Serendipity SOUL | Tuesday Open Thread

Happy Tuesday, Everbody!

Oleta Adams week continues with Window of Hope

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

71 Responses to Serendipity SOUL | Tuesday Open Thread

  1. Ametia says:

    Wi Supreme court judge race 50/50

  2. Bristol Palin’s Teen Pregnancy Work Earned Her $262K

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Tax documents show unwed mother Bristol Palin earned more than $262,000 for her role in helping raise awareness for teen pregnancy prevention in 2009.

    The most recent data for The Candie’s Foundation that’s posted online by research firm GuideStar shows compensation at $262,500 for the now-20-year-old daughter of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee.

    Bristol Palin was 18 when she was appointed as a teen ambassador for the New York-based foundation in 2009, months after giving birth to son, Tripp. She and the 2-year-old boy’s father, Levi Johnston, are no longer together.

    Palin family attorney John Tiemessen and foundation officials did not immediately return calls for comment Tuesday.

    $262,000? Guess what? Last year,the foundation spent $35,000 on teen pregnancy prevention outreach. Bristol =Grifter! Duping the gullible!

    RoaryNYC from Huffington Post said:

    Bristol sends a wonderful message to the teenagers of America: don’t do what I do, look at what getting pregnant and dropping out of high school did for me. You don’t want the same thing to happen to you, do you?

  3. Ametia says:

    You can listen to the conference call with PBO and VP Biden now

  4. President Obama’s facebook townhall – April 20 @ 1:45pm PST / 4:45pm EST

    Time Wednesday, April 20 · 4:30pm – 5:30pm


    Location facebook HQ &


    Created By The White House


    President Barack Obama will hold a special “Facebook Live” townhall to connect with Americans across the country.

    Where? Well, everywhere! The event at Facebook’s headquarters, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg & COO Sheryl Sandberg, will be live streamed for anyone to watch. Just come back here at the right time: Wednesday, April 20 @ 1:45pm PST / 4:45pm EST.

    President Obama will connect with Americans across the country to discuss the tough choices we must all make in order to put our economy on a more responsible fiscal path, while still investing in areas like innovation that will help our economy grow and make America more competitive.

    Facebook will be selecting questions for President Obama to answer during the event. Submit questions now by posting them right here, on this event’s wall. As an alternative, you may submit a question via

    Then you definitely need to make sure you’re a fan of the White House on Facebook!

  5. Ametia says:

    Hey, Alec Baldwin
    The federal budget: It’s complicated
    By JULIE MASON | 04/05/11 4:04 PM Updated: 04/05/11 4:26 PM

    If the current federal budget process has taught us anything, it’s that Congress may be crafty — but they are not artsy.

    Alec Baldwin is in town, urging lawmakers not to cut government funding for the arts. But if nothing else is certain in this fast-moving budget fight, we can be fairly sure funding for the arts won’t survive intact.

    Baldwin and his entourage stopped by the CNN camera position on the White House North Lawn ahead of a 3 p.m. meeting in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on arts funding.

    “When you speak to people here as we did today in the Congress, what you find out is that it really is a situation where they might support the arts and they might even support government funding for the arts, but during economic tough times like we have now, that’s money that they feel is better spent somewhere else,” he said.

    Baldwin said without irony that he is trying to have a “philosophical discussion” with lawmakers about about the need to keep funding the arts. He said history has shown that when the government pulls back, the private sector does not step up.

    “The argument I am really fond of this year is the fact that we don’t want to leave cultural identity of our children to commercial interests alone,” Baldwin said. “I work in this business, and if you leave everything to the music industry and the movie industry and television industry, for our young people to kind of develop their own sense of self and self-expression and identity, we are in for a lot of problems in this country.”

    While CNN reporter Dan Lothian stood by getting increasingly agitated about possibly missing his 3 p.m. live shot on budget negotiations, Baldwin — looking very comfortable at the stand-up position — told Joy Behar by remote hookup that recent events illustrate his larger point.

    “Snookie is getting $32,000 to speak at Rutgers?! I spoke at Montclair State for nothing, what the hell is going on?” Baldwin said.

  6. Ametia says:

    Barack Obama fundraiser at Jon Corzine home

    By MAGGIE HABERMAN | 4/5/11 7:12 PM EDT Updated: 4/5/11 7:51 PM EDT

    President Barack Obama’s first New York event since he launched his reelection will be at the home of former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, with the former Goldman Sachs financier set to host a high-dollar, small dinner, an invitation to the event shows.

    Tickets to the event, which sources said Corzine is co-hosting with another financier, longtime Obama backer Orin Kramer and his wife, cost $35,800 per person.

    Continue Reading

    That event is the first of three the president will appear at in New York City on April 27.

    The choice of Corzine’s home is notable, given his ties to the financial sector. The White House has made efforts in recent months to soothe frayed relations with the business community, after an election cycle during which some donors, unhappy with the push for Wall Street reform, claimed to be sitting on their hands.

    After dinner there will be a reception for roughly 350 people at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, with tickets ranging from $2,500 a head to $25,000 per person. The highest level gets guests a spot at the VIP reception and in the photo line with the president.

    Then, there will be a low-dollar event, ranging from $250 to $1,000 per person, which is a “kick-off reception” with the president. The site hasn’t yet been announced.

    The events are part of a series of big-city fundraising stops the president is expected to make in the coming months that will include his home base of Chicago, as well as Boston, sources said.

    Read more:

  7. Ametia says:

    Turnout Runs Unexpectedly High in Crucial Wis. Supreme Court Election
    Tuesday, 05 Apr 2011 05:24 PM
    By David A. Patten

    Observers are surprised at the high voter turnout in a pivotal Wisconsin state Supreme Court election today in balloting billed as a de facto referendum on GOP Gov. Scott Walker’s fiscal austerity measures.

    State officials had expected 20 percent of the voters to show up at the polls, which close at 9 p.m. Eastern time. But sources on the ground in Wisconsin tell Newsmax that turnout is much higher than that — and could be “unprecedented.”

    The higher turnout doesn’t help predicting the winner, analysts say. One one hand, it could indicate success for a massive get-out-the-vote campaign among grass-roots conservatives. But if the votes come from heavily Democratic areas, the turnout could favor anti-GOP forces.

    Tea party leaders supporting incumbent conservative Justice David Prosser hope to offset the formidable influx of union money and volunteers pouring into the state on behalf of Prosser‘s challenger, Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg.

    If Democrats defeat Prosser, it would give them a 4-3 liberal majority in Wisconsin‘s Supreme Court. That could be a key advantage if legal challenges to Walker’s budget reforms reach the state’s highest court.

    A victory for conservatives would show that they can prevail at the polls even in the face of a full-scale mobilization by organized labor designed to prove that politicians who try to constrain public-sector unions will suffer for it at the ballot box.

    Mike McCabe, the executive director of Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a nonpartisan good-government watchdog, tells Newsmax that he has heard reports that turnout in heavily Democratic Madison is running as high as 60 percent.

    High turnout also has been reported in the Milwaukee area, which tends to lean Democratic.

    The higher turnout in Madison and Milwaukee appears to be driven by open county executive seats. The open post in Milwaukee, ironically, is the one that Walker vacated when he won election to Wisconsin’s statehouse in November.

    Although a heavy turnout in those two cities could be bad news for Prosser, turnout also is said to be high in other areas of the state.

    One reporter in Eau Claire estimated turnout at one precinct there to be running at about 33 percent. In Green Bay, about 10 percent of the city’s registered voters had cast ballots as of 10 a.m., according to city Clerk Lauri Marenger.

    Wisconsin State Sen. Dan Kapanke tells Newsmax that he believes turnout in the western regions of Wisconsin could hit 40 percent, compared with a normal turnout of 20-25 percent,

    “I think the turnout will be higher, especially in my part of the state, because we have an assembly district that’s going to be a key battleground, one of the first elections following the new administration here,” Kapanke says.

    “So it’s going to be sort of a mini-referendum on Governor Walker and what we’ve done here in the legislature. I think that’s going to raise the numbers,” he says, adding the turnout may be unprecedented for an April election.

    Kapanke, who on Friday became the first GOP senator to have enough petition signatures filed against him to force a recall election, tells Newsmax that he is cautiously optimistic that conservatives will prevail in Wisconsin.

    “I think you’ll see the grass-roots organizations on behalf of conservatives for Prosser, in the end . . . is going to put him back in. Because he is the most qualified . . . I’m hopeful that we will return Judge Prosser,” he said.

  8. Ametia says:

    Wasserman Schultz Picked as D.N.C. Chairwoman
    Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida is poised to become the new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, party officials said Tuesday, leading the party’s fund-raising and organizational efforts heading into the 2012 election season.

    President Obama selected Ms. Wasserman Schultz as his choice to succeed Tim Kaine, who announced earlier Tuesday that he intended to run for Senate in Virginia. The decision was being discussed in a conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee on Tuesday evening, officials said, and was expected to be announced soon.

    She would be the first woman to serve as the permanent head of the committee in a presidential election year, party officials said. At least two women have served short stints in the position, but were temporary chairwomen.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 44, is known for her strong fund-raising abilities, party officials said, and would become one of the few high-profile woman surrogates on television for the president. She first gained national attention during the Florida recount in 2000, when she was a state legislator, and has been a rising figure in the party over the last decade.

    Former Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio was among the finalists for the position, party officials said, along with a handful of other former Democratic governors.

    Ms. Wasserman Schulz was elected to Congress in 2004 from South Florida, a key presidential battleground. She supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, but quickly switched her loyalties to Mr. Obama when he became the presumptive nominee.

    “She is very good on television and she’s part of the next generation of Democrats,” said Jenny Backus, a longtime Democratic strategist and former official at the national party.

  9. Ametia says:

    The daily beastread this skip that U.S. NewsMore U.S. News States That Sponge Tax Dollars
    by The Daily Beast Info


    As Democrats and Republicans battle over the budget, The Daily Beast crunches the numbers to see which states take more from D.C. than they send back—and which states get shortchanged.

    The increasingly rancorous political wrangling over the federal budget has placed the federal government inching ever closer to a shutdown. Today’s Republican budget proposal, headed by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, includes fundamental changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal government-sponsored programs administered by states—in all, the proposal has more than $4 trillion in cuts over 10 years.

    With the national conversation centering on federal finance, we wanted to find out which states get the most and fewest federal dollars based on what they pay into the federal government’s coffers. Are proposed cuts to federal programs more likely to affect red states, or blue states?

    Out of the 10 states that have benefitted most from federal money since 2007, seven sent their electoral votes to John McCain in 2008. Mississippi and West Virginia are at the head of the class—each take nearly $3 from Washington for each dollar they pay in taxes. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Delaware and Minnesota both get about 50 cents for each $1 they pay in federal taxes.

    In terms of trends, President Obama’s native state has benefitted the most since 2007, with federal funds to Hawaii more than doubling since 2009. The smallest increase since 2007 goes to Ohio, which has seen its federal funds increase by just 5 percent.

    The federal money is responsible for a slew of programs, including health care for low-income residents and the elderly, fisheries and conservation research, medical research, U.S. Department of Defense contracts, disaster relief loans, and wages for federal employees. For the nation, federal money to states increased from an average of $1.25 per tax dollar paid in 2007 to $1.75 in 2009, an increase of 40 percent—a direct result of the Great Recession (lower taxes, more need).

    Gallery: Ranking All 50 States Based on Who Takes Most Tax Dollars

  10. rikyrah says:

    under BWA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA news


    Poll: Gingrich Trails Obama In His Own Home State Of Georgia
    Newt Gingrich hasn’t officially thrown his hat into the 2012 race, but if he were to get in, and indeed win the Republican presidential nomination, he wouldn’t get much of a home state advantage in a general election against President Obama, according to a new PPP poll.

    In that poll of registered voters, Obama topped Gingrich 46%-45% in a head-to-head matchup in Georgia, the state Gingrich represented for two decades in the House. Further, 50% said they didn’t think Gingrich should run for president in the first place, while only 31% said he should.

    In the poll, Obama topped Gingrich 46%-45%. Further, 50% said they didn’t think Gingrich should run for president in the first place, while only 31% said he should.

    That’s a bad omen for Gingrich, who appears poised to make his White House bid official, as it shows how much trouble he would have competing in a general election even in his own state.

    National polls have also shown Gingrich faring poorly in a hypothetical contest with Obama. The latest TPM Poll Average shows Obama leading Gingrich by a comfortable 51.6% to 37.2% margin nationally.

    The poll also had some other good news for Obama, as it showed him topping a couple of other potential GOP challengers, and narrowly trailing two others.

    Obama led Sarah Palin 48%-45% in the poll, and also topped Herman Cain — another native son, and former pizza chain CEO — 44% to 39%. Against Mike Huckabee, Obama trailed by a 3-point margin, 48% to 45%. Obama also trailed Mitt Romney by three points, 46%-43%.

    Forty-seven percent of respondents said they approved of Obama’s job performance, compared to 48% who disapproved.

  11. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 11:17 AM ET, 04/05/2011
    Why John Boehner is bringing us to brink of government shutdown
    By Greg Sargent
    A number of people are pointing to a telling behind the scenes moment , where House Republicans applauded John Boehner for saying that a government shutdown is imminent:

    House Republicans huddled late Monday and, according to a GOP aide, gave the speaker an ovation when he informed them that he was advising the House Administration Committee to begin preparing for a possible shutdown. That process includes alerting lawmakers and senior staff about which employees would not report to work if no agreement is reached.

    Democrats are pointing to this as proof that House Republicans are rooting for a shutdown, but I think this suggests something more interesting about what’s really going on here. Specifically, the closer Boehner brings us to the bring of a shutdown now, the easier it will be for him to sell any eventual compromise to conservatives later.

    If a compromise is reached, Boehner can credibly tell conservatives in his caucus that by allowing the threat of a shutdown to loom as large as possible, for as long as possible, he did all that was humanly within reach to extract maximum concessions from Democrats. After all, it’s widely known that the White House does not want a shutdown, because it will hamper the recovery and because Obama is hoping to preside over a deal, just as he did on tax cuts, in the quest for independent voters.

    By bringing us to the brink of a shutdown, Boehner gives himself a way to argue to conservatives that he applied maximum pressure on the White House to force Dems to agree to real cuts.

    Republicans will argue that Chuck Schumer, too, wants a shutdown, on the theory that it helps Democrats. I don’t know if this is true or not, but either way, Boehner is the one who is under pressure from his base to be willing to shut down the government if Republicans don’t get their way in the standoff. Whatever Schumer really wants, the bottom line is that he’s under no such pressure. Boehner, however, is under such pressure. If he can create the impression that he brought us to the brink, conservatives in the end might be a bit more willing to accept the concessions he did win.

    By Greg Sargent | 11:17 AM ET, 04/05/2011

    • Ametia says:

      Go ahead, BONER and the RETHUGS, shutdown the governmnet. Continue destroying our country before your assess are voted out in 2012.

  12. rikyrah says:

    Obama to Ivory Coast’s Gbabgo: Stand Down Immediately

    President Obama issued a sternly worded order for Ivory Coast’s besieged former President Laurent Gbabgo to relinquish his claim to office and end the violence in the West African country amid reports that he and his top generals are negotiating a surrender.

    “To end the violence and prevent more bloodshed, former President Gbabgo must stand down immediately, and direct those who are fighting on his behalf to lay down their arms,” Obama said in a statement Tuesday morning. “Every day that the fighting persists will bring more suffering, and further delay the future peace and prosperity that the people of Cote D’Ivoire deserve.”

    Obama expressed deep concern about reports of Gbabgo-led massacres in the western region as the former president has struggled to hold unto power in the weeks and months after losing a run-off election to Alassane Outtara. Obama said he supported the role of UN peacekeepers, as well as the French military, which are attempting to protect civilians under assault from Gbabgo loyalists.

    The United Nations declared Outtara the winner of a November run-off vote, but Gbabgo has refused to recognize his defeat.

    In the wake of Obama’s statement, the BBC reported that Gbabgo’s generals have issued a cease-fire as French forces have bombarded strategic points in the city of Abidjan. Gbabgo’s top generals are attempting to negotiate terms of their surrender that would guarantee safe departure and refuge.

  13. rikyrah says:

    Posted at 02:20 PM ET, 04/05/2011
    GOP has again moved goalposts for budget compromise, Dems say
    By Greg Sargent

    With a government shutdown looming and budget talks apparently at a standstill, Democratic aides are accusing the GOP of moving the goalposts for compromise yet again.

    A senior Senate Democratic aide tells me that in today’s private meeting at the White House, Speaker John Boehner signaled to the President and to Harry Reid that Republicans were not willing to support any budget compromise that can’t garner the votes of 218 Republicans in the House. That would be a break from the GOP’s previous posture: Republican leaders had appeared willing to reach a deal that could pass the House with Republican and Democratic support, even if it meant losing some Republicans.

    Harry Reid is expected to make an accusation along these lines today when he speaks to the press, the aide tells me, though this could change, depending on fast-shifting circumstances.

    “Our takeaway from the meeting was that Republicans will not accept anything that cannot pass the House without 218 Republican votes,” the aide tells me. “That means $73 billion isn’t good enough.”

    That last line means that the $33 billion in cuts as a proposed target compromise — on top of $40 billion of cuts that were already agreed upon — will not be sufficient for a compromise, if 218 Republicans cannot support it.

    If Reid’s takeaway from the meeting is accurate — the GOP’s readout of the meeting did not indicate this version of events, and a Boehner spokesman didn’t immediately return an email for comment — it would mean that House GOP leaders have decided they are not willing to back a compromise if it means sacrificing significant Republican support on their right flank .

    “Rather than finding common ground, they’re more concerned with appeasing the Tea party and extreme right wing than finding common ground with Democrats,” the Dem aide continued.

    In a surprise appearance before the White House press corps moments ago, Obama didn’t divulge what happened at the meeting. But he did point out that Republicans appear to be rejecting the current compromise number of $73 billion, even though that is the original number articulated by Boehner, before conservatives began demanding deeper cuts.

    “We are now at the figure that was Speaker Boehner’s original proposal,” Obama said. “Speaker Boehner originally called for $73 billion worth of cuts. Members of his caucus insisted on making it $100 billion. What we’ve said is, `We’re willing to go to 73.’”

  14. Tim Kaine Announces 2012 Senate Run

    WASHINGTON — Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine announced on Tuesday that he is throwing his hat in the ring to replace retiring U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.).

    In a video announcement on his new campaign website, Kaine pitched himself as the prototype of a fiscally conscious Democrat — a politician who, as governor of Virginia, led the state “through the toughest economy in 70 years,” cut “billions of dollars from the state budget,” and “tightened our belt and made government more efficient”.

  15. U.S. House Gets Ready To Shut Down

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives took the first step Tuesday toward shutting down the government, ordering all its members to draw up lists of staffers who will be furloughed.

    And they have to be in by 5 p.m. Friday, April 8, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), chairman of the Committee on House Administration, ordered his fellow lawmakers in a “Dear Colleague” letter.

    The government will run out of money at midnight Friday if Congress can’t reach a deal to pass a new measure to keep the money flowing.

    “Should Congress and the President fail to come to an agreement continuing appropriations for the Legislative Branch, non-essential House operations must be shut down effective April 9, 2011,” Lungren wrote.

    With just seven hours between Lungren’s deadline and the potential shutdown, it was unclear how the various plans would be gathered or evaluated.

    • Ametia says:

      President Obama says he will keep calling congressional leaders back to the White House until a budget deal is sealed and a government shutdown is averted. “If they can’t sort it out, I want them back here tomorrow,” he told reporters. >+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

  16. Scott Walker Gives $81,500 Government Job To Top Donor’s 26-Year-Old College Dropout Son

    Since taking office in January, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has stripped public workers of their collective bargaining rights, proposed wage cuts to local government employees, and insisted that his “state is broke” and that its public workers are overpaid. But Walker applies a different standard to himself.

    Today, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reveals that Walker is using state funds to pay more than $81,500 a year to the 26-year-old son of a major campaign donor with no college degree and two drunken-driving convictions.

    Despite having almost no management experience, UW Madison college dropout Brian Deschane now oversees state environmental and regulatory issues and manages dozens of Commerce Department employees. After only two months on the job, Deschane has already received a 26 percent pay raise and a promotion.

    Deschane’s father, Jerry Deschane was a major financial backer of the Governor’s campaign:

    Jerry Deschane, executive vice president and longtime lobbyist for the Madison-based Wisconsin Builders Association…bet big on Walker during last year’s governor’s race.

    The group’s political action committee gave $29,000 to Walker and his running mate, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch, last year, making it one of the top five PAC donors to the governor’s successful campaign. Even more impressive, members of the trade group funneled more than $92,000 through its conduit to Walker’s campaign over the past two years.

    Total donations: $121,652.

    Deschanes’ father admitted that during the gubenatorial campaign he may have put in “good words” for his son with Walker campaign manager (and current chief of staff) Keith Gilkes. A state official has confirmed that Gilkes “recommended Deschane for an interview at the agency.” Michael McCabe, the executive director of the Wisconsin democracy Campaign, said the appointment had “all the markings of political patronage.”

    In the coming months, we may be seeing more cases of Brian Deschanes. The anti-union law Walker signed last month also included provisions that would convert more than thirty-seven civil service positions into political appointees chosen by the Governor.

    • From a Think Progress commenter:

      Wisconsin! Are you listening?
      Your state is suddenly so “broke” that teachers and municipal workers are being fired, or their benefits are cut, and collective bargaining is to disappear — so “broke” that your governor GAVE AWAY $140 million in tax cuts during his first month in office. So “broke” that a very young ne’er-do-well son of a campaign donor can earn $86K/year on the government payroll.

      Your state wasn’t “broke” when Walker came to office, but he has personally broken it, continues to break the back of the middle class, and all the while taking good care of his friends and donors.
      Dump the guy. Dump his judge/friend. Dump his party. Do it ASAP, and it starts tomorrow!

    • Ametia says:

      Yepper the GOP continues their assault on America with their lying, stealing, cheating and now pracitcing nepotism and cronyism. We’ve already addressed the mediocrity of white privilege, but hey, this is what the voters asked for right?

      • I got this from Raw Story!

        Republican mesage to the working American:

        ……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
        ……….”…\………. _.•´

  17. Ametia says:

    Did the MSM report on this rally yesterday?

  18. Ametia says:

    Ametia —

    Yesterday, Barack Obama and Joe Biden began their 2012 campaign.

    Tonight, they want to talk to you.

    At 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time, the President and Vice President will be holding a campaign conference call for the supporters and volunteers who’ve powered this movement for the past two years. I hope you can join us.

    As the 2012 campaign kicks off, we want to thank you for all that you’ve done, give a briefing on next steps as we build a new organization upon the foundation we’ve built together, and get everyone fired up for what lies ahead.

    RSVP here to join tonight’s call, or listen live online.

    We’ve accomplished a lot over the last two years — but our work is far from done.

    President Obama needs to continue his efforts to put Americans back to work and more fundamentally change the way business gets done in Washington. And while he keeps his focus on the job he was elected to do, he’s relying more than ever on supporters like you to start laying the groundwork — so we’re prepared for when the race hits full speed next year.

    You can get in on the ground floor as we build this campaign.

    Please join the President on tonight’s phone call. RSVP here to get a call at 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time, or to listen in online:

    If you can’t make tonight’s kick-off call, there will be another one this Thursday, April 7th, at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time. David Axelrod and I will talk about the strategy for the first few months of this campaign — RSVP here for that second call.

    Talk to you soon,


    Jim Messina
    Campaign Manager

  19. Ametia says:

    April 4, 2011
    Nice Argument, Counselor, but Let’s Hear MineBy ADAM LIPTAK

    If you didn’t know it was a Supreme Court argument, you might think you were seeing a catastrophically overbooked cable television show. The justices of late have been jostling for judicial airtime in a sort of verbal roller derby.

    Consider an argument last month about the right to counsel.

    About 15 minutes in, Justice Stephen G. Breyer tried to ask a question. The effort failed, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg jumped in. A half-hour passed before Justice Breyer had another chance, and now his attempt was interrupted by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said Justice Breyer was asking irrelevant questions.

    Then Justice Scalia pressed a point that did not interest Justice Breyer. As the lawyer tried to answer Justice Scalia, Justice Breyer stopped him. “Skip that one,” Justice Breyer said of Justice Scalia’s question.

    Earlier, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was trying to get a word in edgewise, Justice Scalia succeeded in handing off the ball to a frequent ally, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “Maybe Justice Alito can ask his question,” Justice Scalia said as he finished making his own point.

    Seth P. Waxman, a former United States solicitor general, was caught in the cross-fire. He was answering a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor when Chief Justice John G. Roberts tried to interrupt.

    “Counsel,” the chief justice said.

    Mr. Waxman kept talking, which seemed to irritate the chief justice.

    “Counsel!” the chief justice repeated, now in a raised voice. (The exclamation point is in the official transcript.)

    Mr. Waxman was contrite. “Mr. Chief Justice, I’m sorry,” he said.

    Stephen Wermiel, who covered the Supreme Court for The Wall Street Journal in the 1980s, was at the argument in the recent right-to-counsel case, Turner v. Rogers. Things have changed, he said.

    “Twenty-five years ago, Supreme Court watchers advanced the view that oral arguments enabled justices to signal one another about their view of a case,” said Mr. Wermiel, a co-author of a recent biography of Justice William J. Brennan Jr. “But there are arguments today which seem more like sparring among the justices than signaling.”

    The two newest members of the court, Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, are more active than the justices they replaced. Where Justice David H. Souter would deploy a single finely constructed query, Justice Sotomayor is apt to barrage advocates with a series of insistent questions. And where Justice John Paul Stevens often asked one telling question near the end of an argument, Justice Kagan is in the thick of the discussion throughout.

    Chief Justice Roberts, who argued 39 cases in the Supreme Court before joining it, used to face an active but not overbearing bench. Even then, he told students at Columbia Law School in 2008, the advocate had to understand his place in the highly stylized discourse that is a Supreme Court argument.

    “Quite often the judges are debating among themselves and just using the lawyers as a backboard,” the chief justice said. “One of the real challenges for lawyers is to get involved in that debate.”

    Now that he wears robes, Chief Justice Roberts sometimes shows a mischievous side that he had kept in check as a lawyer. He delights in pointing out internal contradictions in advocates’ positions and in asking them questions with no good answers.

    “You try to throw them off balance a little bit,” he told C-Span in 2009.

    He certainly did that last month in a case about police questioning of a student, Camreta v. Greene.

    The student’s lawyer was about a dozen words into her argument, trying to explain why the case was moot. Chief Justice Roberts interrupted her.

    “Then why are you here?” he asked, to laughter. “Why don’t you just go away?”

    The lawyer, Carolyn A. Kubitschek, said something about protecting a moral victory, but her argument from that point on was uneven. If the chief justice’s goal was to throw her off balance, he succeeded.

    At other times, Chief Justice Roberts must play the role of air traffic controller, trying to make sure his colleagues’ questions land one at a time without crashing into one another.

    In November, at an argument over prison crowding in California, Justice Sotomayor jumped in while Justice Ginsburg was in the middle of a question.

    “I’m sorry,” Chief Justice Roberts told the perplexed lawyer. “Could you answer Justice Ginsburg’s question first?”

    Something similar happened at an argument over state secrets in January.

    “Did the contract — ” Justice Kennedy started, just as Justice Sotomayor entered the fray.

    “Counsel, you can’t ever give — ” she said.

    Chief Justice Roberts made the call. “Justice Kennedy,” he said. After that exchange was complete, he said, “And now Justice Sotomayor.”

    Something important is being lost in these rapid-fire exchanges, Mr. Wermiel said.

    “A lawyer arguing a case may be only a few words into answering a multipart question from one justice before another justice interrupts to take the argument in a different direction entirely,” he said. “Some arguments now more closely resemble a Ping-Pong match than a dialogue or conversation.”

  20. Ametia says:

    APRIL 5, 2011.The GOP Path to Prosperity

    Our budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president’s budget over the next 10 years and puts the nation on track to pay off our national debt..

    Congress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year’s deficit—is important. It’s a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.

    But this morning the new House Republican majority will introduce a budget that moves the debate from billions in spending cuts to trillions. America is facing a defining moment. The threat posed by our monumental debt will damage our country in profound ways, unless we act.

    No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.
    The president’s recent budget proposal would accelerate America’s descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

    Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president’s budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.

  21. rikyrah says:

    The Celeb With the Most Baby Mamas Is…
    Take your pick: Bob Marley, Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicholson all qualify
    Times change but one thing remains constant—successful men find success with the ladies. But success at birth control? Not so much. So the Daily Beast put together an overview of some of the most notable celebrity super-spawners. Here’s a list of the father(s) of all baby mamas:

    •Jack Nicholson, with 4 children by 3 women
    •Lil Wayne, with 4 children by 4 women
    •Clint Eastwood, with 7 children by 5 women
    •Rod Stewart, with 8 children by 5 women
    •Bob Marley, with 11 children by 8 women

  22. Ametia says:

  23. Ametia says:

    UConn sure can! Huskies ride defense to 3rd title

    By EDDIE PELLS, AP National Writer Eddie Pells, Ap National Writer – 1 hr 48 mins ago

    HOUSTON – The game was better suited for a dusty old gym than a state-of-the-art stadium — the offense and shooting more the stuff of a long-ago era than 2011.

    The championship trophy? Well, that will look good in the case up at UConn, where a season of perseverance closed with an 11-game winning streak and a spirit-lifting win for coach Jim Calhoun, to say nothing of a crowning moment for a one-of-a-kind player named Kemba.

    In a game that featured more grit than glamour and more brawn than beauty, Connecticut made Butler look like the underdog it really was Monday night, winning the NCAA title with an old-fashioned 53-41 beatdown of the Bulldogs.

    Star guard Kemba Walker finished with 16 points for the Huskies (32-9), whose amazing late-season streak kept going right through the final buzzer. They won their 11th straight game — five at the Big East tournament and six in March Madness — since closing the regular season with a 9-9 conference record that foreshadowed none of this.;_ylt=AmW8e35dRkbBSuayjhhrwcOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFkcDF0ZGN2BHBvcwMxODcEc2VjA2FjY29yZGlvbl9zcG9ydHMEc2xrA3Vjb25uc3VyZWNhbg–

  24. Ametia says:

    Posted at 10:57 AM ET, 04/04/2011
    What Paul Ryan’s budget actually does
    By Ezra Klein

    Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare and Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicaid rely on the same bait-and-switch: They use a reform to disguise a cut.

    In Medicare’s case, the reform is privatization. The current Medicare program would be dissolved and the next generation of seniors would choose from Medicare-certified private plans on an exchange. But that wouldn’t save money. In fact, it would cost money. As the Congressional Budget Office has said (pdf), since Medicare is cheaper than private insurance, beneficiaries will see “higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare.”

    In Medicaid’s case, the reform is block-granting. Right now, the federal government shares Medicaid costs with the states. That means their payments increase or decrease with Medicaid’s actual rate of spending. Under a block grant system, that’d stop. They’d simply give states a lump sum at the beginning of the year and that’d have to suffice. And if a recession hits and more people need Medicaid or a nasty flu descends and lots of disabled beneficiaries end up in the hospital with pneumonia? Too bad.

    In both cases, what saves money is not the reform. It’s the cut. For Medicare, the cut is that the government wouldn’t cover the full cost of the private Medicare plans, and the portion they would cover is set to shrink as time goes on. In Medicaid, the block grants are set to increase more slowly than health-care costs, which is to say, the federal government will shoulder a smaller share of the costs than it currently does. The question for both plans is the same: What happens to beneficiaries?

    Remember how the Affordable Care Act was really, really, really long? There was a reason for that. It was full of delivery-system reforms meant to make the health-care system cheaper and more efficient — things like bundling payments for illnesses and reducing reimbursements to hospitals with high rates of infection and creating a center tasked with seeding cost-control experiments throughout Medicare and encouraging the formation of Accountable Care Organizations. The hope is that those reforms will cut costs, which will make the rest of the bill’s cuts possible (more on that here). Republicans, notably, have been skeptical that these reforms will work, and have argued that the cuts won’t stick because beneficiaries will revolt.

    To my knowledge, Ryan’s budget doesn’t attempt to reform the medical-care sector. It just has cuts. The hope is that those cuts will force consumers to be smarter shoppers and doctors to be more economical and states to be more innovative. But all that’s been tried, and it hasn’t been enough. That’s why the Affordable Care Act had to go so much further, digging deep into the delivery system, and why Republicans had at least a plausible case that some of its cuts wouldn’t stick. But now the GOP needs to apply the same skepticism to their own programs: Cuts aren’t enough, and if they somehow manage to distract people from the cuts by repeating the words “block grants” and “flexibility” and “premium support” over and over again, they’ll simply end up seeing their cuts ignored when it becomes clear that they’ll mean leaving the old and the poor without health care. What Ryan has here isn’t so much a plan to control spending as a plan to cut spending, whatever the consequences.

  25. rikyrah says:

    Swiftboat Liars’ Sugar Daddy Behind Lying Billboards
    by Anne Laurie

    Jenee Desmond-Harris at The Root reports that the dishonest pro-forced-birth ‘Life Always’ billboards in Chicago have been targeted by activists:

    Controversial billboards in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood that feature an image of President Barack Obama and the words “Every 21 minutes our next possible leader is aborted” were covered with fabric banners with messages scrawled in red paint today.

    One banner says: “In 21 minutes this sign should be gone.” Another, blown down by the wind, reads, “Abort Racism.”

    A group described as “social workers and community members,” claimed responsibility for the act in a statement emailed to the Chicago Tribune. The group said the ads were disrespectful and did not represent the views of the community and that “it wanted to replace the negative, condemning message with a positive one.”…

    But is covering up the message the best idea? There has to be a more effective response to these troubling—and ever-increasing—- tactics than chasing them around hanging sheets over them…

    How about another billboard explaining what The Daily Beast reported today?

    The DB article was written by Michelle Goldberg, who covers “Christian nationalism” as well as reproductive-rights politics:

    It’s just the latest attempt by the antiabortion movement to wrap itself in the cloak of the civil-rights struggle. In February, Life Always erected a giant billboard in New York’s SoHo with a photograph of a young black girl under the words “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.” That was also the month white Republicans discovered their passion for racial justice, choosing a congressional debate to accuse Planned Parenthood of targeting African Americans.

    The website of Life Always lists its founder as a Texas African-American pastor named Stephen Broden… But dig a little deeper, and it’s clear that the man behind Life Always is Brian Follett, a white conservative activist from Austin, Texas. Follett was a major backer of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, donating more than $40,000 to the famous smear campaign. A passionate foe of abortion, in 2004 he founded a group called Majella Cares Outreach, with the goal of “reducing abortion through mass media education,” according to its website. In 2009, Majella rebranded itself as Heroic Media and expanded into Chicago and then into Florida. Life Always is simply a front for Heroic Media—Texas state records list Follett as Life Always’ registered agent, and both organizations have the same official address in Austin.

    When ABL discussed these billboards last week, my suspicion was that Life Always is less interested in “educational outreach” than in concern-trolling for profit. Its NYC billboard got pulled, IIRC, after the rental company found some loophole in the terms-of-service agreement; Life Always used a stock photo of a young girl whose mother was not happy about it. But public outrage during its brief airing garnered them a ton of free press coverage, which I’m sure they’ll be using in fund-raising letters for years to come. The Chicago billboards seem like a blatant attempt to attract attention from the White House (the administration did once ‘discourage’ an outerwear company from using a stock photo of Obama on a Times Square billboard), in the (fortunately, so far, vain) hope of some negative comment that could be used as evidence of Big Brother government suppression of Tha Truth! ! ! next time Life-A needed to gin up donations.

    I didn’t know, then, that Life-Always was a straight-up astroturfing scam with a fat white Texan bankroll behind it. But of course, as with Scooter Libby’s aspens, Republican activists“turn in clusters, because their roots are connected…”

  26. Ametia says:

    Details and deadlines test budget negotiators
    By Paul Kane and Jon Cohen, Monday, April 4, 11:31 PM

    As federal officials began formal preparations for a government shutdown, House and Senate leaders struggled Monday to reach agreement over tens of billions of dollars in spending cuts that would avert the federal work stoppage.

    After weeks of negotiating over money, time is now also a major concern. There is general agreement that the two sides must work out a deal by Tuesday night if it is to work its way through both chambers and reach President Obama’s desk before the government runs out of money Friday.

    Late Monday, a senior White House aide told top agency officials to begin preparations for how to handle a shutdown, a move that was echoed in a statement by Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to House leaders.

    But Boehner also announced his intention to offer Obama and Senate Democrats another stopgap funding measure that would keep federal funding flowing for an additional week. That offer would come with conditions,

  27. Ametia says:

    On the budget, Obama has Republicans cornered
    By Michael Gerson, Monday, April 4, 7:20 PM

    If there were any doubts about the political skills of the new White House team under Chief of Staff William Daley, they have now been satisfied.

    Recently, the Congressional Budget Office reported that President Obama’s budget had underestimated the deficit over the next 10 years by $2.3 trillion. Deficits will exceed 4 percent of gross domestic product each year, with the federal debt eventually rising to 87 percent of the total economy. Obama’s budget plans are a gaudy spectacle of irresponsibility.

    In spite of this, Obama now has Republicans cornered in budget negotiations. By accepting $33 billion in cuts for the remainder of 2011, Obama has taken the middle ground and exploited a major division within the Republican coalition. The administration has transformed a weak record into a strong political position.

    What made this possible was Obama’s willingness to betray progressives in Congress even before the budget conflict began. In February, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had criticized spending reductions in the range of $30 billion as “draconian” and “unworkable.” Now that figure is a floor. The left has already lost the budget battle — though the right has not yet won it. Obama clearly takes liberals for granted, shoring up his own fiscal reputation at their expense. Given their quiescence, it seems a good strategy.

  28. Ametia says:

  29. rikyrah says:

    there’s one born every minute

    April 04, 2011
    Kent, your point being?
    Somewhere in the profundity-unburdened mind of Kent Sorensen, a tea-partying Iowa state senator, there dwells a happy kind of idiot-savantism mixed with a sadly appalling inability to judge others’ abilities:

    “I don’t want to bash Sarah Palin, but she lacks substance,” said Kent to the NY Times. “I believe Michele Bachmann has more substance.”

    Rather leaves you speechless, no?

  30. rikyrah says:

    Schumer To Boehner: Posture All You Want — We Got You
    If you’re John Boehner, you really hate Chuck Schumer right now. Schumer responded to the latest government shutdown contretemps by calling the House Speaker’s posture a phony dance for the Tea Party.

    “A compromise on the budget is right there for the taking, assuming the Speaker still wants one,” Schumer said in a statement to reporters. “We take it for granted that because of the intense political pressure being applied by the Tea Party, the Speaker needs to play an outside game as well as an inside game. As long as he continues to negotiate, it’s OK by us if he needs to strike a different pose publicly.”

    Contra the GOP, Schumer says Boehner has agreed to a spending cut number privately, and just needs to find a way to make the medicine go down with members of his own party.

    “At this point, we are so far down the road towards an agreement, and so little time remains before Friday’s deadline, that it would be a dramatic about-face for the Speaker to suddenly let things devolve into a shutdown, as many in the Tea Party are urging,” Schumer said.

    Without painting a terribly rosy picture, Democratic aides have downplayed the significance of today’s row. When negotiations nearly fell apart in recent days, the peril was reflected in a concerted media campaign playing up the risks. For the time being, that’s not what’s happening. Top Republicans and Democrats will meet with President Obama at the White House tomorrow to thaw things out. You can read Schumer’s full statement below.

    A compromise on the budget is right there for the taking, assuming the Speaker still wants one. We take it for granted that because of the intense political pressure being applied by the Tea Party, the Speaker needs to play an outside game as well as an inside game. As long as he continues to negotiate, it’s OK by us if he needs to strike a different pose publicly. Since last week, the two sides have made steady progress on a package of $33 billion in cuts. This is an historic level of spending cuts, it is the halfway mark between the two sides, and the Speaker has already agreed to this number privately. Differences may remain over where exactly the cuts should come from, but the only real question left is whether the political will exists to buck the Tea Party. At this point, we are so far down the road towards an agreement, and so little time remains before Friday’s deadline, that it would be a dramatic about-face for the Speaker to suddenly let things devolve into a shutdown, as many in the Tea Party are urging. As a result, we remain hopeful a deal will be reached.—-we-got-you.php?ref=fpa

  31. dannie22 says:

    Good morning all!

  32. rikyrah says:

    April 05, 2011
    National Demolition: Step One
    I suppose it’s regrettable but true that the best defense of, say, inhumanity, is a good offense. That’s why when it comes to Paul Ryan’s exceptionally offensive and inhumane budget proposal, thinking conservatives’ defensive maneuvers will come packaged in explosive, unthinking, deceptively disconnected braggadocio of sound and reasonable policy at last.

    They’re not serious. They can’t be. David Brooks, for instance, whose column on this grim morning of Ryan’s unveiling was the first I read, isn’t serious. He might be a trifle embarrassed; he might be feeling politically strategic; he might have been pondering his opening gambit long and hard, but in deciding to go overboard in support of Ryan he was feeling unmistakably defensive.

    But serious? Pshaw. His introductory descriptions of Ryan’s proposal arrives in the superlative, covered with defensive wounds: It’s “the most comprehensive” proposal and it’s the “most courageous” proposal we’ll see “in our lifetimes.” Technically, that’s true, since only an unrehabilitated lover of the Gilded Age’s and Hooverism’s social cruelty and vast inequalities and unspeakable inhumanity would be courageous enough to hit the stumps and talk shows in defense of Ryan’s most contemptible proposal. But, I ask again, serious?

    Hardly. Indeed, Brooks’ repeated insistence on Ryan’s seriousness is a bit of a giveaway of the proposal’s deeply unserious contours: Ryan’s soiopolitical disgrace “will set the standard of seriousness,” writes Brooks; “anybody who is serious, on left or right, has to have a new vision of the social contract,” he continues; and “I don’t agree with all of it that I’ve seen,” he concludes, “but it is a serious effort to create a sustainable welfare state.”

    In brief, Brooks protesteth too much. He bolts out of the gate with guns blazing, but not for a minute do I believe that he believes Ryan’s proposal seriously “create[s] a sustainable welfare state.” In sociopolitical fact, in some futuristic reality it would accomplish precisely the opposite. And Brooks, as a student of social history, knows that.

    The piercing exacerbations of wealth and class inequalities inherent in Ryan’s reactionary plan would, in time, present a replay of the violent labor and social unrest of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They would once again bring us to the Greatly Depressed breaking-point of national desolation, street revolution, capitalism under ferocious assault, and bottom-up cries for authoritarian solutions.

    We were close, in the 1930s, to just that: authoritarian solutions. Very close. Much closer than most Americans realize or remember. Yet conservative progressives, such as FDR, understood that a reliable social safety net was the best protector of traditional American, capitalist, and republican values. The political remainder of the 20th century was a largely successful struggle to enlarge, improve and refine that protection; and now the ideological Paul Ryans and the oblivious tea partiers and the base-groveling pols of the far right ignorantly wish to sweep huge chunks of it away. Whatever’s left would scarcely represent “a sustainable welfare state.”

    It would, however, guarantee social disharmony and ugly conflict and (credible, finally) leftist agitation — those very disruptions that any thinking conservative could see coming and would wish and work to avert. Rather than averting conflict, though, Ryan’s proposal — if ever enacted to any substantial degree — would spark it. It would, quite simply, blow this country apart.

    Now I ask you: Does that sound like a “conservative” program?

  33. rikyrah says:

    Charlie Cook’s Off to the Races
    by Charlie Cook
    Warning Signs Among the GOP
    It’s not inconceivable that Republicans might start seeing things go against them in the court of public opinion, starting with the current spending debate.
    Monday, April 4, 2011 | 9:30 p.m.

    Until recently, Republicans were taking solace in a number of things as they looked forward to 2012. For one, Republicans knew that the party not holding the White House rarely suffered large House and Senate losses in presidential reelection years.

    In fact, the only time that has happened in recent history was to Republicans in 1964 when Lyndon Johnson won the White House a year after the assassination of President John Kennedy.

    Republicans also took comfort in knowing that they would control redistricting efforts in states with 202 congressional districts, compared to Democrats who have control over the lines in states with just 47 districts.

    The huge Republican redistricting gains many had predicted before the new year appear less likely today. Republicans will be able to protect a number of their freshmen in redistricting, but Democrats could reap a bonanza of new seats in Illinois and possibly in Florida and California, if new processes in those two jackpots play out as Democrats believe they will.

    In the end, the GOP’s remapping gains might not be large enough to offset losses among some of the more exotic and problematic freshmen who won narrowly in swing districts.

    Finally, Republicans have had even more reason to feel secure since redistricting was occurring the year after a huge wave benefited them, and Democrats have to win 25 seats for control in the House to flip.

    For Republicans, it seemed that they could only lose their majority if the party nominated someone for president who was toxic with independent voters like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin or Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, neither of whom is likely to win.

    However, talking with Republican pollsters, strategists and veteran campaign professionals recently, I now hear sounds of concern that haven’t been heard in almost two years.

    Among the worries the party now has is that a government shutdown could get blamed on the GOP. Additionally, these party insiders believe that taking on entitlements, specifically Medicare, could jeopardize the party’s hold on the House, its strong chances of taking the Senate and the stronghold that the party has been established with older white voters—not coincidentally, Medicare recipients.

    It’s clear that the Republican congressional leadership believes that a shutdown is dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. These are intelligent and reasonable people who have studied the mistakes Republicans made after they took control of Congress in 1994. They are determined not to replicate those mistakes.

    While the GOP has worked hard to bring their freshmen and more ideological members around to the realities of politics, these freshmen and other rank-and-file members are getting pressure from back home not to compromise with Democrats.

    These constituents don’t want any more short-term deals, and their pressure is offsetting the efforts by the party’s leadership to do things step by step so as to not jeopardize the party’s chances for gains in the Senate.

    Part of what is happening is that there is a giant gap between the attitudes of Republican base voters and those who are swing voters.

    The GOP base is reflecting the views and values of tea party voters who stormed the town meetings of Democratic members in 2009 and 2010.

    These individuals believe the budget can be balanced with cuts in discretionary domestic spending and some believe that cuts in entitlements should be done immediately while the irons of the 2010 midterm elections are still hot.

    But for independent voters, the 2010 elections were not about slashing government spending; rather, they were a reaction to what they saw as an over-reach by President Obama and the Democratic Congress.

    These between-the-40-yard-line-voters didn’t like the economic stimulus package, climate change legislation or health care reform. They voted against Democrats and what Democrats were trying to do, but they did not embrace the budgetary slash-and-burn politics that is the embodiment of the tea party movement.

    The disparity between the views of the GOP base and independent voters couldn’t be stronger.

  34. rikyrah says:

    Nuns outraged by Goldman Sachs

    4 orders of nuns have submitted a challenge over the way the bank pays its executives.

    By Kim Peterson on Mon, Apr 4, 2011 3:16 PM

    You’ve really hit a low point when you get called out by nuns. That’s what’s happening to Goldman Sachs (GS), a firm that, coincidentally, describes itself as doing “God’s work.”

    Four orders of nuns are all investors in Goldman Sachs, and have sent the bank a formal challenge over the excessive ways the bank compensates employees, The Guardian reports. Goldman’s top five employees received $69.5 million last year.

    The nuns — Sisters of Saint Joseph of Boston, Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia and the Benedictine Sisters of Mt. Angel — have asked that shareholders demand the board review the company’s executive compensation policies. They also want a report of that review by October.

    • Ametia says:

      Damn! Good for the sisiters. I have to say this though. If more sisters had come forward, challenged and demanded the priests stop molesting the children in their churches….

  35. rikyrah says:

    Good Morning, Everyone :)

Leave a Reply