Serendipity SOUL | Wednesday Open Thread | Cyndi Lauper Week

Happy HUMP Day, Everyone! More Cyndi Lauper…




The song was considered controversial, as it dealt with the subject matter of masturbation. It was also included on the Parents Music Resource Center’s “Filthy Fifteen” list, due to its sexual lyrics; this led to the creation of the Parental Advisory sticker. (Other songs on the “Filthy Fifteen” list included tracks by Madonna, Prince, and AC/DC.) In an interview on The Howard Stern Show, Lauper stated that she recorded the vocals of the song while nude.[1]

Lauper said she wanted little kids to think the song was about dancing, and to understand the real meaning as they got older. She never directly stated in the song what the meaning of the song was, so it could receive airplay.[citation needed]

The single has been released in over 32 variations across the world, the most common being a two track 7″ vinyl single (with varying covers) and a two track 12″ vinyl single (also with varying covers).

Don’t hate the player or the game. LOL

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

51 Responses to Serendipity SOUL | Wednesday Open Thread | Cyndi Lauper Week

  1. Yahtc says:

    “Outcry over Sterling’s remarks renew focus on housing bias lawsuits”

  2. rikyrah says:

    Hayes has a segment on the new NYU campus being built in Abu Dabi with basically slave labor.

  3. rikyrah says:

    Critics’ Choice Television Awards 2014 Nominations Announced!

    The nominations for the 2014 Critics’ Choice Television Awards were just announced!

    FX led the networks in nominations with 19 total, followed closely by HBO which got a whopping 18 nominations.

    The Big Bang Theory (CBS), Fargo (FX), The Good Wife (CBS), Masters of Sex (Showtime) and The Normal Heart (HBO) led the pack with five nominations each. The Americans (FX), Breaking Bad (AMC), Orange Is the New Black (Netflix) and Sherlock: His Last Vow (PBS) all received four nominations each.

    Click inside for the complete list of nominees…

  4. rikyrah says:

    Nobody Wants To Host The 2022 Olympics
    Barry Petchesky

    Yesterday 2:48pm

    Of the four remaining finalists, two are in rough shape. The Oslo, Norway, bid is falling apart. It was supported by a razor-thin margin in a September referendum, but public opposition has only grown since then. And on Sunday, the junior member of the government coalition voted against funding any Olympics. For them to go on, it would require an unprecedented alliance between the ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour party.

    The Lviv, Ukraine, bid seems dead in the water with the turmoil and war in the country. “Currently our dream is on hold,” said the bid’s chief.

    There are only two healthy bids: Almaty, Kazakhstan, and Beijing, China. One’s an oil-rich state ruled by a president-for-life, and the other’s, well, China. That’s no coincidence. With the Sochi games raising the bar to an absurd $51 billion, hosting the Olympics no longer looks like a winning proposition. The failed and aborted 2022 candidacies all have one thing in common: When actual citizens are allowed to have a say, they say they don’t want the Olympics.

  5. rikyrah says:

    The Real Origins of the Religious Right

    They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

    May 27, 2014

    One of the most durable myths in recent history is that the religious right, the coalition of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists, emerged as a political movement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. The tale goes something like this: Evangelicals, who had been politically quiescent for decades, were so morally outraged by Roe that they resolved to organize in order to overturn it…

    But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism…


    So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

    In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

    In Green v. Kennedy (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.

    Read more:

  6. rikyrah says:

    Do Minorities Do Better Under Democrats?
    More than anyone realized.

    By Jamelle Bouie

    Minority outreach is still on the Republican agenda. The Republican National Committee has hired dozens of black and Latino field representatives, and Chairman Reince Priebus has made the rounds at churches and historically black colleges across the country. Conservatives continue to argue that Democrats have been bad for blacks,Latinos, and other minorities. “What we’re hearing from black voters and people within our community is that it’s the president’s economic policies that are hurting them the most,” said the RNC’s Orlando Watson in an interview last year.

    Even if that is spin, there’s no doubt that minorities—and blacks in particular—have struggled in the current economy. At 11.6 percent, the unemployment rate for black Americans is staggeringly high, with little sign of declining, even for college graduates.Low-income blacks are increasingly segregated from the mainstream economy, and their middle-class counterparts are still reeling from the Great Recession and its calamitous effect on black housing wealth.

    With all of that comes a question: If current conditions are so bad
    for black Americans, why haven’t they abandoned the Democrats? For some conservatives, the answer is that blacks suffer from a sort of false consciousness, in which they’ve forgotten the civil rights victories of the Republican Party. The crude version comes from figures like Herman Cain, who claims that blacks have been “brainwashed into not being open-minded, not even considering a conservative point of view.” On the other end are conservative writers, like Kevin D. Williamson, that see blacks as the helpless victims of cynical racial bribery. Here’s how he explained the deception in a 2012 feature for National Review:


    The right way to answer the question of African-American loyalty is to treat blacks as rational citizens voting in their self-interest. And while the sluggish economy of the Obama years may seem like a bad case for Democratic loyalty, that’s not true of Democratic administrations overall. According to a recent paperfrom Zoltan L. Hajnal and Jeremy D. Horowitz—both political scientists at the University of California–San Diego—there’s clear evidence that when the nation is governed by Democrats, black well-being “improves dramatically” across multiple dimensions.

    Specifically, looking at data from 1948 to 2010, Hajnal and Horowitz found that “African Americans tend to experience substantial gains under Democratic presidents whereas they tend to incur significant losses or remain stagnant under Republicans.” On average, under Democratic presidents, blacks gained $895 in annual income, saw a 2.41 point drop in their poverty rate, and a 0.36 point drop in their unemployment rate.By contrast, under Republicans, blacks gained $142 a year, along with a 0.15 point increase in poverty and a 0.39 point increase in unemployment.

    What’s more, this was true in relative terms as well. As they write,
    “[W]hether we look at the gap between blacks and whites or at the ratio of black to white outcomes, the patterns are essentially identical: Republican administrations were, on average, bad for African Americans and Democratic administrations were, on average, good for them, both in absolute and relative terms.”

    The cumulative (i.e. year-after-year) differences are huge. Across 16 years of Democratic governance, the black poverty rate, for example, declined by nearly 40 points. Across 35 years of Republican governance, by contrast, it increased by 3 points. Indeed, during most years of Republican presidential leadership, black poverty grew and black unemployment increased.

  7. rikyrah says:

    Ladarius Sapho: Ill. HS Student Robbed Of Valedictorian Honor [VIDEO]
    May 25, 2014
    By NewsOne Staff

    Ladarius Sapho, an 18-year-old senior at Proviso East High School in Maywood, Illinois, was told that he couldn’t be his school’s valedictorian due to a policy some say don’t exist.

    With a 4.135 GPA, Sapho worked hard to earn the top spot but, because he transferred to the school in his sophomore year, was told by Principal Tony Valente that he didn’t qualify for the honor.

    “I was gonna be number one, valedictorian of 2014. I was going to be giving the speech at graduation,” said Sapho.


    However, last week, both Sapho and the school’s number two student, the salutatorian, got called to the office for some bad news.

    Principal Tony Valente told them they didn’t qualify for the honors, because both students started at the school as sophomores after moving into the district. requires they must have attended for at least seven semesters to get the titles.

    “You’re gonna tell me just two weeks before graduation? I had a speech ready, I was ready to give this speech, practicing and he tells me I can’t be number one,” added Sapho.

    Community advocate Antoinette Gray has been working to help Sapho get the title he earned.

    “There is no policy,” said Gray. “They have been asked not once, but two or three times to produce that written policy. And the reason that was given by Tony Valente, the school principal, was that it was his discretion to make that decision.”

    A district spokesman told FOX 32 the policy is on the district’s website, but we couldn’t find it either.

    “You’re teaching the kids something wrong. You’re teaching them you can work hard, but it’s okay for somebody else to get the credit,” said Bridgette Peterson who is a mother.

  8. rikyrah says:

    Even Well-Integrated Schools Treat Black Students Differently Sixty years after Brown v. Board, America’s classrooms may not be separate, but they’re still not equal

    By Arit John

    This Saturday marks the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark Supreme Court case that, for a time, desegregated American schools. And if you listen to experts talk about Brown’s legacy, you’ll typically hear them point out that schools are more segregated than ever, thanks to a combination of bad housing policy, white flight to the suburbs and lax court enforcement of desegregation orders.

    But the problem now isn’t just that many schools have reversed the desegregation gains of the ’70s and ’80s. It’s that white and black students get different treatment—and end up performing at different levels—in the few schools that they attend together. In other words, even where Brown has seemed to succeed, serious racial inequality persists.

    Minority families petitioned for integration in the 1950s in part because white schools were better funded. But, as a majority of the Court’s justices would later argue, a disparity in resources wasn’t the only problem. Segregation also had a psychological aspect on students, making education inherently unequal. In the unanimous Court’s opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “to separate [black children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority … that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.” Segregation, he added, denoted a sense of inferiority that “affects the motivation of a child to learn.”

    Today, even in schools that have achieved some level of diversity, there’s evidence that students of different races are still being treated differently. A 2007 study from the Journal of Educational Psychology analyzed dozens of previous studies, spanning more than three decades, on how teachers interact with different kinds of students. Researchers found that, overall, teachers’ expectations and speech varied depending on the race of the student. Teachers directed the most positive behavior, like questions and encouragement, to white students.

    • Ametia says:

      I’ve voiced my reasoning behind school integration from jump. Our children were the most damaged from being bused into to white neighborhood schools with no preparations for the hostile environment they would encounter.

      The adults fucked up royally. They might have thought they were helping the situation and their children, but in the end, the black kids suffered the most.

      Now if the argument was about equal funding to get better equipped schools, teachers and the like, then the BOE should have doled out equal funds across the board for all communities.

      The black neighborhood schools would have the funds to build better schools, hire better teachers, and buy new text books and other materials conducive to learning. And the onus would be on those black teachers to teach and educate our children. then If they failed, it wouldn’t be anyone to blame but them.

      Nope, the adults decided to bus our children into neighborhoods and subject them to more racial animus than they could ever imagine.

      Don’t tell me that my child couldn’t learn from someone who looks like them, and had the same beliefs and cultural upbringing. This MATTERS.

      If I ever found out that my children were being subjected to a teacher’s bias, bigotry and prejudices, the teacher would be out, not my child.

      Both my daughters went to HBCU

  9. rikyrah says:

    Grimes hits back: On Obamacare, Mitch McConnell is in “fantasyland”
    By Greg Sargent May 28 at 12:17 pm

    Ever since Mitch McConnell’s comically absurd evasions on Obamacare began gaining attention from the press, people have wondered whether Alison Lundergan Grimes would make them an issue. McConnell’s refusal to say what should happen to Kentucky Kynect — even as he continues to call for repeal of the ACA – allows Grimes to point out that McConnell’s position would take health coverage away from hundreds of thousands of constituents who are benefitting from it, and he won’t admit it.

    Now the Grimes campaign is finally hitting McConnell over his gyrations on the issue, accusing him of “voting to destroy Kynect.” From Grimes senior adviser Jonathan Hurst:

    Mitch McConnell has been in the fantasyland that is Washington for so long that he cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction. McConnell has voted to destroy Kynect — and he has said he will do it again. In the U.S. Senate, Alison Lundergan Grimes will fix the law to ensure it is working for all Kentuckians.

    This seems somewhat defensive. It again leans heavily on a vow to “fix” the law, and doesn’t state flatly that Kynect is a policy success. Some Dems, such as Rep. John Yarmuth and pollster Celinda Lake, have suggested Grimes go further. Lake told me the other day that her polling has showed that Kynect polls positively in Kentucky, even as the law known as “Obamacare” or the “Affordable Care

  10. rikyrah says:

    The CBC and Wall Street

    But Wall Street needed more liberal support. Once everybody got wise to the fact that the Three Js always voted with the GOP on banking, they no longer lent legislation the same bipartisan sheen. (A couple of years ago, we wrote a story in The Huffington Post that framed a Himes bill as a sop to his fellow former bankers, and he left us a furious voice mail that illustrated this dynamic perfectly: After lambasting us for describing him as a “ ’former Goldman Sachs executive’ as opposed to, say, ‘former affordable-housing, nonprofit guy,’ ” he added, “I will deal for the next couple of weeks with the left of the Democratic Party now thinking that I’m looking to deregulate derivatives.”)

    And so bank lobbyists turned to legislators like Moore, the daughter of a factory worker and herself a former activist for affordable housing. The Three Js now regularly team up with Moore and a handful of other CBC members.

    In February 2013, Moore and Fudge joined three Republicans to introduce HR 677, a bill that would allow corporate conglomerates to trade derivatives among their myriad subsidiaries without following Dodd-Frank’s trading rules. The bill infuriated financial reform watchdogs, who say it makes it much harder for regulators to see risks accumulating in the system and could facilitate international tax-dodging. Moore’s measure probably won’t ever get a vote on the House floor, but it doesn’t need to. After proposing a relatively robust rule on the topic, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission switched course last year and finalized a regulation that adheres closely to Moore’s language.

    From sources inside Congress and government agencies, we obtained a satchel full of CBC letters sent to various regulators. These aren’t the types of missives that are blasted out as press releases — there aren’t many politicians who want public credit for championing the rights of Wall Street bankers.

    In June, 28 CBC members sent a letter to the Department of Labor, urging it to reconsider a rule requiring retirement account managers and investment advisers to act in their clients’ best interests — what is known in finance as a “fiduciary duty.” Fudge told us she was worried the rule would limit minority access to financial advice. But the letter was actually written by Robert Lewis, a lobbyist at the Financial Services Institute, who forgot to scrub his metadata from the document before circulating it around the Hill.

    In 2012, with Barney Frank set to retire, two Democrats were eyeing his position as the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee: Carolyn Maloney, who represents the Upper East Side, and Maxine Waters, who represents Watts. Most bank lobbyists assumed that Waters’ reputation for petty corruption in Washington and machine-style politics in Los Angeles would disqualify her. “She is wacko,” one bank lobbyist told the New York Observer at the time, employing language that would be hard to call anything but racist. “She is very flamboyant, very old school. She is not one of these younger, sophisticated members of Congress. She has no grasp of the technical side of finance. She was elected during a different time in history, and she hasn’t read a book since.”

    But the bank industry had underestimated Waters, who had been making some fairly obvious political sacrifices in her effort to get the gavel. She had worked within the system, cutting deals, casting a few pro-bank votes, and generally not comporting herself like a bomb-thrower. But while bank lobbyists had been courting CBC votes on legislation, the idea that a black woman might actually get the top slot on a powerful committee apparently hadn’t occurred to them. “They never thought she was going to be ranking member, so they didn’t do the work they needed to do when she was working her way up the dais. Now they’re in a position of, ‘Oh my goodness, I’ve ignored her for 12 terms,’ ” says one former CBC staffer who is now a well-connected financial industry lobbyist.

    Waters, who refused to participate in this story, makes for an unlikely hero. Even her moments of righteous indignation come infused with a certain cynicism. To give one example: In 2011, she had an epic argument with Alcee Hastings at a CBC lunch, blasting him for sponsoring a measure that was seen as a gift to shady for-profit colleges. What was more embarrassing than selling out, Waters told her assembled colleagues, was selling out cheap to nickel-and-dime scammers like the for-profit college industry. If you’re going to sell your soul, she admonished, have some self-respect and sell high. (Hastings didn’t dispute the conflict, but he did dispute Waters’ point. “It would be a mistaken premise,” he says, smiling. “There are a hell of a lot of for-profit schools.”)

    All the same, Waters was determined to protect the administration’s financial reforms. “Let me let you in on a secret,” she told a California Democratic convention in 2012 before she became the ranking member. “I am the senior-most person serving on the Financial Services Committee. Barney Frank is about to retire, and guess who’s shaking in their boots? The too-big-to-fail banks and financial institutions and all of Wall Street.”

    In January of last year, she took over from Frank. “I certainly don’t want Democrats to be seen as deregulating and opposing and undermining Dodd-Frank,” she told us last year, when interviewed for a separate Huffington Post story. “It’s critically important that we understand the significance of that reform, that we send the message that we’re about protecting our taxpayers and investors.” Before long, she and Moore were on a collision course.

    The tension between the two spilled into the open during an otherwise snoozy markup session last May. The committee turned its attention to HR 677 — the bill that carved a loophole for companies that want to trade derivatives with themselves. Waters had previously objected to the measure in a private meeting with Moore, and the pair had cut a deal: Waters would vote for it, ensuring broad bipartisan passage. In return, Moore would present an amendment that would significantly narrow the scope of her bill. But Moore’s GOP co-sponsors had balked — and Moore had caved.

    At the hearing, Moore struck a joking tone to defend her position. “There’s been a lot of speculation as to why I’m a co-sponsor of this bill, that perhaps I’m just naive and I don’t understand the law,” Moore said. “Or that I have made so much money from Wall Street sources — I guess I better go check my bank account a little bit more, because it doesn’t feel like that has happened.” A few seats to Moore’s left, Waters stirred. She was not laughing. “Ms. Moore is very much aware of my concerns about the legislation,” she said tartly. “Now I am even more concerned that you have decided to drop the amendment.” She also reminded her colleague that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had just sent Congress a letter urging lawmakers to leave Dodd-Frank’s derivatives rules alone.

    Under Capitol Hill’s rules of etiquette, publicly admonishing a fellow Democrat for bucking the Obama administration is no small thing. (Unlike Frank, Waters has generally followed those rules.) Months later, other committee members remember the incident with a tug of the collar. Moore backed down and introduced the amendment, blaming a procedural misfire. But the set-to, as brief as it was, dented the facade of bipartisanship and liberal support that the banks had worked so hard to build.

  11. rikyrah says:

    Say again, Senator, ACA unkynected?

    May 28, 2014

    Sen. Mitch McConnell has some explaining to do.

    What in the world did he mean last week when he told reporters that repeal of the Affordable Care Act — “root and branch,” as he has demanded many times — is “unconnected” to the future of Kynect, Kentucky’s health insurance exchange?

    Asked specifically if Kynect should be dismantled, McConnell said: “I think that’s unconnected to my comments about the overall question.”


    Nothing could be more connected — or should be more important to Kentucky’s senior senator — than the fates of the more than 400,000 Kentuckians who are getting health insurance, many for the first time, and the federal Affordable Care Act, which is making that possible.

    Repeal the federal law, which McConnell calls “Obamacare,” and the state exchange would collapse.

    Read more here:

  12. CarolMaeWY says:

    Testing. . .

  13. rikyrah says:

    The Dr. Angelou Post is up

  14. You may shoot me with your words,
    You may cut me with your eyes,
    You may kill me with your hatefulness,
    But still, like air, I’ll rise.

    Maya Angelou

  15. rikyrah says:

    Ok Ladies,

    Check the dashboard and see if you want to add anything to the Dr. Angelou Post

  16. Yahtc says:

    Gladys Knight was born on this day in 1944. From Wikipedia:

    “Gladys Maria Knight (born May 28, 1944), known as the “Empress of Soul”, is an American recording artist, songwriter, businesswoman, humanitarian and author.

    A seven-time Grammy Award-winner, she is best known for the hits she recorded during the 1960s and 1970s, for both the Motown and Buddah Records labels, with her group Gladys Knight & the Pips, the most famous incarnation of which also included her brother Merald “Bubba” Knight and her cousins Edward Patten and William Guest.”

  17. rikyrah says:

    Dr. Angelou has passed away.

    Ladies, I’ll begin a post on her. Give me some time and check the dashboard in an hour.

  18. rikyrah says:

    Tuesday, May 27, 2014
    Not listening makes actual reporting pretty impossible

    The other day I wrote about the importance of understanding President Obama’s goals in foreign policy in order to measure his success. But perhaps I should have taken it one step further. It would be helpful if we started by actually listening to what he says.

    In an age where we can re-read speeches or listen to the video-tapped recordings of them, this kind of reporting on the outcome of the President’s speech last year on counterterrorism is a perfect example of why our media has lost credibility. The title of the article pretty much tells you all you need to know: One Year After Obama’s Big Drone Speech, Many Promises Left Unkept.

    First of all, it was not a big drone speech!!!! It was a speech about the indefinite war we’ve been waging since 9/11 (of which drones are a part) and a call for the country to contemplate ending that war. If you don’t get that, you don’t get the speech.

    When someone knows how to put together a speech that makes a logical argument (as this President certainly does), you look for the opening statement that summarizes what the whole speech is about. After talking about the attacks on 9/11 and our response to them, the President said this:

  19. rikyrah says:

    On the News With Thom Hartmann: The Poor Are More Ethical Than the 1%
    Tuesday, 27 May 2014 12:53 By Thom Hartmann, The Thom Hartmann Program | Video Report

    In today’s On the News segment: The poor are way more ethical than the 1%; the city of Portland, Oregon is breaking up with Walmart; last week, news broke of yet another massive media merger; and more.


    Thom Hartmann here – on the best of the rest of Economic and Labor News…

    You need to know this. The rich love to demonize the poor, but it turns out that the wealthy are the ones who need a little shaming. Paul Buchheit over at Alternet compiled various reports, studies, and analyses, and found clear evidence that the poor are way more ethical than the one percent. In fact, after reviewing all the data, Paul found clear correlations between wealth and unethical behavior, between wealth and a lack of empathy, and between wealth and being unproductive. In other words, the rich work less, care less, and cheat more often than the working poor. For example, an analysis of seven psychological studies found that so-called “upper-class individuals” were more likely to lie in a negotiation, break traffic laws, take valued goods from others, and even cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize. Numerous studies also found that those in a higher social class were more narcissistic than poor individuals, to the point of even looking into the mirror more often. In addition, the wealthy didn’t fair well in studies about understanding the needs and feelings of others, about contributing to charity organizations, or even about taking on the risks of an entrepreneur. For decades, we’ve heard right-wing memes about welfare queens and takers, but it looks like all of that was just a diversion to keep us from figuring out that the rich are scoundrels. The one percent has tried to convince us that it’s our fault we can’t get ahead, and that it was hard work that put them at the top. Now we know that it was actually a complete lack of ethics that made them their fortunes, and that kept us from sharing in the prosperity. We need to disprove the cliché that “nice guys finish last.” Let’s take our economy back from the cheaters and the crooks.

  20. rikyrah says:

    Once Allies, Ex-Obama Aides Face Off in British Campaign
    MAY 27, 2014

    LONDON — David Axelrod stood on a stage in the Buckingham Room of the Labour Party headquarters this month, rallying British progressives who are hoping, and paying, for Barack Obama’s message maven to help lead them back into power.

    Cleanly shaven with a light purple shirt and dark purple tie, Mr. Axelrod held forth on the similarities between Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign and that of the Labour candidate for prime minister, Ed Miliband, who is running on a platform of narrowing economic inequality in Britain.

    Mr. Axelrod is not the only top Obama operative at work here. A week earlier, Jim Messina, Mr. Obama’s lanky 2012 campaign manager, met at Downing Street with his client, Prime Minister David Cameron of the Conservative Party, who argues that years of austerity have corrected the profligate years of Labour rule and that tough immigration laws are protecting British values and jobs.

    The British elections in 2015 will be waged over these competing economic visions, the country’s stomach for hard-right anti-immigrant appeals, and the candidates’ abilities to manage coalition partners. But the contest is also shaping into a proxy competition between two titans of the “No Drama Obama” campaigns who are acting out their ideological and personal conflicts on a faraway stage.

  21. rikyrah says:

    The Progressive @theprogressive
    The judge who halted the Walker campaign probe has gone on all-expenses-paid trips paid for by #Koch, Bradley, others
    1:37 PM – 27 May 2014

  22. rikyrah says:

    the Permanent @DCCC Freakout

    By Liberal Librarian

    “Throw in the towel!!!”

    “THIS is keeping us up at night!!!”



    No, these are not my reactions to the Kim and Kanye wedding. These are the subject lines of some recent emails in my inbox from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee soliciting donations. (Okay, the exclamation points were my additions, but I was just taking poetic license to make clearer the emails’ emotional fervor.)

    And the bodies of the emails are no less dire:


    And so on and so forth.

    A successful politician and political party are predicated on a certain level of confidence. Now, you can take that too far: Mitt Romney not having prepared a concession speech for 2012 is the most glaring example. Barack Obama exudes the right level of confidence while being very cognizant of the difficulties.

    But the DCCC’s emails are klaxons of despair. And they’re not attractive.

    My default response to one of their emails is to delete it. They’re written in such an alarmist way that rather than scaring their recipients into action, they’re more likely to numb them into apathy. “Well, if the organization tasked with reclaiming the House is this hair-on-fire, what hope is there?”

    I would respectfully argue that the DCCC is embarked on a fucking stupid, insane, and utterly counterproductive strategy.

    Ahead of arguably the most important midterm election in several decades, even pop-psychology would dictate that the organization in charge of fundraising for the House Democrats should be putting out positive, nose to the grindstone messages. Yes, the task is difficult, but we can do it. That sort of thing. Something, perhaps, like this

  23. rikyrah says:

    Talking Points Memo ✔@TPM

    Snowden to critics: “Ask the State Department” why I’m in Russia

    Kerry to Snowden: “That’s a pretty dumb answer”

  24. rikyrah says:

    RACHEL MADDOW 05/27/14

    VIDEO: GOP senator picks fight with American veterans groups (15 minutes)


    Rachel Maddow reports on the shaming of Republican Senator Richard Burr by U.S. veterans groups after the senator criticized them in an open letter ahead of Memorial Day weekend, and points out the GOP’s lack of engagement on matters of foreign policy.


  25. Ametia says:


    What the fuck is wrong with schools serving CLEAN, WHOLESOME FOOD to our children?

  26. Ametia says:

    By Jeff Amy, Published: May 27

    JACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi man who sent letters dusted with the poison ricin to President Obama and other officials was sentenced Tuesday to 20 years in prison on unrelated state charges of fondling three martial arts students.

    James Everett Dutschke was sentenced in Lee County Circuit Court in Tupelo. Judge Paul Funderburk ordered Dutschke to serve 20 years on the fondling charges at the same time he is spending 25 years in federal prison on the ricin letter charges, District Attorney Trent Kelly said. That will be followed by a 25-year suspended sentence on the state charges. Dutschke also was ordered to register as a sex offender.

  27. rikyrah says:

    Let me be blunt. Wrigley Field is more important than the Cubs. Wrigley Field makes the Cubs.

    Ain’t nobody gonna travel to wherever to see a team that fucking loses all the time. The Cubs ain’t got it like that.


    Wrigley plan includes blocking rooftop views — or threat of ‘moving?’

    CHICAGO — The Chicago Cubs released a revised plan for Wrigley Field’s renovation Tuesday that calls for new signs, including some that would block the view from nearby rooftop venues, and warns that the team’s management would consider moving to another site if they are not allowed to “control our ballpark.”

    The updated plans for Wrigley Field and developing the land around it come days after the team announced it would no longer seek the approval of the plans from the rooftop owners, who charge fans to sit in bleachers atop their buildings.

    ”If we don’t control our ballpark, then we have to look at other options, and we would work with the city on that,” Cubs president of business operations Crane Kenney said. ”We would first look in the city.”

  28. Ametia says:

    Happy HUMP day, Everyone! :-))) SHE BOP!

Leave a Reply