Geithner argues against extending all Bush tax cuts
By Brady Dennis Wahungton Post
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner continues the administration's recent public relations push later this afternoon with a speech on tax and fiscal policy at the Center for American Progress, in which he plans to argue that responsible stewardship of the nation's finances can lead to economic growth, prosperity and job creation.
"Over the past two decades, Washington ran an experiment on that front," Geithner said in prepared remarks. "In the 1990's, the government put an end to budget deficits, and America enjoyed a period of growth led by the private sector where prosperity was widely shared and job creation was robust. Over the next decade, Washington tried a new path, running up huge debts, while incomes for most Americans stagnated and job creation was anemic. We are living today with the damage that misguided policy caused."
The speech comes amid a heated debate over what to do about a series of tax cuts instituted under President George W. Bush that will expire later this year. The Obama administration wants to extend cuts that apply to families making less than $250,000 a year, while allowing the cuts to expire for the wealthiest Americans. Republicans have pushed to have all the tax cuts extended, insisting that doing otherwise could further stunt economic growth.
"Borrowing to finance tax cuts for the top two percent would be a $700 billion fiscal mistake," Geithner plans to say. "It's not the prescription the economy needs right now, and the country can't afford it."
Earlier this week, Geithner traveled to New York for a speech in which he argued to the financial community that the recent financial overhaul bill signed into law by Obama ultimately will bring stability to the financial system and create the atmosphere for long-term growth. Other top-ranking Treasury officials are fanning out across the country carrying a similar message. On Wednesday, Assistant Secretary Michael Barr spoke on that subject to the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce.
"As we go about the task of implementing these reforms, we will be criticized by some for going too far and by some for not going far enough," Barr said, according to a copy of his remarks. "This distinction is stuck in a debate that presumes that regulation -- and efficient and innovative markets -- are at odds. In fact, the opposite is true. Markets rely on faith and trust. Markets require clear rules of the road. Consumers rely on the trust and fair dealing of financial institutions. And for all our sakes and that of our economy, we must restore honesty and integrity to our financial system."
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Ducks Quack - Eagles Soar
No one can make you serve customers well....that's because great service is a choice.
Harvey Mackay, tells a wonderful story about a cab driver that proved this point.
He was waiting in line for a ride at the airport. When a cab pulled up, the first thing Harvey noticed was that the taxi was polished to a bright shine. Smartly dressed in a white shirt, black tie, and freshly pressed black slacks, the cab driver jumped out and rounded the car to open the back passenger door for Harvey .
He handed my friend a laminated card and said: 'I'm Wally, your driver. While I'm loading your bags in the trunk I'd like you to read my mission statement.'
Taken aback, Harvey read the card.. It said: Wally's Mission Statement: To get my customers to their destination in the quickest, safest and cheapest way possible in a friendly environment...
This blew Harvey away. Especially when he noticed that the inside of the cab matched the outside. Spotlessly clean!
As he slid behind the wheel, Wally said, 'Would you like a cup of coffee? I have a thermos of regular and one of decaf.' My friend said jokingly, 'No, I'd prefer a soft drink.' Wally smiled and said, 'No problem.. I have a cooler up front with regular and Diet Coke, water and orange juice...' Almost stuttering, Harvey said, 'I'll take a Diet Coke.'
Handing him his drink, Wally said, 'If you'd like something to read, I have The Wall Street Journal, Time, Sports Illustrated and USA Today.'
As they were pulling away, Wally handed my friend another laminated card, 'These are the stations I get and the music they play, if you'd like to listen to the radio.'
And as if that weren't enough, Wally told Harvey that he had the air conditioning on and asked if the temperature was comfortable for him. Then he advised Harvey of the best route to his destination for that time of day. He also let him know that he'd be happy to chat and tell him about some of the sights or, if Harvey preferred, to leave him with his own thoughts.
'Tell me, Wally,' my amazed friend asked the driver, 'have you always served customers like this?'
Wally smiled into the rear view mirror. 'No, not always.. In fact, it's only been in the last two years. My first five years driving, I spent most of my time complaining like all the rest of the cabbies do. Then I heard the personal growth guru, Wayne Dyer, on the radio one day.
He had just written a book called You'll See It When You Believe It. Dyer said that if you get up in the morning expecting to have a bad day, you'll rarely disappoint yourself. He said, 'Stop complaining! Differentiate yourself from your competition. Don't be a duck. Be an eagle. Ducks quack and complain. Eagles soar above the crowd.'
'That hit me right between the eyes,' said Wally. 'Dyer was really talking about me. I was always quacking and complaining, so I decided to change my attitude and become an eagle. I looked around at the other cabs and their drivers. The cabs were dirty, the drivers were unfriendly, and the customers were unhappy. So I decided to make some changes. I put in a few at a time. When my customers responded well, I did more.'
'I take it that has paid off for you,' Harvey said.
'It sure has,' Wally replied. 'My first year as an eagle, I doubled my income from the previous year. This year I'll probably quadruple it. You were lucky to get me today. I don't sit at cabstands anymore. My customers call me for appointments on my cell phone or leave a message on my answering machine. If I can't pick them up myself, I get a reliable cabbie friend to do it and I take a piece of the action.'
Wally was phenomenal. He was running a limo service out of a Yellow Cab. I've probably told that story to more than fifty cab drivers over the years, and only two took the idea and ran with it. Whenever I go to their cities, I give them a call. The rest of the drivers quacked like ducks and told me all the reasons they couldn't do any of what I was suggesting.
Wally the Cab Driver made a different choice. He decided to stop quacking like ducks and start soaring like eagles.
How about us? Smile, and the whole world smiles with you... The ball is in our hands! A man reaps what he sows. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up... let us do good to all people.
Ducks Quack, Eagles Soar.
Harvey Mackay, tells a wonderful story about a cab driver that proved this point.
He was waiting in line for a ride at the airport. When a cab pulled up, the first thing Harvey noticed was that the taxi was polished to a bright shine. Smartly dressed in a white shirt, black tie, and freshly pressed black slacks, the cab driver jumped out and rounded the car to open the back passenger door for Harvey .
He handed my friend a laminated card and said: 'I'm Wally, your driver. While I'm loading your bags in the trunk I'd like you to read my mission statement.'
Taken aback, Harvey read the card.. It said: Wally's Mission Statement: To get my customers to their destination in the quickest, safest and cheapest way possible in a friendly environment...
This blew Harvey away. Especially when he noticed that the inside of the cab matched the outside. Spotlessly clean!
As he slid behind the wheel, Wally said, 'Would you like a cup of coffee? I have a thermos of regular and one of decaf.' My friend said jokingly, 'No, I'd prefer a soft drink.' Wally smiled and said, 'No problem.. I have a cooler up front with regular and Diet Coke, water and orange juice...' Almost stuttering, Harvey said, 'I'll take a Diet Coke.'
Handing him his drink, Wally said, 'If you'd like something to read, I have The Wall Street Journal, Time, Sports Illustrated and USA Today.'
As they were pulling away, Wally handed my friend another laminated card, 'These are the stations I get and the music they play, if you'd like to listen to the radio.'
And as if that weren't enough, Wally told Harvey that he had the air conditioning on and asked if the temperature was comfortable for him. Then he advised Harvey of the best route to his destination for that time of day. He also let him know that he'd be happy to chat and tell him about some of the sights or, if Harvey preferred, to leave him with his own thoughts.
'Tell me, Wally,' my amazed friend asked the driver, 'have you always served customers like this?'
Wally smiled into the rear view mirror. 'No, not always.. In fact, it's only been in the last two years. My first five years driving, I spent most of my time complaining like all the rest of the cabbies do. Then I heard the personal growth guru, Wayne Dyer, on the radio one day.
He had just written a book called You'll See It When You Believe It. Dyer said that if you get up in the morning expecting to have a bad day, you'll rarely disappoint yourself. He said, 'Stop complaining! Differentiate yourself from your competition. Don't be a duck. Be an eagle. Ducks quack and complain. Eagles soar above the crowd.'
'That hit me right between the eyes,' said Wally. 'Dyer was really talking about me. I was always quacking and complaining, so I decided to change my attitude and become an eagle. I looked around at the other cabs and their drivers. The cabs were dirty, the drivers were unfriendly, and the customers were unhappy. So I decided to make some changes. I put in a few at a time. When my customers responded well, I did more.'
'I take it that has paid off for you,' Harvey said.
'It sure has,' Wally replied. 'My first year as an eagle, I doubled my income from the previous year. This year I'll probably quadruple it. You were lucky to get me today. I don't sit at cabstands anymore. My customers call me for appointments on my cell phone or leave a message on my answering machine. If I can't pick them up myself, I get a reliable cabbie friend to do it and I take a piece of the action.'
Wally was phenomenal. He was running a limo service out of a Yellow Cab. I've probably told that story to more than fifty cab drivers over the years, and only two took the idea and ran with it. Whenever I go to their cities, I give them a call. The rest of the drivers quacked like ducks and told me all the reasons they couldn't do any of what I was suggesting.
Wally the Cab Driver made a different choice. He decided to stop quacking like ducks and start soaring like eagles.
How about us? Smile, and the whole world smiles with you... The ball is in our hands! A man reaps what he sows. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up... let us do good to all people.
Ducks Quack, Eagles Soar.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
12 Tips for a Happy Marriage
Go Retro: 12 Tips for a Happy Marriage
Tried-and-true strategies you can borrow from your parents' marriage to enhance your own. By Suzanne Wright WebMD Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Would you take relationship tips from your grandfather or your mom to make your marriage happier?
Modern married couples just might do well to emulate some of the successful strategies of their happily married parents and grandparents -- from sleeping in separate beds to maintaining same-sex friends.
Two newly reissued books originally published in 1913, Don'ts for Husbands and Don'ts for Wives, contain hundreds of tried-and-true tips for a happy marriage. Advice for wives includes such tidbits as "don't let him have to search the house for you after his day's work. Listen for his latch-key and meet him on the threshold," and "don't bother your husband with chatter if he is tired." And for husbands, "don't hesitate to mention the fact when you think that your wife looks exceptionally nice," and "don't scowl or look severe; cultivate a pleasant expression."
"Baby boomers got sold by psychology on the idea of being 'authentic,'" says Terrence Real, therapist, founder of the Relational Life Institute, and co-author of Wonderful Marriage: A Guide to Building a Great Relationship That Will Last a Lifetime. "It's given us permission to treat and speak to each other horribly. Our grandparents knew better."
Could "old-fashioned" practices offer greater longevity, stability, and pleasure to your marriage? Yes, say the relationship experts WebMD spoke to. Read on for ways to incorporate these retro practices into your own relationship.
(What relationship habits (good and bad) did you learn from your parents? Join the discussion on WebMD's Couples Coping: Support Group board.)
Retro Relationship Tip No. 1: Reinstate Civility
"Please," "thank you," "pardon me" and "may I" are phrases that seemed to have all but disappeared from present-day vocabularies, especially with our loved ones.
After spending time with Wonderful Marriage co-authors Lilo and Gerard Leeds, married for more than 50 years, Real believes you should extend your partner the same courtesy you would a stranger. "When speaking to your spouse, don't be rude, be respectful. Use a combination of old-school civility and modern frankness." Additionally, he suggests trying more sweetness and tenderness by saying things more lovingly.
Psychotherapist and author Tina Tessina, PhD, concurs. "Politeness is like a lubricant for your daily interactions; it makes everything go more smoothly."
Joyce Morley-Ball, EdD, a counselor in Decatur, Ga., adds some specifics. "Show her that chivalry is not dead: Pull out her chair, open the door for her, help her over a puddle, give her your coat when it is cold outside, help her to put on her coat. This act of affection shows that she is important and there is a level of respect for her."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 2: Put Pen to Paper
Back before cell phones and instant messaging, people wrote letters of affection to each other, often waiting weeks to receive them.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 2: Put Pen to Paper continued...
Lilia Fallgatter, author of The Most Important Letter You Will Ever Write: How to Tell Loved Ones How You Feel Before It's Too Late, advocates reviving the lost art of letter-writing to increase intimacy in a relationship.
"Love letters exchanged between a couple can strengthen their relationship by helping them to connect to one another on a deeper level," she says via email. "These letters may also become treasured keepsakes that can be revisited and experienced anew each time they are read." You'll reap bonus points if you hand write it on beautiful paper and enclose a cherished memento such as a photograph or ticket stub from a movie you saw together.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 3: Sleep As Singles
It was TV censors who kept sitcom couples in separate beds, but maybe there was wisdom to catching your ZZZs in your own bed.
When one partner snores or is a night owl, tensions can mount in the marital bed, experts say. It may seem like a throwback a la Ricky and Lucy Ricardo, but many couples happily sleep in separate beds; some even maintain separate bedrooms and eliminate tossing and turning and fights over the blanket.
And many couples who are secure enough to seek satisfying slumber on their own report using the regained energy for more ... loving pursuits.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 4: Maintain Same-Sex Friends -- and Interests
Don't for Wives instructs women not to "try to regulate your husband's pleasures and don't be jealous if they don't include you."
It's only been during the past couple of decades that couples expected to share a bulk of their free time together. Retro couples didn't necessarily want to participate in each others hobbies.
Charlotte, N.C., relationship expert Kathy Stafford recommends that couples keep close ties with their same-sex friends throughout marriage. "My parents had separate interests. Dad belonged to a men's club, and Mom belonged to a ladies-only club. This gave them both time to cultivate their own interests, and they weren't totally reliant on each other for their entertainment."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 5: Look Sharp
How did June Cleaver do it? She always looked impeccable when serving dinner to Ward and the kids.
Les Parrott, PhD, and professor of psychology at Seattle Pacific University, says you can inspire romance by dressing up for the occasion. "With our hectic schedules, it's tempting to resort to sweatpants all weekend or immediately changing into a ratty T-shirt after work. Instead, dress up the next time you and your spouse have dinner or plan a night out. Wearing a beautiful dress or a button-down shirt and slacks will be unexpected and make your partner feel special that you took the extra time to look nice. Taking time with your appearance inspires romance and shows your partner you care."
Rhonda Fine, PhD, a board-certified sexologist at the MIAMI Institute, agrees. She tells WebMD via email, "Never let yourself go. Look your best as often as possible -- it will make your partner feel loved and proud."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 6: Don't Go to Bed Angry
Jackie Gleason may have wanted to "send Alice to the moon," but the Honeymooners settled their quarrels before turning in for the night.
The long-married Leeds are proponents of this wisdom. Even if you can't resolve a disagreement before you hit the sheets, you can agree to let the anger go for the night. Remind each other how lucky you are -- even as you disagree -- to have each other to disagree with.
"From the very beginning we decided that we didn't want to go to bed angry," Gerard Leeds writes. "And we seldom go to sleep without kissing each other good night."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 7: Hit the Dance Floor
Ever notice how blissful couples look as they are twirling across the dance floor, entwined in each other's arms like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers?
There is a language of leading and yielding that dance teaches. Paul Bolotovsky is the owner of the Manhattan-based Nightclub Dance Series, an instructional dance series that teaches men and women how to dance in nightclubs. He says that putting on your dancing shoes can put the sizzle back into a relationship that has fizzled.
"The old days of ballroom dancing and swing have a lot to offer today's couples," he tells WebMD in an email interview. "The touch, teamwork, energy, music, anticipation, and companionship are all wonderful byproducts after a night of dancing." Don't fret if you have two left feet; even "contemporary" dancing" is a way to spend fun time together.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 8: Have Couples Fun
Bridge and pinochle were common activities shared by our parents and their friends. So was cocktail hour and formal anniversary celebrations with like-minded couples.
Fine says, "Play board games with other couples! It's fun and a great way to be social with others and playful with one another."
Parrott says it is important to identify friends who are healthy additions to your social circle. "Your goal is to become close with other couples with similar standards and interests who have positive attitudes about marriage and family life. Gravitate toward fun couples who make you feel supported and enhance your active, healthy lifestyle. Friends like these are good for your marriage and overall well-being."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 9: Give Compliments
To give a compliment, you've got to pay attention -- really notice something about someone. Remember how Carol and Mike Brady, the happily married matriarch and patriarch of The Brady Bunch, lavished them on each other?
If it's been a while since you've doled out flattering praise, try it.
Tessina notes that it costs nothing to say, "You look good," "You did a great job," or "I like your shirt." Yet compliments can really reassure and pump up your spouse.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 10: Hold Hands
Back in our parents' time, hand-holding and discreet pecks on the cheek were the tasteful, chaste displays of affection.
Although anything goes these days, Morley-Ball encourages couples to simply hold hands in public. "[It] affirms to everyone your undying affection and love for each other. [It] shows everyone that you are proud to be with each other and you want everyone to know it."
Tessina echoes this sweet sentiment. "There's an actual electrical connection that passes between us when we touch. You can use that electrical connection to provide juice in your marriage. Give each other little pats and gentle touches and hold hands frequently when you're walking or driving and you'll keep the energy -- and the sweetness -- flowing between you."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 11: Cut Back on Complaints
Yesteryear's couples had a comic reputation for nagging -- think of The Dick Van Dyke Show -- yet, in truth, many partners often held their tongues.
Real thinks a stumbling block in modern marriages is a constant soundtrack of discord. "Our generation thinks that closeness comes from sharing everything, letting each other know how miserable you are. But it doesn't motivate me to treat you better."
He says that relaying every annoyance is a bad idea. Instead, he recommends you pick your battles. "Not everything needs to be addressed."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 12: Try Thoughtful Little Acts
Back in the day, with fewer stresses, limited technology and less multitasking, couples were more "present" in their relationships.
"The presence of little, daily thoughtful acts showed caring and appreciation for one another," says licensed clinical social worker Toni Coleman. "Things like making breakfast for your spouse or packing their lunch, bringing them coffee in the morning or a drink or glass of wine at the end of the day, warming up their car or putting their keys and other personal effects on the hall table, ready to go."
Real writes that sustaining a happy relationship, such as the Leeds', requires careful thought, a generous spirit and hard work.
"There's a lot of wisdom [to be gained] from our parents or grandparents, he says."They had companionship marriage, but we've raised the bar -- we want romance, great sex, and more intimacy. We can reconcile these two approaches. With some of the gentleness and graciousness of previous generations with the technology and savvy of today's marriages."
Tried-and-true strategies you can borrow from your parents' marriage to enhance your own. By Suzanne Wright WebMD Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Would you take relationship tips from your grandfather or your mom to make your marriage happier?
Modern married couples just might do well to emulate some of the successful strategies of their happily married parents and grandparents -- from sleeping in separate beds to maintaining same-sex friends.
Two newly reissued books originally published in 1913, Don'ts for Husbands and Don'ts for Wives, contain hundreds of tried-and-true tips for a happy marriage. Advice for wives includes such tidbits as "don't let him have to search the house for you after his day's work. Listen for his latch-key and meet him on the threshold," and "don't bother your husband with chatter if he is tired." And for husbands, "don't hesitate to mention the fact when you think that your wife looks exceptionally nice," and "don't scowl or look severe; cultivate a pleasant expression."
"Baby boomers got sold by psychology on the idea of being 'authentic,'" says Terrence Real, therapist, founder of the Relational Life Institute, and co-author of Wonderful Marriage: A Guide to Building a Great Relationship That Will Last a Lifetime. "It's given us permission to treat and speak to each other horribly. Our grandparents knew better."
Could "old-fashioned" practices offer greater longevity, stability, and pleasure to your marriage? Yes, say the relationship experts WebMD spoke to. Read on for ways to incorporate these retro practices into your own relationship.
(What relationship habits (good and bad) did you learn from your parents? Join the discussion on WebMD's Couples Coping: Support Group board.)
Retro Relationship Tip No. 1: Reinstate Civility
"Please," "thank you," "pardon me" and "may I" are phrases that seemed to have all but disappeared from present-day vocabularies, especially with our loved ones.
After spending time with Wonderful Marriage co-authors Lilo and Gerard Leeds, married for more than 50 years, Real believes you should extend your partner the same courtesy you would a stranger. "When speaking to your spouse, don't be rude, be respectful. Use a combination of old-school civility and modern frankness." Additionally, he suggests trying more sweetness and tenderness by saying things more lovingly.
Psychotherapist and author Tina Tessina, PhD, concurs. "Politeness is like a lubricant for your daily interactions; it makes everything go more smoothly."
Joyce Morley-Ball, EdD, a counselor in Decatur, Ga., adds some specifics. "Show her that chivalry is not dead: Pull out her chair, open the door for her, help her over a puddle, give her your coat when it is cold outside, help her to put on her coat. This act of affection shows that she is important and there is a level of respect for her."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 2: Put Pen to Paper
Back before cell phones and instant messaging, people wrote letters of affection to each other, often waiting weeks to receive them.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 2: Put Pen to Paper continued...
Lilia Fallgatter, author of The Most Important Letter You Will Ever Write: How to Tell Loved Ones How You Feel Before It's Too Late, advocates reviving the lost art of letter-writing to increase intimacy in a relationship.
"Love letters exchanged between a couple can strengthen their relationship by helping them to connect to one another on a deeper level," she says via email. "These letters may also become treasured keepsakes that can be revisited and experienced anew each time they are read." You'll reap bonus points if you hand write it on beautiful paper and enclose a cherished memento such as a photograph or ticket stub from a movie you saw together.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 3: Sleep As Singles
It was TV censors who kept sitcom couples in separate beds, but maybe there was wisdom to catching your ZZZs in your own bed.
When one partner snores or is a night owl, tensions can mount in the marital bed, experts say. It may seem like a throwback a la Ricky and Lucy Ricardo, but many couples happily sleep in separate beds; some even maintain separate bedrooms and eliminate tossing and turning and fights over the blanket.
And many couples who are secure enough to seek satisfying slumber on their own report using the regained energy for more ... loving pursuits.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 4: Maintain Same-Sex Friends -- and Interests
Don't for Wives instructs women not to "try to regulate your husband's pleasures and don't be jealous if they don't include you."
It's only been during the past couple of decades that couples expected to share a bulk of their free time together. Retro couples didn't necessarily want to participate in each others hobbies.
Charlotte, N.C., relationship expert Kathy Stafford recommends that couples keep close ties with their same-sex friends throughout marriage. "My parents had separate interests. Dad belonged to a men's club, and Mom belonged to a ladies-only club. This gave them both time to cultivate their own interests, and they weren't totally reliant on each other for their entertainment."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 5: Look Sharp
How did June Cleaver do it? She always looked impeccable when serving dinner to Ward and the kids.
Les Parrott, PhD, and professor of psychology at Seattle Pacific University, says you can inspire romance by dressing up for the occasion. "With our hectic schedules, it's tempting to resort to sweatpants all weekend or immediately changing into a ratty T-shirt after work. Instead, dress up the next time you and your spouse have dinner or plan a night out. Wearing a beautiful dress or a button-down shirt and slacks will be unexpected and make your partner feel special that you took the extra time to look nice. Taking time with your appearance inspires romance and shows your partner you care."
Rhonda Fine, PhD, a board-certified sexologist at the MIAMI Institute, agrees. She tells WebMD via email, "Never let yourself go. Look your best as often as possible -- it will make your partner feel loved and proud."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 6: Don't Go to Bed Angry
Jackie Gleason may have wanted to "send Alice to the moon," but the Honeymooners settled their quarrels before turning in for the night.
The long-married Leeds are proponents of this wisdom. Even if you can't resolve a disagreement before you hit the sheets, you can agree to let the anger go for the night. Remind each other how lucky you are -- even as you disagree -- to have each other to disagree with.
"From the very beginning we decided that we didn't want to go to bed angry," Gerard Leeds writes. "And we seldom go to sleep without kissing each other good night."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 7: Hit the Dance Floor
Ever notice how blissful couples look as they are twirling across the dance floor, entwined in each other's arms like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers?
There is a language of leading and yielding that dance teaches. Paul Bolotovsky is the owner of the Manhattan-based Nightclub Dance Series, an instructional dance series that teaches men and women how to dance in nightclubs. He says that putting on your dancing shoes can put the sizzle back into a relationship that has fizzled.
"The old days of ballroom dancing and swing have a lot to offer today's couples," he tells WebMD in an email interview. "The touch, teamwork, energy, music, anticipation, and companionship are all wonderful byproducts after a night of dancing." Don't fret if you have two left feet; even "contemporary" dancing" is a way to spend fun time together.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 8: Have Couples Fun
Bridge and pinochle were common activities shared by our parents and their friends. So was cocktail hour and formal anniversary celebrations with like-minded couples.
Fine says, "Play board games with other couples! It's fun and a great way to be social with others and playful with one another."
Parrott says it is important to identify friends who are healthy additions to your social circle. "Your goal is to become close with other couples with similar standards and interests who have positive attitudes about marriage and family life. Gravitate toward fun couples who make you feel supported and enhance your active, healthy lifestyle. Friends like these are good for your marriage and overall well-being."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 9: Give Compliments
To give a compliment, you've got to pay attention -- really notice something about someone. Remember how Carol and Mike Brady, the happily married matriarch and patriarch of The Brady Bunch, lavished them on each other?
If it's been a while since you've doled out flattering praise, try it.
Tessina notes that it costs nothing to say, "You look good," "You did a great job," or "I like your shirt." Yet compliments can really reassure and pump up your spouse.
Retro Relationship Tip No. 10: Hold Hands
Back in our parents' time, hand-holding and discreet pecks on the cheek were the tasteful, chaste displays of affection.
Although anything goes these days, Morley-Ball encourages couples to simply hold hands in public. "[It] affirms to everyone your undying affection and love for each other. [It] shows everyone that you are proud to be with each other and you want everyone to know it."
Tessina echoes this sweet sentiment. "There's an actual electrical connection that passes between us when we touch. You can use that electrical connection to provide juice in your marriage. Give each other little pats and gentle touches and hold hands frequently when you're walking or driving and you'll keep the energy -- and the sweetness -- flowing between you."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 11: Cut Back on Complaints
Yesteryear's couples had a comic reputation for nagging -- think of The Dick Van Dyke Show -- yet, in truth, many partners often held their tongues.
Real thinks a stumbling block in modern marriages is a constant soundtrack of discord. "Our generation thinks that closeness comes from sharing everything, letting each other know how miserable you are. But it doesn't motivate me to treat you better."
He says that relaying every annoyance is a bad idea. Instead, he recommends you pick your battles. "Not everything needs to be addressed."
Retro Relationship Tip No. 12: Try Thoughtful Little Acts
Back in the day, with fewer stresses, limited technology and less multitasking, couples were more "present" in their relationships.
"The presence of little, daily thoughtful acts showed caring and appreciation for one another," says licensed clinical social worker Toni Coleman. "Things like making breakfast for your spouse or packing their lunch, bringing them coffee in the morning or a drink or glass of wine at the end of the day, warming up their car or putting their keys and other personal effects on the hall table, ready to go."
Real writes that sustaining a happy relationship, such as the Leeds', requires careful thought, a generous spirit and hard work.
"There's a lot of wisdom [to be gained] from our parents or grandparents, he says."They had companionship marriage, but we've raised the bar -- we want romance, great sex, and more intimacy. We can reconcile these two approaches. With some of the gentleness and graciousness of previous generations with the technology and savvy of today's marriages."
Rice ditches Christianity
Novelist Anne Rice ditches Christianity for Christ
Rice says she's quit being a Christian but she's hanging on to Christ.
She's just fed up with his followers.
The author, whose vampire books (i.e. Interview with a Vampire) were huge sellers long before Twilight and whose return to her childhood Catholicism dominated her more recent works, posted a series of comments on Facebook (confirmed by her publisher as authentic, according to Associated Press).
For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
The mother of novelist Christopher Rice, who is gay, goes on to say:
I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.
In a USA TODAY profile of Anne and Christopher, Rice talked about growing up Catholic, drifting away as a teen and marrying an atheist. After the death of a young daughter, she began writing her vampire books,
...about lost souls looking for answers, so in a sense I was always on this journey back. I do get people saying, "How can you be such a fool to believe in God?" I sense many are young Goth kids who feel abandoned. I just say, look, you're looking for the same things that I was, transcendence and redemption. I found what my characters were looking for.
Even now, as she tosses off organized religion, Rice posts that she's still
... an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God ... Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.
UPDATE: FRIDAY, 5 P.M.
Reaction from religion commentators is all over the blogosphere since Rice's Facebook blast at Catholicism. Here's just a sampling:
The United Church of Christ rushed up with a Facebook page of its own, telling Rice all the ways "You'd like the UCC." The Rev. Geoffrey Black, the UCC's general minister and president, says,
Many in the United Church of Christ can understand and appreciate her insistence that she must follow a God of love, justice and inclusion.
And Elizabeth Scalia, blogging as The Anchoress at the Catholic journal First Things, does a point by point post refuting Rice's jabs at the Catholicism. Scalia writes:
Anne Rice wants to do the Life-in-Christ on her own, while saying "Yes" to the worldly world and its values. She seems not to realize that far from being an Institution of No, the church is a giant and eternal urging toward "Yes," that being a "yes" toward God -- whose ways are not our ways, and who draws all to Himself, in the fullness of time -- rather than a "yes" to ourselves.
Can you reject religion and hang on to God?
Rice says she's quit being a Christian but she's hanging on to Christ.
She's just fed up with his followers.
The author, whose vampire books (i.e. Interview with a Vampire) were huge sellers long before Twilight and whose return to her childhood Catholicism dominated her more recent works, posted a series of comments on Facebook (confirmed by her publisher as authentic, according to Associated Press).
For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
The mother of novelist Christopher Rice, who is gay, goes on to say:
I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.
In a USA TODAY profile of Anne and Christopher, Rice talked about growing up Catholic, drifting away as a teen and marrying an atheist. After the death of a young daughter, she began writing her vampire books,
...about lost souls looking for answers, so in a sense I was always on this journey back. I do get people saying, "How can you be such a fool to believe in God?" I sense many are young Goth kids who feel abandoned. I just say, look, you're looking for the same things that I was, transcendence and redemption. I found what my characters were looking for.
Even now, as she tosses off organized religion, Rice posts that she's still
... an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God ... Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been, or might become.
UPDATE: FRIDAY, 5 P.M.
Reaction from religion commentators is all over the blogosphere since Rice's Facebook blast at Catholicism. Here's just a sampling:
The United Church of Christ rushed up with a Facebook page of its own, telling Rice all the ways "You'd like the UCC." The Rev. Geoffrey Black, the UCC's general minister and president, says,
Many in the United Church of Christ can understand and appreciate her insistence that she must follow a God of love, justice and inclusion.
And Elizabeth Scalia, blogging as The Anchoress at the Catholic journal First Things, does a point by point post refuting Rice's jabs at the Catholicism. Scalia writes:
Anne Rice wants to do the Life-in-Christ on her own, while saying "Yes" to the worldly world and its values. She seems not to realize that far from being an Institution of No, the church is a giant and eternal urging toward "Yes," that being a "yes" toward God -- whose ways are not our ways, and who draws all to Himself, in the fullness of time -- rather than a "yes" to ourselves.
Can you reject religion and hang on to God?
BIG AL cleared by the massage hag!
AL GORE CASE “closed” by district attorney in Portland, Ore., and ruled “not appropriate for criminal prosecution”-- “Deficiencies in the case … Forensic testing of pants retained by [Molly] Hagerty as possible evidence are negative for the presence of seminal fluid … Ms. Hagerty has not provided as repeatedly requested medical records she claims are related to the case … Ms. Hagerty failed a polygraph examination … It appears Ms. Hagerty was paid by the National Enquirer for her story … When asked by detectives if she was paid by the Enquirer for her story Ms. Hagerty refused to answer the question. Ms. Hagerty's entertainment/media lawyer [Kohel] Haver also refused to answer any questions about payment … Mr. Gore voluntarily met with detectives and denied all of the allegations.”
Friday, July 30, 2010
WEINER gives the NO PARTY HELL! F I N A L L Y
Rep. Weiner Gone Wild On House Floor
Much of the debate on the floor of the House of Representatives is about as lively and entertaining as watching paint dry, but the blistering rant by Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-NY, on Thursday night was one of the most animated diatribes seen and heard on Capitol Hill in recent years.
As the clock ticked towards 9pm, Weiner launched into a furious spiel directed at Republicans who moments earlier had shot down a bill that would have provided health care benefits for first responders and workers at Ground Zero following the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
“Great courage to wait until all members have already spoken and then stand up and wrap your arms around procedure,” Weiner said sarcastically, mocking GOP lawmakers before he let loose on them. “We see it in the United States Senate every single day where members say, ‘We want amendments, we want debate, we want amendments, but we’re still a no.’ And then we stand up and say, ‘If only we had a different process, we’d vote yes.’”
“You vote yes if you believe yes!” Weiner roared. “You vote in favor of something if you believe it's the right thing! If you believe it's the wrong thing, you vote no!”
The congressman was then interrupted by Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, drawing a swift and scathing rebuke from Weiner.
“I will not yield to the gentleman and the gentleman will observe regular order,” he screamed at King. “The gentleman will observe regular order!”
“The gentleman thinks if he gets up and yells he’s going to intimidate people into believing he’s right,” Weiner yelled. “He is wrong. The gentleman is wrong! The gentleman is providing cover for his colleagues rather than doing the right thing.”
“It's Republicans wrapping their arms around Republicans rather than doing the right thing on behalf of the heroes. It is a shame, a shame! If you believe this is a bad idea to provide health care, then vote no. But don't give me the cowardly view that if only it was a different procedure…”
Weiner was then interrupted a second time by King.
“The gentleman will observe regular order and sit down,” demanded Weiner, pointing and gesturing at King. “I will not – the gentleman will sit! The gentleman is correct in sitting.”
“I will not, I will not stand here and listen to my colleagues and say, ‘If only I had a different procedure that allows us to stall, stall, and then vote no.’ Instead of standing up and defending your colleagues and voting no on this humane bill, you should urge them to vote yes, something the gentleman has not done,” Weiner concluded, pounding on the podium as he wrapped up his outraged rant.
And with that, Democrats in the chamber delivered a round of applause for their fired-up colleague.
Much of the debate on the floor of the House of Representatives is about as lively and entertaining as watching paint dry, but the blistering rant by Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-NY, on Thursday night was one of the most animated diatribes seen and heard on Capitol Hill in recent years.
As the clock ticked towards 9pm, Weiner launched into a furious spiel directed at Republicans who moments earlier had shot down a bill that would have provided health care benefits for first responders and workers at Ground Zero following the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
“Great courage to wait until all members have already spoken and then stand up and wrap your arms around procedure,” Weiner said sarcastically, mocking GOP lawmakers before he let loose on them. “We see it in the United States Senate every single day where members say, ‘We want amendments, we want debate, we want amendments, but we’re still a no.’ And then we stand up and say, ‘If only we had a different process, we’d vote yes.’”
“You vote yes if you believe yes!” Weiner roared. “You vote in favor of something if you believe it's the right thing! If you believe it's the wrong thing, you vote no!”
The congressman was then interrupted by Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, drawing a swift and scathing rebuke from Weiner.
“I will not yield to the gentleman and the gentleman will observe regular order,” he screamed at King. “The gentleman will observe regular order!”
“The gentleman thinks if he gets up and yells he’s going to intimidate people into believing he’s right,” Weiner yelled. “He is wrong. The gentleman is wrong! The gentleman is providing cover for his colleagues rather than doing the right thing.”
“It's Republicans wrapping their arms around Republicans rather than doing the right thing on behalf of the heroes. It is a shame, a shame! If you believe this is a bad idea to provide health care, then vote no. But don't give me the cowardly view that if only it was a different procedure…”
Weiner was then interrupted a second time by King.
“The gentleman will observe regular order and sit down,” demanded Weiner, pointing and gesturing at King. “I will not – the gentleman will sit! The gentleman is correct in sitting.”
“I will not, I will not stand here and listen to my colleagues and say, ‘If only I had a different procedure that allows us to stall, stall, and then vote no.’ Instead of standing up and defending your colleagues and voting no on this humane bill, you should urge them to vote yes, something the gentleman has not done,” Weiner concluded, pounding on the podium as he wrapped up his outraged rant.
And with that, Democrats in the chamber delivered a round of applause for their fired-up colleague.
LIMBAUGH and BECK are LIARS!
Media Matters: Conservatives' perpetual dishonesty machine
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh regularly tout their supposed accuracy and often claim their critics never prove them wrong. Fittingly, this in itself is a complete falsehood. Limbaugh and Beck are wrong for a living, but have been rewarded for their perpetual wrongness by assuming the role of the two most important cogs in the conservative media.
Every day, the conservative noise machine -- Fox News, Beck, Limbaugh, and other prominent conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers -- hurl false accusations with the hopes of damaging the Obama administration, Democrats, and progressives politically. Make no mistake: this is the primary motivation for the majority of the stories they promote. Pesky things like "facts" and "reality" are, at best, a trivial concern.
Often, these attacks are baseless, easily debunked, and laughably absurd -- yet conservative media outlets rarely (if ever) offer corrections when they are proven wrong. Instead they either double down on their attacks or simply ignore that they were wrong in the first place and move on to the next overhyped bit of nonsense.
While it may seem like a minor story in the grand scheme of things, one example from this week perfectly exemplifies the utter lack of journalistic standards endemic to conservative media.
Early this week, conservatives were in their usual panic mode over what they claimed was evidence that the Obama administration "backed" or "preferred" the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the terrorist better known as the Lockerbie bomber. As we pointed out, reports -- often the same reports these conservatives were linking to in order to make their arguments -- indicated that the administration wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned, with the stipulation that if he were to be released, he should remain in Scotland rather than risk him receiving an "extremely inappropriate" "welcoming reception" upon being transferred to Libya.
Fox News twisted reality to claim that the "U.S. Backed Freedom, Not Prison, for Bomber." Matt Drudge splashed a huge headline across his website announcing that the "White House Backed Release Of Lockerbie Bomber." Pam Geller -- whose deranged rantings have earned her frequent appearances on Fox News and bylines on Andrew Breitbart's "Big" websites, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, and the American Thinker -- called for a "special investigation" and a "charge of treason" for Obama.
Rush Limbaugh -- while bragging, as he often does, that he was "executing assigned host duties flawlessly" with "zero mistakes" --claimed that Obama "backed the release" of the Lockerbie bomber because he wanted to "make nice with the Muslim world."
Late Monday, when the State Department released the administration's correspondence with the Scottish Ministry of Justice, it confirmed in unambiguous terms that the administration was "not prepared to support Megrahi's release on compassionate release or bail," and that "it would be most appropriate for Megrahi to remain imprisoned for the entirety of his sentence."
So, after this story completely fell apart, did conservative media figures correct the record and let their readers/listeners/viewers know that the administration did not "support" or "prefer" the release of the Lockerbie bomber?
Of course not.
Conservative blogger Jim Hoft -- whose ongoing popularity and influence in conservative media says a lot about their complete indifference to accuracy and credibility -- linked to the letter and proclaimed that the administration "preferred" his release. This was akin to pointing at the ground and saying "this is the sky."
Fox Nation, almost 48 hours after the story had completely fallen apart, still had the following headline and image on their front page: checj their site.
And you can be sure that in a few months, whenever Sean Hannity or anyone else in the noise machine decides to twist a news story to claim that the Obama administration is "weak on terror," they'll point to the time the administration supposedly "preferred the release of the Lockerbie bomber" in order to buttress their point.
It's a perpetual dishonesty machine.
If this were an isolated incident, perhaps it would be possible to (partially) excuse conservative media outlets for their shameless performance "covering" this story. But as we detailed this week, the right-wing media routinely promote fake stories (for example, the epic freak-out over the imaginary Obama proposal to "ban sport fishing.")
For another good example of how the perpetual dishonesty machine works, have a look at this segment from Tuesday's Fox & Friends. In it, Glenn Beck, Steve Doocy, and Peter Johnson Jr. seized on reports of the U.K. supposedly "admit[ting] its socialized health care is a mess" in order to attack health care reform. They rehashed some old favorites from conservatives' misinformation campaign about health care reform, claiming that we "modeled" reform on the British system and fear mongered about imaginary "death panels." Neither of these attacks were true when they appeared last year, they weren't true this week, and they won't be true the next time Fox's hosts bring them up.
This pattern is undeniable, and at this point is just expected behavior for the conservative media. The larger problem is that "mainstream" outlets still frequently treat garbage from conservative media figures as newsworthy, and ombudsmen at major newspapers like The Washington Post regularly chastise their colleagues for not seizing on conservative nonsense faster.
It says a lot about the state of the media when Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and other prominent media conservatives can be caught pushing a blatantly false story, offer no correction, and have their behavior met with a collective shrug. Conservative media outlets retain their unfortunate power and influence over the public discourse because they are able to lie largely without consequence.
They did it all this week, they did it all last week, and they'll do it again next week.
Dishonest damage control: Shirley Sherrod edition
Though conservative media outlets mostly avoid accountability for their shameless dishonesty, occasionally, one of their overhyped "scandals" blows up in such epic fashion that they are forced to publicly defend themselves. Fittingly, their defenses often rest on provable falsehoods.
In the wake of Shirley Sherrod's firing and (attempted) rehiring, Fox News, Andrew Breitbart, and conservative media figures have transitioned into damage control mode, a large, shameful part of which entails attacking Sherrod as a radical Marxist race-baiter.
While Breitbart (whom Sherrod announced plans to sue this week) deserves a hefty dose of criticism for revealing yet again that he is a dishonest hack, it's worth taking a closer look at Fox News' role in this story.
Fox originally defended their journalistic integrity by unequivocally stating that they did not cover the story prior to Sherrod's resignation. Among the Fox personalities making this argument were Dana Perino, Steve Doocy, Glenn Beck, and James Rosen. As we pointed out repeatedly, Fox News did cover the story prior to her resignation on both FoxNews.com and FoxNation.com, and Bill O'Reilly taped his segment calling for Sherrod's resignation before she stepped down.
Fox News VP Michael Clemente eventually conceded to Politico that Fox had covered the story online before Sherrod resigned, which he blamed on a "breakdown in the system." Give me a break -- Fox should not get a pass on this one. How low a bar has Fox set in terms of journalistic responsibility that they think a legitimate defense for their behavior is saying "well, only two of our websites and our top-rated TV host planned to run with this story before we got the facts straight, so we mostly did a good job." Really?
The fact that Sherrod happened to resign before O'Reilly's segment aired has absolutely no bearing on the lack of journalisticresponsibility inherent in O'Reilly's segment in the first place. And Fox's online coverage of the story, coupled with their past transgressions, seem to indicate not that there was a "breakdown in the system," but that the "system" doesn't even exist.
Glenn Beck's dangerous game
On July 18, an apparently deranged ex-convict named Byron Williams packed his truck with guns and allegedly set out to kill employees at both the ACLU and the Tides Foundation in the hopes that his actions would "start a revolution." Williams' mother indicated that her son was angry because of his unemployment and "what's happening to our country." According to her, Williams watched television news and was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items." Sound familiar?
While the ACLU has long been a bogeyman for conservatives, the Tides Foundation is far more obscure and hasn't earned nearly as much attention from the right-wing media. There is, however, one media figure who has made the little-known Tides Foundation a focal point of his attacks: Fox News' Glenn Beck.
As we detailed, Beck has repeatedly demonized the Tides Foundation on his Fox News program - referencing the organization at least thirty times by our count. Beck often includes Tides in his bizarre conspiracy theories, and has referred to them as a "shady organization" that is a "major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the left" and wants to "warp your children's brains."
In the wake of the attempted attack, Beck has stood by his attacks on Tides, going so far as to brag about "turning the light of day" on Tides while also pointing to their inclusion on his blackboard as "the first time that I really realized its success."
Beck's denial of any responsibility for this incident is complicated by his almost-daily use of overtly violent rhetoric. Among many, many other examples, Beck has:
Suggested Obama is pushing America toward civil war and deliberately "trying to destroy the country."
Capped two weeks of violent fear mongering about progressives by warning that when their attempts at a "soft revolution" fail, eventually progressives "just start shooting people."
Said the "people around the president" support "armed insurrection" and "bombing."
Repeatedly insinuated that the Obama administration will kill him.
Used a quote from Jefferson to launch into a warning about coming "rivers of blood."
Compared himself to "Israeli Nazi hunters" and announced that "to the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter."
Included in his advice to Liberty University grads that they should "shoot to kill," and that graduates "have a responsibility" tospeak out, or "blood...will be on our hands."
Informed viewers that the "world is on edge" and said that "those who survive" will "stand in the truth" and "listen."
Said that some progressive groups don't have "a problem with blood in the streets."
And just today, Beck claimed the present day will seem like good times "when we're behind barbed wire and just eating rock soup."
Despite the fact that he routinely suggests progressives are going to kill or imprison his viewers and listeners, Beck tries to thread the needle by urging his followers not to resort to violence.
As Media Matters' Matt McLaughlin asked this week, what does it say about Beck's rhetoric and his audience that he feels it necessary to tell his followers not to kill people?
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Media Matters' Ben Dimiero
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh regularly tout their supposed accuracy and often claim their critics never prove them wrong. Fittingly, this in itself is a complete falsehood. Limbaugh and Beck are wrong for a living, but have been rewarded for their perpetual wrongness by assuming the role of the two most important cogs in the conservative media.
Every day, the conservative noise machine -- Fox News, Beck, Limbaugh, and other prominent conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers -- hurl false accusations with the hopes of damaging the Obama administration, Democrats, and progressives politically. Make no mistake: this is the primary motivation for the majority of the stories they promote. Pesky things like "facts" and "reality" are, at best, a trivial concern.
Often, these attacks are baseless, easily debunked, and laughably absurd -- yet conservative media outlets rarely (if ever) offer corrections when they are proven wrong. Instead they either double down on their attacks or simply ignore that they were wrong in the first place and move on to the next overhyped bit of nonsense.
While it may seem like a minor story in the grand scheme of things, one example from this week perfectly exemplifies the utter lack of journalistic standards endemic to conservative media.
Early this week, conservatives were in their usual panic mode over what they claimed was evidence that the Obama administration "backed" or "preferred" the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the terrorist better known as the Lockerbie bomber. As we pointed out, reports -- often the same reports these conservatives were linking to in order to make their arguments -- indicated that the administration wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned, with the stipulation that if he were to be released, he should remain in Scotland rather than risk him receiving an "extremely inappropriate" "welcoming reception" upon being transferred to Libya.
Fox News twisted reality to claim that the "U.S. Backed Freedom, Not Prison, for Bomber." Matt Drudge splashed a huge headline across his website announcing that the "White House Backed Release Of Lockerbie Bomber." Pam Geller -- whose deranged rantings have earned her frequent appearances on Fox News and bylines on Andrew Breitbart's "Big" websites, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, and the American Thinker -- called for a "special investigation" and a "charge of treason" for Obama.
Rush Limbaugh -- while bragging, as he often does, that he was "executing assigned host duties flawlessly" with "zero mistakes" --claimed that Obama "backed the release" of the Lockerbie bomber because he wanted to "make nice with the Muslim world."
Late Monday, when the State Department released the administration's correspondence with the Scottish Ministry of Justice, it confirmed in unambiguous terms that the administration was "not prepared to support Megrahi's release on compassionate release or bail," and that "it would be most appropriate for Megrahi to remain imprisoned for the entirety of his sentence."
So, after this story completely fell apart, did conservative media figures correct the record and let their readers/listeners/viewers know that the administration did not "support" or "prefer" the release of the Lockerbie bomber?
Of course not.
Conservative blogger Jim Hoft -- whose ongoing popularity and influence in conservative media says a lot about their complete indifference to accuracy and credibility -- linked to the letter and proclaimed that the administration "preferred" his release. This was akin to pointing at the ground and saying "this is the sky."
Fox Nation, almost 48 hours after the story had completely fallen apart, still had the following headline and image on their front page: checj their site.
And you can be sure that in a few months, whenever Sean Hannity or anyone else in the noise machine decides to twist a news story to claim that the Obama administration is "weak on terror," they'll point to the time the administration supposedly "preferred the release of the Lockerbie bomber" in order to buttress their point.
It's a perpetual dishonesty machine.
If this were an isolated incident, perhaps it would be possible to (partially) excuse conservative media outlets for their shameless performance "covering" this story. But as we detailed this week, the right-wing media routinely promote fake stories (for example, the epic freak-out over the imaginary Obama proposal to "ban sport fishing.")
For another good example of how the perpetual dishonesty machine works, have a look at this segment from Tuesday's Fox & Friends. In it, Glenn Beck, Steve Doocy, and Peter Johnson Jr. seized on reports of the U.K. supposedly "admit[ting] its socialized health care is a mess" in order to attack health care reform. They rehashed some old favorites from conservatives' misinformation campaign about health care reform, claiming that we "modeled" reform on the British system and fear mongered about imaginary "death panels." Neither of these attacks were true when they appeared last year, they weren't true this week, and they won't be true the next time Fox's hosts bring them up.
This pattern is undeniable, and at this point is just expected behavior for the conservative media. The larger problem is that "mainstream" outlets still frequently treat garbage from conservative media figures as newsworthy, and ombudsmen at major newspapers like The Washington Post regularly chastise their colleagues for not seizing on conservative nonsense faster.
It says a lot about the state of the media when Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and other prominent media conservatives can be caught pushing a blatantly false story, offer no correction, and have their behavior met with a collective shrug. Conservative media outlets retain their unfortunate power and influence over the public discourse because they are able to lie largely without consequence.
They did it all this week, they did it all last week, and they'll do it again next week.
Dishonest damage control: Shirley Sherrod edition
Though conservative media outlets mostly avoid accountability for their shameless dishonesty, occasionally, one of their overhyped "scandals" blows up in such epic fashion that they are forced to publicly defend themselves. Fittingly, their defenses often rest on provable falsehoods.
In the wake of Shirley Sherrod's firing and (attempted) rehiring, Fox News, Andrew Breitbart, and conservative media figures have transitioned into damage control mode, a large, shameful part of which entails attacking Sherrod as a radical Marxist race-baiter.
While Breitbart (whom Sherrod announced plans to sue this week) deserves a hefty dose of criticism for revealing yet again that he is a dishonest hack, it's worth taking a closer look at Fox News' role in this story.
Fox originally defended their journalistic integrity by unequivocally stating that they did not cover the story prior to Sherrod's resignation. Among the Fox personalities making this argument were Dana Perino, Steve Doocy, Glenn Beck, and James Rosen. As we pointed out repeatedly, Fox News did cover the story prior to her resignation on both FoxNews.com and FoxNation.com, and Bill O'Reilly taped his segment calling for Sherrod's resignation before she stepped down.
Fox News VP Michael Clemente eventually conceded to Politico that Fox had covered the story online before Sherrod resigned, which he blamed on a "breakdown in the system." Give me a break -- Fox should not get a pass on this one. How low a bar has Fox set in terms of journalistic responsibility that they think a legitimate defense for their behavior is saying "well, only two of our websites and our top-rated TV host planned to run with this story before we got the facts straight, so we mostly did a good job." Really?
The fact that Sherrod happened to resign before O'Reilly's segment aired has absolutely no bearing on the lack of journalisticresponsibility inherent in O'Reilly's segment in the first place. And Fox's online coverage of the story, coupled with their past transgressions, seem to indicate not that there was a "breakdown in the system," but that the "system" doesn't even exist.
Glenn Beck's dangerous game
On July 18, an apparently deranged ex-convict named Byron Williams packed his truck with guns and allegedly set out to kill employees at both the ACLU and the Tides Foundation in the hopes that his actions would "start a revolution." Williams' mother indicated that her son was angry because of his unemployment and "what's happening to our country." According to her, Williams watched television news and was upset by "the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items." Sound familiar?
While the ACLU has long been a bogeyman for conservatives, the Tides Foundation is far more obscure and hasn't earned nearly as much attention from the right-wing media. There is, however, one media figure who has made the little-known Tides Foundation a focal point of his attacks: Fox News' Glenn Beck.
As we detailed, Beck has repeatedly demonized the Tides Foundation on his Fox News program - referencing the organization at least thirty times by our count. Beck often includes Tides in his bizarre conspiracy theories, and has referred to them as a "shady organization" that is a "major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the left" and wants to "warp your children's brains."
In the wake of the attempted attack, Beck has stood by his attacks on Tides, going so far as to brag about "turning the light of day" on Tides while also pointing to their inclusion on his blackboard as "the first time that I really realized its success."
Beck's denial of any responsibility for this incident is complicated by his almost-daily use of overtly violent rhetoric. Among many, many other examples, Beck has:
Suggested Obama is pushing America toward civil war and deliberately "trying to destroy the country."
Capped two weeks of violent fear mongering about progressives by warning that when their attempts at a "soft revolution" fail, eventually progressives "just start shooting people."
Said the "people around the president" support "armed insurrection" and "bombing."
Repeatedly insinuated that the Obama administration will kill him.
Used a quote from Jefferson to launch into a warning about coming "rivers of blood."
Compared himself to "Israeli Nazi hunters" and announced that "to the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter."
Included in his advice to Liberty University grads that they should "shoot to kill," and that graduates "have a responsibility" tospeak out, or "blood...will be on our hands."
Informed viewers that the "world is on edge" and said that "those who survive" will "stand in the truth" and "listen."
Said that some progressive groups don't have "a problem with blood in the streets."
And just today, Beck claimed the present day will seem like good times "when we're behind barbed wire and just eating rock soup."
Despite the fact that he routinely suggests progressives are going to kill or imprison his viewers and listeners, Beck tries to thread the needle by urging his followers not to resort to violence.
As Media Matters' Matt McLaughlin asked this week, what does it say about Beck's rhetoric and his audience that he feels it necessary to tell his followers not to kill people?
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Media Matters' Ben Dimiero
Thursday, July 29, 2010
In American politics, stupidity is the name of the game
E.J. Dionne Jr. Washington Post
Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?
Start with taxes. In every other serious democracy, conservative political parties feel at least some obligation to match their tax policies with their spending plans. David Cameron, the new Conservative prime minister in Britain, is a leading example.
He recently offered a rather brutal budget that includes severe cutbacks. I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax, from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.
That could never happen here because the fairy tale of supply-side economics insists that taxes are always too high, especially on the rich.
This is why Democrats will be fools if they don't try to turn the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year into an election issue. If Democrats go into a headlong retreat on this, they will have no standing to govern.
The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States -- the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years -- are undertaxed compared with everyone else.
Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007."
The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.
The study found that the top 400 households "paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995." We are talking here about truly rich people. Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to make the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.
The notion that when we are fighting two wars, we're not supposed to consider raising taxes on such Americans is one sign of a country that's no longer serious. Why do so few foreign policy hawks acknowledge that if they lack the gumption to ask taxpayers to finance the projection of American military power, we won't be able to project it in the long run?
And if we are unwilling to have a full-scale debate over whether nation-building abroad is getting in the way of nation-building at home, we will accomplish neither.
Our discussion of the economic stimulus is another symptom of political irrationality. It's entirely true that the $787 billion recovery package passed last year was not big enough to keep unemployment from rising above 9 percent.
But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved as many as 3 million jobs are very hard to refute. It's much easier to pretend that all this money was wasted, although the evidence is overwhelming that we should have stimulated more.
Then there's the structure of our government. Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?
When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it's 68 to 1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?
I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power.
We need a new conservatism in our country that is worthy of the name. We need liberals willing to speak out on the threat our daft politics poses to our influence in the world. We need moderates who do more than stick their fingers in the wind to calculate the halfway point between two political poles.
And, yes, we need to reform a Senate that has become an embarrassment to our democratic claims.
Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?
Start with taxes. In every other serious democracy, conservative political parties feel at least some obligation to match their tax policies with their spending plans. David Cameron, the new Conservative prime minister in Britain, is a leading example.
He recently offered a rather brutal budget that includes severe cutbacks. I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax, from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.
That could never happen here because the fairy tale of supply-side economics insists that taxes are always too high, especially on the rich.
This is why Democrats will be fools if they don't try to turn the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year into an election issue. If Democrats go into a headlong retreat on this, they will have no standing to govern.
The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States -- the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years -- are undertaxed compared with everyone else.
Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007."
The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.
The study found that the top 400 households "paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995." We are talking here about truly rich people. Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to make the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.
The notion that when we are fighting two wars, we're not supposed to consider raising taxes on such Americans is one sign of a country that's no longer serious. Why do so few foreign policy hawks acknowledge that if they lack the gumption to ask taxpayers to finance the projection of American military power, we won't be able to project it in the long run?
And if we are unwilling to have a full-scale debate over whether nation-building abroad is getting in the way of nation-building at home, we will accomplish neither.
Our discussion of the economic stimulus is another symptom of political irrationality. It's entirely true that the $787 billion recovery package passed last year was not big enough to keep unemployment from rising above 9 percent.
But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved as many as 3 million jobs are very hard to refute. It's much easier to pretend that all this money was wasted, although the evidence is overwhelming that we should have stimulated more.
Then there's the structure of our government. Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?
When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it's 68 to 1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?
I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power.
We need a new conservatism in our country that is worthy of the name. We need liberals willing to speak out on the threat our daft politics poses to our influence in the world. We need moderates who do more than stick their fingers in the wind to calculate the halfway point between two political poles.
And, yes, we need to reform a Senate that has become an embarrassment to our democratic claims.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
This why we need(?) more guns in the USA!?
Brothers Aged 12 and 10 Found Dead in Possible Murder-Suicide
Cops Say The Boys' Father Was the Owner of the Gun Used in the Shootings
July 28, 2010 —
The backyard shooting deaths of two young brothers, only 10 and 12 years old, are believed to have been the result of a double suicide or a murder-suicide, according to police.
The apparent weapon that was used was a handgun that belonged to their father.
A family member discovered Bryan Gonzalez, 12, and his younger brother Christian, 10, just after noon on Tuesday, according to San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Bachman.
Bachman said that the boys were pronounced dead on the scene. An official autopsy report is expected later this week.
"It remains to be a death investigation and the investigators have assured us that they're not looking for any suspects," said Bachman. "They said it's very likely that this incident involved only the two boys."
"However, the investigators want to take the time with the case and they have not completely ruled out the possibility of foul play, but they have assured us they aren't looking for any suspects," said Bachman.
The boys were found in a ravine on the Chino Hills, Calif., ranch where their family lived in a double mobile home, according to Bachman. A handgun that was found at the scene is confirmed to have belonged to their father.
It was not immediately clear whether the gun had been locked up or where it was usually stored, she said.
"I've never heard of anything like this," said Bachman. "It's unusual to say the least. It's very disturbing."
"I mean, they were just 10 and 12. We don't even think of children at this age of [being capable] of hurting themselves," she said. "They were in elementary school."
The brothers were students at Butterfield Ranch Elementary school, located just a mile from where they lived. On Tuesday night, classmates and friends constructed a makeshift memorial for the boys .
Why Do Young Kids Kill?
"It's heartbreaking," Cameron Rogers, a classmate who had traveled to Disneyland with the older of the two brothers last month, told ABC's Los Angeles affiliate KABC . "But he's in a better place right now."
Authorities said that the two boys had lived at the mobile home with their mother and father. There is no number listed for the home.
Forensic psychologist N.G. Berrill, who has not treated the Gonzalez family, told ABC News that he wonders what was going on inside the home to make these young boy feel so helpless.
"When you get kids who are feeling that overwhelmed at that age and resort to such graphically violent means to kill themselves or one another, it raises a lot of very serious questions," said Berrill.
"Whatever was going on was sufficient to literally overwhelm two siblings and have them reach the decision of killing themselves," he said. "That is such an enormous decision for a kid, but it's particularly sad because we know that they don't understand the full scope or ramifications of what they're doing."
Berrill said that unlike adults, who can think about the future and might consider reasons why not to kill themselves, children focus primarily on present day.
"Adults have enough experience that they can say 'this is a terrible time but I have strengh to live through it and find remedies,'" said Berrill. "When you're a kid, you live a lot in the here and now."
"That's why I think that their circumstances had to be so desperate because they saw no alternative," he said.
"Their lack of maturity makes it that much more tragic."
Cops Say The Boys' Father Was the Owner of the Gun Used in the Shootings
July 28, 2010 —
The backyard shooting deaths of two young brothers, only 10 and 12 years old, are believed to have been the result of a double suicide or a murder-suicide, according to police.
The apparent weapon that was used was a handgun that belonged to their father.
A family member discovered Bryan Gonzalez, 12, and his younger brother Christian, 10, just after noon on Tuesday, according to San Bernardino County sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Bachman.
Bachman said that the boys were pronounced dead on the scene. An official autopsy report is expected later this week.
"It remains to be a death investigation and the investigators have assured us that they're not looking for any suspects," said Bachman. "They said it's very likely that this incident involved only the two boys."
"However, the investigators want to take the time with the case and they have not completely ruled out the possibility of foul play, but they have assured us they aren't looking for any suspects," said Bachman.
The boys were found in a ravine on the Chino Hills, Calif., ranch where their family lived in a double mobile home, according to Bachman. A handgun that was found at the scene is confirmed to have belonged to their father.
It was not immediately clear whether the gun had been locked up or where it was usually stored, she said.
"I've never heard of anything like this," said Bachman. "It's unusual to say the least. It's very disturbing."
"I mean, they were just 10 and 12. We don't even think of children at this age of [being capable] of hurting themselves," she said. "They were in elementary school."
The brothers were students at Butterfield Ranch Elementary school, located just a mile from where they lived. On Tuesday night, classmates and friends constructed a makeshift memorial for the boys .
Why Do Young Kids Kill?
"It's heartbreaking," Cameron Rogers, a classmate who had traveled to Disneyland with the older of the two brothers last month, told ABC's Los Angeles affiliate KABC . "But he's in a better place right now."
Authorities said that the two boys had lived at the mobile home with their mother and father. There is no number listed for the home.
Forensic psychologist N.G. Berrill, who has not treated the Gonzalez family, told ABC News that he wonders what was going on inside the home to make these young boy feel so helpless.
"When you get kids who are feeling that overwhelmed at that age and resort to such graphically violent means to kill themselves or one another, it raises a lot of very serious questions," said Berrill.
"Whatever was going on was sufficient to literally overwhelm two siblings and have them reach the decision of killing themselves," he said. "That is such an enormous decision for a kid, but it's particularly sad because we know that they don't understand the full scope or ramifications of what they're doing."
Berrill said that unlike adults, who can think about the future and might consider reasons why not to kill themselves, children focus primarily on present day.
"Adults have enough experience that they can say 'this is a terrible time but I have strengh to live through it and find remedies,'" said Berrill. "When you're a kid, you live a lot in the here and now."
"That's why I think that their circumstances had to be so desperate because they saw no alternative," he said.
"Their lack of maturity makes it that much more tragic."
Saturday, July 24, 2010
For Obama, race means repeated distractions
Essay: For Obama, race means repeated distractions
By STEVEN R. HURST Associated Press
Right when President Barack Obama should have been making political hay over big-deal legislative triumphs, race once again blew in with a storm of distraction.
Obama and his administration have proved to be one of the most deliberate, highly disciplined in recent history. Whether you approve or disapprove of his policies, political missteps have been rare.
Yet for a second time, a government led by America's first black president embarrassed itself with a hair-trigger reaction on race.
In the grand sweep of presidential history, both cases probably will be lost. Still, they gnaw, unseen, like termites on the foundation of Obama's administration.
As hard as the president has tried to downplay race, he knows he's under special scrutiny for just that reason, a lingering social hangover from this country's profoundly troubling history of enslaving, then segregating blacks.
In the latest incident, a right-wing blogger posted a truncated video of a black woman who worked at the Department of Agriculture in Georgia and was speaking to a meeting of the NAACP.
In the edited portion of the video that was first available, Shirley Sherrod seemed to have been endorsing get-even discrimination against whites. Fox News jumped on the story, which also got wide distribution on other cable outlets.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack ordered Sherrod fired. The NAACP condemned her comments.
But it wasn't long before the entirety of Sherrod's message got out. She was speaking of her own mistake, of having learned a lesson of redemption.
The White House apologized. Vilsack said he was sorry and offered Sherrod a new job. Obama called Sherrod on Thursday to express his regret.
He said he ordered "my team" to make sure "that we're focusing on doing the right thing instead of what looks to be politically necessary at that very moment."
Had the administration waited a day, it could have avoided all the embarrassment and apologizing. In fact the attack on Sherrod would have turned back on those behind it, seen as an example of nasty extremism.
The White House, however, didn't wait. So the storm engulfed the better part of a work week that otherwise might have focused on celebrating Obama's most recent legislative victory — financial regulatory reform — and his party's defeat of a Senate GOP filibuster that delayed additional payments for the jobless.
It took time away from Obama's efforts to revive the economy and reduce the near-10 percent unemployment rate.
Nearly a year ago to the day, Obama also tripped up on the race issue. That stumble, seven months into his presidency, distracted the White House when time might have better been spent pushing for Obama's health care overhaul.
Within the next month, opponents had managed, inaccurately, to convey the impression that his plan included death panels for the old and sick, amounted to socialist redistribution of wealth and rationed health care.
While Obama managed to stand slightly aside from the Sherrod case, he was at the center of last summer's brouhaha over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a black professor at Harvard University, by Sgt. James Crowley, a white police sergeant in Cambridge, Mass.
Crowley was sent to investigate a possible burglary at Gates' home. Although he determined Gates was in his own home and not a burglar, he arrested Gates anyway after their encounter grew heated.
The charges were quickly dropped, but Obama's remarks at a news conference — he said the police had "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates — inflamed the debate. The president later said he should have expressed his concerns with different language.
That's when he invited Crowley, who steadfastly denied race was a factor in the arrest, and Gates, a friend of Obama's, to the White House to thrash things out — face to face — over a beer.
Conservative media outlets and bloggers also have tried to win points against Obama with complaints about the Justice Department's handling of two New Black Panther Party members who allegedly threatened voters at a Philadelphia polling place on the day Obama was elected.
A criminal investigation into the episode was dropped by the Bush administration, but the Obama Justice Department obtained a narrower civil court order against the conduct than Bush officials had sought.
The issue of racism and right-wing attacks dogged Obama through his historic run for the presidency, especially his relations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama's Chicago church.
Obama finally cut ties with Wright, but he stood fast with his preacher for a long time.
That was Obama the candidate, before he became a president ensnared in a political climate of extreme partisanship and a news cycle that moves at nearly warp-speed.
That explains why Vilsack "jumped the gun," Obama said, "partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles."
It's time for everyone to take a deep breath, the president said, "to take our time and think these issues through."
By STEVEN R. HURST Associated Press
Right when President Barack Obama should have been making political hay over big-deal legislative triumphs, race once again blew in with a storm of distraction.
Obama and his administration have proved to be one of the most deliberate, highly disciplined in recent history. Whether you approve or disapprove of his policies, political missteps have been rare.
Yet for a second time, a government led by America's first black president embarrassed itself with a hair-trigger reaction on race.
In the grand sweep of presidential history, both cases probably will be lost. Still, they gnaw, unseen, like termites on the foundation of Obama's administration.
As hard as the president has tried to downplay race, he knows he's under special scrutiny for just that reason, a lingering social hangover from this country's profoundly troubling history of enslaving, then segregating blacks.
In the latest incident, a right-wing blogger posted a truncated video of a black woman who worked at the Department of Agriculture in Georgia and was speaking to a meeting of the NAACP.
In the edited portion of the video that was first available, Shirley Sherrod seemed to have been endorsing get-even discrimination against whites. Fox News jumped on the story, which also got wide distribution on other cable outlets.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack ordered Sherrod fired. The NAACP condemned her comments.
But it wasn't long before the entirety of Sherrod's message got out. She was speaking of her own mistake, of having learned a lesson of redemption.
The White House apologized. Vilsack said he was sorry and offered Sherrod a new job. Obama called Sherrod on Thursday to express his regret.
He said he ordered "my team" to make sure "that we're focusing on doing the right thing instead of what looks to be politically necessary at that very moment."
Had the administration waited a day, it could have avoided all the embarrassment and apologizing. In fact the attack on Sherrod would have turned back on those behind it, seen as an example of nasty extremism.
The White House, however, didn't wait. So the storm engulfed the better part of a work week that otherwise might have focused on celebrating Obama's most recent legislative victory — financial regulatory reform — and his party's defeat of a Senate GOP filibuster that delayed additional payments for the jobless.
It took time away from Obama's efforts to revive the economy and reduce the near-10 percent unemployment rate.
Nearly a year ago to the day, Obama also tripped up on the race issue. That stumble, seven months into his presidency, distracted the White House when time might have better been spent pushing for Obama's health care overhaul.
Within the next month, opponents had managed, inaccurately, to convey the impression that his plan included death panels for the old and sick, amounted to socialist redistribution of wealth and rationed health care.
While Obama managed to stand slightly aside from the Sherrod case, he was at the center of last summer's brouhaha over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., a black professor at Harvard University, by Sgt. James Crowley, a white police sergeant in Cambridge, Mass.
Crowley was sent to investigate a possible burglary at Gates' home. Although he determined Gates was in his own home and not a burglar, he arrested Gates anyway after their encounter grew heated.
The charges were quickly dropped, but Obama's remarks at a news conference — he said the police had "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates — inflamed the debate. The president later said he should have expressed his concerns with different language.
That's when he invited Crowley, who steadfastly denied race was a factor in the arrest, and Gates, a friend of Obama's, to the White House to thrash things out — face to face — over a beer.
Conservative media outlets and bloggers also have tried to win points against Obama with complaints about the Justice Department's handling of two New Black Panther Party members who allegedly threatened voters at a Philadelphia polling place on the day Obama was elected.
A criminal investigation into the episode was dropped by the Bush administration, but the Obama Justice Department obtained a narrower civil court order against the conduct than Bush officials had sought.
The issue of racism and right-wing attacks dogged Obama through his historic run for the presidency, especially his relations with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Obama's Chicago church.
Obama finally cut ties with Wright, but he stood fast with his preacher for a long time.
That was Obama the candidate, before he became a president ensnared in a political climate of extreme partisanship and a news cycle that moves at nearly warp-speed.
That explains why Vilsack "jumped the gun," Obama said, "partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles."
It's time for everyone to take a deep breath, the president said, "to take our time and think these issues through."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)