Elaine Liner: At Plano Children's Theatre, They've Shampooed All the Black Kids out of Hairspray
Pema Levy: What’s Really Behind Komen’s Cuts To Planned Parenthood?
Ross Douthat: Gingrich 2012? Going, Going, Gone
Gin and Tacos: Race for the Cure of Being Irrelevant
Adam Serwer: What Does Komen's Reversal on Planned Parenthood Really Mean?
Bob Cesca: "The Lesser of Two Evils" and Why Progressives Lose
Ruth Marcus: Why the poor should concern Romney
Greg Sargent: Faced with good news about economy, Romney dissolves into incoherence
Nick R. Martin: Brewer Has History Of Getting Facts Wrong
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Must Reads
President Obama's Weekly Address - February 4, 2012
It's Time for Congress to Act to Help Responsible Homeowners
Friday, February 3, 2012
Planned Parenthood Not Out of the Komen Woods Yet
As most people, I was a little shocked and pretty stoked when I heard that the Susan G. Komen Foundation had reversed its decision to not grant Planned Parenthood future funds due to the political hackery of it's Senior VP, Karen Handel, despite its denial that the decision was politically based. Handel was on the losing side of a election for the Governorship of Georgia and ran on defunding Planned Parenthood. You'd have to be an idiot not to see that this was strictly a political move. If there's any doubt, why did Komen stop funding to institutions which also happened to be research centers for embryonic stem cells and not only looking for a cure for breast cancer?
But while I was initially pleased that they backtracked after the avalanche of shit that they brought upon themselves, I wasn't exactly thrilled about their statement. This particularly comes to mind:
...We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants...Continue "existing grants"? That was never in question. In fact, when they released their initial defunding statement, they make the claim that the existing grants would be honored, just not new grants. And as far as applying for future grants, why would that be in question if the organization will basically continue what it's currently doing? Why would they be denied future grants?
Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe it's the pulled funding to other facilities and research centers that also are at odds with the pro-life agenda that has me concerned about the sincerity of this statement. The only thing that would make a difference for me personally, would be if the foundation canned Karen Handel as a gesture of good faith that they really are just looking for a cure since their entire organization now seems to be in question.
Until then, continue donating to Planned Parenthood, or the American Cancer Society, or Johns Hopkins, or Sloan-Kettering. Let's be careful about jumping on the pink bandwagon again so soon.
Komen's Statement
POSTED BY JHW22
Statement from Susan G. Komen Board of Directors and Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker
DALLAS - February 3, 2012 - We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.
Women Win!
POSTED BY JHW22
For the last three days, only one political story has dominated my brain: the horrendous shock that the right-wing had seeped into a national charity that most Americans still believed was acting on behalf of women's health.
For years, there has been some distrust of Komen and their spending, questionable relationships leading to silence or approval of things scientists question and the balance of brand vs. integrity. But that was a fairly small rumbling under the surface of the global charity's image. Perhaps it was too overwhelming for most people to ask if a giant in women's health advocacy may not be doing as much good as we needed to believe.
I, for one, have never been a Komen supporter. Something about their strategery has always bothered me. Perhaps it's because I hate pink. But I think I tend to shy away from monolithic organizations whose basic work isn't something I can see. I don't see the researchers in action. I don't see Komen breast clinics anywhere. But I see pink blenders and coffee tumblers and, now, possibly guns.
What I see and support are Planned Parenthood clinics. I actually see where my donations go.
But, overall, Americans believed Komen was an organization that acted on good faith, with integrity and with the sole purpose of reaching as many women as possible. Until three days ago, when we learned they didn't want to reach women who go to those very Planned Parenthood clinics I see around me.
Sure, they had a few reasons: they changed their policies to prevent funding to organizations that are being "investigated", or they changed their strategy to be more laser-like with their funding choices, or they just want to help women and by saying no to Planned Parenthood, they can give more to someone else.
But when you look at their 990s, it's clear that they have plenty of money to continue supporting Planned Parenthood AND increase grants to other organizations and even add new ones. Komen has been so effective that they have more money than the can spend. According to GuideStar (you can get a free account to see financials on any charity) their last year breaks down like this:
They still have $196,83,123 left over. So why the need to make changes to better strategerize? They said that Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms so they wanted to give money to clinics with mammogram equipment. Well, I'd like to see data on the number of small towns with Planned Parenthood that have another clinic in town with actual mammogram equipment. My guess is close to NONE. So, they were going to move money away from Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood only gives mammogram "referrals"? I live in a pretty good-sized suburb of a pretty big city. And yet, not one of the doctors I've received my well-woman exams from actually had mammogram equipment. They all refer their patients to the local hospitals for mammograms. So I found that Komen excuse ridiculous.Revenue and Expenses
Fiscal Year Starting: Apr 1, 2010
Fiscal Year Ending: Mar 31, 2011
Revenue Contributions $285,794,584 Program Services $34,417,471 Membership Dues $0 Special Events $27,473,679 8522668 $1,623,681 Total Revenue $357,832,083
Expenses Program Services $282,981,996 Administrative Costs $26,276,602 Fundraising Costs $33,720,165 Payments To Affiliates $0 Total Expenses $342,978,763
Assets & Liabilities Total Assets $492,190,210 Total Liabilities $295,307,087 Net Assets or Fund Balance at the end of year $196,883,123
But they also said they changed their policies to not award funds to organizations under any type of investigation. That makes sense. I've worked the grant process before so that seems reasonable. But, um, anytime I've seen anything like that, the organization had to have actually been found guilty of wrong-doing. And this was where I think Komen fell apart. I truly believe they coordinated their policy change with the Congressional "investigation" and it seemed like a slam-dunk excuse: have a reasonable out while ALSO drawing attention to the ongoing investigation that isn't technically on-going since nothing is actually going on.
There's no way Komen didn't anticipate backlash. They HAD to know there would be protest on the left, and maybe even in the middle. But they had so many on the right who were waiting for this day, that they probably expected a boost of donations and support from the right. I think the right has been acting on pure ego for the last three years. They take aggressive actions as if they are the standard-bearers of values. It hasn't occurred to them until now that maybe their egos got too big. I don't think Komen expected their doctors and researches to cry foul. I don't think it ever occurred to them that they were blinded by their own ideology and were walking into a disaster.
A few things had to have happened to make this week transpire the way it did.
First: as soon as Planned Parenthood was told of this decision, before the holidays according to Cecile Richards, they went into messaging and planning mode. Planned Parenthood was working with Komen to change their minds WHILE they were preparing to tell America that they were sad and surprised. Cecile was calm, composed and classy in every interview. Planned Parenthood's messaging was ONLY about the women who would lose access to care and NEVER about demonizing Komen.
The second thing that had to happen was Komen didn't prepare. They were so unorganized, defensive, inconsistent and sporadic, that I can't see any possible coordination on messaging or planning. They seemed so caught off guard that there is no way they expected what they got. And to not expect this was naive and out-of-touch. The last two years in America has been about organizing, protesting, defending. Why the hell would they not expect this? Because they are convinced that the American people are with them. They expected liberal backlash. But I don't think they prepared for an American onslaught. And the right-wing media is spinning this as a liberal-only issue. But I have heard many Republican, anti-choice women say they were appalled by Komen's actions. They were ill-prepared and it showed.
The last thing that had to happen to make this week happen the way it did: every damn step the GOP has taken since President Obama was sworn in. They have obstructed the President, our doctors, our uteri, our rights, our tax dollars. They have stopped American progress every step of the way on every issue. Americans are so used to it by now. We're stunned and not stunned at the same time, each time they do something new. But Americans didn't see the right-wing covert operation taking place in Komen. So when word got out that Komen was betraying women by denying funds to Planned Parenthood, Americans were SHOCKED and PISSED OFF. Komen took something fairly sacred and crapped all over it. And because we've had enough, and because the right-wing has already make a mockery of government, we hit the roof, blew it off and kicked its ass all over the place.
So, where do we stand now, as far as Komen goes? Well there are a few points to make here. First, no organization is always guaranteed money every year. So they were never "safe". And if today, Komen hadn't reversed their decision to change their policy and commitments, then we'd need to find a way to get Planned Parenthood half a million dollars every year to make up for each year's loss. Yes, we raised a few years' worth for them this week. But we're pissed. What was going to piss us off next February or the next? What would have spurred us to donate then? Well, here's the deal, if Komen denies Planned Parenthood a grant next year, for ANY reason, we will be spurred. So, now Planned Parenthood is getting our money and Komen money. And next year, they will either get Komen money or our money. But Komen's backtracking ensures we will be waiting and watching and preparing to act.
People will be watching Komen more closely. Women are already digging deeper into Komen's financials, their grant lists, their stance on things like embryonic stem cell research and BPA. Women who haven't left Komen for good, will be paying closer attention. And because Planned Parenthood has been consistent and open, more women may start donating more regularly. Also, more breast cancer organizations will start getting deserved attention.
And, finally, we sent a message to the right-wing that they can't have everything. They are done trying to destroy us from the inside out. Komen's decision today is a message to all America that they realize we will NOT allow right-wing stealth attacks anymore. We're on a mission and we are organized. And we are fucking pissed off.
Our next steps should include pressure on Komen to fire Karen Handel who has, no doubt, brought her right-wing ego and tricks to the decision making and could change Komen's pledge to protect ObamaCARES to reflect her strong opposition to it. And we should demand an ethics violation inquiry into Congressman Cliff Stearns and his staff and a possible coordination between them and any organization acting on behalf of Komen to create the false pretense of an investigation and/or for wasting tax dollars on a witch hunt.
Today, Congressman Stearns said
I bolded the most disgusting part. Of course Planned Parenthood raised all kinds of cash this week. They were under assault. To use this historic attack on Planned Parenthood to draw a funding conclusion is willfully deceptive and egregious. So, let's not let this man go about his days without some serious fury.“In response to the original decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to stop funding grants to Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood raised the equivalent funds within 24 hours. Although I wasn’t involved in either decision, it is clear that Planned Parenthood does not need the Komen funding. I believe that Planned Parenthood could be, and should be, totally self sufficient, as with so many other non-profit organizations, and spare America’s hard-pressed taxpayers the $487 million Planned Parenthood received in public funding. As Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I will continue the investigation into Planned Parenthood’s use of taxpayer funds. This oversight is necessary because of its record of fraud discovered through state Medicaid audits and its other abuses and illegal activities, such as ignoring state reporting requirements on sexual abuse.”
We should keep the momentum of this week and make clear that "We're fired up! We're ready to go!"
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Biggest Loser
It seems as though The Donald can't go less than three weeks without looking for headlines like his like depended on it; like the blood in his veins would dry up if he gave up his media whorishness.LAS VEGAS - Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney here Thursday afternoon in a joint appearance that lasted less than seven minutes and included no questions.The two men stood behind a lectern emblazoned with a gold “Trump” plaque (a large Romney sign hung off to the side, largely out of the TV shots), and the endorsement came amid several impromptu news conferences that Mr. Trump organized for himself.
It all started yesterday when Trump made a statement on his favorite medium, Twitter:
All media welcome?! Say it ain't so!I will be making a major announcement today at 12:30 pm PST at Trump International Hotel & Tower, Las Vegas, Nevada. The announcement will pertain to the Presidential race. All media welcome.
At no point in my though process did the idea of Trump announcing an independent run come to mind. My initial thought was that he was going to endorse Romney but was too chickenshit take the lead and do it earlier because his ego wouldn't be able to handle betting on the wrong horse. He waited until after the Florida primary, saw that Newt Gingrich was dead in the water and then thought he'd make a grand announcement and take credit for being a king maker once the odds-on favorite eventually won the nomination.
Then there was rumor that Trump was to endorse Newt Gingrich, and it got me to thinking that perhaps his ego was so bruised after Newt was the only candidate to accept an invitation to the ill-fated Trump debate, that he'd back the one person who was loyal to him. But is loyalty in Trump's repertoire? That rumor quickly faded and so I was left with the chickenshit theory, which happened to be the correct one.
How ironic that the man who made "You're fired" his catchphrase endorsed the man who said he likes "being able to fire people"? The one saving grace in the whole fiasco was that on Groundhog Day, Trump decided to make the Romney endorsement himself instead of letting the groundhog that lives on his head do it.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Mitt's Let Them Eat Cake Moment
Although there are no official records of Marie Antoinette ever having said the phrase, "Let them eat cake" has been attributed to her as an example of her ignorance to the condition of the poor during a French famine. And here is likely Republican nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 Election, Mitt Romney, and his "let them eat cake" moment.
Is that safety net the one he would gut if Romney ever took office? Repeal Obamacare? Gut critical programs for the poor in an attempt to balance the budget? Yet another example of Romney being completely out of touch with everyone who isn't a one percenter. Actually, one tenth of a one percenter.“I’m in this race because I care about Americans,” [Mitt] Romney told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien this morning after his resounding victory in Florida on Tuesday. “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it.”
He says he cares about Americans... just not poor Americans.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
OMFG!!
Posted by JHW22
I am LIVID! About as LIVID as I get and if you knew me in person, you'd know that's pretty fucking LIVID!
Susan G. Komen decided to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood. Why? Because they hired some right-wing FREAK who has had it out for Planned Parenthood and she decided that because PP is being "investigated" (by fellow Republicans who have it out for Planned Parenthood) they can't get any grant money.
Some gal, in a Facebook comment thread, is saying it's a good thing because abortion increases chances of breast cancer and that PP should only raise private money and Komen should only spend money on research. Forget the fact that the Komen money PP gets IS private money and forget the fact that Komen has given money to PP in the past FOR detection of breast cancer, and forget the fact that, according to Komen's own site:
Research clearly shows abortion (also called induced abortion) does not increase the risk of breast cancer.
Here's the crux of our problem, America. We let FUCKING IDIOTS drown in misinformation to the point that an organization with a reach like Komen's WILLFULLY hires an ideological hack and then they make a decision that essentially relegates the Komen executive board to "Death Panel" status.
The more the right-wing chips -- hell, JACKHAMMERS -- away at PP, the more women will DIE. It's not hyperbolic to say so. Women need access to screenings of all kinds. And yes, some women need access to abortions. But the micro-cosmic backlash on abortion has become a macro-cosmic attack on ALL women. Women who aren't pregnant or seeking abortions will die because right-wing zealots are keeping life-saving services from them because they think that, somehow, this action prevents abortions.
I don't know where Susan G. Komen stood on abortion. But I'd really like to know what she would think about her name becoming the ugliest name associated with women's health care right now.
Don't just be pissed. DONATE to Planned Parenthood, FIGHT all the right-wing candidates in your state, VOTE on election day!
Do NOT let anything keep you from voting, folks! And VOTE wisely. A woman's life may depend on it.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Herman Endorses Newt
Wait... I thought Herman Cain endorsed "the people" just last week.
Bold ideas like a moon base/future state? Also, sausage grinder!“There are many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that I know that Speaker Gingrich is a patriot,” Cain said. “Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas and I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder. I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know that he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America.”
You just can't make this shit up.
PolitiFact Is Fired...
...by Rachel Maddow. After the head-snapping double take in response to PolitiFact's flawed guidelines in rating a specific quote from President Obama's State of the Union address last Tuesday, and the backtracking that followed, can you believe they did it again?! I'll let Rachel explain.
Must Reads
Chauncey DeVega: The 10 Most Racist Moments of the GOP Primary (So Far)
Andrew Rosenthal: Chris Christie, Revisionist Historian
NY Times: Rabbi’s Followers Cast Doubts on Congressman’s Fund-Raising
James B. Stewart: Paying Far More Than 13.9%: A Taxpayer’s Lament
John Pitney Jr.: Why Gingrich would lose in a debate with Obama
Christopher Brauchli: The Condom's Cousins
Matt Taibbi: Is Obama's 'Economic Populism' for Real?
Jim Wright: The Special Kind of Crazy
President Obama's Weekly Address - January 28, 2012
President’s Blueprint Includes Renewal of American Values
Friday, January 27, 2012
Hard Work?
POSTED BY JHW22
When the Republicans take aim in their class war against Democrats, the middle class and the working class, one of their favorite weapons is the all-too-familiar:
Tax increases punish hard work.
We're to believe that the more a person makes, the harder they must have worked to earn it. Never mind the fact that laying roof tiles in 105 degree Texas heat doesn't earn a guy a million bucks. Apparently it's not as hard as going to board meetings and country club meet and greets. So a guy who owns his own roofing company and does a lot of the work himself pays a good chunk of his income in taxes. Shame on us for taxing that guy so high.
But more shame on us for wanting to tax Mitt Romney so high. Because, gosh darn it, he has so much money, he MUST have worked so gosh darn hard for it.
Take 2010, for example. Mitt worked hard. Why should he pay higher taxes as some kind of punishment for his hard work?
What? What's that you say? Mitt didn't actually work for that income? You mean his income came from a company he USED to do work for and some investments?
Well, my dad decided to retire early when he was laid off and now he works every day investing. He reads, researches, plans, has the coolest spreadsheets in the WORLD. So I'd say he works hard.
What? What's that you say? Mitt didn't actually control his investments? He pays a trustee to make all the investment decisions for him?
WHAT?! So, we're not supposed to punish hard work with higher taxes? Well, then hell! Mitt has been paying someone else to do the work of making him money off of him not working. So, seems to me the "punishing hard work" excuse don't float here.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
My Family
POSTED BY JHW22
I'd like to take a moment to share something about my sister-in-law and brother-in-law. They are a working class couple in a rental house, used cars and with a life filled with conquered demons and baggage they faced head-on. They work hard, play hard and enjoy their lives today. They are in their forties and love heavy metal and tattoos. They don't take life too seriously but feel passion for animals, their great friends and family and each other. If you passed them on the street, you might not think they were someone you could learn politics from. But you'd be wrong.
Now, I have my issues with the Occupy movement. There are some things that piss me off. But the one thing I will always be grateful to the movement for, is that it made my SIL and BIL take notice. These are two insightful, curious people. They ask great questions and make considerate connections. They started following Occupy and even attended a protest or two. And then the Facebook posts started coming regularly: links to articles, questions about what they'd heard somewhere, LGBT support links, criticisms of Bachmann.
And it kept coming.
My sister-in-law was a rising lioness. She wasn't shy about her thoughts and she challenged people to pay attention. We have chatted about issues and she trusts that I will have an honest discussion with her. I trust that she's paying attention.
And the other day, she posted this on Facebook
My favorite part was when she brilliantly discussed the consequences of write-ins and third parties. That is insightful. And this is from a woman who just started paying attention. Can you imagine what a powerful citizen she will be in November?
And last night, they watched the State of the Union and my BIL posted this on my Facebook page
Loved the speech of the Union tonight - Obama sounded like one of us Protesters - Tax the Rich and Save the Poor :) 30 percent tax for everything over a Million dollars a Year :) Someone is Listening :)
See that? A guy who wouldn't normally be paying attention, watched the State of the Union. He's listening and he knows Obama is listening.
I love my SIL and BIL. And I am proud of them. And I am so glad they are on our side.
We have an untapped resource out there. There are people who will vote FOR their best interests, and ours, if they are given a reason to pay attention. And once they start paying attention, we will see a fierce advocacy take hold. Many of their friends spoke up on my SIL's post the other night. They feel empowered, they know the value of a vote. We need to make sure we reach out to the people in our lives that haven't been paying attention and see if they're ready to start.
Politics is intimidating. There's history and all kinds of twists and turns and chaos and confrontation. Why would anyone want to start paying attention to this crap? People shy away. But Barack Obama is the right President for these people. He is thinking of them in his policies. He just needs them to know it and to stand with him. Let's help them feel less intimidated and welcome them to the dark side.
Politifact Can't Be Trusted
This is so disappointing. I was a regular reader of Politifact and linked to them on many occasions as a reference in previous posts. But no longer. Something happened between their inception and the present day that has caused them to skew their fact checking - you can call it opinion management - to avoid the dreaded "liberal bias" label.
Here is a fact, perfectly stated by President Obama in his State of the Union Address last night:
Those are the numbers. Plain and simple. But for some unfathomable reason, Politifact originally labeled this statement as "Half-True" then upgraded it to "Mostly-True." And for what reason? After all, it's a simple statement. It's either true or it's false. How can it possibly be half-true? I'll let Paul Krugman explain:In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.
Combine this ridiculousness with their 2011 Lie of the Year, and Politifact is Politi-shit. They are supposed to be objective arbiters of statements and they are either true or false. But they've decided to be subjective and my only conclusion is because they're afraid of being labeled a left leaning organization because Republicans are less truthful....Unfortunately, Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage....fact-checking should be about checking facts — not about trying to impose some sort of Marquess of Queensbury rules on how you’re allowed to use facts. Aside from undermining the mission, this makes the whole thing subjective — notice that Politifact wasn’t even analyzing what Obama said, they were analyzing their impression about what he might have been trying to imply.... in practice this turns into a partisan affair. The simple fact is that in today’s US political scene, Republicans make a lot more factual howlers than Democrats. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Yet Politifact wants to be seen as nonpartisan. If it just stuck to the facts, it could say look, we’re just reporting the facts. But having defined its role as something that goes beyond checking facts to saying whether the facts are being used in some “proper” way, it then finds itself under pressure to be “even-handed”, which ends up meaning making excuses for Republican falsehoods and finding ways to criticize Democratic true statements.
Just in the latest debate Newt Gingrich was asked the following:
Here is the beginning of Newt's answer. Hold on to your seats:Moderator: You've talked about the millions of jobs created by the Reagan tax cuts. If tax cuts create jobs, why didn't the Bush tax cuts work?
What. The. Fuck.Well, the Bush tax cuts, I think in a period of great difficulty, with the attack of 9/11, actually stopped us from going into a much deeper slump. I think we would have been in much, much worse shape, and I think most economists agree, that in 2002 and '03 and '04 we'd have been in much worse shape without the Bush tax cuts.
Newt Gingrich actually said the Bush tax cuts, that added a $1.8 trillion to our national debt, stopped us from going into a deeper slump?! I'd like to have a list of "most economists" to which Newt referred. What planet does this motherfucker live on? I'll tell you where - he lives on the planet where people get million dollar credit accounts from jewelry stores and make millions by being the consummate Washington insider.
And how did Politifact rate that whopper of a statement? It wasn't worth mentioning. But a completely truthful statement was rated at best "mostly true" for fear of appearing left leaning.
I rate Politifact's objectivity, Pants on Fire.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
State of the Union Tonight
This one is going to be interesting.
Please forgive my lack of posting - burning the candle at both ends eats away blogging time. I'll take notes as best I can and comment on the SOTU in a future post. I'm expecting President Obama to open up a can of whoop-ass... at least I'm hoping he will. Sit back with a beer and enjoy it.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Worst. Psychiatrist. Ever.
I'm guessing if you lined up 100 psychiatrists and asked them the same question, only Fox News' head shrink Keith Ablow would come up with such a ridiculous answer, the other 99 would demand to see his credentials and recommend revoking his license.
How else can you explain Ablow's amazing analysis when he comes to the conclusion that Gingrich might make a better president because of his infidelity? And if three women fell in love with him, then why not the entire country? You know, because Newt's such a Svengali.
Really, "Doctor" Ablow? I have no such worries.1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.
But witness the analytic mind at work. It may be working at an insane asylum, but working nonetheless, complete with bullet points, assumptions that Marianne Gingrich wanted to punish Newt, and his "logical" conclusion.
Before you think this is a satirical piece, just remember that Ablow is part of Fox News Channel's "Medical A-Team." That's got to be worth something, right? My guess is that he's the Howling Mad Murdoch of the group. He continues:
Yes, because we all know that Gingrich is so truthful in his political life, he was reprimanded and fined for ethic violations during his tenure as Speaker of the House in the 90's. (And a Happy Anniversary to you on that one, Newt.) And it looks like the "great price he would pay financially" comes in the form of Tiffany's charge accounts.4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.
But don't stop there, read the rest. I'm sure you'll have a good laugh, but keep a barf bag near you just in case.
I pity the fool that follows Ablow's psychiatric advice.
UPDATE: A previous version of this post mentioned Ablow insulting Marianne Gingrich's looks which was a misreading on my part. He is actually comparing Callista Gingrinch's attractiveness to... Newt's!
Must Reads
Marcus Cederstrom: What if Tim Tebow were Muslim?
Digby: Straight Up Racism, No Dogwhistle Necessary
Ezra Klein: Who will get the ‘Recovery Presidency’?
Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics
Robert Reich: The Romney Tax Loophole
Ruth Marcus: Mitt Romney’s miserly concern for the poor
E.J Dionne: Republicans keep moving Obama to Europe
Our blast from the past comes courtesy of loyal reader Chris U. who wants to remind us all of Newt Gingrich's political past, sans revisionist history.
John E. Yang: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ShareThis