Saturday Open Thread

Vincent Grant “Vince” Gill (born April 12, 1957) is an American neotraditional country singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist. He has achieved commercial success and fame both as frontman to the country rock band Pure Prairie League in the 1970s, and as a solo artist beginning in 1983, where his talents as a vocalist and musician have placed him in high demand as a guest vocalist, and a duet partner. Gill has recorded more than twenty studio albums, charted over forty singles on the U.S. Billboard charts as Hot Country Songs, and has sold more than 22 million albums. He has been honored by the Country Music Association with 18 CMA Awards, including two Entertainer of the Year awards and five Male Vocalist Awards. Gill has also earned 20 Grammy Awards, more than any other male Country music artist. In 2007, Gill was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame.

About SouthernGirl2

A Native Texan who adores baby kittens, loves horses, rodeos, pomegranates, & collect Eagles. Enjoys politics, games shows, & dancing to all types of music. Loves discussing and learning about different cultures. A Phi Theta Kappa lifetime member with a passion for Social & Civil Justice.
This entry was posted in Current Events, Music, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Saturday Open Thread

  1. rikyrah says:

    November 19, 2011
    The Professional Left is NOT Your Friend — Example: Glenn Greenwald

    Sometimes, you have to wonder what side some of the Professional Lefties are on. There are two clear sides to the politics at the moment, and to deny that just defies simple logic. There is no doubt the Republican Party has been taken over by extremists, and we have to get rid of them. I don’t mean we just have to defeat them and get a majority; I mean we have to annihilate them in the voting booth. This is no longer a horserace between two political parties with different views of where the United States should go. This is a contest between one political party that is perhaps wrongheaded at times but means well, and one that truly wants to tear apart the fabric of this country and go against everything we supposedly stand for.

    But take a look at this post from Salon this morning, written by the self-absorbed Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald is so incredibly anti-Obama and anti-Democrat that it’s simply not possible to think he’s actually a progressive. (Once more, the root word of progressive is “progress”. Keep that in mind as you read this tripe.) Though the article is entitled “Here’s what attempted co-opting of OWS looks like,” He starts off with his standard rip of Obama. But he doubles down this time, and ends up looking ridiculous. (Red emphasis added)

    The 2012 election is almost a full year away and nobody knows who is running against President Obama, but that didn’t stop Mary Kay Henry, the D.C.-based National President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), from announcing last week that her organization endorses President Obama for re-election. That’s not surprising — while many unions have exhibited political independence, SEIU officials have long been among Obama’s closest and most loyal allies in Washington — but what was notable here was how brazenly Henry exploited the language of the Occupy movement to justify her endorsement of the Democratic Party leader: “We need a leader willing to fight for the needs of the 99 percent . . . .Our economy and democracy have been taken over by the wealthiest one percent.”

    But now SEIU’s effort to convert and degrade the Occupy movement into what SEIU’s national leadership is — a loyal arm of the DNC and the Obama White House — has become even more overt (…)

    Seriously, Glenn? You’re SHOCKED that a LABOR UNION might actually already endorse President Obama for a second term, even though there’s a WHOLE YEAR before the election? Gee, I wonder why that might be? Might it be because the entire Republican Party leadership has pretty much declared war on the labor movement? Have you even been paying attention? Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and Michigan, among others, have faced the attempted destruction of their collective bargaining rights, and the Republican Party has been trying to break the unions that represent federal employees for years. Do you think their natural tendency might be to lean Democratic right now, given those realities? And in what alternate universe is NOT endorsing a candidate considered “exhibit(ing) political independence”? Seems to me, if NO ONE ELSE has endorsed Obama as yet, SEIU is actually demonstrating “political independence” by endorsing Obama, don’t you think?

    Who does the political genius Greenwald imagine might win the Republican nomination and turn SEIU’s political head between now and next year? The only one of the current GOP Klown Kar of presidential candidates who isn’t odious is Jon Huntsman, and he has zero chance of getting the nomination. The only two candidates with a chance of winning the nomination are Romney and Gingrich; which one of those two do you imagine will be union-friendly whilst they try to shore up the Republican base?!%29

  2. rikyrah says:

    Rahm Emanuel targets Mitt Romney in Iowa speech. Transcript

    Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Remarks at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner

    November 19, 2011

    Thank you Sue.

    While we meet here tonight, the Republicans are having a debate across town.

    I’ve watched a number of them, and I’ve got to be honest, I never thought I’d say this, (pause) I’m beginning to miss Sarah Palin’s insights.

    Their debate was called the Thanksgiving Family Forum — which is fitting because I have never seen such a collection of turkeys.

    Look at their top candidates:

    Take Mitt Romney. He said he would be in Iowa tonight. (pause) We should have known he would change his mind.

    Newt was at the debate. I heard he had to leave early to spend the holiday with his loved ones … the salespeople at Tiffanys.

    And Herman Cain? I was actually hoping Herman would stop by today and see me before the debate, but he was at his tutorial on Libya. The scary part, his tutor was Rick Perry.

    In truth, the Republicans do have an impressive field…

    Governor Mitch Daniels, Governor Haley Barbour and former Governor Jeb Bush …

    The only problem, they’re not on the field.

    I just want you to think about this for a second. Think of our field in 2008. At our debates in Iowa, we had Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Senator Chris Dodd, and President Obama.

    Now think about their field: Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum …

    I’m beginning to feel sorry for Republican primary voters.


    Four years ago, at this very dinner — and many of you were in attendance — a young senator from Illinois, who was 23 points down in the polls, spoke to you in words you will never forget. With the promises he made in that speech, he began a journey that would change history — and he did it with your help.

    Now all of us may be a little older and a little grayer – or as my youngest daughter likes to say, “Dad they can say it’s salt and pepper, but for you, it’s all salt.” But we can remember what he said and what he believed was worth fighting for.

    He stood on this platform, and promised to end “a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.”

    Republicans didn’t want to let it happen, and Democrats didn’t believe it could. Yet, tonight, the last of 170,000 of America’s finest are on their way home. The war is over.

    That is the change we believed in. That is the change we worked for. That is the change our president delivered.

    Four years ago, at this very dinner, President Obama promised he would take the fight to Al Qa’eda, those who were actually responsible for 9/11. He said he would bring justice to Al Qa’eda’s leaders.

    Tonight, Osama bin Laden is history. Al Qa’eda has been decimated. Thanks to the bold, determined leadership of our President, justice has been done. And America is safer for it.

    Typical of the person I know, President Obama did not brag. He thanked our troops and intelligence services for their excellent work, and he moved on to the next terrorist who was threatening America and brought him to justice.

    He didn’t hang a banner and he didn’t pretend the mission was accomplished. He got the job done.

    That is the change we believed in. That is the change we worked for. That is the change our president delivered.

    Four years ago, Senator Obama stood before you and said he wanted to “stop talking about the outrage of 47 million Americans without health care and start actually doing something about it.”

    He promised then: “I will make certain that every single American in this country has health care they can count on and I won’t do it 20 years from now, I won’t do it 10 years from now, I will do it by the end of my first term as President.”

    Now folks, you know this, politicians have been making that promise for over 60 years. President Obama delivered.

    Because of President Obama’s leadership, an insurance company cannot turn you down because you have a pre-existing condition. Because of President Obama, they cannot discriminate against you because you’re a woman, or have grown older. Because of President Obama, kids can stay on their parents’ policy until they enter the workforce.

    Because of your support, Iowa, and his courage, no American will ever again receive a letter that says: “Sorry, you’ve reached the limit. We won’t pay for your cancer treatment any more.” Republicans opposed every one of those reforms, but now we have those life-saving protections, that peace of mind, because of President Obama’s leadership.

    That is the change we believed in. That is the change we worked for. That is the change our President delivered.


    President Obama stood here at this dinner four years ago and promised, “to make sure that every American child has the best education that we have to offer – from the day they are born to the day they graduate from college.”

    As President, he has doubled college scholarships. He’s brought down the cost of college loans. He invested in schools and innovation with the Race to the Top. He expanded access to community colleges, the most undervalued asset in our education system.

    You gave him that chance. Republicans fought him every step of the way, but because of his leadership, millions of young Americans have been given a better chance.

    That is the change we believed in. That is the change we worked for. That is the change our President delivered.

    You heard him say it, right here in Iowa, four years ago. He made the pledge, not just to you, but to the American people. And now you’ve seen him deliver on the promises he made.

    That’s how we measure character in a leader: doing what you say you will do. Now, I had the privilege of seeing that character close up, working by his side during two of the most harrowing years any President has faced in our lifetime … And, no, despite what you’re thinking right now, they were not harrowing days because I was at his side.


    They say you learn the most about someone’s character in a crisis … then I think we all know our President pretty well. During our greatest economic crises in decades, the strength of our President’s character was on display every day.

    The President inherited an economy that was spiraling towards depression. He inherited a financial system that had frozen up and an auto industry that was near collapse.

    The problems President Obama faced were not caused by accident. They were caused by policies – Republican policies.

    The first time I worked in the White House, for President Clinton, we had a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate with a Democratic President. We passed an economic plan without a single Republican vote. And that plan put America back to work and back to economic growth.

    It created millions of private sector jobs. It lifted seven million Americans out of poverty. It reformed welfare as we know it. And it put 100,000 cops on America’s streets.

    We balanced the budget. We put America on a path to zero debt by the year 2009 … It seemed so far away then.

    We left President Bush a record surplus and he left President Obama a record national debt.

    You know how that happened: the Republicans happened. They held the White House, the House and the Senate for six long years. And they did something no one had ever tried in 200 years of history: they tried to fund two wars by cutting taxes three times. That’s how you go from zero to nine trillion dollars in debt. It’s that simple.

    They took everything they inherited: the jobs, the surplus, the stature of our country around the world — and they squandered it.

    It’s ironic … I figured the one thing Republicans were really good at, was inheriting things.

    But that’s what the Republicans handed President Obama and America on day one, January 20th, 2009 — the worst economic mess for a president since FDR took over from Herbert Hoover.

    But President Obama didn’t complain, and he didn’t blame. He knew the burdens of everyday Americans were a hell of a lot more searing than his own. So he rolled up his sleeves and he went to work on behalf of the hard-working families of this country.

  3. Ametia says:

    Saturday, November 19, 2011
    Taking on the myth that Democrats caved

    It all started right away from the get-go. Our country had just elected Barack Obama at the moment we were careening towards a second Great Depression. Something had to be done…and fast. Twenty-eight days after the inauguration, President Obama signed the Recovery Act (yes, that’s right folks…28 days!) It was the largest stimulus package every passed by a U.S. Congress.

    And yet the wails of “Obama caved” coming from the left were already well underway. Nevermind that time was of the essence and Democrats (who had 57 Senators at the time) had to negotiate with the likes of Lieberman, Snowe, and Specter (who was still a Republican back then) in order to get something passed. The myth was born.

    Almost 3 years later, the myth persists. That’s why I thought I’d take a few minutes and bust it up a bit.

    The second stage in the development of the “cave” myth came, as everyone knows, when the public option was dropped from inclusion in health care reform. At that point, the Democrats had 59 Senators + Lieberman (who never supported the PO). But there were also moments like the day Sen. Blanche Lincoln – one of those 59 – took to the floor of the Senate and said she would join with a Republican filibuster of the bill if it contained a public option. We don’t need to go any further than those 2 (although there were other Senators in opposition) to demonstrate that it NEVER had 60 votes in the Senate. That is sufficient to explain why it was dropped…not some other myth that President Obama gave it away in a secret deal or that he and the Democrats caved to Republicans.

  4. guitars, cadillacs, hillbilly music
    Lonely, lonely streets that I call home..

  5. rikyrah says:

    Back to the Future with Newt

    Newt Gingrich has long been touted as the intellectual of the Republican Party. Well, that just shows you how low the Republicans have sunk, when they have to scrape a barnacle like Newt as representative of the thinking arm of the GOP.

    Like our current President, Newt is also, by profession, an academic, being a professor of American history.

    He sure knows his stuff.

    Ever since the 2010 Midterm campaign, I’ve been hearing scary stories of various state legislatures in the Midwest and, I imagine, the South, trying to scrap child labour laws, at least on a state level. One state, allegedly, has no problems with twelve year-olds flipping burgers or climbing up chimneys.

    But Newt has just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this Republican party, the mainstream part of it which Newt represents, wants to return to veritable Dickensian times. Like the late great Joe Bageant always maintained, the Republicans now are wanting to create a generation of under-educated or uneducated peasants, which will breed even more peasants, to keep the workforce massive and lowly paid.

    Make public education as difficult to achieve as possible, even phase it out, if you have to do so, and just give us a drone workforce, who’ll work as much as possible for as little as possible and under any condition.

    In a speech Friday at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, Newt killed two bugaboo birds with one stone, busting unions and helping student unemployment along the way. From CNN:-

    Newt Gingrich proposed a plan Friday that would allow poor children to clean their schools for money, saying such a setup would both allow students to earn income and endow them with a strong work ethic.

    Speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the former House Speaker said his system would be an improvement on current child labor laws, which he called “truly stupid.”

    “It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid,” Gingrich said. “Saying to people you shouldn’t go to work before you’re 14, 16. You’re totally poor, you’re in a school that’s failing with a teacher that’s failing.”

    Gingrich then proposed a system he said would help those students rise from poverty.

    “I tried for years to have a very simple model. These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work; they’d have cash; they’d have pride in the schools. They’d begin the process of rising.”

    Gingrich pointed to successful acquaintances as examples of the benefits of beginning a job early in life.

    “Go out and talk to people who are really successful in one generation,” Gingrich said. “They all started their first job at 9 to 14 years of age. They are selling newspapers, going door to door, washing cars. They were all making money at a very young age. What do we say to poor kids in poor neighborhoods? Don’t do it. Remember all the stuff about not getting a hamburger-flipping job? Worst possible advice to give the poor children.”

    Gingrich said his idea would be “making work worthwhile” for children.

    That’s right. First, bust the unionised janitors who professionally clean schools; then make the poorest students in the school do the janitor’s job – which includes replacing fixtures and fittings, general repair, heating maintenance, grounds clearance. Janitors start early at schools and leave late, but -hey – these kids will be grateful.

    Ron Paul condones this, and you know if someone as mainstream as Newt likes this, then you know Mitt’s not going to be off-base with it either.

    The idea is to keep the poor – black, white and brown – firmly in their place, with dead-end jobs at dead-end wages. On the back of this is sure to come a dismantling of the minimum wage, amongst other things.

    My father left school at the end of his sixth grade year and was working for peanuts at twelve, still a child; but that was during the Depression. I guess that’s the good old days to Newt.

    Posted by Flaming Emilia

  6. rikyrah says:

    this person lit into Chris Matthews. Part of her piece on Matthews and him showing his ass this morning:

    Chris Matthews Lets the Dogs Out


    Apparently, scores of people took umbrage, not only at Matthews’s negative demeanor during the interview (which was, indeed, almost bruisingly defensive), but also on some of the coded language Tweety used, which many people thought had racial undertones. The most specific incident occurred near the end of this portion, where Matthews offers up the opinion that the Obamas just aren’t happy in the White House. Here is the actual quote, and you can judge for yourself:-

    And Mrs. Obama — she’s an amazing asset. But what has she done, obesity? How bout connecting with the American people bout being Americans? I don’t think she’s … I don’t think she’s happy. I don’t think they like being in the White House. and the American people can tell that. They don’t seem thrilled at the fact that the American people have selected them as our first family. I don’t sense the gratitude, the happiness level. the thrill of being president. Bill Clinton loved being president every minute and you knew it. … and that’s what the American people like. they like knowing their president’s happy

    First of all, I am white. Secondly, I am a woman. Thirdly, and most importantly, I am a Southerner. Got that? A white, Southern woman read that remark, and before reading it, I heard it in the interview. Immediately I did, dogs started barking in my brain.

    Here is where Joy-Ann and I part ways in opinion. She saw nothing racist at all in this statement, even admonishing African-Americans not to flag everything as racist because a white person said it; I, on the other hand, heard dog whistles. In fact, I heard dog whistles throughout this interview.

    Yes, I did sense the subtle undercurrent in Chris’s “gratitude” comment. The tone of his voice said what his words didn’t: Here we have this sullen black family, giving themselves airs, and showing reluctance at interacting with the American people, when they should bloody well be grateful for our giving them the opportunity to live in the White House.

    You know, more than anything, I’ve seen both the Obamas taking it to the people and connecting just fine; and Mrs Obama has done significantly more than just “tackle obesity” (which is a big problem in the United States). She’s done a lot of quiet work behind the scenes supporting military families. Maybe Chris would have preferred she raid the treasury of tax funds to re-decorate the White House from top to bottom in period antiques and patronise French fashion houses like Jacqueline Kennedy did, or maybe she should take one step further in emulating her and have an affair with a film star – you know, someone like Denzel Washington or George Clooney. They’re both Democrats and have won Oscars, to boot.

    One of the questions Alex Witt leveled at Matthews positively dripped with dog whistles in what was implied, what was left unsaid, and Matthews obligingly rose to the bait, leaving something not spoken hanging pendulously over the discourse:-

    ALEX WITT: You say nations die or thrive on the ability and judgment of their leaders to stir them at perilous times. does Barack Obama have that ability, to pass the proper judgment, to properly analyze and to stir this nation at dire times?
    CHRIS MATTHEWS: He has great analytical ability, clearly he has made the right judgments in his executive leadership. he has moved us very effectively in defense, in fighting terrorism. … I’m not sure he’s able to move the country. he had that ability as a candidate, and then the day he was inaugurated, with the Mall filled with people, African-Americans and everyone else, he sent us all home … it was the worst mistake of his presidency. The day he got inaugurated, he sent us all home and said, ‘thank you now watch how smart I am.’

    That’s the worst kind of notion of the presidency. The presidency is not about being smart. Most of our great presidents have not been all that brilliant. Kennedy wasn’t brilliant, Roosevelt certainly wasn’t brilliant, Truman wasn’t; but what they did is they led the American people … they led us! This is so simple. If I could say one thing to Barack Obama, it’s ‘stop showing us how smart you are and lead us!’ Ask us to do something. Pull us behind you. Enlist us in the service or our country. Ask us to do something. There is no Peace Corps, there is no special forces. There is no 50 mile hikes. There’s no moon program. There’s nothing to root for. What are we trying to do in this administration? Why does he want a second term, would he tell us? What is he going to do in a second term, more of this? Is this it? Is this as good as it gets? Where we going? We gonna do something in a second term?

    He’s yet to tell us. He has not said one thing about what he’d do in a second term. He never tells us what he’s going to do with reforming our healthcare systems: Medicare, Medicaid … how he’s going to reform Social Security. Is he going to deal with long term debt? how? Is he going to reform the tax system? How? Just tell us. Why are we in this fight with him? Just tell us, commander, give us our orders and tell us where we’re going. Give us the mission. And he hasn’t done it.

    This response is filled to the brim with coded language. Simply put, Matthews thinks the President is uppity. He’s deriding this guy’s intelligence, and he’s sending out a spin that’s anything but what the President asked us to do in his inaugural address. And he has asked the American people, repeatedly, to do something; the problem is, this man inherited a shitstorm which has been brewing for 30 years, and people, Matthews, now, included, although he should know better, expect a Magic Negro to wave a wand and restore us to the plastic prosperity we were made to believe was real for the past three decades.

    People need to realise that Bagger Vance didn’t really exist, and neither does Barack, the Magic Negro.

    The President speaks to adults, when we are really a nation of stunted adolescents. He asks us to do things spoiled brats normally wouldn’t want to do – make sacrifices. He speaks directly to the American people, when he can’t bridge the intransigence of a Congress, the majority of whom should be primaried, and asks that citizens contact their representatives. This is really what we’re supposed to do. After all, we elect these people to represent us.

    When the President broached healthcare reform, he saddled Congress with the task. That’s actually what Congress is supposed to do: legislate. Or maybe Chris has forgotten what happened when the last Democratic President sent the First Lady to Capitol Hill with a fully written draft of healthcare legislation, with the message to “pass it.” A Democratic Congress handed him his ass.

    And Chris wants the President to be happy? Seriously? He steps out for a two-hour round of golf on a Saturday afternoon, and he’s criticized. The family go on holiday in August, and they’re told they’re being frivolous. Yet, according to Chris, Americans want to see a happy President – like Reagan, like Clinton … like Dubya Bush. That’s right.

    • Ametia says:

      Matthews doesn’t know what Americans want; particularly BLACK AMERICANS. He certainly doesn’t speak for me, my family, or my friends. We love President Obama and recognize GREATNESS when we see, hear, smell, and taste it. We LOVE our President’s INTELLECT, and wouldn’t settle for anything less.

      Matthews is pushing mediocrity instead of showcasing INTELLIGENCE. I guess it takes mediocrity to push mediocrity.

      Chris Matthews can BITE ME; REAL HARD.

      • “Chris Matthews can BITE ME; REAL HARD.”

        Hey Ametia, if Chris takes you up on your offer, are you sure you want all of that disgusting spittle and drool all over your backside? :)

        Seriously though, Chris Matthews is an idiot. I no longer watch the guy. For that matter, I don’t watch MSNBC, nor Fox News, nor CNN nor any of the MSM/cable chatterers–stopped watching all of them after President Obama’s inauguration in 2009. I loathe the garbage they spew in the name of journalism and news. In reference to his latest stunt, I’d go as far as calling Chris a racist. He’s been talking that “Obama can’t connect with Americans” (coded words for “can’t connect white folks”) since the 2008 Democratic Primary. I recall way back during the Primary how he dogged then Senator Obama about his lackluster bowling skills and his choice of orange juice as a morning beverage. He also latched onto the political meme at the time and said Obama insulted all blue collar Americans when made the “cling to their guns” comment.

        Honestly, I could care less what Chris Matthews thinks. The only problem is he does have some viewers (unfortunately) who do give him the time of day and who can be influenced by his malarky. Even though I no longer watch him, I say we should push back by letting MSNBC and the like know that we are tired of their biased and racist propaganda. I also think we need to shut them down, turn them off, and kick them to the curb–we’ve got New Media that’s much more informative .

  7. rikyrah says:

    Commander in Chic: Every Woman’s Guide to Managing Her Style Like a First Lady [Hardcover]
    Mikki Taylor (Author)

    With her “classic with a twist” sensibility, Michelle Obama oozes chic! Mikki Taylor, one of the nation’s foremost authorities on fashion, beauty, and style, has taken Mrs. Obama as her muse, to write the book women who admire them both have been waiting for, Commander in Chic.

    The nation’s major networks, radio stations, and newspapers call on Mikki Taylor not only to discuss the “Obama look” and its feverish impact on style, but to hear Taylor’s own smart advice on looking polished and pulled together. She’s been privy to Obama’s style philosophy as well as that of countless celebs through her longtime role as beauty and cover director at Essence magazine, where she collaborated with Obama’s team on fashion and beauty choices for prime photo shoots for the magazine.

    Now Taylor is sharing the keys to the Obama look with her diary-like observations, tips, and Mikki-isms (her short, ultra-clever style aphorisms) for women everywhere. Mikki knows we all want to possess a signature look and a wardrobe of bankable pieces that allow us the kind of versatility where we never have to worry about what to wear again! Consider Commander in Chic as your personal style diary—one where you’ll find everything you need to know to possess great style—simply, effortlessly, and for keeps.

    Cover-to-cover, the book is full of stunning photo-graphs that take the guesswork out of what works. Every chapter in the book shares the kinds of concrete information and inspiring style ideas that not only make getting dressed a fabulous experience, but define what will make you a woman to remember! Here is everything you need to know about style—from your glossary of high-performance hair products and “do how-to’s” to the best makeup finds and techniques to what you need to know to grow your nails long and strong to the most polished hues for all skin tones. In “The Gam Slam,” Taylor tells you how to work summer-pretty legs year-round—from how to keep them even-toned and satiny smooth to vein-free.

    Mikki took great care in talking to the experts about what we need to know to manage our lives from the inside out—from our mental and physical health and wellness to the importance of self-nurturing. As a result, you’ll find guiding principles on diet and exercise for the various stages of your life—from age twenty and beyond. You’ll also find the critical information you need to know to nourish your well-being so you can continue to be the empowered woman you are called to be.

    All in all, Commander in Chic is a gold mine of information that will inspire you—from head to toe, inside and out—on how to truly style, now and for years to come.

  8. rikyrah says:

    Fuck you, that’s my message to you

    by DougJ

    I love this stuff, but I wonder about this guy’s countertops:

    At a Natural Resources Committee hearing Friday on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) mistakenly addressed the professor as “Dr. Rice” while calling his testimony “garbage.”

    Brinkley interrupted, saying: “It’s Dr. Brinkley, Rice is a university,” and “I know you went to Yuba [Community College in California] and couldn’t graduate —”

    Then it was Young’s turn to interrupt. “I’ll call you anything I want to call you when you sit in that chair,” he told the witness. “You just be quiet.”

    Brinkley countered: “You don’t own me. I pay your salary. I work for the private sector and you work for the taxpayer.”

  9. rikyrah says:

    GOP New Mexico Sec of State Finds Tiny Fraction Of The Voter Fraud She Alleged
    Ryan J. Reilly November 18, 2011, 4:22 PM

    New Mexico Secretary of State Dianna Duran said earlier this year that her state had a “culture of corruption” and referred 64,000 voter registration records to police that she thought were possible cases of voter fraud. Now a new report from her office proves she was completely right, 0.0296875 percent of the time.

    Duran’s interim report now alleges that 104 voters — about one for every 10,577 on the rolls — were illegally registered to vote. Of that group, just 19 — or approximately one for every 57,894 registered voters — actually allegedly cast a ballot they shouldn’t have.

    The report says the Secretary of State’s office “has no such role in the political process” and is “independent” from partisan debate, then goes on to preemptively criticize anyone who might take issue with the fact that, despite her rhetoric, she found such and extremely small amount of alleged incidents.

    “We are confident that some will say that ‘it’s only a few thousand,’ or they will vigorously disparage the findings, and assert their strong ‘belief’ that the findings are unimportant,” the report states. “Again, we have no issue with those kinds of talking points, assertions, or attitudes. We expect them from political and partisan interests. We are simply not in that game. Our duty is to the people of New Mexico, their Constitution and their laws; not to parties, candidates, lobbies, special interest groups or political action committees.”

    The report concludes: “To those who say that vote fraud (if it does exist) is ‘insignificant,’ our answer is that no instance of vote fraud, or ineligible registration, or ineligible voting, is now, or ever will be ‘insignificant’ to this office. Every single vote cast by an ineligible voter cancels and invalidates a vote cast by a legal voter, and leaves that law-abiding citizen completely disenfranchised. It may also alter the outcome of an election. That is the sober reality of the electoral system. We will continue in our mission. Our Constitutional duty is clear.”

    Duran’s investigation, state Democratic Party Executive Director Scott Forrester said in a statement, “has turned up basically nothing, and she can’t even say for sure what she did or did not find — 19 people out of 1 million registered voters who may or may not have actually done anything wrong? Here we go again, Dianna Duran is making even more claims without any facts to back them up.”

    Here’s a local news report on Duran’s report, a copy of which is embedded below:

  10. rikyrah says:

    November 19, 2011 8:30 AM
    ‘As one would spray pesticide on weeds’

    By Steve Benen

    The level of force local law enforcement agencies are using to target Occupy protestors is nothing short of extraordinary.

    When the NYPD raided Zuccotti Park this week, officers used pepper spray rather indiscriminately, affecting, among others, a pregnant woman and an 84-year-old woman who were in the crowd. But while the descriptions of the raid are chilling, the video of this police intervention at UC Davis yesterday is even more astonishing.

    I don’t know the events that led up to this confrontation; I would assume the police asked these protestors to leave and they refused. But when law enforcement officials use a weapon, they need to have a good reason for doing so. In this case, the protestors were … just sitting there.

    And the response to these protestors was to spray them, in the face, with large quantities of pepper spray. As ABL put it, the officer “approached a group of students sitting in a line peacefully on the ground, walked up and down the line and pepper-sprayed them directly in the face — as one would spray pesticide on weeds.”

    What’s more, note that the officer was well aware of the cameras recording his actions. In New York, Mayor Bloomberg waited until it was dark and did his best to keep the media away, so there’s far less footage of what transpired, but in this case, the UC Davis officer knew the world would be able to see his response, and felt confident enough in his decision to do it anyway.

    If someone is able to explain why this isn’t police brutality, I’d love to hear it.

    In case this isn’t obvious, pepper spray is some awfully nasty stuff. It’s not just a minor nuisance for those who come in contact with it; this stuff hurts and makes it difficult to breathe.

    I can fully appreciate why police officers may need to use non-lethal weapons in specific circumstances. If, for example, there’d been a riot at UC Davis, and the police was trying to get a violent situation under control, pepper spray may be fully justified.

    But these protestors were just sitting there. The violence was being done by the police themselves. If officers felt it necessary to remove these protestors, the police are trained in plenty of techniques to drag people away without the use of weapons.

    There’s simply no defense for what happened.

  11. rikyrah says:

    November 19, 2011
    Don’t panic

    The NY Times, observing the symptomatic Ron Paul phenomenon:

    His campaign, which has won a number of straw polls and is picking up momentum, has demonstrated its ability to organize and mobilize supporters, which is particularly relevant in Iowa.

    A state which is particularly irrelevant. And growing more irrelevant to the nation each election cycle. Because it is unrepresentative of the American body politic. So unrepresentative, its caucus habitually hands victories to losers and losses to victors. See, most recently, Huckabee, McCain.

    For the GOP, Iowa is the clearinghouse of insurgents, radicals, and the ideologically incurable. It is the asylum that gives hope to the doomed — the Michele Bachmanns — and a sigh to the preordained — the Mitt Romneys.

    For serious Republican presidential aspirants, Iowa is both essentially irrelevant in the selection process and, conceivably, the GOP’s future. Which is to say, death. It is a microcosm of fracturing sensibilities, a pressure cooker of petty prejudices, a busy nest of blithe ignorance, an unresurrecting graveyard of spooky fundamentalists, a loony bin of economic libertarians. Iowa is the JOHN HANCOCK of the GOP’s plucky declaration of rampaging dementia.

    For now, Iowa’s freakshow of Pauls, Cains, Bachmanns and Gingriches seems containable; that is, it has yet to hammer immovable stakes in the still-relevant primary and caucus tents of the continental U.S. So a Romney can bypass the spectacle and still star in the show. Yet with each cycle the Iowan diaspora becomes, paradoxically, while more and more irrelevant, more pronounced; the Cains become more competitive in the New Hampshires, and the guiding consumers of once-hopeless insurgencies, of pestilential radicalism and ideological incurabilities become … the base. The only base.

    Hence there is, in the sublime mathematics of electoral politics, likely no way the Republican Party can stay on this course and remain a national player; one within the two-party system. I suspect 2012 will be the GOP’s 21st-century watershed — the causation of 2013’s revanchism, authentic conservatives retaking authentic conservatism. A formal Tea Party, the scattered precursor of which has already captured the delusional imagination of pseudoconservatism’s third-party species, will erupt and in shorter order flame out, a victim of incoherent infighting.

    Or I’m wrong, and we’re all in much bigger trouble than we ever imagined. But, that I doubt. If America’s political history were one of ideological instability and revolutionary ruptures, I wouldn’t, but it isn’t, so I do.

  12. rikyrah says:

    Political Animal
    November 19, 2011 10:00 AM
    Brewer may reinitiate impeachment crusade

    By Steve Benen

    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s (R) impeachment crusade against the state’s redistricting chair was struck down Thursday by the state Supreme Court. As the justices saw it, the governor needed an actual reason to remove the official, and didn’t come up with one.

    And so yesterday, Brewer and her allies mulled starting the process all over again, this time trying to come up with some basic rationalization for their actions.

    Senate Republicans are ready to try again to oust the chairwoman of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, saying they could stage a special session next week.

    But Gov. Jan Brewer, who must initiate such a move, said late Friday that she’s still pondering what to do, although she indicated a need to move quickly.

    “I’m keeping my options open,” she said in a conference call with reporters after she returned from a trip to Washington, D.C

    I probably brushed past this a little too quickly yesterday, but the governor’s legal team told the Arizona Supreme Court that Brewer had the authority to remove the independent commission’s chair from office, simply because the governor felt like it.

    When the court’s acting chief justice pressed this point, and asked if Brewer could fire an independent commission’s chair because the chair wore a purple dress or had a certain haircut, the governor’s lawyer said yes, she could.

    This is not a joke.

    With this argument rejected by the state Supreme Court, Brewer’s new task is to consider a new impeachment drive, this time giving a coherent reason.

    Just to quickly review for those just joining us, when it comes to post-Census redistricting, Arizona has an Independent Redistricting Commission, made up of two Democrats, two Republicans, and one registered Independent. The system was adopted by Arizona voters more than a decade ago, and was intended to take partisan agendas out of the redistricting process.

    The tripartisan panel recently unveiled a draft proposal that would, as a practical matter, create four safe Republican seats, two safe Democratic seats, and create three competitive districts, all the while improving the voting influence of the state’s growing Latino population.

    This did not sit well with Republicans, who were so outraged that Brewer and the GOP-dominated state Senate went after the commission’s chair. (Republicans also wanted to impeach the commission’s Democrats, but that petered out.)

    And now, after being smacked down by the Arizona Supreme Court, they want to do it again.

    In a year filled with examples of far-right overreach, this is egregious, even by Republican standards.

  13. rikyrah says:

    Political Animal
    November 19, 2011 10:40 AM
    Why the super-committee talks are failing

    By Steve Benen

    You may have seen headlines yesterday about Republicans on the so-called super-committee offering Democrats a new debt-reduction offer. At a certain level, that seemed encouraging — the GOP co-chairman of the panel had said just a few days ago that there would be no other offers.

    You may have also noticed that Democrats turned down the proposal. Is it because Dems are unwilling to compromise? Obviously not — Dems have been so eager to strike some kind of deal that they “offered a plan that moved significantly toward the Republicans and a considerable way beyond the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson and Gang of Six plans, which conservative senators like Tom Coburn and Mike Crapo had embraced.” The GOP refused.

    The problem, of course, is with the substance of the new Republican plan. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ Paul N. Van de Water summarized the latest GOP proposal, put on the table late yesterday.

    Republicans on the supercommittee have made a new offer that would reduce deficits by $640 billion over the next decade, according to news reports…. The Republican offer consists of roughly $542 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues, meaning the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases in the plan is 181 to 1. These measures would also produce nearly $100 billion in debt-service savings. Democrats promptly rejected the new Republican offer as unbalanced.

    When one includes the $900 billion in discretionary spending cuts already enacted in the Budget Control Act, the plan’s total deficit reduction rises to about $1.445 trillion, and its ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases rises to 481 to 1.

    Hmm. So, Democrats would give up $542 billion in spending cuts and Republicans would give up $3 billion in revenue — not a penny of which would come from additional taxes on anyone, but rather, the end of a tax break currently enjoyed by corporate jet owners.

    This, in the minds of GOP committee members, is a “compromise.”

    Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), a House Democratic leader and a super-committee member, told The Hill after hearing the GOP offer, “Do we look stupid?”

    Republicans should take that as a “no” to the offer.

    This is, by the way, the final weekend before the debt panel is supposed to finish its work. The committee is so far apart that no meetings have even been planned, and no one thinks success is even a possibility.

  14. rikyrah says:

    November 19, 2011 11:10 AM
    Those who see American laziness

    By Steve Benen

    There’s a fair amount of irony surrounding the Republicans’ favorite attack of the week.

    President Obama told business leaders at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit that U.S. policymakers have been “a little bit lazy” when it comes to attracting businesses to American soil. Republicans have taken this line and said the president called Americans “lazy.”

    The GOP attack is an unambiguous lie. It’s been independently fact checked repeatedly and exposed as a complete sham, caused by taking a comment completely out of context to change its meaning.

    But the point behind the dishonest smear is important. What Republicans are desperate for voters to believe is that President Obama, put simply, doesn’t even like Americans. It’s part of the years-long campaign to attack the president as The Other — there’s us, then there’s him, and the two don’t have much in common. It’s the basis for the “birther” garbage; it undergirds the “apologize for America” crap; it’s the point of the “American exceptionalism” attack; and it even fuels the incessant nonsense about “socialism.”

    Mitt Romney, who’s only too pleased to exploit the borderline-racism behind these attacks, went so far as to argue this week that Obama called Americans “lazy” — even though he didn’t — because the president “doesn’t understand Americans.”

    There’s us, then there’s him.

    The “lazy” smear matters because it’s a lie, and because Republicans have quickly become obsessed with a talking point they made up. But it’d be a shame if we also forget that it’s ironic — President Obama doesn’t think Americans are lazy; Republicans do.

    We saw some of this in Romney’s own book, when he complained that Americans “have tended to avoid the hard work that overcoming challenges requires.” American workers keep giving more and getting less, but as far as the wealthy, elitist Republican frontrunner is concerned, we’re still unwilling to roll up our sleeves.

    But that’s really just scratching the surface. Consider, for example, what House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said this week when talking about American competitiveness:

    “Part of it is the culture of people just having no work ethic…. Moral relativism has done so much damage to the bottom end of this country, the bottom fifth has been damaged by the culture of moral relativism more than by anything else, I would argue. If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics — I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.”

    So, in the mind of Paul Ryan, one of the most influential Republican leaders in the country, America isn’t getting ahead because Americans don’t work hard and have the wrong values.

    In other words, it’s our fault. We’re lazy.

    This comes up all the time. Not long ago, Sen. Dean Heller (R) of Nevada compared Americans struggling to find work during a jobs crisis to “hobos.” Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) said last year “the jobs are there,” but American workers don’t feel like taking them. Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said the jobless ought to quit their bellyaching and “get back to work.”

    Now compare all of this to Rick Perry’s latest attack ad, which tells viewers, “That’s what our President thinks is wrong with America? That Americans are lazy? That’s pathetic.”

    Obama never said Americans are lazy; Republicans did. And that’s what’s pathetic.

  15. rikyrah says:

    Chris Matthews showing his ass this morning:

    • Rikyrah,

      Chris Matthews and nem are intimidated by President Obama’s intellect. Have you ever heard “stop showing us how smart you are” directed at any other President? They hate him because he’s smart and didn’t kowtow them for anything.

    • Ametia says:

      Matthews knows the POTUS & FLOTUS are not happy because? Exactly; he has no main access to them. The Beltway crowd don’t have access to him, and it’s eating them alive. PBO’s not jiggin & jumpin for these fools, so therefore, they feel helpless and not in control of him.

      Remember Matthews is still trying to push that book on the Kennedys, his real AMERICAN IDOLS.

  16. Guys, I love Dwight!!!!! I don’t care what Rikyrah says…. Play that guitar, baby! ****looks at Rikyrah****

  17. Obama’s Campaign for President of the Harvard Law Review

  18. rikyrah says:

    seems as if Tweety went all in against POTUS and FLOTUS on some show this morning on MSNBC

  19. rikyrah says:

    I can’t post at JJP….what about you guys, can you reply in the Saturday Open Thread?

  20. BREAKING NEWS: Moammar Gadhafi’s son captured in Libya

  21. Obama Campaign Unveils Star-Studded ‘Obama Classic Basketball Game’

    WASHINGTON — When you’re a president running for reelection, it apparently helps to be a hoops junky, especially when the National Basketball Association is on hiatus.

    With scant press attention, the Obama for America campaign has set up what it is billing as “The First Ever Obama Classic Basketball Game” to take place in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 12. The game will feature a who’s who of basketball stars, ones who are either retired or have no apparent start date for their season. The list of confirmed attendees, as provided by the campaign, include:

    Ray Allen – Carmelo Anthony – Chris Bosh – Vince Carter – Tyson Chandler – Jamal Crawford – Kevin Durant – Baron Davis – Patrick Ewing – Derek Fisher – Rudy Gay – Blake Griffin – Tyler Hansbrough – Dwight Howard – Juwan Howard – Antawn Jamison – Dahntay Jones – Brandon Knight – Kevin Love – Jamal Mashburn – Cheryl Miller – Reggie Miller – Alonzo Mourning – Dikembe Mutombo – Chris Paul – Quentin Richardson – Doc Rivers – Steve Smith – Jerry Stackhouse – Amare Stoudemire – Tina Thompson – John Wall – Russell Westbrook

Leave a Reply