Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Sure never saw THAT one coming. I’ll give you a moment to recover from the shock.

Okay. So, yeah – check out what brought this about for the Mormon Church:

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality.

But the action is one of the strongest signs yet that even conservative religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage might be willing to support legal protections for gays that fall short of that.

Well, that is good news. Personally, I felt like the Mormon Church was being used as a bit of a scapegoat in CA. Sure, they supported Prop 8, but apparently, so did the majority of Californians. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but the evidence is indisputable. The majority voted for Proposition 8. Are you telling me that that many Californians could be swayed to violate their internal beliefs by the Mormons? Really? Exactly.

More about the Church:

At the same time, the church’s position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.

“This is a very good public relations response that has the additional benefit of actually representing the way the current church leadership thinks,” said Armand Mauss, a retired professor at Washington State University and scholar of Mormonism.

Some of the church’s conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.

Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

“It’s disappointing and I’m fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way,” Sprigg said.

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn’t carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting “basic civil values,” Otterson said, does not compromise the church’s religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

“There are going to be gay advocates who don’t think we’ve gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we’ve gone too far,” Otterson said. “The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that’s going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness.”

The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

I have to admit – given the attacks on the Mormon Church, I am a tad surprised to see this is their position. Honestly, that’s more progressive than many people would believe. More than I would have believed had I not read it for myself. The way in which the Mormons have been demonized by LGBT rights activists and supporters, one would have thought the Mormons were the Devil Incarnate. Evidently not:

Church officials say the city ordinances were not discussed in the recent meetings between church staff and gay rights leaders, and that it was the mayor who put the proposals on the table.

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church’s stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

“The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it,” Knox said. “It’s not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts.”

The church’s action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays.

Activists are trying to garner support from evangelicals for a federal employment anti-discrimination law that would cover gays. However, religious reaction was largely negative to a federal hate crimes act protecting homosexuals that President Barack Obama recently signed into law. Several conservative Christian groups argued that preaching against homosexuality could be deemed a hate crime under the legislation.

The Mormon church has not taken a stance on either piece of federal legislation.

Otterson, the church spokesman, said that in the case of the Salt Lake City ordinances, Mormon leaders weighed in because they were responding to a request for feedback on specific legislation.

Asked whether the church would take a stand on similar state or federal legislation, Otterson said: “The church leadership is not inclined to offer free advice where it’s not being requested.”

Well, that’s an interesting response. But the rest of it is a bit eye-opening for a church that has been completely demonized by liberals. Perhaps, at some point, they might actually have to start looking at just who it was who voted for Prop 8. I guarantee you, they weren’t all Mormons…

And speaking of religious types, it seems Donnie McClurkin, Obama’s big campaign buddy, has been out and about spewing hate against the GLBT community. Oh, yes. No doubt, Jesus told him to call us “vampires,” and “perversions.” Yep:

The last time we heard from Donnie McClurkin, he was campaigning with Barack Obama. At the Obama campaign event, you may recall, McClurkin harangued gays for over thirty minutes and proclaimed:

“God delivered me from homosexuality.”

Well, McClurkin is back. This weekend, he re-emerged spewing homophobic hate in Memphis. Rod 2.0 reports:

Donnie McClurkin ramps up the ridiculous to speak in tongues and call gays “vampires”. The infamously “ex-gay” — or should we say merely “re-closeted” — Grammy Award winning gospel singer and evangelist rants against gays, gay youth and recently out gospel singer Tonex at the Church of God in Christ’s Holy Convocation Youth Service. This happened last Saturday at the COGIC convention in Memphis.

Oh, it doesn’t stop there: I

n the first of three disgusting YouTube videos, McClurkin begins his rant against Tonex, the gospel star and minister who recently confirmed his long-rumored sexuality. McClurkin says Tonex is a “perversion” and must pray away the gay: “God did not call young people to such peversion. Society has failed him, his church has failed him … I would be homosexual to this day if Jesus hadn’t delivered.”

McClurkin also rails against against openly gay youth as “broken and feminine”: “I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go … No, don’t applaud ‘cuz it ain’t funny. It’s because we failed. I see them everywhere.”

Rod has posted the three videos of McClurkin’s rant. Check them out. It’s ugly.

Again, it begs the question: why did people in the GLBT community ever think Obama stood with them considering the people with whom he surrounded himself?

I might add, if you really want to see where the community is these days, check out some of comments at posts that have anything to do with the DNC at Gay Americablog – I know Aravosis was an Obama water carrier. He sems to have realized the error of his ways. TOo late, I know, but nothing like being scorned, right? The anger in the comments is palpable by people in the GLBT community at Obama and the DNC. Hence the latest, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” campaign being generated against the DNC. Oh, yeah. They are shutting down their wallets. About damn time, too, if you ask me.

That is to say, Upside Down World continues – the Mormon Church is supporting a number of GLBT rights, Obama’s good buddy is ranting against GLBT people, and the is dragging its feet. Maybe it’s because of its new leadership – Gov. Tim Kaine, homophobe. Okey dokey.

I think I need to sit down now.

I read a post on the Whitehouse blog called “Facts Are Stubborn Things” that said:

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to “uncover” the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

And that:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there… These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

I understand your concern about misinformation distorting the healthcare debate. Healthcare is too important to let special interests use fears and smears to sway citizenry. And I agree that only through truth and transparency can we reach decisions that are in the best interest of the American people.

Remember back in June, when you proclaimed a “major step forward” in the comprehensive reform of health care by announcing that the pharmaceutical industry had agreed to cut the cost of prescription drugs for seniors through Medicare?

From CBS News:

In the deal, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) has agreed to reduce its draw of revenues by $80 billion over 10 years by discounting the cost of medicines in Medicare’s Part D prescription drug program for some seniors by as much as 50 percent. The discount would go to seniors who fall into the “doughnut hole” — a gap in Medicare Part D coverage. Currently, once seniors have received $2,700 worth of drugs, they are left to pay the full cost of their medication until that cost reaches $6,100.

“This gap in coverage has been placing a crushing burden on many older Americans,” Mr. Obama said. The agreement, he said, will make health care “more affordable for millions of seniors and restore a measure of fairness to Medicare Part D.”

The agreement with PhRMA was negotiated with the White House and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading health care reform as chair of the Senate Finance Committee. Baucus stood by the president on Monday as he praised the agreement, as did Sen. Chris Dodd, who is leading health care deliberations in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and Barry Rand, head of the senior citizens’ advocacy group, AARP.

The president pointed out that the pharmaceutical industry stands to benefit from the millions of more customers it could receive as a result of reform. Therefore, he said, “it’s only fair” that pharmaceutical companies do their part to reduce costs.

Since drugs represent about 10 percent of the U.S. healthcare budget and you yourself have warned many times that the U.S. health care system was a huge drain on the Treasury and threatens economic growth, I was a bit disappointed to learn that this PhRMA deal did not provide for the federal government to use its weight to negotiate down drug prices or facilitate the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada.

Don’t get me wrong, it gladdened my heart to learn Medicare “doughnut hole” seniors would be helped by your efforts. But I, and many other Americans, had really hoped to hear you come out with a deal that would help all Americans. After all, it is not just the seniors being hurt by the extraordinarily high drug prices in the U.S. And both importation and negotiation were a part of your healthcare campaign promise (h/t janicen):

Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S.

Obama will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion [a year], to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality.

Which made it even more disappointing to learn that:

Analysts said while the deal would crimp profits for the companies, the $80 billion in discounts they were offering was less than initially feared. The government had opened negotiations asking for $130 billion.

So okay, as a first step in the overall march to healthcare reform in general and on prescription drugs in particular this big PhRMA deal included a few too many stubbed toes and skinned knees to be a boot-stomping, butt-kicking success. But since the real process of overhauling and reforming healthcare was yet to come, I still had hope.

Then, just the other day, I read in the New York Times that White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost

Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.

…the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.…

A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.…

Mr. Tauzin said the White House had tracked the negotiations throughout, assenting to decisions to move away from ideas like the government negotiation of prices or the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada. The $80 billion in savings would be over a 10-year period. “80 billion is the max, no more or less,” he said. “Adding other stuff changes the deal.”

After reaching an agreement with Mr. Baucus, Mr. Tauzin said, he met twice at the White House with Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff; Mr. Messina, his deputy; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the aide overseeing the health care overhaul, to confirm the administration’s support for the terms.

“They blessed the deal,” Mr. Tauzin said.

Immediately upon reading this, I thought, it can’t be true. The President wouldn’t make a deal for just the seniors and only for a miserly $80 billion over 10 years, and leave the rest of us Americans to pick up the bill of wildly escalating drug costs. So I madly searched the Internet to prove this was false, but every source was saying the same thing. You approved the deal.

Then it dawned on me. This big PhRMA drug deal is fishy. Really fishy. The fishy confirmation email from deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina. That fishy PhRMA guy, Mr. Tauzin switches sides from drug industry overseer to lobbyist (h/t bayareavoter). The fishy contributions of nearly $1 million from healthcare and PhRMA (h/t elise) to Senator Baucus’ campaign committee. And fishy is exactly what the Whitehouse blog warned about.

So I’m following your instructions Mr. President. I’m reporting this fishy drug deal to flag@whitehouse.gov. I know you’ll get to the bottom of this and clear up all the rumors and misinformation so the American people can understand simply and clearly what truly is in (and not in) your drug deal with PhRMA.

Thank you Mr. President.

Sincerely,

A Fellow Concerned Citizen for Truth and Transparency

The price of U.S. recession is paid in jobs

In the current recession, economists say high unemployment is likely to persist at least another four years. In Michigan, home to the battered U.S. auto industry, nearly 13 percent of jobs may be wiped out, according to research firm IHS Global Insight, and the state’s labor market probably won’t return to its pre-recession strength until after 2015.

Retraining is the usual prescription, but pay and benefits in new careers are often far worse.

The housing crisis has worsened the situation for job seekers because areas with high unemployment also have high foreclosure rates, making it hard to sell up and move on.

The pain of joblessness extends well beyond the workers themselves, hitting their families and entire communities as home foreclosures mount, neighborhoods decay and crime rises.

For Main Street America, jobs are the gods on which we sacrifice our lives. Jobs are not just what we do. Jobs are how we live. Literally. Jobs are the sole source of income for most of Main Street. That means there is little or no rainy day fund to tide one over. No lifetime investments to fall back on. No family wealth to ease the pain. Just a steady paycheck that is earned day-in and day-out.

So when Main Street America becomes cut off from that life giving paycheck, it quickly finds itself making tough choices over the most basic of necessities.

Consumer bankruptcies soar 34% in July from a year ago

A classic measure of Americans’ financial distress: U.S. consumer bankruptcy filings totaled 126,434 in July, the highest for any month since Congress rewrote bankruptcy laws in October 2005.

The July figure, reported today by the American Bankruptcy Institute, was up 34% from July 2008 and an 8.7% increase from the 116,365 filings in June.

So far this year 802,000 consumer bankruptcies have been recorded, up 36% from the 589,000 in the first seven months of last year, institute data shows.

So what does this mean for the rest of America? Quite simply, there can be no Main Street Consumers without Main Street Jobs. And without Main Street Consumers there can be no real recovery for our economy. A recovery by definition means going back to what was normal. And in a consumption-based economy, where consumption comes primarily from Main Street (not Wall Street who got bailed out to the tune of $13.9 – 23.7 trillion in tax payer funds), normal ain’t going to happen without jobs.

As Robert Reich sees it, When will the recovery begin? Never

In a recession this deep, recovery doesn’t depend on investors. It depends on consumers who, after all, are 70 percent of the U.S. economy. And this time consumers got really whacked. Until consumers start spending again, you can forget any recovery, V or U shaped.

Problem is, consumers won’t start spending until they have money in their pockets and feel reasonably secure. But they don’t have the money, and it’s hard to see where it will come from. They can’t borrow. Their homes are worth a fraction of what they were before, so say goodbye to home equity loans and refinancings. One out of 10 homeowners is underwater — owing more on their homes than their homes are worth. Unemployment continues to rise, and the number of hours at work continues to drop. Those who can are saving. Those who can’t are hunkering down, as they must.

… This economy can’t get back on track because the track we were on for years — featuring flat or declining median wages, mounting consumer debt, and widening insecurity, not to mention increasing carbon in the atmosphere — simply cannot be sustained.

… All we know is the current economy can’t “recover” because it can’t go back to where it was before the crash. So instead of asking when the recovery will start, we should be asking when and how the new economy will begin…

And yet, strangely, shockingly, the vital role that jobs play in building the very foundation of our economy, seems to elude too many in the media and in government. Oh, the MSM reports that Job woes sap U.S. consumer confidence in July and that Analysis finds that companies that were not too big to fail are going under. But in the very next breath they tout the latest up tic on wall street as confirmation of our economy is doing well.

But as Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz. points out, talk of a robust recovery is “premature”.

“While there’s been some recovery there are lots of reasons to be worried, lots of reasons to believe that unemployment will continue to grow and, so long as that is the case, it is hard to believe that we will have a robust recovery.” …

“Even if the housing market levels off, we have problems in commercial real estate. Millions of Americans are likely to see foreclosures particularly if the unemployment rate remains high,” he added.

“Consumer spending is likely to remain weak and as long as consumer spending remains weak, investment is going to remain weak.”

And what about this administration? How concerned are they about jobs? Well, this weekend Obama’s team of economic cheerleaders – Geithner, Summers and Greenspan – made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows, touting signs that the recession was easing. But they seemed more concerned about the looming deficit and easing the way for tax increases than the lessening the ranks of the unemployed. (Though one has to wonder how they expect the unemployed to pay taxes – increased or not.)

Even when Geithner Says Unemployment May Peak in Second Half of 2010, he apparently sees no crisis or urgency to help the millions of Americans facing long term unemployed. No Main Street bailout in his talking points.

Another extension in unemployment benefits “is something that the administration and Congress are going to look very carefully at as we get closer to the end of this year,” Geithner said in an interview yesterday on ABC’s “This Week” program.

Definitely, not the confidence building words that Main Street wants to hear considering that on top of everything else Jobless Checks for Millions Delayed as States Struggle

“The unemployment insurance system before the recession was as vulnerable as New Orleans was before Katrina,” said Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, who is chairman of a House panel with authority over the program.

Can the simple basic necessity of jobs for Main Street America really be beyond the comprehension of this administration and this Congress.? Do they really not know or understand what jobs mean for our economy? Or is it that they just do not care?

How can they not see that we are failing as a country when Wall Street rebounds with bonuses in the billions, while Main Street continues to hemorrhage jobs, houses, health insurance and retirement plans in the millions?

Main Street America is the heart and soul of this country. But as more and more Americans stare down the jobless abyss, they are losing their belief in the basic fairness of a capitalist society. They are losing the last remnants of their faith and trust in their own government. And they are losing their pride and honor at being the backbone of the American economy.

And as a country, how exactly do we come back from those kind of loses?

Nor am I, after the events of this last year, one to tout party loyalty.

But I can’t help thinking that it is a huge plus for all Pennsylvanians to have more than one Democratic party choice. Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA), who is conducting an exploratory tour of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, has now officially announced he is running for Pennsylvania’s Senate seat. His opponent for the Democratic primary will be the current five term Senator from Pennsylvania, the former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat, Arlen Specter.

___________
From The Ed Show July 9:

__________

So what do you think?

Are these good Democrats?

And more importantly, are these good choices for Pennsylvania – and for our Nation?

Ah, yes, right off the bat, it sets the stage, doesn’t it? Uh, yeah:

“If Sarah Palin is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, so am I!”

These words spoken by my friend Janet were true. But Janet hasn’t put herself in Palin’s position by running for office. She’s made films and renovated houses, cushioned by inherited money. And since she doesn’t have any kids, it’s hard to say what would have gotten in the way if she’d wanted to be in politics. She didn’t, though, any more than 99% of my women friends and acquaintances; she believes in cultivating one’s own garden.

Most women I’ve talked with about Palin–all certified members of either the media elite or the just plain elite–take her nomination personally. Their animus isn’t explained just by her politics; none of them hate Condoleezza Rice, though they disagree with most everything she’s done. Nor, for that matter, do they even dislike John McCain. Typically they “respect” McCain but find him too old or too erratic or simply adore Obama.

It’s as though Palin were an average girl from their boarding school class–or, frankly, from the public school down the road–who unexpectedly won a big prize. “Why not me?” is the subtext, and it’s one I’ve never heard from men talking about male politicians. Many New Yorkers hate George Bush, for instance, and say similar things about his and Palin’s lack of intellectual capability and curiosity about the wider world. But they don’t view him as a personal rival.

My friends who hate Palin are all more articulate and better educated than she is, better traveled, probably smarter, definitely more fun to talk with. But the reasons they can’t stand Palin are all wrong.

I think it is safe to say that by “elite,” the author means: sanctimonious, classist, arrogant, snobs. And I would have to say, after reading the above about the author’s friends, I guarantee you, I would rather hang out with Sarah Palin ANY DAY of the week, despite our differences on policies. At least SHE is open minded, willing to engage in dialogue, and can appreciate the differences between people without feeling compelled to put them down at every opportunity. So, yeah – despite my own educational background, or how much I have traveled, blah, blah, blah, I’d rather have a cup of coffee with Gov. Palin any day of the week, thank you very much.

Oh, but wait, you know there’s more:

It’s not so much that Palin isn’t one of our own–an Ivy League type, or an Eastern preppie, or a self-made intellectual like Rice. It’s not for the fake feminist reasons that “she’s against freedom of choice” or “she didn’t tell her daughter about birth control.” (Though there is an element of hatred for her fertility, and the fact that it hasn’t impeded her rise.) It’s not because Palin only got a passport a few years ago and doesn’t speak any foreign languages.

No, it’s because Palin makes us look like the slackers we mainly are. We’ve had our bit of success, but we’ve also spent a lot of time smelling the roses. We’ve gone back to school to get another degree, volunteered in poor countries, devoted ourselves to a sport or a hobby. We’ve not had kids, or if we have, we’ve had one or two, and we’ve had nannies paid for by our work or our husbands or our inherited money.

We not only have had passports for decades, we’ve put serious mileage on them. We’ve lived overseas or spent months wandering around Africa or India, we understand foreign people and places in ways Palin never will–and yet it’s she who could become vice president, not one of us.

Wow, even in this explanation, that these women are “slackers,” she STILL manages to put down Palin at every opportunity. It doesn’t seem like HUMILITY was one of the lessons learned “wandering around Africa and India,” or for those who “volunteered in poor countries.” I might add, nor did they seem to get a clue about their over-inflated sense of self, or how they got to where they are on the backs of other people, so yeah, let’s just go with they are “slackers. ” Just sayin’.

Ms. Marlowe continues, again in her “elite” way, to describe why certain people pursue these avenues, like Gov. Palin has:

It’s not hard to see why. The boyfriend of one of my freshman roommates at Harvard is now governor of Massachusetts–a man no less and no more qualified than many of my classmates. Why him and not us? As with Palin, it comes down to wanting it badly enough and being singleminded. It means spending a lot of time in deadly dull meetings talking about school bond issues or where to put a new off-ramp.

It means spending a lot of time in small towns where no one you know has a country place or ever will. And except at the higher reaches, politics doesn’t offer much in the way of glamour or fame. I just got my absentee ballot here in New York City, and I didn’t recognize the names of the people running for Congress. (Jerrold Nadler or Grace Lin, anyone? Nadler has been the congressman from New York’s 8th District since 1992, and Grace Lin is a 24-year-old graduate of the University of Chicago whose previous experience is as a committeewoman for a Chicago ward. While her chances of victory are nil in this district, her Web site is frighteningly sketchy on the issues.)

People who become writers and intellectuals and artists tend not to want power that badly or pursue it that obsessively, which is what makes us interesting and fun–and makes few of us household names. Success at the Palin level in politics or business takes a level of blinkered self-confidence that comes mainly to (a very few) men. A lot of the people with this quality are annoying to be around. Maybe they aren’t very happy with themselves. But it’s not a surprise that a vice presidential nominee should be one of them.

The lesson of Sarah Palin for privileged women is to try harder. And that may be the toughest one to hear. (Ann Marlowe is the author of How to Stop Time: Heroin from A to Z and The Book of Trouble: A Romance.)

Holy cow, what an incredible back-handed “compliment,” if it can even be CALLED that. Ms. Marlowe claims writers, intellectuals, and artists don’t want power? For real? They don’t want to be household names?? That’s bullshit. I’m sorry, but that just is. What writer, intellectual, or artist does NOT want for people to know about their work, to know their names?? If they didn’t care about any of that, they would all write/pain/”think” under pseudonyms or something (okay – that’s a bit of hyperbole, but you get the point, right?). Again, she cannot stand to say anything that is just positive about Governor Palin, and let it stand at that. The essence of what she is saying is that Governor Palin worked hard to get to where she is. She IS college-educated, as was her dad, a teacher, and her mother worked as a school secretary (and go check out who some of her New England ancestors were, since Ms. Marlowe seems to be all about the East Coast). She has stood up to her own party, called them out on ethical reasons, and while she may not have spent her summers in Monaco or Martha’s Vineyard, she has done quite a bit on her own, like running for governor – and WINNING.

And Sarah Palin is a feminist, who cares more about building women up than tearing them down (talking to you, MS. Marlowe), as the following video highlights so well:

THIS is what a feminist looks like, not what the East Coast Liberal “elite” determines are feminists. No, Feminism is meant to include ALL women, whether we all agree with each other or not. One thing about which Ms. Marlowe is correct is that Governor Palin worked HARD to get to where she is, and many other women have worked as hard to get to where they are, or to keep their heads above water. Not everyone wants to be a public figure. Some just want to be able to fed, clothe, and educate their children, and cannot afford a nanny, a maid, or a chauffeur – many of them ARE the nannies, maids, and chauffeurs. I might add, since Marlowe mentioned this too, freedom of choice means just that – the right to CHOOSE. And that means a woman can choose what she wants to do with her own body. Palin CHOSE to have her Downs Syndrome child; other women might not have. But that is each and every women’s INDIVIDUAL choice. Sheesh, already!!

That is to say, when Ms. Marlowe puts down women like Palin, she is putting down a whole bunch of other women who have worked hard to be self-made women. Since Marlowe brought up “fake feminism,” I would suggest she has engaged in a bit of that herself. Feminists need not all be “elites” – the whole point of feminism is for ALL women to be self-actualized, however that looks for THEM, as I have said befoer.

Oh, and one last thing – she and her friends may be “slackers,” but I think many women will look at the videos of Governor Palin talking with with Greta van Susteren while making food for her kids’ lunch as “same-o, same-o.” In other words, the dripping disdain with which Marlowe and her friends, the self-proclaimed “elite,” seem to hold Sarah Palin is probably why many other women like her – because she reminds them of themselves. They sure aren’t slackers, either. Perhaps if Ms. Marlowe and her well-heeled, Ivy-League educated friends opened their eyes, they would see a whole bunch of women, are working their hearts out every day – probably some of their very own employees.

Wow – it seems feminism sure has a ways to go before ALL women are actually included, doesn’t it? I have to say, though, Gov. Palin sure sounded a lot like Hillary Clinton in her desire for women around the world to live lives free of abuse, and full of choices.

Here’s a little thought for Ms. Marlowe and her “slacker” ilk – maybe you should get off your collective high horse, spend more time actually LISTENING to what Sarah Palin says rather than assuming she’s some hillbilly hick because she grew up in Alaska, who somehow fell into the Governor’s Mansion, or all of the unsubstantiated rumors/diatribes about her. You might just learn something about her, and about yourselves, too. Like maybe just because people are Ivy-Leauge educated writers, intellectuals, and artists, they are not above putting people down based on zero or erroneous information to make themselves feel better about what they have/have not done with their lives. And maybe, just maybe, you can start to see women like Sarah Palin, and all women, as potential allies as opposed to potential foes. Just a thought.

Yes, it’s all her fault.

Not only is the media actively working overtime to shrug off, ignore or try to explain away his verbal attacks on a young girl, but then they turn all their outraged disapproval on the girl’s Mother. Because some how, some way she’s responsible.

Watch the videos below and see pm317’s excellent article and video here. Does any one in the media take him to the woodshed? Does anyone directly hold him to account for verbally denigrating a young girl not once, but twice on a pre recorded national television show. And he did it not just one night, but two nights in a row. And then on a third night he continues the attacks by joking them off “as in questionable taste.” And all the media can muster against him is a half hearted finger wag – if that.

But oh, the Mother. Yes, that woman. She’s the cause. She gets their blood boiling. They’ve got plenty to say about her.

But I can’t help wondering why? What really and truly is this Mother’s great sin? Joe Scarborough tried to ask that on his show this morning, but some how all those guns just had to swing back around and point at the Mother. So I’m left with the only person I’ve come across who is willing to address this question – Kathleen Parker, Washington Post Writers Group Columnist, in her June 10 article Will Sarah Palin’s Undisciplined Operation Cost Her?

Washington, D.C.: I would like you to address what it is about Gov. Palin that incites such vehement hatred in the left. Sarah Silverman had a “comedy” routine about Palin being raped by black gangsters; David Letterman calls her a slut and “jokes” about her 14-year-old daughter becoming pregnant by a baseball player. All of this is greeted with yuks by so-called liberals. I can just imagine the umbrage if somebody substituted “Michelle Obama” for Sarah Palin’s name or “Sasha Obama” for Willow’s. And let’s not even discuss the loathsome comments about her that you can find on this very newpaper’s web site. To me, Palin’s disorganized staff and her feuds with GOP staffers aren’t the issues; it’s the hatred she brings out in otherwise reasonably sane people. Your thoughts?

Kathleen Parker: I may not be much help here because I don’t get it either. Then again, I don’t get the hatred directed at me from the right when I criticize Palin. It’s a pretty nasty world out there.

Nah, “it goes with the territory” is an excuse. Not a reason.

Re: Letterman: Listen, Letterman is a comedian. Comedians that don’t go over the line are not funny. If you said she looks slutty, that’s over the line. If I say it, it’s over the line. Why wouldn’t Letterman say it – have you been on a plane?

What? It’s his job? So it’s a comedian’s job is to verbally attack 14 year old girls? Let’s try again.

Kathleen Parker: I don’t have a problem with raunchy humor, but time and place are everything. In a nightclub, fine. But Letterman is sort of an American institution. It just seems to me that when a woman is running for public office, we should avoid sexualizing her.

Okay, I censored myself before so I’ll say it now. I also think it’s out of line for a woman to sexualize her candidacy, which Palin did. Just ask Rich Lowry, who wrote that he had to sit up a little straighter when she winked during the vp debate. So, maybe when you play the flirt and invite males to see starbursts bouncing off the walls (Lowry again), then maybe you invite the sexual punchline. I’m wobbling here.

So there it is. The daughter is fair game, because the Mother has a wink that can make a man see starbursts. Get that, it’s all about “the wink.” Wow.

No misogyny there. Nope. None.

The feminist media can stand proud and tall.

Yes, we’ve come a long way baby!

But just for the record Letterman, in a just world, you would (and should) have been fired the first night you uttered those words against a 14 year old girl.

——-

MSNBC’s Morning Joe – 6/11/09

——

MSNBC’s Morning Joe – 6/12/09

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

So as Mr. Specter himself explains, his decision is about wanting to get reelected. I don’t doubt he has many worthwhile contributions he would still like to make. But as an independent, who has voted for Republicans as well as Democrats over the years, I have both admired Mr. Specter for many of his independent votes and stances, and decried his adherence to party loyalty.

For me, a more impressive time for Arlen Specter to make his principled stance forsaking the Republican party would have been when Bush and the Republican party were in power and traveling down so many avenues – Iraq, torture, FISA, financially starving much needed government agencies, manipulating government data – that I and many Americans found reprehensible.

Now after so many years, it seems like just another confirmation that our political parties have merged into one big corporate party with only the fringe Democrats pulling hard left and fringe Republicans pulling hard right.

Personally, I’m weary of the constant gamesmanship of politics. I’m frustrated by the unending election focus. I’m tired of feeling like the helpless passenger locked in the back seat and forced to watch two drunk drivers fighting to take control over the steering wheel. In the end, we are still trapped in the same car speeding down the same road and facing the same ditches and oncoming traffic hazard, while in the hands of an impaired driver.

Third party? Term limits? There has got to be a way for the american people to stop being crash test dummies for both political parties.

Ben Smith of Politico provides a great perspective on Specter once proposed limiting effect of party switches when Jim Jeffers defected in 2001.

____________________

And so while Mr. Specter’s party affiliation goes full circle – he originally was a democrat.

____________________

MSNBC goes around the usual political analysis circle.

____________________

But Keepon, the little yellow spongiform “peeps” looking robot, has developed a more serious side – dealing with autism.

Keepon was originally created by Marek Michalowski at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, US, and Hideki Kozima of the National Institute of Communications Technology (NICT) in Japan to be a less robotic, robot. And as the video above shows it would be hard to find a more engaging, human friendly robot. Which is why Keepon is one of many new robots being employed by researchers to study and possibly provide therapy to children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD).

From Robots to Fight Autism

Children with ASD often have trouble with the “dance” of body language and facial gestures needed to have successful conversations and social contact with others. Both reading the intentions of others and knowing their own emotions can be a struggle, and children often become stranded both emotionally and socially.

One baby in every 150 born today in the U.S. is diagnosed with ASD. Treatment involves a combination of therapies — behavioral, educational, physical, occupational, and speech — that is costly and not always effective. After finding that children with ASD interact more easily with robots than with people, researchers began developing expressive and interactive robots that can assist them in studying and creating effective therapy for the children.

Keepon’s gentle boogieing and its simple, innocuous appearance (five inches tall, rubbery, resembling two tennis balls stacked one on top of the other) make it perfect for interacting with socially withdrawn children. Armless and legless and only possessing two eyes and a nose, Keepon expresses itself mainly through its four movements: nodding, turning, rocking and bobbing.

However, Keepon does have a camera behind those eyes and a microphone hidden in its nose. Researchers Michalowski and Kozima have studied preschool children with ASD in Japan and have found that interacting with the robots draws the children into a range of new social behaviors. Videos of those encounters show the children feeding Keepon imaginary food, giving it imaginary medicine when it has a Band-Aid on its head, and protecting it against abuse by other children.

The most striking video shows one girl slowly forging a relationship with the robot. At first she refuses to even directly look at Keepon, but as the days go on, she draws closer to the robot, eventually touching it with a xylophone stick, then her hand. After weeks, she can be seen looking into Keepon’s eyes, putting a hat on it, and even giving it a kiss, an action she rarely performed even towards her own mother.

_____________________

Here is the original YouTube video of Keepon that created a bit of a sensation in 2007.

_____________________

And here is a great video of keeper Marek Michalowski explaining Keepon’s motions and capabilities.

_____________________

Keepon and Marek Michalowski on the Today show, last week.

_____________________

UPDATE: h/t andy for the link to Mark McKinnon’s Dear Mr. President, Have the Guts to Be an Optimist article at The Daily Beast.

OK, Mr. President, enough with the doomsday talk already. We get it. Things suck. And they’re going to get worse before they get better.

And we get how it important it was for you to level-set expectations out of the gate, as they were stratospherically out of whack.

We are all in economic rehab now, clear eyed and sober…

It’s time for less mope and more hope. You were elected because you are a walking, talking hope machine. Plug that sucker back in and crank it up to ten.

********** 

Personally, I’m just a little frustrated that the American people are not being enlisted as builders of our own future. It’s as if we were the fourth leg on that three legged stool everyone kept trying to construct. Only we got thrown out with the packaging materials and the instructions!

Waiting Americans
by Linda Anselmi

We can awaken our courage,
And uncover our grit.
We can strap on responsibilities,
No matter the split.

But frustrations are growing,
Despite readying all that we can.
Because we see no real future,
And nary a plan

Those stools don’t need mending,
We can no longer afford such a sit.
America is waiting, Mr. President,
To see where our citizens will fit.

______

Of course, Former President Bill Clinton presented his suggestion for President Obama on ABC Good Morning America in a much more thoughtful and measured way.

_____

So what’s your suggestion for our President?