The Minimalist

Mark Bittman ended his New York Times column, The Minimalist this week. The Dining and Wine section will never be the same. But, he will still be around.

In part, what I see as the continuing attack on good, sound eating and traditional farming in the United States is a political issue. I’ll be writing regularly about this in the opinion pages of The Times, and in a blog that begins next week. That’s one place to look for me from now on. The other is in The Times Magazine, where I’ll be writing a recipe column most Sundays beginning in March.

Enjoy his 25 favorites, here. Very yummy.

Time For Democratization?

A quite candid article in Time today, insinuating the Israeli government has a vested interest in the maintenance of dictatorial rule under President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

With a deep investment in the status quo, Israel is watching what a senior official calls "an earthquake in the Middle East" with growing concern. The official says the Jewish state has faith in the security apparatus of its most formidable Arab neighbor, Egypt, to suppress the street demonstrations that threaten the dictatorial rule of President Hosni Mubarak. The harder question is what comes next.

"We believe that Egypt is going to overcome the current wave of demonstrations, but we have to look to the future," says the minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel enjoys diplomatic relations and security cooperation with both Egypt and Jordan, the only neighboring states that have signed treaties with the Jewish state. But while it may be more efficient to deal in with a strongman in Cairo — Mubarak has ruled for 30 years — and a king in Amman, democracies make better neighbors, "because democracies do not initiate wars," he says.

Having said that, I'm not sure the time is right for the Arab region to go through the democratic process."

The last quote is from a minister who spoke on condition of not being identified by name or portfolio. To the unnamed minister we should ask, “When would be the right time for the Arab region to go through the democratic process?”

As noted, while there is some truth in the idea that there is less chance a democracy would initiate war in comparison to a dictatorship, the arrogance portrayed in this article is evidence that the Israeli government is far more fearful of having to make peace, than fighting another war. Should a real democratization movement take hold in the Middle East, the international pressure on Israel to negotiate with “un-dictatorships” would be intense.

As of course would be the pressure on any fledgling Arab democracies. Because after all, as the unnamed Israeli government official says, if “democracies do not initiate wars,” then surely they seek peace.  Or at least, don't block it.

Time for both sides to envision the possibility of a very different future.  And begin to act like that future is already here.

A Family Affair

A delightful column published every Friday, in the Israeli left-wing newspaper Haaretz. Family Affair does a profile each week, giving to the word “family” its most diverse meaning.

Reading it each week paints a fascinating picture of a truly complex society. Treat yourself to some excellent reporting, every Friday morning.

Michele Bachmann, Prime Time

So, CNN will be broadcasting Michelle Bachmann’s response to the State of the Union tonight. I am not sure what to call it. An “alternative speech? A “rival” speech? Since it seems to be on behalf of the Tea Party, I guess it’s really neither.

Presently looking for the last time a speech given by a Democrat after a Republican State of the Union – other than the official response, or course – was televised by a major news outlet…  I bet I'm not alone in this endeavor.

Pre-Game Show, Post-Game Show

Pre-Show:

You can find former Clinton-era Secretary of Labor on what President Obama should say at tomorrow’s State of the Union, here.


Post-Show:

And, in addition to the official GOP response from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), you can listen to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann speak on behalf of the Tea Party at www.TeaPartyExpress.org.

David Weigel doesn’t think it’s such a big deal:

Is it a "rival" to the official GOP response from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.)? Not really. In 2008, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius gave the official Democratic response to George W. Bush's final State of the Union. But candidate for president Barack Obama gave one, too.

In 2007, then-presidential-candidate John Edwards counter-programmed Jim Webb. (Apologies if you've eaten before watching this.)

So there's precedent for what Bachmann and the Tea Party Express are doing. It's just that the precedent includes presidential candidates and people with national ambitions.

I am sure the Republican Party is looking to Ryan to best the last two Republican responses. Last year’s response by newly-elected Virginia Gov. McDonnell drew intense criticism when he tried to mimic the State of the Union by giving a speech in the chambers of the Virginia House of Delegates, to a hall full of supporters. And who could forget the 2009 response? Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is still trying to make up for that one.

In offering a rival speech, Michele Bachmann finds herself in the recent company of John Edwards and Barack Obama. Presidential aspirations, indeed. I am not sure she will end up a disgraced politician, like John Edwards. But leader of the free world? Never.

Republicans Eating Their Own

Time 2001:  Rudy Giuliani

As I have mentioned before, I am quite certain mainstream elements of the Republican party don’t want to see Sarah Palin gaining any more power than she already has. Palin at the helm means sure destruction on the path towards 2012. And not just for White House aspirations, but for retaining a big majority in the House, and a possible takeover of the Senate.  But, she sure is convenient to have around. A great foil for those seeking the nomination as they portray themselves the more reasonable choice -- whatever that might mean for each individual candidate.  Someone to use and abuse, to their own making.

Enter former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, stage left:

CNN) - Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said he's more likely to run for president if former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin runs.

In an interview on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight," Giuliani, who dropped out of the 2008 Republican presidential primary, said running against Palin for the 2012 GOP nomination would show him as a moderate Republican.

"The more Republicans in which I can show a contrast, probably the better chance, the better chance that I have," Giuliani told CNN's Piers Morgan in an interview set to air at 9 pm. ET Monday. Portions of the interview will air Friday (tonight) on CNN's "John King, USA" at 7 p.m. ET.

I have no doubt the Mayor of 9/11 wants to RUN for President. I have no doubt he wants to BE President. And watching him position himself against Sarah Palin as he offers himself up in contrast will be very interesting. He won’t be the only Republican candidate taking to this tactic. Each candidate will do it differently, positioning him or herself in some manner as the anti-Palin. Just how they choose to do it will tell us some very interesting things about them as candidates. And if for some reason Palin chooses not to run for the nomination, we will see them all scrabbling to re-make their campaigns, and re-define themselves.

Musical Chairs

The mainstream media is merrily telling us that President Obama will be pressing a centrist agenda in his State of the Union this Tuesday. The New York Times, here. The Washington Post, here. The Wall Street Journal, here.

In the end, the most interesting thing of the night might be seeing who wins at musical chairs:

WASHINGTON — Mary from Louisiana asked Olympia from Maine because they are BFFs, but had a backup in Bob from Tennessee in case she was rebuffed. Kirsten from New York went the Sadie Hawkins route and asked John from South Dakota, and thus the deal between two members of the Senate with seriously good hair was sealed.

The talk in the West Wing may center on what President Obama plans to say on Tuesday in his State of the Union address to Congress about the still-ailing economy, or United States-China relations, or his education agenda. But here on Capitol Hill, the talk for the last few days has been all about the seating for the president’s speech and just who will be next to whom.

Personally, I would like to see Barbara from Maryland and Tom from Oklahoma walking away together into the sunset. That would solve all our problems. Make it all better.

Bye, Bye Keith

And we all thought it was just going to be a re-tooling of his "Worst Person In The World" segment.  Watch Rachel Maddow on HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher.



Sounds like the probable contract buy-out comes with some restrictions:

The decision was completed one year to the day from the last time NBC decided to end a relationship with an on-air star: Conan O’Brien. Mr. O’Brien agreed in the deal not to start up a new television show for nine months, and not to grant interviews for five months. The executives involved in the discussions with Mr. Olbermann said his agreement was not dissimilar to Mr. O’Brien’s.

So, we'll probably be hearing from Keith sometime this summer, with a good chance that he will be back on the airwaves by this time next year.

The Week That Was: The Social Security Edition

In light of President Obama's upcoming State of the Union address next Tuesday, lots of talk about Social Security. Lots of warnings about Social Security. Lots of forewarning about Social Security – as in, don't even think about touching it, Mr. President. Very interesting to see the “lobbying” in action.

A good piece of reporting by Dan Fromkin at HuffingtonPost:

President Barack Obama's apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it's killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security.

That's the conclusion of three top progressive pollsters who spoke to reporters Wednesday at a briefing sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation and Demos.

For the public, cutting benefits is the problem, not the solution," said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates.

As a result, the pollsters said that any Democrat seeking elected office in 2012 should be begging Obama not to say anything about Social Security cuts in his State of the Union address later this month.

He goes on to link to the results of a poll done by Celinda Lake's Lake Research Partners. Check out the summary. While the public does not want to see a cut in benefits, Americans trust Republicans in Congress more than Democrats when it comes to Social Security by a margin of 3 percentage points.

And the New York Times picked up on the story:

Rick Santorum -- Back!!

If former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum decides to add his name to the mix for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, he might want to make his announcement on-line at Cybercast News Service, CNS.com to Terry Jeffrey. Yes, Terry Jeffrey of Human Events fame. That’s where in an interview this week he seemed to suggest it was remarkable for an African-American man to be pro-choice.



Or perhaps he could make his announcement to the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he decided to clarify his remarks by then comparing slavery to abortion.

Rick Santorum: “For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution. I am disappointed that President Obama, who rightfully fights for civil rights, refuses to recognize the civil rights of the unborn in this country."

Well, at least we know where he stands.

Mixed Seating Arrangements

A nice catch by Matt Finkelstein over at Media Matters:

I’m not much for the “mixed seating” arrangements some are calling for at the State of the Union. I don’t care a whole lot one way or another. I guess it makes for a cool visual, but really a token proposition that won’t make much difference even in the short run.

But really, Rep. Broun. The President spitting venom? Calling this “bait?”

The President is neither a snake, nor a fish. Really.He.Is.Not.

But again, these are the same people who think he is a Muslim and travels on a Kenyan passport, so I guess anything is possible.

The Week That Was: The Joe Lieberman Edition

Is this the best Sen. Joe Lieberman can do?  Nice way to end a (somewhat) distinguished career, Joe.  Continuing to lie about Iraq, and full of condescension, at that.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And if watching it is too painful, here is the operative text. The emphasis is mine.

ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: It was stunning to hear you say that there was evidence that Saddam Hussein was working on weapons of mass destruction, given that even President Bush himself has now accepted that there had been no evidence. So on what basis are you saying that?

JOE LIEBERMAN: I'm basing it on the so-called Duelfer Report. Charles D-U-E-L-F-E-R conducted the most comprehensive report on behalf of our government. And it was, nobody thought it was partisan. I want to be very clear: he didn't find big caches of weapons of mass destruction. But he found, and proved I think, that Saddam had every intention, and particularly to develop nuclear weapons, was developing chemical and biological weapons, and had a structure in place including nuclear scientists that he was prepared to support if he broke out of the sanctions, which he was inclined to do. So I think that the evidence is clear that if we did not do what we did that Saddam Hussein would today have at least chemical and biological weapons and have a nuclear program probably like Iran's beginning to move toward capabilities, and that the entire world would be a much less...

HUFFINGTON: Well, based on this completely unfounded assumption, I sincerely hope for the sake of the country that you do not become Secretary of Defense.

LIEBERMAN: Now Arianna, these are not unfounded. Go read the Duelfer Report.

HUFFINGTON: There is nothing in the report that proves anything that you have said.

JOE LIEBERMAN: I don’t think you read it, sweetheart.

And in his retirement speech this week, did Joe Lieberman insinuate that if around now, President Kennedy might be an Independent as well, or even a Republican?

Along the way, I have not always fit comfortably into conventional political boxes—Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. I have always thought that my first responsibility is not to serve a political party but to serve my constituents, my state, and my country, and then to work across party lines to make sure good things get done for them. Whatever the partisan or policy differences that divide us, they are much less important than the shared values and dreams that unite us and that require us to work together to make progress for all. To me, that is what public service and leadership is all about.

My interest in public service was inspired by President John F. Kennedy, who—coincidentally 50 years ago tomorrow in his Inaugural Address—asked us to ask ourselves what we could do for our country and challenged us to bear any burden to assure the survival and success of liberty.  The politics of President Kennedy—service to country, support of civil rights and social justice, pro-growth economic and tax policies, and a strong national defense—are still my politics, and they don’t fit neatly into today’s partisan political boxes any more either.

With his performance this week, I can hardly imagine what Joe Lieberman's farewell speech from the Floor of the Senate in 2012 will be like. Can't come soon enough, though.

In Fear of "Chinese Parenting"

Kudos to David Brooks for his excellent New York Times piece this week in response to Amy Chua’s essay in the Wall Street Journal.  The one written in anticipation of the publication of her new book, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother." As you probably know by now the book is part memoir, part guide to the virtues of so-called “Chinese parenting.” And yes, the article in the Wall Street Journal is called, Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.

Brooks argues that in part, the anger towards Chua is based on our collective fear of America’s decline – this time at the hands of the Chinese. The emphasis is mine. And I agree with him wholeheartedly.

The furious denunciations began flooding my in-box a week ago. Chua plays into America’s fear of national decline. Here’s a Chinese parent working really hard (and, by the way, there are a billion more of her) and her kids are going to crush ours. Furthermore (and this Chua doesn’t appreciate), she is not really rebelling against American-style parenting; she is the logical extension of the prevailing elite practices. She does everything over-pressuring upper-middle-class parents are doing. She’s just hard core.

He then goes on to label her a “wimp” because she does not have the cognitive where-with-all to negotiate the activities she so proudly disallows her children from participating in, including sleepovers with friends.

Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale.

As parents I imagine we all shield ourselves from taking the lead on activities involving our children, when we fear our abilities to negotiate particular social situations will be tested.  But the best part of me always tries to set the discomfort aside, do what is best for the children in the moment, and remember that whatever it is I am learning from the particular encounter -- the children are learning too.

Obamacare Repealed?

What's more likely, that Republican Rep. Joe Wilson from South Carolina is a liar, or that he never learned how a bill becomes a law?

A new low.  Did I mention this is the same guy who pointed and shouted “you lie” at President Obama during his speech to a joint session of Congress in 2009?

So, Rep. Wilson – either you lie, or after 9 years in the House of Representatives you still don’t know a bill doesn’t become a law without Senate say-so. And the Senate ain’t gonna "say-so" on this one.

Joementum, No More

Could not let the day go by without wishing Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) -- and the good people of Connecticut -- well on his intended retirement from politics. Forever embedded in my mind will be his endorsement of Sen. John McCain for the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency in 2008. Dare to relive history.  It comes with a warning:



OK – kudos for his work on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell."  Can't take that away from him.  And here's to hoping he will spend time and energy doing some good in the years to come.  It will be interesting to see what issues he takes up, if any.

In the meantime, the people of Connecticut have an opportunity to send a real leader to the Senate.  And that will be good for the entire country.

Republicans On Palin

Lots of Republicans are criticizing Sarah Palin these days.

Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.



And if you want more of the back and forth, here:



There's former Republican Speaker of the House (and possible Presidential candidate) Newt Gingrich, here:

She’s got to slow down and be a lot more careful and think through what she’s saying and how she’s saying it,” Mr. Gingrich told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”Ms. Palin was widely criticized for remarks she made last week defending herself from criticism that her rhetoric had anything to do with the shooting spree in Arizona earlier this month that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.) gravely wounded. She called the political attacks in the wake of the tragedy – which hasn’t been linked to her in any way – a “blood libel.”

Newly-minted-Republican-darling, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, here:

“I think people need to be judged by the way they conduct themselves in the public arena, in a way that is as minimally staged as possible,” he said. “That’s where you really get to know people.”

When it was noted that Ms. Palin has preferred communicating with the public in ways she can control, Mr. Christie said that “rightfully has been criticized.”

Even former Vice President Dick Cheney couldn’t muster up much enthusiasm for her. But evidently, he does like her TV reality show about life in Alaska, saying “it’s very good.”

The last thing Republicans want is Sarah Palin at the helm. They know an all-too-powerful-Palin is a disaster in the making for them. Watch the power struggle in the coming months. They will use and abuse her and her followers, to their making.

The Uneasy Road To Havana

So, the Cuban government isn’t exactly ecstatic about the Obama administration’s easing of American travel restrictions to Cuba.

From a statement by the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

These measures confirm that there is no will to change the policy of blockade and destabilization against Cuba. When announcing them, United States Government officials made it clear that the blockade will remain intact and that they intend to use the new measures to strengthen the instruments of subversion and interference in Cuba’s internal affairs. This confirms the Foreign Affairs Ministry statement on January 13.

Cuba has always favored exchanges with the American people, its universities, and academic, scientific and religious institutions. All the obstacles to visits by Americans to Cuba have always been, and are still today on the United States government side.

If there is a real interest in expanding and facilitating contacts between our peoples, the United States should lift the blockade and eliminate the prohibition that makes Cuba the only country that Americans cannot travel to.

No surprises here.

Israeli Labor Party On The Brink

This weekend, former Israeli Prime Minster Ehud Barak announced he is stepping down as chair of the Labor Party, and forming his own party.  Barak presently serves as Defense Minister, and he is taking four fellow lawmakers along with him to form (yet) another centrist party.  His new party is expected to remain in the governing coalition, but a handful of other Labor Party ministers have resigned their positions, but will stay in Labor.  

Some are questioning whether the Labor Party has any future in Israel.  The party has been feuding for the last few years over the decision to join the right-leaning coalition. And now, rather than exerting the power inherent to leadership, the chair himself leaves to form a new party  Arguably, very odd indeed.

For more, read Josh Marshall’s excellent analysis at Talking Points Memo.

Brothers and Sisters?

The newly elected governor of Alabama, Republican Robert Bentley gave a speech this weekend at the Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once served as pastor. Me thinks he picked the wrong profession.

MONTGOMERY -- Gov.-elect Robert Bentley in a speech at a Baptist church this afternoon said he plans to be the governor of all Alabamians and be color-blind, but he also said people who aren't ''saved" Christians aren't his brothers and sisters.

“I was elected as a Republican candidate. But once I became governor ... I became the governor of all the people. I intend to live up to that. I am color blind," Bentley said in a short speech given about an hour after he took the oath of office as governor.

Then Bentley, who for years has been a deacon at First Baptist Church in Tuscaloosa, gave what sounded like an altar call.

"There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said. ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."

Bentley added, ''Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

I don’t know about the good people of Alabama, but I for one could not care less about whether or not my governor thinks I am his sister. I could not care less if he wants to be my brother. Last time I looked, Alabama was not in great shape. Some of the worst health indicators in the country. A ranking of 47 out of 50 from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, in their aggregate analysis of the general health and well-being of children.

Lots of work to be done out of the governor’s mansion. For the sake of the people of Alabama, I suggest the governor-elect roll up his sleeves, and get to it. And stop all the talk about being colored-blind, and brothers-and-sisters, and whatever. And if he can’t stop yakking about what he shouldn’t be talking about, and start working hard at what he was elected to do, perhaps a change of profession is in order. I am sure there are a number of good seminaries out there glad to help him prepare for a place in the pulpit.

Don't Cry For Me, Wasilla

A plea on Eugene Robinson's part suggesting Sarah Palin consider being quiet for a long, long while.  Then, he compares her to Evita Peron.

The way Palin portrayed herself as not only a popular champion but also a martyr reminded me - not for the first time - of Eva Peron. If she chooses this unpromising route to higher political office, I suggest she find a suitable balcony from which to deliver her next address to the nation.

Or perhaps - solely in the interest of civil discourse - that there be no next address.

Fabulous imagery.  Read his column in yesterday's Washington Post, here.

Tunisia On The Map

Where in the world is Tunisia?

An odd take from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the popular revolution taking hold in Tunisia this weekend.

Speaking during the cabinet's weekly meeting in Jerusalem, Netanyahu said that recent turmoil in Tunisia was an example of "how unstable Israel's region is."

"There are several centers of instability in our region and we hope that peace and security return to the region," Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu added that the Tunisian unrest also highlights an important issue regarding a possible Middle East peace treaty, saying that there is doubt whether or not such an agreement would be followed by all sides in the long run in view of the pervasive political instability in the region.

"We don't know if a peace agreement would be respected and so any peace deal would have to include on-the-ground security arrangements," the premier said.

For one thing, Tunisia is not part of the Middle East. Neither is Algeria or Morocco. North Africa, last time I looked. It is hard to imagine what Tunisia would directly have to do with treaties in the Middle East, or more importantly the real issue at hand – negotiations regarding a Palestinian State.

Secondarily, although it is too early to tell what will come of the popular revolt in Tunisia, this could be a very good thing – and a positive example for the Arab world. Free elections. Transparent rule. What could be bad, especially in the long run, no? Not unless there are underlying reasons for some in the Israeli government to wish to perpetuate the status quo, and see the Arab world remain as it.

Well, he got called to task on the editorial pages of the left-leaning Haaretz this weekend, but not so much for the potential ramifications of having the opportunities to make peace with Arab democracies, but for his own fear of social unrest coming from the left in Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday characterized the popular revolution in Tunisia as an example of "instability in our region." While Western leaders (and the Arab League!) praise the great achievement of the freedom struggle and the ousting of a tyrannical despot, Netanyahu does not see achievement in civil protest. He only wants "stability to return," with or without freedom.

Perhaps he actually does see, and that is why he didn't say anything. Dr. Daniel Zisenwine is a research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, of Tel Aviv University, specializing in North Africa. He explained in an interview that it was not the political opposition that brought down President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali: "They are only fragments of parties, in a very weak position ... and mainly busy fighting among themselves." Sound familiar? The strong elements in Tunisia, Zisenwine said, are the trade unions and nongovernmental organizations, which "suddenly woke up and could awaken public life in the country a little more." Maybe that's why Netanyahu is backing up Lieberman's remarks and actions with regard to human rights organizations. He is "afraiiid," as Netanyahu once famously said about the left.

A very interesting analysis.  A lot to ponder.

Telenovelas

I know telenovelas are a big deal in Latin America.  I have been known to watch them once in awhile, to great amusement.  The representations can be quite telling.  But this, is ridiculous.  On more than one level.

The (Continuing) Saga of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

From The Hill:

A member of the House Armed Services Committee plans to introduce legislation next week designed to put the brakes on repeal of the military’s ban on openly gay troops.

The measure by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) would add the four military service chiefs to the list of those who must sign off on repealing the policy before it can be officially scrapped.

Hunter, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran, is concerned that the bill passed in December repealing the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “excluded the service chiefs from the certification process,” said one congressional aide.

A delay tactic? The right pandering to the even-more-right? Making good on the promise to derail President Obama's agenda? All of the above?

On "Chinese Parenting"

Seems like everyone was writing about Amy Chua this week. Here. Here. Here. Here. Here. I dare you to go ahead and google her. You’ll be overwhelmed.

Her latest book, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother” was published this week. Roughly speaking, it is part memoir and part how-to-guide for those interested in employing so-called, Chinese methods to raise Western children. She is a Professor of Law at Yale Law School, holding two degrees from Harvard. She is the author of two books on globalization and the law.

But it was this essay in the Wall Street Journal that started the controversy – Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior. And yes, the title says it all.  In it, there is something for everyone.

For those of you who like facts and figures, there is this:

Despite our squeamishness about cultural stereotypes, there are tons of studies out there showing marked and quantifiable differences between Chinese and Westerners when it comes to parenting. In one study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers, almost 70% of the Western mothers said either that "stressing academic success is not good for children" or that "parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun." By contrast, roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. Instead, the vast majority of the Chinese mothers said that they believe their children can be "the best" students, that "academic achievement reflects successful parenting," and that if children did not excel at school then there was "a problem" and parents "were not doing their job." Other studies indicate that compared to Western parents, Chinese parents spend approximately 10 times as long every day drilling academic activities with their children. By contrast, Western kids are more likely to participate in sports teams.

For the arm-chair anthropologist, this:

What Chinese parents understand is that nothing is fun until you're good at it. To get good at anything you have to work, and children on their own never want to work, which is why it is crucial to override their preferences. This often requires fortitude on the part of the parents because the child will resist; things are always hardest at the beginning, which is where Western parents tend to give up. But if done properly, the Chinese strategy produces a virtuous circle. Tenacious practice, practice, practice is crucial for excellence; rote repetition is underrated in America. Once a child starts to excel at something—whether it's math, piano, pitching or ballet—he or she gets praise, admiration and satisfaction. This builds confidence and makes the once not-fun activity fun. This in turn makes it easier for the parent to get the child to work even more.

And for the voyeurs among us, this:

A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover
• have a playdate
• be in a school play
• complain about not being in a school play
• watch TV or play computer games
• choose their own extracurricular activities
• get any grade less than an A
• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama
• play any instrument other than the piano or violin
• not play the piano or violin.

I actually have a great interest in this topic. I worked for a number of years in a management-level position for Head Start in San Francisco’s Chinatown. For those of you not in the know, Head Start is a federally-funded pre-school program for low-income children and their families. In addition to early education services, programs are mandated to provide health, social services and parent involvement components as well.

And Over At The RNC...

Michael Steele, out.

Reince Priebus, in.

OXON HILL, Md. — The national Republican Party, coming off huge election victories but facing a $22 million debt and an internal war over identity, ousted chairman Michael Steele Friday and chose Wisconsin party chief Reince Priebus to lead in the run-up to the 2012 presidential race.

The embattled Steele dropped his re-election bid halfway through an afternoon of balloting when it became clear he could not win another two-year term after a first marked by verbal missteps and financial woes.

Given the tactics it took in Wisconsin to send former Democratic Senator Russ Feingold home packing, we should be looking at an interesting two years.

Mourner-Consoler-Inspirer-In-Chief

Very brilliant, from last night’s episode of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Uncompromising satire in response to criticism of Wednesday’s University of Arizona-sponsored memorial service in honor of the Tuscon shooting victims. 

Poking fun both at our individual inability to set aside personal preferences about how things should be done, and our collective blind-sightedness to how broad based culture informs the ways of others.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Veiled Criticism
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Something for everyone. To the newsman who questioned the seating arrangements, Stewart reminded us we were not watching the Emmys. In response to one who called the memorial a “show,” a great play on words between “morning show” and “mourning show.” To Brit Hume, who found the inclusion of a Native American prayer “peculiar,” a rant about the memorial not being quite American enough for the likes of the Fox News commentator. And in response to those who thought the memorial was more like a pep rally than the somber event it should have been, he invoked the cheer of an Irish wake.

And kudos to the pundit round table at the end. All about “me, me, me, me, me."  And to the little character-sized figurines of Italian widows dressed in black, memories of my childhood.

Easing Travel Restrictions to Cuba

The Obama administration is easing travel restrictions to Cuba.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration Friday said it will allow for more U.S. travel to Cuba, making it easier for schools, churches and cultural groups to visit the island.

A senior Obama official told The Miami Herald the much-expected move to expand cultural, religious and educational travel to Cuba is part of the administration's continuing ``effort to support the Cuban people's desire to freely determine their own future.

President Barack Obama is also restoring the amount of money ($2,000) that can be sent to nonfamily members to the level they were at during part of the Clinton and Bush administrations. There will be a quarterly limit on the amount that any American can send: $500 per quarter to ``support private economic activity.''

Cuban-American elected officials from South Florida are already condemning the move.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, said in a statement that the “changes undermine U.S. foreign policy and security objectives and will bring economic benefits to the Cuban regime.”

Said Ros-Lehtinen, “Loosening these regulations will not help foster a pro-democracy environment in Cuba. These changes will not aid in ushering in respect for human rights. And they certainly will not help the Cuban people free themselves from the tyranny that engulfs them.”

Freshman Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., also voiced opposition to the changes, saying the “weaken U.S. policy towards Cuba.”

By next week we should have more information on what this all means. A good place to keep up with the policy implementation is at The Latin American Working Group, www.lawg.org

Most Peculiar, Indeed

It seems that Fox New’s Brit Hume found the Native American blessing given by Dr. Carlos Gonzales at the memorial service for the victims of the Tucson shooting “most peculiar.” Dr. Gonzales is an associate professor at the University of Arizona, College of Medicine.



The emphasis is mine:

HUME: It was a similar hall. It was just -- the whole tone and atmosphere was different. And I kept thinking this week, you know, that he was going out on Wednesday -- Wednesday, it's just a few, just a couple of days and yet it seems somehow longer to me. It almost seems as if this event is a little late. Certainly the mood in that auditorium suggested that the sense of mournfulness that you might have expected and sobriety you might have expected was not to be found tonight. And of course, I think, the whole thing is attributable in part to the remarkable opening blessing that was delivered by, what was his name, Carlos Gonzales, who by the time it was over with, he had blessed the reptiles of the sea, and he had prayed to the four doors of the building, and while I'm sure that all has an honorable tradition with his people, with it was most peculiar. [Fox News' Coverage of the Tucson Memorial, 1/12/11]

The subtext of such a comment is a clear lack of understanding that yes, aspects of American culture different from our own do matter. Comments such as these further deny the fact that such aspects of culture intertwine in a complex manner to produce, in part – what we call “America.” Perhaps most distressing however, is that comments such as these represent a lack of interest in understanding the complexities of present-day America. This sheer lack of interest is dumbfounding. Especially when it comes from those who get paid a lot of money to inform us.

After all, it is ridiculous to think that in a state like Arizona, Native American culture would not in part, help inform how the general public interprets the horrific events of last weekend. And it is equally absurd to think there is no place for the type of reflection offered by Dr. Gonzales, through the lens of Native American healing.

It’s in the air. It’s in the water. It’s in the four directions Brit Hume so unfortunately chose to mock. It’s in Arizona, therefore it's in America.  In my book then, not peculiar at all. 

Five-term Arizona Senator, and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater knew all this. He knew and loved Arizona. And he understood how a culture other than his own could (over the span of 80+ years), come to influence his life, and subsequently help color how he interpreted the world. And perhaps I am wrong, but I don’t remember an outrage when at Barry Goldwater’s funeral, a Native American prayer and music were offered.

The five-term senator, born when Arizona was still a territory, was hailed as the state's favorite son.

Native American flutist Robert Tree Cody also honored Goldwater's longtime relationship with the Native American community with a flute solo and a prayer.

You are a great man, you are with the elders now. You are a chief,'' said Cody, a Maricopa and Dakota Indian. ''My people will never forget you as long as we shall live.''

So, the difference between January 12, 2011 when the memorial service for the victims of the Tuscon shootings was held on the campus of the University of Arizona and June 3, 1998, when Barry Goldwater was eulogized with full military honors? Are we really more "peculiar" now than we were then?

Is There A Speaker In The House?

Where is Speaker John Boehner, tonight? Apparently, at a fundraiser.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) turned down an offer by President Barack Obama to travel on Air Force One to Arizona for a memorial service on behalf of the victims of Saturday’s shooting, a decision that has upset some Democrats.

Boehner is instead scheduled to attend a reception on Wednesday night on behalf of Maria Cino, a former top House GOP aide who is seeking the Republican National Committee chairmanship. Boehner is backing Cino’s challenge to current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

Seemingly, Speaker Boehner thinks all is well, since he will be completing his comments at the reception before President Obama’s begins his speech at the University of Arizona-sponsored memorial event.

No cross-talk.  I guess that’s what passes as respect these days.

The Spin Is In

The spin is in. On the Verizon iPhone, that is....

Yet several factors may give prospective Verizon iPhone buyers pause.

The first Verizon iPhone will only work on the older, "3G" network. That network has wide coverage, excellent reliability and less congestion than AT&T's, but data speeds are much slower than new "4G" networks both AT&T and Verizon are building. You also can't talk and surf at the same time with Verizon 3G phones.

Also, Apple has been launching a new iPhone model every summer. Presumably, an iPhone 5 is coming this year. But Apple won't say whether Verizon would get it. Verizon may have to wait until next January, if it's on the same one-year upgrade cycle that AT&T has been on. That would give AT&T a head start.

Most importantly, cell phone companies do their best to tie subscribers up with contracts. AT&T executives last year stressed to investors that most of their iPhone users are on family and employer plans – more difficult for an individual to switch from.

Decisions.

Civil Discourse, Moral Equivalency

Honestly. I don’t know what’s worse: 1) that conservatives cannot engage in civil conversation about whether incendiary talk helps create the type of toxic culture we are living in today. The type of toxic culture capable of perpetuating incidents of violence like the one we saw on Saturday; or, 2) the moral equivalency arguments some are engaging in.

On Civil Discourse: From the New York Times:

In the incredulous language of talk radio, Mr. Justice defended his show and dismissed the notion that Arizona’s political culture had served as the backdrop to the shooting or an inspiration for the suspect, Jared L. Loughner.

“This is a crazy person!” he said. “Politics is out the window — you’re a nutbag! No amount of controlling talk radio is going to change that!”

"People need to go and point fingers,” he said. “It’s unfortunate, but some people do. They have to find somebody to demonize.”

Mr. Justice, who has made issues like his opposition to Tucson’s ethnic studies programs for Latinos, his concerns about illegal immigration from Mexico and his disapproval of the Obama administration’s health care law a staple of his program, did not discuss those issues Monday.

Barry Young, the host of a morning show on KFYI (550-AM) in Phoenix, said: “They are telling us that we have to make sure our words and phrases don’t incite crazy people. I have one problem with that: They’re crazy.”

Some callers, however, made it clear that they believed that the state’s conservative-leaning radio hosts bore some responsibility.

On Moral Equivalency: From Human Events, partly in response to one of Paul Krugman’s blog posts.

“Something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence,” pontificates Krugman. Oh, and the Left bears no responsibility for that? They’re the ones who drop titanic mandates and mountains of regulation on American citizens. Their President has given us 20 months of crushing unemployment. They stole over $800 billion from us for “stimulus” pork and slush funds, and Krugman has gone on record saying he thinks they need two or three trillion dollars more.

The Democrats cranked up class-warfare rhetoric to a fever pitch during the lame-duck session of Congress, denouncing anyone who resists higher tax rates as greedy and unpatriotic. They bent over backwards to get miserable crooks like Charlie Rangel out of trouble with the lightest slap upon the wrist, flaunting their corruption in the face of a population boiling with impotent rage. When the president of Mexico denounced America on the floor of Congress last year, the Democrats rose to give him a thunderous standing ovation. But all this “climate of hatred” is coming from the guys on conservative talk radio?

And the spin has only just begun.

In Other News: The Miami Edition

90 very, very long miles.

Well, it’s actually happening in El Paso, Texas and not Miami, but that’s just a technicality.

It was good to wake up to NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday and this story about Cuban exile and former CIA employee Luis Posada Carriles. He went on trial yesterday in federal court in El Paso, Texas on charges related to a series of hotel bombings in Havana in the mid-1990’s. And no story defines the wide chasm that in reality is only a 90 mile stretch between Miami and Cuba, better than the tale of Luis Posada Carriles.  

At 82 years of age, Posada is only a year younger than my own mother. He is a veteran of the Bay of Pigs invasion, and worked for the CIA. It has long been thought that he was behind the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 – 73 people were killed. But this trial is about a bomb that went off in a Havana hotel in 1997, where an Italian tourist was killed. Prosecutors say they have transcript evidence of a Posada taking responsibility for the bombing.

In short, a life devoted to getting rid of Castro, by any means necessary.

Most interesting about the NPR piece, was reporter Greg Allen’s interview with Cuban-American writer and commentator Humberto Fontova. It so very clearly exemplifies the mentality that still exists in Miami among the elders of the refugee community – defense of Cuban militants, at all costs. Fontova begins by questioning the fact that the U.S. may introduce evidence on the Havana bombing gathered by the government of Cuba. Cuban officials will also testify.

Of the Cuban witnesses, he says...

Mr. HUMBERTO FONTOVA (Writer, Commentator): They're representatives of a totalitarian regime whose co-founder, Che Guevara, said the following: Judicial evidence is an archaic, bourgeois detail. Now, does it make sense to have officials from that regime at this trial?

ALLEN: Fontova says he doesn't know if Posada was involved in the bombing or not, but he explains his sympathy for Posada - and other aging Cuban militants accused of terrorism - this way:

Mr. FONTOVA: Put yourself in these men's places. The men of the Bay of Pigs generation, and the tremendous sense of betrayal that they felt, you know - to them, the battle wasn't over.

ALLEN: Posada isn't being charged with terrorism, but perjury related to testimony at an immigration hearing. In 2005, after decades of living abroad, Posada turned up in Miami and asked first for asylum, then naturalization. Eventually, that request was denied, and Posada was charged with lying and several other immigration violations.

The Obama administration significantly upped the ante when it added perjury charges related to the Cuban bombing to the indictment against Posada. The trial beginning tomorrow will mark the first time he'll have to answer in a U.S. courtroom to longstanding charges.

And indeed, when the trial began yesterday, the “distance” between Miami and Havana was once again obvious. The fraying of the "Cuban family," so close in distance and so far apart in interpretation of reality.

Outside, the two groups of demonstrators kept a respectful distance from each other on the broad plaza in front of the building.

About 60 protesters demanded that Posada be extradited to Venezuela or Cuba to face terrorism charges for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner in which 73 people were killed and a string of bombings of Havana tourism spots in 1997 that killed one Italian tourist.

About 50 feet away, a group of Posada supporters waved U.S. flags.

Despite lack of coverage, lots of people are watching this story.

DeLay-Style Justice

Sentencing this afternoon, in the Tom DeLay conviction:

AUSTIN, Texas -- A judge ordered former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to serve three years in prison Monday for his role in a scheme to illegally funnel corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002.

The sentence comes after a jury in November convicted DeLay on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. DeLay was once one of the most powerful men in U.S. politics, ascending to the No. 2 job in the House of Representatives.

Senior Judge Pat Priest sentenced him to the three-year term on the conspiracy charge. He also sentenced him to five years in prison on the money laundering charge but allowed DeLay to accept 10 years of probation instead of more prison time.

Not the life in prison sentence he could have faced, but not the probation-only he requested, either.

On "Words"

On the Monday morning after the great tragedy that took place this weekend in Tucson, Arizona, everyone is talking about “words.” The power of words. The fact that words matter.

This weekend our country witnessed an assassination attempt on a sitting member of Congress – Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, (D-AZ). She was engaging in the most public of acts, spending a Saturday morning in her district listening to her constituents. Outdoors. Six are dead.  A young girl, a Federal judge, an aide to the Congresswoman, and three senior citizens.

So much talk this weekend about whether the actions of the man responsible for this unspeakable act of horror can be blamed directly on “words.” Much analysis as well not so much about the direct correlation between “words” and acts of violence, but rather about how a climate of anger and hate leads to the types of threats of harm those in service to our country increasingly receive. And then of course, how those threats become a reality, like we saw this weekend.

I am perhaps not as struck by the “words” that may have lead to – or helped to contribute to a climate where an act of attempted assassination against an elected official is possible. But I am taken by so many words I have heard since Saturday morning. Words of reason. Words in the form of critique. Words of contrition and apology. Words of hope. Words of silence – if there is such a thing.

From Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, at a remarkable news conference on the afternoon of the shooting, I believe we heard words of reason. I heard a working professional, reasonably trying to assess the climate that lead to the act that he is now (partly) in charge of investigating.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," said the sheriff. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

From today’s New York Times editorial page, words in the form of critique, in the best of editorial styles. A commentary on the complex connection between words of anger, a dangerous climate of hate, and direct acts of violence:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

Gay Marriage: The Ocean State Edition

Most excellent news from another one of my (former) hometowns, Providence, Rhode Island.

Two days after Governor Lincoln Chafee called on legislators to swiftly legalize same-sex marriage, a pair of lawmakers say they will introduce bills to do just that.

Representative Art Handy, Democrat of Cranston, and Senator Rhoda Perry, Democrat of Providence, said yesterday that they would reintroduce bills to legalize same-sex marriage. The bills died last year in the House and Senate.

The legislation has been introduced several times in recent years, but failed as it faced opposition from Governor Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican, and previous legislative leaders. Democrat Gordon Fox, who is openly gay and a cosponsor of the bill, became House speaker last year.

Thank you to Gov. Chafee, who in part used his inaugural speech to ask the citizens of Rhode Island to reaffirm Roger Williams’ vision of a “civil state” – including that “a civil state means that personal freedoms are protected, different orientations are respected, and the dignity of all citizens is enshrined in both the law and in everyday practice.”

And Gov. Chafee reminded us that last November, the great state of Rhode did indeed show the nation what a civil state can mean: Providence elected a Dominican-American Mayor in Angel Taveras. An openly gay man, David Cicilline, now represents Rhode Island’s 1st Congressional District. And the 2nd Congressional District returned Jim Langevin to Washington, the first quadriplegic ever to serve in the House.

Now, here’s to hoping that in the marriage equality arena, Rhode Island will catch up with New England neighbors Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire!

Howard Dean On The Bill Daley Pick

Howard Dean likes William Daley. He thinks the former Secretary of Commerce is a good choice to be President Obama’s next Chief of Staff. And except for a fundamental difference with Dr. Dean on building the proposed Islamic Center in lower Manhattan, I like him. He was a fabulous Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Three things of note I think, to glean from his interview last night with Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show:

Howard Dean admires Bill Daley for having many of the qualities I think Dr. Dean himself has. Qualities that amounted to a very successful tenure at the DNC. He believes Mr. Daley to be honest, hard working, no-nonsense and respectful. Wiling to admit when he is wrong. He thinks the guy really listens. He believes you can have a conversation with Bill Daley, and walk away knowing the man really understood what you said – even if in the end a disagreement remains. And Howard Dean believes positive, working relationships are a BIG DEAL. So, he thinks we need to give the guy a chance.

He does not pretend to think Bill Daley is a progressive. But he really thinks the former Mid-West Chair of JP Morgan will put aside all his former allegiances and make President Obama his only client. And Dr. Dean is willing to eat his words if it all comes tumbling down.

I don’t think Rachel Maddow was in any way convinced this is a good choice.  And I am sure many on the left will remain unconvinced as well.  But, I must mention I think using Bill Daley’s tenure running Al Gore’s campaign against him is a bit unfair. More to that there, remember? But, I digress…

All I could think of during the interview was that Howard Dean was painting a picture of the “anti- Rahm Emanuel.” And despite all the Chicago connections, I do believe this White House needs that.

The Week That Was: The Constitution Edition

On the face of it, I was actually not too upset when Speaker John Boehner announced that Thursday’s House session would open with a reading of the Constitution. In all honesty, I don’t think it is a bad idea to take some time to read such important, foundational documents in public.  Especially now, when millions can watch it happening on television.  How totally cool, if you ask me.

Given however, that I am not naive enough to think it would not be all about politics, I was anxious to see how they would do. It would say an abundant amount about them, after all. I was secretly wondering, well – just how do Republicans read the Constitution, anyway? Literally, I imagined.

I was wrong. But at least they had a debate about how they would do it, before they actually did it…

The chamber's Republican leaders - who organized the first-of-its-kind event - had touted the reading as a way to bring the country back to its political roots. But they didn't want to go all the way back: Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was running the procedure, said lawmakers would read a Constitution that had been edited to remove sections negated by later amendments.

"Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read," Goodlatte said. He said he had consulted the Congressional Research Service, among others, in choosing this version of the document.

Those changes meant the erasure of the 18th Amendment, for instance, which created Prohibition (it was later repealed by the 21st Amendment). It also meant that legislators would not read the original language from Article 1 that tacitly acknowledged slavery

That language, called the "three-fifths compromise," stated that representatives would be parceled out based on a count of all free inhabitants, excluding Indians, and "three-fifths of all other persons." Those persons were understood to be slaves.

Needless to say, some on the Floor of the House were none-too-happy about the editorial decisions.

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) said he was opposed to making the changes, arguing that doing so would remove evidence of a long struggle to alter the document the Founding Fathers wrote. That Constitution in its original form also did not allow women to vote: That right came with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

"Many of us don't want that to be lost upon the reading of our sacred document," Jackson said. "The three-fifths clause would not be mentioned."

And then they all got bored and started fidgeting. Checking electronic devices. Leaving the chambers. Luckily, some “birther” added a bit of levity by going off the deep end during the reading of Article 2, Section 1, the mandate that only a “natural born citizen” be elected president.

So what does it say about Republicans that they think they can edit the Constitution on a day when the whole country is watching – and presumably, could be learning important civic lessons from the exercise? That they believe the Constitution is not to be taken literally? That they believe the Constitution can be subject to interpretation? That they believe the Constitution is a living document?

No. No. No. All it means is that they believe it is acceptable to try to re-tell large portions of American history they deem – for one reason or another – to be inconvenient to their present-day narrative. It’s not about erasing history, but rather about something more insidious. It is about shoving facts they don’t feel accurately represent their own personal historical experiences, into a corner. It’s about always taking to the tactic of marginalizing others, in pursuit of their own power. And as Rep Jesse Jackson reminds us with his statement about the decision to “editorialize,” they did all that today quite well today.

Abolishing Radio Martí

I could not agree more.

I've Seen The Future

Reading tea leaves, anyone?

Well, one day into the Republican-led, 112th Congress and everyone is all up in arms about the Republicans (quietly) admitting they are frauds. Surprise!!! The Republicans knew all along that they could not keep their campaign promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending in a single year.

Now aides say that the $100 billion figure was hypothetical, and that the objective is to get annual spending for programs other than those for the military, veterans and domestic security back to the levels of 2008, before Democrats approved stimulus spending to end the recession.

Yet “A Pledge to America,” the manifesto House Republicans published last September, included the promise, “We will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone.”

Republican leaders have repeatedly invoked the number. On Tuesday the Web site for Representative John A. Boehner, the incoming House speaker, included a link to his national radio address on the Saturday before the midterm elections, in which he said, “We’re ready to cut spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving roughly $100 billion almost immediately.”

And the pundits are understandably, having a blast.

1) Will the American public be mortified at a broken promise they probably didn’t want in the first place?

2) Is there any way the Democrats can use this against John Boehner and Company?

3) Given the crippling effects to social programs a $100 million, single year slash would have had, will this be a win-win for Republicans in 2012?

4) Given the crippling effects to social programs a $100 million, single year slash would have had, will this be a win-win for Democrats in 2012?

5) Will this make the average American voter even more cynical, ingraining the idea that it doesn’t matter who we vote for anyway?

6) How will the Republicans handle the Tea Party freak out?

7) You fill in the blah-blah-blah __________here.

If you can put up with a little raw language, listen to Ed Schultz look into the crystal ball on yesterday's MSNBC's The Ed Show. He knows how to read the tea leaves.



Yes. Trying to repeal the New Deal = Most.Radical.Congress.Ever.

On The Road: From Minnesota to Iowa

Forget the rumors that Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-MN will be challenging sitting Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota. She’s going to Iowa this month!

From ABC News:

Bachmann's appearance in the Hawkeye State later this month will be her third trip over the past eight months to the significant early-caucus state, and last week she was featured at another GOP fundraiser in Michigan -- also an early primary state.

Although aides in Bachmann's congressional office said she has received frequent encouragement from supporters to challenge President Obama next year, they would not confirm quite yet that she officially was throwing her hat into the ring.

However, Bachmann's senior staff did admit the Minnesotan is not ruling out a presidential campaign. "Nothing is off the table," Bachmann chief of staff Andy Parrish told ABC News when asked whether the Iowa trip signaled Bachmann's intent to run for president. "The congresswoman is excited about her first trip to Iowa this year."

I don’t know what’s more interesting – that she may be in it against fellow Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin, or that she may be fighting it out with another Minnesotan, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty.  So much for "Minnesota nice."

Passing the Ball

More bumps along the long, long road to making gay marriage legal in the State of California. Yesterday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said it needed advice from the California Supreme Court as to whether or not the sponsors of a voter-approved measure banning gay marriage even have the right to defend it in court.

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The state Supreme Court was brought into the fray by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which heard arguments last month about whether Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative outlawing same-sex marriage, is constitutional.

Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ex-Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to appeal a federal judge's ruling in August that the measure unconstitutionally discriminated based on sexual orientation and gender. So the future of the case depends on whether Prop. 8's sponsor, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage, has legal standing - the right to represent the interests of the state and its voters.

If not, the federal appeals court could uphold Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling and restore same-sex marriage in California - legalized briefly by a 2008 state Supreme Court ruling - without deciding whether Prop. 8 is constitutional.

Without the state of California joining in on the appeal, the work was left to the conservative sponsors of Proposition 8. So for now, the question remains whether or not they have the right to represent the people of California.

Under separate cover, the same court denied standing to Imperial County, which had also sought to enter the same case and defend the ballot measure. In good news, the court said the county did not have the type of authority over marriage necessary to join the appeal. A no-brainer, in my book.

Needless to say, Project Marriage does not represent this citizen of California. And thank heavens the court denied standing to Imperial County – despite the fact that 70 percent of its voters supported Prop. 8.

When was the last time I said the constitutional rights of a minority should not be left to the will of the voters?

The Last Man Standing

A very tragic story out of Pakistan, yesterday. The high-profile governor of Punjab Province, Salman Taseer was assassinated in broad daylight and at close range by one of his own bodyguards. According to the assassin – who immediately turned himself in – he committed the murder because the governor had been engaged in a campaign to amend the country’s blasphemy laws.

Salman Taseer had very publicly taken to defending a Christian, Pakistani woman who had been sentenced under the country’s blasphemy laws. He had even been photographed with her. Her sentence? Death.

Today, amid growing political unrest, Salman Taseer was eulogized and buried with full military honors in Lahore.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Interior Minister Rehman Malik represented the government and the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party amid tight security. But Mr. Taseer’s close friend and ally, President Asif Ali Zardari, did not attend.

Also absent were opposition politicians Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz Sharif, fierce political rivals of Mr. Taseer, and religious party leaders and clerics, some of whom called for a boycott of the funeral because of Mr. Taseer’s stance against the religious parties over the country’s strict blasphemy laws.

Chris Hayes did a remarkable tribute to Salman Taseer last night, as guest host on MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show. You can watch here.  The emphasis is mine.

In speeches and protests across Pakistan on Friday religious leaders warned the government about altering the blasphemy law, the one with the mandatory death sentence.  Most politicians tried to placate the religious extremists by assuring them that the government did not intend to change or repeal the law.  One politician did not do that.  One politician said he was unimpressed and called the protestors abusive.  That kind of honesty and courage is rare.  That kind of honesty and courage is especially rare in a place that is being torn apart by religious extremism.  Three years after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.  Nearly ten years into the war that the U.S. is raging right next-door if not increasingly inside of Pakistan.  Friends of governor said he knew he was risking his life by speaking out.  Fatwas were issued against him.  Today gunned down by his own bodyguard for defending a woman against a mandatory death sentence.  It cost him his life.  And he suspected it would.  And that is worthy of tribute.  That is worthy of the title of martyr.

“Worthy of tribute,” as Chris Hayes said. “Worthy of the title of martyr.”

Worthy of re-assessing whatever the hell we think it is we are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Passing The Gavel

Or as history would have it, passing “a” gavel. A nice piece today on NPR’s Morning Edition. You can listen here.

As the 112th session of Congress begins, the gavel is passed from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner — make that "a" gavel is passed.

That's because the speaker of the House doesn't use just one gavel: He or she uses many.

One reason, according to House historian Matt Wasniewski: "Gavels break from frequent use."

Evidently, they really only use one gavel in the Senate. I guess that deliberative body is a little easier to reign in.

Best wishes to 112th session of Congress under the leadership of (almost) Speaker of the House John Boehner, as they attempt to do the work of the people. And we need a lot of work to be done on our behalf. But if “a” gavel – any gavel – passes again in the 113th session of Congress in 2012, I will be very happy.

Dollar General To The Rescue!

Dollar General yesterday announced plans to create 6,000 new jobs in 2011. It’s part of an ongoing expansion, with the company expecting to open 625 new stores during the year.

(photo:  U.S. Mint, http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/$1coin/)

Per CNNMoney:

The news is part of what many economists believe is a brightening employment picture nationwide, with forecasts of between 2.5 million and 3 million jobs created in the coming year.

Why am I NOT convinced that these are the type of jobs that will put enough cash into the hands of the middle class to fuel a real, economic recovery? Must be because I am in the middle of reading Robert Reich’s latest book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future.