The Cliche, 'A Bad Bet'; The Reality, Worse

Long before Mitt Romney's "47 percent" video came to light, supporters of Barack Obama recognized the Achilles heel of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee and turned their attention to the role of private equity in destroying jobs, families, and communities.

Some Democratic politicos balked, however, with former Philadelphia mayor, Pennsylvania governor, and DNC chairman Ed Rendell arguing "I think they're very disappointing.  I think Bain is fair game, because Romney has made it fair game.  But I think how you examine it, the tone, what you say, is important as well."   More recently, Fast Eddie has become the charismatic face of Fix the Debt, one of the Village groups shilling for private equity and the rest of the big money guys with a self-serving interest in obsessing over the deficit.  Advocating a de facto reduction of Social Security benefits by adoption of chained CPI or increase in eligibility age, Rendell has remained one of the nation's highest-profile Democrats.

Amid news that Pennsylvania in 2012 replaced New Jersey as the state with the greatest gambling revenue, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports he now is boasting

When I said gambling would produce $1 billion in tax revenue, they (the media and Republicans) really mocked me.  I knew we would succeed. I had read all the studies that said Pennsylvanians were... gambling in other states and we were not getting any benefit at all.

The tens of thousands of jobs... translating to direct and indirect development throughout our casinos and racetracks, is vindication for me. And the 150,000 seniors who have had their school property taxes zeroed out by gaming tax revenue, and another 200,000 seniors who had them cut by 50 percent.

No one can blame Rendell for being wise enough not to mention the increase in divorce, suicide, and gambling which come with legalized gambling.  Nor should he have been expected to explain that most of those entertainment dollars, procured largely from Pennsylvania residents, would have in the absence of legalized gambling been spent elsewhere in the state.   Pennsylvania's residents would have benefited from increased spending on movies, dining, consumer goods, and other purchases.

Politicians and gambling advocates ignore those net costs while touting the short-term, gross economic benefits which Rendell outlined.  But in a development likely to increase the social costs of legalized gambling while decreasing the revenues it generates for the Commonwealth, the right-wing Repub governor, Tom Corbett, has embarked on an effort to privatize the state lottery. The Keystone Research Center maintains

A plan to privatize the operation of the Pennsylvania Lottery would be a good deal for the private bidder but carries significant risk for the Pennsylvania seniors who benefit from lottery proceeds, according to a new report from the Keystone Research Center.

“Only one bidder has come forward, promising 30-year profits that barely match inflation despite plans to introduce new games like Keno,” said Stephen Herzenberg, author of the report and executive director of the Keystone Research Center. “The Corbett administration should slow down and thoroughly examine whether this is a good deal for Pennsylvania...

Camelot Global Services is the sole company to bid on the privatization contract, which should be a major concern for the commonwealth, the report states. Illinois and Indiana are the only other states to privatize lottery operations, and in both cases the states got more than one bid.

“How does Pennsylvania know it is getting a good deal with only one bidder?” Herzenberg asked. “And is it wise, with such limited experience in other states, to lock the commonwealth into a privatized lottery for a generation?

“Just as for a home-owner seeking a roofing contractor, getting a single bid should be a red flag, a warning sign of a possible fleecing,” he added.

The (Lancaster, Pa.) Intelligencer Journal, which supports privatization of the liquor business, asks a more fundamental question.  Concerned not only about the Governor's process but also the concept of turning the business over to the private sector, the editors explain

The Pennsylvania Lottery, which is considered to be one of the more effective state lotteries, has basically one mission: to sell lottery tickets, the proceeds of which benefit senior citizen programs. Maybe an outside vendor can do a better job of that.

But do we want a vastly better job?

What Gov. Corbett proposes to do, at heart, is to expand gambling in Pennsylvania, yet again. We expected that of his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell. We had higher hopes for Gov. Corbett.

The gambling beast always wants more, more, more. Since the Lottery was created in 1972, it has metastasized. The same is true of casinos since the Legislature's dead-of-night action to legalize slot machines in 2004. Now we don't just have slots — we have table games.

Apparently, whether Gov. Corbett decides to privatize or not, we're going to have Keno as part of the lottery.

And where does the money come from? Studies show that, disproportionately, lottery revenue comes from low-income people — from those least able to afford to lose.

Privatizing the lottery will mean more aggressive promotion, more sales outlets, more pitches to buy, buy, buy — selling false hope to those in desperate need of hope.

If Harrisburg wants to pay for senior citizen programs, Harrisburg should fund those programs with taxes that share the burden across economic classes, rather than forcing the bottom 50 percent of society to pick up the tab.

So which is it, Gov. Corbett? Do you want to feed the needy — or prey on them?

Twenty-three years ago, before George F. Will descended into extreme conservatism and "lottery" was synonymous with "government-run lottery," the columnist wrote (link unavailable)

By blurring the distinction between well-earned and "ill-gotten" gains- a distinction blurred enough by Michael Milken, LBO's and other phenomena- government-run gambling repudiates an idea once important to this republic's sense of virtue. The idea is that citizens are distinguished more by the moral worth of the way they make money than by how much money they make.

In his current ideological incarnation, Will might not admit that lotteries turned over, or leased, to private interests blur the line even more effectively than government because they are more aggressive in rounding up customers and in selling the concept of risk for risk's sake.   But that is how it works, and it provides more reason for resisting state governments which care only about the quick buck.


Share |

Mission Accomplished


I come not to bury Joy-Ann Reid.  I come also not to praise Joy Reid, though she apparently understands that the excessive violence in sports is more damaging to youth than to professional athletes.  In a discussion Sunday about  the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports,  she noted

Right, exactly, and I mean, I think that for parents of kids who play sports, this whole spectacle has been even more depressing, because, I just lived in Florida, which is a factory for little football players, and no one talks about the injuries these kids are suffering. The extent to which they`re destroying their growing bodies in order to play this sport, because sports has this great iconography that is almost all a lie. That`s sort of a lesson we`re learning.

Sports has (have?) become a sacred cow in America, and Reid called them on it.

But on MSNBC there is another sacred cow.  Despite critics who lump MSNBC in with Fox News as the liberal answer to conservative excess, MSNBC is only accidentally a liberal network.  And it is only accidentally a conservative network.  It is not only accidentally an Obama network- and few (o.k., a few) individuals demonstrate this as Reid, managing editor of thegrio.com and MSNBC contributor.

In Chris Hayes' inestimable program (virtually buried Saturday and Sunday mornings on MSNBC), Reid on Sunday (show transcript, here) not only drew the connection between drug use and violence in sports and the obscene elevation of sports in American culture, but also about Guantanamo and the Persian Gulf.

During the course of this blog, Guantanamo Bay has been the topic of a post only twice and is something I'm not now going to "relitigate"- as politicians put it when they want to avoid an issue.  (It's not even a word, making it an even more splendid dodge.)  But Reid's remark Sunday served as a reminder of her value to MSNBC not in the insight she brings when she chooses but in her shilling, however subtle, for Barack Obama.   In a discussion of the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director, another of Hayes' guests, Ellen Goodman, explained

He`s also been there for four years of President Obama. And they`re involved with the drone program. I just came from Doha, Qatar where I was covering the climate change summit, but during that time, I went over to al-Jazeera and they interviewed the only journalist who was held at Guantanamo for six years. His name is Sami Al-Haj, never charged, released after six years. Held in Afghanistan, then in Guantanamo. He was tortured, he was constantly interrogated about what -- who were the bosses at al-Jazeera. It was an astounding story of how this man was held, only freed after a 400 day hunger fast.

The reason I raise Sami al-Haj is when people watch the Senate confirmation hearings of John Brennan, he`s an example of one of the few voices of the voiceless who can describe the reality of what is happening on the ground at Guantanamo. This is not just about John Brennan. It goes to President Obama as well who promised to close it. It`s now the fourth anniversary of President Obama promising to close it.

Cue Joy Reid, exquisitely sensitive on behalf of Barack Obama, who responded "And Congress blocked it. We need to remember, Congress is also implicated in that. I mean, it was one of the first executive orders."   When Goodman, apparently trying to question her obeisance to the Executive Branch, stated "absolutely fine, but-" Reid interjected "And Democrats wouldn't vote for it."

But the 'but' is critical, its absence tending to absolve the President of responsibility.  Last July, Glenn Greenwald wrote

What made Guantanamo controversial was not its physical location: that it was located in the Caribbean Sea rather than on American soil (that’s especially true since the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the camp). What made Guantanamo such a travesty — and what still makes it such — is that it is a system of indefinite detention whereby human beings are put in cages for years and years without ever being charged with a crime. President Obama’s so-called “plan to close Guantanamo” — even if it had been approved in full by Congress — did not seek to end that core injustice. It sought to do the opposite: Obama’s plan would have continued the system of indefinite detention, but simply re-located it from Guantanamo Bay onto American soil.

Long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. President Obama fully embraced indefinite detention — the defining injustice of Guantanamo — as his own policy...

When the President finally unveiled his plan for “closing Guantanamo,” it became clear that it wasn’t a plan to “close” the camp as much as it was a plan simply to re-locate it — import it — onto American soil, at a newly purchased federal prison in Thompson, Illinois. William Lynn, Obama’s Deputy Defense Secretary, sent a letter to inquiring Senators that expressly stated that the Obama administration intended to continue indefinitely to imprison some of the detainees with no charges of any kind.

At first glance, it would appear that at least President Obama wanted to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, a symbol to much of the world of U.S. arrogance.   Call me Machiavaellian- but I doubt it.  Rather, it's likely that Obama, who uniquely thinks two chess steps ahead of others, realized that a plan to re-locate the camp in the U.S.A. would incite a torrent of opposition.  Eventually deciding not to close the prison, he avoided virulent opposition from the hard right while maintaining support from his apologists, who have been able to argue that he made an effort or, as less generously described by Greenwald,  "classic Obama: a pretty, feel-good, empty symbolic gesture (get rid of the symbolic face of Bush War on Terror excesses) while preserving the core abuses (the powers of indefinite detention ), even strengthening and expanding those abuses by bringing them into the U.S."

That abuse of power was further defended by Reid, who later in the program responded to criticism of the Executive branch's drone program, greatly expanded under the current President, by arguing

And by the way, shock and awe, dropping cluster bombs all over Iraq, also killed a lot of civilians, but we had a Congress that authorized the president of the United States, George W. Bush, to wage unlimited war on terrorists, to decide who those terrorists were and to go and kill them, whether killing them with bunker buster bombs or killing them with drones.

When the Congress of the United States gives to the president the power to wage war, it`s very rare that an executive gives back power. That`s why we have a balance of power.

Uh, no.  Ceding to the President a power, one never returned, in times of national urgency is not "why we have a balance of power."  It undermines the balance of power, vesting it almost entirely in the Executive, giving him/her authority disfavored by the Founders.

Congress increasingly has allowed the Executive branch to assume additional power over the past several decades. However, with those added prerogatives goes additional responsibility- or should.  President Obama shouldn't be given a free pass by the left simply because he is constantly under attack by the right.  But with the likes of Joy Reid, Chris Matthews, Melissa Harris-Perry and Al Sharpton at MSNBC, "shouldn't" is not "won't."




Share |

Priorities Skewed, And Not

Every child in public school is introduced to the United States Constitution, including Article IV, Section 2.  Perhaps you remember that it begins "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, including the right to an Academy Award."

Weren't you aware of that provision?   Neither was I until directed to it by co-chairperson Amy Pascal of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Sony Pictures Entertainment is the production/distribution company for Zero Dark Thirty, nominated for five Academy Awards, including best movie.   By all accounts it is an impressive movie but Martin Sheen and Ed Asner, two actors accustomed to liberal advocacy, have criticized the film.  And deciding that principle trumps artistry, actor David Clennon has announced

I firmly believe that the film Zero Dark Thirty promotes the acceptance of the crime of torture, as a legitimate weapon in America's so-called war on terror. In that belief, following my conscience, I will not vote for Zero Dark Thirty in any category...I cannot vote for a film that makes heroes of Americans who commit the crime of torture.

Appearing on Cenk Uygur's The Young Turks, former CIA operative Lindsay Moran explains

It is an amazing movie, but very revealing about the entire hunt for Osama bin Laden.   It contains a lot of disturbing scenes of detainees being tortured...  What I find ironic is the government claiming that this is classified information and would put Americans at risk at the very same time that two Hollywood filmmakers were given unprecedented access to the CIA -- basically made an infomercial about CIA interrogation.

But exploding in righteous indignation, SONY President Pascal thundered

To not include that part of history would have been irresponsible and inaccurate. We fully support Kathryn Bigelow and [screenwriter] Mark Boal and stand behind this extraordinary movie. We are outraged that any responsible member of the Academy would use their voting status in AMPAS as a platform to advance their own political agenda.

Competing values sometimes make for a difficult ethical decision.  Not this one.

Barry Bonds, who (along with other baseball greats) this month received far fewer votes than necessary for induction into the Hall of Fame, is a difficult ethical decision.  Bonds was front and center of the steroid era who, as Sports Illustrated put it in 2006, took "a wide array of performance-enhancing drugs over at least five seasons in a massive doping regimen that grew more sophisticated as the years went on."  He also was inarguably the best player of his generation and arguably the best player ever, a sensational outfielder for the Pittsburgh Pirates and San Francisco Giants before he even began 'doping.'

So go ahead- ponder away about whether Bonds and the other players (all rejected) up for the Hall should have been denied admission for 2013.  But the argument of Amy Pascal about another sector of the entertainment field is askew and just plain hypocritical.

Pascal criticizes Clennon on two fronts:  Zero Dark Thirty is "extraordinary" and the actor/voter merely is "advanc(ing) their own political agenda."   The first is probably true but subjective, and irrelevant.  It is a zero sum game, with one film winning and the others losing in each category, and presumably each of the films merits a place on the ballot.

And advancing one's own political agenda?   This would hardly be the first time political considerations have entered into nominations or voting for awards in the industry.   Hollywood, further, is rife with politics and would-be politicians.  Perhaps, someday, there will even be an actor who goes on to become a big-state governor and two-term U.S. President.  Nah.  That'll never happen.

But the controlling factor is whether Zero Dark Thirty a political movie.   This is not A Hard Day's Night or even North by Northwest.  It is a movie about Osama binLaden, and one which strongly implies torture is efficacious, a highly controversial position.  It serves, intentionally or otherwise, as propaganda for the U.S. government and its approach to terrorism and whose screenwriter and director apparently benefited from a curious relationship with the C.I.A.

It's good entertainment, though, and is making lots of money for lots of people.  And that, apparently, is all which matters for people who embody Hollywood's sense of entitlement.  There is no Constitutional right to win an Academy Award.   Amy Pascal may not understand that, but at least a few people, David Clennon among them, do.



Share |

A Tiresome Meme

A battle over the debt limit, as well as a possible sequester that could throw the U.S. A. back into severe recession, is rapidly approaching.  And the carnage on American streets continues.  So of course, as The New York Times reported Saturday

The President plans to push Congress to move quickly in the coming months on an ambitious overhaul of the immigration system that would include a path to citizenship for most of the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, senior administration officials and lawmakers said last week.

Antonio Villaraigosa has weighed in with an op-ed in Politico which demonstrates that Democrats can be as dishonest as Republicans.

The Los Angeles mayor sets out what he terms "six broad policy pillars" which should form the basis of immigration reform.   They are, alas, not six broad policy pillars but rather (respectively):  goal, principle, principle, platitude, policy, policy.

Villaraigosa begins his list by advocating "a pathway to legal permanent residency and citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants," the goal of what advocates usually refer to as "comprehensive immigration reform."    He follows with two principles, that "legalization should be earned, but not unattainable" and "family unification should continue as a key priority."   The fourth "policy pillar" is a mere platitude- "the hard work and talent of immigrants fuels our economy"- given that the hard work and talent of native-born citizens also fuels our economy.

The mayor's fifth "pillar" is "immigration reform must include an effective and efficient employment verification system" which, if implemented according to the principles he recommends, would be a welcome component of an immigration policy.  in the sixth item, however, Villaraigosa argues "we must protect our border through smart enforcement."    The tip-off is the adjective "smart," in this case belying a disinterest in enforcement.  Villaraigosa notes "today, net undocumented migration is at or below zero" while failing to note that the primary reason is the severe economic slump the nation has gone through.   There is no reason to immigrate to the United States in order to remain unemployed and left to its own devices, immigration is likely to increase as the economy recovers.

But the most dangerous aspect of Villaraigosa's argument is his argument that

Our immigration policy must expand the avenues for these valued workers to seek legal employment. As the president has suggested, let’s staple a green card to the diplomas of foreign students getting advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math. We need to expand the H1-B visa program and, at the same time, we need effective visa programs for agricultural workers and for low-skilled, non-seasonal workers.

No, and no.  It's a myth that will never die, the idea that Americans just aren't sufficiently educated to take available jobs.  Blame workers first.  The Urban Institute found

The pool of S&E-qualified secondary and post-secondary graduates is several times larger than the number of annual job openings. The flow of secondary school students up through the S&E pipeline, when it reaches the labor market, supplies occupations that make up only about a twentieth of all workers. So even if there were deficiencies in students' average science and math performance, such deficiencies would not necessarily deplete the requisite supply of S&E college majors. Even if modal test scores or course-taking was by some measure low, the size of the graduating student body is so large that there would still be a sufficient number of students who test above average and who are fully qualified for the relatively small number of S&E jobs. While improving average math and science education at the K–12 level may be warranted for other reasons, such a strategy may not be the most efficient means of supplying the S&E workforce.

That was reported in 2007 but the problem remains (slightly less so in the T&M leg of STEM).   The increase in employment in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics field has been minimal over the past decade, as the graph below indicates.The jump in graduates in STEM over the same period has been far greater and actually declined from 2009 to 2011 and the increase in 2011 was dwarfed by the decline in 2010. And that increase was exceeded by the number of STEM H-1B visas, illustrated in the table below, granted that same year.   (Graph and table from Robert Oak/The Economic Progressive from BLS statistics.)   Educated residents anxious to enter the field, work hard, and keep productivity soaring are readily available while the number of jobs declines.

Stop it.  Stop it right now.  Stop scapegoating the American worker.  It's bad enough that Republicans labor overtime to scare Americans about the deficit in order to neglect the creeping destruction of the economy through the elimination of good jobs.  The problem is only made more severe when Democrats like Antonio Villaraigosa turn a blind eye to the problem and pursue a larger labor pool, forcing downward pressure on wages and benefits and expanding the gap between the wealthy and the middle class.

Share |

It's Those Darned Sunspots Again


The news on the climate front is not all bad- which, given trends since the turning of the decade, is about as good as it gets.

According to the U.S. Climate Extremes Index, 2012 trailed 1998 as the year with the most extreme weather, as measured in financial loss.  And as of late November, the average global land and sea temperature was expected by the UK's Met Office to be no higher than the 14th warmest year, or no cooler than the 4th warmest year, on record. The World Meteorological Association was more specific with its projection of 2012 as merely the ninth warmest year on record, due to the presence of La Nina in the winter and later in autumn.   Nevertheless, average temperature in 2012 was warmer than in any previous La Nina year.

Not so lucky now is the southern hemisphere's nation-continent, in which

The high temperature averaged over Australia was 105°F (40.3°C), eclipsing the previous record of 104°F (40.2°C) set on 21 December 1972. Never before in 103 years of record keeping has a heat wave this intense, wide-spread, and long-lasting affected Australia. The nation's average high temperature exceeded 102°F (39°C) for five consecutive days January 2 - 6, 2013--the first time that has happened since record keeping began in 1910. Monday's temperatures extended that string by another day, to six. To put this remarkable streak in perspective, the previous record of four consecutive days with a national average high temperature in excess of 102°F (39°C) has occurred once only (1973), and only two other years have had three such days in a row--1972 and 2002.

Last year broke records elsewhere.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association last Tuesday reported

2012 marked the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States with the year consisting of a record warm spring, second warmest summer, fourth warmest winter and a warmer-than-average autumn. The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3°F, 3.2°F above the 20th century average, and 1.0°F above 1998, the previous warmest year.

This was no mean feat.  Think Progress quotes NOAA climate scientist Jake Crouch explaining

The difference between the record coldest year and previous record warmest year was four degrees.  So there’s 117 years of data that were encompassed by four degrees of an average temperature, and now the 2012 value is one degree outside of that envelope. So we’re taking quite a large step above what the period of record has shown for the contiguous U.S.

Bonus statistic (and others, from NOAA via Think Progress, below):  November 2012 was, according to NOAA, the 333rd consecutive month with global temperature higher than the long-term average. The last month with a temperature below the long-term average was February, 1985.  Only a coincidence, no doubt.

Share |

Affirmative Action Joe

Yes, that's right:  Joe Scarborough is an a supporter of, almost an activist for, affirmative action.  That Joe Scarborough.

In one of the best descriptions of a squabble (video from The Young Turks) he had with Mika Brzezkinsi on Thursday's Morning Joe ("powered by Starbucks" follows as the tag line and now you're in on the joke), Mediaite reports

The Morning Joe family got heated and a bit awkward this morning during a discussion about the lack of diversity in President Obama‘s inner circle. As Joe Scarborough pointed to the lack of outrage and the Republican/Democrat double standard,Mika Brzezinski vehemently disagreed — and told him he was being “chauvinistic.” Scarborough… didn’t take it well. At one point literally snapping his fingers at his co-host.

The issue of diversity took up the entire segment, but started to grow contentious when the BBC’s Katty Kay sought to downplay the lack of diversity in Obama’s cabinet while noting that Mitt Romney‘s “binders full of women” comment resonated because it reinforced the “1950s” attitude some perceived him having toward women.

“This is what’s wrong with political reporting,” Scarborough charged. The left took a “faux pas” and blew it up — but in Obama’s case, they’re talking about “something that matters.” Actual cabinet positions. That led to some back-and-forth between the two, who plainly disagreed.

As the segment went on, Brzezinski noted that Susan Rice could have been another woman in Obama’s cabinet had Republicans not “routed” her out. “Talk about old guys being completely chauvinistic jerks,” she remarked, as Scarborough noted David Axelrod‘s assertion that Rice hadn’t been considered for the Secretary of State position. Brzezinski countered that the president’s policies speak to his commitment to women’s issues.

Still, the show went on… until Scarborough’s joking around proved to be too much for Brzezinski who told him, “You’re being chauvinistic right now.” She can make personal attacks, Scarborough retorted, but “you’ve got a president you worship on this show every day.” Yet she “savaged” Romney. Had the president been Republican, she’d have been upset about the issue, he argued.

“You really — knowing me and seeing me work around here for five years — you want to call me a chauvinist on television?” Scarborough asked, with Brzezinski replying that she wasn’t calling him that.

“I said the way you’re acting is chauvinistic,” she responded, “especially the way you were handling this conversation. It’s not funny.”

“Do I act like a chauvinist in Congress, the way I ran my office there, the way run my office here? I am a chauvinist?” Scarborough repeatedly pressed, as they argued and talked over each other. “Read your own book!”

“You can’t throw around attacks like that,” he said, “because you’re embarrassed about what Barack Obama’s doing.”

Brzezinski's use of the term "chauvinistic" is unfortunate because "chauvinism" typically and traditionally applies to an exaggerated pride in nation; the common synonym is jingoistic.   Rather, Mika was accusing Scarborough of male chauvinism which anyone who watches the program will realize is not out of character for him.   Brzezinski's later response to the dust-up inadvertently bolstered her claim, when she meekly stated (emphasis mine) "I apologize.  But just for the record, you are NOT a chauvinist. I apologize... Your entire career," she said, "backs up that you are not a chauvinist."   In the main segment, Brzezinski had maintained the importance of "opening the doors to women" and that he "has been an incredible champion of this."  Quite right, M.B.: his support has not been credible.

To Brzezinski's credit, she resisted offering to bring the show's host his dinner and slippers.   And that would be the show's host, not co-host.   Learning of Scarborough's salary in 2008, she demanded a raise and was amply rewarded-  with a boost to half Joe's pay, consistent with her subservience to the former Florida congressman.

I have no idea what Brzezinski was referring to in Scarborough's "career" which proves he is not a "chauvinist."   Brzezinski was, rightly, offended when Scarborough ridiculed President Obama's support for the Lilly Ledbetter Act while defending Mitt Romney's reference to "binders full of women."

Scarborough implies that he couldn't possibly be a male chauvinist or unfair to women in any way because he supports (as Mika confirms) putting into high-profile positions a few well-known women.  But karoli of Crooks and Liars, otherwise defending Brzezinski, nails it when she remarks

I think the whole "more women in the Cabinet" idea is concern trolling on MSNBC's part right now anyway. It isn't as if this President doesn't have a strong record of putting women in high places. Ahem, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Kathleen Sibelius, and Hilda Solis, anyone? Please.

There's no question there's a pipeline problem, as panelists on Alex Wagner's show pointed out this morning. Speaking strictly for me, I'll take the most qualified candidate regardless of gender, sexual preference, or skin color. Shoot, they could dye their hair purple for all I care if they're qualified.

Alas, the approach of the mainstream of America's right-wing party reflects Scarborough's approach.  Republicans have become concerned since Mitt Romney was buried by Barack Obama amid an overwhelming rejection of the GOP by hispanics.  Even before the election, however, the party had decided that it could attract greater support among minorities not by changing its ideological bent but by, literally, changing the face of the party.   Last August, The Tennessean found

The GOP will try to showcase its diversity at this week’s Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., an effort cynics may call window dressing but that some Republicans hope signals greater strides in the future.

The effort will run throughout the week, and while the schedule has been scrambled by Tropical Storm Isaac, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Senate candidate Ted Cruz of Texas and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama, who as a Democrat gave the introduction for President Barack Obama at that party’s convention four years ago, are all scheduled to give prime-time addresses.

Although the party is still overwhelmingly white, Republicans hope to demonstrate a widening tent in which racial and ethnic differences have taken a back seat to shared conservative ideology.

The prominence of African-American, Asian-American and Latino speakers is unlikely to persuade many minority voters to switch allegiance from the Democratic Party in the short term, say political observers and even some Republicans. But by putting diversity front and center throughout the convention, Republicans can signal to white independents that their differences with Democrats are not racially motivated.

It's affirmative action Republican-style, a message approved by Joe Scarborough, powered by the corporate elite:  put minorities front and center, declare yourself an open tent, and change nothing.








Share |

Evolving Into Something


It's all the rage today.   Evolution is in vogue.

That would not be the evolution God is responsible for, or which took place without God, or never took place at all.   After thousands of years of recorded history, some celebrities indicate they still haven't fully evolved.

First, Barack Obama, who as an office seeker in a liberal district in Chicago, Illinois in 1996 was "in favor (of) legalizing same-sex marriage."  In 2004 he believed "marriage is between a man and a woman" because the position "is in my faith."   However, by December, 2010 he claimed his "feelings about this are constantly evolving," though there was no mention of whether his denomination had evolved.   (Actually, it had fully "evolved.").  Six months later he was still opposed but maintained he was "evolving on it."  Two days after his running mate voiced his support for same-sex marriage, Obama on May 9, 2012 discovered he had completely evolved.

At least we knew all along that Obama supported the right of an individual to marry someone of either gender.  Sean Hannity, however, found religion soon after the shellacking taken in November by Republicans, in part by alienating hispanics.  He abruptly adopted the position of most liberal Democrats (a few of us excepted) and contended, as reported by Politico, he has “evolved” on immigration and now supports a “pathway to citizenship."

If Obama evolved to where he always was, and Hannity saw the light (albeit for primarily political purposes), Beyonce- Knowles Carter is just plain loathsome.

Pop singer Beyonce began a relationship with PepsiCo in 2002 and recently signed a $50 million deal with the soft drink giant.   In a letter dated December 17 addressed to Knowles-Carter, the Center for Science in the Public Interest noted the celebrity's status as a role model and explained

Consumption of Pepsi and other sugary drinks is helping fuel an epidemic of obesity and obesity-related diseases that are debilitating in both children and adults.  More than any other category of food or beverage, sugary drinks are associated with increased risk of weight gain and obesity, which increase the risk of diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Sugary drinks also cause tooth decay and other health problems.

In fact, each additional sugary drink consumed per day increases the risk of heart disease in men by 19 percent. Drinking one or two sugary drinks per day increases one's risk for type 2 diabetes by 25 percent. Diabetes, in turn, can cause complications including amputation,erectile dysfunction, blindness, coma, and early death. Almost all obesity-related health problems have a disproportionate impact on low-income, African-American, and Hispanic communities.  it's worth noting that 29 percent of black adolescents (about twice the percentage of whites and Mexican Americans) are obese, and 80 per cent of African American women are overweight or obese.

In response to some criticism, Beyonce responded "Pepsi embraces creativity and understands that artists evolve... As a businesswoman, this allows me to work with a lifestyle brand with no compromise and without sacrificing my creativity."

There you have it.  The pop diva says PepsiCo is allowing her "to work with a lifestyle brand with no compromise." No one is forcing her hand, and she is pushing a dangerous product (and one inferior to Coca-Cola, of similar hazard to human beings) "without sacrificing my creativity."  

Beyonce assures us that the company "embraces creativity and understands that artists evolve."   PepsiCo's motive is only virtuous, nothing more than "embracing creativity," whatever that means.  Nor is it easy to understand, in this context, what "artists evolve" implies, which seems to substantiate Wendy Williams' impression of her.   Evidently, Beyonce chooses to believe she is, as a singer, an artist.   And that artists are a more highly evolved species than mere mortals; after all, she argues "artists"- not human beings or people- evolve, presumably to an elevated plane somewhere.

The remarks are reprehensible, but no more so than the actions.   The CSPI suggested that if she does not reconsider her deal, she donate the proceeds to a charity which combats soda-related diseases.   Certainly, that would be of some benefit- but only of limited value.   Association of a superstar with a product improves sales both in the short term and in the long term as the public image of the product soars, in this case one with a debilitating impact on Americans.   While she reaps the (financial) rewards of fame, Beyonce needs to defy the convention of Hollywood and assume the responsibility of being the role model which defines her relationship with a large portion of the public.




Share |