Obama ... the Musical!

LEAKED: Obama's Video Address To The School Children

Rep. Maxine Waters Nails the Problem

How can Rahm rein in Blue Dog Democrats when he recruited most of them? Many of us saw this coming during the last two elections.

Birthers on the Hill

Mixed Emotions

President Obama announced his Supreme Court nominee this morning, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. MoveOn says: "Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School."

There is no question she has a compelling personal story, and her selection is historic. If confirmed, she will be the third woman and the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

And, Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate for her current position, making it challenging for some Republicans to oppose her now.

Her confirmation is likely a done deal, but I do have a couple of concerns. Her record on reproductive justice and church-state separation is thin and somewhat troubling. I will reserve final judgment until the full story on her is revealed.

Is Obama Ready to Name a Justice?

It sounds like it! In the Washington Post today President Obama expands on his criteria for a justice.

President Obama said he is seeking a Supreme Court nominee who understands the "practical day-to-day" implications of rulings, as he pushed back in an interview airing yesterday against criticism of his emphasis on judicial "empathy."

It is "important this is somebody who has common sense and somebody who has a sense of how American society works and how the American people live," he told C-SPAN, in his most extensive public comments yet on his deliberations since Justice David H. Souter announced his retirement.

"What I want is not just ivory tower learning," he added. "I want somebody who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works."

Republicans have zeroed in on Obama's comments during the presidential campaign that he would "want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through." They have argued that this is code language for judges who would apply an "activist" agenda not necessarily bound by constitutional constraints.

Liberals really must not let Republicans get away with this "activist justice" bullshit. Their "activist president and vice president" nearly ruined this country. It could take a generation to fix the mess they left behind.

I like that President Obama cited Lilly Ledbetter's story as an example of the kind of judicial temperament he's looking for. Ledbetter was discriminated against at Goodyear Tire. For decades she was paid less than her male counterparts. Any justice with a brain would know that employees rarely know what their co-workers earn. In Ledbetter's case, by the time she did find out it was past the legal deadline to file a discrimination claim.

She lost her Supreme Court case, but Congress has now fixed the problem so other women won't face this same obstacle.

Obama stuck to the same language in the interview while seeking to expand its meaning: He wants a judge who can not only understand the lives of ordinary people, he said, but also grasp the practical consequences of rulings on businesses.

"I said earlier that I thought empathy was an important quality, and I continue to believe that. You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you, but you have to be able to stand in somebody's else shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living," he said.

As an example, he cited the Lilly Ledbetter case, in which the court ruled in 2007 that a woman who had suffered pay discrimination, but discovered it after the window for filing suit had passed, could not sue her employer. "I think anybody who has ever worked in a job like that understands that they might not know that they were being discriminated against," Obama said. "It doesn't make sense for their rights to be foreclosed. That's the kind of case where I want a judge not only to be applying the law in front of them but also to understand that as a practical matter."

The nominee will likely be named next week. Let's hope the president makes a good selection, and the Democrats have the spine to stand up to Republicans.

Cheney vs. Obama on National Security

Do I even need to ask who is the more trustworthy here?

President Obama and former vice president Richard B. Cheney yesterday gave the country the national security debate it never had during last year's campaign, with the two outlining starkly divergent views of American power and the presidency in the fight against terrorism.

In an extraordinary set of speeches, the still-new president, who refers often to the problems he inherited from his predecessor, and the previous administration's most forceful spokesman laid out their positions just minutes apart in locations separated by barely a mile. The virtual debate touched on Congress and the courts, interrogation tactics and truth commissions, and competing assessments of the nation's post-Sept. 11 history that are currently informing the debate in Washington over how best to balance public safety and civil liberties.

Presidential scholars could not recall another moment when consecutive administrations intersected so early and in such a public way.

Because we've never had a previous administration so corrupt!

In my lifetime I can think of only Nixon and Reagan who played fast and loose with the Constitution. Nixon is the epitome of why the founders included a process for impeachment. Nixon used the full power of the executive office for his own personal gain. Had he not resigned he would have surely been impeached. And I think his waiting so long damaged the country in a way we have never truly recovered from.

Reagan also used the powers of the presidency to advance a personal agenda -- one that would set this country on a course that would eventually lead to the brink of a second great depression. Regulations were imposed on corporations and the banking industry during FDR's administration for a reason. To prevent another great depression -- and for 50 years they worked! Then along came Ronnie, hell bent on deregulation and now look at where we are.

I've said before that I never thought there could be a president worse than Nixon or Reagan, but George W. Bush proved me wrong. He is the worst combination of the two. He used his pulpit to steal from the poor to benefit the rich. And his partner in crime, Dick Cheney, helped.

Cheney's fingerprints are all over the tortured prisoners at Guantanamo.

We may be in a serious depression, but that should not prevent the truth from coming out -- or from convicting Bush-Cheney for war crimes.

US Financial Collaps Driven by 'Fraud'

Is anyone surprised?

Bill Moyers recently interviewed William K. Black, a professor of economics and law with the University of Missouri, about our current economic disaster. What Black alleged should come as no surprise to anyone paying the least bit of attention.

[Black] alleged that American banks and credit agencies conspired to create a system in which so-called "liars loans" could receive AAA ratings and zero oversight, amounting to a massive "fraud" at the epicenter of US finance.

But worse still, said Black, Timothy Geithner, President Barack Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, is currently engaged in a cover-up to keep the truth of America's financial insolvency from its citizens.

Wow, this sounds really bad. And if true, it is bad, or is it?

Maybe we need to keep digging. Here is more of what Professor Black has to say:

What we know now is that the rating agencies never looked at a single loan file. When they finally did look, after the markets had completely collapsed, they found, and I'm quoting Fitch, the smallest of the rating agencies, "the results were disconcerting, in that there was the appearance of fraud in nearly every file we examined."

He equated the entire US financial system to a giant "ponzi scheme" and charged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, like Secretary Henry Paulson before him, of "covering up" the truth.

Yikes!

Why would an administration committed to change appear to be giving us more of the same?

"Are you saying that Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, and others in the administration, with the banks, are engaged in a cover up to keep us from knowing what went wrong?" asked Moyers.

"Absolutely, because they are scared to death," he said. "All right? They're scared to death of a collapse. They're afraid that if they admit the truth, that many of the large banks are insolvent. They think Americans are a bunch of cowards, and that we'll run screaming to the exits. And we won't rely on deposit insurance. And, by the way, you can rely on deposit insurance. And it's foolishness. All right? Now, it may be worse than that. You can impute more cynical motives. But I think they are sincerely just panicked about, 'We just can't let the big banks fail.' That's wrong."

Ultimately, said Black, the financial downfall of the United States in the wake of the Bush years is due to "the most elite institutions in America engaging in or facilitating fraud."

"When will Americans wake up and hold the real criminals - Banksters - accountable for their actions, and pressure the government to enact systemic changes to prevent future abuses?"

So there you have it. During the Reagan administration we saw the beginning of deregulation -- or more plainly, the beginning of the end.

During the George W. Bush administration the crooks had the keys to the bank. The whole lot of them should be in jail, not receiving billion dollar bailouts.

Now, about the Obama administration. Maybe they are trying to "protect" us ... but in the same way they are "protecting" us by not releasing the torture photos?

Maybe it's time to level with the American people, and make the bad guys pay for their crimes. What do you think?

The full interview can be viewed on-line.

It's Getting Closer!

Watch CBS Videos Online
I see gay people!

Supreme Excitement is About to Begin

It looks like President Obama is about to release the name of his first Supreme Court nominee.

President Obama told senators at a White House meeting yesterday that he would review names of potential Supreme Court nominees over the weekend, leading participants to believe an announcement could come within days, according to senior Senate aides who were briefed on the gathering.

The group included Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and the committee's senior Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.). White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the meeting lasted about 40 minutes.

Gibbs told reporters afterward that Obama reiterated to the group that he "would choose a nominee who respects the Constitution and judicial precedent and also has the good judgment and common sense to reach fair decisions." Obama urged senators to act quickly on the nomination to ensure that the new justice is confirmed before the court's new term begins in October, "with time to prepare beforehand."

Senate aides said Reid told Obama that the goal was a confirmation vote before the Senate departs on its summer recess. The official adjournment date is Aug. 7.

No specific names were discussed, aides said, although Reid and Leahy noted their preference for a justice "with real-life experience."

Who do you think he should select? What will the person selected tell us about the President?

His approval rating is good, so is this the time for President Obama to roll the dice and ask for precisely the nominee he knows his liberal supporters want? Or, will he cave to the Republicans and select someone easy to confirm?

What do you think?

Wanda Sykes Rocked the White House Correspondents' Dinner

And the President Wasn't Bad, Either!

Have I Missed the National Day of Prayer?

Not quite, but it appears that I'm giving it about as much attention as our president. President Obama discontinued the annual religious right-focused prayer service that George W. Bush held during his eight years in the White House. Looks like James and Shirley Dobson are going to be out in the cold for awhile.

During the Bush years the Dobson's, along with other religious right leaders, took part in an annual government-sponsored prayer service. According to Americans United for Separation of Church and State: "The relationship appeared to give governmental endorsement to the Dobsons’ National Day of Prayer Task Force, a private fundamentalist group that sponsors Christians-only prayer meetings around the country."

Obama has indicated that he will sign a proclamation recognizing the National Day of Prayer on Thursday, but that no special White House prayer service will be held.

Here's what Barry Lynn, AU's executive director, had to say about President Obama's actions:

I am pleased that President Obama has made this decision. The president is required by federal law to declare a National Day of Prayer, but there is no requirement that a special event be held at the White House in observance of this event.

During the Bush years, the Dobsons and other Religious Right leaders were given special access to the White House. That seems to have come to an end, and I’m glad.

Congress should never have mandated a National Day of Prayer. Americans don’t need the government telling them when to pray and what to pray for. But if the federal government is going to set aside a prayer day, it should recognize the broad diversity of faiths, not just fundamentalist Christians.

Barry Lynn is right. There's a time and a place for prayer, but at the White House -- on a specific day -- is not it. This is something evangelicals like Dobson fail to understand, and what they also don't get is that religious freedom is only guaranteed when there is church-state separation.

Supreme Decision

My first day on the job at NOW, in 1990, we left the office that morning for a "Stop Souter" rally across from the Capitol. David Souter was an unknown, and women's groups didn't trust the first President Bush to do the right thing. How fortunate for us that we were so wrong.

President Obama announced this afternoon that Justice David H. Souter, the Republican-appointed New England jurist who has become a reliable member of the liberal bloc on the Supreme Court, is retiring and said he will nominate a replacement "who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded."

Justice Souter has proven to be one of the more liberal members of the Court, and his departure probably won't mean much of a change IF President Obama nominates another liberal to take his place.

What Obama COULD do, however, is nominate a woman. We need another woman on the Court, and a few names have already surfaced.

The vacancy gives Obama his first chance to begin reshaping the court but would not likely change the dynamic on a bench that is split fairly evenly between the liberal and conservative blocs, with moderate conservative Justice Anthony M. Kennedy often holding the pivotal role.

Although Obama's choice would probably be far different from the 69-year-old intellectual bachelor from New Hampshire, the replacement will almost surely have a similar ideological outlook. Most court observers also believe Obama would be likely to choose a woman as his first appointment, since Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the lone female among the nine justices.

Most often mentioned as possibilities are two appeals judges, Sonia Sotomayor of New York and Diane P. Wood of Chicago, along with Obama's new solicitor general, Elena Kagan. Vice President Biden has been charged with drawing up a list of possible nominees, according to the source close to the court.

Replacement Speculation Begins

Those often mentioned as possibilities are, in no particular order:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor (born 1954), U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Sotomayor was nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in a deal with New York senators in 1991 and elevated to the appeals court in 1998 by President Bill Clinton. She could become the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Conservatives have raised questions about her role in upholding a decision by the city of New Haven, Conn., to throw out a firefighter promotions test because no African Americans qualified. The case is now before the Supreme Court.

Judge Diane Wood (born 1950), U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Wood worked at the antitrust division of the Justice Department during the Clinton administration, and she was nominated to the appeals court by Clinton in 1995. She knows Obama from her days as a professor at the University of Chicago law school, where he also taught. Wood, who will turn 60 next year, is the oldest of the candidates frequently mentioned for the court, where the trend has been toward younger justices who would serve for years in the lifetime appointment.

Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw (born 1954), U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Wardlaw worked for the Clinton Justice Department transition team and was nominated by Clinton as a federal judge in 1995, then elevated to the appeals court in 1998. She is a liberal judge on the nation's most liberal appeals court, and she also had a role in a case now before the Supreme Court. She wrote the appeals court decision that said Arizona school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old middle school student who was strip-searched in an unsuccessful effort to find drugs.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan (born 1960). Kagan was confirmed by the Senate to her new job in March on a 61-31 vote and has yet to argue a case at the court. Her confirmation process was more difficult than some had predicted, as Republican senators accused her of avoiding their questions. In the background was the thought that Kagan might be Obama's first nominee to the court. She is the former dean of the Harvard Law School, worked in the Clinton administration and worked with Obama, although not closely, at the University of Chicago.

Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears (born 1955). Sears was appointed by then-governor Zell Miller in 1992 and later became the first woman elected in a contested statewide race there. In 2005, she became chief justice, and in the process, became the first African-American woman in the nation to head a state supreme court. Although her current term runs until the end of 2010, Sears has announced she will step down from the job at the end of June.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (born 1959). Granholm (D) has encountered political trouble in her state because of the collapsing economy but was seen as a rising Democratic star. Born in Canada, Granholm is a Harvard Law graduate who served as attorney general before winning election as governor in 2002. She frequently campaigned with Obama during the presidential campaign.

And the list goes on.

It's a good day

We have a state doing the right thing:

N.H. Senate Passes Gay Marriage Bill

The New Hampshire Senate voted narrowly on Wednesday to legalize same-sex marriage, paving the way for the state to potentially become the fifth in the nation — and the third this month — to allow gay couples to wed.

A Congress that puts people first:

House bill would provide gays new protections

Gay victims of violence would gain new federal protections under a revived and expanded hate crimes bill passed by the House on Wednesday over conservatives' objections.

Hate crimes _ as defined by the bill _ are those motivated by prejudice and based someone's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

And a president who can talk in complete sentences:

President Obama’s 100th-Day Press Briefing

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Before we begin to tonight, I just want to provide everyone with a few brief updates on some of the challenges we're dealing with right now.

It's a good day.

Reid Still Doesn't Get It

Americans by and large know that if they break, or even bend, the law there is a price to pay. Well, unless you are a corporate CEO or part of the Executive Branch of government. THAT is the message being sent by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- who should know better. Unlike our president, Reid has been around awhile.

It's understandable that President Obama wants to remain focused on fixing the mess left behind by the Bush administration, but Reid should support Speaker Pelosi's call for an investigation on torture.

Senate Democratic leaders, joining forces with the Obama White House, said they would resist efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats to create a special commission to investigate the harsh interrogation methods that the Bush administration approved for terrorism suspects.

At a meeting of top Democrats at the White House Wednesday night, President Obama told Congressional leaders that he did not want a special inquiry, which he said would potentially steal time and energy from his ambitious policy priorities, and could mushroom into a wider distraction by looking back at other aspects of the Bush years.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and other top Senate Democrats endorsed Mr. Obama’s view on Thursday, telling reporters that they preferred to wait for the results of an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee expected sometime “late this year.” But Ms. Pelosi renewed her call for an independent panel.

Mr. Reid, who repeatedly denounced the use of harsh interrogation techniques when Mr. Bush was president, suggested that naming a special panel would signal an intent to exact “retribution” and he sought to paper over the disagreement with members of his own caucus, like Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, who want a commission.

Hummm ... let's think about this.

ret·ri·bu·tion (rět'rə-byōō'shən) n.
Something justly deserved; recompense.
Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.

Seems appropriate for the actions of the previous administration.

And what about our Constitution? Is it just a piece of paper, or is there meaning behind the words written? George Bush & Co. didn't seem to think it meant much -- but many of us do.

So come on Reid, it's time to get on board with what the American people want.


MUST READS:

Is Cheney Winning the Torture Debate?
By Eric Etheridge

Abu Zubaydah’s FBI Interrogator Removes the Legal Cornerstone of the Torture Regime
By emptywheel

Flashback: Bush’s FBI Director Said Torture Didn’t Foil Any Terror Plots
By Greg Sargent

Great (or Unrealistic) Expectations

My goodness ... Barack Obama has been president for nearly 100 days and he has not managed to solve all the problems left behind by the Bush administration. There must be something wrong with him, or with "liberal" policies -- at least that's what Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post seems to think.

New American presidents typically begin by behaving as if most of the world's problems are the fault of their predecessors -- and Barack Obama has been no exception. In his first three months he has quickly taken steps to correct the errors in George W. Bush's foreign policy, as seen by Democrats. He has collected easy dividends from his base, U.S. allies in Europe and a global following for not being "unilateralist" or war-mongering or scornful of dialogue with enemies.

Now comes the interesting part: when it starts to become evident that Bush did not create rogue states, terrorist movements, Middle Eastern blood feuds or Russian belligerence -- and that shake-ups in U.S. diplomacy, however enlightened, might not have much impact on them. [...]

Obama is not the first president to discover that facile changes in U.S. policy don't crack long-standing problems. Some of his new strategies may produce results with time. Yet the real test of an administration is what it does once it realizes that the quick fixes aren't working -- that, say, North Korea and Iran have no intention of giving up their nuclear programs, with or without dialogue, while Russia remains determined to restore its dominion over Georgia. In other words, what happens when it's no longer George W. Bush's fault? That's what the next 100 days will tell.

Come on Diehl, we didn't get into this mess overnight. And until the economy is fixed, and our troops are out of Iraq, it IS the fault of George W. Bush. He took a great economy, and a world pretty much at peace, and turned it all upside down.

Is it reasonable to expect President Obama to "fix" the Bush mess in less than 100 days? No.

The First Dog

Welcome Bo!

The new First Puppy's journey to the White House had a few twists and turns on the way!

Let's follow the trail.

The Obama puppy trail.

Why? Because it is our duty.

It starts at a doggie love shack on the bank of a creek in far western Pennsylvania and ends at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Along the way, the world's suddenly most famous puppy has had ups and downs. He has known rejection and the joy of newfound affection.

The White House tried hard, oh so hard, to keep 6-month-old Bo a secret. But the Obama girls' new pet, that cuter-than-cute Portuguese water dog with the lei around his neck, is a celeb now...

He began his journey as Amigo's New Hope, and then landed with a family in Washington who renamed him Charlie.

Eventually he was placed with a woman in Washington, Stern said. She renamed him Charlie. Alas, it wasn't to be a happy home.

The woman -- who has not been identified -- has an older Portie, Martha Stern said, and that playful little scamp Charlie was getting on the other dog's nerves. Charlie thought the older dog might be his mommy, and even attempted to nurse, Stern said. Finally, early in March, the woman decided enough was enough.

Charlie needed to find a new home.

Portie breeders tend to be a careful lot, and they insist on finding new homes for unwanted pups to assure they don't end up in shelters. Rejected by his first family, Charlie was about to set on a journey that took him to The First Family.

Charlie was tutored in good manners by Dawn Sylvia of Merit Puppy Training in Virginia.

This began the Super Secret phase of Charlie's life, which included a clandestine White House visit in which he won over the Obama girls and their parents. Then Easter weekend came, and his days of anonymity ended. The celebrity Web site TMZ.com, and The Washington Post published online pieces identifying the new White House puppy as a Portie. The Post disclosed that Sasha and Malia had renamed him Bo.

So the wait is over, the puppy is in place, and an election night promise fulfilled.

New Optimism on Economy

A question I've asked in the past is how much of our economic problems are fear based and how much is reality. Did panic on Wall Street cause the terrible down turn in our economic situation, or are greedy CEO's in the banking industry responsible?

Replacing fear with confidence could put us on the road to recovery -- at least that's what the latest New York Times/CBS News poll suggests.

Americans have grown more optimistic about the economy and the direction of the country in the 11 weeks since President Obama was inaugurated, suggesting that Mr. Obama is enjoying some success in his critical task of rebuilding the nation’s confidence, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

These sometimes turbulent weeks — marked by new initiatives by Mr. Obama, attacks by Republicans and more than a few missteps by the White House — do not appear to have hurt the president. Americans said they approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, foreign policy, Iraq and Afghanistan; fully two-thirds said they approve of his overall job performance.

By contrast, Republican fortunes have dropped in the first weeks of the Obama presidency; just 31 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, the lowest in the 25 years the question has been asked in New York Times/CBS News polls.

It is not unusual for new presidents to enjoy a period of public support. Still, the durability of Mr. Obama’s support contrasts with that of some other new presidents, and is striking at a time when anxiety has gripped households across the country and Mr. Obama has alternately sought to rally Americans’ spirits and warn against economic collapse as he seeks Congressional support for his programs. The poll found that 70 percent of respondents are very or somewhat concerned that someone in their household will be out of work and looking for a job over the next 12 months; 40 percent said they had cut back spending on luxuries, and 10 percent on necessities; 31 percent said they had cut both.

For all that, the number of people who think the country is heading in the right direction has jumped from 15 percent in mid-January, just before Mr. Obama took office, to 39 percent today, while the number who think it is heading in the wrong direction has dropped from 79 to 53 percent. That is the highest percentage of Americans who said the country is heading in the right direction since February of 2005, the second month of the second term of former President George W. Bush.

Hopefully the President will be able to keep optimisim up long enough to impliment the programs necessary to turn the economy around.

In the mean time, Republicans have a problem. And the actions of Florida's Republican Governor may be contributing to the problem.

As more and more people are falling on hard times the state decided to crack down on collections.

Valerie Gainous paid her debt to society, but almost went to jail because of a debt to Florida’s courts.

In 1996, she was convicted of writing bad checks; she paid restitution, performed community service and thought she was finished with the criminal justice system. Earlier this year, however, she received a letter from Collections Court telling her that she was once again facing jail time — this time, for failing to pay $240 in leftover court fees and fines, which she says she cannot afford.

Ms. Gainous has been caught up in her state’s exceptionally aggressive system to collect the court fines and fees that keep its judiciary system working. Judges themselves dun citizens who have fallen behind in their payments, but unlike other creditors, they can throw debtors in jail — and they do, by the thousands.

As Florida’s budget has tightened with the economic crisis, efforts to step up the collections process have intensified, and court clerks say the pressure is on them to bring in every dollar. “I would say there is an even more dramatic focus on those funds now,” said Beth Allman, the spokeswoman for the Florida Association of Court Clerks. [...]

Advocates for the poor have urged other states not to follow Florida’s example of squeezing defendants harder to make up for budget cuts. Rebekah Diller, deputy director of the justice program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said the state’s system wasted resources “to get blood from a stone.” Judges, she said, should not become “debt collectors in robes,” which she called both demeaning to the judges and humiliating for the people who must stand before them.

Rhode Island seems to agree. Faced with statistics showing that arrests for nonpayment cost far more than they bring in, the state passed a law in August granting judges latitude to waive court debts for poor defendants.

Maybe sending poor people to jail isn't the best solution. Maybe helping people find meaningful employment, and becoming full contriutors to society, is a better solution?

What do you think?

Manufactured Contempt ...

or, how I duped conservatives for fame and fortune!


Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have made demonizing liberals a cottage industry. Their rants are so transparent it's surprising the neocons still hang on their every word. Oh, wait ... we are talking about neocons ... ha!

Limbaugh was an early critic of the first President Bush, until Poppy invited him to sleep over in the Lincoln Bedroom. From that moment on they were BFF's!

Coulter and Ingraham woke up one morning to the realization they had no talent other than deceiving people. They quickly found their base in the 23 percent of the population that stuck with GWB to the bitter end. And now the neocon-wanna-be Tammy Bruce is trying to break into the big league.

Bruce, during a guest host stint on The Laura Ingraham Show, recently referred to the Obama's as "trash." Her exact quote: "We've got trash in the White House." She's certainly getting a lot of mileage out of it!

BRUCE: But here's Michelle Obama explaining to some kids what it was like for her growing up because she sounded like a white person, whatever that means.

OBAMA [audio clip]: I did do my best, getting good grades was always important to me, and it wasn't because my parents were -

BRUCE: It's all about her.

OBAMA [audio clip]: -- hounding me or that they had the expectation, it was just something that I wanted for myself. I wanted an A. And I didn't care whether it was cool, ‘cause I remember there were kids around my neighborhood who would say, "Ooh, you talk funny, you talk like a white girl." I heard that growing up my whole life, and I was like I don't even know what that means, but you know what? I'm still getting my A.

BRUCE: What? What? What -- what is that? And then she devolves into that weird fake accent, like Hillary did when talking to black people. What? What is that? That's, that -- you know what that is.

DAVID AFTER DENTIST [audio clip]: Is this going to be forever?

BRUCE: Yeah, that - remember nitrous oxide kid, on You Tube. No it's not going to be forever, nitrous oxide kid. It's not. Can you -- can you believe that?

OBAMA [audio clip]: So do I need to introduce myself?

BRUCE: What a shame. That must've just ruined her damn day. "I wanted the A for myself, and I wanted to do it, and ooh, they said you sounded like a white person, I don't know what that means, but uhh." Huh?

Man, oh, man. That's who he's married to, what does that tell you? This is what we've got -- you know what we've got? We've got trash in the White House. Trash is a, is a thing that is color blind, it can cross all eco -- ecosocionomic kind of categories, you can work on Wall Street or work at the Wal-Mart. Trash are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy.

Hummmm ... let's dissect the section I emphasised above.

"Trash are people who use other people to get things" -- like the way you and your ilk use demonizing liberals to earn a living? Or, "[Trash are people] who patronize others" ... patronize: to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward someone -- kind of like what you are doing to Michelle Obama?

There was a time when Tammy and I were friends. We've actually had dinner together. But I doubt that Tammy would have dinner with me today!

When I knew Tammy she was a chapter leader and eventual national board member in NOW. And then came the OJ trial. Who knows why this sent Tammy over the edge, but it was definitely a turning point for her. She began making statements that were rife with racism -- which could be why she is on the attack now against the Obama's.

She parted ways with NOW, and began a steep dive into the dark side.

I was critical of the way NOW leaders dealt with the Nicole Brown tragedy, and said so to them directly. But what I don't understand is if you think a person (or in this case an organization) is not acting in the best interest of women, or in a "feminist" manner, why would you think an appropriate response be to throw your support behind groups (or people) that demonize women?

Folks like Tammy Bruce, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have an agenda -- demonizing for dollars.

I think if they thought they could make big bucks trashing conservatives they'd do it in a heartbeat. The challenge to this is that getting liberals to do anything as a group is like herding cats! We don't all buy the same book or listen to the same radio program. It's hard to make money off us.

Rachel Maddow seems to be holding the attention of liberals these days. Keith Olbermann had us for awhile -- until his sexist side kicked in and he lost his feminist audience. Tammy does have one thing in common with Maddow -- they're both lesbians.

So Tammy, come back from the dark side! There's still time for you to redeem yourself and make your mentor proud. Do it for Toni.

Obama Urged to "Rein In The Chaos"

In today's Washington Post, former Intel Corp. chief executive Andy Grove is urging President Obama to "rein in the chaos."

He begins with a quote from Niccolò Machiavelli: There is nothing more difficult . . . than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.

Machiavelli's 500-year-old warning notwithstanding, we elected a president who is committed to "change." The economic meltdown in which our country finds itself at the start of his administration makes his difficult task even more daunting. In less than two months, the hopeful enthusiasm that welcomed the Obama administration has given way to growing worry and frustration. I find myself wringing my hands, not over the goals President Obama has set but over the ineffectual ways the administration has pursued them. I have no qualifications to judge how well the Obama team manages the political dynamics, but as a business executive with 40 years' experience, much of it managing change, and a part-time academic dedicated to studying why so few corporations succeed in navigating change, I feel compelled to comment not on the what of the Obama team's efforts but on the how.

I have found that to succeed, an organization must travel through two phases: first, a period of chaotic experimentation in which intense discussion is allowed, even encouraged, by those in charge. In time, when the chaos becomes unbearable, the leadership reins in chaos with a firm hand. The first phase serves to expose the needs and options, the potential and pitfalls. The organization and its leaders learn a lot going through this phase. But frustration also builds, and eventually the cry is heard: Make a decision -- any decision -- but make it now. The time comes for the leadership to end the chaos and commit to a path.

We have gone through months of chaos experimenting with ways to introduce stability in our financial system. The goals were to allow the financial institutions to do their jobs and to develop confidence in them. I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration to rein in chaos. But this is not happening.

Is the president biting off more than the American public can chew? Do we need stability in the financial market before we can begin to tackle the other major problems left behind? Are some of the problems President Obama wants to address contributing factors to the financial meltdown? Can he "fix" the first, if we do not address the others?

These (and other questions) have me wringing my hands, too!

What do you think?