Sunday Open Thread | Praise & Worship

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 Christianity, Current Events, Music, News, Open Thread, Politics, Praise, Spirituality, Worship and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Sunday Open Thread | Praise & Worship

  1. rikyrah says:

    Another hit piece on Valerie Jarrett:

    The Obama Whisperer No one has understood Valerie Jarrett’s role, until now
    By Noam Scheiber

    Even at this late date in the Obama presidency, there is no surer way to elicit paranoid whispers or armchair psychoanalysis from Democrats than to mention the name Valerie Jarrett. Party operatives, administration officials—they are shocked by her sheer longevity and marvel at her influence. When I asked a longtime source who left the Obama White House years ago for his impressions of Jarrett, he confessed that he was too fearful to speak with me, even off the record.

    This is not as irrational as it sounds. Obama has said he consults Jarrett on every major decision, something current and former aides corroborate. “Her role since she has been at the White House is one of the broadest and most expansive roles that I think has ever existed in the West Wing,” says Anita Dunn, Obama’s former communications director. Broader, even, than the role of running the West Wing. This summer, the call to send Attorney General Eric Holder on a risky visit to Ferguson, Missouri, was made by exactly three people: Holder himself, the president, and Jarrett, who were vacationing together on Martha’s Vineyard. When I asked Holder if Denis McDonough, the chief of staff, was part of the conversation, he thought for a moment and said, “He was not there.” (Holder hastened to add that “someone had spoken to him.”)

    Jarrett holds a key vote on Cabinet picks (she opposed Larry Summers at Treasury and was among the first Obama aides to come around on Hillary Clinton at State) and has an outsize say on ambassadorships and judgeships. She helps determine who gets invited to the First Lady’s Box for the State of the Union, who attends state dinners and bill-signing ceremonies, and who sits where at any of the above. She has placed friends and former employees in important positions across the administration—“you can be my person over there,” is a common refrain.

    • rikyrah says:

      And do they really think of pointing out that Jarrett was involved with the AG going to Ferguson is a BAD THING?





  2. rikyrah says:

    Full Show: Facing Down Corporate Election Greed
    November 7, 2014

    In the midst of the midterm elections and the obsession with which party would control the US Senate, there were races at the local and state level with deeper implications for the future of the country.

    In the small city of Richmond, California, a slate of progressive candidates faced off against a challenge from pro-business candidates backed to the tune of more than $3 million by the energy giant Chevron. For years, Chevron has treated Richmond like a company town and its large refinery there has been a constant source of health and safety concerns.

    Since 2007, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, a Green Party leader, and her allies on the city council have faced down not only Chevron but other corporate interests like the real estate and financial industries as well. This year, Chevron fought back with an expensive barrage of negative campaign media. But on Election Day, the progressive slate triumphed, despite the roughly $250 per vote Chevron spent.

    McLaughlin – who this year was term limited as mayor but won a city council seat — and Harriet Blair Rowan, a college student and journalist who uncovered the Chevron money story for the news website Richmond Confidential, talk with Bill this week about the role unlimited sums of corporate cash have played in Richmond. They discuss the great success of the billions spent by wealthy individuals and companies in other races across the country and how to fight back, using Richmond’s example as a model for future fights of organized people versus organized money.

  3. rikyrah says:

    jesseWilliams. ✔ @iJesseWilliams

    Racism destroys because it is backed by power, systems, policy and action. Oh, and a complacent, incurious populace.
    8:08 PM – 7 Nov 2014

    jesseWilliams. ✔ @iJesseWilliams

    Public indifference and gullibility are critical to the cover ups everywhere.
    8:08 PM – 7 Nov 2014

  4. Ametia says:

    PBO full Face the Nation interview here;

    • Liza says:

      To be expected, sadly. Lots of racists a$$holes out there with nothing better to do than vent their irrational rage on Facebook.

  5. rikyrah says:

    November 7, 2014 11:02 am
    The Red State Wedding: Why McConnell blew out Grimes

    by Joe Sonka

    As we mentioned Wednesday, no one was shocked that Alison Lundergan Grimes fell short in her bid to defeat Sen. Mitch McConnell, but her shellacking by over 15 percent was a jaw-dropper. Most reporters and pundits already had their post-mortem obituary ready on why McConnell won but had to frantically amend it to account for the fact that the race was a blowout just 30 minutes after the polls closed.

    These Grimes campaign obituaries vary widely: Some blame incompetent management, some credit a first-rate McConnell campaign, some say Grimes went overboard on distancing herself from the president, and some say Grimes never had a chance. There’s at least a grain of validity to each claim, but there’s little doubt the Grimes’ campaign was flawed given the blowout. And when a campaign that most signs show was competitive weeks earlier suddenly falls to such a wide margin of defeat on Election Day, it seems clear they built their foundation on shaky ground.


    But at the very least, Grimes had an opportunity to make Tuesday’s election competitive, and the overarching reason she didn’t give herself that chance was the hermetically sealed bubble in which Grimes’ intellect and personality was locked by her campaign. Her campaign repeatedly touted how “disciplined” she was, never going off script and saying something that could end up in an attack ad. Some extent of discipline is needed for any campaign, but they took this to an extreme that ended up defining her as a candidate and left many wondering who she was, what she believed, and whether she was up for the job. And any young, relatively unknown candidate presenting herself as a mostly blank slate is especially vulnerable.

    There isn’t a Kentucky political reporter whose opinion I respect more than CNHI’s Ronnie Ellis, who says one of the biggest errors of Grimes’ campaign was not putting ads on the air during McConnell’s primary fight with Matt Bevin so she could fully introduce herself to voters. The only problem with that theory is it assumes she ever fully introduced herself to voters at any point in the campaign. To a large extent, she never did.


    But in the final week of the campaign, something unexpected happened. Polls began to show that not only were Grimes’ favorable ratings going down fast, but McConnell’s were improving. This was shown to be the case in exit polls conducted on Election Day. These voters gave McConnell a favorable rating of 48 percent – unheard of in any poll done in the last few years – which matched his unfavorable rating. Meanwhile, Grimes’ favorable rating plunged to 40 percent, while her unfavorables rocketed to 57 percent. When asked which candidate was the target of the most unfair ads, they did not say Grimes, but McConnell. After all, the McConnell camp had pointed out that fact-checkers had debunked Grimes’ ads, while McConnell’s ads had him Krogering and playing with adorable hound dogs.

    The ads targeting Grimes were so effective not only because she had not defined herself, but also because Grimes played right into them with her tortured explanations for why she would not answer if she voted for Obama in The Courier-Journal editorial board interview and KET Senate debate. Grimes’ explanation – that she wouldn’t tell us because she was somehow protecting our right to a secret ballot – was not believed by anyone, even her most loyal supporters. The fear of avoiding a two second sound byte in a TV ad wound up backfiring, as McConnell’s ads full of media talking heads bashing her answer likely did more harm to her credibility than any ad saying she voted for Obama would have.

    Many have speculated this non-answer on Obama – and perhaps her attacks on the EPA and immigrants, as well as her reluctance to embrace Kynect and the Affordable Care Act – is what wound up depressing her urban base of Democratic supporters.

  6. rikyrah says:

    Joe Sonka @joesonka

    In 2012, Barack Obama received 679,370 votes in Kentucky. On Tuesday, Alison Lundergan Grimes received 584,622 votes. #kysen
    10:19 AM – 8 Nov 2014

  7. yahtzeebutterfly says:

    Benjamin Banneker was born on this day in 1731. From Wikipedia:

    Benjamin Banneker was born on November 9, 1731, in Baltimore County, Maryland.

    n 1753 at the age of 22, Banneker completed a wooden clock that struck on the hour. He appears to have modeled his clock from a borrowed pocket watch by carving each piece to scale. The clock continued to work until Banneker’s death.
    After his father died in 1759, Banneker lived with his mother and sisters. In 1771, the Ellicott family moved to the area and built mills along the Patapsco River. Banneker supplied their workers with food and studied the mills. The Ellicotts were Quakers and shared the same views on racial equality as did many of their faith. George Ellicott lent Benjamin Banneker books and equipment to begin a more formal study of astronomy in 1788. The following year, Banneker sent George his work calculating a solar eclipse.
    In February 1791, Major Andrew Ellicott, a member of the same family, hired Banneker to assist in the initial survey of the boundaries of the new federal district, which the 1790 federal Residence Act and later legislation authorized. Formed from land along the Potomac River that the states of Maryland and Virginia ceded to the federal government of the United States in accordance with the Residence Act, the territory that became the original District of Columbia was a square measuring 10 miles (16 km) on each side, totaling 100 square miles (260 km2).Ellicott’s team placed boundary stones at every mile point along the borders of the new capital territory.
    Banneker’s duties on the survey consisted primarily of making astronomical observations at Jones Point in Alexandria, Virginia, to ascertain the location of the starting point for the survey. He also maintained a clock that he used to relate points on the ground to the positions of stars at specific times. However, at age 59, Banneker left the boundary survey in April 1791 due to illness and difficulties completing the survey.He
    At Ellicott’s Mills, Banneker made astronomical calculations that predicted solar and lunar eclipses for inclusion in his ephemeris. He placed the ephemeris and its subsequent revisions in a number of editions in a six-year series of almanacs which were printed and sold in six cities in four states for the years 1792 through 1797.
    In his 1793 almanac, Banneker included letters sent between Thomas Jefferson and himself….. On August 19, 1791, after departing the federal capital area, Banneker wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson, who in 1776 had drafted the United States Declaration of Independence and in 1791 was serving as the United States Secretary of State. Quoting language in the Declaration, the letter expressed a plea for justice for African Americans. To further support this plea, Banneker included within the letter a handwritten manuscript of an almanac for 1792 containing his ephemeris with his astronomical calculations.

  8. Nice song to wake up to. Good morning.

  9. rikyrah says:

    Good Morning Everyone

Leave a Reply