←
→

Monday Reads

Posted: May 16, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Economy, Federal Budget and Budget deficit, fundamentalist Christians, Global Financial Crisis, income inequality, Medicare, religion, religious extremists, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics, Team Obama, The Bonus Class, The Great Recession, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , |52 Comments

Good Morning!

Are you reading for the end of the world next Saturday?  Nope, it’s not 2012 yet and we’re not talking about the Mayan Prophecy. Harold Campaign has convinced  a group of evangelicals that the date is May 21, 2011.  I wonder if any of them would like me to take care of their left behind pets for all their money?  You can read more about the man and his end of days wishes at Salon.

The self-appointed harbingers are not tied to any particular church — they claim organized religion has been corrupted by the devil — but rather to Internet- and radio-based ministries. And their lone mission is to tell anyone and everyone that the end of days is May 21. That’s when, they insist, God’s true believers will be lifted into heaven and saved, during a biblical event widely referred to as the Rapture.

The finer points of Christian eschatology have long been the subject of dispute (not to mention the inspiration for movies and books, like the blockbuster “Left Behind” series). Though mainstream churches reject the the notion that doomsday can be predicted by any man, fringe scholars continue to work feverishly pinpointing the moment of the final, divine revelation. And one such man — 89-year-old radio host Harold Camping — has been at the game for decades.

In the early ’90s, Camping published a book titled “1994?,” which claimed judgment day would arrive in September of that year. When confronted with such a staggering anticlimax — the world, after all, kept on spinning — Camping chose not to be discouraged, but to learn from his mistakes. (He hadn’t considered the Book of Jeremiah, he says.) A civil engineer by trade, Camping went back to the drawing board and continued to crunch the numbers, before arriving at the adamant determination that Rapture would come on May 21, 2011. He began to spread the word through his broadcasting network, Family Radio, in 2009, and quickly built up a fervid following.

I guess it takes all kinds.  That’s what my mother used to tell me when she was alive, anyway. Speaking of that, MoJo has a great list of Newtisms that will take you a trip back in time with Gingrich’s greatest tongue trips.  Here’s some of his earliest hits.

1978 In an address to College Republicans before he was elected to the House, Gingrich says: “I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words.” He added, “Richard Nixon…Gerald Ford…They have done a terrible job, a pathetic job. In my lifetime, in my lifetime—I was born in 1943—we have not had a competent national Republican leader. Not ever.”

1980 On the House floor, Gingrich states, “The reality is that this country is in greater danger than at any time since 1939.”

1980 Gingrich says: “We need a military four times the size of our present defense system.” (See 1984.)

1983 A major milestone: Gingrich cites former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on the House floor: “If in fact we are to follow the Chamberlain liberal Democratic line of withdrawal from the planet,” he explains, “we would truly have tyranny everywhere, and we in America could experience the joys of Soviet-style brutality and murdering of women and children.”

What is it that Republicans put in their formula that turns out people like this?  Newt was on Meet the Press yesterday where he mouthed off on a number of subject’s including Paul Ryan’s Medicare pogrome.  This is the National Review’s take so read with caution.

Newt Gingrich’s appearance on “Meet the Press” today could leave some wondering which party’s nomination he is running for. The former speaker had some harsh words for Paul Ryan’s (and by extension, nearly every House Republican’s) plan to reform Medicare, calling it “radical.”

“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said when asked about Ryan’s plan to transition to a “premium support” model for Medicare. “I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”

As far as an alternative, Gingrich trotted out the same appeal employed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi — for a “national conversation” on how to “improve” Medicare, and promised to eliminate ‘waste, fraud and abuse,’ etc.

“I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options,” Gingrich said. Ryan’s plan was simply “too big a jump.”

He even went so far as to compare it the Obama health-care plan.”I’m against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.”

I have to say that having Trump, Gingrich, Santorum and Paul all debating each other on one stage would probably be highly entertaining.   They could have a contest for who would make the craziest old uncle.

The White House is out on the road trying to head off problems with the national debt ceiling.  Timothy Geithner says that the economy will double-dip if the Republicans don’t raise the ceiling.

In a heavily-anticipated response to Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., who asked Geithner to document the economic and fiscal impacts of failing to lift the statutory debt limit, the Treasury secretary detailed a chain reaction that would cripple the economy, costing jobs and income.

“A default would inflict catastrophic far-reaching damage on our nation’s economy, significantly reducing growth and increasing unemployment,” said Geithner in the letter to Bennet which was dated May 13. “Even a short-term default could cause irrevocable damage to the economy.”

Geithner has imposed an August deadline for Congress to lift the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, but lawmakers are still negotiating over Republican demands to tie the move to spending cuts. And a portion of the GOP still remains skeptical about the need to act by the deadline at all, arguing that the consequences have been overstates.

Economist Mark Thoma has a better explanation of how the refusal to increase the debt ceiling would impact the economy on CBS Money Watch.  This explanation is much more precise.

If politicians fail to reach a deal to increase the debt ceiling, there would be a large fall in federal spending. The decline in federal purchases of private sector goods and services would reduce aggregate demand, and this could slow or even reverse the recovery (it could also threaten the delivery of critical services that some people depend upon). In addition, the failure to pay wages to federal workers would disrupt household finances and cause a further decline in demand, as would the failure of the government to pay its bills for the goods and services it has already purchased from the private sector (and it could even threaten some households and businesses with bankruptcy should the problem persist). There may be some room for the Treasury to use accounting tricks to avoid the worst problems, at least for a time, but it is not at all clear how well this would work to insulate the economy from problems and eventually this strategy will come to an end.

That’s potentially bad enough, but it’s far from the end of the problems that could occur. Failure to raise the debt ceiling could also undermine faith in the safety of US Treasury bills. If we default on bond payments, or appear willing to do so even if it doesn’t actually occur and investors lose faith in US Treasury Bills, they will begin demanding higher interest rates to cover the increased perception of risk. This could be very costly. We depend upon the rest of the world to finance our debt at extremely low interest rates. If the willingness of other countries to do this diminishes, then the cost of financing our debt would rise substantially. And that’s not all. In addition to increased debt servicing costs, an increase in interest rates would also choke off business investment potentially lowering economic growth, and the consumption of durable goods by households would fall as well. Rising interest rates would also be bad for the housing recovery (such as it is). Thus, failure to reach an agreement could be very costly.

The Economist‘s Blog on American Politics: Democracy in America has an interesting  post right now on ‘The Road to Plutocracy’.  It’s an interesting read with a lot of quotes from other pundits.

THE word “plutocracy” is in the air these days. Some say the era of the de facto rule of the mighty top 10%, or top 1%, or whatever insidious sliver of the income distribution is thought to constitute the moneyed power elite, is upon us, or nearly so. I’m not so sure. I am sold on the proposition that there’s something deeply whacked about the American financial system, and that whatever that’s whacked about it is significantly responsible for the top 1% pulling so far away from the rest of the income distribution. This needs to be fixed, whatever its other consequences. It’s not clear to me, however, what exactly is whacked. I don’t know whether to sign up for Tyler Cowen’s “going short on volatility” story, Daron Acemoglu’s “financial-sector lobbying and campaign contributions ‘bought’ an enriching (and destabilising) regulatory structure” story, or some other story. No doubt the truth is in some subtle combination of stories. In any case, accounts such as Mr Acemoglu’s, according to which big players in certain sectors over time manage to rig the regulatory climate to their advantage, are quite compelling for reasons both theoretical and empirical

Newsweek has an interesting article up on why the megarich manage to have such a sweet tax deal.  Even if we raise their income taxes, it really doesn’t hit them where it counts.  Here’s why.

It drives economist Bruce Bartlett crazy every time he hears another bazillionaire announce he’s in favor of paying higher taxes. Most recently it was Mark Zuckerberg who got Bartlett’s blood boiling when the Facebook founder declared himself “cool” with paying more in federal taxes, joining such tycoons as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Ted Turner, and even a stray hedge-fund manager or two.

Bartlett, a former member of the Reagan White House, isn’t against the wealthy paying higher taxes. He’s that rare conservative who thinks higher taxes need to be part of the deficit debate. His beef? It’s a hollow gesture to say the federal government should raise the tax rate on the country’s top wage earners when the likes of Zuckerberg have most of their wealth tied up in stock. Many of the super-rich see virtually all their income as capital gains, and capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate—15 percent—than ordinary income. When Warren Buffett talks about paying a lower tax rate than his secretary, that’s because she sees most of her pay through a paycheck, while the bulk of his compensation comes in the form of capital gains and dividends. In 2006, for instance, Buffett paid 17.7 percent in taxes on the $46 million he booked that year, while his secretary lost 30 percent of her $60,000 salary to the government.

“It’s easy to say ‘Raise taxes’ when you know you’re not going to have to pay those taxes,” Bartlett says. “What I don’t hear is ‘Let’s raise the capital-gains tax.’” Instead the focus has been on the federal tax rate paid by those with an annual income of $250,000 or more—the top 3 percent of earners. Bartlett argues that while raising taxes on the country’s richest individuals would go a long way in easing the debt crisis, it makes no sense to treat the professional making a few hundred thousand dollars a year the same as the Richie Rich set. Maybe it’s hard to muster sympathy for an executive pulling down $1 million a year. But ours is a tax system where a person in the top tax bracket (those earning more than $374,000 in 2010) pays a tax rate of 35 percent on the upper portions of his or her income (37.9 percent if you include Medicare), whereas a hedge-fund manager or mogul earning 10 or 100 times that amount pays less than half that tax rate.

Well, now I’m thinking we’re all just so f’ked that I might as well stop while I’m ahead.  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

52 Comments on “Monday Reads”

  1. Pat Johnson says:
    May 16, 2011 at 6:18 am

    Good morning, dak. Been away most of the weekend so I am just catching up with the missing posts.

    Bummer if the end of the world is scheduled for the 21st. Spent the last two weeks cleaning and scrubbing my house and now that it is “sparkling” once again, I could have saved a lot of time and energy had I known.

    See what I miss when I decide to clean the cave?

    • paper doll says:
      May 16, 2011 at 8:27 am

      Spent the last two weeks cleaning and scrubbing my house and now that it is “sparkling” once again

      Exactly how one should meet the Lord! lol!

    • dakinikat says:
      May 16, 2011 at 9:09 am

      Well, Pat we Buddhists have a say, before enlightenment, carry water, after enlightenment carry water … besides, I don’t think there’s any chance we’ll get raptured so might as well have a clean house for whatever follows …

      this guy was wrong in 1994 too so…

  2. fiscalliberal says:
    May 16, 2011 at 6:34 am

    I would suggest that Geitner will not do well in the second writing of history. He was in the middle of the financial storm. That was best documented in Sorkin book “To big to fail”. I would be interested in the following.

    1 – I understand he was the regulater in charge of Citi as the director of Federal Reserve of NY. Citi was the first failure, the result of the repeal of Glass Steigle.

    2 – What was his involvement of the decision to 100% bail our AIG counter parties. Goldman Sachs ( H Paulson previous company) was one of the biggest beneficiaries, later testified they did not need the money because they had hedged AIG.

    I view him as being a mole for the Financial Interests. He will promote regulations, but eviserate key legislation. More on that at a later date.

    That said, I thought Bloomberg Al Hunt had a interesting evaluation of Geitner at:http://bloom.bg/m52Oec

    This is critical, because I do not think Obama has a in depth understanding of Economics or Finance. This falls under the category: Keep close to your enemies and closer to your friends.

  3. fiscalliberal says:
    May 16, 2011 at 6:35 am

    By the way, darn good article

  4. CinSC says:
    May 16, 2011 at 6:43 am

    Thank you for highlighting the capital gain/tax the rich situation. I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Bartlett on that. Also, belated thanks for your article this weekend on the flooding. What an eye opener.

    • dakinikat says:
      May 16, 2011 at 9:13 am

      Here’s zero hedges short take on the oil refineries and industries the morganza flood saved. Oh, and one nuclear power plant too.

      As we reported previously, Obama has found himself on the verge of another environmental scandal now that he has no choice but to redirect the Mississippi river via the Morganza spillway – either lose millions in barrels of daily refined production and potentially the impairment of the Colonial Pipeline, two events which would promptly cause gas prices to soar to new records, or redirect the river via the Spillway, and cause the flooding of millions of acres, and numerous towns and cities, and possibly another New Orelans bases crisis. It seems Obama has picked the lesser of two evils: i.e., protect the oil: “The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said on Friday it anticipates opening the Morganza Spillway on the western bank of the swollen Mississippi River to divert floodwaters into the Atchafalaya River basin and protect Baton Rouge, Louisiana, New Orleans and refineries from flooding. The Corps of Engineers had been planning next week to open the spillway, about 45 miles (72 km) northwest of Baton Rouge, but could do so as soon as Saturday as high water continues making its way downriver.”

  5. fiscalliberal says:
    May 16, 2011 at 6:46 am

    Yves Smith has a very interesting article titled: Shock Therapy For Economics, Part 1

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/

    Would be very interested in any thoughts from Dak.

    • dakinikat says:
      May 16, 2011 at 9:21 am

      I think a lot of it has to do with economics being moved into b-schools as a basic support function. A lot of programs have lost their critical thinking training that economics used to have as a social science wedged between history and political science. Plus, the kinds of people attracted to hard core econ and finance are mostly people attracted to the money. We spend oodles of time on econometrics classes but no time on political economy. I saw this thing coming by talking to social workers, not people in the business sector. Also, I think if you’re in the east coast or west coast clusters of ‘ivy leagues’, there’s a terrible group think there.

  6. joanelle says:
    May 16, 2011 at 9:16 am

    thanks for this Dak!

  7. madaha says:
    May 16, 2011 at 9:38 am

    I’m reading about how Cornel West had the scales fall from his eyes. He is PISSED. I probably shouldn’t enjoy this so much, but it is good to read about more people criticizing O from the left. I hear in the media the left being shamed for saying anything, but the voices of those betrayed are usually not heard. Someone like West might get heard outside of my favorite websites, like SkyDancing! Thanks again for being here – you bring the light of sanity into the media morass.

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_obama_deception_why_cornel_west_went_ballistic_20110516/

    • dakinikat says:
      May 16, 2011 at 9:46 am

      Thanks so much for the kind words! I’m glad Brother Cornel is speaking up. His words have weight!

      wow!

      “What it said to me on a personal level,” he goes on, “was that brother Barack Obama had no sense of gratitude, no sense of loyalty, no sense of even courtesy, [no] sense of decency, just to say thank you. Is this the kind of manipulative, Machiavellian orientation we ought to get used to? That was on a personal level.”

      • paper doll says:
        May 16, 2011 at 10:00 am

        new flash Mr. West …brother Barack never did. You made it all up in the wind mills of your mind ….is it Barack’s fault you so deluded yourself and couldn’t even bother to google him for 20 mins? Thanks for waking up 3 years later

        do I sound bitter?…good, I meant to

      • dakinikat says:
        May 16, 2011 at 10:14 am

        funny thing is that he says he made it all up in the wind mills of his mind … good thing is that he’s talking about trying to make up for that …

        “We have got to attempt to tell the truth, and that truth is painful,” he says. “It is a truth that is against the thick lies of the mainstream. In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire. I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties. Our last hope is to generate a democratic awakening among our fellow citizens. This means raising our voices, very loud and strong, bearing witness, individually and collectively. Tavis [Smiley] and I have talked about ways of civil disobedience, beginning with ways for both of us to get arrested, to galvanize attention to the plight of those in prisons, in the hoods, in poor white communities. We must never give up. We must never allow hope to be eliminated or suffocated.”

      • Woman Voter says:
        May 16, 2011 at 11:30 am

        Things I didn’t know:

        Cornel West publicly supported 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. He spoke to over 1,000 of his supporters at the Apollo Theater in Harlem, N.Y.C. on November 29, 2007.[25]
        &

        West recanted his support for Obama in an April 2011 interview, in which he said Obama is merely a “black mascot” for America’s rich people.[28]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West

        Yes, it would appear that he has changed course and has taken notice of who(Obama) kept out the Public Option an who that President Obama is more concerned about the RICH than working people.

      • Woman Voter says:
        May 16, 2011 at 11:31 am

        The last part is my comment not a quote…oops

    • paper doll says:
      May 16, 2011 at 9:55 am

      “I’m reading about how Cornel West had the scales fall from his eyes. He is PISSED”

      I don’t get how he was fooled in the first place. He has some explaining to do about that…and truthdig went waaay out there for Obama….as all Pro left did. They blindly goose stepped as much as any GOP/Tea Party goer they are all supposedly so much smarter than….what a laugh

      • dakinikat says:
        May 16, 2011 at 10:11 am

        He admits to having overly read things into Obama’s hyperbole and his blackness. At least he’s being honest.

      • paper doll says:
        May 16, 2011 at 10:57 am

        In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire

        like duh, no shit …True for some time now … Brew this man another pot of coffee, he’s still got waking up.

        Well it IS something he’s saying this at all , and it’s easy for me to say dismissive things about it. I’m not a public figure…I would not last long under the pressure the billionaires bring on their way to the trillions.

        At least he’s being honest

        that’s a comfort I guess! lol!

      • Wonk the Vote says:
        May 16, 2011 at 6:57 pm

        West has been speaking against Obama as President, though, not just now… He did get caught up in the Candidate Obama crap in 2008 by the time Obama was the nominee, but he owns up to that. I honestly find him more credible than a lot of the others…he’s been saying Obama is the face of the empire that MLK fought.

  8. dakinikat says:
    May 16, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Geithner tells Congress the US has reached $14.3T debt limit (Peter Schroeder / The Hill) http://j.mp/mHEl9P

  9. dakinikat says:
    May 16, 2011 at 10:10 am

    CNN anchor Don Lemon comes out of the closet at age 45.

  10. dakinikat says:
    May 16, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Health insurance companies ‘purge’ small businesses to hike profits: http://bit.ly/j3l6nF | Analysis by @wendellpotter

  11. fiscalliberal says:
    May 16, 2011 at 11:03 am

    Back when Hillary was running, Cornel West was of opinion that Black Legislators should be primaried if they not behind Barack. Specificly John Lewis, Maxine Waters and SShila Jackson Lee of Texas were hyjacked. The black congressman from Harlem was (cant think of his name) also vilified by the likes of Cornel West. Hillary personally went to those legislators adn urged them to switch because she respected them. Now Cornel West wants to be a reluctant buyer who was sucked in, Why would anyone listen to him. He is such a fake

    • dakinikat says:
      May 16, 2011 at 12:04 pm

      The only thing I’ll say about West is that he’s admitting he was wrong, got suckered in, and now he’s at least admitting it publicly. There’s plenty of folks out there that aren’t doing that. It would’ve been nice if he hadn’t hit the hope bong, but there it is and he’s not hiding from it.

    • paper doll says:
      May 16, 2011 at 1:50 pm

      Back when Hillary was running, Cornel West was of opinion that Black Legislators should be primaried if they not behind Barack…

      Wow, I had forgotten about that…as you say, even if we buy the idea West was the least fooled…why would one listen to him now? At best, he’s easily fooled and then becomes a brown shirt in the service of his delusion . And now we gotta read West’s lecture to BO about” decency, decorum and history” ? What would those congress people say about that?…what a laugh..

      • Wonk the Vote says:
        May 16, 2011 at 7:38 pm

        I don’t know paperdoll… I’ve been watching West in his interviews and appearances… he’s been speaking against President Obama. I can completley understand still being pissed at him for the scorched earth approach he took in 2008…I’m still pissed about that too, and I’ll never understand what is about an empty subzero suit like Obama that could convince anyone to throw all principles out the door. But I just don’t know how we get anywhere if we don’t work together with everyone who actually is disappointed in Obama and calling him out now. I mean, I don’t think Cornel West is a johnny-come-lately in the style of Jonathan Alter (not that Alter is even there yet) or some other mainstream moron… I don’t think West has anything to gain by going against Obama… I think he actually probably gets a lot of backlash for it.

      • paper doll says:
        May 16, 2011 at 9:01 pm

        It’s like being pissed off at Kucinich for wanting to have a recall of Hill’s New Hampshire win…It’s a hot button that can’t be controlled as of yet! lol!

        I mean, I don’t think Cornel West is a johnny-come-lately in the style of Jonathan Alter

        I thought you for forgiving him! But that’s ” damming with faint praise” as the saying goes…. Alter is quite the bottom feeder. Okay, West is not Alter.

        But I just don’t know how we get anywhere if we don’t work together with everyone who actually is disappointed in Obama and calling him out now.

        well that’s a point…. and well said.
        But I also don’t see the point of listening to someone so easily fooled, if that’s what happened. I will be interestied to see what West says in 2012

        • dakinikat says:
          May 16, 2011 at 11:07 pm

          West said realized he had misjudged he when the economic team got announced which was before the inauguration. He has real credibility as a black intellectual and he knew he was used then. He can open other people’s eyes which is a good deal inmho. we cannot change the past but the present and future are still in the works.

      • Wonk the Vote says:
        May 16, 2011 at 9:46 pm

        I don’t forgive that easily 😉 and I never forget. 😉 😉

        We aren’t the ones who need listen to Cornel West–not by a longshot. We already had Obama’s number in 2004-2007.

        If West’s words carry some weight with others who voted for Obama but have buyer’s remorse, though, then I’m not going to frown upon that.

        I’m sure by 2012, most people criticizing Obama will convince themselves that the sky will fall if they let the Republican win, but for whatever it’s worth (which may be nothing), this is what West is saying now (from the truthdig link):

        “I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties.”

        Another thing that’s food for thought is that West has been joining forces with Tavis (they have a radio show together) and Tavis was notoriously fair to Hillary and went out on a limb and actually was critical of Obama in ’08 and got a LOT of flack for it.

      • paper doll says:
        May 16, 2011 at 10:48 pm

        I respect Tavis for sure

        ….then we have to put our foot on the brake.

        I predict he will ….

    • Wonk the Vote says:
      May 16, 2011 at 7:29 pm

      I don’t think West is a fake… as bullheaded and wrong as he was during 2008, he’s been one of the few not to spare Obama any criticism and saying for over a year that Obama is actually the face of the empire that MLK fought against. It perhaps doesn’t get play, but he’s been saying it. Save for Black Agenda Report, which never fell for Obama and does have more credibility than West for that, West is one of the first and few black voices at all to publicly go against Obama. Doesn’t make what he did in 2008 right or erase it, but it’s still better than his being part of what BAR calls the “black wall around Barack Obama.” He gets some credibility points from me for that…

      • paper doll says:
        May 16, 2011 at 7:52 pm

        as bullheaded and wrong as he was during 2008,….

        By ” bullheaded” do you mean threatening black congress people with backing an opponent if they didn’t support Obama as unthinkingly as quickly as he did?…

        If he’s finally come around, great…but I would not put him in the same league as BAR…forget it. They weren’t fooled at all.

      • Wonk the Vote says:
        May 16, 2011 at 8:16 pm

        My point was that Cornel is *not* in BAR’s league, but that short of that, there’s not many voices speaking out.

        I remember Jesse Jackson Jr.’s name in terms of being the one threatening black superdelegates but never actually was aware of Cornel being involved in advocating that. I did hear West say all kinds of other Obamabot things though in 2008 that I won’t forget. I’m hard pressed to find many who didn’t. Even BAR itself has Freedom Rider who still refers to Hillary’s campaign as racist.

      • Wonk the Vote says:
        May 16, 2011 at 8:25 pm

        Black Agenda Report, Freedom Rider: Thinking Post-Obama…

        http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-thinking-post-obama

        In 2012, Obama will not have a primary opponent. There will be no Hillary Clinton claiming that Obama “Isn’t a Muslim, as far as I know,” or desperately stating that she is reaching out to the “good voters, the white voters.” Every time Clinton displayed her ham handed inability to achieve the fine American art of being racist in code, Obama received a boost from black voters. Without Clinton, there is no one to give those voters an incentive to show their loyalty.

  12. Branjor says:
    May 16, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Kate Swift, author who rooted out sexism in language, dies at 87

    RIP Kate.

  13. bostonboomer says:
    May 16, 2011 at 11:39 am

    I guess Newt thinks Dwight D. Eisenhower was incompetent. He did pretty well in WWII. I don’t think Newt served, did he?

    • dakinikat says:
      May 16, 2011 at 12:02 pm

      yup, probably why he turned out to be a professor … one school deferment after another

    • fiscalliberal says:
      May 16, 2011 at 3:49 pm

      In my opinion, Newt is good at throwing grenades, but has little to show for progres.

      If memory serves me right Newt was a army brat. His first wife was pme pf his high school teacher. He served the divorce papers while she was in the hospital being treated for Cancer. He had to get the decks cleared for the second wife.

      He views himself as a policy wonk. Rumor was, Clinton would invite him to the White Houe and he would come back converted. After a while, his staff insisted that someone from his office to keep in line.

      I think he taught history before going into politics. Most of his thinking does mpt survive critical though. Suitable for Republican values.

  14. Branjor says:
    May 16, 2011 at 11:45 am

    A group of Saudi women are are planning a “drive-in” on June 17, risking arrest, loss of their jobs and further restrictions on what few freedoms they do have.

  15. paper doll says:
    May 16, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    More unexpected news from the who could have known Dept

    Lowe’s cuts forecast as sales drop unexpectedly

    Folks are out of work and homes are in foreclosure…

    Who could have guessed a home improvement store would lose sales???

    • CinSC says:
      May 16, 2011 at 3:24 pm

      We’ve been working on redoing a deck and have been in Lowes and Home Depot a bunch lately. Lots of cars in the parking lots, but mostly everyone in the garden department, which I assume is a very seasonal bump for them. The aisles with lumber and whatnot have been completely deserted. There is indeed very little home improvement building going on.

      • Branjor says:
        May 16, 2011 at 8:20 pm

        I just drove by a new Lowe’s today. An entire field full of native pines were cut down to accommodate this new store and its concrete parking lot. It’s a crying shame.

←
→