who really enjoys talking about his faith” and who “seems at home.”

Someone reportedly so devoted to his faith ("religion" is so 20th century) would be expected to attend a church more often than 19 times in the roughly 308 weeks he has been in office. However,

the key reason the president doesn’t go to church more often, DuBois and others close to him said, is because he worries that his presence detracts from other worshipers’ experience.

Obama found out how difficult it would be for him to go to church before he even became president, when he and his family were swarmed by well-wishers and photo-takers at Washington’s Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, one of the nation’s oldest black churches, on the Sunday before his 2009 inauguration.

“When folks see the line forming outside, a lot of folks who don’t attend that congregation go in,” DuBois said. “It displaces a lot of people who are members of that church or at least interrupts them.”

We've heard this before.  A few days after Senator Obama was elected president, Jordy (not the Jordy below) Yaeger noted "President Bush is widely known for his religious beliefs, but for eight years has not frequented a local church, at times citing security concerns. Ronald Reagan also did not attend a church regularly, saying that after the attempt on his life it was too great a risk."

The security angle is a good reason for a President, though Time'sAmy Sullivan in November, 2008 suggested five churches in the District the Obamas might attend and one other (Memorial Chapel at Fort Myer) in which "the First Family wouldn't have to worry about security because it's already on an Army base" (and whose members are racially diverse and "focused on service").

But if security is the reason the Obamas eschew Sunday morning worship, the President's wife, did not get the memo.  Epstein inadvertently lets us in on the secret, explaining

“We try to go to church as much as possible, but when the kids get older, you know, Sunday is some kind of practice, rehearsal, birthday party, you know. So getting us all together on a Sunday is becoming more difficult now that the girls are getting older,” first lady Michelle Obama said in an interview on “Live with Kelly and Michael” timed to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll this year.

There you have it. The Obamas don't go to church because it simply isn't important enough (to them or to her), as it is with many American families. But as Jerry Seinfeld would have put it (videos below), "not that there's anything wrong with that."   Among churchgoers, there are liberals and conservatives; Democrats and Republicans; vegetarians and carnivores; devout believers, agnostics, and even some atheists. Among non-churchgoers, there are the same.

It's easy to understand why Obama's camp would not want to be straight with the American people as to why the President's family isn't regularly in the pews on the Lord's Day. Going to church is not synonymous with believing in God, nor is avoiding church synonymous with not believing in a supreme being. But it is not by coincidence there has not been a president, nor a current member of the U.S. Congress, who has admitted being an atheist. The opportunity for political exploitation is boundless.

There is one thing that would be more dangerous for Barack Obama- who may be as devout as his advisers maintain he is- to state than that he has questions about the existence of God.  It is Michelle, not Barack, who complained that it is difficult to make it to church on Sunday. If Mr. Obama went unaccompanied by his wife, tails would wag. Conservatives who now are concerned that the President doesn't go to a regular worship service would lose their minds if he went without his wife. Imagine speculation from The National Enquirer- and that's not the worst of the supermarket tabloid rags.

If America is to have an honest conversation about race, it ought to have one about religious faith, also. Don't hold your breath waiting for either.

















Share |

Oh, How Alarmed We Are About School Segregation!

The speech (excerpt, below) in Topeka, Kansas marking the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court's school desegregation ruling should have been good for a few yucks because

First lady Michelle Obama marked the 60th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that ended school segregation during a speech on Friday before graduating high school seniors in Topeka, Kansas.

In her prepared remarks, the first lady praised the legacy of that decision, Brown v. Board of Education, noting the diversity of the crowd before her. But she also warned that the specter of school segregation is returning as people of different races cluster in separate communities, urging the graduates to continue striving for inclusion and mutual understanding.

"I think it's fitting that we're celebrating this historic Supreme Court case tonight, not just because Brown started right here in Topeka or because Brown's 60th anniversary is tomorrow, but because I believe that all of you -- our soon-to-be-graduates -- you all are the living, breathing legacy of this case," she said. "Just look around this arena. Look at all the colors, cultures and faiths represented here tonight."

That diversity "would have been unimaginable back in 1954," she said, when a group of black parents in Kansas took their fight for school integration all the way to the Supreme Court.

"Today, 60 years later, that probably seems crazy to all of you in this graduating class," she said. "But remember, not everyone has grown up in a place like Topeka."

"You see, many districts in this country have actually pulled back on efforts to integrate their schools and many communities have become less diverse as folks have moved from cities to suburbs," she explained. "So today, by some measures, our schools are as segregated as they were back when Dr. King gave his final speech. As a result, many young people in America are going to school largely with kids who look just like them."

That segregation, Obama said, is worsened by the fact that many schools serving predominantly minority communities are not as well-equipped as schools in other areas.

She also said the problems created by a lack of diversity don't stop in the classroom.

Even funnier was the Secretary of Education when he remarked (as Diane Ravitch reported) on Tuesday at the national seminar of the Education Writers Association

While the Education Department has promoted a number of programs and measures to improve the achievement of disadvantaged students, the singularly thorny problem of racially isolated schools has remained and has worsened... While [Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 107 LRP 36247 (1954)] struck down de jure segregation as unconstitutional, de facto school seg- regation has worsened in many respects in the last two decades, Since 1991, all regions of the nation have experienced an increase in the percentage of black students who attend highly segregated schools, where 90 percent or more of students are students of color. Here in the South, more than a third of black students attend such racially isolated schools. In the Northeast, more than 50 percent do.

Both of these people seem to be interested in integration.  But Michelle Obama is married to President Barack Obama, who appointed Arne Duncan as his Secretary of Education. Shortly after being approved to the position, Duncan raved "The charter movement is absolutely one of the most profound changes in American education, bringing new options to underserved communities and introducing competition and innovation into the education system."  He warned "states that don't have charter laws or put artificial caps on the growth of charter schools will jeopardize their applications under the Race to the Top fund.  Simply put, they put themselves at a competitive disadvantage for the largest pool of discretionary dollars states have ever had access to."

One critic responded by charging "He's blackmailing states, saying you either have to have charters... or lift the caps, or your stimulus money will be at risk. There's no evidence out there to justify it."

Oh, but there is a justification- it's called segregation.

Experimental psychologist and education researcher Iris C. Rotberg has found

Studies in a number of different states and school districts in the U.S. show that charter schools often lead to increased school segregation (Bifulco & Ladd, 2007; Booker, Zimmer, & Buddin, 2005; Cobb & Glass, 2003; Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2013; Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2011; Furgeson et al., 2012; Garcia, 2008; Glenn, 2011; Michelson, Bottia, & Southworth, 2008; Nathanson, Corcoran, & Baker-Smith, 2013), a finding that is consistent with research in a number of other countries, including Australia (Luke, 2010), Canada (Yoon & Gulson, 2010), Chile (Elacqua, 2012), Denmark (Rangvid, 2007), England (Burgess, Wilson, & Lupton, 2005), Germany (Pietsch & Stubbe, 2007), Israel (Nir, Inbar, & Eyal, 2010), the Netherlands (Karsten, Felix, Ledoux, & Meijnen, 2006), New Zealand (Thomson, 2010), and Sweden (Böhlmark & Lindahl, 2007). In many cases, school choice programs exacerbate current school segregation and, in more heterogeneous settings, lead to the stratification of students who were previously in integrated environments.

The primary exceptions to increased student stratification are in communities that are already so highly segregated by race, ethnicity, and income that further increases are virtually impossible, or they occur in school choice programs that are targeted to increase diversity — not a goal of most charter schools or school choice programs generally (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2012; Ritter, Jensen, Kisida, & McGee, 2010).

Michelle Obama may be excused for bloviating about school resegregation, given that she is not in a policy-making position, and her speech was as much a platform to promote same-sex marriage and immigration reform, and to slam racial profiling.

But Arne Duncan is the man appointed by Obama to be his point-man to undermine (or as their educational allies call it, "reform") public education with charter schools, which promote segregation and whose results are at best on a par with the traditional public school.  The YouTube video below is amusingly entitled "MIchelle Obama warns of encroaching segregation."  She can talk all she wants, but the policies advanced by her husband and his Education Secretary promote that very same segregation.

Share |

Go Ahead. Talk About Race. I Dare You.

Michelle Obama supports Donald Sterling. She hasn't said so, of course, and probably has little more than contempt for him because of what he believes, though as an Obama, she probably admires him for the obscene wealth he has been able to accumulate.

At the height of the controversy over Sterling's thoughts, Brayden Goyette of The Huffington Post noted the Los Angeles Clippers' owner had been sued twice, in 2003 and in 2006, for housing discrimination and

The first suit, brought by 19 tenants with the help of the nonprofit Housing Rights Center, accused Sterling of forcing blacks and Latinos out of his rental properties, and ended in a confidential settlement in 2005. The second accused him of refusing to rent to African-Americans in Beverly Hills and to non-Koreans in LA's Koreatown. It ended in a record $2.725 million payout to the Justice Department. Sterling denied wrongdoing in both cases.

Most people were not aware of Sterling's apparent history of racial discrimination and even fewer cared, at least among the monied interests which control the NBA and the mainstream media. Sterling was spared appropriate opprobrium in the court of public opinion because he had acted nefariously, rather than engaging in offensive speech, which would have raised more eyebrows.

Sterling instead has been banned from the National Basketball Association, which appears not to have cared a whit that the owner of one of its teams profited handsomely from illegally restricting the housing choices of blacks whom, you may have heard, constitute a substantial portion of the players in the NBA.  Instead, he has been punished and ostracized for what would more fittingly be termed thoughts, rather than behavior or even speech. Sterling's conversation with his girlfriend was conducted in private, not for attribution, and thus did not even rise to the level of the storied speech in the public square, constitutionally protected from government regulation.

That should have brought him support from the First Lady (photo below from Politico), who marked the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education by telling high school seniors in Topeka "This issue is so sensitive, it’s so complicated, so bound up with a painful history. No matter what you do, the point is to never be afraid to talk about these issues, particularly the issue of race, because even today, we still struggle to do that."

Inadvertently, Donald Sterling talked of race, and it is proving to have been a very, very costly mistake.   Mrs. Obama really didn't mean there should be an honest, if uncomfortable, discussion of race, given that it was a mere prelude to the more sincere "We know that today in America, too many folks are still stopped on the street because of the color of their skin, or they’re made to feel unwelcome because of where they come from, or they’re bullied because of who they love."  Advocacy of illegal immigration and of same-sex marriage, as well as opposition to racial profiling are issues supported by the Democratic establishment, ones conveniently dovetailing with causes the donor base is comfortable with.

No surprise there, coming from the creator of the "Let's Move" campaign, in which the First Lady boldly came out in favor of exercise while fooling some of us into thinking she was deeply concerned about diet and nutrition. Following publication of  "Fat Chance: The Bitter Truth About Sugar" by pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig," The Guardian in March 2013 reported Lustig explaining

"Government has tied its wagon to the food industry because, at least in America, 6% of our exports are food. That includes the legislative and executive branches. So the White House is in bed with the food industry and Congress apologises (sic) for the food industry.

Michelle Obama appeared to be onside when she launched her Let's Move initiative in February 2010 with a speech to the Grocery Manufacturers Association of America. "She took it straight to them and said, 'You're the problem. You're the solution.' She hasn't said it since. Now it's all about exercise.

"Far be it from me to bad-mouth somebody who wants to do the right thing. But I'm telling you right now she's been muzzled. No question of it." In his book he tells of a private conversation with the White House chef, who he claims told him the administration agreed with him but did not want a fight with the food industry.

So Michelle Obama speaks of immigration and gay rights, issues which will not offend the interests which have controlled her husband's Administration.  And she criticizes racism and declares that we all should not be afraid to talk about race.   Donald Sterling tried that, in private.  Good luck doing that in public, unless the views expressed are compatible with those of certain people.

Share |

Water Mafia

Michelle Obama is an extremist and radical provocateur.  Her latest pronouncement is especially provocative, controversial, even un-American.  Politico's Josh Gerstein caught up with the First Lady at a high school in Watertown, Wisconsin, where she dangerously claimed

I've come to realize that if we were going to take just one step to make ourselves and our families healthier, probably the single best thing we could do is to simply drink more water.  It's as simple as that. Drink just one more glass of water a day and you can make a real difference for your health, for your energy and the way that you feel.

Now she has gone too far!

A kidney specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, argued

I think, unfortunately, frankly, they're not basing this on really hard science. It's not a very scientific approach they've taken...To make it a major public health efort, I think I would say it's bizarre..... The idea drinking water increases energy, the word I've used to describe it is: quixotic. We're disingned to drink when we're thirsty... There's no need to have more than that.

The president of the American Public Health Association, Dr. George Benjamin, cautioned "There is a lot of controversy about how much water you need to drink as water.  I think certainly you should be drinking as much fluid as you need" (which, presumably, would be coffee, soda, or, better yet, scotch and soda).

And, of course, Rush Limbaugh, who claimed "Big Bottled Water, or Big Bottled Water is Big Soft Drink. That's who's pushing this."  Ever the populist, he seemed to be calling for a Million Oil Baron march on Washington, remarking

You know, I've always been amazed.  The price of bottled water is far more expensive if you measure it by the gallon. When you go to the store and buy it, it's far more expensive than a gallon of gasoline. 

The guys that produce the water don't have to do anything.  They don't have to drill for it, they don't have to explore for it, they don't have to get permission from the government to go do things wherever they want. They don't scour the world. They don't have to go down 5,000 feet below the ocean floor to get it.  They just turn on somebody's tap, and they claim it comes from some spring.  I always thought if I was in the oil business, I'd really be ticked off that the bottled water guys are able to charge that much.

Rush Limbaugh's mega-mansion lies in Palm Beach in southern Florida on its east coast.   It's a well-populated area, where gasoline apparently costs less than the $1.00-$1.50 per gallon charged almost everywhere for bottled water.  It faces an unparalleled population boom as tens of thousands of his listeners descend on the area to take advantage of $1 gallon gasoline.  It's back to the future, circa 1980!

But though Rush clearly needs to get out more, his argument about "the price of bottled water" is intended to divert attention from Obama's aim.  She did not recommend individuals pick up a gallon or 24-pack of Deer Park, Nestle's, Poland Spring, Dasani or any other specific brand-name product.  She did not advocate even the consumption of bottled water in general and, as available evidence has it, is not pimping for any company.

She's merely promoting the ingestion of water- from a bottle, straight from the tap, filtered from the tap, however you want it.   And while Gerstein notes  "the new pro-water drive has the support of bottled water companies, tap water providers, reusable bottle makers and companies that provide water filtering equipment," he adds "as a price of admission to the campaign, they've been required not to criticize one another or other beverage choices."   Doubtless, though, Obama is aware that the high-fructose corn syrup commonly used in soft drinks not artificially, sweetened  is a major cause of numerous ailments, including (but not limited to) heart disease, obesity, cancer, dementia, liver failure, and tooth decay... when used in moderation.

Obama probably has at least a working knowledge, moreover, that, as a reporter for The Daily Beast explained

One recent report in General Dentistry found that heavy consumption diet soft drinks can erode teeth as much as much as crystal meth or crack cocaine. A 2012 study found that drinking a diet soda every day can lead to strokes, heart disease, and is often associated with other unhealthy behaviors. And a 2010 study found a link between women who drank diet soda while pregnant and the risk of preterm delivery.

Perhaps drinking more water won't give any one person a sudden or prolonged burst of energy, desired weight loss, or a lifespan akin to that of Methuselah (definitely not that one). But skeptics of this facet of Michelle Obama's "Get Moving" campaign appear to be missing the forest for the trees.  Human beings will drink- beer, whiskey, wine, fruit juice, "fruit drinks," coffee, tea, or whatever their beverage of choice. Obama is not ordering anyone to drink anything, nor even trying to shame people into consuming a particular item. She is merely advocating what is, for most people and for the nation, the most healthful choice.



Share |

All Hail Entertainers


Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, comprising a group of individuals which periodically contributes to Daily Kos, explained

When you look at individual ads or pictures that objectify women, it's not that a single ad directly causes violence or is the sole contributor to harm against women. When society and culture turn women's bodies into objects, this creates a climate where "violence and exploitation of women are both tolerated and tacitly encouraged." It makes it easier to mistreat women when we have the status of objects rather than people.   Whether it is racism, sexism, heterosexism, transgender discrimination, or terrorism, objectification is "almost always the first step toward justifying violence against that person."

Sometimes when a woman objects to a picture that objectifies women and girls, she is accused of being a sexual prude, or previously abused by men, or just can't take a joke.  However,there is a difference between our sexuality and women as sexual objects. It is the objectification that dehumanizes women, and harms women personally, and in all spheres of our lives, including economic, political, educational, health care, social and cultural.

The post was dated August 12, 2012, which apparently was a long, long time ago.  Today, Think Progress' Alyssa Rosenberg sharply criticizes the Weekly Standard's Kathryn Lopez, who blogged of Beyonce's halftime performance

I don’t want to linger on this, but last night’s Super Bowl half-time show was ridiculous — and gratuitously so. Watching Twitter, it was really no surprise that men made comments about stripper poles and putting dollar bills through their TV sets, was it?

Why can’t we have a national entertainment moment that does not include a mother gyrating in a black teddy?

Rosenberg argued

What Lopez appears to object to, and what overrides for her any other consideration of ways in which Beyoncé might be a role model—including her financial success and careful control of her image— is the sight of a woman living in and very much enjoying her body, without needing to secure anyone else’s approval or ensure anyone else’s enjoyment. One of the hallmarks of Beyoncé’s lyrics, both with Destiny’s Child, and as a solo artist, is that no one is entitled to access to her. “Move, groove, prove you can hang with me / By the looks I got you shook up and scared of me,” she sang in “Bootylicious,” with its famous chorus. She warned a loutish boyfriend “Don’t you ever for a second get to thinking you’re irreplaceable.” In “Countdown,” she describes a relationship of equals, where she’ll “Do whatever that it takes, he got a winner’s mind / Give it all to him, meet him at the finish line,” and where “Yup, I buy my own, if he deserve it, buy his shit too.” And in “Independent Women,” Beyoncé and Destiny’s Child warned women “If you’re gonna brag make sure it’s your money you flaunt / Depend on no one else to give you what you want.”

This wasn't a Beyonce concert nor a brief appearance singing on a television program which would be watched disproportionately by her fans, but a performance before a (nearly captive) audience of hundreds of millions of individuals, young, old, and middle-aged, and of every demographic stripe.  It was, presumably, geared to the enjoyment of a tremendously wide swath of the American people- and of people worldwide, to innumerable individuals who also don't know much about Beyonce nor much care. So in the interests of full disclosure:  I, like those individuals, don't know much about Beyonce's lyrics or whether Rosenberg has quoted them in context, nor do I care. Nor do I know of the performer's careful control of her marriage, nor do I care- anymore than I cared about whether President Clinton "had sex with that woman" or President Obama goes skeet shooting.  All that now has been eclipsed by a performance on the third most-viewed television program in American history.

My impressions, therefore- like those of the others- are not likely to be of Beyonce's fine marriage or compelling lyrics but of her objectification, or what liberals/progressives as recently as six months ago identified as objectification.    Nor are those impressions intended- by CBS, Beyonce, corporate sponsors or anyone else in any way involved in the production- meant to be of her lyrics or marriage.  Rosenberg has been played, and is blissfully unaware.

Rosenberg can be forgiven for being manipulated.  She likely was provoked in part by the swipe taken by Lopez at the wife of the President.  The NRO blogger had remarked "it seems quite disappointing that Michelle Obama would feel the need to tweet about how 'proud' she is of Beyonce."

Lopez does not go into detail about being disappointed but she might have added "revealing."  Dictionary.com defines "proud" as "feeling pleasure or satisfaction over something regarded as highly honorable or creditable to oneself."    Merriam-Webster gives examples:   They are the proud parents of a hero; I was proud that I never gave in; She's the proud owner of a new car; Her proudest accomplishment was to finish high school.

In what sense, then, is Michelle Obama- a big fan of Beyonce- proud of the performer?  Is Mrs. Obama, unbeknownst to most of us, a relative?  Perhaps she was once her agent? She was, at least, once Beyonce's mentor, no?

No.  In addition to being gleeful about Beyonce's performance, Michelle Obama is- if on the left we're allowed to say so- a bit prideful.    The second definition Dictionary.com gives for "proud" is, conveniently, "having proceeding from, or showing a high opinion of one's own dignity, importance, or superiority."  While Michelle Obama ought to know a great deal about pride, she clearly knows less of women as sexual objects.  But so it goes with Mrs. Obama, and so it goes with entertainers.  It would be so declasse to linger.





Share |

Of M. Obama and Fox News


Let's help out Fox News hosts Chris Wallace and Britt Hume.   First, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt by attributing to ignorance, rather than dishonesty, their comments following the speech (transcript here) last night of Michelle Obama.   Then, we'll disabuse them of their misguided notion, then suggest where they legitimately could have criticized the First Lady.

Wallace, (poorly) playing the part of the objective reporter on the convention floor, remarked

I thought it was an OK speech but as you heard her delivery, it was just masterful. And she was reading from a Teleprompter. But you couldn’t tell. It seemed to come totally from her heart and very much seemed to affect the crowd... I’ve got to say, listening closely to the speech, one of the things that struck me was it was all about government. When she talked at the beginning about the people who exemplified the best of the American spirit, she talked about teachers and first responders and the military. All very admirable professions. But all government.When she talked about ways to build the middle class, it was all about the auto bailout and student loans and health care reform. Once again, all government programs. And that was a subtle subtext to the entire speech.

As one of Fox News' commentators, Hume a moment later contended “There was no mention… about the private sector."

Admittedly, Michelle Obama did speak of public employees:  of teachers; of "heroes" flying across the country to put out a fire … driving for hours to bail out a flooded town;" and of soldiers, "our men and women in uniform and our proud military families … in wounded warriors who tell me they’re not just going to walk again, they’re going to run, and they’re going to run marathons … in the young man blinded by a bomb in Afghanistan."  

That would be one more time than Mitt Romney mentioned Afghanistan... or American soldiers... or rescue workers.   And Obama acknowledged that she and her husband couldn't do it alone, that "nearly all of our tuition came from student loans and grants."    No man or woman an island, but "so many people had a hand in our success."   They needed help, and Americans- collectively- responded, a tendency distasteful to Fox News.

But while it is true that the First Lady cited "government" as often- zero times- as she did the "private sector," she did in fact refer to the private sector, specifically "where a steel plant had shut down."  Of course, GOP TV would not acknowledge that steel workers are private employees, given that it might bring up inconvenient thoughts of GSX Steel, closed after Romney's Bain Capital  "forced the company to take on hundreds of millions in debt to pay themselves and finance acquisitions, ultimately leading it towards bankruptcy."

Nearly to the extent of Ann Romney's speech to the GOP convention, Mrs. Obama's speech was content-free, as virtually required by law when a male candidate's spouse addresses delegates.   She did deviate, however, from her emphasis on family biography when, without sadness, regret, or irony as a Democrat, she stated "I’ve seen it in teachers in a near-bankrupt school district who vowed to keep teaching without pay."   Digby observes

The best of the human spirit is not being forced to work yourself into an early grave, whether it's here or in Greece. There was too much extolling of the American worker's willingness to work more hours for less pay in various speeches last night. As long as 1%ers like Mitt and Ann Romney are spending millions for dressage horses that's just not acceptable.

A "news" network committed to the election of conservative Republicans, however, cannot find anything wrong with the idea of public sector employees working pro bono (or private sector employees for a $7.25 minimum wage).   Not when President Obama is accused by his opponents of running down the private sector while all net job loss during his Administration has taken place in the public sector and corporate profits have risen 58% since mid-2009.   And not when the GOP presidential candidate, during his entire acceptance speech, cold find no room to praise teachers, police, firefighters, armed service personnel, health care workers, or any public employees, save the late Neil Armstrong.   To Fox News, then, as to many of the powers in the Party for which the network advocates, the only good public employee is a _____ public employee.  You fill in the blank.

Share |