Obama In Cairo

I haven't seen it yet, but from what I read it sounds good.

Anybody see it and have an opinion?

Morning Joe's Stupidity Knows No Bounds

It's always fun when conservatives get caught building upon the factually challenged cornerstones of their philosophy to create amazing leaps in logic (Gay Marrige=End of Civilization, Taxes=Bad no matter what, Not carpet bombing at all times= Weakness, etc.). Yesterday on Morning Joe, we saw this phenomenon in action, in relation to unions. According to the hosts and the show's panel:

Unions=Evil, bad for business >>> Unions= So evil and bad for business that it makes it impossible to make a profit >>> NO UNION BUSINESS HAS EVER MADE A PROFIT IN THE HISTORY OF TIME!!1!!1!

Media Matters:

The Morning Joe crew was on an anti-union tear this morning, claiming the union label on a company means "sell." Mika Brzezinski went so far as to say of unions: "They cripple the system that makes a company work." Collectively, the journalists on Morning Joe couldn't name a single "successful" unionized company.

This says more about their qualifications to discuss public policy and labor relations than it says about unions. To pick just one obvious example, UPS is unionized -- and the company made more than $3 billion last year. That's "billion" with a "b," and those are profits, not revenues.

Oh, what the heck, let's take one more example. GE is one of the world's largest companies; in 2006, its revenues were greater than the gross domestic products of 80 percent of UN nations. The company made more than $18 billion in 2008 -- again, billion with a b, and again, those are profits, not revenue. All that despite (or, perhaps, because of) the fact that 13 different unions represent GE workers.
Oh, and GE owns NBC-Universal, which owns MSNBC, which pays Joe Scarborough a handsome salary (and the unionized workers who help get his show on the air considerably less.

Does Joe Scarborough think NBC and GE are not "successful" companies? Does Mika Brzezinski think the unionized workers she no doubt interacts with every day are crippling her ability to do her job, or her employer's ability to be successful?

Although in a strange way I guess Morning Joe is trying to prove it's own point by producing such a crappy product that their show (produced by a union company) no longer remains profitable. Keep it up, guys!

20

The majority of my students wouldn't recognize this picture.

Just something to think about.

Obama Drops a Truth Bomb

Obama on Bill Clinton during the primary:

"We had to figure out how to deal with a former president who was just lying, engaging in bald-faced lies."

Fucking awesome. I guess we'll find out if this was a case of when keeping it real goes wrong during the next cabinet meeting.

AIPAC Targets Donna Edwards for Embracing a Sane Foreign Policy

In a Politico story filled with plenty of veiled primary threats and ridiculous distortions, we find out that the warmongers in the Jewish community are not very pleased with Donna Edwards' sane approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) knocked off incumbent Al Wynn in a 2008 primary by tapping into liberal resentment of the Democratic congressman and portraying him as a tool of K Street who had lost touch with his suburban Maryland constituents.

But after just a year on the job, Edwards herself is facing grumbling from within her own party, not to mention the possibility of a primary opponent with support from an alienated constituency: the suburban Washington-area Jewish community.

“The relationship between the Jewish community and Donna Edwards got off to a rocky start,” said Ron Halber, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington. “I would be lying if I told you there wasn’t concern.”

So what got them off to such a "rocky start"?

At issue is Edwards’ support for Israel. Jewish leaders say tensions began to rise in January, when the House voted on a nonbinding resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza” and condemning Hamas for its attacks on the Jewish state.

The resolution, introduced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), passed 390-5 with overwhelming bipartisan support. But Edwards balked at supporting the measure, joining 21 other members who voted “present.”

At the time, Edwards said the “House voted on the wrong resolution at the wrong time” and that she chose not to back the resolution because Congress ought to instead support the United Nations’ call for an immediate cease-fire in the Middle East.

Agreeing with the rest of the world that killing hundreds of Palestinian civilians isn't a great way to achieve peace? The nerve.

Her explanation did little to quell the controversy, and in the weeks after Jewish leaders complained that an Edwards-sponsored forum on the Israel-Palestine conflict failed to include a hawkish, pro-Israel voice and that the first-term congresswoman was unresponsive to requests to organize a meeting with suburban Washington Jewish leaders to discuss the vote.

“The fact that she did not vote in favor [of the resolution] is cause for concern,” said Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt of the B’nai Tzedek synagogue in Potomac, Md. “It certainly raises questions for our community.”

“It appears from that vote that she has reservations about support for Israel that others don’t,” said Rabbi Ari Sunshine of the B’nai Shalom synagogue of Olney, Md.

Her forum failed to include a "hawkish, pro-Israel voice"? It may not have included a warmongering nut job, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean there wasn't a "pro-Israel" voice represented. Great unbiased reporting, Politico!

And she has reservations about blindly supporting a country's military actions that have a direct impact on our national security? The horror!

Bring on the threats of a primary challenge:

There are already signs that the Jewish community is preparing to back a primary challenge to Edwards. Last month, Maryland Del. Herman Taylor attended the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington — in no small part, he said, to gauge support for a run against Edwards.

“I have a lot of friends in the Jewish community,” Taylor told POLITICO. “There seems to be a lot of people not completely thrilled with her lack of support for Israel.”

“I do think there are people who would like to back a pro-Israel candidate against Donna Edwards,” said Larry Fishbein, the president and publisher of the Washington Jewish Week newspaper. “She is certainly opening the door to another candidate who would be more receptive to the Jewish vote.”

Since he's asking AIPAC for help and throwing around the "pro-Israel" term without definition, let's just rewrite those two paragraphs so that there a bit more accurate.:

“I have a lot of friends in the warmongering faction of the Jewish community,” Taylor told POLITICO. “There seems to be a lot of people not completely thrilled with her lack of support for endless war.”

“I do think there are people who would like to back a pro-carpet bombing candidate against Donna Edwards,” said Larry Fishbein, the president and publisher of the Washington Jewish Week newspaper. “She is certainly opening the door to another candidate who would be more receptive to warmongering lobbyists with tons of money.”

Much better. And speaking of lobbyist money, you know who really loved Israel? Al Wynn!

Jewish leaders complain that Edwards is emerging as a far less reliable ally to Israel than Wynn, who during his time in office was a staunch supporter of the annual U.S. aid package to Israel. In 2005, he called on Egypt to condemn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement that “Israel must be wiped off the map.” During his 2008 campaign against Edwards, Wynn received $24,500 from the pro-Israel lobby, according to contribution records compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

“He was very receptive to the Jewish concerns, very responsive to the Jewish community,” said Weinblatt.

I'm glad they put it all in one paragraph in case you were wondering why Mr. bought and paid for Al Wynn just loved Israel so much. The man would be on the House floor defending Ahmadinejad if he had a lobby that could raise him $30,000.

Oh yeah, one more time, this has NOTHING to do with being responsive to Jewish concerns or the Jewish community. LITERALLY NOTHING. This is about your feelings on pointless violence, and the long term safety of Israel, Palestine and the United States. Trying to make this seem like an angry group of constituents is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Donna Edwards is being attacked because she had the courage to speak out against the most powerful lobby in the United States. They frame their attacks this way because because Politico would be less likely to write a story titled "AIPAC attacks Donna Edwards for Opposing the Indescriminate Killing of Civilians with US Taxpayer money."

While several years ago the article would have ended there, one of the last paragraphs gives you hope that someday AIPAC's grip of our foreign policy debate will be broken:

“We consider her to be extremely pro-Israel,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street, a pro-Israel organization that endorsed Edwards in her 2008 race and favors a dovish approach to the Middle East conflict. “She is very interested in finding a way to bring peace to Israel through diplomacy.”

While J Street is still in it's infancy, their existance is massively important for many reasons, starting with simple press quotes like this. As the rest of this article shows, we have a long way to go before this changes in a major way, but growing organizations like J Street is a big start.

Oh yeah, and if you have time, or a little money, support Donna Edwards. I volunteered for her in 2008, I'll work for her again in 2010, and you won't be dissapointed with the awesome member of congress you get in return.

Talking About Policy is for Suckers

Sometimes shows like Hardball give you truth bombs that are much more closer to reality than anyone is willing to admit:

CILLIZZA: Here's the problem. She, she holds a press conference, she brings the leadership with her to show that everyone is behind her.

MATTHEWS: Yeah, but Steny was acting like her defender, he's her biggest rival...

CILLIZZA: I agree. She talks for, they talk for twenty-five minutes about essentially nothing. Everyone knows she has a plane to catch...

MATTHEWS: It's called policy, by the way, Chris. (LAUGHTER) Something only a political reporter would say.

CILLIZZA: That gets me. Well-played.

SIMON: Stuff we don't care about...

MATTHEWS: All this stuff, health care, cap and trade, all this stuff.

What Digby said:

Political reporters are often derided as being sportswriters. But sportswriters actually bother to watch the game. Cillizza's comment is akin to saying that the Lakers and the Nuggets for four quarters did "essentially nothing" to run out the clock on the postgame press conference so reporters couldn't ask Kobe about his relationship with Phil Jackson. I've never seen a group of journalists so openly dismissive about a subject they ostensibly exist to cover.

Right Wing Terrorism Hits Home

Yesterday:

George Tiller, the Wichita doctor who became a national lightning rod in the debate over abortion, was shot to death this morning as he walked into church services.

Tiller, 67, was shot just after 10 a.m. at Reformation Lutheran Church at 7601 E. 13th, where he was a member of the congregation. Witnesses and a police source confirmed Tiller was the victim.

Greg Sargent wonders if people might reconsider their reactions to that Homeland Security Report from a few months back:

You may recall the enormous controversy that erupted in April over a Department of Homeland Security report that assessed the threat of “right wing extremists.” The story provoked days of nonstop cable chatter, and DHS chief Janet Napolitano ultimately apologized.

Fast forward to the huge and horrible news yesterday that late-term abortion doctor George Tiller was shot dead by a man who reportedly posted on the blog of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue. Maybe we should take another look at all that criticism?

One passage from the DHS report that provoked nonstop outrage said that right wing extremists “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Some on the right read this passage and decided it was a reference to them. Top conservative blogger Michelle Malkin warned that it meant you’re being targeted by Obama’s big brother government “if you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion” or if you are active on other issues.

This wasn’t a fringe interpretation of the report, by the way. RNC chair Michael Steele for instance, blasted the report for labeling peaceful dissenters on issues “as terrorists.” Other Republican members of Congress sounded similar tones.

And at the very least, Bill O'Reilly will have some explaining to do:



The press release from Operation Rescue shows you the type of unhinged minds that we're dealing with:

Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, will hold a press conference to discuss how the pro-life movement should deal with Dr. Tiller’s death…

Mr. Terry states: “We must not fear, we must not flinch, we must not retreat a single inch. George Tiller was a mass murderer, and we must continue to say so in his death just as we did in his life.”

All this in the name of being "pro life".