They held a science fair at the White House, where our President got to release his inner geek.

President Obama Speaks at White House Science Fair

TGIF and Good Morning.

As you go through your day, don’t forget JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And always, have a peaceful day.

U.S. President Barack Obama pumps air pressure into Extreme Marshmallow Cannon designed by Joey Hudy (L) of Phoenix, Arizona, before firing a marshmallow across the State Dining Room of the White House during the second White House Science Fair in Washington February 7, 2012. The fair celebrates the achievements of student winners of a broad range of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) competitions from across the country.
—-REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

US President Barack Obama speaks with Morgan Ard, Titus Walker and Robert Knight, 8th grade students at Monroeville Junior High School in Monroeville, Alabama, as they demonstrate their award-winning robots during a tour of the White House Science Fair in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, DC, February 7, 2012. Obama announced new policies to recruit and support science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teacher programs, including requesting $80 million in his upcoming budget for teacher preparation, with the goal of training one million additional STEM students over the next decade.
—-SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

US President Barack Obama talks with Janet Nieto (3rd L), Gwynelle Condino (2nd R) and Ana Nieto (R) of Presidio, Texas, about their rockets and rocketry challenges they have completed, during a tour of the White House Science Fair in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, DC, February 7, 2012. Obama announced new policies to recruit and support science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teacher programs, including requesting $80 million in his upcoming budget for teacher preparation, with the goal of training one million additional STEM students over the next decade.
—– SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

U.S. President Barack Obama shares a group hug with Team America Rocketry Challenge students from Presidio, Texas, during the second White House Science Fair in Washington February 7, 2012. The fair celebrates the achievements of student winners of a broad range of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) competitions from across the country. At center is 7th grader Gwynelle Condino.
—REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Students, from left, Gaby Dempsey, 12, Kate Murray, 13, and Mackenzie Grewell, 13, read in the Red Room of the White House after setting up their science fair exhibit, Feb. 6, 2012. The three girls, part of the Flying Monkeys First Lego League Team from Ames Middle School in Ames, Iowa, will participate in the second annual White House Science Fair with over 100 students from 45 states.
—-Official White House Photo by Sonya N. Hebert

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Bill Nye, The Science Guy, during an event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012, for the White House Science Fair. Obama hosted the second White House Science Fair celebrating the student winners of a broad range of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) competitions from across the country.
—AP Photo/Susan Walsh

When the issue of slave revolts comes up, we certainly hear the name of Nat Turner. But we also often hear the name Denmark Vesey in that same discussion. Turner’s revolt, of course, ranks among the most effective in the history of this nation—and there were, according to scholars, some two hundred or so attempts. But many may not know that Vesey’s efforts, which preceded Turner’s by some nine years, in 1822, fell into the unsuccessful category.
Vesey bought his freedom after winning a lottery in Charleston, S,C. (although he was not allowed to purchase the liberty of his wife and children). He became a prominent member, a “class leader,” in Charleston’s African Episcopal Church, where he eventually led others in plotting a rebellion against slavery. The plan was fairly ambitious in its aim to wreak as much havoc in Charleston as possible. They were to take over the city’s arsenals and guard houses, set the city ablaze, and kill every white man in sight.
Alas, another class leader of Vesey’s church, a slave, told his master about the plans. Vesey and his cohorts were rounded up and executed.
The name of the man who told on Vesey was George Wilson.
I tell this story after seeing so many of these “conservative” blacks join with white apologists of historical black mistreatment. They, too, for example, pin the entire recession to blacks and other minorities not paying their mortgages after an oppressive government made banks give them the loans. Being steered to higher interest loans? Crickets. (See: Thomas Sowell) Also, they blame blacks for accepting welfare and not condemn a job market that would not hire them or banks that would not grant them loans to start their own businesses. (See Clarence Thomas.) They don’t don’t blame Bush one iota for the aftermath of Katrina. One, a Jesse Lee Peterson, came on Sean Hannity’s show to call blacks caught in the floods “animals.” I mean, where would blacks get the idea that this country would indulge in racist activity against them? Are they crazy? They’re surely ingrates.
How are not these folks the ideological progeny of George Wilson? How are they not just as dangerous?
Several other planned slave revolts—like the one led by Gabriel Prosser in 1800– were also stopped in their tracks when collaborators betrayed them. Also, it has been documented that they infiltrated the ranks of the Black Panthers and Malcolm X’s group and you can’t, even today, convince some veterans in the civil rights movement that at least one hung around to inform the powers-that-be of Dr. King’s movements.
. I don’t know about you, but I say we have enough problems trying to get to our goals without them getting in the way. Maybe it’s because we let them. Their lone complaint is that we occasionally call them names. They can’t be too upset, considering their frequent appearances on Fox and other outlets.
There must be something else we can do, and something sustained, like boycott whatever entity, or whatever sponsor or two, grants them interviews as if they’re opinions weren’t bought long ago, or protesting in front of institutions hosting them, or ensuring that their names are prominent mud in our conversations. Any act of cowardice should evoke a “Stop Sowelling,” or something. You get the point.
Let’s have a Collaborator of the Year Award. And let’s make it prominent, something folks look forward to annually. We’ll call the top award, after Vesey’s nemesis, the George Wilson Award.
Clarence and Sowell and Peterson, let’s face it, could win every year, easily, so, for now, at least, let’s have the different categories with their names attached—“And the Jesse Lee Peterson Ain’t No Shame to His Game Collaborator Award Goes to…” And such.
I nominate Mr. Snerdley. He’s Rush Limbaugh’s black screen caller and the one who eggs on Rush’s daily (and that’s no hyperbole) racist offerings. According to Rush, President Obama is a, uh, “man-child.” There’s the classic “The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.” Oh, and Michelle Obama is “Moo-chelle.” Get it? Well, Snerdley does, and that’s why I think he’s an obvious nominee.
Feel free to nominate your choices and maybe as a group, we can select the winners.
Oh, that George Wilson fellow? His massa freed him. Then George lost his sanity. Then he killed himself.
Some say left to his own conscience, he felt very guilty.
With these others, I don’t know if we have that kind of time.

A S-C-A-M

By the right –wing, who has absolutely nothing. They see that the economy is improving. They see that the country, despite all their attempts at sabotaging this country, is finally moving in the right direction. They have a President who has taken foreign policy away from them as an issue. They have, as their ‘inevitable’ nominee, a clown who has taken both sides on every issue known to man. They have a ‘ base’ that despises their so-called ‘inevitable’ nominee, and express it at every turn. It is the ‘base’ that turns out, and in nominating Willard Romney, they are afraid that he will not ‘excite’ them. So, in order to ‘excite’ the base, they create this phony ‘ war on religion’ supposedly by the President.

The President’s ruling, with regards to birth control is quite simple: if you are an employer with so many employees, you must provide, as part of an overall women’s basic health package, free birth control. That’s it. It doesn’t go after religious institutions. The church can be against birth control all it wants; the federal government is not saying that it can’t. What the government IS saying is…

IF you are a religious entity, and you get into the employment business, guess what? You have to treat your employees the same as any other employer without religious affiliation.

That’s it.

IF the church doesn’t want to pay for birth control, then guess what, the church needs to get out of the business of being an employer. Nobody is forcing the church to be an employer. To provide insurance. Nobody. So, get out of those businesses, and you won’t have to be’ subject’ to following the laws like everyone else.

As for this ‘ conscience’ nonsense that they try to bring up, I feel about it, the same way I feel whenever I read a story about a pharmacist, who has found religion, and refuses to fill a prescription – almost always BIRTH CONTROL-…

because it goes against their ‘conscience’. I don’t give a rat’s ass about your’ conscience’; if the prescription is for a LEGAL DRUG DISPENSED BY A PHARMACY

Do your job. Or, get another one.

There are some who are nervous about the President’s stance; his strong stance about this. I am not. I don’t care one whit about the President alienating the Catholic Bishops. The people who would side with them aren’t going to vote for President Obama in the first place. In the second place, I’m tired of all these WHITE MEN that I see proliferating the television set spreading lies about what the President’s intentions are, talking about what is, in essence – a woman’s issue.

I’m also glad about the President’s stance, because up until now, very few people paid attention to the deliberate WAR ON WOMEN that has been going on with the right-wing in this country. I believe Rachel Maddow is the only person on tv that has consistently been pointing out, state by state, the attempts to strip women of their reproductive rights in this country. THAT there is a WAR ON WOMEN, and yes, as preposterous as it sounds, CONTRACEPTION, is a battleground. Up until now, they could hide behind bullshyt things like ‘ sonograms before you have an abortion’, and the bogus ‘ personhood’ amendments, but their goal is to CONTROL WOMEN’S RIGHTS TO CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES. That ‘personhood’ amendment nonsense- at the core, it’s to BAN CONTRACEPTION. Women might be ambivalent about abortion. It might make them squeamish , whichever side you fall on, but THIS?

THIS cuts to the core of a woman being able to decide FOR HERSELF, when she wants children, and how many and to keep the CONTROL for such issues, and her SEXUALITY IN HER OWN HANDS.

Birth Control is a WOMAN’S ISSUE – and women, Black, White, Latino, Asian, Religious, Non-religious, practice some form of birth control. And, it boggles my mind that women have to pay for it, while men can get VIAGRA FREE.

And now, thanks to ThinkProgress, what some of us knew already is being finally put forth front and center.

It’s not about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. If it was, then the Catholic Bishops would have left it alone.

Nope. Here you go:

The White House is “all talk, no action” on moving toward compromise, said Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “There has been a lot of talk in the last couple days about compromise, but it sounds to us like a way to turn down the heat, to placate people without doing anything in particular,” Picarello said. “We’re not going to do anything until this is fixed.”
That means removing the provision from the health care law altogether, he said, not simply changing it for Catholic employers and their insurers. He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.”
“If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I’d be covered by the mandate,” Picarello said.

See it?
REMOVING THE PROVISION FROM THE HEALTH CARE LAW ALTOGETHER!!!

They’re not slick. They are in a war against women.

And this woman says, BRING IT!!

Legal Expert David Boies Discusses The ‘Constitutionality’ of The Birth Control Mandate

Birth Control Shenanigans: What Do Republicans Gain By Reviving Nonsense ‘Culture Wars’

Rachel Maddow GOP now targets Birth control

I for the record, would be the person sitting wide-eyed, not saying a damn thing telling myself there’s got to be more to the story and that my chiming in on other peoples’ personal affairs is unnecessary and superfluous.

What would you do?

Good Afternoon.

As you go through the rest of your day, don’t forget JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And continue to have a peaceful day.

Mitt Romney and voter supression
by Kay

There’s so much voter suppression news I’m a little overwhelmed and tempted to just curl up in a ball and start crying, but this truly disgusting tactical move should probably be top-tier, so here goes.

First, the players:

Just how closely do you hug a controversial supporter? Especially a supporter who could be of a lot more help now than in the general election? It seems this is a problem Mitt Romney has been pondering ever since he was embraced by the Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach. Kobach is perhaps best known as the lead architect of the divisive new immigration laws in Arizona and Alabama. This leaves Romney in a delicate situation: hugging him back now could help wrap up the GOP primary especially since the next hurdle is with the traditionally hardcore conservative base in South Carolina. However, if he doesn’t make some efforts to wriggle out of it before he has to start courting Hispanic votes, then it could become a bear hug. It seems we just had a preview of how one goes about squaring that circle. On Monday, ThinkProgress picked up on a Friday Hill report that Kobach would be appearing with Romney at a campaign stop. The story went wide for a holiday (it was Martin Luther King Day Monday), and that led to some rejoicing/pre-condemning from Latino groups who say Romney’s close connection with Kobach seals his fate with the Latino voter in November.

One would certainly hope so.

This is what Mitt Romney supporter Kobach is up to today:

Kansas is ill-prepared to ensure poor, elderly, minority and transient Kansans have convenient access to documents and ID cards that will allow them to cast a ballot in elections this year, voter advocates said this morning.

Louis Goseland, who represents the KanVote group fighting voter suppression, said he and others in Wichita have tested agencies to see if they’re prepared for voter ID laws now in effect and that those agencies seem uninformed and unprepared to help would-be voters.

“It’s just been one thing after another,” he told the House Elections Committee this morning.

Goseland’s assessment comes as part of the back-and-forth between advocacy groups and those who support Secretary of State Kris Kobach’s proposal to move-up the effective date of a new law that will require people registering to vote in Kansas for the first time to prove their U.S. citizenship with one of 12 forms of identification, including a birth certificate.

This is what you see if you’re a new voter and you go to the Kansas Secretary of State website, today:

If you’re a registered voter, bring one of these to the polls:

Driver’s license, military ID, Kansas college ID, Nondriver ID Card, Concealed Carry Gun Permit, Government Employee ID, or Public Assistance ID Card.

Changes in Kansas Voting Law

On April 18, 2011, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed the Kansas Secure and Fair Elections (S.A.F.E.) Act into law. Sponsored by the Office of the Kansas Secretary of State, this website contains information every voter should know about changes impacting elections under the S.A.F.E. law.

Starting January 1, 2012:
1.Kansas voters must show photographic identification when casting a vote in person; and
2.Kansas voters must have their signature verified and provide a full Kansas driver’s license or non-driver ID number when voting by mail.

Starting January 1, 2013:
Newly-registered Kansas voters must prove U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.

Romney supporter Kobach is trying to move that 2013 date up, in the hopes that new voters will be completely confused on voter registration, and not be able to vote.

To recap: anti-immigrant activist and Romney supporter Kobach pushed through new voting restrictions, to take effect in 2012. His office is not now prepared to administer those new restrictions properly. Not satisfied with that, Kobach is now hoping to push the date of the proof of citizenship requirement up, from 2013 to 2012, to coincide with the election where Barack Obama is on the ballot, in an election year where national conservative leaders have demonized immigrants and certain minority groups every single day.

Romney needs to wear this like a badge in the general election. It’s reprehensible.

Good Morning.

As you make it through your day, don’t forget JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And always, have a peaceful day.

In response to queries about Ron Paul’s racial attitudes based on racist statements that appeared in the newsletter bearing his name during the 1990s, Paul said the following about racial inequality in the U.S.:

“I’m the only one up here and the only one in the Democratic Party that understands true racism in this country. It’s in the judicial system. And it has to do with enforcing the drug laws. The percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites, and yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately. They’re prosecuted, imprisoned, way disproportionately. They get the death penalty way disproportionately.

How many times have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or get execution? But poor minorities have an injustice. And they have an injustice in war as well. Because minorities suffer more. Even with the draft, they suffered definitely more. Without a draft, they’re suffering disproportionately. If we truly want to be concerned about racism, you ought to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws which are being so unfairly enforced.”

Not only is Ron Paul correct is citing the “war on drugs” as one of the greatest generators of racial injustice in the U.S., he actually proposes to do something substantive about it. Ron Paul is one of two Presidential candidates who openly favors repealing drug prohibition – the other is former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, now running as a Libertarian. For every other presidential candidate, including President Obama, ending the unwinnable ‘war on drugs’ is as unmentionable as ending poverty, homelessness, hunger, environmental degradation or the death penalty.

The prevailing conventional wisdom repeated ad nauseum by pundits, journalists and political consultants is that Paul’s drug policy position is a clear indication that’s he’s outside the mainstream of U.S. public opinion. His support for legalizing drugs is defined as a libertarian position and if you didn’t know any better you’d assume only libertarians shared it. Yet, according to recent polls 53% of Americans favor legalizing marijuana and the support for legal access to marijuana for medicinal purposes has reached 70%. Among young people – who comprise a considerable percentage of Ron Paul supporters – support for marijuana legalization is much higher.

Critics will quickly point out that Ron Paul supports legalizing all currently illicit drugs, including heroin – a view not shared by the majority of the U.S. public. While this may be currently true, it fails to acknowledge the existence of a view that enjoys the support of many here in the U.S. and the international community regarding the drug war. It is not the libertarian view of ‘total freedom’ (not sure what that means in a complex interdependent society), nor is it the view of drug warriors who support both the philosophy and practice of prohibition and it’s not the view of liberals, Democrats and so-called ‘progressives’ who still seem to believe we can have a more humane drug war with less racial disparities (but then these are the same people who still believe regulation will tame rapacious capitalists………).
         
This view recognizes the harms to individuals and society caused by substance abuse and addiction but acknowledges that punitive drug policies only exacerbate those harms as opposed to alleviating them. This view was best articulated by the Global Commission on Drug Policy when it stated the following:

Our principles and recommendations can be summarized as follows:
 
End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.
 
Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens. This recommendation applies especially to cannabis, but we also encourage other experiments in decriminalization and legal regulation that can accomplish these objectives and provide models for others.
 
Offer health and treatment services to those in need. Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment but also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada. Implement syringe access and other harm reduction measures that have proven effective in reducing transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infections as well as fatal overdoses. Respect the human rights of people who use drugs. Abolish abusive practices carried out in the name of treatment – such as forced detention, forced labor, and physical or psychological abuse – that contravene human rights standards and norms or that remove the right to self-determination.

Begin the transformation of the global drug prohibition regime. Replace drug policies and strategies driven by ideology and political convenience with fiscally responsible policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights – and adopt appropriate criteria for their evaluation. Review the scheduling of drugs that has resulted in obvious anomalies like the flawed categorization of cannabis, coca leaf and MDMA. Ensure that the international conventions are interpreted and/or revised to accommodate robust experimentation with harm reduction, decriminalization and legal regulatory policies. [emphasis added]

Break the taboo on debate and reform. The time for action is now. 

The members of the Commission (a group that included three former presidents – of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia – as well as such prominent leaders as George Schultz, Kofi Annan, Richard Branson, Paul Volker and Mario Vargos Llosa) can hardly be described as radicals, libertarians or socialists, in fact they represent the mainstream of political, economic and diplomatic power yet they clearly articulated a legitimate view about drug policy reform that is not represented in the U.S. 

For the most part U.S. political leaders, journalists and pundits either ignored the report or dismissed it as representing a ‘marginal’ or ‘misguided’ position. A notable exception was former President Jimmy Carter who openly endorsed the recommendations of the Global Commission.

Why is support for ending drug prohibition consistently defined as a marginal or libertarian position? I think there are many reasons that can be given for this phenomena, here are a few:

* The media has accepted it’s own narrative that the U.S. is ‘center-right’ politically, consequently it’s incapable of acknowledging facts that don’t fit this narrative (e.g. more support for universal health care than opposition, willingness by most to pay higher taxes to insure needed services, desire for more fairness rather than punitiveness in the justice system);

* The racism inherent in U.S. drug law enforcement is an uncomfortable reality that liberals, progressives and Democrats prefer not to discuss. Discussions of racism are generally limited to incidents of individual discrimination, police misconduct or right-wing race-baiting – rarely is institutional racism acknowledged. The prevailing conversation still focuses on the need to ‘fix’ people whose individual conduct (e.g. drug use or drug-selling) result in their being under criminal justice supervision, consequently civil rights, racial justice and human rights organizations have not put drug policy reform at the forefront of their agendas;

* The economic interests that benefit from drug prohibition have more clout than the interests that oppose it – (e.g. pharmaceutical companies, private prison companies, prison guard associations, local, state and federal law enforcement);

* The impact of punitive drug law enforcement falls disproportionately on poor and marginalized communities with minimal political or economic clout. Many of these communities have yet to fully distinguish the harms of drug abuse and addiction from the harms caused by punitive drug policies. Traditional African-American leaders have tended to represent the interests and concerns of the black middle class and religious leaders who have not prioritized this issue.

Nonetheless, I remain mystified as to why the ‘left’ has yet to embrace the need to end the ‘war on drugs’. You would think it would be a natural issue as it represents an enormous waste of taxpayer money and human potential pursuing strategies that have proven colossally ineffective in reducing drug use and addiction while causing significant harm, especially to low-income African-American communities. Ending the war on drugs would be fiscally responsible, enhance public health and safety and eliminate one major barrier to advancement by people trapped in our nation’s ghettoes.

Women’s shaved hair revolution taking shape
By Ashley Michelle Williams
7:52 PM on 02/03/2012

Black women are going natural in droves to ditch using harsh chemicals, and in some cases, to better embrace who they are. The emotional and financial benefits of weening oneself off relaxers cannot be denied. But whether a woman chooses to grow out her processed hair over a long period of time, or shave her relaxed hair off in a “big chop,” is still a point of contention for some.

At the forefront of this movement is Chicago-based hair stylist Emon Fowler. For her the big chop is the only way.

Fowler recently established her shop, The Harriet Experiment, in an effort to encourage black women to shave off their processed hair and explore their natural texture in one bold move. She told the Chicago Tribune that she was inspired to start her movement after reflecting on the life of Harriet Tubman, the iconic heroine who risked her life to help hundreds flee slavery.

Fowler believes she is similarly freeing black women from the negative misconceptions and resulting sad emotions related their hair. “This is all about breaking free from that hair bondage,” Fowler told the Chicago Tribune.

All across Chicago, Fowler has organized meetings for women to come together for support while letting their processed hair go. She has also started a website, recruited women on Facebook, made appearances at fairs and festivals, and even stopped women in grocery stores in an effort to get black women to chop off their relaxers.

“When a woman decides to cut all of her hair, she discovers something underneath that is liberating. It can be therapeutic because you have to let go of the idea that you need these superficial extras to feel beautiful,” Fowler told the Chicago Tribune. “It says, ‘I’ve accepted me.’ ”

When licensed cosmetologist and owner of Braids Elite Maria Lourdes Prince heard about The Harriet Experiment, she was ecstatic that Fowler was evangelizing black women towards the goal of going natural.

“Finally, somebody has heard my voice,” Prince exclaimed to theGrio. “I think it’s really important, because we all need to embrace the way that we are and know that we are beautiful. Natural hair is beautiful.”

Good Afternoon.

As you go through the rest of your day, don’t forget JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And continue to have a peaceful day.

CNN was weighing its response Monday to gay activists who demanded that CNN contributor Roland Martin be fired over Twitter remarks during the Super Bowl that they interpreted as anti-gay. Martin denied the tweets were homophobic but acknowledged that they were intended to be “over the top.”

 

I saw that ad Roland was joking about – its the one featuring MLS player David Beckham in his tighty-whiteys.  Except for the tattoos, I thought it was rather racy and sexy.  Many people did.  But Roland tweeted about it by saying this during Super Bowl Sunday:

“. . . Following retailer H&M’s Super Bowl commercial featuring soccer player David Beckham, CNN’s Roland Martin tweeted to almost 95,000 followers: ‘If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl’ ”

 

I know Roland is a Born-Again Christian, and has deeply held beliefs that he makes no apology for.  I’ve even seen him turn down opportunities that would have forced him to compromise those beliefs.  Having said that, and as a Christian myself (despite the salty language, yes, I know – I look like a heathen at times), I truly have come to a place in my life where I know that God works through ANYONE to bring blessings to ME. “Christians” have fired me from jobs, while other ethnicities and members of the LGBT community were willing to gamble on me and give me a second chance. God has never been a respector of persons, and from where I have my understanding of that biblical verse, I would have to apply it to EVERYONE,  and that includes my friends in the LGBT community.

So many times, I think we try to do God’s work for HIM, when the reality is, we as CHRISTIANS are being asked to follow the example Jesus set for us.  I know what the Old Testament says about homosexuals, but are we not living under the New Testament dispensation of GRACE towards EVERYONE?

Back to my question, though.  If CNN is considering firing Roland for his comments, while the airwaves continue to allow Joe Scarbourough, Don Imus, Pat Buchannan and every other xenophobe stay on the air or return to the airwaves after they flapped their yaps and continue to insult every ethnic community on the planet, once again, the ethnic person is being held to a different standard than the White Guys.

Yeah, I said it.

The purpose of my post is to state that Roland Martin should be held to the same standards as Imus, Buchannan and every other numbnut they have on the airwaves spewing their bigotry for millions to hear.

However, bigotry should never be TOLERATED; I don’t care who’s doing the spewing.

And the LGBT community wants to meet with Roland.  The question is not “Should he go?” but “Will he go?”

I, for one, hopes he will.  The path to unity and inclusion begins with UNDERSTANDING.  It might also save his media career as well.

For real, this is one of those things that kinda gives you hope for common-sense discourse across the socio-political realm, but also leaves you feeling cautious about the next instance when O’Reilly says something completely asinine and the universe mournfully rights itself.

Yes that is me as a cute little DC kid. What’s up JJP?

Come one come all. Come have a ball! Monday February 13th will feature special back-to-back events with me! I’m coming home. We’ll start with a 6:30 pm presentation/reading/Q&A at the National Press Club then move to Blackbyrd at 14th & U for the official after party.

It’s the heart of Black History Month plus How To Be Black plus Chocolate City. It doesn’t get much blacker. Come out, get books, laughs and autographs and just kick it. Blackly. Yes, I just invented a new adverb: blackly

Full event details are here on Facebook where we encourage you to RSVP so we have a count. Note that you’ll have to RSVP for the National Press Club portion (by emailing opus@press.org) which has a cover charge of $5. If you’re interested in other tour events, check out the growing tour calendar. I’m in San Francisco this Friday and Boston Monday February 20th, Chicago February 23rd and working on confirming Los Angeles

Please put this on a t-shirt and mugs.

It’s a kick ass simple slogan for 2012.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast in August and September of 2005, upending the lives of 1.5 million people and putting Black folks’ lack of political and social power front and center for all the world to see.

The storms magnified racial disparities in the U.S., and no place demonstrated this more clearly than New Orleans, where 80% of the city was submerged after Katrina. Out of this devastation, ColorOfChange was born.

When Katrina touched land on August 29, more than a third of all Black New Orleanians were living in poverty. As we know well from the televised accounts, these impoverished and largely Black neighborhoods bore the brunt of the disaster. And the lack of access to resources was one major reason why folks couldn’t simply leave when they got news of the coming storm.

Adding insult to injury, the federal government took its time responding once the levees and flood walls broke. We were heartbroken by the apathy of the Bush Administration and the failures of corporate media, some members of which depicted African-American survivors as “looters” and “refugees.” These characterizations had real consequences, as a groundbreaking investigation in The Nation magazine would later reveal.

Within a month of the organization’s launch, ColorOfChange had attracted its first 10,000 members. People who received our earliest emails in the aftermath of the storm passed them along to their family and friends, who in turn joined the cause. Following Katrina and Rita, our members raised their voices in support of Gulf Coast housing rights, voting rights, and access to an intact safety net. Our campaigns represented everyday folks’ ability to amplify the demands of those affected by the storms. They represented the power of Black Americans and our allies to respond to the costliest national disaster in American history by building a network that could respond quickly and forcefully.

For victims of the storms, the battle for dignity and justice is far from over. As recently as last month, FEMA told Hurricane survivors to repay federal funds they’d received as part of the relief effort. And ColorOfChange has supported the local fight against the expansion of the Orleans Parish Prison, the same jail where inmates were left in their cells to fend for themselves as the floodwaters rose in the days following the storm.

So why point to Katrina during Black History Month?

Events that took place during and after the storms continue to shape thousands of lives. New Orleans in particular is struggling to rebuild in the face of sobering statistics. Just one example: 65% of Black children under the age of 5 in the city live in poverty. We’ve seen victories in the region, but progress has been slow.ColorOfChange remains committed to supporting Gulf Coast residents as they work to rebuild their communities. That’s Black history in the making.

Why you should defend the Administration on contraception (it doesn’t have anything to do with churches receiving federal money)
by Kay

Wanted to do a quick primer on the large business provisions in the PPACA, before we get surrounded by conservatives setting up round tables and spewing oceans of abstract theory. It’s probably too late, because if there’s anything I’ve learned in following the “health care debate” is it that no one, no one, ever wants to talk about health care. We’re going to talk about death panels or religious liberty or really anything else we can come up with rather than reach health care.

Here’s the issue. In the Administration’s view The Catholic Church should be being treated as any other “large business” under federal law. The issue is that the Catholic Church is a “large business” so must comply with the rules, in this case, the PPACA. The issue isn’t that the Catholic Church receives federal money, although it surely does receive lots and lots of federal money. Religious entities are granted certain exceptions under the law. The Catholic Church objects to the scope of the exemptions that they have been granted.

Here’s the bare bones of the law:

What is considered a large business?
You are generally considered a large business if you have more than 50 employees.

Do I have to provide health insurance to my employees?
The law does not require employers to provide health insurance.
Starting in 2014, large businesses (those with 50 or more full-time workers) that do not provide adequate health insurance will be required to pay an assessment if their employees receive premium tax credits to buy their own insurance. These assessments will offset part of the cost of these tax credits. The assessment for a large employer that does not offer coverage will be $2,000 per full-time employee beyond the company’s first 30 workers

If large employers won’t offer insurance that is comparable or better to that offered on the exchanges, their employees will be eligible for federal subsidies to purchase insurance on the exchange, and large employers are going to have to pay for that. “Adequate” is the key word there. I don’t know if you’ve ever looked at a policy Wal Mart offers, but I have, and it is not adequate.

And here’s what all the fuss is about:

Historic new guidelines that will ensure women receive preventive health services at no additional cost were announced today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Developed by the independent Institute of Medicine, the new guidelines require new health insurance plans to cover women’s preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible.
“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start,” said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need.”
Before health reform, too many Americans didn’t get the preventive health care they need to stay healthy, avoid or delay the onset of disease, lead productive lives, and reduce health care costs. Often because of cost, Americans used preventive services at about half the recommended rate.
Last summer, HHS released new insurance market rules under the Affordable Care Act requiring all new private health plans to cover several evidence-based preventive services like mammograms, colonoscopies, blood pressure checks, and childhood immunizations without charging a copayment, deductible or coinsurance. The Affordable Care Act also made recommended preventive services free for people on Medicare.
Today’s announcement builds on that progress by making sure women have access to a full range of recommended preventive services without cost sharing, including:
•well-woman visits;
•screening for gestational diabetes;
•human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older;
•sexually-transmitted infection counseling;
•human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling;
•FDA-approved contraception methods and contraceptive counseling;
•breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling; and
•domestic violence screening and counseling.
New health plans will need to include these services without cost sharing for insurance policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012. The administration also released an amendment to the prevention regulation that allows religious institutions that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraception services. This regulation is modeled on the most common accommodation for churches available in the majority of the 28 states that already require insurance companies to cover contraception.

Here is the broad exemption for religious employers issued by HHS:

The IFR defines a “religious employer” that qualifies for an exemption as an organization
that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.
(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the
organization.
(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code

This is the rule that California and New York follow, and it has survived court challenge. Obviously, the Catholic Church does not meet at least 2 of those requirements, and (arguably) does not meet 3 out of 4, so they are going to have to offer those employees who are not involved in core religious ministry contraception coverage with no out of pocket cost.

Contraception is a preventative health issue. That’s why the administration included contraception in the list of those benefits that must be covered with no out of pocket expenses. That’s their only interest in this. Contraception will not, of course, be “free”, despite what I see in internet comments from outraged moralists/fantasists. Employees who contract with an employer receive a salary package that includes health insurance. They earn health insurance just like they earn a pay check. They’re paying for contraception just like they’re paying for “well woman visits” or “diabetes screening” because the cost is included in the cost of the health insurance premium, but it’s much more fun for moralists to yell “free birth control!” than it is for them to yell “free well woman visits!” or “free diabetes screening!.”

The broad policy behind the Obama Administration standardizing health benefits that must be offered by large employers is worth defending. There are two parts. First, the PPACA seeks to cover everyone with at least a minimum standard of coverage. That’s humane, and it’s a good and worthwhile goal. Second, and this is hard-headed, the administration seeks to avoid the situation we have now, where some large employers may offer less than adequate insurance or no insurance, thus off-loading all or part of the health care costs of their employees to state government or the federal government or other people. I don’t know that the Catholic Church is doing that, they may offer fine health insurance, but that’s the core idea behind requiring a basic list of benefits, and requiring that certain benefits not involve out of pocket costs.

If we start granting exceptions to the rules for some large employers, we’re going to be back at square one, where people have a patchwork of coverage depending on where they work. If we start granting exceptions, some large employers will lobby to get a free ride by seeking exemptions and providing insurance that is less comprehensive than the plans that will be offered on the exchanges. The basic hard-headed and not at all touchy-feely premise is this: when large employers don’t cover their employees adequately, those employees end up receiving health care one way or another, and if their employees can’t pay for it themselves, someone else ends up picking up the tab because nothing is “free”.

Good Morning.

As you make it through Hump Day, don’t forget JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And always, have a peaceful day.

It’s important to continue raising awareness about the epidemic of HIV/AIDS afflicting African-American communities. African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV of all racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. Despite comprising just 14% of the U.S. population, we accounted for 44% of all new HIV infections in 2009. Black women accounted for the largest share of new HIV infections among women – 57% in 2009 and the incidence rate of HIV among Black women is nearly 15 times higher than among white women. Although Black teens (age 13-19) represent only about 17% of U.S. teenagers, they accounted for 68% of new AIDS diagnoses among teens in 2009. A similar impact can be seen among Black children. Compared to other racial groups and ethnicities African-Americans account for a higher proportion of HIV infections at all stages of the disease from new infections to death. By the end of 2008, an estimated 240.627 black with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the U.S. Today, there are approximately 1.1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the U.S., including approximately 545,000 who are Black. Just let those numbers sit with you for awhile.

In African-American communities there is still a lot of stigma attached to HIV/AIDS. Within the community of people living with HIV/AIDS no group is more stigmatized that injection drug users (IDUs). During 2004-2007, a total of 152,917 people were diagnosed with HIV infection, including 19,687 (12.9%) injection drug users. By race, African-Americans accounted for 57.5% of HIV-infected IDUs, whites for 21.4%, Hispanics or Latinos for 19.1%.

Almost 30 years into the HIV/AIDS epidemic, U.S. health policy is still not evidence-based when it comes to HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. We’ve known since the early days of the HIV epidemic that needle exchange programs are effective in reducing transmission of HIV and Hepatitis C among injection drug users and their sexual partners. Studies of HIV infection among drug addicts in New York City found that new infection rates dropped more than 75% after city and community activists expanded clean-needle programs, beginning in the early 1990s, and later legalized possession of needles. Likewise, needle-exchange programs in other cities, including — after a rocky start — Montreal and Vancouver, had similarly significant impact. So, why has the federal funding ban on these programs, enacted by Congress in 1988, remained intact for two decades?

In a word, politics. The funding ban was introduced by conservative Senator Jesse Helms, and Democrats — wary of being cast as soft on drugs — have been reluctant to reverse it ever since. In 1998, President Clinton said he intended to lift the ban, under a provision in place at the time that allowed the President to do so if the science proved convincing. Although the Clinton Administration admitted the evidence was there, at the last minute, drug czar Barry McCaffrey managed to convince the President that “sending the right message” on drugs was more important — a move that Clinton later said he regretted.

The ban on federal funding for needle exchange was finally lifted in 2009 after President Obama came into office and the Democrats took over the Congress, however the change was short-lived. House Republicans insisted on reinstating the ban on funding for needle exchange during the most recent appropriations battle in January.

What has been the consequence of failure to implement effective HIV/AIDS prevention policies for people who use drugs? All you have to do is look at our nation’s capital for the answer. According to a recent report by the Washington, D.C. Department of Health in 2009, 3.2 percent of District residents over the age of 12 were living with HIV/AIDS, which is an infection rate higher than in many developing nations (the WHO says anything greater than 1 percent is an epidemic). That’s about 16,721 people. Of that number 75.2% were African American (accounting for 69.1 percent of males and 99.1 percent of females). People between 40 and 49 years old have the highest infection rate among District residents. Watch this report on the state of the AIDS emergency in the District in 2009:

The majority of injection drug users living with HIV are male but women injection drug users are often are higher risk for infection in part due to the need to share needles with their male partners who usually shoot up first. Nor is it surprising that female sex workers tend to have higher infection rates than other at-risk women, with the notable exception of sex workers licensed in the state of Nevada whose rate of HIV infection is significantly less than the national average.

Opponents of needle exchange no longer argue that it doesn’t work – the evidence of its effectiveness is overwhelming. Most often they argue that needle exchange programs send the wrong message – in their view the only answer to illicit drug use is abstinence – anything else is enabling or tolerating drug use. People who support needle exchange counter by arguing:
(a) disease prevention is an important public health necessity that impacts us all;
(b) needle exchange program are often a conduit for to get hard-to-reach drug users into treatment;
(c) it’s wrong to withhold life saving tools to people (like condoms and clean needles) because they engage in behavior that we don’t like – saving lives is more important than being right.

Reggie Jackson is a former drug addict who has been living with HIV for more than two decades. He works as an outreach worker on the mobile van that distributes clean syringes to drug users and sex workers on the streets of the capital:

Congress will have blood on its hands for reinstating the ban on funding for needle exchange, history will judge that we allowed people to needlessly contract HIV and die out of malign neglect……..

Here’s what’s up though — at a time when Americans are super-broke (except the 1% like Romney of course), getting a break on something most women will use at some point in their lives in this country is a big deal. We’re talking grocery and kids’ clothes money — as much as $600 a year!

Here’s what’s also up.

1) most Catholic hospitals and universities, like Georgetown Univ, Depaul Univ and Boston College, already provide coverage for contraception. According to ThinkProgress, this ish ain’t even new. ”Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception and since98 percent of Catholic women use birth control…”

2) most Catholics want birth control coverage. From USAToday:

• 58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. That slides down to 52% for Catholic voters, 50% for white Catholics.
• 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say employer plans should cover contraception.
• 50%of white mainline Protestants want the coverage however for evangelical Protestants, that drops to 38%.
• And perhaps of greater note among election-watchers: Women are significantly more likely than men to agree that employers should be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception (62% vs. 47% respectively).

3) most American voters want birth control coverage and think this is all super-unhelpful. They actively disagree with Romney and agree with the Prez on this one. A new poll suggests Romney might be barking up the wrong tree here. From The Hill which cites a brand-spanking new poll from Planned Parenthood today: Only 23 percent of those polled said they’re more likely to vote for Romney because of his pledge to roll back the requirement, while 40 percent said they’re less likely to support him.

Yes, I’m talkin bout the same Planned Parenthood whose supporters around the nation just smacked Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s pink ass hard, loud and fast last week over lowering access to breast cancer screenings. Look, across our nation, bitchez be all riled up just about now and are flush with the success of making their voices heard. The crazy conservative lady at Susan G. Komen whose bright idea it was to dis America’s neediest women, Karen Handel, just lost her job and rightly so. If Obama is smart — real smart, he’ll stick to his position here. He needs to talk loud & proud about helping American moms make ends meet and plan their families’ growth sensibly during tough times with expanded birth control coverage that puts more money in their pocketbooks — while preserving religious freedom all the same. After all, if a woman doesn’t want to use birth control, she doesn’t have to! But why should those of us whose religious views are different be restricted from the access that other women have to full coverage of birth control? Why should someone be able to impose their religious beliefs on me just because they are my boss, my employer? Let’s talk about that!

If Romney wants to court a bunch of old men who certainly seem to expect their aging stiffies via Viagra and Cialis to be fully covered by health insurance but aren’t so sure about making sure that women are able to make decisions freely about if and when they make babies — then let him. This is a non-controversy that the media and some desperate reactionary Republican candidates who want to drag us back to the dark ages have stirred up. It’s time the MSM talked to some actual women — whose voices have mostly been lost in this discussion (!) — about what they think about more affordable birth control coverage.

We as a people are truly greater than a thing like AIDS. Unfortunately, we have been harder as a community than other groups. Why? Nobody seems sure. What’s the sitch? The CDC sez:

• African Americans are the racial/ethnic group most affected by HIV.
• In 2009, African Americans comprised 14% of the US population but accounted for 44% of all new HIV infections.
• Young African American gay and bisexual men are especially at risk of HIV infection.

There remains a stigma to the disease that prevents people from simply checking their status and getting the treatment that can save lives. These days, you can live a pretty long healthy life if you have the drugs you need AND you can reduce transmission to others by 96% if you’re on medication. Look at Magic Johnson — a brother’s still smiling and staying strong. This is too important – we’ve got to talk about it, know about it and preach it to those we care about.

Today is National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. Check out the video above and share it with people you care about on this important day. Together, we can be Greater Than AIDS. For more information go to greaterthan.org

More than 60 Black celebrities are joining the Greater Than AIDS campaign to shine a spotlight on the high rates of HIV infection in the Black community on Feb. 7, National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day. The vid features all these folks:

1.       Laila Ali, professional athlete

2.       Essence Atkins, actor (ARE WE THERE YET/TBS)

3.       Alimi Ballard, actor (NCIS/CBS, NUMB3RS/CBS)

4.       Yvette Nicole Brown, actor, (COMMUNITY/NBC)

5.       Bill Duke, actor/director

6.       Nadine Ellis, actor (LET’S STAY TOGETHER/BET)

7.       Jason George, actor (GREY’S ANATOMY/ABC, OFF THE MAP/ABC)

8.       Dennis Haysbert, actor (24/FOX, THE UNIT/CBS)

9.       Samuel L Jackson, actor, producer (PULP FICTION)

10.   Orlando Jones, actor/comedian (MAD TV/Fox, THE EVIDENCE/ABC)

11.   MC Lyte, musical artist

12.   Dr. Lisa Masterson, MD, host, The Doctors (CBS TV Distribution)

13.   Shaun Robinson, Access Hollywood

14.   J Rome, musical artist

15.   Jussie Smollett, actor (THE SKINNY)

16.   Tamara Taylor, actor (BONES/Fox)

17.   Brian White, actor (MEN OF A CERTAIN AGE/TNT, GOOD DEEDS)

18.   Michael Jai White, actor (TYLER PERRY’S FOR BETTER OR WORSE/TBS)

19.   Jesse Williams, actor (GREY’S ANATOMY/ABC)

20.   Vanessa Williams, actor, director (SOUL FOOD/Showtime, MELROSE PLACE/Fox)

Personally speaking, I thank them for taking to time to speak out on this. If Black Americans account for nearly half of all new HIV infections each year, yet make up just 14 percent of the population, then something is definitely wrong. It’s time to unite and bring this disproportionate epidemic to an end. Now it’s your turn: let’s give HIV & AIDS the one-two punch. Together, we’ve come so far. We can do this, y’all!

Good Afternoon.

As you go through the rest of your day, don’t forget JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And continue to have a peaceful day.

I have to say that the issues raised by my JJP colleague Marcus Touissaint in his recent post about Michigan wannabe Senator So Bad Pete Hoekstra raised one hell of a good point, namely who is the woman who agreed to do this ad and why did she agree to do it?

Well, now we know a little bit more, although we still don’t know the actual identity of the mystery woman in the ad. Still, this story is getting better. According to this recent piece in TPMLiveWire, the Asian American woman in Hoekstra’s quite obviously racist political ad that he ran during the Superbowl as part of his campaign effort to bring down Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, has stirred up some serious anger from at least one Asian American Republican elected official in Michigan by the name of Alicia Ping. As it turns out, Ms. Ping is a Republican Washtenaw County Commissioner and had apparently been “leaning toward” supporting Hoekstra’s until she saw that ad. Now she’s so upset that not only is she withdrawing her support of Hoekstra but she’s considering giving that support to some unknown challenger in the Republican primary who is given little chance of winning. And to be quite honest, I seriously doubt a racist Republican ad will hurt Hoekstra among Michigan Republicans, and Asians aren’t exactly a majority in this state.

But once Hoekstra gets past the primary is where things are likely to change, especially going up against Stabenow, whom many Republicans have tried and failed to bring down before mistaking her for an easy mark.

From TPM Live Wire:

According to Ping, Hoekstra is about to be in a world of controversy thanks to his decision to stand by the ad, despite the widespread outrage. She told me that leaders from across the minority populations of Michigan will jointly condemn Hoekstra in an open letter tomorrow, guaranteeing that the negative press surrounding the ad — and his response to it — will be back on TV for another day at least.

It’s possible that Hoekstra, trying to avoid the embarrassing defeat he suffered in 2010’s gubernatorial primary, welcomes the attention on the assumption that cries of racial intolerance from the left will help him court conservative primary voters in the Senate race.

But Ping makes it clear that the ad’s negative effects cut across party lines. In our conversation, she outlined just how hurtful Hokestra’s ad — with its depiction of a Chinese woman speaking broken English — is to Americans of Asian descent.

“You know when we were growing up they used to have that show Sha Na Na,” Ping said. “On the show was a guy named Bowsewr and I remember they used to have these skits [depicting Asians] and I would say to my mother, ‘why do they do that?’ And she would say, ‘Well, it’s supposed to be funny because they’re making fun of the Asian-Americans.’ And I just looked at her and I didn’t understand it because my grandparents were working so hard to get their citizenship and learn the language. And it’s really hard to learn the English language, and it’s really hard to go the other way, too.”

“So when you lived through this, growing up in the American culture and have somebody so easily make fun of it, it’s just painful because these people are working really hard to try to achieve the American dream,” Ping continued. “And to so blatantly be able to cast it off isn’t acceptable.”

None of which quite offers a satisfactory answer to Brother Touissaint’s question of why, exactly, did the Mystery Asian Ad lady agree to do this? Did she think that it was some sort of a gag? Was she not told that this was going to be for a political advertisement supporting a Republican candidate who obviously cares little or nothing about offending Asian people? Is it that she can’t speak English so she didn’t know what she was saying? But then just because she doesn’t speak English (if that’s the case) hardly equates to her being stupid, which she would have to be to agree to do a television ad in a language she doesn’t understand endorsing someone she may hardly know.

But chances are she speaks English just fine. Matter of fact I’m gonna go out on a limb and say I bet she probably speaks better English than I do, especially when she went to the bank to deposit that check. And she certainly doesn’t seem to mind lending her smiling face to Hoekstra’s campaign website, debbiespenditnow.com. Yep, Hoekstra thinks racism is such a marketable commodity he has chosen to make it a selling point in his campaign. Racism, according to Hoekstra, is good for the Michigan economy. Others apparently disagree…

From the Detroit News:

A chorus of ethnic, religious and cultural groups called on Hoekstra to pull the ad that’s slated to run for two weeks in Michigan. Democrats (as well as some Republicans) blasted the GOP candidate for advancing stereotypes by using a Chinese-American actress speaking in broken English.

Politicos questioned how the GOP frontrunner would neutralize the spot some say “backfired.”

“The message he wished to get out has gotten lost in the discussion,” said Grand Valley State University political science professor Erika King. “I’m sure it’s not what the campaign expected would happen.”

King said it’s too early in the campaign to know what kind of impact the ad will have politically. It depends, she said, on whether he can neutralize the fallout and how the opposition uses it.

There was one immediate effect. Washtenaw County Commissioner Alicia Ping on Monday was so offended by the ad she donated money to Hoekstra opponent Clark Durant’s campaign.

“For him not to know that this is unacceptable, either he doesn’t care or he doesn’t get it,” said the Saline Republican, who is Chinese-American.

On Monday, Hoekstra stood by the $144,000 statewide ad buy, blaming the “left” for bringing up racial concerns to divert the conversation from the real issue he was pushing of Democratic incumbent Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s spending record.

Maybe Pete might want to consider renaming his really cool racist campaign site “PetieLoseItNow.com”

This is being cross-posted at Black Liberal Boomer.

Change You Can Believe In: Two Wars Ended
2 Feb 2012 01:05 PM

It seems so so long ago, when Barack Obama decided to throw his highly improbable hat into the ring of the 2008 election cycle. But back then, before we knew how deeply Wall Street would cripple the global economy with its recklessness, the primary issue that dominated politics and that made his victory possible was the Iraq war – and to a lesser extent, the Afghanistan war. He pledged to end one and win the other. By any secure metric, he has done both.

I remain staggered by this achievement and doubted it from the get-go. I assumed that we could not get out of Iraq without a civil war breaking out and harassing our departing troops. I feared that Obama’s Afghanistan surge was a dreadful error that would make ending the war impossible. But like so many aspects of this administration, what hasn’t happened is as salient as what has. Iraq is in permanent crisis and our departure has left a country riven by sectarianism and violence and a burgeoning Shiite authoritarianism. But the ungrateful volcano didn’t explode before we got out; and if you regard the surge as a face-saving withdrawal plan, rather than as some kind of “victory”, then it worked.

And yesterday, I get a text from one of my friends, a former Special Ops guy who was one of the first to learn how to ride a horse, grow a beard and disappear into the mountains of Afghanistan in 2001. It read:

Are we leaving afghanistan. No way we are that is awesome.

The facts have persuaded me that this war needs to come to an end. But the most persuasive arguments I have heard have come from my friends who have served there. Every single one described “nation-building” there to be about as insane as, well, a 51st state on the moon. All of them wanted to find and kill the men who attacked the US a decade ago – and go home. Since Obama took office, they have been granted their wish: almost all the al Qaeda leadership dead, and bin Laden’s bones being picked dry by fishes. But Les Gelb notes how smartly the administration has handled the policy and the politics

The White House had begun to shape this decision almost two months ago, with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Vice President Joe Biden, and Defense Secretary Panetta doing the pushing. Key administration officials said these senior leaders had become convinced that U.S. interests in Afghanistan were no longer vital, and that more American deaths and billions in costs were no longer worthwhile. But they hadn’t figured out the details or the politics until about two weeks ago.

Specifically, they wouldn’t speed up withdrawals until after the U.S. election, but they would hasten the end of the American combat role. They still have additional big decisions to work out with generals on the ground: what use to make of U.S. airpower in support of Afghan forces and to forestall concentrations of Taliban troops; whether to continue special-forces attacks, etc. Also, and very importantly, they still need to figure out how fast to bring home the remaining 68,000 troops after the U.S. election.

In running for re-election, Obama will be able to say he delivered on four core objectives: restoring economic growth in one year after inheriting the worst recession since the 1930s; ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; delivering universal healthcare; and saving the now buoyant American auto sector. And Romney wants to run against Obama’s record. Go for it, Mitt.

Good Morning.

As you go through your day, don’t forget JJP.

Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.

And always, have a peaceful day.