TampaYankee

NBC's Pete Williams: 'Safe To Say' Section 5 Of Voting Rights Act Will Be Struck Down http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/pete-williams-voting-rights-act_n_2775338.html

It's looking to me like if the Voting Rights Act is to survive it will take an extraordinary position by Roberts to make it so. The other conservatives are a sure vote to kill. Swing vote Anthony Kennedy's questions indicated leaning against the act. That would comport with his 'populist' leanings which can be described about getting government out of the way. Think Rand Paul and the Public Accommodations Act. News is breaking today that as a lawyer for the Reagan Admin, Roberts worked to undo the Voting Right Act. That was 30 years ago. That does not portend well for saving the Act. However, his Obama Care vote gives me hope that Mr Roberts has grown in perspective from that of an advocate to that of 'Wise Man' with broader perspective that weighs justice, fairness, history, Congressional Acts and the Constitution in seeking to ensure equal treatment of all people by government institutions. Time will tell. My hope may be a long shot but it looks like a long shot is exactly what is needed. I don't see where any other long shot exists.

Obama Circumvents Gridlocked Congress To Advance LGBT Rights Amanda Terkel -- The Huffington Post Read it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/obama-lgbt-congress-hud_n_2766940.html

If he's on next year then I'm tunin' in. Call me young at heart.

Wow! The passing of a giant talent. One of the rare ones...

I think you can read this as Meg is done running for office, as a Republican anyway.

What is the source of that commentary? I am not a critic, I don't even play one on TV. I don't think a much of most critics. It is easy to throw stones. It is much harder trying to create entertainment or something else for that matter than it is to piss on it. I also don't give much weight to those who perennially piss and moan about the failed efforts of shows like this. By their very nature these shows are difficult to put on. They are an awards ceremony where people are recognized by the industry and who in turn recognize those who helped them achieve their success. The Oscars is full of stars that people like to ogle. So they televise it. Then people complain that it is not very entertaining, more like an awards ceremony. LOL So they try to fold some entertainment in to the show for audience appeal which appeals to the show sponsors. Most people are not in character so we get their real persona which may not be as sparking as the characters they play on the screen. The timing is off which is not surprising as real people are interacting in a mostly unscripted environment. Off stage is probably chaos fifteen minutes after the show start. Like battle plans in a skirmish, show plans don't last long once the show dynamics stray from the course. So to coordinate so many individuals and set-ups with show tunes and vocalists with orchestras, get the presenters to their marks where the hopefully encounter a working teleprompter etc., jokes and commentary are used to provide segways between acts/performances/presentations or just to fill space while unplanned disasters occurring off stage are overcome. No doubt some is ad-libed as the backstage catastrophies unfold. So not all the jokes and commentary work all of the time. Big deal. It is live unscripted TV. As for me. I liked McFarlane. I enjoyed the show. I'd like to see him back again but he said once was enough because of all the time it takes away from the rest of his life/work. I didn't know anything about him before this other than a week or so before the Oscars I heard he was a creator of one of the adult animation shows -- maybe Family Guy? He can sing, he can dance, he can tell jokes, has an edge, he's easy on the eyes. What's not to like? Yeah, not all the jokes worked. Yeah, some of them were a bit off color. He's trying his stuff out. It was hist FIRST time. HE's a multi-dimensional entertainer. They make the best emcees. I thought it was one of the better shows they have had.

For the life of me I cannot fathom what motivates a gay Republican. I can understand sharing economic principles but accepting a party that denies ones legitimate right to exist on an equal basis with other Americans with respect to civil law and economic fairness. Having to subjugate one's self to live in the closet so one can share the benefits of belonging makes for a miserable life and damaged self-respect, not to mention the fear of being outted. And if you are out, well... get used to the cold shoulder and denial of participation in the activities of the group you choose to belong. Yeah, I do not understand gay Republicans.

I'm prepared to weather the crazy bloggers out there. Both sides have them. What I wasn't prepared for was that the MSM would follow them, or their talking head politicians, down the Mad Hatter Hole without a clue how clueless they are. We are talking big name journalist types: Friedman, Brooks and Woodward to scratch the top of the iceberg. On the positive side, there are some in the press starting to push back against this selective ignorance at best and bias at worst. There is something even more frightening than the fact that so many are willing to believe this garbage. That is the millions of people who do not believe that these wackos and mainstream GOP party men really mean what they say. I have a friend who did not believe that the Romney would really enact all those policies he and the GOP promised. He remained convinced that it didn't matter who was elected, things would pretty much go on the same with whoever it was. That went for the Congressional level too. This is scary when people feel that campaign words have no consequence. I can see how that might have not been too far off the mark 30 or 50 years ago, but the differences are too stark now. I was very disturbed the last few years about the politics and campaigns and how that was being taken by the electorate. I couldn't tell from reading the news, looking at polls, watching discussions. I coudn't understand how the majority could believe all of the fiction, lies and half-truths that were spread by politicians and cable news. Who really believes a Steve King or Bachmann, or Louie Gohmert? Yet there they are and the keep getting sent back. Does that mean some majority actually believes them? OMG! If that can happen what is the nation believing. I couldn't tell but I couldn't believe an actual majority would believe that crap. In the end, the swing electorate didn't take leave of their senses and sent Romney packing. For the rest of the people sometimes the voters have to learn lessons the hard way. Examples are found in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania which saw Republican landslides in 2010. They have been living with the consequences since.

They just keep on giving. This has gotten well past embarrassing. Here is Woodward's misstep... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/sequester-david-brooks-bob-woodward_n_2759600.html?utm_hp_ref=politics IMO, this biased reporting has been going on for 18 months. It is based on the Press' buy-in to the fact that Deficits are the nation's biggest problem and pending doom. While this is a real and significant issue for the medium to long term, it is not the biggest issue in the near term -- jobs and economic recovery is. The Press has bought in to the GOP austerity meme almost exclusively while giving much less 'air-time' to the importance of getting the economy moving through government action on infrastructure renewal and education refurbishment, and restaffing teachers police and fire at the local level. Everybody needs to understand one thing. The main goal of the GOP is to cut government as much as possible and that include whatever it can save defense and corporate welfare programs. That means Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Food Stamps, Education programs including loans... the list goes on. Will they admit to this? Some will, most will couch it in better alternatives like Ryan's Medicare Voucher which achieves the same goal over time without the GOP being found standing over the bloody body with knife in hand. The plan is simple: distract them with money in hand, even though it is drastically insufficient to meet the cost of present Medicare service, throw them in an insurance pool which tries to avoid the infirm and charges premium prices, let the gov't contribution shrink with inflation over the years so that it's remaining cost to the government shrinks to inconsequential. That allows tax rates to drop even lower on the upper once percent. That is the game plan in a nut shell. Sure, we have a deficit that is in critical need of fixing but it is not today's burning problem. Jobs and the economy are. Forsaking austerity now and seeking real budgetary reform in the long term is the sane game for those without an ideological agenda. In typical fashion the Press follows the heat and controversy over the light and sound policy discussion. Very few overlook the shiny object in favor of the gem-in-the-rough that provides the real value to the discussion. If you wish to read a sane and very knowlegable head with his feet on the ground read and watch Ezra Klein of the WAPO every where you can. He is a straight shooter with real facts at his disposal.

As long as don't expect that your organic vegetables be organic more than 37% of the time.

Unregulated capitalism at work. Have you kept up with the horse meat scandal in the UK?

Looking forward to the next off-year election when McConnel is up... Maybe the best way to get rid of him is not to contribute to his Dem opponent but to his Tea Party primary opponent. A ground swell of TP's seem on the rise. Just a thought.

I guess she had a 'Come to Leviticus' moment?

This article and the David Brooks article are just two of many examples of the Press Idiotocracy that fails to accurately inform the public, chasing propaganda in lieu of facts. It's as though everyone has seen how successful Fox News has been at dispensing fiction, lies, and half-truths playing to emotions and controversy in the name of 'balanced' reporting. The American press is a joke, large parts of it on any day, anyway. Here is another article that shows Thomas Friedman unable to ferret out Obama's Deficit Plan without help and CNN's Jim Acosta embarrassing display of his ignorance of Obama's plan and of CNN's Wolf Blitizer's prior extensive reporting on it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/obama-sequestration-plan_n_2741590.html?utm_hp_ref=politics Ok, maybe they are not all idiots all of the time but they are sure embarrassing themselves more than a little. This must be pack journalism at its worst. Am I making the argument that the American Press sucks? Well.... you say no one bats a thousand. Well, they don't in baseball. How's that argument work for your surgeon though? You comfortable with him batting 500? This all comes down to credibility. You don't have it if you get it wrong more often than once in a blue moon and then only because it was a difficult story to investigate. True enough, Obama hid his plan under a rock called the Internet at an obscure website called Whitehouse.gov. This is where all this equivocating bull shit that tries to paint both sides equally at fault get you -- to biased reporting. You may not agree with Obama's plan but to opine and report that he has no plan is just sloppy journalism or worse, bias for whatever reason. Putting thorns on a skunk don't make it a rose.

Politico Is Pretty Sure That GOP Intransigence On Sequester Fight Is Obama's Fault, For Some Reason Jason Linkins HuffingtonPost.com Read at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/obama-sequester-debate_n_2742739.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

I thought this was an interesting read on a couple of levels and wanted to share. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/david-brooks-obama-plan-birther.html To my mind it sums up where equivocating one's argument takes you. The facts become obscured in favor of some ideological viewpoint.

Another example of life imitates art... well you know what I mean.

Let me bring this conversation down to the level of this site...

I agree that you did all you could do in that situation. Obviously he was conflicted about something and that conflict extended to talking with you about it. You will never know what went on in his head but I suspect he just wasn't ready, in his own mind, to do what he thought he wanted to do or what he thought might happen. You should move on with a clean conscience. I remember when I faced that Rubicon for me. It took some time for me come to grips with it and I would not proceed with doubt or in a half-hearted manner. I didn't want to freeze in the headlights so to speak. Ultimately, I decided that must explore the other bank of that river and I never looked back.

Nothing lasts forever. Long before that happens our Milky Way Galaxy will crash into our neighbor the Andromeda Galaxy with our little bastion uncertain as to the outcome. And before that our Sun will go Nova after expanding as a Red Giant whose surfaced will engulf the orbit of the Earth. Oh, and before that there will be the occasional asteroid or comet impact, and before that climate change will dry up the planet causing a mass extinction. All of this overlooks the unanticipated Super Nova that fries the Earth with cosmic rays or the random encounter with a meandering mini-black-hole that bumps into us in the night, sucking us into its even horizon. The bottom line is: the only thing certain is yesterday... and yesterday's gone. Happy dreams.

Sounds like they had their Huey Long too.

Nice to hear that your are having a great trip. Thanks for sharing with all of us shut-ins.

WIth regard to the original question, I prefer to believe that we opened ourselves up to a wider audience. The other sounds like we changed our hairdo or mouth wash or deodorant. Whichever the case, I'm glad to see that we are flourishing by attracting some new blood and keeping the old crowd which has always been a classy group of contributors.

Sure, we all bring our policy biases to the table but facts are facts and my biases do not permit me to delude myself to believing fairy tales in the face of those facts. Worn out maxim applies: we all are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. My point was that the whole news media pretty much sucks today serving themselves (their bottom line) before the public. Much of the reporting is shallow if not superficial. The news writers, some anyway, hover just above idiot level unable to delve any deeper than headline level. It is hard to tell about many news readers since they are only as good as their material. Now so called truth-teller organizations utterly fail at telling the truth if they spend half their time equivocating it. They should call the balls and strikes factually accurately rather than spending the effort to soften their impact on the target in the sense of 'fair and balanced.' Both sides overreach. The Dems were often embarrassing in the Bush administration with outlandish remarks and charges carelessly tossed around. The pathetic point to that is that the Bush admin was a target rich environment for making responsible factual charges with no need to resort to lunatic rhetoric. It is invariably the case, at least in the last two decades, that the out-of-power party and their more ardent supporters take leave of their rational senses in day-to-day politics. IMO, we both hold a skeptical view of the press but I lean further to the extreme and that goes for so-called truth tellers. I guess my problem is that I am old enough to remember when the news came pressed with starch and had sharp edges.