Serendipity SOUL- Tuesday Open Thread

Happy Birthday Koko!                                                             

From the Wiki:  Koko Taylor sometimes spelled KoKo Taylor (September 28, 1928 – June 3, 2009)[1] was an American blues musician, popularly known as the “Queen of the Blues.” She was known primarily for her rough, powerful vocals and traditional blues stylings.

Born Cora Walton in Shelby County, Tennessee, Taylor was the daughter of a sharecropper.[2] She left Memphis for Chicago, Illinois in 1952 with her husband, truck driver Robert “Pops” Taylor.[1] In the late 1950s she began singing in Chicago blues clubs. She was spotted by Willie Dixon in 1962, and this led to wider performances and her first recording contract. In 1965, Taylor was signed by Chess Records where she recorded “Wang Dang Doodle,” a song written by Dixon and recorded by Howlin’ Wolf five years earlier. The song became a hit, reaching number four on the R&B charts in 1966, and selling a million copies.[1] Taylor recorded several versions of “Wang Dang Doodle” over the years, including a live version at the 1967 American Folk Blues Festival with harmonica player Little Walter and guitarist Hound Dog Taylor. Taylor subsequently recorded more material, both original and covers, but never repeated that initial chart success.

Have a great day!

This entry was posted in Celebrations, Current Events, Media, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Serendipity SOUL- Tuesday Open Thread

  1. Exclusive Tim Scott Interview: No Racism in Tea Party

    http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2010/09/21/exclusive-tim-scott-interview-no-racism-in-tea-party.aspx

    Tim Scott, the man who could be the first African-American Republican elected to the House of Representatives since J.C. Watts left in 2003, (and South Carolina’s first black Republican congressman since Reconstruction) tells The Brody File that he has not found any racism at Tea Party events. He also says that as a black conservative he has come under attack but he promises the media that if elected he is not going to Washington to be the “Black Republican”.

    Scott sat down in an exclusive interview with The Brody File at his campaign headquarters in Charleston South Carolina. Video clips from the interview are below but the full profile on Tim Scott will air September 30th on The 700 Club. We also have exclusive video of Tim Scott speaking to Tea Party members in South Carolina. Check back for clips.

    Tim Scott: “I’ve been to dozens of Tea Party rallies. I’ve given at least a half a dozen or more speeches. I have not yet to find the first racist comment or the first person who approaches me from a racist perspective. I will speak very clearly here. Racism is a part of a lot of things in our country. Good people are the predominant fact of our country. I simply don’t get it. There are good people and bad people in all organizations fundamentally however, when you look at the basis of the Tea Party it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with an economic recovery. It has to do with limiting the role of our government in our lives. It has to do with free markets. How do you fight that? The only way you fight that is to create an emotional distraction called racism. It doesn’t have to be real. It can be rhetoric but it gets the media focusing on something other than the truth of why the Tea Party is resonating so well with the average person.”

    So, I didn’t see all those racists signs at tea party events, eh? Hankyhead buckdancing coon!

  2. Ametia says:

    Seal is performing on DWTS. Love him.

  3. Ametia says:

    Obama discusses his Christian faith, chides Republicans in backyard chat

    By Anne E. Kornblut and William Branigin
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Tuesday, September 28, 2010; 4:07 PM

    ALBUQUERQUE – President Obama, speaking to middle-class Americans on Tuesday in his latest round of “backyard chats,” opened up to a questioner about his Christian faith, as he touted his administration’s record on education and the economy while warning that a Republican victory in upcoming elections would jeopardize progress in both areas.

    Speaking to neighborhood residents in the yard of an Albuquerque family, Obama said the Nov. 2 elections “offer a choice on a whole range of different issues.” But he said the Republicans’ top priority is retaining $700 billion worth of tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, money that “we’d have to borrow . . . because we don’t have it” – likely from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092803203.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

  4. Ametia says:

    latimes.com
    Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says
    Report says nonbelievers know more, on average, about religion than most faithful. Jews and Mormons also score high on the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey.
    By Mitchell Landsberg, Los Angeles Times

    September 28, 2010

    Advertisement

    If you want to know about God, you might want to talk to an atheist.

    Heresy? Perhaps. But a survey that measured Americans’ knowledge of religion found that atheists and agnostics knew more, on average, than followers of most major faiths. In fact, the gaps in knowledge among some of the faithful may give new meaning to the term “blind faith.”

    A majority of Protestants, for instance, couldn’t identify Martin Luther as the driving force behind the Protestant Reformation, according to the survey, released Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Four in 10 Catholics misunderstood the meaning of their church’s central ritual, incorrectly saying that the bread and wine used in Holy Communion are intended to merely symbolize the body and blood of Christ, not actually become them.

    latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928,0,3225238.story

  5. Ametia says:

    Charges dismissed against Md. man who taped traffic stop

    A Harford County Circuit Court judge Monday dismissed wiretapping charges against Anthony Graber, a motorcyclist who was jailed briefly after he taped a Maryland state trooper who stopped him for speeding on I-95. Graber used a camera mounted on his helmet, then posted the video on YouTube.
    In April, a few weeks after the traffic stop, Harford County state’s attorney Joseph I. Cassilly charged Graber, a staff sergeant in the Maryland Air National Guard and a computer systems engineer, with violating the state’s wiretapping law. That law dates back to the 1970s and was originally intended to protect citizens from government intrusions into their privacy. If convicted on all charges, Graber faced up to 16 years in prison.
    Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr. had to decide whether police performing their duties have an expectation of privacy in public space. Pitt ruled that police can have no such expectation in their public, on-the-job communications.
    Pitt wrote: “Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. ‘Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes’ (“Who watches the watchmen?”).”
    Graber was also charged with possessing a “device primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of oral communications” — referring to the video camera on his helmet. The judge disagreed with the prosecutor that the helmet cam was illegal, and concluded the state’s argument would render illegal “almost every cell phone, Blackberry, and every similar device, not to mention dictation equipment and other types of recording devices.”
    Pitt’s decision is the first ruling in Maryland to address the legality of citizens taping police in the course of their duties. Because it is a circuit court ruling, it is not binding on other judges. However, unless it is appealed, said Graber’s attorney, David Rocah of the ACLU of Maryland, “it is likely to be the last word” on the matter and to be regarded as precedent by police.
    No word yet on whether the state’s attorney will try to appeal the decision. Graber still faces traffic charges stemming from the incident.

    By Annys Shin | September 27, 2010; 5:16 PM ET

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/09/wiretapping_charges_dropped_ag.html

  6. dannie22 says:

    Good afternoon everyone!!!!

  7. whiterosebuddy says:

    OMFG!!

    I hate Fox News!!

    “Later in the Rolling Stone interview, the magazine asked about the kind of music Obama’s been listening to. The president noted he tends to stick to the stuff he enjoyed when he was younger — he iPod has “a lot of Stevie Wonder, a lot of Bob Dylan, a lot of Rolling Stones, a lot of R&B, a lot of Miles Davis and John Coltrane” — but an aide has also exposed him to some more rap, so there’s “a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne” on his playlist, too.

    Fox News responded with this headline: “President of the United States Loves Gangsta Rap”

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

  8. Jane Hamsher Continues To Lie About Health Reform – A Pattern!

    http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/jane-hamsher-continues-to-lie-about-health-reform-a-pattern/#comment-1526

    I really try to avoid anything Jane Hamsher writes, says or does. She has become a sad person who has let her hatred overwhelm what common sense and intelligence she had, which upon looking back at her really wasn’t much to begin with. She is very much like Arianna Huffington in that they both have made careers out of playing on people’s populist outrage, whether it is at George W. Bush…they both launched careers out of attacking the guy with the biggest target on his back or now with the economy in the dumps, inherited by the Obama administration, they are both playing into that anger. It isn’t much different than how so many made money off the 9/11 tragedy. So I click on a link at Booman’s Tribune and end up at a Jane Hamsher post. I start reading her snarky post titled “Axelrod Stabs Rahm, Runs From Wreckage of Health Care Bill” and of course, didn’t get very far before coming across a blatant lie. Here is what I came on…

    But it’s also clear that the race is on to unload responsibility for the extremely unpopular health care bill. And Axelrod wants to make sure he doesn’t get the blame:

    “Extrememly unpopular” health care bill…..really, maybe in the circle of bloggers that you have surrounded yourself with, but in the general public, let’s look at some numbers. From The Hill, August 3rd…

    a new survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows opposition dropping to 35 percent from 41 percent in the last month, and 50 percent of the public had a favorable view of the law, up from 48 percent. Support and opposition tend to be partisan, but the trendline is certainly heading in the Democrats’ direction.

    Now wait a minute, I thought Janey said it is “extremely unpopular” and of course Axelrod is running from the wreckage of….a bill that has a 50 favorable and a 35 unfavorable. This is a perfect example of Ole’ Janey preaching to the choir that gather at her blog. She likes to continue feeding the hungry haters at her site with the raw meat they like, whether it is true or not.

    Jane is still an angry beyotch because Hillary lost. What a lying liar!

  9. Obama Calls Out Democratic Apathy: ‘Inexcusable,’ Irresponsible’

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/28/obama-rolling-stone_n_741607.html

    Despite what his progressive detractors in his own party might say, President Obama believes that he’s accomplished 70 percent of his campaign promises in the first two years of his presidency. Expect the rest to get done in the next two years, or perhaps the next six, he told Rolling Stone in a recent interview from the Oval Office.

    In a lengthy sit down, the President discussed a wide range of topics, ranging from GOP obstruction and the Tea Party’s opposition to his administration, to his accomplishments so far and his optimism that his agenda will only move forward in the upcoming years.

    For his critics within the Democratic Party, Obama laid out to Rolling Stone’s Jann S. Wenner his own interpretation of his current legislative victories:

    I keep in my pocket a checklist of the promises I made during the campaign, and here I am, halfway through my first term, and we’ve probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do — and by the way, I’ve got two years left to finish the rest of the list, at minimum. So I think that it is very important for Democrats to take pride in what we’ve accomplished.
    In one of many seemingly frustrated mentions of progressives being discontented by the direction and supposedly minimal gains of his presidency, Obama laid out a situation in which he was forced to compromise for the reality of less lofty but perhaps more achievable goals:

    I could have had a knock-down, drag-out fight on the public option that might have energized you and The Huffington Post, and we would not have health care legislation now.

  10. Ametia says:

    Breaking News Alert: Report: Former President Jimmy Carter hospitalized
    September 28, 2010 1:00:49 PM
    —————————————-

    Former President Jimmy Carter has been hospitalized in Cleveland, the Associated Press reports. Carter became ill while traveling to Cleveland on a commercial flight.

    http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/E5QODK/C54IX3/675PED/BNO5OS/89U3S/KI/h

    For more information, visit washingtonpost.com

    • Ametia says:

      And teh media is chastising POTUS for addressing his administrations accomplishments and calling on his base and supporters to continue working with him to get things done. Instead of folks highlighting the accomplishments, they whine about what’s left to be done. That’s the way of the left to always have some cause to whine and bemoan.

      Vote eyour conscience, your values, your beliefs folks, just fucking vote.

  11. Ametia says:

    BREAKIng News— Former President Jimmy Carter hospitalized in Cleveland after unknown health issue on plane, airport official says

  12. Breaking

    Shooter opens fire on UT Austin campus then kills himself; campus on lockdown

    http://www.examiner.com/us-headlines-in-national/shooter-opens-fire-on-ut-austin-campus-then-kills-himself-campus-on-lockdown

    Tuesday morning at 8:15 am, a man with an automatic weapon fired several shots on the sixth floor of the library on the University of Texas campus in Austin, Texas. The shooter did not hit anyone, but shot and killed himself, and another person is suspected of being involved.

  13. Ametia says:

    Obama in Command:
    The Rolling Stone Interview

    In an Oval Office interview, the president discusses the Tea Party, the war, the economy and what’s at stake this November

    By Jann S. Wenner
    Sep 28, 2010 7:00 AM EDT
    The following is an article from the October 15, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone.

    We arrived at the southwest gate of the white house a little after one o’clock on the afternoon of September 17th. It was a warm fall day, but the capital felt quiet and half-empty, as it does on Fridays at the end of summer, with Congress still in recess. Rolling Stone had interviewed Barack Obama twice before, both times aboard his campaign plane — first in June 2008, a few days after he won the Democratic nomination, and again that October, a month before his election. This time executive editor Eric Bates and I sat down with the president in the Oval Office, flanked by busts of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. The conversation stretched on for nearly an hour and a quarter. The president began by complimenting my multi-colored striped socks. “If I wasn’t president,” he laughed, “I could wear socks like that.”

    When you came into office, you felt you would be able to work with the other side. When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy?
    Well, I’ll tell you that given the state of the economy during my transition, between my election and being sworn in, our working assumption was that everybody was going to want to pull together, because there was a sizable chance that we could have a financial meltdown and the entire country could plunge into a depression. So we had to work very rapidly to try to create a combination of measures that would stop the free-fall and cauterize the job loss.

    More on Obama1 ⁄ 2 Audio Excerpts: Obama on Dylan and McCartney at the White House
    Interview: After the Primaries by Jann S. Wenner (July 2008)
    Interview: On the Eve of Victory by Eric Bates (Oct. 2008)
    Gallery: Obama Through the Years
    Gallery: Forty Years of Political Covers
    The Truth About the Tea Party by Matt Taibbi
    The recovery package we shaped was put together on the theory that we shouldn’t exclude any ideas on the basis of ideological predispositions, and so a third of the Recovery Act were tax cuts. Now, they happened to be the most progressive tax cuts in history, very much geared toward middle-class families. There was not only a fairness rationale to that, but also an economic rationale — those were the folks who were most likely to spend the money and, hence, prop up demand at a time when the economy was really freezing up.

    I still remember going over to the Republican caucus to meet with them and present our ideas, and to solicit ideas from them before we presented the final package. And on the way over, the caucus essentially released a statement that said, “We’re going to all vote ‘No’ as a caucus.” And this was before we’d even had the conversation. At that point, we realized that we weren’t going to get the kind of cooperation we’d anticipated. The strategy the Republicans were going to pursue was one of sitting on the sidelines, trying to gum up the works, based on the assumption that given the scope and size of the recovery, the economy probably wouldn’t be very good, even in 2010, and that they were better off being able to assign the blame to us than work with us to try to solve the problem.

    How do you feel about the fact that day after day, there’s this really destructive attack on whatever you propose? Does that bother you? Has it shocked you?
    I don’t think it’s a shock. I had served in the United States Senate; I had seen how the filibuster had become a routine tool to slow things down, as opposed to what it used to be, which was a selective tool — although often a very destructive one, because it was typically targeted at civil rights and the aspirations of African-Americans who were trying to be freed up from Jim Crow. But I’d been in the Senate long enough to know that the machinery there was breaking down.

    What I was surprised somewhat by, and disappointed by, although I’ve got to give some grudging admiration for just how effective it’s been, was the degree to which [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell was able to keep his caucus together on a lot of issues. Eventually, we were able to wear them down, so that we were able to finally get really important laws passed, some of which haven’t gotten a lot of attention — the credit-card reform bill, or the anti-tobacco legislation, or preventing housing and mortgage fraud. We’d be able to pick off two or three Republicans who wanted to do the right thing.

    But the delays, the cloture votes, the unprecedented obstruction that has taken place in the Senate took its toll. Even if you eventually got something done, it would take so long and it would be so contentious, that it sent a message to the public that “Gosh, Obama said he was going to come in and change Washington, and it’s exactly the same, it’s more contentious than ever.” Everything just seems to drag on — even what should be routine activities, like appointments, aren’t happening. So it created an atmosphere in which a public that is already very skeptical of government, but was maybe feeling hopeful right after my election, felt deflated and sort of felt, “We’re just seeing more of the same.”

    What do you think the Republican Party stands for today?
    Well, on the economic front, their only agenda seems to be tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. If you ask their leadership what their agenda will be going into next year to bring about growth and improve the job numbers out there, what they will say is, “We just want these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which will cost us $700 billion and which we’re not going to pay for.”

    Now what they’ll also say is, “We’re going to control spending.” But of course, when you say you’re going to borrow $700 billion to give an average $100,000-a-year tax break to people making a million dollars a year, or more, and you’re not going to pay for it; when Mitch McConnell’s overall tax package that he just announced recently was priced at about $4 trillion; when you, as a caucus, reject a bipartisan idea for a fiscal commission that originated from Judd Gregg, Republican budget chair, and Kent Conrad, Democratic budget chair, so that I had to end up putting the thing together administratively because we couldn’t get any support — you don’t get a sense that they’re actually serious on the deficit side.

    What do you think of the Tea Party and the people behind it?
    I think the Tea Party is an amalgam, a mixed bag of a lot of different strains in American politics that have been there for a long time. There are some strong and sincere libertarians who are in the Tea Party who generally don’t believe in government intervention in the market or socially. There are some social conservatives in the Tea Party who are rejecting me the same way they rejected Bill Clinton, the same way they would reject any Democratic president as being too liberal or too progressive. There are strains in the Tea Party that are troubled by what they saw as a series of instances in which the middle-class and working-class people have been abused or hurt by special interests and Washington, but their anger is misdirected.

    And then there are probably some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the president. So I think it’s hard to characterize the Tea Party as a whole, and I think it’s still defining itself.

    Do you think that it’s being manipulated?
    There’s no doubt that the infrastructure and the financing of the Tea Party come from some very traditional, very powerful, special-interest lobbies. I don’t think this is a secret. Dick Armey and FreedomWorks, which was one of the first organizational mechanisms to bring Tea Party folks together, are financed by very conservative industries and forces that are opposed to enforcement of environmental laws, that are opposed to an energy policy that would be different than the fossil-fuel-based approach we’ve been taking, that don’t believe in regulations that protect workers from safety violations in the workplace, that want to make sure that we are not regulating the financial industries in ways that we have.

    There’s no doubt that there is genuine anger, frustration and anxiety in the public at large about the worst financial crisis we’ve experienced since the Great Depression. Part of what we have to keep in mind here is this recession is worse than the Ronald Reagan recession of the Eighties, the 1990-91 recession, and the 2001 recession combined. The depths of it have been profound. This body politic took a big hit in the gut, and that always roils up our politics, and can make people angry. But because of the ability of a lot of very well-funded groups to point that anger — I think misdirect that anger — it is translating into a relevant political force in this election.

    What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it’s a good institution for America and for democracy?
    [Laughs] Look, as president, I swore to uphold the Constitution, and part of that Constitution is a free press. We’ve got a tradition in this country of a press that oftentimes is opinionated. The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.

    You’ve passed more progressive legislation than any president since Lyndon Johnson. Yet your base does not seem nearly as fired up as the opposition, and you don’t seem to be getting the credit for those legislative victories. There was talk that you were going to mobilize your grass-roots volunteers and use them to pressure Congress, but you decided for whatever reason not to involve the public directly and not to force a filibuster on issues like health care. What do you say to those people who have developed a sense of frustration — your base — who feel that you need to fight harder?
    That’s a bunch of different questions, so let me see if I can kind of knock them out one by one.

    One of the healthy things about the Democratic Party is that it is diverse and opinionated. We have big arguments within the party because we got a big tent, and that tent grew during my election and in the midterm election previously. So making everybody happy within the Democratic Party is always going to be tough.

    Some of it, also, has to do with — and I joke about it — that there’s a turn of mind among Democrats and progressives where a lot of times we see the glass as half-empty. It’s like, “Well, gosh, we’ve got this historic health care legislation that we’ve been trying to get for 100 years, but it didn’t have every bell and whistle that we wanted right now, so let’s focus on what we didn’t get instead of what we got.” That self-critical element of the progressive mind is probably a healthy thing, but it can also be debilitating.

    When I talk to Democrats around the country, I tell them, “Guys, wake up here. We have accomplished an incredible amount in the most adverse circumstances imaginable.” I came in and had to prevent a Great Depression, restore the financial system so that it functions, and manage two wars. In the midst of all that, I ended one of those wars, at least in terms of combat operations. We passed historic health care legislation, historic financial regulatory reform and a huge number of legislative victories that people don’t even notice. We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before.

    The Recovery Act alone represented the largest investment in research and development in our history, the largest investment in infrastructure since Dwight Eisenhower, the largest investment in education — and that was combined, by the way, with the kind of education reform that we hadn’t seen in this country in 30 years — and the largest investment in clean energy in our history.

    You look at all this, and you say, “Folks, that’s what you elected me to do.” I keep in my pocket a checklist of the promises I made during the campaign, and here I am, halfway through my first term, and we’ve probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do — and by the way, I’ve got two years left to finish the rest of the list, at minimum. So I think that it is very important for Democrats to take pride in what we’ve accomplished.

    All that has taken place against a backdrop in which, because of the financial crisis, we’ve seen an increase in poverty, and an increase in unemployment, and people’s wages and incomes have stagnated. So it’s not surprising that a lot of folks out there don’t feel like these victories have had an impact. What is also true is our two biggest pieces of legislation, health care and financial regulatory reform, won’t take effect right away, so ordinary folks won’t see the impact of a lot of these things for another couple of years. It is very important for progressives to understand that just on the domestic side, we’ve accomplished a huge amount.

    When you look at what we’ve been able to do internationally — resetting our relations with Russia and potentially having a new START treaty by the end of the year, reinvigorating the Middle East peace talks, ending the combat mission in Iraq, promoting a G-20 structure that has drained away a lot of the sense of north versus south, east versus west, so that now the whole world looks to America for leadership, and changing world opinion in terms of how we operate on issues like human rights and torture around the world — all those things have had an impact as well.

    What is true, and this is part of what can frustrate folks, is that over the past 20 months, we made a series of decisions that were focused on governance, and sometimes there was a conflict between governance and politics. So there were some areas where we could have picked a fight with Republicans that might have gotten our base feeling good, but would have resulted in us not getting legislation done.

    I could have had a knock-down, drag-out fight on the public option that might have energized you and The Huffington Post, and we would not have health care legislation now. I could have taken certain positions on aspects of the financial regulatory bill, where we got 90 percent of what we set out to get, and I could have held out for that last 10 percent, and we wouldn’t have a bill. You’ve got to make a set of decisions in terms of “What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to just keep everybody ginned up for the next election, or at some point do you try to win elections because you’re actually trying to govern?” I made a decision early on in my presidency that if I had an opportunity to do things that would make a difference for years to come, I’m going to go ahead and take it.

    I just made the announcement about Elizabeth Warren setting up our Consumer Finance Protection Bureau out in the Rose Garden, right before you came in. Here’s an agency that has the potential to save consumers billions of dollars over the next 20 to 30 years — simple stuff like making sure that folks don’t jack up your credit cards without you knowing about it, making sure that mortgage companies don’t steer you to higher-rate mortgages because they’re getting a kickback, making sure that payday loans aren’t preying on poor people in ways that these folks don’t understand. And you know what? That’s what we say we stand for as progressives. If we can’t take pleasure and satisfaction in concretely helping middle-class families and working-class families save money, get a college education, get health care — if that’s not what we’re about, then we shouldn’t be in the business of politics. Then we’re no better than the other side, because all we’re thinking about is whether or not we’re in power.

    Let me ask you about financial reform. Despite all the things like consumer protection that you did get accomplished, the regulation of Wall Street — especially the closing down of all the derivatives trading that was really at the heart of the financial meltdown — seems to have been eviscerated.
    I’ve got to disagree with that. If you take a look at it, what we’ve essentially said is that the vast majority of derivatives are now going to be sold through a clearinghouse. And if you ask the experts what was the best way to make sure the derivative markets didn’t bring down the economy again, it’s transparency, so that everybody understands who the counterparties are, everybody understands what the deal is, what the risks are — it’s all aboveboard, it’s all in the light of day.

    People have legitimate concerns that if the rules drafted by all these various agencies in charge of implementing financial reform wind up with exceptions that are so big you can drive a truck through them, and suddenly you can have these specially tailored derivatives that are sold outside of the clearinghouse, then you could end up with an inadequate regulatory structure.

    But if the rules are written properly — and I have confidence that the people I appointed to these agencies intend to apply them properly — it’s going to make a difference. Is it going to solve every potential problem in Wall Street in a multi-trillion-dollar, worldwide, capital market? Probably not. There could end up being new schemes, new loopholes that folks are going to try to exploit. The special interests are already ginning up to try to influence the rulemaking process in all these issues, so we have to remain vigilant. But to say that we did not significantly improve oversight of the derivatives market, it just isn’t true.

    There’s also a concern when it comes to financial reform that your economic team is closely identified with Wall Street and the deregulation that caused the collapse. These are the folks who were supposed to have had oversight of Wall Street, and many of them worked for or were close to banks like Goldman Sachs.
    Let me first of all say this. . . .

    You used to work for Goldman Sachs!
    [Laughs] Exactly. I read some of the articles that Tim Dickinson and others have produced in Rolling Stone. I understand the point of view that they’re bringing. But look: Tim Geithner never worked for Goldman; Larry Summers didn’t work for Goldman. There is no doubt that I brought in a bunch of folks who understand the financial markets, the same way, by the way, that FDR brought in a lot of folks who understood the financial markets after the crash, including Joe Kennedy, because my number-one job at that point was making sure that we did not have a full-fledged financial meltdown.

    The reason that was so important was not because I was concerned about making sure that the folks who had been making hundreds of millions of dollars were keeping their bonuses for the next year. The reason was because we were seeing 750,000 jobs a month being lost when I was sworn in. The consequence to Main Street, to ordinary folks, was catastrophic, and we had to make sure that we stopped the bleeding. We managed to stabilize the financial markets at a cost that is much less to taxpayers than anybody had anticipated. The truth of the matter is that TARP will end up costing probably less than $100 billion, when all is said and done. Which I promise you, two years ago, you could have asked any economist and any financial expert out there, and they would have said, “We’ll take that deal.”

    One of the things that you realize when you’re in my seat is that, typically, the issues that come to my desk — there are no simple answers to them. Usually what I’m doing is operating on the basis of a bunch of probabilities: I’m looking at the best options available based on the fact that there are no easy choices. If there were easy choices, somebody else would have solved it, and it wouldn’t have come to my desk.

    That’s true for financial regulatory reform, that’s true on Afghanistan, that’s true on how we deal with the terrorist threat. On all these issues, you’ve got a huge number of complex factors involved. When you’re sitting outside and watching, you think, “Well, that sounds simple,” and you can afford to operate on the basis of your ideological predispositions. What I’m trying to do — and certainly what we’ve tried to do in our economic team — is to keep a North Star out there: What are the core principles we’re abiding by? In the economic sphere, my core principle is that America works best when you’ve got a growing middle class, and you’ve got ladders so that people who aren’t yet in the middle class can aspire to the middle class, and if that broad base is rolling, then the country does well.

    How do you personally feel about hedge-fund managers who are making $200 million a year and paying a 15 percent tax rate? Or the guy who made $700 million one year and compared you to Hitler for trying to raise his taxes above 15 percent — does that gall you?
    I’ve gotta say that I have been surprised by some of the rhetoric in the business press, in which we are accused of being anti-business. I know a lot of these guys who started hedge funds. They are making large profits, taking home large incomes, but because of a rule called “carried interest,” they are paying lower tax rates than their secretaries, or the janitor that cleans up the building. Or folks who are out there as police officers and teachers and small-business people. So all we’ve said is that it makes sense for them to pay taxes on it like on ordinary income.

    I understand why folks might disagree with that. I’ve yet to meet a broad base of people who are anxious to pay higher taxes. But the point you’re making, which is exactly right, is that what should be a pretty straightforward policy argument ends up generating the kind of rhetoric we’ve been seeing: where I’m anti-business, I’m socialist, our administration is trying to destroy capitalism. That, I think, is over-the-top.

    The average American out there who is my primary concern and is making 60 grand a year and paying taxes on all that income and trying to send their kids through school, and partly as a consequence of bad decisions on Wall Street, feels that their job is insecure and has seen their 401(k) decline by 30 percent, and has seen the value of their home decline — I don’t think they’re that sympathetic to these guys, and neither am I.

    Let’s talk about the war in Afghanistan. Where were you when you first heard about the comments made by Gen. Stanley McChrystal and his staff, and how did you feel as you read them for yourself?
    I was in my office in the residence, in the Treaty Room. Joe Biden called me — he was the first one who heard about it. I think it was Sunday night, and I had one of the staff here send me up a copy, and I read through the article. I will say at the outset that I think Gen. McChrystal is a fine man, an outstanding soldier, and has served this country very well. I do not think that he meant those comments maliciously. I think some of those comments were from his staff, and so he was poorly served. And it pained me to have to make the decision I did. Having said that, he showed bad judgment. When I put somebody in charge of the lives of 100,000 young men and women in a very hazardous situation, they’ve got to conduct themselves at the highest standards, and he didn’t meet those standards.

    But it couldn’t have just been those remarks, which were casual and forgivable. The whole article was pretty damning.
    The remarks themselves, I think, showed poor judgment. The rest of the article had to do with a series of very difficult, complex choices on the ground in Afghanistan, in which, as I said before, there are no easy answers. So Gen. McChrystal, in response to a very serious and legitimate concern about civilian casualties in Afghanistan, put out orders that have significantly reduced civilian casualties. The flip side of it is that it frustrates our troops, who feel that they may not be able to go on the offense as effectively, and it may put them in danger. That’s a profound strategic, tactical debate that takes place in the military. That’s not unique to Gen. McChrystal — that’s a debate that Gen. Petraeus is having to work his way through, that’s a debate that I have to work my way through as commander in chief.

    To broaden the issue for a second, you were asking about the sources of frustration in the progressive community; clearly, Afghanistan has to be near the top of the list, maybe at the top of the list. I always try to point out, number one, that this shouldn’t have come as any surprise. When I was campaigning, I was very specific. I said, “We are going to end the war in Iraq, that was a mistake,” and I have done that. What I also said was that we need to plus up what we’re doing in Afghanistan, because that was where the original terrorist threat emanated, and we need to finish the job. That’s what we’re doing.

    Now, I think that a lot of progressive supporters thought that maybe it would be easier than it has proven to be to try to bring Afghanistan to a place where we can see an end in sight. The fact of the matter is, when we came in, what we learned was that the neglect of Afghanistan had been more profound than we expected. Just simple examples: The Afghan National Army, the Afghan security forces, oftentimes were recruited, given a uniform, given a rifle, and that was it — they weren’t getting trained. As a functional matter, there was no way that they were going to start taking the place of U.S. troops.

    What we’ve had to do after an extensive review that I engaged in was to say to our commanders on the ground, “You guys have to have a strategy in which we are training Afghan security forces, we’re going to break the Taliban momentum, but I am going to establish a date at which we start transitioning down and we start turning these security functions over to a newly trained Afghan security force.” That is what we’re in the process of doing.

    It is exacting a terrible cost. Whenever I go over to Walter Reed or Bethesda, or when I was in Afghanistan, and I meet kids who lost their legs or were otherwise badly injured, I am reminded of that cost. Nobody wants more than me to be able to bring that war to a close in a way that makes sure that region is not used as a base for terrorist attacks against the United States. But what we have to do is see this process through. Starting July of 2011, we will begin a transition process, and if the strategy we’re engaged in isn’t working, we’re going to keep on re-examining it until we make sure that we’ve got a strategy that does work.

    But by every index we know of, there seems to be no part of the Afghanistan strategy that is working. The Taliban control more of the country than ever. The Karzai regime is incredibly corrupt and has lost the trust of its own people. The program to buy the loyalty of Taliban soldiers, which was used with the Awakening during the surge in Iraq, can’t find enough takers for the $250 million that was allocated to it. The McChrystal offensive in Kandahar also failed. Afghanistan has been called the “graveyard of empires.” In view of the fact that Great Britain failed there, the Soviet Union with millions of troops right on the border failed there — what makes you think we are going to succeed?
    Number one, this is very hard stuff. I knew it was hard a year ago, and I suspect a year from now, I will conclude that it’s still hard, and it’s messy. Number two, when you tick off these metrics that have quote-unquote “failed” — well, they haven’t failed yet. They haven’t succeeded yet. We’ve made progress in terms of creating a line of security around Kandahar, but there’s no doubt that Kandahar is not yet a secure place any more than Mosul or Fallujah were secure in certain phases of the Iraq War.

    I will also agree that Afghanistan is harder than Iraq. This is the second-poorest country in the world. You’ve got no tradition of a civil service or bureaucracy that is effective countrywide. We have been very successful in taking out the middle ranks of the Taliban. We have been very successful in recruiting and beginning to train Afghan security forces. There are elements that are working, and there are elements that are not working.

    Keep in mind that the decision I have to make is always, “If we’re not doing this, then what does that mean? What are the consequences?” I don’t know anybody who has examined the region who thinks that if we completely pulled out of Afghanistan, the Karzai regime collapsed, Kabul was overrun once again by the Taliban, and Sharia law was imposed throughout the country, that we would be safer, or the Afghan people would be better off, or Pakistan would be better off, or India would be better off, or that we would see a reduction in potential terrorist attacks around the world. You can’t make that argument.

    Some have argued that what we can do is have a smaller footprint in Afghanistan, focus on counterterrorism activities, but have less boots on the ground. We examined every option that’s out there. I assure you: With all the problems we’ve got here at home, and the fact that I have to sign letters to the family members of every soldier who is killed in Afghanistan, if I can find a way of reducing the costs to the American taxpayer, and more profoundly, to our young men and women in uniform, while making sure that we are not rendered much more vulnerable to a terrorist attack in the future, that’s going to be the option that I choose. But no matter what your ultimate belief is in terms of what will succeed in Afghanistan, it’s going to take us several years to work through this issue.

    Ideally, what would have happened was that we didn’t go into Iraq. Right after our victory in 2001, if we had focused on rebuilding Afghanistan, and had been in much more direct day-to-day interaction with Karzai and his government, then we wouldn’t find ourselves in this circumstance.

    But you know what: I have to play the cards that I’m dealt. In an ideal world, I wouldn’t have inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and the worst recession since the Great Depression. But you work with what’s before you.

    Let me ask you about the Gulf oil spill. British Petroleum fired Tony Hayward, so my question is: Why does Interior Secretary Ken Salazar still have his job? The corruption at Minerals Management Service was widely known at the time he came into office, as was reported several times in Rolling Stone and other places, and that’s what helped the Gulf disaster to happen.
    When Ken Salazar came in, he said to me, “One of my top priorities is cleaning up MMS.” It was no secret. You had seen the kind of behavior in that office that was just over-the-top, and Ken did reform the agency to eliminate those core ethical lapses — the drugs, the other malfeasance that was reported there. What Ken would admit, and I would admit, and what we both have to take responsibility for, is that we did not fully change the institutional conflicts that were inherent in that office. If you ask why did we not get that done, the very simple answer is that this is a big government with a lot of people, and changing bureaucracies and agencies is a time-consuming process. We just didn’t get to it fast enough.

    Having said that, the person who was put in charge of MMS was fired. We brought in Michael Bromwich, who by every account is somebody who is serious about cleaning up that agency. We are committed to making sure that that place works the way it is supposed to. But when I have somebody like Ken Salazar, who has been an outstanding public servant, who takes this stuff seriously, who bleeds when he sees what was happening in the Gulf, and had started on a path of reform but just didn’t get there as fast on every aspect of it as needed to be, I had to just let him know, “You’re accountable, you’re responsible, I expect you to change it.” I have confidence that he can change it, and I think he’s in the process of doing so.

    James Hansen, the NASA scientist who is perhaps the most respected authority on global warming, says that climate change is the predominant moral issue of the 21st century, comparable to slavery faced by Lincoln and the response to Nazism faced by Churchill. Do you agree with that statement?
    What I would agree with is that climate change has the potential to have devastating effects on people around the globe, and we’ve got to do something about it. In order to do something about it, we’re going to have to mobilize domestically, and we’re going to have to mobilize internationally.

    During the past two years, we’ve not made as much progress as I wanted to make when I was sworn into office. It is very hard to make progress on these issues in the midst of a huge economic crisis, because the natural inclination around the world is to say, “You know what? That may be a huge problem, but right now what’s a really big problem is 10 percent unemployment,” or “What’s a really big problem is that our businesses can’t get loans.” That diverted attention from what I consider to be an urgent priority. The House of Representatives made an attempt to deal with the issue in a serious way. It wasn’t perfect, but it was serious. We could not get 60 votes for a comparable approach in the Senate.

    One of my top priorities next year is to have an energy policy that begins to address all facets of our overreliance on fossil fuels. We may end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive omnibus legislation. But we’re going to stay on this because it is good for our economy, it’s good for our national security, and, ultimately, it’s good for our environment.

    Understand, though, that even in the absence of legislation, we took steps over the past two years that have made a significant difference. I will give you one example, and this is an example where sometimes I think the progressive community just pockets whatever we do, takes it for granted, and then asks, “Well, why didn’t you get this done?”

    We instituted the first increase in fuel-efficiency standards in this country in 30 years. It used to be that California would have some very rigorous rule, and then other states would have much weaker ones. Now we’ve got one rule. Not only that, it used to be that trucks weren’t covered, and there were all kinds of loopholes — that’s how SUVs were out there getting eight miles a gallon. Now everybody’s regulated — not only cars, but trucks. We did this with the agreement of the auto industry, which had never agreed to it before, we did it with the auto workers, who had never agreed to it before. We are taking the equivalent of millions of cars off the road, when it comes to the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced.

    Is it enough? Absolutely not. The progress that we’re making on renewable energy, the progress that we’re making on retrofitting buildings and making sure that we are reducing electricity use — all those things, cumulatively, if we stay on it over the next several years, will allow us to meet the target that I set, which would be around a 17 percent reduction in our greenhouse gases.

    But we’re going to have to do a lot more than that. When I talk to [Energy Secretary] Steven Chu, who, by the way, was an unsung hero in the Gulf oil spill — this guy went down and helped design the way to plug that hole with BP engineers — nobody’s a bigger champion for the cause of reducing climate change than he is. When I ask him how we are going to solve this problem internationally, what he’ll tell you is that we can get about a third of this done through efficiencies and existing technologies, we can get an additional chunk through some sort of pricing in carbon, but ultimately we’re going to need some technological breakthroughs. So the investments we’re making in research and development around clean energy are also going to be important if we’re going to be able to get all the way there. Am I satisfied with what we’ve gotten done? Absolutely not.

    Do you see a point at which you’re going to throw the whole weight of the presidency behind this, like you did on health care or financial reform?
    Yes. Not only can I foresee it, but I am committed to making sure that we get an energy policy that makes sense for the country and that helps us grow at the same time as it deals with climate change in a serious way. I am just as committed to getting immigration reform done.

    I’ve been here two years, guys. And one of the things that I just try to remember is that if we have accomplished 70 percent of what we committed to in the campaign, historic legislation, and we’ve got 30 percent of it undone — well, that’s what the next two years is for, or maybe the next six.

    Understandably, everybody has a great sense of urgency about these issues. But one of the things that I constantly want to counsel my friends is to keep the long view in mind. On social issues, something like “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Here, I’ve got the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff both committed to changing the policy. That’s a big deal.

    You get credit for that.
    Now, I am also the commander in chief of an armed forces that is in the midst of one war and wrapping up another one. So I don’t think it’s too much to ask, to say “Let’s do this in an orderly way” — to ensure, by the way, that gays and lesbians who are serving honorably in our armed forces aren’t subject to harassment and bullying and a whole bunch of other stuff once we implement the policy. I use that as an example because on each of these areas, even those where we did not get some grand legislative victory, we have made progress. We have moved in the right direction.

    When people start being concerned about, “You haven’t closed Guantánamo yet,” I say, listen, that’s something I wanted to get done by now, and I haven’t gotten done because of recalcitrance from the other side. Frankly, it’s an easy issue to demagogue. But what I have been able to do is to ban torture. I have been able to make sure that our intelligence agencies and our military operate under a core set of principles and rules that are true to our traditions of due process. People will say, “I don’t know — you’ve got your Justice Department out there that’s still using the state-secrets doctrine to defend against some of these previous actions.” Well, I gave very specific instructions to the Department of Justice. What I’ve said is that we are not going to use a shroud of secrecy to excuse illegal behavior on our part. On the other hand, there are occasions where I’ve got to protect operatives in the field, their sources and their methods, because if those were revealed in open court, they could be subject to very great danger. There are going to be circumstances in which, yes, I can’t have every operation that we’re engaged in to deal with a very real terrorist threat published in Rolling Stone.

    These things don’t happen overnight. But we’re moving in the right direction, and that’s what people have to keep in mind.

    What has surprised you the most about these first two years in office? What advice would you give your successor about the first two years?

    Over the past two years, what I probably anticipated but you don’t fully appreciate until you’re in the job, is something I said earlier, which is if a problem is easy, it doesn’t hit my desk. If there’s an obvious solution, it never arrives here — somebody else has solved it a long time ago. The issues that cross my desk are hard and complicated, and oftentimes involve the clash not of right and wrong, but of two rights. And you’re having to balance and reconcile against competing values that are equally legitimate.

    What I’m very proud of is that we have, as an administration, kept our moral compass, even as we’ve worked through these very difficult issues. Doesn’t mean we haven’t made mistakes, but I think we’ve moved the country in a profoundly better direction just in the past two years.

    What music have you been listening to lately? What have you discovered, what speaks to you these days?
    My iPod now has about 2,000 songs, and it is a source of great pleasure to me. I am probably still more heavily weighted toward the music of my childhood than I am the new stuff. There’s still a lot of Stevie Wonder, a lot of Bob Dylan, a lot of Rolling Stones, a lot of R&B, a lot of Miles Davis and John Coltrane. Those are the old standards.

    A lot of classical music. I’m not a big opera buff in terms of going to opera, but there are days where Maria Callas is exactly what I need.

    Thanks to Reggie [Love, the president’s personal aide], my rap palate has greatly improved. Jay-Z used to be sort of what predominated, but now I’ve got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert. Malia and Sasha are now getting old enough to where they start hipping me to things. Music is still a great source of joy and occasional solace in the midst of what can be some difficult days.

    You had Bob Dylan here. How did that go?
    Here’s what I love about Dylan: He was exactly as you’d expect he would be. He wouldn’t come to the rehearsal; usually, all these guys are practicing before the set in the evening. He didn’t want to take a picture with me; usually all the talent is dying to take a picture with me and Michelle before the show, but he didn’t show up to that. He came in and played “The Times They Are A-Changin’.” A beautiful rendition. The guy is so steeped in this stuff that he can just come up with some new arrangement, and the song sounds completely different. Finishes the song, steps off the stage — I’m sitting right in the front row — comes up, shakes my hand, sort of tips his head, gives me just a little grin, and then leaves. And that was it — then he left. That was our only interaction with him. And I thought: That’s how you want Bob Dylan, right? You don’t want him to be all cheesin’ and grinnin’ with you. You want him to be a little skeptical about the whole enterprise. So that was a real treat.

    Having Paul McCartney here was also incredible. He’s just a very gracious guy. When he was up there singing “Michelle” to Michelle, I was thinking to myself, “Imagine when Michelle was growing up, this little girl on the South Side of Chicago, from a working-class family.” The notion that someday one of the Beatles would be singing his song to her in the White House — you couldn’t imagine something like that.

    Did you cry?
    Whenever I think about my wife, she can choke me up. My wife and my kids, they’ll get to me.

    [Signaled by his aides, the president brings the interview to a close and leaves the Oval Office. A moment later, however, he returns to the office and says that he has one more thing to add. He speaks with intensity and passion, repeatedly stabbing the air with his finger.]

    One closing remark that I want to make: It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election. There may be complaints about us not having gotten certain things done, not fast enough, making certain legislative compromises. But right now, we’ve got a choice between a Republican Party that has moved to the right of George Bush and is looking to lock in the same policies that got us into these disasters in the first place, versus an administration that, with some admitted warts, has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward.

    The idea that we’ve got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible.

    Everybody out there has to be thinking about what’s at stake in this election and if they want to move forward over the next two years or six years or 10 years on key issues like climate change, key issues like how we restore a sense of equity and optimism to middle-class families who have seen their incomes decline by five percent over the last decade. If we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties, we’d better fight in this election. And right now, we are getting outspent eight to one by these 527s that the Roberts court says can spend with impunity without disclosing where their money’s coming from. In every single one of these congressional districts, you are seeing these independent organizations outspend political parties and the candidates by, as I said, factors of four to one, five to one, eight to one, 10 to one.

    We have to get folks off the sidelines. People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up. Bringing about change is hard — that’s what I said during the campaign. It has been hard, and we’ve got some lumps to show for it. But if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.

    If you’re serious, now’s exactly the time that people have to step up.

    The is an article from the October 15, 2010 issue of Rolling Stone, available on newsstands on October 1, 2010.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395

    PBO, you sexy muthaf*$ka! LOL

    • whiterosebuddy says:

      That was a great article.

      Of course, I especially enjoyed the last few paragraphs where he was described as being intensely passionate as he spoke and jabbing the air with his fingers.

      Great visual…saw it many times during the 08 campaign.

      POTUS

      means

      business!!

      MOFOS better get up off their asses and VOTE.

      Change is HARD!!

    • Ametia says:

      Yes, I too enjoyed the article. I’m going to get a copy whenit hits the stands.

      CHANGE is change!

  14. Sang, Koko!!!!!!!!!

    Alright now! You better leave my man alone!

  15. Ametia says:

    Eddie Long isn’t practicing what he preaches
    By Eugene Robinson
    Tuesday, September 28, 2010

    One of the small ironies of the Bishop Eddie Long scandal is the preacher’s self-pitying complaint, in a Sunday sermon vetted by his lawyers, that he feels “like David against Goliath.”

    Really? Let’s see, on one side we have one of the most prominent and influential clerics in the country, the pastor of a suburban Atlanta megachurch that claims 25,000 members. On the other, we have four young men who claim in lawsuits that Long abused his clerical authority to lure and coerce them into having sex with him. Unlike the bishop, as far as I know, none of the accusers is driven around in a Bentley. Or is constantly attended by a retinue of aides and bodyguards. Or cultivates and maintains first-name relationships with famous politicians, athletes and entertainers.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/27/AR2010092704679.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

    • Vettte says:

      Don’t get me started today on Long. He’s Goliath and the 4 boys are Davids with NO rocks. I’m just pissed that he didnt step aside until these matters were settled. Dont prepare to destroy these young mens reps at the expense of keeping your job. By the mere fact that he sent out a pic of himself in that bathroom is damning enough. His “I am not a perfect man” is as much of a confession that he will ever come close to giving.

      • Ametia says:

        ALL of those pictures… Let me repeat, my alliance is and will ALWAYS be with the youth in this situation.

      • whiterosebuddy says:

        Eddie Long is a straight up homosexual predator.
        Eddie Long must of’ve forgot that David went on to become KingDavid the adulterous/murderer….impregnating Bathsheba and killing her husband to cover up his treachery.

        Eddie Long ain’t no little guy overcoming powerful opposition. He IS the powerful opposition denying his own filthy vile actions to pervert young men to the ways of oral sodomy and anal receptive sex.

        He thinks he is so slick waiting til the boys are of the age of consent. So, he can’t be charged criminally. But just you watch his shrewd slithering ways gonna result in him probably being murdered. Cause some parent/child is going to become so venomous with rage at the futility of justice under the law until they choose to take matters in their own hands.

        Wouldn’t surprise me at all if someone walked up in that pulpit and pulverized Long with a baseball bat as the entire congregation witnessed his agonizing death.

        So said the Lord and so be it.

      • Vettte says:

        @ WRB, “pulverize Shlong Dong Long with a baseball bat”…. sorry about that.

        There was a young man on CNN tonight, as I projected would happening, quite convincingly lamblasting Schlong Dong Long about started with these young men as young boys gaining their trust. That point alone leads me to believe he may have “child predator issues”. There’s a big difference between the peodophilia illness and homosexuality. MJ had issues with little boys and so it appears that Shlong Dong Long may have.

  16. Ametia says:

    Did Sarah Palin Get Booed On Dancing With The Stars? PROLLY!

    Well, that was odd. During tonight’s episode of Dancing with the Stars, Sarah Palin made a surprise appearance as “special guest commentator” and supporter of her daughter, Bristol. Sitting with her second youngest, Piper, Palin cheerfully explained how much she was enjoying seeing the competition. However, it seems that some in the audience may not have been enjoying seeing her as a loud series of boos accompanied her appearance.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/did-sarah-palin-get-booed-on-dancing-with-the-stars/

  17. Ametia says:

    Good Morning, Everybody! :-)

    • Morning, Ametia & 3 Chics!

      Howdy do! :)

    • Ametia says:

      Hey there, SouthernGirl! Gonna get my wnag dang doodle on… Tee hee hee

    • whiterosebuddy says:

      GOOD Morning Ladies!!!

      I am happy to be here. And I just gotta let lose with a rant. I have been so upset watching how this country/media/society treats POTUS!!

      I wrote this treatise

      Arrogance of being President while Being Black

      I don’t think anyone was under some real illusion that the election of Barack Obama actually means the end of racism in America . I’m pretty sure that the president-elect knew it better than anyone. After all, he saw it every day, from the moment he announced his candidacy. To some degree, he saw it within his own party during the primaries. And he saw it in all ugliness during the general election. For half of this country, he was “That One”. No matter how big and clear his victory was. No matter how smart he is. No matter how decent he is. No matter what a true patriot he is. No matter how optimistic and positive his vision for America was. All that didn’t matter. Because at the end of the day, he was still black.

      I’m old. I remember, vaguely, where my parents were on November 22, 1963. I’ve seen so many presidents. Some were feared, some were hated, some were adored, some popular and some not. But all of them, without exception, were treated with the highest respect deserving the office of the president of the United States .

      That is until a black man won the right to occupy this office. It’s been 13 months now, and in the eyes of so many, Barack Obama is still that one. He is being disrespected and at the same time being held to the highest standard of any president I’ve ever seen – and not just by the Republican side! He has to perform three times better than any president in history, and even that may not be enough.

      For the media, he is many more times just “Obama” than “President Obama”. They create scandals out of nothing issues. It took them at least 6 years to start giving Bush a small part of the shit he deserved. It took them 6 months to begin crap all over Obama because he’s yet to fix the catastrophe that was left for him.

      They use condescending tones when they talk about him, and only mildly less condescending when they talk TO him. With anyone else, CNN wouldn’t dare go to commercials every time the president speaks, like they did during that summit on Thursday. They wouldn’t dare be counting how many minutes George Bush or Bill Clinton were talking. Chris Mathews wouldn’t dare make an issue out of Ronald Regan calling members of congress by their first name, like he is not actually the president. They fully cooperate with the Right-Wing smear machine when it comes to president Obama’s national security performance – even if almost every independent and military expert actually thinks that he’s a terrific Commander-in-Chief. You’ll never see them on TV, and virtually no one from the Left, in congress and outside, defend the president on this matter.

      I don’t care about the Far-Right. They’re just crazy ignorant Neanderthals. It’s the way the beltway and the mainstream treats this president that is shocking. On Thursday, almost every Republican had no trouble interrupting him in the middle of a sentence. They looked like they’re going to vomit every time they had to say “Mr. president”. They all had this Eric-Cantor-Smirk whenever he spoke. Then they went out and started to spit their stupid talking points, to the delight of the media. Sarah Palin, a woman who can hardly read, thinks that he was “arrogant” towards John McCain, and somehow this is an important news. Because you see, “Obama’s Arrogance” is the talking point of the day.

      Oh, those talking points. He is arrogant (because he knows the facts better than all of them combined). He is an elitist (because he uses big words that they don’t understand). He is weak on national security (because he actually thinks about the consequences). He divides the country (well, he did that the day he had the audacity to win the election). Worst of all, he actually thinks that he’s the president. He even dared to say so on Thursday. How arrogant of him. You’d think that previous presidents didn’t have any ego. Somehow it turned out that the one president who treats even his biggest opponents with the utmost respect – is the arrogant one. I wonder why?

      I expected that his winning the Presidency would bring out some ugliness, but it’s been far worse than I imagined. The racism coming from the Right is obviously clear and shameless, but there’s also some hidden and maybe subconscious and disturbing underline tone behind some of the things that I read here and throughout the Left blogosphere, even before the end of Obama’s first year – ‘He’s weak, he’s spineless, he’s got no balls, primary him in 2012’. It’ll be dishonest to deny that.

      The fact is that for millions in America , Barack Obama is this uppity black man (Not even a “real” black), who received good education only due to affirmative action, and has no right to litter the sacred Oval Office with his skin color. They just can’t accept the fact that the president is a black man, who unlike his predecessor, was actually legally elected. But what’s really sad is that it’s not just the fringe, its deep deep in mainstream America .

      Barack Obama’s ability to remain above all this slob, to keep his optimism and his strange and mostly unjustified faith in people, while continuing to gracefully deal with an endless shitstorm – is one of the most inspiring displays of human quality I have ever seen. And I can only hope that the Cosmos is on his side because God is and He never makes a mistake.

Leave a Reply