Former Florida GOP chair Jim Greer is charged with six felony counts of fraud, theft, and money laundering in connection with a company he allegedly created to take a cut of the state party's fundraising revenues, Florida authorities announced this morning.
As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.
And...
While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.
There actually is an answer, as Keith Olbermann's guest, Rick Steiner illustrates...
...and by illustrates, I mean, actually draws on a sheet of posterboard for the interview. C'mon Keith, couldn't you and your staff helped him with some fancy graphics?
The key part of the speech, and seeming a make-up for the reservations some had over yesterday's Press Conference.
As I said yesterday, and as I repeated in the meeting that we just left, I ultimately take responsibility for solving this crisis. I’m the President and the buck stops with me. So I give the people of this community and the entire Gulf my word that we’re going to hold ourselves accountable to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to stop this catastrophe, to defend our natural resources, to repair the damage, and to keep this region on its feet. Justice will be done for those whose lives have been upended by this disaster, for the families of those whose lives have been lost -- that is a solemn pledge that I am making.
I think I can speak for anybody here, and for anybody who has been involved in the response and the cleanup effort, and for most Americans, when I say that I would gladly do whatever it takes to end this disaster today. But I want to also repeat something that I said to the group as a whole while we were meeting. This is a manmade catastrophe that’s still evolving and we face a long-term recovery and restoration effort.
America has never experienced an event like this before. And that means that as we respond to it, not every judgment we make is going to be right the first time out. Sometimes, there are going to be disagreements between experts, or between federal and state and local officials, or among state officials, or between states, about what the most effective measures will be.
Sometimes, there are going to be risks and unintended consequences associated with a particular mitigation strategy that we consider. In other words, there are going to be a lot of judgment calls involved here. There are not going to be silver bullets or a lot of perfect answers for some of the challenges that we face.
Understandably, the feelings of frustration and anger, the sense that any response is inadequate -- we expect that frustration and anger to continue until we actually solve this problem. But in the meantime, we’ve got to make sure that everybody is working in concert, that everybody is moving in the same direction. And I want everybody to know that everybody here -- at every level -- is working night and day to end this crisis. We’re considering every single idea out there, especially from folks who know these communities best.
Admiral Allen announced yesterday, for example, that, after a bunch of back-and-forth between state and federal experts, he is prepared to authorize moving forward with a portion of the idea for a barrier island that may stop some of the oil from coming ashore. We had an extensive conversation about this and -- to see whether additional steps can be taken on this barrier island idea.
And what I told the parish president, what I told the Governor, is that if there is an idea that can be shown to work, then we should move forward on it, and they deserve quick answers. But I also reminded everybody that we’ve got to make sure that whatever we do is actually going to work, particularly because we’re going to have not unlimited resources, at least not right now. For example, there’s a limited amount of boom. We’re going to try to get more boom manufactured. But that may take some time, and that means we’re going to have to make some decisions about how to deploy it effectively.
The bottom line is this: Every decision we make is based on a single criterion -– what’s going to best protect and make whole the people and the ecosystems of the Gulf.
And I want to thank everybody in this region who’s rolled up their sleeves and pitched in to help -– from the National Guard putting their experience to the task, to the local officials and every citizen who loves this area and calls it home, every American who’s traveled to the region to lend a hand. If any American is looking for ways to volunteer and help, then we’ve put links to that information on our website, as well -- that's whitehouse.gov.
And, all these governors -- Bobby Jindal, as well as Charlie Crist and Bob Riley, they want -- and I know Haley Barbour is not here but I think he agrees with this, as well -- one of the powerful ways that you can help the Gulf right now is to visit the communities and the beaches off of the coast. Except for three beaches here in Louisiana, all of the Gulf’s beaches at this moment are open, they are safe and they are clean. And so that's always a good way to help, is to come down and provide support to the communities along the coasts.
To the people of the Gulf Coast: I know that you’ve weathered your fair share of trials and tragedy. I know there have been times where you’ve wondered if you were being asked to face them alone. I am here to tell you that you’re not alone. You will not be abandoned. You will not be left behind. The cameras at some point may leave; the media may get tired of the story; but we will not. We are on your side and we will see this through. We’re going to keep at this every day until the leak has stopped, until this coastline is clean, and your communities are made whole again. That’s my promise to you. And that is a promise on behalf of a nation. It is one that we will keep.
And I will make one last point -- and I said this to every leader who is here: If something is not going right down here, then they need to talk to Thad Allen. And if they’re not getting satisfaction from Thad Allen, then they can talk to me. There’s nobody here who can’t get in touch with me directly if there is an idea, a suggestion, or a logjam that needs to be dealt with.
So we’re in this together. And it’s going to be a difficult time, and obviously the folks down here are going to be feeling the brunt of it, but we’re going to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to get this solved as quickly as possible.
And I want to again think everybody here for the extraordinary work that they’re putting in. You shouldn’t underestimate how hard these folks are working, day in, day out, on behalf of their constituencies.
So thank you very much. Thank you, everybody.
What do you want to bet that the President's statement to "come down and provide support to the communities along the coasts" gets compared to Bush's go shopping comment made after 9/11?
What’s more, we’ve stationed doctors and scientists across the five Gulf States to look out for people’s health and then to monitor any ill effects felt by cleanup workers and local residents. And we’ve begun setting up a system to track these efforts -- excuse me, to track these effects -- and ensure folks get the care that they need. And we’ve told BP that we expect them to pay for that, too.
The video from MSNBC is terrible. Not because of internet issues, but because of lighting. Yes, that big glob in your screen is the President of the United States. The audio is perfect, but the video...
This was a good press conference. I thought the questions were tough and fair. I'd give the President a B- or C+ for his presentation. (I'm sorry, I know the man is saying trust us, we're doing everything in our power, acknowledging that there are and will be screw ups...but as long as the oil is coming onshore, you're always going to wonder...which the President acknowledged too.)
Let me get this straight Randi, you're complaining that the President didn't answer a question he wasn't asked.
Okay.
The only wastes of time in the whole preceding was Helen Thomas' question about Afghanistan toward the middle, and Major Garrett's (Fox Noise) sub-question about Joe Sestak toward the end. Since I just got finished reading a passage in The Promise about the President's war with Fox Noise, I had to wonder if shutting them out wasn't the best policy.
But Helen Thomas demanding to know, with a note of rage in her voice, why we were in Afghanistan, to me, bordered on pathetic. (Part of it was the nature of her question, most of it was time and place.)
P.S. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote on his blog that he hoped that the Press Corps would ask him about pushing on the Energy Bill currently stalled in the Senate because Lindsay Graham is throwing a hissy-fit.
I wrote Greg and bet him five bucks that the question would be asked...
Turns out...I think I owe Greg Sargent five bucks. Because while the President answered the questions, several times in fact, about the Energy Bill...no one in the Press Corps asked the question to begin with.
Worry not. I'm still trolling for the complete Oil Spill Press Conference Video. (I can't believe it was this early...at least for those of us on the Left Coast.)
In the meantime, Obama on the NBA, Lebron and the ability to take a hard foul with the Secret Service around...
By the way, he didn't completely advocate for LeBron going to the Bulls, as some have suggested. It was Marv who was advocating the President to advocate for Chicago. He said if LeBron finds a coach he respects, and a stable situation in Cleveland (I'm hoping that the Cavs get Byron Scott), he should stay in Cleveland.
The overwhelming feeling I’m getting listening to the radio, specifically Randi Rhodes, is that she wants the Government to do something.Whatever the hell that means. I find this terribly ironic because just before the Rand Paul thing exploded, she had a African-American caller (not me) on the air, saying that we [Black folk] couldn’t get with the Teabaggers because of the the racism. So, figuring that at least part of the Teabagger anger was legitimate and that Government is broken Randi answered back, “what’s your plan”.
I’m afraid I’m left with the same question for the Gulf Oil Spill. What’s your plan? And an answer of “just do something” isn’t constructive, helpful, or intelligent at this point.
In the matter of the Gulf Oil Spill, there are two lines of attack, for now. One is stopping the oil volcano.Two is gathering information (and making it public) about how we got in this mess. Once the oil volcano is stopped, we can get on with a third track, which is clean-up. Once the information is gathered, we can start a fourth track, which is lawsuits and/or Criminal/Congressional investigations.
When we say we want Obama to do something, I want to know how does it fit into the two-to-four tracks I’ve outlined? The Navy may be well equipped to get down to the source of the leak, but do they have the equipment or expertise to fix it? (I don't know, I'm asking). People keep saying they do (Randi) but it seems like they're pulling that out of their asses. Remember, fixing isn’t just a matter of plugging the leak, it’s making sure that all that pressure doesn’t escape elsewhere and make the problem ten times worse.
But past that, I’m left with questions. What about the Exxon Valdez law that is currently guiding Governmental efforts? The Media has been terrible at explaining what’s in it. I don’t know what the Government can and can’t do in this matter, and it doesn’t help that too many of my fellow Liberals are stuck in the belief that the Executive is just as unitary as it ever was under Bush, or worse that it should be.
Another thing that’s really, really, really annoying me. A biiiiiiig meme for my fellow lefties during the Health Care Debate was that the White House wasn't doing enough (again, whatever that was) during the whole thing. Well, that’s been proven to be bullshit. So when I hear or read people asking what the President is doing, my bet is plenty.We just can’t see it. The bubble is bad, but it’s not that bad.
The difference between Obama and Dubya is that we trust Obama to do the right thing, for the right reasons. We hopefully can acknowledge a screw up (which I think this is), but we have to know he's not liking this, and not just for political reasons.
It's not great surprise that folks are starting to complain about the Gulf Oil Spill caused by British Peteroleum's, Transoceans and Haliburton's recklessness. It's been a month. Eleven people are dead, and nothing much seems to have been done to fix the calamity that might wind up destroying the Gulf of Mexico.
The fact that those same voices are starting to complain about the President's lack of action is a little surprising, but at the same time justified. Backing that idea is the notion that a competent administration should rush in and kick BP the hell out of there, and there are signs that may actually happen if BP doesn't get its act together. The fact that the President hasn't done this already is generating ire from even his most devoted followers (or should I say Hillary's).
Can't say I blame them. At the same time, I can't say I blame the President either, even though my preference is that he get off his duff and kick BP out of the Gulf, and present them with a bill for services rendered.
But is that even possible?
One problem is might be the language that exists from the Oil Cleanup Bill that was signed into law after Exxon Valdez.
Would kicking BP out, after they've gone public with the notion that they'll clean it all up on their dime, absolve them of all responsibility?
Would the Obama administration be limited in that bill for services rendered I described, in that it could only be $75 Million dollars? (the current cap on exposure to BP -- short of fraud, which I think you can prove. At least I hope Robert Kennedy does.)
Can you imagine having the President rush to the rescue of a toxic spill cleanup, to actually get it done in a timely manner, only to have his Republican opponents, who'll say anything at this point, mutter that the cleanup should have been the responsibility of the Private Industry that caused it, and that any Government intervention is nothing more than a bailout for Big Oil?
At the same time, I hate to say this...I'm a little glad it's happening this way.
No, I don't want to see oily birds, dead fishes, and Gulf Fishermen with their lives ruined, but I want to see the ineptness of Corporate America exposed. And make no mistake, what you're watching is Corporate incompetence writ large.
We are now recieving hard, visual (and if you're close enough to the Gulf, olfactory) evidence of the total and complete epicfail of the idea that Business can solve everything, and do it better than the Government. That notion is dead. It's been dead since Lehman Brothers collapse, but you're seeing it live and in action.
Last week, 60 Minutes did an interview with a survivor of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, and it's the best, and most detailed account of what happened before and after. (Did I hear right that the eleven men who died, weren't so much as burned alive, but vaporized?)
It's a double segment, so it's a little long, but it's worth it, trust me.
The President announces that the independent commission he created for the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling will be chaired by former Florida Governor and Senator Bob Graham and former EPA Administrator Bill Reilly. He promises accountability not just for BP, but for those in government who bore responsibility.
I say not-necessarily, because this is still Kentucky we're talking about. Not the most racist state in the Union (too many nominees to mention), but just about as racist as they come.
Mr. Paul's racism has, of course, generated a lot of chatter on the TeeVee, and in the blogosphere. In most cases, a lot of journalists went out of their way to say that Rand Paul was not a racist. Ezra Klein's post is but one example. There are more.
Why? Because he said so.
But with regard to racism, I don't believe in any racism. I don‘t think we should have any government racism, any institutional form of racism.
That was from the Maddow interview of May 19th.
Guess that takes care of that.
If this douchebag is going to so casually throw my rights (as an African-American) under the bus to serve his ideological aims, while his remain intact (what a coincidence), how does that not make him a racist?
Paul's defenders will argue -- as conservatives did with Barry Goldwater -- that Paul himself is not a racist. Indeed, Paul said he finds racism abhorrent and would not frequent a segregated business. And Paul rather incoherently defended his position as being "the hard part about believing in freedom." This is a key statement because it rather poignantly expresses the utter selfishness at the heart of Paul's argument against the Civil Rights Act.
Paul would never face the actual "hard part" of his vision of freedom, because it would never interfere with his own life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Rand Paul would not have been turned away from a lunch counter, be refused a home, a job, or denied a loan, or told to sit in the black car of a train because of his skin color, or because of the skin color of his spouse. Paul thinks there is something "hard" about defending the kind of discrimination he would have never, ever faced. Paul's free-market fundamentalism is being expressed after decades of social transformation that the Civil Rights Act helped create, and so the hell of segregation is but a mere abstraction, difficult to remember and easy to dismiss as belonging only to its time. It's much easier now to say that "the market would handle it." But it didn't, and it wouldn't.
But, there is another thing that has bothered me about this debate.
Where are the African-Americans? I mean, it's not like we don't have an opinion on this thing.
For some reason, the debate about Rand Paul, about his beliefs, about his racism, has happened exclusively in the province of white people.
That’s not to say that white people don’t have a say in this matter (in fact, some of my best friends are white people). But they are only half of the equation in any discussion about race in America. Worse still, they are not exactly experts when in comes to suffering under racism. (Though a some are experts at dishing it out.)
Sorry, fellow Liberals. I’m not trying to insult you, I’m just reflecting an honest truth. I know you hate racism. I know you will act against it whenever it’s identified for you. But any expertise you have comes from the outside looking in. You don’t live it like I do, or any African-American does.
It’s the same way I viscerally hate Anti-Semitism, from my gut. Still, I have to acknowledge that any Jew anywhere is better suited to speak to the issue than I am.
Following that, in a discussion about the harm Public and Private Institutions can inflict upon American Citizens of color, and the Government’s role in ending that harm, why weren’t there any African-American (people who are the authority on this kind of harm) on the TeeVee??
Yeah, we had Jim Clyburn. Twice. Both times on MSNBC. Once on Andrea, once on Keith.
Not that Jim Clyburn didn’t hit it out of the park, he did. He was great. He spoke for me, word for word.
But come on, you’re trying to tell me there weren’t more Black people who could talk about this?
Eugene Robinson? (MSNBC Regular)
Melissa Harris-Lacewell? (MSNBC Regular)
LeBron James? (It's not like he hasn't been in the news).
Tiger Wo--
Yeah, you're right. Scratch that. Bad idea.
It wasn’t until Rachel Maddow (who started his mess by taking an oft-reported local story and putting on said TeeVee) interviewed Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP that we had another black person talking about the subject.
Listen, it’s bad enough that you have a segment of the population desirous to go back to the “bad old days”. It’s bad enough that a moment of true racial transcendence (the election of the first black President) has become mired in an explosion of racial divisiveness.
But is it too much to ask, that if you have a discussion about race in America that we be a part of it?
Leaving African-Americans out may be the most offensive thing about all this.
This one almost slipped past me. It got almost zero coverage on the national stage.
Not the most extraordinary speech he's ever given, but its a good template for the campaign ahead. If you've been watching him speak, you've heard a lot of this stuff before. The crowd reaction felt a little restrained. The biggest laugh/applause lines seemed to come whenever he talked concrete job numbers (i.e., the people in the next county over, thanks to the G.M. bailout are coming back to work). That's how it should be.
The President read the room. He dispensed with the smiles quickly, and told the people of Youngstown what he did, and how it helped.
Now, we’ve got a long way to go before this recovery is felt in the lives of our neighbors and in all the communities that have lost so much ground in this recession and in years before.
But despite that sobering reality, despite all the naysayers in Washington, who are always looking for the cloud in every silver lining, the fact is our economy is growing again. Last month, we gained 290,000 jobs. (Applause.) So think about this. We gained more jobs last month than any time in four years. And it was the fourth month in a row that we’ve added jobs -- and almost all those jobs are in the private sector. Everybody talks about government was doing this, government was doing that. Now, what we did was we encouraged the private sector, gave them the funding, the financing, the support, the infrastructure support in order to invest and get the economy moving again.
And last month also brought the largest increase in manufacturing employment since 1998 -- (applause) -- 1998, because I believe in manufacturing and I believe in manufacturing right here in the United States of America. We can compete against anybody. Youngstown can compete against anybody. You got the best workers. There’s no reason why we can’t compete with anybody if you guys have the support that you need.
And you know what? I think those critics who have been trying to badmouth these efforts -- they know it’s working. These folks who opposed this every step of the way, predicting nothing but failure, they know it’s working because -- this always puts a smile on my face -- even as they’ve tried to score political points attacking these members of Congress, a lot of them go home and then they claim credit for the very things they voted against. They’ll show up at the -- to cut the ribbons. They’ll put out a press release. They’ll send the mailings touting the very projects that they were opposing in Washington. They’re trying to have it both ways.
I know that’s hard to imagine in politics, that a politician might try to have it both ways, but here’s the fact: If the “just say no” crowd had won out, if we had done things the way they wanted to go, we’d be in a deeper world of hurt than we are right now. Families wouldn’t have seen those tax cuts. Small businesses wouldn’t have gotten those loans or those health care tax credits that they’re now eligible for. Insurance companies would still be deciding who they want to cover and when they want to cover them, and dropping your health care coverage whenever they felt like it.
The President explains how Wall Street Reform will not only end bailouts and bring accountability for big banks, but empower consumers, shareholders and community banks.
From a Michael Kinsey piece in Atlantic, bagging on the Teabaggers (and rightly so). Still, this paragraph caught my attention (especially after Andrew Sullivan highlighted it as well).
Some people think that what unites the Tea Party Patriots is simple racism. I doubt that. But the Tea Party movement is not the solution to what ails America. It is an illustration of what ails America. Not because it is right-wing or because it is sometimes susceptible to crazed conspiracy theories, and not because of racism, but because of the movement’s self-indulgent premise that none of our challenges and difficulties are our own fault.
“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?
I know, I know. We're in the middle of two wars, too many people can't get jobs, and the entirety of the Gulf of Mexico is about to be poisoned...
...but stuff like this is fun. It's fun to stop and take a moment, engage in some well-meaning silliness. This is the stuff that makes being President fun, and keeps him from having to "play" Barack Obama.
What do I mean by that? Check out Jonathan Alter's book on May 18th.
The President goes through the benefits in health insurance reform that are already kicking in for young adults, retirees, and families, and says more benefits are coming down the pike.
"Telling people we're not going to get a legislative solution this year, or to suggest maybe that it's not possible this year, is not in the best interests of the nation."
Yes, this a trailer for an actual movie. This isn't Funny or Die stuff, this is coming out September 3rd, 2010. (Can't say much for its box office prospects).
Let's be honest, the trailer was cut to respond to/take advantage of the Arizona Law. As quick as Rodriguez works, this had to have been in the works for the last year at least. (I've been hearing about a Machete movie since the first Spy Kids movie came out, so...)
Okay, basic story: there's a canal separating the U.S. and Mexico near San Diego. It 's also the most dangerous body of water in the U.S. as crossing it has cost 550 people, mostly illegal immigrants, their lives.
And...there is a avid right-winger out there, working overtime, risking arrest, to put in some semblance of safety features across this canal, to allow the illegals to at least arrive alive...
The Obama administration said on Monday that it remains "premature" to rule out including additional offshore drilling as part of comprehensive energy legislation, even as Senate Democrats warn that such a provision would make the bill "dead on arrival."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the president will determine whether to stay with or abandon his call for additional drilling off various parts of the coast once he gets the findings of an investigation into the massive oil spill in the Gulf.
President Obama has an opportunity on his hands: He could, if he so chose, seize on the Gulf oil spill to reverse his announcement of new offshore drilling and reinstate the ban on it. No idea if he’ll take this opportunity, but it’s there.
The left is redoubling its push for him to resinstate the ban, arguing that strong leaders aren’t afraid to change their minds when empirical evidence suggests they should do so. And Obama has repeatedly said he will base his administration’s decisions on “science” and “facts.”
This strong new MoveOn ad, for instance, argues that “sometimes great leaders are tested.” The ad calls for the ban to be revived, and asks: “President Obama: Will you lead our country into a clean energy future?”
At the press briefing just now, Robert Gibbs was pressed on whether this is a possibilty, and interestingly, he didn’t rule it out. Asked if the administration’s thinking had shifted, Gibbs noted that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was probing the spill, adding:
“This is an administation that is going to take whatever we get from that and have that dicate our decision-making going forward. It would be premature to get to far ahead of where Secretary Salazar’s investigation is…
“The investigation is to determine what happened and to use that information going forward to dictate any changes in our policy.”
That seems to leave the door open to a possible policy change. Now, we don’t know what the investigation will find, and it’s very possible that the administration will ultimately argue that this one disaster is an exception and doesn’t undercut the case for more drilling.
But either way, Obama has an opening here to change direction. And if he were to reinstate the drilling ban, he would be in a better position to argue that the spill proves in vivid, horrifying detail that the cost of remaining addicted to oil, and the price of inaction on energy reform, are too great to risk any longer.
Can you tell I'm an Ohio State Fan? (What, the President couldn't have gone to Columbus first? Michigan isn't in play. Ohio might be.)
Maybe I'm being too hard on Michigan after all. When your Football Program sucks, and your Basketball program sucks, you need something to justify your existence. Just don't go bringing down the Boss's Presidency, Big Blue!
As the President beats back lobbyists seeking to weaken Wall Street Reform, he talks about an even broader threat that would vastly expand the influence of massive industries and their lobbyists in Washington. A recent Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for corporations, including foreign corporations, to spend endless money on political ads that would give them even more power at the expense of American families – the President pledges to fight for reforms to stem that influence.
Carrying an illegal gun in New York is a crime, and it was a crime before New York City began searching people, stopped for another infraction, for illegal guns. Likewise, being an illegal alien was also, necessarily, a crime before Arizona's law. Both laws also place a burden of search on people who may well be innocent.
But whereas New York proving your innocence in New York means simply not having an illegal gun on your person, proving your innocence in Arizona means carrying around identification that you aren't an illegal alien. The right comparison isn't New York requiring you to submit to a search for illegal guns--it's New York requiring you to carry proof that you don't own an illegal gun.
Put differently, it was always a crime to carry an illegal gun in New York, but it was not always a (state) crime in Arizona for legal immigrants to leave their proof of residency at home. Now it is. Moreover, from what I can tell, this actually understates the law. Essentially, Arizona has made it a crime for anyone in the state to not have proof of citizenship on them at all times. Defenders of the law will say that police still have to stop you for something, and they still have to "suspect" that you did something.
Forgive, but I don't find that comforting. Amadou Diallo is dead because the police "suspected" he was drawing a gun. Oscar Grant is dead because the police "suspected" he needed to be tased. My old friend, Prince Jones, Howard University student and father of a baby girl, was murdered by the police in front of his daughter's home because police "suspected" he was a drug-dealer. (The cop was not kicked off the force.) Only a year ago, I was stopped in Chelsea, coming from an interview with NPR, because police "suspected" I was the Latino male who'd recently robbed someone.
This comes down to police power, and how comfortable you are with its extension. George Will, in a bit of populist demagoguery, implies that the critics of the Arizona law are people who only know illegal immigrants as cheap labor. But I suspect Will mostly has the exact same relationship with illegal immigrants. Moreover, I suspect that he only knows the police as the kind of Officer Friendlies who only arrest "the bad people."
I don't want to be cheap here, but it needs to said that when you actually know decent people who are dead because of our insane drug war, your perspective on police power changes. This is a multi-million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen. Someone is going to get killed. And the fact that "the vast majority of police are awesome" will not bring them back.
After the single biggest economic crisis in our lifetimes, we’re heading in the right direction. We’re moving forward. Our economy is stronger; that economic heartbeat is growing stronger.
But I measure progress by a different pulse -– the progress the American people feel in their own lives day in, day out. And this week, I spent a few days visiting with folks in small towns in the Midwest -– places where the damage done by the worst recession in our lifetimes is profound. They’re still trying to recover from a shockwave of lost homes, lost businesses, and more than eight million lost jobs. It’s a tragedy that has families and communities across America too often feeling like they’re on life support.
So while today’s GDP report is an important milepost on our road to recovery, it doesn’t mean much to an American who has lost his or her job and can’t find another. For millions of Americans -– our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens ready and willing to get back to work -– “you’re hired” is the only economic news they’re waiting to hear. And they are why the work of moving this economy forward remains our focus every single day.
Now, government can’t replace every job that has been lost. That’s not government’s role. It is America’s business all across the country -- the private sector, businesses -- that have always been and will always be the engines of our job creation. Our task, then, is to create the conditions necessary for those businesses to open their doors, expand their operations, and ultimately hire more workers.
Let me start by suggesting this may slightly over-value the deep personal meaning of the Census form. I viewed the form as a seven-minute exercise in ensuring that the District of Columbia gets to count my whole family as residents. Maybe we can even get enough funding to fix the Metro escalators. I hadn’t realized the need to express solidarity with my relatives and ancestors, living and dead.
Anyway, like Chang, my kids are half Asian and half white, which led me to identify them on the Census as… Asian. My brother is half black and half white. He went with biracial. Somehow neither of these decisions has resulted in meaningfully different personal connections for my family.
The question of race as biological or sociological construct is complex. While Chang may wish Obama took a more literalist perspective and identified as biracial, I’m quite sure she doesn’t have the right to judge.
Exactly. Well said, Mr. Huffman.
I'm sorry that President Obama didn't fulfill Mrs. Chang's personal ambitions by making a personal choice on his own personal census form.
I'm equally sorry that the default position of too many Americans is that our fellow citizens of biracial ancestry should automatically want to set aside their African Heritage. Thus, I still think Mrs. Chang is a racist.
Despite being raised by a white mother and white grandparents, despite have spent most of his childhood in the rainbow state of Hawaii, despite clearly being comfortable in almost any type of crowd (though I suppose Tea Partyers might give him pause), the president apparently considers himself only black. "I self-identify as an African American. That's how I am treated and that's how I am viewed. And I'm proud of it," he has said. But he also argued in his famous speech about race that he could no more disown the Reverend Jeremiah Wright "than I can my white grandmother." With his census choice, he has done precisely that.
No, Elizabeth. (And please learn to spell Tea-Partiers correctly).
Granted, your racial worldview is limited. And I say this because despite all the other racial problems this country has had, it has primarily divided itself on the black-white axis. You have no experience in this world, by your own admission, yet you continue to flap your gums.
For years, my people have been regarded as second-class citizens or deserving of the back of the bus. We are citizens looked down by our fellow citizens. And now that the first African-American President has chosen to assert his own (dare I say) blackness, this is somehow inappropriate.
I would like to say that Elizabeth isn't a racist, but I can't say that. Somehow for a lot of Americans (not all), identifying as Black when you are biracial is just wrong. It is the desire of the dominant majority for people like the President to push aside his African-American heritage in favor of the other. Any other choice is wrong. Tiger Woods ceded to your wishes, Mrs. Chang...and you see how well it's worked out.
"I self-identify as an African American. That's how I am treated and that's how I am viewed. And I'm proud of it."
Long and short of it is this: this...isn't going to go well for (let's just say it) former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
I asked the question (via Email) of Andrew Sullivan: "Is this woman bigoted"? Because it all sounds innocuous, lovely and British over the YouTube. So you may not think so.
But shift the background from Rochester, UK to say...I don't know, Tempe, Arizona, and replace the words Eastern European with Mexican. Now how does she sound?!?
Bipartisan Wall Street reform negotiations appeared on the brink of collapse Tuesday night after Republican and Democratic principals found themselves at an impasse over the issue of consumer financial protection. But though Republicans have been promising all week to sustain a filibuster, blocking debate on the Democrats' legislation, they now seem prepared to cede the current fight, explicitly saying that, if talks don't bear fruit soon, they'll allow the bill to move to the floor.
"I don't feel like there's a real possibility in the near future of getting a bipartisan bill... I just don't feel that's a possibility," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) in response to a question from TPMDC.
Corker hasn't decided if he himself will ultimately decide to break a GOP filibuster of financial reform legislation--but he's fairly certain that a global agreement between Democrats and Republicans is likely impossible. "I don't feel under any pressure [but] I'm just far less optimistic than I've ever been."
Unlike Corker, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), long thought to be a financial reform swing vote, said he'll give negotiations between Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) a bit more time--he said he's likely to vote to sustain the filibuster again tomorrow. But if there's no breakthrough soon, he's going to vote with the Democrats to debate the issue on the floor.
Republicans think they can limit the political damage of a filibuster if they reach a bipartisan deal. But what incentive do the democrats have to reach a deal? If they can force the Republicans to maintain a filibuster, why not keep the issue going until November? The strategy here seems to be, take a political hit by opposing popular legislation, and then hope that somehow this will strengthen the party's hand in the negotiations to follow. How will this work? It's like trying to bluff your opponent in poker when both you and he know he has the stronger hand.
What's more, Republicans are no longer even pretending to be able to hold the line after today's vote.
Now that the Democrats know the Republicans are planning to defect after the first vote, why on Earth would they compromise? Moreover, what is the point of taking the hit by filibustering reform in the first place? It could work, in theory, if you could bluff the Democrats into thinking the GOP might hold the line indefinitely. But I'm pretty sure the Democratic party has access to articles published in Politico, which means the jig is up. So now the Republicans are trying to bluff in poker when they and their opponent know they have the weaker hand, and their opponent has heard them admit that their strategy is to bet for a couple rounds and fold before the end. Why not just cut their losses now? This makes zero sense.
First off, Biden gave a barnburner of a eulogy. He may have been (for the first time) a little better than the President. But the President was the man they all came to see, and they gave him a warm, incredible reception.
The President appears at 7:35 into the video for his own speech.
Can't claim credit for this, because a caller to the Randi Rhodes show pointed it out first.
Legal question:
It seems to me that the U.S. 14th Amendment to the Constitution pretty much eliminates the new Arizona statue. Did the State of Arizona even have the right to enact such a law?
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
