Monday Reads

Good Morning!!

I was celebrating my youngest daughter’s 21st birthday last night with the other daughter and her boyfriend in Baton Rouge.  I missed the 60 Minutes interview with the President but FDL put the transcript and video up here. Does this worry any one but Jane Hamsher–who is responsible for the bolding–and me?   This quote is from President Obama.

Well, it’ll be interesting to see how it evolves. We have a long tradition in this country of a desire for limited government, the suspicion of the federal government, of a concern that government spends too much money. You know? I mean, that’s as American as apple pie. And although, you know, there’s a new label to this, I mean those sentiments are ones that a lot of people support and give voice to. Including a lot of Democrats.

And so, the test is gonna be what happens over the next several years, when it’s not just an abstraction, but we have to start making serious choices. I’ve got a deficit commission that I’ve put forward that is gonna be releasing recommendations for how we can start reducing the deficit. And I don’t know yet what they’re gonna say, but I do know what the federal budget looks like. And if you eliminate all the earmarks. If you eliminate all the foreign aid. If you eliminate all the waste and abuse that people, you know, talk about eliminating — you’re still confronted with a fact that the vast majority of the federal budget are things that people really think are important. Like Social Security and Medicare and defense.

And so, you then have to start making some tough decisions about how do we pay for those things that we think are important? And you know, we’re not gonna be able to balance the budget just by slashing the National Parks budget, even if you didn’t think that was a proper function of government. We’re not gonna be able to balance the budget by, you know, eliminating the National Weather Service.

I mean, we’re gonna have to, you know, tackle some big issues like entitlements that, you know, when you listen to the Tea Party or you listen to Republican candidates they promise we’re not gonna touch.

What’s on the table now?  The War in Afghanistan or our social security?  What does the President mean when he says “entitlements”?  I don’t know about you, but I’ve been working since I was 15 and I’ve paid for those ‘benefits’!  I don’t want them handed over to Wall Street or shot into space as a spy satellite instead.

You may have heard already that Olbermann will be back on the air tomorrow. Was it really his ‘questionable’ political donations that forced the suspension?  Here’s an interesting twist from Alternet: ‘If Olbermann’s Donations Are Bad, What About GE’s?’

If supporting politicians with money is a threat to journalistic independence, we should consider the contributions of NBC, and at NBC’s parent company General Electric.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, GE made over $2 million in political contributions in the 2010 election cycle (most coming from the company’s political action committee). The top recipient was Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman from Ohio. The company has also spent $32 million on lobbying this year, and contributed over $1 million to the successful “No on 24” campaign against a California ballot initiative aimed at eliminating tax loopholes for major corporations (New York Times, 11/1/10).

Comcast, the cable company currently looking to buy NBC, has dramatically increased its political giving, much of it to lawmakers who support the proposed merger (Bloomberg, 10/19/10). And while Fox News parent News Corp’s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association caused a stir, GE had “given $245,000 to the Democratic governors and $205,000 to the Republican governors since last year,” reported the Washington Post (8/18/10).

Olbermann’s donations are in some ways comparable to fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough’s $4,200 contribution to Republican candidate Derrick Kitts in 2006 (MSNBC.com, 7/15/07). When that was uncovered, though, NBC dismissed this as a problem, since Scarborough “hosts an opinion program and is not a news reporter.” Olbermann, of course, is also an opinion journalist–but MSNBC seems to hold him to a different standard.

Okay, good question, if it’s okay for Scarborough why isn’t it okay for Olbermann?  I frankly can’t stand either and don’t watch them, but NBC really messed up with this one.

Mike Kimel at Angry Bear has a some what wonky economic post up today, but it’s worth looking at because it debunks the conservative argument that the Great Depression was solved by war expenditures during WW2 and every thing was just hunky dory after that.  You may recall the bizarre op-ed in WAPO last week by David Broder suggesting that starting a war with Iran would jump start our economy.  Interestingly enough it’s called Very bad economic Theory. Good to see some one tackle yet another canard spread by right wing hopealogues looking for to replace real economic analysis with voodoo doodoo.  There’s links also to this paper which is really odd. It’s a working paper from David Henderson at George Mason University and it’s probably going to stay a working paper just about every where except maybe the AEI or the Club for Growth.  Kimel rips the paper to shreds and does so with some really, nifty graphs!

Finally, it is worth noting – some of the commentators to Tyler Cowen’s post also seemed to incorrectly believe that there was a post WW2 boom, though they tended to attribute that non-existent boom to the fact that the US came out of WW2 intact and went out building up other participants of the war. The fact that there are a variety of incorrect views about what happened in the past is not important. The fact that people believe in things that are demonstrably (and easily demonstrable, at that) not true is vital and unfortunate. As Michael Kanell and I point out in Presimetrics, theorizing based on incorrect facts leads to very poor theory, poor theory leads to abysmal policies, and abysmal policies lead to very unfortunate outcomes that negatively impact the lives of all of us.

US News & World Report–which is no longer being offered in a print edition–has an interesting op ed up by Mort Zuckerman:  ‘America’s Love Affair With Obama Is Over;The administration is running out of time to lower unemployment and fix the economy’.

The last two years have exposed to the public the risk that came with voting an inexperienced politician into office at a time when there was a crisis in America’s economy, as the nation contended with a financial freeze, a painful recession, and two wars. The Democrats were simply not aggressive enough or focused enough in confronting the profound economic crisis represented by millions of ordinary Americans whose main concern was the lack of jobs.

Jobs have long represented the stairway to upward mobility in America, and the anxiety over joblessness became the dominant concern at a time when financial security based on home equity and pensions was dramatically eroding. No great speech is going to change the fundamental fact that millions of people are either jobless or underemployed at a time when only a quarter of the American population describes the job market as good.

Why did Obama put his health plan so far ahead of the economy? To do what the Clintons couldn’t? His rush to do it sparked a broad resistance that has only spread since the bill was passed. The public sensed that healthcare was a victory for Obama, and maybe for the Democrats, but not for the country—and contrary to Democratic hopes, public support for the measure has continued to drop to as low as 34 percent in some polls. A significant majority, some 58 percent, now wish to repeal the entire bill, according to likely voters questioned in a late October poll by Rasmussen.

Let’s see, who have we heard this all from before?

WAPO reports that the U.S. is deploying drones in Yemen now. Are we going to open a third front in the wars in the Middle East now?  How much do those things cost?  Is this yet another example of a sneaking into a skirmish that becomes a war?

The United States has deployed Predator drones to hunt for al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen for the first time in years but has not fired missiles from the unmanned aircraft because it lacks solid intelligence on the insurgents’ whereabouts, senior U.S. officials said.

The use of the drones is part of a campaign against an al-Qaeda branch that has claimed responsibility for near-miss attacks on U.S. targets that could have had catastrophic results, including the recent plot to place parcels packed with explosives on cargo planes.

U.S. officials said the Predators have been patrolling the skies over Yemen for several months in search of leaders and operatives of the group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. After withstanding a flurry of attacks involving Yemeni forces and U.S. cruise missiles earlier this year, AQAP’s leaders “went to ground,” a senior Obama administration official said.

The use of U.S. drones in Yemen underscores the deep U.S. reliance on what has become a signature weapon against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

I think there is probably some things weird in there to say about Biden’s wars and Drone Wars but I can’t seem to do it right now.  All I know is that I’m tired of watching my tax dollars being spent on drones for sale.  Can we buy a few levees and electric grid up grades in the US while we’re at all this?  Maybe they could clean up the Gulf of Mexico?  Keep funding Head Start?  Repave a few bumpy interstate highways?

[MABlue here]
I’m among those who have seen it, but here is the entire interview of President Obama on 60 Minutes. What are your impressions?

Many Democrats are afraid Obama still doesn’t get “it”.
Assessing midterm losses, Democrats ask whether Obama’s White House fully grasped voters’ fears

President Obama‘s failure to channel the anxieties of ordinary voters has shaken the faith that many Democrats once had in his political gifts and his team’s political skill.

In his own assessments of what went wrong, the president has lamented his inability to persuade voters on the merits of what he has done, and blamed the failure on his preoccupation with a full plate of crises.

But a broad sample of Democratic officeholders and strategists said in interviews that the disconnect goes far deeper than that.

Paul Krugman is not happy with QE2. He thinks we didn’t learn anything from a watered down stimulus. [Kat,do we have a problem of multiple personality disorder here? Ben Bernanke, pre-eminent scholar of the Great Depression vs Ben Bernanke, Fed Chair]
Doing It Again

[A]s in the 1930s, every proposal to do something to improve the situation is met with a firestorm of opposition and criticism. As a result, by the time the actual policy emerges, it’s watered down to such an extent that it’s almost guaranteed to fail.

We’ve already seen this happen with fiscal policy: fearing opposition in Congress, the Obama administration offered an inadequate plan, only to see the plan weakened further in the Senate. In the end, the small rise in federal spending was effectively offset by cuts at the state and local level, so that there was no real stimulus to the economy.

Now the same thing is happening to monetary policy.

Oh! And Sarah Palin is unhappy with Ben Bernanke for doing “quantitative easing” at all. She says he should do like Reagan… Or something.
Palin to Bernanke: ‘Cease and Desist’

We shouldn’t be playing around with inflation. It’s not for nothing Reagan called it “as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber, and as deadly as a hit man.” The Fed’s pump priming addiction has got our small businesses running scared, and our allies worried. The German finance minister called the Fed’s proposals “clueless.” When Germany, a country that knows a thing or two about the dangers of inflation, warns us to think again, maybe it’s time for Chairman Bernanke to cease and desist. We don’t want temporary, artificial economic growth bought at the expense of permanently higher inflation which will erode the value of our incomes and our savings. We want a stable dollar combined with real economic reform. It’s the only way we can get our economy back on the right track

Mmmkay!!!!

The age of austerity is coming with a vengeance.
Now in Power, G.O.P. Vows Cuts in State Budgets

Republicans who have taken over state capitols across the country are promising to respond to crippling budget deficits with an array of cuts, among them proposals to reduce public workers’ benefits in Wisconsin, scale back social services in Maine and sell off state liquor stores in Pennsylvania, endangering the jobs of thousands of state workers.

The Hindustan Times has a pretty good coverage of Obama in India

India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says India is not stealing US Jobs

India on Monday asserted that it was not in the business of stealing American jobs, even as US President Barack Obama said that deals with India to create 50,000 jobs back home were aimed at assuaging citizens’ fears.

“India is not in the business of stealing jobs from the US… outsourcing (work to India) has helped improve the productive capacity and productivity of America,” prime minister Manmohan Singh said at a joint press conference with visiting US President Barack Obama at Hyderabad House here.

For Heaven’s sake! Can this guy/gal make up his/her mind already?
A very peculiar engagement: Charles had a sex change… then hated being Samantha so became a man again. Now he’s getting married

Born Sam Hashimi, the businessman and divorced father-of-two had a sex-change operation in 1987 to turn him into glamorous interior designer Samantha Kane.

He spent £100,000 on cosmetic operations and tooth veneers to create the ‘ultimate male ­fantasy’ and was so convincing as a woman he had no trouble attracting men, and was briefly engaged to a wealthy landowner.

Then, in 2004, after seven years of living as a woman, he decided he’d made a horrible mistake; the result -he believes now -of a breakdown following the acrimonious end of his 12-year ­marriage and estrangement from his children.

What’s on your Reading and Blogging list today?


59 Comments on “Monday Reads”

  1. Zaladonis says:

    Okay, good question, if it’s okay for Scarborough why isn’t it okay for Olbermann? I frankly can’t stand either and don’t watch them, but NBC really messed up with this one.

    Can’t stand either of them, myself, but I bet Olbermann’s ratings soar upon his return.

    You saw all the publicity this got, and all the support Olbermann collected — you can’t buy that kind of positive publicity for a show!

    Maybe it was inadvertant (and maybe it wasn’t) but NBC’s “mess up” is going to rake in some bucks for them.

  2. Zaladonis says:

    Why did Obama put his health plan so far ahead of the economy? To do what the Clintons couldn’t? His rush to do it sparked a broad resistance that has only spread since the bill was passed.

    This is becoming conventional wisdom and I just don’t buy it.

    The problem, I think, wasn’t the Dem President tackling health care reform, and he didn’t put it ahead of the economy, he just handled the economy badly. I believe HCR could have dovetailed with cohesive economic policy and not been an either/or thing.

    Making HCR a top priority wasn’t what Obama did wrong. What he did wrong was buddy up with the corporate health care lobby rather than working with Pelosi to pass what the People wanted.

  3. Zaladonis says:

    Love this opinion piece at CNN, John Avlon makes some excellent points:

    Whole news networks are being transformed into little more than on-air advocates for political parties. The idea of objectivity is now increasingly dismissed as a myth rather than honored as an ideal toward which the news industry should strive.

    Americans are self-segregating themselves into separate political realities — responding to the proliferation of information by consuming news that confirms their political prejudices. Loyal viewers see opinion-anchors like Olbermann or Glenn Beck as the only “truth-tellers” in town, while dismissing the rest of the media as cowardly or biased. We are devolving back to the era when newspapers were owned and operated by political parties.

    The result: Partisan warfare is on the rise, and trust in media is on the decline. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has documented the trend and concluded that “virtually every news organization or program has seen its credibility marks decline” over the past decade. …

    Fox News — which rarely loses an opportunity to attack the left — gave comparatively little coverage to Olbermann’s suspension. Here’s the reason for their reaction: Conservative media warriors welcome outright liberal advocates, because they justify the right’s own ideological approach.

    Olbermann symbolizes a fight for public opinion that the right believes it can win. After all, at any given time roughly 50 percent more Americans self-identify as conservative rather than liberal. A 2009 Pew poll found that 15 percent of Americans call themselves conservative Republicans while just 11 percent describe themselves as liberal Democrats.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/07/avlon.olbermann/index.html

    But I think he gets it totally wrong when he says

    The current spin cycle might be hitting such a sickening extent that there is a demand for something different — that’s the impulse that I believe was behind the success of Jon Stewart’s Rally for Sanity last weekend. After all, 44 percent of Americans born after 1977 identify themselves as independent, according to the Pew Center. The American people want something more than the predictable parroting of partisan talking points.

    My takeaway from the Rally for Sanity is that Jon Stewart is trying to press for something different but Americans are enjoying this food fight, including and maybe especially those “born after 1977.” Since 2008 it’s not getting better, it’s getting worse, and who’s been in power, who’s leading the mob?

    • purplefinn says:

      I was dismayed that PBS seems to be going along with the “great divide.” The upcoming programs on the presidents is divided into Republicans and Democrats. How foolish. Presidents are supposed to be for all of the people as are all elected and appointed officials.

    • dakinikat says:

      That is good! Thx.

  4. Pips says:

    German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble claims that “The US Has Lived on Borrowed Money for Too Long”.

    And Pruning Shears has an ongoing account on the drone killings – look for “Our image in the Muslim world would probably improve if we stopped killing so many Muslims” in the posts. Heartbreaking reading!

  5. Pat Johnson says:

    Obama should just come right out and say it: I am Reagan incarnated for those who still miss The Gipper.

    Imagine extending tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the nation while toying with the idea that cuts can only be made against those who depend upon the government to survive.

    Pulling the plug on these immoral wars would be a start in easing some of this taxable burden but instead they are willing to “compromise” with programs that assist so many in favor of those who assist so few.

    Shameful.

    • Zaladonis says:

      Imagine extending tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the nation

      It’s revealing that Obama’s even put that on the table. I don’t see how it can advantage him or Democrats at all.

      It’s hard to believe, in this economy with record Wall St bonuses and a struggling working-class, a Dem President can’t take political advantage of Republicans holding middle-class tax cuts hostage to keep wealthy tax cuts in place.

      • dakinikat says:

        They’re going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor,the working class and the middle class. I can’t believe how we’re turning into such a banana republic.

  6. janicen says:

    I missed the Obama interview on 60 Minutes last night too, but I saw several clips and I noticed that Obama was dropping his G’s again, so we can be comforted that he’s focusing on the working class now!

  7. purplefinn says:

    I mean, we’re gonna have to, you know, tackle some big issues like entitlements that, you know, when you listen to the Tea Party or you listen to Republican candidates they promise we’re not gonna touch.

    Doublespeak! He’s trying to make going after entitlements a Democratic goal? He surely isn’t working for us. He wants to be all things to all people. Guaranteed failure.

    He has to go. There needs to be someone better to replace him.

    • bostonboomer says:

      It sure sounds that way, doesn’t it. They were discussing that over at FDL last night. It’s complete doublespeak and the meaning is quite muddled.

  8. purplefinn says:

    Palin could be further marginalized as the “Republican establishment takes on Sarah Palin.”
    She touched the third rail – Reagan.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin

  9. bostonboomer says:

    The NYT thinks it’s time for Nancy Pelosi to be replaced by a more effective communicator:

    Ms. Pelosi announced on Friday that she would seek the post of House minority leader. That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House. What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.

    If Ms. Pelosi had been a more persuasive communicator, she could have batted away the ludicrous caricature of her painted by Republicans across the country as some kind of fur-hatted commissar jamming her diktats down the public’s throat. Both Ms. Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, are inside players who seem to visibly shrink on camera when defending their policies, rarely connecting with the skeptical independent voters who raged so loudly on Tuesday.

    With President Obama proving to be a surprisingly diffident salesman of his own work, Congressional Democrats need a new champion to stand against a tightly disciplined Republican insurgency.

  10. Branjor says:

    sell off state liquor stores in Pennsylvania, endangering the jobs of thousands of state workers.

    State liquor stores? I have to confess, that’s a new one on me. I can see it as one pulls up in the car “Pennsylvania State Liquor Store”, with the state seal on it and everything.

    • Teresa says:

      In Washington, all of our liquor stores are managed by the state — Yes, to buy hard alcohol you go to a Washington State Liquor Store. In the last election we had a vote on a measure to eliminate the state liquor stores and allow retail chains to sell liquor instead. Liquor would have gotten cheaper for buyers. The measure failed, thankfully. It would have taken a great deal of revenue away from the state and would have eliminated a whole lot of decent jobs, replacing them with $8.50/hr retail jobs.

      I think at this point, states that run their liquor stores are in the minority, but they aren’t THAT unusual!

      • Branjor says:

        Thanks, Teresa, I didn’t know that. The thought of the state in the business of selling liquor just struck me as so odd.

        • Dee says:

          Same here in NC – state liquor stores. I think the revenue is shared with the county where it is purchased. I do know that getting/having the license to operate a liquor store is considered patronage. IOWs – it is a political position and heavy donations to state/county office holders is a must to retain the license.

      • bostonboomer says:

        It’s the same in New Hampshire. You can only buy beer and wine in stores–no liquor stores. The town I live in in MA is dry.

    • cwaltz says:

      Virginia has ABC liquor stores controlled by state. McDonnell wants to sell it off to private entities to put some cash in coffers.

  11. Branjor says:

    Can this guy/gal make up his/her mind already?

    It’s a guy, mablue. Even when it was a gal, it was a guy.

  12. Teresa says:

    I don’t like Palin’s policies at all, but I cringe at even the hint of PDS. Why not just ignore her if you don’t think she’s very intelligent?….

    I don’t understand why people who hate her give her air time at all….It makes more sense to pretend she doesn’t exist….it’s a whole lot less negative and nasty.

    • dakinikat says:

      I think all this pds is just a way to get attention off the real stuff. She’s the political rodeo clown.

    • mablue2 says:

      Teresa,

      whether we like it or not, she’s a major player on the political scene. What we do is to mock politician when they try to be all smart about things they don’t understand. That treatment is reserved to pretty much any major public figure.

      • bostonboomer says:

        The treatment is noticably different for women politicians. As a man, maybe you don’t see it like we women do.

        • mablue2 says:

          BB,

          I don’t see why there’s a big deal in this specific instance. I could understand if I was taking shots at Palin for pretty much just existing like some people on our side do, but this is not the case.

          This is just pointing out at a public figure (m/f), in this case a major political figure, who jumps into something s/he doesn’t even understand and come up with gobbledygook.

          We do that in our culture. We mock prominent who talk nonsense all the time. Heck we mock even jocks who don’t express themselves properly. I think Yogi Berra will be remembered more for the strange ways he expressed his thoughts than for his baseball skills.

          I really don’t know why Palin should be off limits. You can’t point to any of his silliness without being accused of suffering from PDS or even being a misogynist. I really don’t get it.

          • purplefinn says:

            “I really don’t get it.” mablue, I believe that you are sincere in this. I would ask you to consider whether you are giving equal time to similarly influential political figures who “(don’t) even understand and come up with gobbledygook.” Or whether you have a particular inclination to highlight Palin?

            I agree that making Palin off limits would be singling her out unnecessarily.

            I admit to being sensitized to the treatment of women as compared with the treatment of men.

            At any rate I look forward to your send-ups of Boehner.

          • bostonboomer says:

            I wasn’t criticizing you personally, MABlue. I was talking about the “progressives” who have focused almost completely on ridiculing women candidates–Palin, O’Donnell, Sharron Angle. It is just like what they did to Hillary.

            I have no problem with ridicule per se. But when I see it focused mainly on women and involving sexual innuendo, then I see sexism. I don’t see the same obsession with male candidates who have little chance of being elected or aren’t running for anything.

          • mablue2 says:

            purplefinn & BB,

            I totally understand what you are talking about, and I actually go out of my way to avoid even the appearance of an unnecessary pile on.

            I just don’t like when some prominent figure wishes and gets special treatment. Normally, when we think a public figure has done or said something silly, we mock them.

            Just now on Brad Delong’s website:

            In Which Bob Zoellick Makes His Play for the Stupidest Man Alive Crown

            and

            Why oh why can’t we have a better press corps?

            Remember Hillary singing the national anthem off key?

            Mocking public figures for something doesn’t have anything to do gender, race, or what have you…

  13. TheRock says:

    Nice roundup Dak! Did you see Gibby getting tough on the Indian press?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101108/pl_yblog_upshot/gibbs-threatens-to-pull-obama-after-press-dispute

    Asshat.

  14. Dee says:

    Sorry about the gender confusion Branjor. I remembered you were gay but did not remember you were female.

    I am old and became active when we had just a “gay movement”. Then in the early 70s after much heated debate they finally recognized the women and the pc thing became “gay and lesbian movement”. Our main issues were public accomodations, housing and employment discrimination. Marriage and military service was not even on the horizon. I didn’t follow the politics of all the add-ons (BTTIQQXYZ) closely but do remember thinking that adding all those train cars to our engine was going to muck-up the message and slow down the movement.

    And this story about Hashimi is just another opportunity to laugh at the freaks. I will admit that I have always had a problem with Ts – M to F. Not because I care about what they do but study after study has shown that the Ms to Fs are no “happier” after surgery than before and a lot of money is wasted. I watched a one hour program on tv a few months back about two Ms to Fs that also switched back – I groaned throughout.

    JFTR – one of my employees is an M to F. When I hired her she was just cross dressing (sort of). I hired her because (1) I thought she needed a safe work environment and I could provide that. (2) I felt I needed to re-examine my own prejudices about Ts – M to F. (BTW – I understand the F to M a little better. It is pretty much a man’s world still today and I think that plays into the thought process.)

    About two years ago my employee started taking hormones. A few months into the hormones she became a total raging bitch at times. I talked with her about how it was not really a good idea to attack her boss (me) , let alone the co-workers. She has adjusted her meds many times but still she is quite volatile. By agreement, when she is a total bitchy bitch I just send her home. She can’t help it but I can’t have it.

    All I am trying to say is that I am a work in progress on understanding Ts.

    • Zaladonis says:

      (BTW – I understand the F to M a little better. It is pretty much a man’s world still today and I think that plays into the thought process.)

      I think for most transgender it’s not a thought process any more than being gay is a thought process, it feels to them like what they are.

      . I didn’t follow the politics of all the add-ons (BTTIQQXYZ) closely but do remember thinking that adding all those train cars to our engine was going to muck-up the message and slow down the movement.

      I was (and really still am) of the same opinion but at the same time I understand being marginalized and always felt other people who’re marginalized are welcome in my booth.

      Then a few weeks ago, on FB, two transgenders went after me for saying “gay” rather than LGBT (though I try to be inclusive I still think “LGBT” is awkward to type), shouting in caps across the pixels that they’re sick and tired of being marginalized by gays in the movement and aren’t going to put up with it any more. It was hard but I resisted asking who the hell invited them to our movement in the first place. ;-/

  15. Back Bay Style says:

    Oh for crying out loud! How can O even pass himself off as a democrat? The party creatith and the party will taketh away. FDR is spinning in his grave somewhere. I figure Eleanor’s been spinning since they squashed Hillary in ’08.

  16. dakinikat says:

    MABlue: Thx for the add-ons! You really find some interesting stuff!!

  17. dakinikat says:

    Yet more evidence from Alabama scientists that the Oil in the Gulf is impacting our food. This link is from the TP again. H/T to the New Orleans Ladder

    A new study by scientists with Alabama’s Dauphin Island Sea Lab provides more evidence that the 200 million gallons of oil released from the BP Macondo well disaster were quickly turned into food by bacteria in the Gulf of Mexico.

    “The message we have is that a very large fraction of the oil had to have been consumed by microbes, which in turn are food for larger organisms,” said William “Monty” Graham, senior marine scientist at the lab and lead author for the paper. “For the most part, it looks like the microbes came to the rescue as the oil came toward shore, and turned it into food.”

    The research was aimed both at understanding how quickly the oil disappeared from the water and at showing other researchers how to find ways of determining where the oil went when studying larger organisms in the food chain.

    Vanishing oil my a$$! The study explains how the oil will now make its way up the food chain.

  18. dakinikat says:

    The wisdom beings had nothing to do with this.

    Jindal’s got a new book out called Leadership and Crisis. Can you say Republican Presidential Contender and Fundraiser?

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-bookworm/2010/11/by_stephen_lowman_louisiana_go.html

    • TheRock says:

      Indians donate to their own like no other group in the country. Jindal will get money from Indians and Indian-Americans nationwide regardless of political affiliation. And he will raise ALOT of money….

      One thing is for sure about the Republican party. Knock them down, and they come back 4 times stronger. Do the same to the Dems, and they go sit in a corner for a decade.

  19. cwaltz says:

    The funny thing is health care is something like 20% of the GDP so had he done health care reform right it could have potentially changed the economic landscape. However, in order to do so we would have needed a bold visionary and that is one thing I would never accuse Barack Obama of being. He’s an incrementalist at best and someone who supports the status quo at worst.

  20. Zaladonis says:

    Okay I know I’m a computer moron. For the life of me I can’t change my avatar to my picture. I uploaded a picture (two, actually) to the gravatar thing and it’s sitting there but isn’t showing up in my posts. I know it’s going to be something akin to “is it plugged in” but what am I not doing?

    • dakinikat says:

      It takes awhile to take effect. You can also go and clear your browser cache or turn off your computer and turn it back on. My guess is if you wait an hour, it’ll change.

  21. foxyladi14 says:

    true dat Kat.takes about an hour
    newsmax got a new poll Hillary beats bo by 20 points