Cornel West: Best. Interview. Ever.

Dr. James Joyner picks up on an interview with one of President Obama’s staunchest former allies, but also more recent critics, in the person of Professor Cornel West. Joyner titles his piece, “Cornel West is Crazy.” I’m not going to jump immediately to that point, but I’ve got to tell you, for a “highly sought after” guy with a doctorate from Princeton, this interview is… well, I suppose “remarkable” works.


What’s with the black suit, white shirt, black tie outfit you always wear? Do you have anything else in your closet?
I’ve got four black suits that I circulate, and they are my cemetery clothes — my uniform that keeps me ready for battle.

Your cemetery clothes?
It’s ready to die, brother. If I drop dead, I am coffin-ready. I got my tie, my white shirt, everything. Just fix my Afro nice in the coffin.

So for somebody who dedicated his life to getting Barack Obama elected, what turned things around?

So let me ask you: in 2007, you introduced Barack Obama as your “brother, companion and comrade.” But in May, you referred to him as “the black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs” and the “head of the American killing machine.” What in the world happened?
It was a cry from the heart. What happened was that greed at the top has squeezed so much of the juices of the body politic. Poor people and working people have not been a fundamental focus of the Obama administration. That for me is not just a disappointment but a kind of betrayal.

But you have also acknowledged that this is more than just political — you’ve said that after campaigning for him at 65 events, you were miffed that he didn’t return your phone calls or say thank you.
I think he had to keep me at a distance. There’s no doubt that he didn’t want to be identified with a black leftist. But we’re talking about one phone call, man. That’s all. One private phone call.

If you’re waiting for some sort of lesson from this media event or deeper meaning, I’m afraid I’m going to disappoint you. Aside from this being yet another symptom of far left elements jumping ship as Obama tacks toward the center in hopes of securing a second term, I don’t think there’s much more to be gained from it.

But, to quote Dr. Joyner, “it’s no wonder that Barack Obama feels more comfortable around sane Jewish brothers than this cat.”

That’s one crazy cat.

Norway, with a substantial rate of gun ownership, is normally noted for non-violence

The nation of Norway was an especially unlikely setting for a shooting rampage that left at least 85 dead. The country of 4.9 million residents has one of the lowest per-capita homicide rates in Europe.

Interestingly, however, gun ownership is relatively common in Norway, the Los Angeles Times reports.


Gun ownership in Norway is common, although strict gun regulations and limitations are in place on ammunition for certain kinds of guns.

According to GunPolicy.org, an Australian university-based website, the estimated number of guns held by civilians in Norway was 1.4 million in 2007, the most recent year for which the site has such statistics for Norway.

Citing the “Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City,” published by Cambridge University Press, the website give the rate of private gun ownership in Norway as 31.32 firearms per 100 people[.]

In the wake of a shooting, after the initial shock and sorrow subside, two reactions predictably emerge — calls for greater civility in discourse and calls for greater gun control. Such was the case, at least, after Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-Ariz.) in January.

And, indeed, some have already begun to criticize the rhetoric in Europe that has supposedly contributed to the sort of climate of hate that would prompt someone to release fire as at Oslo:

The attacks in Oslo on Friday have riveted new attention on right-wing extremists not just in Norway but across Europe, where opposition to Muslim immigrants, globalization, the power of the European Union and the drive toward multiculturalism has proven a potent political force and, in a few cases, a spur to violence.

The success of populist parties appealing to a sense of lost national identity has brought criticism of minorities, immigrants and in particular Muslims out of the beer halls and Internet chat rooms and into mainstream politics. While the parties themselves generally do not condone violence, some experts say a climate of hatred in the political discourse has encouraged violent individuals.

“I’m not surprised when things like the bombing in Norway happen, because you will always find people who feel more radical means are necessary,” said Joerg Forbrig, an analyst at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin who has studied far-right issues in Europe. “It literally is something that can happen in a number of places and there are broader problems behind it.”

Perhaps the calls for increased gun regulations are not far behind. Both reactions are understandable. Natural to want to make sense of senseless violence and even more natural to want to forestall it by tempering tongues and enacting obstacles to gun ownership. But we must not seek solutions where they will not be found.

On some level, perhaps the wisest course is to remain a while longer in the spell of shock and grief that evil casts, allow ourselves to feel the full extent of its horror — precisely so we will realize that no carefully crafted words, no perfectly strategized policy will ever eliminate it entirely. Perhaps in that realization we will then awaken to a new realization — that evil will only fully and finally be overcome by something greater than ourselves.

Obama’s Fair Deal: Violate Your Tax Pledge So I Can Keep My Pledge to Reform Entitlements

This debt debate comes down to negotiables and non-negotiables for each side. Negotiables are things they are willing to put in play to achieve their goals. Non-negotiables are things they need to keep of the table at all costs. Both sides, not surprisingly have non-negotiables that involve keeping their chances alive for next year’s elections. Let’s start with those.

For their part, House Republicans refuse to raise taxes. That’s their non-negotiable and has been all along. Many of these folks were elected in a Tea Party wave that was all about limited government. Many of them made an explicit pledge not to vote for a tax increase. They simply can not raise taxes and expect to survive. Tax increases are off the table.

Meanwhile, President Obama has refused any short term deal which would force him to face this issue again next year. He knows he can’t negotiate with his re-election on the line, so he wants this off the table for 2012. Last week, Jake Tapper did a fine job of pointing out how transparently political this demand was. But the President repeated this demand again yesterday. Election year debt negotiations are off the table.

So those are the non-negotiables on each side. Here’s the difference. Speaker Boehner isn’t asking for a short term deal. In fact, he was asked this question yesterday and explicitly said he was not interested in one. In other words, he is not pushing the President on his non-negotiable.

Meanwhile, on Thursday the President demanded $400 billion in additional revenues which Speaker Boehner says would come from tax increases. The President does not deny that he asked for the additional revenue at the last moment. When asked a sharp question about moving the goalposts by Norah O’Donnell the President’s reply was halting:

What this came down to was…there doesn’t seem to be a capacity for them to say yes.

Well, when you’re asking people to negotiate their non-negotiables after you’ve already agreed to something else, they do tend to balk. And in case you’re wondering, there is no doubt the President knows just how non-negotiable this is for GOP House members. In fact, he talked about the tax pledge many of them had signed yesterday, saying this left them “boxed in.” Boxed in is just another way to say they made tax increases a non-negotiable.

And yet the President seems to think House GOP members should violate a pledge they made to their constituents, one which a) they believe in as a matter of principle and which b) helped get them elected. He just expects them to “say yes” anyway.

Here’s the most frustrating part. Obama has a pledge of his own in this debate, something he promised more than two years ago. Obama pledged to reform Social Security and Medicare from the earliest days of his administration:

President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare “bargain” with the American people, saying that the nation’s long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

So while Paul Krugman and others on the far left may not like it, Obama will certainly claim the reforms that the GOP are demanding from him are a promise kept, not one he has broken. Entitlement reform isn’t a concession for him, it was a goal!

That’s where things stand. President Obama is demanding the GOP violate their non-negotiable pledge on taxes so that he can fulfill his pledge to reform entitlements. The President repeatedly called this a “fair deal” yesterday. Well, it certainly is fair to him.

from: hotair
by John Sexton

ABC News cheerleading for Obama more than Daily Kos pollster

ABC News Political Director Amy Walter and ABC pollster Gary Langer, shaking the pom-poms:

President Obama is holding onto a 7 point lead over his chief Republican rival, Mitt Romney, in the latest ABC News-Washington Post poll.

If the 2012 election were held today, 51 percent of adults said they would pick Obama compared to 44 percent who would support the former Massachusetts governor. (They were tied in early June.) Important to note, however, is that among registered voters, Obama’s lead over Romney narrows to 49 percent to 47 percent. No other Republican challenger fares as well as Romney in head-to-head matchups against the president. http://abcn.ws/nUXx7F
But there’s a bigger take away from the new numbers than just the 2012 horserace.
“Obama looks to have turned the budget debate to his advantage,” writes ABC pollster Gary Langer. “His position on the deficit is more broadly popular, he’s taking less heat than the GOP for unwillingness to compromise and he’s got a sizable lead in the view that he cares more about protecting the middle class.”

So what? Obama’s stance in the debt ceiling talks is all about his re-election campaign. The other metrics don’t matter unless they help Obama’s bottom line. And the bottom line is that the current GOP front-runner is within the margin of error in the head-to-head matchup with registered voters.
Of course, the head-to-head numbers themselves are not particularly predictive this far from an election. Rather, the spin being put out by Langer — and most of the rest of the establishment media — is all about framing a narrative for the race to come. Establishment media polling does not always have this agenda, but it is fairly blatant in this instance.
For example, Langer relies on his poll to claim Obama’s position on the deficit is broadly popular, when the White House boasts that Obama doesn’t have a plan. Meanwhile, CNN buries the overwhelming popularity of the GOP “Cut, Cap & Balance” plan in its own coverage. The WSJ/NBC poll (.pdf) asks whether the GOP should drop its opposition to “any taxes, including on corporations and the wealthy,” if it that is the only way to reach a deal, but fails to ask whether Obama should drop his insistence on roughly $1 trillion in new taxes if that is the only way to get a deal. Nor does the establishment media ask whether Obama should give up his trillion-dollar ObamaCare entitlement to get a debt deal. The answer to either question would likely not advance the establishment narrative of the “adult” president facing down an intransigent House GOP.
You know who isn’t narrative-building? Tom Jensen of PPP, the Democratic firm that polls for the Daily Kos. PPP has Obama and Romney tied at 45%, but that’s not the main reason why Jensen is concerned:

Obama’s numbers are worse than they appear to be on the surface. The vast majority of the undecideds in all of these match ups disapprove of the job Obama’s doing but aren’t committing to a candidate yet while they wait to see how the Republican field shakes out.

Jensen then allocates the undecideds based on their approval/disapproval of Obama, finding Romney would lead 52-48. Moreover, Obama would lead Bachmann only 51-49, tie Pawlenty at 50, lead Cain by only 51-49, and lead Palin 54-46. In short, Obama is already threatened by almost any GOP nominee (unless you can really tarnish his or her image, which will be the Obama/media approach in 2012).
But wait… there’s more. Presidential candidates have to win states to get those Electoral College votes. Reuters has noticed that Obama faces a tough fight in various key states, but the reporting is largely anecdotal. Thus, let’s look at recent state polling:

Florida (29 EV): Romney leads 46-42 [Sunshine State, 7/12]
Iowa (7 EV): Romney leads 47-44 [Mason-Dixon, 7/14]
Michigan (16 EV): Romney leads 46-42 [EPIC-MRA, 7/15]
New Hampshire (4 EV): Romney leads 46-44 [PPP, 7/7], Romney leads 47-43 [WMUR, 7/6]
North Carolina (15 EV): Romney tied 45-45 [PPP, 7/13], Perry leads 45-42 [Civitas, 7/18]
Ohio (18 EV): Obama leads 45-41, but voters split on re-elect 46-47 [Quinnipiac, 7/21]
Pennsylvania (20 EV): Romney tied 44-44 [PPP, 7/8]

If the economy remains about as weak as it is — and it seems like it will — Obama is going to have to scare a lot of undecided voters to get to 270 Electoral College votes in 2012. In that task, it seems that Obama will have an establishment media applauding loud enough to raise Tinkerbell from the dead.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.

from: hotair

David Wu accused of “aggressive, unwanted sexual encounter”

by Jazz Shaw 

Clearly too much time has elapsed since the Tales of the Ticklemaster and the Twitter Saga of Weinergate, so we’ll need to gear up for a fresh new round of sexual mischief in the lower chamber of congress. Just in time, David Wu (D-Ore) rides to the rescue.


Sources: Young woman accuses Oregon Rep. David Wu of aggressive, unwanted sexual encounter

A distraught young woman called U.S. Rep. David Wu’s Portland office this spring, accusing him of an unwanted sexual encounter, according to multiple sources.

When confronted, the Oregon Democrat acknowledged a sexual encounter to his senior aides but insisted it was consensual, the sources said.

The woman is the daughter of a longtime friend and campaign donor. She apparently did not contact police at the time.

One person who heard the voice mail described the woman as upset, breathing heavily and “distraught.”

The young lady – who for obvious reasons will not be identified here – is of an “indeterminate age” but her Facebook page apparently indicates that she graduated high school last year and she registered to vote in California last August.

You may remember Mr. Wu from his campaign last year, described by some as one of the most bizarre in recent political memory. His staff was apparently so worried about his aberrant behavior that they cancelled most of his public appearances, ran the effort almost entirely on paid television advertising, and dismissed a large part of the staff before the election was even over.

This year, Wu experienced a high rate of staff churn over the winter, disclosed that he was getting a divorce and that he, “has taken medication for an unspecified mental condition.”

I was thinking that, just like the previous scandals, this one needs some sort of memorable catch phrase or tag line. I briefly considered, “Wu’s Woman Woes” but that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, even with the merits of alliteration. I also debated “Teenage Wasteland” but I’m pretty sure a record company would sue us. Let’s open it up to the studio audience. I’m sure some of you can come up with a good name for this one.

from: hotair

Fear not! Weiner now in therapy

It wouldn’t be Friday without some high political farce, and who better to check in on than New York’s gift that keeps on giving, Anthony Weiner? I know you were all terribly worried about him, what with his untreated sex addiction problems and all, but fear not! The New York Post is reporting that he’s finally seeking treatment.


Weiner’s pal told The Post that although it took a while, the fallen former New York congressman recently finally hit rock bottom and is getting therapy for his compulsion to electronically send strange women obscene messages and photos of his body.

Up until now, Weiner “didn’t fully comprehend” how destructive his online exhibitionistic tendencies were, the friend said.

“He was totally in denial. He was saying he may be able to write a book. But to think that he’s in a position to write a book, there has to be a redemption.

“Finally, he did get it. He understood it,” the friend said. “He understood why there was no line of people waiting to hire him.

You know what they say… the first step to solving the problem is admitting you have one. Or something.

But the biggest hurdle he seems to be facing are the various women in his life and convincing them that’s he’s really turned over a new leaf. He mentions three in particular. Two of them you could probably guess, but the the other might come as a surprise.

The horndog ex-House member from Queens is telling friends that while he’s finally started therapy for his sex addiction, the really hard part of his “recovery” will be getting his wife’s boss to believe he’s through with his naughty habits.

“My problem is that I have three women I have to convince that I’m cured: Huma, her mother — and Hillary,” Weiner, 46, told a friend recently.

Weiner’s humiliated, pregnant wife, Huma Abedin, is a top aide to Clinton, whose own hubby, ex-President Bill Clinton, was disgraced by seamy sex shenanigans while in office.

Oh, my! That could be a bit of a tough sell, couldn’t it? Then again, one might think that Hillary would be used to that sort of thing by now…

from: hotair

[Giveaway] Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 License Keys for 3 Users

After long time, finally i am here with another Kaspersky Internet Security license key giveaway. This time i decided to give 3 license keys valid for 1 year for Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 version.


Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 is the latest version of Kaspersky Lab, which has lots of new features that will 100% secure your computer from all type of harm activities. Its new and cool interface allow you to full scan, critical area scan or vulnerability scan. Even you can drag a single file to scan for virus, trojans or malwares. The new Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 is awesome.

kis 2012 giveaway [Giveaway] Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 License Keys for 3 Users
How to Participate in this Giveaway?

1. Download Bnsofts Giveaway File [Download Here]

2. Follow the instructions mention in the file.

Rules for this giveaway is in the file, so make sure that you follow the instructing in order to get qualified for this giveaway and get 1 year license key for Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 version.

3. Post a simple comment with your valid email address and name.

3 Winners will be selected on 1 August 2011 for this giveaway, so participate now and get a free 1 year license key of KIS 2012.

Let me know if you have any question, Good Luck to all..!

Alan Grayson-- Not The Lesser Of Two Evils; A Champion For Peace & Prosperity

I've known Alan Grayson for quite a few years and one thing I can say about him is that he is refreshingly consistent. He's been a dedicated fighter for working families-- on a Bernie Sanders/Raúl Grijalva level of dedication.



And, as a corollary, he's been very much opposed to aggressive war. I dare say he runs every political decision he makes through a screen that takes into account if it's pro-working family and if it's pro-peace. As you know, Alan is running for Congress again and Blue America has endorsed him. If you'd like to help elect one of the best progressive leaders in contemporary history, please consider making a contribution to his campaign through ActBlue.

This week he made a great case for his own reelection to an as yet undefined Orlando-area House seat. He came up with a way for the government to save two trillion dollars-- and in a way that is completely consistent with his guiding principles and progressive values.

There  are 23 million Americans who can’t find full-time work, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There  are 50 million Americans who can’t see a doctor when they are sick, according  to the Centers for Disease Control.

There  are more than 15 million American families who owe more on their mortgage than their  homes are worth, according to Zillow.  That’s almost a third of all the families who own homes.

If I were in Congress right now, these  are the problems that I would be trying to solve.

But  instead, we see a bizarre preoccupation-- no, really, an obsession-– with  cutting federal benefits. Some kind of  weird contest to see who can inflict the most pain on the American people. With the proponent of each new sadistic plan announcing  proudly, “mine is bigger than yours.”

I’ll  be honest-- the federal deficit for the year 2021 is not something that I spend  a lot of time thinking about, these days. But let’s assume-- arguendo,  as they used to say back in Ancient Rome-– that for some reason, there were  some compelling, emergency need to work out how to cut $2 trillion from projected federal budget  deficits over the next ten years.

I  have an idea about how to do that. It’s  a very simple idea.  In fact, I can sum  it up in one word, with five letters:

PEACE.

Now, I know that peace may not be as popular as it used to be. The polling is very iffy. The focus groups are mixed. But let’s look at the facts.

Last year, we spent $154 billion in appropriated funds on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is in addition to the $549 billion in appropriated funds for the Pentagon-– you know,  just to keep the lights on. And the  non-appropriated cost of war was even higher-– especially when you include the cost of care for the 15% of all the American troops in Iraq who come home with permanent brain abnormalities. According to Nobel Prize winner Joseph  Stiglitz, the war in Iraq alone is costing us $4 trillion and  counting. That’s more than $13,000 for every one of us, and roughly 8% of our entire net worth as a nation.

The cost of war is enormous. So enormous  that, as I pointed out in H.R.  5353, The War is Making You Poor Act [see video up top], if we simply funded that cost through the Pentagon’s own budget, rather than through supplemental appropriations, we could eliminate taxes on everyone’s first $35,000 of income ($70,000 for married couples), and still reduce the deficit by more than $10 billion a year.

And  that was last year. Since then, the  number of wars has gone up by 50%.

This  is what Pat Buchanan-– of all people, Pat Buchanan-– said two weeks ago:

"The United States is strategically over-extended, worldwide. What are we doing borrowing money from Japan to defend Japan. Borrow money from Europe to defend Europe. Borrow  money from the Persian Gulf to defend the Persian Gulf. This country is over-extended. It is an empire and the empire is coming down."

You  say that you want to save $2 trillion in ten years? It’s simple: end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and end whatever it is that they are calling it now in Libya. I’d  rather do that than throw Granny from the train.

But  that’s just me.

Guns or butter. It’s not a new choice.

I prefer butter.

What  about you?

If your choice is butter-- or an appropriate vegan substitute-- help send Alan back to Congress so he can keep up the battle against the cronic overreach of a Military Industrial Complex that has gotten much, much worse since President Eisenhower warned the country about its power.

Labels: Alan Grayson, Blue America

A grateful nation turns its eyes to Al Sharpton

Before we dive any further into this, allow me to save some of the Hot Air faithful a few minutes of reading time by saying, yes… this is another MSNBC story. (This is your official emergency exit line in case you want to bail out right now.) But hey… I watch MSNBC so YOU don’t have to!


This important task reveals a new twist in the plot today, as news leaks out that the unwashed masses, crying out for a savior in the media wasteland, may finally receive an answer to their prayers. Reports are coming in that the Reverend Al Sharpton will transition from his occasional fill-in slot to having his own, regular evening show on the network.

Cenk Uygur was thrust onto the MSNBC schedule in January, when Keith Olbermann‘s departure set in motion several host changes on the progressive channel’s lineup.

Now TVNewser hears Uygur may be moved out of the 6pm hour, possibly to be replaced by Al Sharpton. When the host changes happened earlier this year, the 6pm hour was simply known as “MSNBC Live,” a telling sign that MSNBC was trying out Uygur.

So what happened to Cenk? For that we turn to a reliable source, Verum Serum. It seems that Cenk might have been a wee bit too tough on President Obama and some folks became unhappy. (Be sure to click through the jump for videos from Cenk explaining his position… or lack thereof.)

According to Cenk, his numbers at MSNBC were good but the management expressed other concerns. Or perhaps the more accurate way to say it is, the management relayed the concerns of others…

Did Phil Griffin relay a message from “Washington” that they didn’t appreciate the tough talk [on Obama]? That sure seems to be the story. Then again, maybe they fired Cenk for taking 17 minutes of air time to tell a simple story at the end of which you still have to refer to the NY Times account to know what happened. That could be it as well.

Borrowing a page from our president here… “Let me be clear.” What MSNBC does with its lineup is absolutely their business, and they should do whatever they can to expand their viewership as much as possible beyond me, Ed Morrissey and the seven other people who watch it. But seriously… Al Sharpton?

I’m not saying he’s not an influential voice in liberal politics and minority issues. He absolutely is. But I have now watched the man’s performance too many times not to raise an eyebrow here. It’s not that his message is wrong for the network or that he doesn’t have the connections, but…

Here comes the tough part. I’m going to write it anyway, but I just want to set you up in advance for the fact that I know full well that this is going to draw the exact kind of fire I don’t need. As my friend Monster from The Ed Morrissey Show would say, I’m obviously about to be branded a raaaaacist. (That’s always spelled with five A’s by the way. Just check with Monster.) But let’s just plunge ahead into the void anyway, shall we?

Al Sharpton is, for all intents and purposes, unwatchable when doing free format commentary or conducting an interview. He may be aces when he delivers a prepared speech, but for this sort of environment he’s simply not up to the task. When he’s not on a set script he frequently loses track of where he was heading and stumbles into long sequences of umms and errs and hemming and hawing. His spontaneous delivery is scatter-shot at best and his follow-up questions to guests tend to wander to the point where the subject can’t even muster an answer. For a person hosting a show on a major news network, delivering information and interviewing high profile guests, the ability to keep up a steady, on topic flow of comments and questions is simply a requirement. This is who will be hosting a prime time news and politics show with this sort of format?

Send out the hounds with my blessings. I can hear the complaints already. People will imply from this that my critique must be based on the color of his skin. You’re wrong, but I know you’ll be saying it anyway. But the fact is, a position like that requires a concise, focused delivery and communication style, and Al simply doesn’t reach that bar.

Break out the pitchforks and torches and enjoy yourself.

by Jazz Shaw
from: hotair

An executive order in the old Chicago tradition

This is one of those issues which I foolishly thought had died on the vine, but it seems to be rearing its ugly head again. Plans are apparently still afoot for an executive order which would effectively build an end run around the Citizens United decision by forcing all government contractors to reveal their political donations before they could be considered in awarding contracts. Dozens of members of the House tried to squelch the idea back in May.

“This Executive Order is a cynical attempt to inject politics into federal government contracting under the guise of transparency and accountability,” said Rep. Rokita. “It will create an ‘enemies list’ that the Administration and their liberal allies will use to punish private citizens and their employers. As a former Indiana Secretary of State who oversaw elections, I find this to be an outrageous overreach by the President. I call on the President to withdraw this Executive Order and inform him that should he decide not to, members of the House are prepared to take legislative action to prevent it from taking effect.”

The American Enterprise Institute has a new paper out covering the subject. A few of the key points of the paper are:

* Following a defeat in Citizens United, the Obama administration is making an unprecedented assault on free speech through a proposed executive order requiring federal bidders to disclose their political giving during the previous two years as a condition to being considered for a federal contract.
* Under the guise of “transparency” and “accountability,” the order curtails constitutionally protected speech rights and opens the door for retaliation against those not supporting the administration politically.
* Neither the media nor defenders of free speech are challenging the administration’s actions, but anonymous political speech should remain a cornerstone of American democracy.

I find this proposal simply baffling. Not only doesn’t it sit well at first glance, when you pause to think about it, it actually promotes the precise opposite effect than the stated intent of the president. If you want to “keep the money out of politics,” then that’s fine. But by making contractors declare what donations they’ve made, not only do you open the door to a crony contract award system, but you actually encourage contractors to dump more money into the political sphere in the hopes of landing contracts.

It’s also short sighted thinking, even if you’re trying to game the system as this order appears to do. What happens when you lose the next election and a member of the opposite party takes control? All of your friends are now out of jobs and a new set of patrons come in the revolving door. Isn’t this exactly the opposite of what you were hoping to accomplish?

Bad policy and an ill conceived scheme if you ask me.

by Jazz Shaw
from:hotair

Are you ready for some FOOTBALL?

The Hall of Fame game may be cancelled, but it looks like the NFL has managed to settle their differences in the dramatic fight between millionaires and billionaires. The lockout is pretty much over and the teams will return to camp this Saturday, July 23. It includes a revenue sharing program for the next ten years, a portion of which will go to player concerns over long term health insurance issues.


The leaders of the two opposing camps are each describing it as a “fair, balanced agreement.” This doesn’t settle the entire fight, sadly, because the union pretty much broke down and they need to reform and re-ratify the charters, but the reps tonight indicated in a press conference that they feel that the full season, including the four pre-season games should be able to proceed apace.

A couple of quotes from the commissioner:

“We’re going to make sure that we continue with the great game of football.”

“Contracts may be in a state of .. sort of suspended animation.. until the beginning of the new league year. All of that depends on how the new ratification process proceeds, which is not under our control.”

“We’re going to make sure that we continue with the great game of football.”

“Contracts may be in a state of .. sort of suspended animation.. until the beginning of the new league year. All of that depends on how the new ratification process proceeds, which is not under our control.”

The “league year” will begin as soon as Wednesday, with players being ready for the season to come.

It’s important to remember that the players will have to re-certify their union, but if they go along with the leadership, we may just have a season. The owners have agreed to the biggest bone of contention which was revenue sharing, which is certainly a good sign.

In the end, the truly important part is that the next fall and winter can be spent with myself and Ed Morrissey arguing over how he will apologize when the Jets take out the Steelers and go on to win their first Superbowl since I was in short pants. And I think we can all agree that this is a subject which trumps most all political rivalries.

by Jazz Shaw
from: hotair

Speaker Boehner to Rush Limbaugh: There is NO deal

House Speaker John Boehner today on the Rush Limbaugh show adamantly insisted leaks of a backdoor budget deal are inaccurate. Boehner said he stands firmly by the plan the House passed Monday — “Cut, Cap and Balance” — and any discussions of backup plans have been just that … discussions of backup plans.


“Well, Rush, there is no deal,” Boehner said. “No deal publicly. No deal privately. There is absolutely no deal … Our focus right now is getting the Senate to follow us in the House and pass Cut, Cap and Balance. I believe that we’ve got to act to prevent a default and to prevent a downgrade of our nation’s credit rating, and the best way to do that is to enact Cut, Cap and Balance. But let me be clear: I believe that is the best course of action. I’ve said all the way along that we’ve gotta keep the lines of communication open. That’s why Leader Cantor and I have talked with Mitch McConnell. We’ve talked to Nancy Pelosi. We’ve talked to the president. We talked about fallback options if in fact Cut, Cap and Balance does go down; and I do think it’s our obligation to have a fallback plan if that doesn’t work.”

The Senate will vote on Cut, Cap and Balance tomorrow. All along, conventional wisdom has suggested the bill will die in the Senate, at which point the “Gang of Six” plan will assume added importance for the future. But as Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, explained on Fox News this morning, serious flaws exist in the “Gang of Six” series of talking points.



Cut, Cap and Balance remains the only serious plan on the table and its passage might not be quite so impossible as folks like to think. The legislation already has significant pledged support among Republicans in the Senate and a Senate source says the vote tomorrow will be on a “motion to table” rather than a “motion to proceed” — which means it will only need 51 votes instead of 60. That means the bill would require the support of just four Democrats if all 47 Republicans hold firm.

It shouldn’t be too hard to find four D’s — not if Democrats know what’s good for them, electorally-speaking. A new CNN poll shows 66 percent of Americans support Cut, Cap and Balance. Here’s the best part of the poll: It breaks down the responses by age, gender, race, income, education, political affiliation, political views and more. Cut, Cap and Balance receives majority support from every single category –- even people who self-describe as liberals, Democrats and anti-Tea Party.

The Senate vote on the plan just might shift momentum away from the president and toward the House plan — either because enough Democrats will support the legislation and it will pass or because its failure will reveal the utter unwillingness of the Senate to act on the plan the House has put forward — an unwillingness that is especially significant in light of the fact that the Senate hasn’t forwarded a plan of its own in a timely enough manner to meet the Aug. 2 deadline.

from: hotair
by Tina Korbe

Video: Joe Walsh unimpressed with Chris Matthews

Fans of Joe Frazier might refer to this one as the Thrilla in Vanilla. Only this time, the Joe in question was Congressman Joe Walsh (R-IL8) and his opponent was certainly not in the same class with Muhammad Ali, since it was MSNBC regular Chris Matthews. The two met up for a brief interview which started off at a fairly chilly temperature and quickly went downhill from there. Mediaite’s Matt Schneider explains.

With the pleasantries out of the way (and by pleasantries I mean passive aggressive questions flying back and forth between the two men implying that the other had no clue what they were talking about), then the gloves really came off. Matthews interrupted Walsh’s response and said “let me ask you three questions,” to which Walsh advised “try one at a time.” Then as tensions began to rise, and as Matthews continued to suggest Obama was trying to be the reasonable one in the debt negotiations, Walsh had enough and unleashed the word: “tingle!” Walsh informed Matthews that the “the American people are beyond you” and unlike Matthews, Obama “doesn’t send a thrill up my leg.” According to Walsh, if anyone should be accused of wasting time it is the President, who did nothing on this issue for the past six months.

And just when the fight seemed to be calming down, both sides proved they were ready for Round 2! Matthews demanded to know “if we have a crisis in August will you resign?” Walsh thought the question was so silly, that he used that as an opening to launch a blistering attack on Matthews and his show. Walsh told Matthews “you bully guests” and “this is why people don’t come on your show, because it’s childish.”

There’s really not much more to add to that. So, as they might say on HBO Sports, let’s go to the video.

Gray Lady finally finds proof of global warming

In what is becoming a regular summer ritual in America, nearly as certain and predictable as 4th of July parades, the New York Times has finally nailed down the proof of anthropogenic global warming. The evidence? Dude… it’s really, really hot outside in the middle of July!

Every 10 years, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recalculates what it calls climate “normals,” 30-year averages of temperature and precipitation for about 7,500 locations across the United States. The latest numbers, released earlier this month, show that the climate of the last 10 years was about 1.5 degrees warmer than the climate of the 1970s, and the warmest since the first decade of the last century. Temperatures were, on average, 0.5 degrees warmer from 1981 to 2010 than they were from 1971 to 2000, and the average annual temperatures for all of the lower 48 states have gone up.

So rather than looking at patterns over geologic time scales or the past few millenia or even centuries, we’re now going to extrapolate data about the past and future of the planet based on data collected since I was in the Navy? Over at National Review, Denis Boyles is, ummm… skeptical.

Do “climate scientists” measure global warming by looking at ten-year cycles? Maybe, but it makes you wonder about “the first decade of the last century,” when I suppose it must have been really hot. Before things cooled down during that dust-bowl episode and those world-war events and all that napalm we used to warm the mornings of southeast Asia. We’re still not back up to 1910 levels, apparently.

This is going to happen every year so we should just get used to it. While I’ve said this before, it’s worth repeating. I absolutely think the climate of this planet is changing. I think it’s been changing since it first congealed into its current shape. We have some fairly reliable hints that it has, at times, been much, much hotter than it is now. (Particularly when the dinosaurs were stomping around.) And at least once it’s frozen over to the point where life hung on by a thread.

And we interact with the planet’s biosphere so we probably have some effect on it, but how that plays into other factors, including the unpredictable orbit of the planet around the sun make this a vastly complex formula. To date, nobody has convinced me that we’ve developed the capacity to fully model it.

But I will make a deal with you. When you get to the point where you can reliably… let’s say for forty weeks in a row… tell me on Monday whether or not I’ll need an umbrella when I go out to run errands on Friday, maybe we’ll talk about what the weather will be like in 200 years.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) today released the following letter from her doctor to clear up, once and for all, the question of whether her migraines would interfere with her ability to be president.

Dear Congresswoman Bachmann –

The enclosed summary regarding your experience of migraine headaches is provided to you as per your request. You are overall in good general health.

You have a well-established diagnosis of migraine headaches with aura for which you have had an extensive evaluation by both my office and by a board certified consulting neurologist. Your evaluation has entailed detailed labwork and brain scans all of which were normal. Your migraines occur infrequently and have known trigger factors of which you are aware and know how to avoid. When you do have a migraine, you are able to control it well with as-needed sumatriptan and odansetron. It has not been necessary for you to take daily scheduled medications to manage this condition. You have not needed medical attention from me regarding your migraines with the use of the above-mentioned commonly used therapies.

Sincerely,

Brian P. Monahan, MD, MACP

So, there you have it. The Attending Physician of the U.S. Congress says she’s good to go. As Ed explained when this story first “broke,” the journalism behind the report was shoddy at best. But as I said yesterday, I don’t envy her any migraine. She doesn’t seem any more susceptible to the stresses of the presidency than any other candidate — if anything, her tenacious determination to dispel the rumors about these headaches just proves how on top of things she is (not to mention the depth of her desire for the position!) — but the whole episode still serves as a reminder that the presidency is obviously not for the faint of heart. Obama’s hair betrays that fact.

Hot Air Approval Survey Results: July

The Approval results are in. Leading the pack when Presidential supporters are removed is Paul Ryan, followed by Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, John Bolton and Herman Cain.

In the Presidential vote, Sarah Palin remains on top, followed by Rick Perry who has strengthened, Michele Bachmann who has weakened, and Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, who round out the top 5.

Full results follow. Questions? Tweet me.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.

The things we lost

As I was working this morning – or more correctly, not working as I watched Firefox crash for the second time today – I noticed how much my desk has changed over the years. There are a lot of things missing from our desks any more, replaced one by one, either by our computers or other pieces of technology. I understand nostalgia is overrated, and younger readers in particular tend to scorn such wistful thinking, but there are still days where I miss some of my old friends.

Does anyone use a desk calendar any more? You know the ones I mean, right? They usually have a stack of slips of paper with the month and day printed on them which you flip over or tear off each morning. Frequently they would have an advertisement for whoever supplied it and something clever like a joke of the day or a random inspirational quote. Do any of you still use them? I turn on my computer in the morning and the time, date and even the weather are all waiting for me in the lower right hand corner of my screen.

How about paperweights? Somewhere in the attic I’m pretty sure I’ve got dozens of them which people gave to me over the years. I feel no need to have one now because, well… I don’t use much paper any more. Again, our new old friend the computer has swept it all away.

The other thing missing is the fancy pen and mechanical pencil set. I always liked those. But I was watching a report on CNN which reminded me of the real reason I don’t keep those expensive writing utensils on my desk: I don’t write much any more. I type things, and have been doing so for years.

The report in question prompted others to give little more than a shrug to a nearly lost aspect of writing, which is the cursive script.

While I agree that cursive writing was something I needed to learn when I was growing up and that I did use it to write term papers in the 80s, it has been a while since I used it last, except to write my name or to list things on my grocery list. I admit that even my “thank you” notes tend to be fun Hallmark card videos featuring “Hoops and Yoyo” or a flowing mountain stream and sound effects.

No, I am not a total non-traditionalist; I do occasionally send cards and notes and letters. I do treasure old handwritten letters I have saved through the years, and I think that personalized notes and communications are very valuable. It is just that I don’t think that the skill of handwriting in cursive is nearly as high of a priority as many other things that are needed in the modern world, and I certainly don’t think THIS is the great evidence of the dumbing down of our Nation.

With one exception, I can not recall writing anything of any length in cursive script for decades. The sole exception, which probably still applies to many of us, is my signature. But even that has morphed a lot. When I was a student I actually had a very legible signature, but the decades since then have seen it evolve drastically. At this point, my John Hancock consists of what is almost certainly a “J” followed by a series of squiggles which may or may not be Egyptian hieroglyphs.

When I do write anything by hand any more, I use block print. It’s required when you fill out most forms and legal documents anyway, and my printing is still pretty good. But cursive script? Forget it. I tried it while pondering writing this column and even I can’t read it.

So is it a relic of the past which schools should stop teaching? Does it have any value today?

from: hotair

Bachmann: Yes, I experience migraines, but so do 30 million other Americans

GOP presidential hopeful and Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann today released the following statement to respond to reports that she experiences “incapacitating” migraines:

Like nearly 30 million other Americans, I experience migraines that are easily controlled with medication. I am a wife, a mother, a lawyer who worked her way through law school, a former state senator who achieved the repeal of a harmful piece of education policy in Minnesota, and a congresswoman who has worked tirelessly fighting against the expansion of government and wasteful spending.

“Since entering the campaign, I have maintained a full schedule between my duties as a congresswoman and as a presidential candidate traveling across the nation to meet with voters in the key, early primary and caucus states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I have prescription medication that I take whenever symptoms arise and they keep the migraines under control. Let me be abundantly clear – my ability to function effectively has never been impeded by migraines and will not affect my ability to serve as Commander in Chief.

“The many questions I have received on this subject have allowed me to discuss this important condition that impacts individuals in nearly one in four households. However, as a presidential candidate and office holder, I am focused on performing my job, which has never been more important given the state of our economy and the millions of Americans that are out of work. While I appreciate the concern for me and my health, the greater concern should be the debate that is occurring in Washington over whether or not we will increase our debt, spending and taxes.

Perhaps the headaches aren’t as horrible as they’ve been rumored to be, but, if she experiences even just the garden variety migraine, I admire her grit. But, at the same time, I’ve thought for a while — both with respect to Bachmann and with respect to other especially active politicians — that something has to give in their busy schedules. Bachmann might not mind if that “something” is her health, but she should. It might be basic and banal to repeat it, but health is essential to effectiveness in any arena.

All this time, I’ve been trying to figure out which GOP candidate would be best for president, but I’ve never stopped to consider what effect the presidency would have on them. Of course, that’s really a job for the candidates themselves and their friends and families. Gotta hope Bachmann has the kind of familial, friendly and staff support brave enough to say either “Go” or “Whoa.” It makes me see Gov. Mitch Daniels’ wife in a whole new light.

from: hotair

Syria: Descent into darkness

Over at Front Page Magazine, Rick Moran has a rather grim update on the current state of affairs in Syria. The situation there is far more complicated than the canned sound bites from CNN could ever convey, with a variety of factions in play on each side and a dictator who, from all appearances, isn’t planning on leaving any time soon. But the violence continues unabated.

Violence erupted in three Syrian cities over the weekend as President Bashar Assad continues his efforts to put down incipient revolts against his 11 year rule. But while protests against the regime appeared to be spreading, the government mounted a number of massive demonstrations in support of the dictator in Damascus, as well as Syria’s second largest city, Aleppo.

Most troubling for Assad is the specter of sectarian violence in the city of Homs that raised its head for the first time in the revolt, and the defection of a significant military force in the Iraqi border town of Abu Kamal. This may be a signal that the conscripts that have been ordered to shoot down civilians in the streets are weakening in their allegiance to the regime despite brutal methods to keep them in line.

Homs is only one place where violence is spreading, with the rebels facing very steep odds against Assad’s forces, but as Moran explains, it’s also a microcosm of the complex mixture of ethnic and religious groups vying for power. As it turns out, Assad is actually viewed as a protector against majority oppression by a number of groups, including Christians, who fear the power of the Sunnis. Part of the problem today is that the Sunnis are less than happy with the favorable treatment shown by Assad to his charges.

Homs, a city that was once dominated by Sunnis, has seen Alawites move in during the last 20 years and gradually, the newcomers began taking over the government and getting preferred jobs. That tension escalated when Assad moved his forces into Sunni neighborhoods last month to quell the huge demonstrations that erupted against his rule. Most of the violence occurred in two neighborhoods –one Sunni and one Alawite — that border each other. A resident explained, “The magic is turning against the magician. The regime thought that if it feeds the tribes and allows them to carry AK-47s it will secure their loyalty forever.” He added that the “repression was turning them into insurgents.”

This is an excellent article to read if you want to get up to date on the complex internal struggle playing out today in Syria. The worrying part is that conflicting loyalties and alliances in the international community, combined with traditional antagonistic stances between rival clans make it all the more difficult for anyone else to do anything about Assad’s brutal crackdown. There’s a lot of news coming out of Syria, but none of it is very good.

from: hotair

Obamas heading to Blue Heron Farm?

At the Boston Herald, Margery Eagan finds herself in a bit of a snit over the President’s plans for a summer vacation. Adding to her displeasure is the planned destination for this getaway package.

I love my summer vacation. I like President Obama more than most of you.

But a new Marist Poll says that for the first time ever a majority of American adults — 55 percent — will not be booking a summer vacation this year. They’re too worried about jobs and money. The “Staycation” of 2009 has morphed into the “Naycation” of 2011.

But Obama, who’s got us panicked over this debt-ceiling stalemate, will soon be off — again — to Blue Heron Farm, Martha’s Vineyard. Check out the pictures of this “farm” online. You practically drool. It looks like the centerfold of “Town & Country,” the magazine for aspiring zillionaires.

But unless Obama fixes this fiscal disaster — now — he can’t go. He should have a staycay like the rest of us.

Before we go any further, props to Ms. Eagan for coining, “naycation.” I like that one.

Believe it or not, I’ve pretty much gotten over the impulse to criticize presidents when they go on vacation. The usual caveats apply about how the White House travels with the president, he’s in constant contact with his advisers, getting daily briefings and such. The optics are never really very good for a president get away, but everyone needs a break from time to time. And even if ABC is commenting on the outrageous price tag of this particular package, it’s never cheap to haul the Secret Service around.

In this case, however, it might be time to make an exception because Obama’s frequently stated top priority actually involves having him “in the room.” Let’s take a look at a few of his recent statements.

He’s already said that he would be “meeting every day” with congressional leaders until this debt ceiling impasse is resolved. His team has been scolding Republicans for “walking out of the room” when there is still work to be done. And we’ve been assured that he’s not leading from behind on this one, but is taking charge of the situation.

I would say that this is hardly the time to even be considering heading out of town. If you want to plan a trip for the wife and kids, fine. No problem. But Margery Eagan is on to something here. If you want to go on vacation, get your work done first. Hey, at least you have a job. (At least for another seventeen months, anyway.) This vacation should skip straight past staycation and turn into a naycation like so many of the rest of us until this mess is straightened out.