SavvySugar

Would You Take an Affordable Clothing-Optional Vacation?

SavvySugar — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:00:09 -0800

Clothing optional situations are typically limited to behind closed doors, but not if you're venturing off on a nakation. You don't have to bare it all on nakations - that's where the optional part comes into play - though you can if you want to. Besides the fact that participating nudists say that nude recreation is fun, there might be a financial benefit to taking a trip that encourages you to don your birthday suit.

Travel writer Christopher Elliott hasn't taken a nakation, but he also isn't opposed to it. He points out that there are many deals to be had at clothing-optional resorts (which aren't seedy as some would assume, just make sure they're represented by the American Association of Nude Resorts). Aside from affordable rates, Elliott makes the reasonable suggestion that travelers can save on baggage fees by opting for a nakation.

Got a cost-saving travel tip? Join our Savvy Travel Tips group and share your expertise!

Your Two Cents: Is There Room in Your Holiday Budget For Charity?

SavvySugar — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:00:58 -0800

The holiday season isn't just about gift-giving - even while the budget may be stretched, it's also the time of year to give to charity. It's no secret that things are tight this year. The recession is changing the way we holiday shop, but is it also changing our philanthropic spirit of giving for a good cause?

Apparently so. Charitable foundations and organizations throughout the country are suffering from a lack of funds - the size of charitable giving just isn't sizable enough. Nonprofits, especially on the local level, are dealing with some serious cutbacks in their budgets, thanks to an economic climate that makes giving to a cause more of a luxury than it used to be. Where organizations used to rely on the generosity of philanthropic donors, they are now turning to the government for aid.

It's unfortunate, but while philanthropy is still a valued cause for giving, there are many who just may not be able to offer support this year. Of course, there are other ways to help out - volunteering, for one - but I'm curious: Is writing a check for charity out of the question this holiday season? Or are you still making room in your budget for a charitable donation?

Do You Book Holiday Tickets Early or Last Minute?

SavvySugar — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:00:22 -0800

Ahh, the age-old question: ~~to be or not to be~~ to book or not to book. No matter how much homework you do on research comparing apples to apples, it's nearly impossible to predict the ebbs and flows of ticket prices . . . especially during the holiday season.

This past week I've noticed a flood of fare alerts, not just on Cyber Monday, but the last couple of days, too. On the one hand, I'm not a risk taker when it comes to my money and prefer to book when the pricing gets good but when "good" is still a bit away from "better" and a couple hundred from the "best," it's tempting to take a gamble and hope the fares drop. Even knowing that you could end up paying more, when will (or did) you buy your tickets?

Obama's "mild" presidency

snarkypants — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:43:23 -0800

Analysis: Where was the downtown rally? Obama’s Madison visit a hallmark of his mild presidency

By JOHN NICHOLS

Analysis: Where was the downtown rally? Obama's Madison visit a hallmark of his mild presidencyOne year ago Tuesday, Barack Obama redefined American electioneering to such an extent that it was possible to believe that the success of his transformational campaign would lead to a transformational presidency.

After all, he had already changed most of what America "knew" about politics.

The freshman senator from Illinois had not only won an election for the presidency of the United States on November 4, 2008; he had not just rewritten the rules that had for so long made the upper reaches of electoral competition the domain of white men of a certain class; he had not merely put an end to the Bush-Cheney interregnum, which had divided the nation along seemingly insurmountable chasms separating red and blue states.

With his victory on that remarkable presidential Election Day, he restored a measure of presidential legitimacy to a country that had for the better part of two decades seemed to wander in the wilderness. And with that legitimacy it seemed possible that he might make real the promise of "change."

As he noted the anniversary Wednesday at Madison's Wright Middle School, Obama acknowledged as much, saying: "One year ago, Americans all across this country went to the polls and cast ballots for the future they wanted to see. Election Day was a day of hope and possibility."

That hope and possibility was grounded in the reality of an electoral mandate of a magnitude not seen in two decades.

It had been 20 years since a president was elected with a majority of the popular vote and no serious debate about his Electoral College majority. While Democrats delighted in reminding Republicans that George Bush's 2000 "victory" was imposed by a Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court and that his 2004 "victory" relied upon a shaky "mandate" of Ohio's disputed result, Republicans noted that (because of the interventions of Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996) Bill Clinton's "victories" were attained with less than 50 percent of the vote.

Obama's victory needed no quotation marks.

He won without qualifiers or footnotes.

He won big -- bigger than any presidential candidate in 20 years, bigger than any Democratic presidential candidate in more than four decades.

But Obama, always a more cautious man than his campaign suggested, has not governed big.

To be sure, he has faced daunting challenges. As the president explained in Madison, the 2008 victory was "a sobering one because we knew that we faced an array of challenges that would test us as a people. A financial crisis that threatened to plunge our economy into another Great Depression. Record deficits. Two wars. Frayed alliances around the world."

But Obama has met those challenges with a restraint that has unsettled his supporters and emboldened his critics.

Obama's has been a constrained presidency that has erred too frequently on the side of compromise and the pursuit of bipartisan cooperation -- even when partners have not been readily available.

The man whose election inspired talk about how he might renew the "First 100 Days" ambition of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal," or the no-holds-barred legislating of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" administration, has governed far more mildly than his supporters hoped or -- despite all the noise they have made -- than his critics feared.

The Obama White House maintained the mild approach on the anniversary of his election by "celebrating" with a remarkably low-key event in a city that backed his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination by an overwhelming margin and that backed his campaign for the presidency itself by an even more overwhelming margin.

In keeping with a "playing-it-safe" presidency, Obama played it safe in marking the anniversary of one of the greatest political achievements in American history.

Considering what Obama was up to a year ago, a visit to a middle school in a liberal college and state government town seems an oddly circumspect celebration for a man who one year earlier became the first president since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 to be elected with resounding popular-vote and Electoral College majorities and huge partisan advantages in the House and Senate.

In 2008, Obama and his team sought a mandate.

They refused to settle for 50 percent-plus-one. They wanted it all.

The 365-173 Electoral College victory was remarkable; a historic, transformational win.

And, then... Obama stopped campaigning. In some senses, this is what we ask of presidents. They are supposed to mount a superhuman quest for power and then, when they power is achieved, they are supposed to wear its mantle casually, with a deference to their foes, talk much about bipartisanship and show a willingness to compromise in the hope of seeming magnanimous.

But these are not magnanimous times.

Obama's critics, led by radio personality Rush Limbaugh, declared their desire to see him fail as a president. And Limbaugh's call was taken up by whole media networks and then by the whole of a Republican Party in which senators openly announced their hope that the commander in chief would meet his "Waterloo."

A year into his presidency, Obama can point to accomplishments. And, no, we're not talking here about that appropriately controversial Nobel Prize for Peace. In Madison, the president credited his administration with making "meaningful progress toward the goal" of rescuing "our economy from imminent collapse."

Pointing to moves to cut taxes for working families, to save and create jobs and to ease the credit crunch, the president said: "All of this has contributed to the first quarter of economic growth in over a year. The rate of job loss is slowing, though not nearly fast enough yet. The work continues, but we are moving in the right direction, and we will continue to fulfill our obligation to do every responsible thing to pull this economy out of the ditch in which we found it."

The president got no argument from the crowd of supporters, teachers and students who has gathered to hear him speak in a city that was a hotbed of Obamania in 2008.

But Obama did not come to Madison to lead a celebration like the one that brought tens of thousands of cheering supporters into the streets of the city -- and so many others -- after his election was confirmed a year ago.

The Madison visit was planned before the results of Tuesday's off-year elections were known. But at a time when Obama aides were wisely worried about contests for governorships in New Jersey and Virginia and a complicated congressional election in New York state, they weren't taking any chances.

The caution inherent in Obama's choice of Madison, however, had less to do with the fact that it is a safe city than with the fact that the event he participated in was so very safe.

The president visited a racially- and ethnically-diverse public school that is an educational success story.

It was a tightly-controlled, essentially-closed event with a small, friendly audience and a soft, almost apolitical message.

In other words, Obama was not campaigning on the anniversary of his campaign win.

He was presidenting.

And that's the problem.

Democrats just lost the governorships of two states Obama won because turnout among people of color and young people -- core Obama constituencies -- dropped dramatically from 2008 to 2009.

There's an enthusiasm gap. And that gap is something that should worry Obama.

There's nothing wrong with making a presidential visit to a middle school. In fact, there is a lot that's right about such a move. As former Madison School Board member Ray Allen said, "This is exactly where he should be. This president inspires young people, especially young people from low-income and minority communities. It's one of his greatest strengths and he should emphasize it."

No one in their right mind would argue Allen's point. The students wore their "Obama: Doing the Wright Thing" T-shirts, snapped pictures and listened in awe as the president outlined an ambitious education agenda and then spoke off-the-cuff about working with his own daughter Malia so that she wanted to improve her science scores.

But after a presidential visit to the school, Obama should have done something else.

He should have made a campaign visit to downtown Madison.

In Madison, a city known for its massive turnouts for Democratic rallies, Obama could have celebrated the one-year anniversary of his election with a great big rally at the state Capitol -- where tens of thousands of people have shown up in the past for events featuring Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry.

"I was surprised that they didn't do a Capitol rally," said state Rep. Mark Pocan, one of the state's most powerful and politically-savvy Democratic legislators. "If the president had done a noontime rally at the Capitol, the crowd would have been overwhelming -- and overwhelmingly friendly. It would have brought back all those positive memories from last year, all the huge crowds cheering Obama on."

Pocan's right.

The president's team should have thrown caution to the wind and organized a great-big, rip-roaring celebration in Madison. And the president should have delivered a stem-winder speech outlining his health-care reform agenda and promising to fight harder than ever for the change his campaign promised.

"It would have energized people," said Mary Lang Sollinger, the finance director of the state Democratic Party and a stalwart Obama backer. "I had so many people who wanted to know where they could get tickets, who wanted to see him. There are a lot of people who want to get out and cheer this president on."

Had Obama flipped into campaign mode on his big anniversary day, critics would surely have accused him of being too political.

In fact, Obama has not been political enough.

At this point in his presidency, recognizing both his challenges and his potential, Obama should borrow a page not from Democratic mentors such as Roosevelt and LBJ but from a Republican: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan never had a Republican Congress to work with -- Democrats held the House throughout his two terms while control of the Senate shifted -- but his was a strong presidency. Why? Because Reagan and his aides understood the power of the bully pulpit.

A visit to a middle school looks and is presidential.

A great big rally in the middle of a supportive town on the anniversary of a great big victory is campaigning.

But campaigning produces powerful images of a popular president being cheered on by supporters who want him to fight rather than compromise.

Reagan would have told Obama that presidents who succeed know that they can never stop campaigning. (And Roosevelt and LBJ would echo that sentiment.)

Obama needs to keep visiting schools. That's what good presidents - and even not so good presidents - do.

But Obama, the brilliantly successful campaigner of 2008 but the not-quite-so-brilliantly successful president of 2009, should start visiting the bully pulpit. That's where presidents who are serious about governing build the popular support and the political strength to make words like "hope" and "change" into something more than mere slogans.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/article_000e323e-c99b-11de-a43b-00...

The Real Reason: Why Chicago Failed To Win The Olympics

T S — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:06:18 -0700

Actually, it's not Chicago's fault. Nothing more could have been done. Nothing legal at least.

Olympic insiders praise the city's 2016 Olympic bid as completely solid. The plan was sound. The anticipated venues were stunning and compact. The ambitious funding projections were reasonable, given the kind of corporate and American television revenue an American Olympics can generate.

Blame politics unusual.

Chicagoans may not like to admit it, but there's no American city with a better track record of working a room, peddling influence, counting votes, buying loyalty, playing hardball and cultivating corruption.

So, neither the practiced politicos in Chicago nor in the White House could wine and dine, glad-hand, lobby or perform the most basic function of any campaign: count potential votes. They couldn't poll and then shift strategy based on the polling results. They could only guess at who would vote which way, and even then, there was very little they could do about it.

All that worked wonderfully in the past for cities so desperate to host the Olympics that they plied the votes of members of the International Olympic Committee with college scholarships for the kids, all-expenses-paid vacations, lucrative real estate deals, luxury bathroom fixtures, surgical procedures, laptop computers, skis and skiwear, rent-free housing, shotguns and more. To be fair, that culture of Olympic corruption was due as much to the greedy demands of IOC members as it was to the complicit desperation of bidding cities.

It was a culture that played to the strengths of a bidding city like Chicago. Imagine the results if the gold medalist for patronage and political corruption could have applied its considerable skills to that atmosphere.

It would have been politics as usual for Chicago.

The scandalous behavior of IOC members and Salt Lake City Olympic bidders in the 1990s triggered reform that effectively banned the gifts and favors. The reform effort also made it difficult to apply legitimate politicking to the bidding process. This not only hogtied the savvy political operatives in Chicago, it also minimized the role of President Obama, the Olympic bidder-in-chief.

The tough bidding rules established after the Salt Lake City scandal made it impossible to conduct even the most fundamental political campaign. IOC members are not permitted to visit bidding cities and even meet with the bidders, except under very limited and controlled circumstances.

So, neither the practiced politicos in Chicago nor in the White House could wine and dine, glad-hand, lobby or perform the most basic function of any campaign: count potential votes. They couldn't poll and then shift strategy based on the polling results. They could only guess at who would vote which way, and even then, there was very little they could do about it.

Those who were certain that the president went to Copenhagen because the result was predetermined know nothing about Olympic politics and IOC members. The balloting for host cities is secret, and IOC members are famous for not talking about their votes, before or after the voting. Trusting those who do talk is risky because there's no accountability in a secret vote.

Chicago also suffered from Olympic politics completely beyond the control of its bidders. Rio de Janeiro had the strong emotional appeal of finally staging an Olympics in South America. It's a new market for what the IOC likes to refer to as "Olympism," which includes the spreading of Olympic ideals and tapping new corporate and television revenues.

Also, the U.S. Olympic Committee seemed to go out of its way to put obstacles in Chicago's path. IOC members are not generally fond of the United States because (choose one or select all):

1. American corporate sponsorships and television contracts are the single-biggest source of Olympic funding. This is viewed by some as Olympic imperialism.

2. The U.S. is viewed as an arrogant and dominating world power generally.

3. The Olympic bribery scandal involved an American bid and resulted in humiliating hearings in the U.S. Congress (in which then-IOC-President Juan Antonio Samaranch was forced to empty his pockets at a metal detector) and a failed but embarrassing prosecution by the Justice Department.

The U.S. Olympic Committee helped fan any lingering anti-American flames by announcing a U.S. Olympic television network, despite the IOC's insistence that more discussion and negotiation was necessary first. A truce helped ease simmering resentment over the USOC share of Olympic revenues, but that came late in the bidding process. And the USOC's ongoing senior leadership crises and changes left the group unprepared to do the networking and bid marshalling that IOC members expect.

Finally, Chicago politicians defied their reputations for political acumen by failing to guarantee Olympic funding until a few weeks before the voting. This is the most basic element of Olympic bidding: Don't leave the IOC on the hook if you don't raise enough money to pay all the Olympic bills. The failure to provide the guarantee earlier could have been viewed as classic American arrogance, as in "we like to do things our way."

Chicago and President Obama were only able to muster 18 of 94 votes. That's a pathetic 19 percent, proving the bidding for the 2016 Olympics was anything but politics as usual.

NPR's Howard Berkes has covered six Olympic Games and two Olympic bids, including the Salt Lake City Olympic scandal.

Source

Obama Administration Stonewalls U.S. Civil Rights Commission on Black Panther Case

Grandpa — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:33:54 -0700

Obama Administration Stonewalls U.S. Civil Rights Commission on Black Panther Case

The Justice Department won't cooperate with an inquiry into why they helped the New Black Panther party avoid the legal consequences of voter intimidation.

September 13, 2009 - by Jennifer Rubin

Last month, the Obama administration’s decision to dismiss a default judgment against the New Black Panther Party in a clear case of voter intimidation (caught on videotape and circulated on the internet) drew scrutiny from Congress and from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. That scrutiny has now resulted in one announced investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and set the stage for a battle between the administration and the Commission.

In June, the Commission sent a letter of inquiry to the Justice Department demanding an explanation for the dismissal of the case against all but one defendant. In August, the Commission sent a second letter directly to Attorney General Eric Holder reiterating its demand for information on the reasons for the dismissal and advising Holder of its intention to use the Commission’s statutory authority to subpoena witnesses and documents. It also renewed its demand for records of past DOJ investigations so it could make an independent determination as to whether the New Black Panther case’s dismissal was an abrupt change in Justice Department policy, and if so, what the impact of that policy change might be on future acts of voter intimidation. However, the “most transparent administration” in history (it tells us) did not even acknowledge receipt of the letter for weeks.

Last week, the Commission’s General Counsel contacted the Justice Department to inquire if a response would be forthcoming and to advise the Justice Department that on Friday the Commission would meet to decide an issue left open at its meeting last month, namely whether to designate its already expanding investigation into the New Black Panther case as an issue for a year-long study and special report. (By statute the Commission must complete at least one such study and report each year on a matter of federal civil rights enforcement.) Later that day the Justice Department sent a one paragraph letter to the Commission advising that an OPR investigation would be opened and “accordingly” no answer would be forthcoming until OPR concluded its investigation.

A source familiar with the Commission’s deliberations tells Pajamas Media that a number of the commissioners were aghast by the response. An OPR investigation is, of course, no basis for declining to co-operate with the Commission in its statutorily authorized obligation to investigate enforcement of civil rights laws. Moreover, during the Bush administration many controversial issues were the subject of investigation and litigation on multiple “tracks” (e.g., the firing of nine U.S. attorneys triggered both congressional inquiries and an inspector general’s report, investigations of embattled former Voting Rights Section chief Jack Tanner were conducted by both Congress and OPR).

Moreover, the Commission’s concerns, including whether the dismissal marks a deviation from past policy and whether the underlying case did concern a serious civil rights violation, are beyond the ordinary purview of OPR. OPR, in contrast to the Commission, will examine the narrower issue of whether politics or other improper considerations played any role in overriding the decision of the career attorneys who opposed the dismissal.

As one Commissioner described it, the DOJ’s excuse would be analogous to a corporation charged with employment discrimination which instituted an internal investigation - and then claimed that a civil lawsuit couldn’t proceed until the corporation investigated itself.

The analogy is on target here given the fact that OPR is not an autonomous organization but reports up through the Justice Department chain of command to the attorney general. If in fact politics intervened at the behest or with the knowledge of the attorney general or his direct subordinates, then there is all the more reason for an independent entity such as the Commission to examine what occurred.

The commissioners met on Friday to debate the issue. Commissioner Todd Gaziano pointed out that the Commission’s independent examination of the fact witnesses and former defendants in Philadelphia as well as its request for the Department’s records of previous investigations could not possibly conflict with DOJ’s internal investigation of the New Black Panther case. Nevertheless, he acknowledged some potential concerns that might later arise with aspects of the Commission’s investigation and the Justice Department’s OPR investigation, and he offered that the Commission would be sensitive to the OPR interest in rooting out evidence of ethical misconduct by the Justice Department.

“We made it clear we would be willing to consider accommodations regarding specific discovery requests, both as to timing and potentially as to content,” he told me. “But the Department first needs to acknowledge our statutory right to investigate this enforcement matter and begin to fully cooperate as the law plainly requires.” Other commissioners expressed the same sensitivity to potential conflicts with the DOJ but also indicated that they doubted that any real conflicts would arise between the Commission’s investigation and an internal OPR probe.

A proposal to designate the matter as one for a year-long study summarized the significance of the investigation and why the Justice Department must cooperate with the Commission. The proposal explained:

The dismissal of the federal government’s suit against most of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) defendants, and the narrow injunction against the remaining defendant - who stood outside a Philadelphia polling place, wearing a paramilitary uniform, brandishing a nightstick, and peppering certain voters with racially-offensive comments as they approached the polls - has the potential to significantly change the understanding some officials have regarding the coverage and enforcement of § 11(b). The USCCR voted on August 7 to expand its inquiry into DOJ’s actions and rationale in that case. As is set forth in the Commission’s August 10 letter to Attorney General Holder, it is important to determine whether the Department has changed its interpretation of § 11(b) (which will require an examination of prior investigations), and if so, what effect that change is likely to have on its enforcement policy. In turn, we should determine whether the policy change might increase intimidating conduct, whether we believe that conduct violates the VRA [Voting Rights Act] or not.

An examination of DOJ’s enforcement of § 11(b) should determine the facts in the NBPP case to place it within the proper context of prior enforcement actions and policies. The Commission should then attempt to determine: (1) whether the rule of the NBPP case (whether it amounts to a new policy or not) would have led to different results in prior cases, and (2) whether it would render current examples of alleged intimidation outside the coverage of the VRA.

The proposal then sketched out a plan for investigation including a possible onsite hearing in Philadelphia to determine the underlying facts of the dismissed case. The plan also called for questioning of key Justice Department figures:

* Thomas J. Perrelli, Associate Attorney General
* Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights
* Diana K. Flynn, Appellate Section Chief, Civil Division
* Christopher Coates, Voting Rights Section Chief, Civil Rights Division

Perrelli, the number three man in Justice, was involved (according to the Washington Times) in the decision to dismiss the default judgment, despite prior repeated denials by the Justice Department that only career attorneys had made the call. King, as reported here and in the Weekly Standard, was the official who directly ordered the dismissal. Flynn’s group recommended that the case not be dismissed but was overridden. Coates, it is believed, was opposed to the dismissal as well and supported his career attorneys who filed the case.

The Commission on Friday voted unanimously by a 5-0 margin to pursue the year-long study and to set up a separate subcommittee to handle sensitive discovery issues. The Commission also agreed to send a letter replying to the Justice Department’s announced refusal to cooperate with the Commission’s investigation.

It seems that we are therefore headed for a clash between the administration, which has bragged about its transparency, and the Commission. It remains unclear whether the Justice Department will continue to stonewall as some fear or ask the president to invoke executive privilege to block the DOJ’s cooperation with the Commission’s investigation, thereby significantly impeding the only truly independent entity examining this issue.

Meanwhile, Republicans on Capitol Hill remain wary. Rep. Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith expressed relief that an investigation was finally underway. But given that the Justice Department controls the timing and contours of OPR’s inquiry, some Republicans are not willing to give up all leverage over Holder’s Justice Department.

To that end, a hold has been placed, it is believed by Sen. Tom Coburn, on the nomination of Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez. In light of the proclivity of Holder’s Justice Department to be less than forthcoming with information and its track record to date in the New Black Panther case, it seems that savvy Republicans will not be anxious to lift that hold until there has been a full accounting of the New Black Panther case.

In sum, the heat is being turned up on the Justice Department but we can expect that every effort will be made to block and sidestep the Commission’s investigatory efforts. This will come as no surprise to conservatives who have seen (with, for example, the proliferation of unaccountable “czars” exempt from congressional confirmation) that this administration prefers to operate with a minimal amount of accountability and outside scrutiny.

And that is precisely what the Commission is threatening to bring. If it succeeds we may finally learn why Obama’s Justice Department walked away from a high-profile victory against the New Black Panthers.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-administration-stonewalls-u-s-civil-r...

He's Not Jimmy Carter

Grandpa — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:34:15 -0700

He's Not Jimmy Carter

By Quin Hillyer on 9.3.09 @ 6:09AM
Conservatives are taking too much solace in the precipitous drop in Barack Obama's approval ratings, and too many of us are overconfident that his administration is merely a replay of the hapless presidency of Jimmy Carter that was easily swept out in a landslide election.
Today's situation is far different, far more conducive to our political adversary's political power, than that which faced Carter. And Obama is an entirely different breed of cat. He's more ruthless, more tactically savvy, and has far more dangerous objectives. A drop in his poll ratings isn't as serious a setback for him as similar occurrences were for the peanut farmer from Plains.
In short, conservatives should beware. The political battle we're in is far more difficult than any the conservative movement has ever faced. It will take all our energy and all our smarts to win it.
First, consider the differences in political circumstances between Obama and Carter. Unlike Carter, Obama does not face a Kennedy-led left wing of his party that despises him. Unlike Carter, Obama did not take office by an incredibly slim majority vote so close that a few thousands votes in two states would have swung the whole election. Unlike Carter, Obama took office in the middle of a crisis he could blame on his predecessor and coming off an unpopular war that he could blame almost entirely on the Republican Party. On the right, Carter faced a conservative movement (even if not a Republican Party) unified and energized by an inspirational leader -- but no similar, single spokesman today galvanizes conservatives like Ronald Reagan did then. Carter also did not have a nationwide movement kept together by a tool like the Internet, and did not have billionaires behind his general aims the way Obama has George Soros.
Finally, Obama has the advantage of a more ethnically diverse nation that has far less of a common culture and less of a common appreciation of shared socio-political history and values. Why is that an advantage? Because it gives him more leeway to make outlandish claims, and still have huge pluralities believe him, than Carter could ever hope for.
More important than all that, though, is that Obama's personal skills, aims, and training are like nothing we have ever seen before in the White House. Every other president before him has intended at most to achieve change within the American political system. Obama wants to change the system itself. He is a radical's radical, with an authoritarian impulse. His Alinskyite training means that social unrest doesn't unnerve him; it plays right into his hands. Social unrest is both his modus operandi and his mid-term goal. The more unrest, the greater the crisis; the greater the crisis, the more excuse he has to use and consolidate central power in order to completely remake society.
And unlike Carter or most other Democratic presidential nominees of the past 45 years, Obama has tremendous oratorical skills. Sure, Bill Clinton could please lots of audience members with small promises, but he did not possess half the ability to inspire people (however misguidedly) that Obama does. Obama has the talent to raise demagoguery to an art form.
Already we see a cult of personality around Obama, one deliberately encouraged by the Obama political operation. Already we see him push for centralizing, fascistic economic powers. Already we see him creating "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the regular military, complete with uniformed youths (and even senior citizens) formed into "cadres." And in order to make AmeriCorps less answerable to the public, Obama fired the Inspector General trying to blow the whistle on nefarious AmeriCorps activities. Now he is using AmeriCorps and the National Endowment for the Arts to politically agitate for his "recovery agenda."
And that's not to mention the Big Brother-like data-mining and reporting of "casual conversations" to a White House website, or the creepy address to all the nation's school children -- or the continued public trashing, by the permanent Obama campaign known as Organizing For America, of ordinary citizen protesters as "Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists."
Obama also is politicizing the Census; giving contracts to ACORN; letting a recognized hate group like the New Black Panthers go free; undermining the CIA at every turn, radicalizing the Supreme Court; re-orienting the civil rights division of the Justice Department; appointing more "czars" than anybody can keep track of and who, unlike Cabinet members, do not answer to Congress; resisting transparency on TARP bailout funds; refusing to enforce financial reporting requirements on union political organizers; and doing all sorts of other things designed, as are the items above, to consolidate power, tilt the deck, and rig the political rules in his favor for the long haul.
In foreign affairs, his radicalism is even more apparent. He keeps undermining allies while embracing enemies. He deliberately undercut the brave protesters in Iran. He stubbornly continues to punish Honduras and its citizens, via economic and travel sanctions, because Honduras actually followed its own Constitution in removing a harshly anti-American president from office -- when he should have been rewarding Honduras for its commitment to the rule of law. Yet while he punishes friendly Hondurans, he refuses to punish radical leftist Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa when Correa's government tries to shake down an American company for $27 billion. It's all very bizarre. One wonders what exactly his agenda is. But it's clearly something the likes of which we've never seen. Again, the comparison with Carter's foreign policy is telling. Carter's was full of woolly-minded, pie-in-the-sky idealism, but it didn't deliberately mollycoddle sworn enemies. Obama's, on the other hand, portrays Obama to the world as if Obama himself is more admirable than the nation he supposedly represents -- a nation for which he continually apologizes. This attempt, so far quite successful, to garner personal, worldwide glorification is another gambit for power. Again, it makes him nobody for domestic political adversaries to trifle with. It gives him tools never enjoyed by the Jimmy Carter who was burned in effigy by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his pals in 1979 and 1980.
To defeat Obama's radicalism will take plenty of political savvy on the right. Until the 2010 elections, discontent should simmer, but not boil over. Civil unrest will not win the day; it will only help him. The one, and perhaps only, opportunity to stop his juggernaut will be in those mid-term elections. Every bit of conservatives' efforts should be directed at building a massive voter turnout to defeat Obama's leftist allies in 2010. The TEA parties and town hall protests and all the rest should be aimed at building a political infrastructure and political arguments sufficient to win those elections. The energy of conservatives should climax then and only then. Anything premature, anything over the top, will allow Obama to more effectively mobilize his own troops in the supposed name of order and stability.
Finally, it will help Obama that, probably by design, the bulk of the "stimulus" funds remain unspent. What will happen is that at just the right time, those funds will spur a false recovery -- a "recovery" hailed by the establishment media as proof of Obama's wisdom. The recovery won't last, because it won't be real. But that won't matter. Timed just right, it will allow Obama to claim the economic high road -- something Jimmy Carter never was able to claim. Relieved Americans who are apolitical could easily be swayed to "stay the course," just as Americans stayed the course with Ronald Reagan in 1982. But Reagan's course led to greater freedom; if Obama's course is stayed and he consolidates power in 2010, the diminution of freedom may be well-nigh irreversible.
In short, the wonderful conservative success in August should not hide the reality that our backs are still against the wall. Obama still owns the upper hand. If we make any major mistake, he will use that hand as a fist to smash the conservative movement to bits. Clear-eyed about this possibility, conservatives must keep fighting. Uphill. Against the wind. And without a Reagan to lead us.

Lessons reporters need to learn from recent fiascos like the Van Jones coverage.

Grandpa — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:13:12 -0700

The Sorry State of Journalism
Lessons reporters need to learn from recent fiascos like the Van Jones coverage.

September 9, 2009 - by Christian Toto
I’ve spent the last decade writing articles for daily newspapers, national magazines, and the web. But I never graduated from journalism school, a fact that haunted me for years. I used to feel as if I didn’t belong in the newsroom even though the modest paychecks kept coming my way.

Not anymore.

The sorry state of journalism circa 2009 shouldn’t leave any writer, university-trained or otherwise, feeling inferior. I earned three arts degrees during my protracted college career, but even a recovering art major can share a little wisdom with today’s working reporters:

1. Hypocrisy works both ways. It’s hypocritical for a family values proponent to step out on his wife. That same standard applies to global warming advocates who leave carbon footprints that would dwarf Godzilla’s instep.

Or, for a more recent example, it’s hypocritical for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to label boisterous town hall protesters “un-American” even though she applauded liberal activists who spoke out just as loudly a few years back.

2. Don’t take your marching orders from Media Matters. Two organizations scour the media for bias and misinformation - Media Matters for America from the left and Newsbusters from the right. Read both daily and you’ll be a better, more informed reporter. But please don’t take Media Matters’ talking points as gospel. That group occasionally overplays its hand - just witness its silly assault on Rush Limbaugh over the faux “phony soldiers” scandal.

3. Read both right and left political blogs (and Andrew Sullivan‘s site doesn’t count as conservative). Blogs can be silly, full of misinformation, and downright deceitful, but the best of the best offer savvy insights into politicians and the reporters who cover them.

4. Hold the powerful accountable, even if they echo your views. Michael Moore’s upcoming film, Capitalism: A Love Story, hits theaters this fall. It’s a lock to earn rave reviews and countless softball interviews. Try questioning the tactics used in the film, the facts on the display, and Moore himself.

5. Give Rush a listen. Instead of demonizing Limbaugh, the most powerful radio talker on the right, why not tune him in for an hour or three? Limbaugh’s shtick is seriously one-sided, but his analysis routinely trumps conventional wisdom, and his assaults on media bias should be on the tips of every journalism school professor‘s tongue. There’s a reason he’s survived two decades in the business and remains on top.

And speaking of hypocrisy, if a reporter wants to slam Limbaugh for saying he wants President Obama to fail, then he or she should slam Senator Harry Reid for declaring the “surge” a failure before it even had time to work.

6. Read - and respond to - your critics. If a reader accuses you of bias or any other journalistic indiscretion, consider the argument. And assuming the e-mail or letter didn’t devolve into name calling or obscenities, write back with a personal note. You’ll improve the reporter-reader relationship, which has been severely damaged over time due to arrogance, and let them know you take their views seriously. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with their critique.

7. Stop with the phony self-defense measures. If I hear one more journalist cry: “Well, I get hate mail from the left and the right, so I must be doing my job,” I’ll scream. There’s a very good reason bias-spotting sites like Newsbusters.org are updated virtually ‘round the clock.

8. Label, label label. Ever read a newspaper account of Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that didn’t label him “conservative”? Didn’t think so. So why don’t Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Bill Maher get plastered with the “liberal“ label? Reporters need to be more fair and more consistent with how they present sources so the audience knows where each person or group is coming from. And that also goes for the folks behind various polls and research efforts - the Southern Poverty Law Center is a left-leaning outfit, but that fact is routinely left out of media accounts.

And just because Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian doesn’t mean that’s the proper label. The same goes for the so-called King of All Media, Howard Stern. Deion Sanders got away with calling himself “Prime Time,” and the name stuck. You’re a journalist. Try harder.

9. View press releases with suspicion. That press release that just landed in your e-mail could be the spark that ignites a terrific story. Or it could just be another group trying to spin the news of the day to its liking. Find out which is the case before filing your story.

10. Stop slamming Bernard Goldberg. It must feel good for journalists to call the former CBS newsman and author of Bias a hack - or worse. But he’s no Ann Coulter. He’s an Emmy-winning reporter who cares plenty about journalism. Discount his wisdom at your own peril.

11. Watch Fox News and take notes. The cable channel’s ratings continue to climb, while CNN and MSNBC keep falling. Find out why. Check out the stories they cover and consider whether your publication should do the same.

Consider the case of Van Jones, the former “green jobs” czar. for President Obama. His radical past forced him to resign. Fox News covered Jones’ outrageous comments in the days leading up to his resignation, while nearly every major media outlet snoozed. Aren’t reporters supposed to be grumpy when they’re beat to a story?

12. Acknowledge that the news needs a reboot. Journalism today is broken. Blame media bias, the internet, reader apathy … what have you. Ultimately, the public wants something different.

So be different, before the last newspaper rolls off the presses

Christian Toto is a freelance writer and film critic for The Washington Times. His work has appeared in People magazine, MovieMaker Magazine, The Denver Post, The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and Scripps Howard News Service. He also contributes movie radio commentary to three stations as well as the nationally syndicated Dennis Miller Show and runs the blog What Would Toto Watch?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/for-j-school-grads-its-time-for-introspecti...

On the Street and On Facebook: The Homeless Stay Wired

Carrie Sue — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:39:22 -0700

SAN FRANCISCO -- Like most San Franciscans, Charles Pitts is wired. Mr. Pitts, who is 37 years old, has accounts on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. He runs an Internet forum on Yahoo, reads news online and keeps in touch with friends via email. The tough part is managing this digital lifestyle from his residence under a highway bridge.

"You don't need a TV. You don't need a radio. You don't even need a newspaper," says Mr. Pitts, an aspiring poet in a purple cap and yellow fleece jacket, who says he has been homeless for two years. "But you need the Internet."

Mr. Pitts's experience shows how deeply computers and the Internet have permeated society. A few years ago, some people were worrying that a "digital divide" would separate technology haves and have-nots. The poorest lack the means to buy computers and Web access. Still, in America today, even people without street addresses feel compelled to have Internet addresses.

New York City has put 42 computers in five of the nine shelters it operates and plans to wire the other four this year. Roughly half of another 190 shelters in the city offer computer access. The executive director of a San Francisco nonprofit group, Central City Hospitality House, estimates that half the visitors to its new eight-computer drop-in center are homeless; demand for computer time is so great that users are limited to 30 minutes.

Shelter attendants say the number of laptop-toting overnight visitors, while small, is growing. SF Homeless, a two-year-old Internet forum, has 140 members. It posts schedules for public-housing meetings and news from similar groups in New Mexico, Arizona and Connecticut. And it has a blog with online polls about shelter life.

Cheap computers and free Internet access fuel the phenomenon. So does an increasingly computer-savvy population. Many job and housing applications must be submitted online. Some homeless advocates say the economic downturn is pushing more of the wired middle class on to the streets.

Aspiring computer programmer Paul Weston, 29, says his Macintosh PowerBook has been a "lifeboat" since he was laid off from his job as a hotel clerk in December and moved to a shelter. Sitting in a Whole Foods store with free wireless access, Mr. Weston searches for work and writes a computer program he hopes to sell eventually. He has emailed city officials to press for better shelter conditions.

Lisa Stringer, who runs a program that teaches job and computer skills to homeless and low-income residents, says some students who can't even read or write save money to buy computers at Goodwill. "It's really a symbol in today's society of being OK and connected," she says. She sometimes urges homeless students to put off buying laptops until their living situations stabilize.

Staying wired on the streets takes determination. Electricity and Internet access can be hard to come by. Threats, including rain and theft, are a problem.

Robert Livingston, 49, has carried his Asus netbook everywhere since losing his apartment in December. A meticulous man who spends some of his $59 monthly welfare check on haircuts, Mr. Livingston says he quit a security-guard job late last year, then couldn't find another when the economy tanked.

When he realized he would be homeless, Mr. Livingston bought a sturdy backpack to store his gear, a padlock for his footlocker at the shelter and a $25 annual premium Flickr account to display the digital photos he takes.

One recent morning, Mr. Livingston sat in a cafe that sometimes lets customers tap its wireless connection, and shows off his personal home page, featuring links for Chinese-language lessons.

Mr. Livingston says his computer helps him feel more connected and human. "It's frightening to be homeless," he says. "When I'm on here, I'm equal to everybody else."

Read the rest of the article here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124363359881267523.html

Take The Pew Quiz

hartsfull — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:25:48 -0700

The Pew News IQ Quiz
What's Your News IQ?
Take the Quiz
Pew News IQ Test

To test your knowledge of prominent people and major events in the news, we invite you to take our short 12 question quiz. Then see how you did in comparison with 1,003 randomly sampled adults asked the same questions in a recent national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

Included in the current version of the quiz are several questions relating to the state of the economy as well as other prominent happenings and people in the news. For an analysis of the findings from the poll on the public's News IQ, read the full summary of findings. (No peeking! If you are going to take the quiz, do it first before reading the analysis.)

You'll also be able to compare your News IQ with the average scores of men and women; with college graduates as well as those who didn't attend college; with people who are your age as well as with younger and older Americans. Are you more news-savvy than the average American? Here's your chance to find out.

The full reports from earlier versions of the quiz are also available (See December 2008, February 2008, September 2007 and April 2007). The April 2007 report also includes an analysis of how knowledge levels vary according to people's news sources as well as their demographic characteristics.

http://pewresearch.org/newsiq/quiz/
__________________________________________________________

I started to put my results but then I realized that the answers were all there. Duh! I will say I missed one!

It's not very hard though. Unless you're not watching the news at all.