Why is it that people in the United States, the land where ‘all men are created equal,’ the land where ‘constitutional patriotism’ was born, have been pulling their hair out over an issue that appears nowhere in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers? For Spain’s Diario Exterior, columnist Carlos Alberto Montaner examines one of the most vexing issues in the U.S. today, and why America’s ‘ethnic neurosis’ is destined to dissipate if people simply wait.

For the Diario Exterior, Carlos Alberto Montaner starts off this way:

The New York Times front page has announced that in the previous year, more than half the children born in the United States (50.4%) were non-White. Of that percentage, 26 percent were Hispanic (mostly Mexican), 15 percent were Black and 4 percent were Asian.

Why was it on the front page? Pure ethnic neurosis. Fear of the other. The same thing happened a few years ago when Samuel Huntington caused such a stir with the publication of his The Hispanic Challenge. This type of information causes a certain anxiety among “Whites.” They think they are losing control over and the direction of America. They fear becoming a minority.

The first bit of nonsense is classification. Hispanics are defined by the language they speak, or by what language they are supposed to speak, regardless of skin color. A Chilean of Basque origin or a Cachiquel Guatemalan are Hispanics, even if the language of the latter isn’t Spanish. Blacks, evidently, are classified by race. Asians, by geography, be they Chinese or Indian.

I have no idea, for example, if an Israeli-American of Sephardic origin is Asian, White or Hispanic. Nor do I know if that brilliant engineer called Rafael Reif, a Venezuelan son of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe who was recently named President of MIT, is Hispanic, White, or if by chance the census allows it, simply Maracucho. [Maracucho is the Zulian dialect in northwest Venezuela].

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR SPANISH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

It might have seemed improbable that a skin-tight all-coverage spandex suit in lurid colors would be a choice of dress for some people. But a recent trend is conquering Europe and proving the opposite. What are we talking about? The Morphsuit.

No, it isn’t about people just hankering after being a real-life Spiderman. There’s a whole concept behind it.

Created by Gregor Lawson and brothers Fraser and Ali Smeaton, the company has already sold over 700,000 morphsuits, according to Scotsman.com. It started in 2009, largely powered by its Facebook page, which now has more than one million fans, all actively posting and sharing their experiences with the Morphsuit. According to Gregor Lawson, as further mentioned on Scotsman.com, looking after social media interaction with fans of the brand is an indispensable part of the success of the Morphsuit. Their Facebook page has to be checked several times a day, responses to comments and messages should be made as quickly as possible, and criticism is welcomed as well. The company underlines the importance of real interaction with consumers, which is a sensible tip. Judging by the general tone of their website, their attitude also seems genuine.

The Morphsuit is made from a specially developed type of spandex material that allows the wearer to breathe freely, talk, even drink through the coverage and kiss people. One ecstatic review on the company website says just that – the wearer has kissed more women since joining the ranks of the Morphs.

The suits can be reusable. The record so far was wearing a morphsuit 22,416 times before it had to be replaced. There’s a special double zip going all the way to the top of the suit head. So it’s like peeling off a second skin. As the website cheekily says, “So if you are heading to a party on your own, you can zip-up yourself up for maximum impact on arrival. And later, if you want the girl you’ve been dancing with for the past 20 minutes to see you, then it’s easy just to unzip, pull the hood down and engage. Perfect….assuming you are mildly attractive.” It’s suggested that cash should be concealed in a shoe, while a phone can be put in to a sock. The website also suggests a fanny pack, or the the bum bag in the adorable British version. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

It’s natural to think about comic book figures and superheroes when you look at pictures of the Morphsuits. But their amazing popularity probably has a lot to do with people just sometimes feeling like they need a disguise. Life is hard and sometimes we need something different to feel more free. The age-old appeal of masks and costumes has been around for a while. The Morphsuit definitely adds an air of mystery to the wearer, but it also implies the person must have a sense of humor. You can’t really wear it otherwise. The founders encourage “Morphs” to be confident and self-loving. You don’t have to look like a model to wear a suit, despite what some might think.

True, it’s an instant eye-catcher. One should be prepared for a lot of attention. Apparently people wearing the suit have been seen everywhere. At parties, concerts, festivals, football matches, at work, in shops, on the subway. In short, the suit seems perfect for almost any occasion.

The Morphsuits were originally geared at men, though now the company is planning to expand with a womenswear line. Currently they are operating in the UK from their flats, though a new office should be opened soon.

The suit has been redesigned since the beginning. Visibility through the material has been improved: you can see out, but no one can see in. Of course, while providing a quirky way to disguise your identitiy, at the same time the Morphsuit does leave very little to the imagination. The website recommends wearing “very tight underwear”. “Baggy boxers just make you look like you’ve got a lumpy arse”, is the succint tip.

Stephanie Kopf writes for the blog www.trenditionist.com
She has lived in Siberia, New York City and Germany. Her subject areas include anything related to the human psyche, European news, education, communication in all its forms, as well as the interaction of all of these with each other.

Image: Peter Mackinnon, Kerry Calder, and Stef Moir/First Photographics / Flickr/ Wikimedia/ CC

I was in one of those custom-made 1970s Pontiac convertibles, outfitted for Elvis and other rock stars with bull’s horns on the front bumper, rifles and handguns pasted everywhere inside and out, encrusted with silver dollars and bullets—-a NRA fever dream of a bygone America that had been fashioned by a Russian immigrant named Nudie Cohn, who started by tailoring outlandish suits and went on to outfit bizarre cars for American idols with no taste and too much money.

In that improbable vehicle, I was separated by a saddle from old friend in uniform, a Democratic activist, but we must have both looked like the dinosaurs who are now furnishing Romney with his lead over Obama.

Sitting there brought back memories of Elvis and Nixon and their strange 1970 White House meeting at which they agreed that the Beatles and drugs had endangered America. Elvis gave Nixon a Colt .45, and he reciprocated with a Bureau of Narcotics badge.

Seven years later, Elvis was dead on a bathroom floor of a drug overdose, and Nixon had resigned in the face of impeachment for White House crimes.

In this election year, ideological strife is back in new forms and the challenge for Barack Obama will be to win back older white men who long for an imagined America.

MORE.

Contrary to the narrative in the West, in Beijing’s alternate reality, Russia and China are the real heroes of the Syria story. According to this editorial from China’s state-controlled Global Times, only Russia and China stand in the way of an even more horrific conflict brought on by selfish Western determination to remake the Middle East in its own image.

The Global Times editorial says in part:

China and Russia have called for a resolution by peaceful means, as this is obviously the least painful path toward transition. Western powers, however, insist that unless Assad leaves, there can be no solution. What this in fact amounts to is calling for bloodshed rather than peace. It will force the Syrian parties to decide their fate through war.

But the regime is not without roots. Half the Syrian population remains loyal to Assad, and if this support is to be eradicated, it will cost Syrians dearly. The West’s strategy is built on Syrian flesh and blood. It is a political kidnapping of the destinies of over 20 million people.

If one country is permitted to intervene in another’s domestic affairs at will, our world would be plagued by a long series of wars driven by the subversion of regimes. However history judges such events, they would be a nightmare for the people of our age.

The West should not expect cooperation from China and Russia if it insists on dictating its values and mindsets to the world by all means possible. For it if does, it will find China and Russia standing in its way.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

The 2012 campaign season is shaping up as a possible “transformational” election, but not the kind that Barack Obama and many Democrats had in mind. It’s a year when, if Democrats don’t get their act together ASAP, they could suffer a trifecta of losses that will trigger further erosion of threatened New Deal and Great Society legacies and fulfill many conservatives’ longtime dreams.

Many Democrats still seem smugly assured that, in the end, voters would never, EVER give GOPers control of all three branches of government given the rhetorical overkill of the party’s talk show political culture, Congressional Republicans’ political obstructionism, the continued enabling of Twilight Zone-like birtherism, plus Republicans’ alienation of Latinos, many women voters, gays — and seeming disdain for moderates and America’s “sensible center.”

Democratic political maven James Carville almost seemed pleading on CNN when he told Democrats to wake up:

“You think that Democrats around the country are going to win — as I hear time and time again from people on the street. …I ask: What are you smoking? What are you drinking? What are you snorting or just what…are you thinking? Look around the world — do you see any governments or incumbents winning any elections out there?”

Among the many questions posed about the 2013 there are these three:

Two are a) whether the center is still “sensible” (centrists, moderates and some independents will ask) or b) whether the center was ever sensible (liberals and conservatives who consider the center mushy, unrealistic, lacking principles, and uninformed will ask). Polls vary, but most find that in terms of party identification the electorate is largely tied between Democrats and Republicans who need swing “undecided” voters to win.

The election takes place in a political landscape where political news now often seems to parallel TV show titles. For instance: “Mad Men” (Mitt Romney best political bud, birther Donald Trump; and Arizona birther Sheriff Joe Arpaio), “Missing” (George W. Bush’s absence from the Romney campaign trial), “Criminal Minds” (writers of demonizing and falsity-crammed Super PAC campaign ads), “House of Lies” (Congress), “Curb Your Enthusiasm” (Republicans endorsing Romney) and “The Big Bang Theory” (the John Edwards Trial).

A third question is whether 2008 will prove to be a fluke, merely a single Democratic Party volume wedged between two Republican Party bookends, a victory largely due to multiple-level Bush administration failures and the financial meltdown. If so, it means GOPers are destined for complete political control of the Supreme Court and that the mostly Republican dominance of Presidential elections since LBJ’s exit continues.

The National Journal’s Naureen Khan writes: “Part of the Obama campaign’s success in 2008 can be attributed to effectively recognizing those [demographic] shifts and wooing new constituencies. The question in 2012 remains whether the president can stitch together those constituencies again or whether those blocs will defect to Romney in the wake of protracted post-recession misery.”

The conventional wisdom has been zigzagging and now seems to have settled on middle ground.

As Investor’s Business Daily’s Andrew Malcolm puts it: “No one knows, of course, but conventional wisdom today holds the Nov. 6 outcome will be close. Unless it isn’t. And then we’ll hear all about why it wasn’t.”

Right now some analysts say Obama could become another Truman. Some Republicans say he’s another Jimmy Carter. But Obama may generate a — “another Obama” — that pundits and historians will use in the future. Exactly what “another Obama” means will emerge on Election Day.

So will the Democrats win despite themselves? Will some liberals really stay home because there was no public option in Obamacare? Will they forget about the Supreme Court (again)? Which party will swing voters hate the least and hold their noses and vote for? Will Republican Party unity combined with Super PAC bankrolling support make America’s first African-American President just one more, fired one —term President?

If so, it will another instance of life again seemingly imitating TV art as the Democrats on election day would wake up to see the New Deal and Great Society more on the way out than ever, and find themselves epitomizing the name of another TV show: “The Biggest Loser.”

Copyright 2012 Joe Gandelman. This weekly column is distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Speaking at the University of Wyoming fieldhouse

I heard him speak at the University of Wyoming when I was in second grade. Here is that speech, from 1963. He was assassinated fifty-eight days later in Dallas, Texas. I had met Senator Gale McGee on a few occasions, by that time. Here is what I heard:

John F. Kennedy
Address at the University of Wyoming.
September 25, 1963

Senator McGee–my old colleague in the Senate, Gale McGee–Governor, Mr. President, Senator Mansfield, Senator Metcalf, Secretary Udall, ladies and gentlemen:

I want to express my appreciation to you for your warm welcome, to you, Governor, to the President of the University, to Senator McGee, and others. I am particularly glad to come on this conservation trip and have an opportunity to speak at this distinguished university, because what we are attempting to do is to develop the talents in our country which require, of course, education which will permit us in our time, when the conservation of our resources requires entirely different techniques than were required 50 years ago, when the great conservation movement began under Theodore Roosevelt–and these talents, scientific and social talents, must be developed at our universities.

I hope that all of you who are students here will recognize the great opportunity that lies before you in this decade, and in the decades to come, to be of service to our country. The Greeks once defined happiness as full use of your powers along lines of excellence, and I can assure you that there is no area of life where you will have an opportunity to use whatever powers you have, and to use them along more excellent lines, bringing ultimately, I think, happiness to you and those whom you serve.

What I think we must realize is that the problems which now face us and their solution are far more complex, far more difficult, far more subtle, require a far greater skill and discretion of judgment, than any of the problems that this country has faced in its comparatively short history, or any, really, that the world has faced in its long history. The fact is that almost in the last 30 years the world of knowledge has exploded. You remember that Robert Oppenheimer said that 8 or 9 out of 10 of all the scientists who ever lived, live today. This last generation has produced nearly all of the scientific breakthroughs, at least relatively, that this world of ours has ever experienced. We are alive, all of us, while this tremendous explosion of knowledge, which has expanded the horizon of our experience, so far has all taken ‘place in the last 30 years.

If you realize that when Queen Victoria sent for Robert Peel to be Prime Minister-he was in Rome–the journey which he took from Rome to London took him the same amount of time, to the day, that it had taken the Emperor Hadrian to go from Rome to England nearly 1900 years before. There had been comparatively little progress made in almost 1900 years in the field of knowledge. Now, suddenly, in the last 100 years, but most particularly in the last 30 years, all that is changed, and all of this knowledge is brought to bear, and can be brought to bear, in improving our lives and making the life of our people more happy, or destroying them. And that problem is the one, of course, which this generation of Americans and the next must face: how to use that knowledge, how to make a social discipline out of it.

There is really not much use in having science and its knowledge confined to the laboratory unless it comes out into the mainstream of American and world life, and only those who are trained and educated to handle knowledge and the disciplines of knowledge can be expected to play a significant part in the life of their country. So, quite obviously, this university is not maintained by the people of Wyoming merely to help all of the graduates enjoy a prosperous life. That may come, that may be a byproduct, but the people of Wyoming contribute their taxes to the maintenance of this school in order that the graduates of this school may, themselves, return to the society which helped develop them some of the talents which that society has made available, and what is true in this State is true across the United States.

The reason why, at the height of the Civil War, when the preservation of the Union was in doubt, Abraham Lincoln signed the Land Grant College Act, which has built up the most extraordinary educational system in the world, was because he knew that a nation could not exist and be ignorant and free; and what was true 100 years ago is more true today. So what we have to decide is how we are going to manage the complicated social and economic and world problems which come across our desks-my desk, as President of the United States; the desk of the Senators, as representatives of the States; the Members of the House, as representatives of the people.

But most importantly, as the final power is held by a majority of the people, how the majority of the people are going to make their judgment on the wise use of our resources, on the correct monetary and fiscal policy, what steps we should take in space, what steps we should take to develop the resources of the ocean, what steps we should take to manage our balance of payments, what we should do in the Congo or Viet-Nam, or in Latin America, all these areas which come to rest upon the United States as the leading great power of the world, with the determination and the understanding to recognize what is at stake in the world–all these are problems far more complicated than any group of citizens ever had to deal with in the history of the world, or any group of Members of Congress had to deal with.

“Peace”

If you feel that the Members of Congress were more talented 100 years ago, and certainly the Senators in the years before the Civil War included the brightest figures, probably, that ever sat in the Senate–Benton, Clay, Webster, Calhoun, and all the rest-they talked, and at least three of them stayed in the Congress 40 years–they talked for 40 years about four or five things: tariffs and the development of the West, land, the rights of the States and slavery, Mexico. Now we talk about problems in one summer which dwarf in complexity all of those matters, and we must deal with them or we will perish.

So I think the chance for an educated graduate of this school to serve his State and country is bright. I can assure you that you are needed.

This trip that I have taken is now about 24 hours old, but it is a rewarding 24 hours because there is nothing more encouraging than for those of us to leave the rather artificial city of Washington and come and travel across the United States and realize what is here, the beauty, the diversity, the wealth, and the vigor of the people.

Last Friday I spoke to delegates from all over the world at the United Nations. It is an unfortunate fact that nearly every delegate comes to the United States from all around the world and they make a judgment on the United States based on an experience in New York or Washington; and rarely do they come West beyond the Mississippi, and rarely do they go to California, or to Hawaii, or to Alaska. Therefore, they do not understand the United States, and those of us who stay only in Washington sometimes lose our comprehension of the national problems which require a national solution.

This country has become rich because nature was good to us, and because the people who came from Europe, predominantly, also were among the most vigorous. The basic resources were used skillfully and economically, and because of the wise work done by Theodore Roosevelt and others, significant progress was made in conserving these resources.

Theodore Roosevelt with John Muir at Yosemite

The problem, of course, now is that the whole concept of conservation must change in the 1960′s if we are going to pass on to the 350 million Americans who will live in this country in 40 years where 180 million Americans now live–if we are going to pass on a country which is even richer.

The fact of the matter is that the management of our natural resources instead of being primarily a problem of conserving them, of saving them, now requires the scientific application of knowledge to develop new resources. We have come to. realize to a large extent that resources are not passive. Resources are not merely something that was here, put by nature. Research tells us that previously valueless materials, which 10 years ago were useless, now can be among the most valuable natural resources of the United States. And that is the most significant fact in conservation now since the early 1900′s when Theodore Roosevelt started his work. A conservationist’s first reaction in those days was to preserve, to hoard, to protect every non-renewable resource. It was the fear of resource exhaustion which caused the great conservation movement of the 1900′s. And this fear was reflected in the speeches and attitudes of our political leaders and their writers.

This is not surprising in the light of the technology of that time, but today that approach is out of date, and I think this is an important fact for the State of Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain States. It is both too pessimistic and too optimistic. We need no longer fear that our resources and energy supplies are a fixed quantity that can be exhausted in accordance with a particular rate of consumption. On the other hand, it is not enough to put barbed wire around a forest or a lake, or put in stockpiles of minerals, or restrictive laws and regulations on the exploitation of resources. That was the old way of doing it.

The old way of doing it

Our primary task now is to increase our understanding of our environment to a point where we can enjoy it without defacing it, use its bounty without detracting permanently from its value, and, above all, maintain a living balance between man’s actions and nature’s reactions, for this Nation’s great resources are as elastic and productive as our ingenuity can make them. For example, soda ash is a multimillion dollar industry in this State. A few years ago there was no use for it. It was wasted. People were unaware of it. And even if it had been sought, it could not be found–not because it wasn’t here, but because effective prospecting techniques had not been developed. Now soda ash is a necessary ingredient in the production of glass, steel, and other products. As a result of a series of experiments, of a harnessing of science to the use of man, this great new industry has opened up. In short, conservation is no longer protection and conserving and restricting. The balance between our needs and the availability of our resources, between our aspirations and our environment, is constantly changing.

Techtonic plate theory would have to wait for confirmation
until secret US navy maps of the undersea topography
were declassified in 1966

One of the great resources which we are going to find in the next 40 years is not going to be the land; it will be the ocean. We are going to find untold wealth in the oceans of the world which will be used to make a better life for our people. Science is changing all of our natural environment. It can change it for good; it can change it for bad. We are pursuing, for example, new opportunities in coal, which have been largely neglected–examining the feasibility of transporting coal by water through pipelines, of gasification at the mines, of liquefaction of coal into gasoline, and of transmitting electric power directly from the mouth of the mine. The economic feasibility of some of these techniques has not been determined, but it will be in the next decade. At the same time, we are engaged in active research on better means of using low grade coal, to meet the tremendous increase in the demand for coal we are going to find in the rest of this century. This is, in effect, using science to increase our supply of a resource of which the people of the United States were totally unaware 50 years ago.

Another research undertaking of special concern to this Nation and this State is the continuing effort to develop practical and feasible techniques of converting oil shale into usable petroleum fuels. The higher grade deposits in Wyoming alone are equivalent to 30 billion barrels of oil, and 200 billion barrels in the case of lower grade development. This could not be used, there was nothing to conserve, and now science is going to make it possible.

Investigation is going on to assure at the same time an adequate water supply so that when we develop this great new industry we will be able to use it and have sufficient water. Resource development, therefore, requires not only the coordination of all branches of science, it requires the joint effort of scientists, government–State, national, and local–and members of other professional disciplines. For example, we are now examining in the United States today the mixed economic-technical question of whether very large-scale nuclear reactors can produce unexpected savings in the simultaneous desalinization of water and the generation of electricity. We will have, before this decade is out or sooner, a tremendous nuclear reactor which makes electricity and at the same time gets fresh water from salt water at a competitive price. What a difference this can make to the Western United States. And, indeed, not only the United States, but all around the globe where there are so many deserts on the ocean’s edge.

It is in efforts, I think, such as this, where the National Government can play a significant role, where the scale of public investment or the nationwide scope of the problem, the national significance of the results are too great to ignore or which cannot always be carried out by private research. Federal funds and stimulation can help make the most imaginative and productive use of our manpower and facilities. The use of science and technology in these fields has gained understanding and support in the Congress. Senator Gale McGee has proposed an energetic study of the technology of electrometallurgy–the words are getting longer as the months go on, and more complicated-an area of considerable importance to the Rocky Mountains.

Progress marches on

All this, I think, is going to change the life of Wyoming and going to change the life of the United States. What we regard now as relative well-being, 30 years from now will be regarded as poverty. When you realize that 30 years ago r out of 10 farms had electricity, and yet some farmers thought that they were living reasonably well, now for a farm not to have electricity, we regard them as living in the depths of poverty. That is how great a change has come in 30 years. In the short space of 18 years, really, or almost 20 years, the wealth of this country has gone up 300 percent.

In 1970, 1980, 1990, this country will be, can be, must be–if we make the proper decisions, if we manage our resources, both human and material, wisely, if we make wise decisions in the Nation, in the State, in the community, and individually, if we maintain a vigorous and hopeful ‘pursuit of life and knowledge–the resources of this country are so unlimited and science is expanding them so greatly that all those people who thought 40 years ago that this country would be exhausted in the middle of the century have been proven wrong. It is going to be richer than ever, providing we make the wise decisions and we recognize that the future belongs to those who seize it.

Knowledge is power, a saying 500 years old, but knowledge is power today as never before, not only here in the United States, but the future of the free world depends in the final analysis upon the United States and upon our willingness to reach those decisions on these complicated matters which face us with courage and clarity. And the graduates of this school will, as they have in the past, play their proper role.

I express my thanks to you. This building which 15 years ago was just a matter of conversation is now a reality. So those things that we talk about today, which seem unreal, where so many people doubt that they can be done–the fact of the matter is, it has been true all through our history–they will be done, and Wyoming, in doing it, will play its proper role.

Thank you.

Note: The President spoke in the University field house at Laramie. In his opening words he referred to U.S. Senator Gale McGee and Governor Cliff Hansen of Wyoming; President George D. Humphrey of the University; U.S. Senators Mike Mansfield and Lee Metcalf of Montana; and Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall.

Citation: John F. Kennedy: “Address at the University of Wyoming.,” September 25, 1963. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9433.

Charles deGaulle at the funeral of John F. Kennedy

Happy 95th Birthday, Mr. President. We might have had you still with us.

Courage.

====================

A writer, published author, novelist, literary critic and political observer for a quarter of a quarter-century more than a quarter-century, Hart Williams has lived in the American West for his entire life. Having grown up in Wyoming, Kansas and New Mexico, a survivor of Texas and a veteran of Hollywood, Mr. Williams currently lives in Oregon, along with an astonishing amount of pollen. He has a lively blog His Vorpal Sword. This is cross-posted from his blog

In his speech to the 1988 Democratic convention, Rev. Jesse Jackson declared “keep hope alive.” On CNN today, presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s best political bud Donald Trump in essence argued keep birtherism alive.

In what will likely be shown for years as a classic interview on CNN, Trump refused to acknowledge facts as facts, inaccurately stated some things as facts, and went on the offensive against CNN’s Wolf Blitzer who did a non-Sean Hannity interview: Blitzer asked tough questions and follow up questions as trained journalists are supposed to do. Trump got in a few zingers about CNN’s low ratings along the way.

Watch it and judge for yourself:

Now watch the reaction of GOPer David Frum, who I often retweet on my Twitter page:

Most fascinating: Trump did this birther rant before and he fizzled out as a GOP candidate. He’s not now just “remaking the wheel” — he’s reconstructing the looney bin. Some fitting music here and here. And Romney?

Romney is essentially enabling Trump, arguing that he can’t be responsible for what his followers say. The most likely explanation (which Howard Fineman also has, based on Fineman’s comments on MSNBC) is: Romney has noted that his goal is to get the 50.1 percent he needs to win so whoever Trump can get worked up and however Trump can do it, fine — as long as they vote against Obama and for him. It’s a classic case of the ends justify the means — any means. This would also would fit into the 2011-2012 incarnation of Mitt Romney who pulls out all stops to obliterate his opposition. He may not have decades long political positions, but he has the steel to do whatever it takes — no matter how it looks to pundits — to win. He has also been of saying things…at varience…with the truth.. to an extent not seen in American politics.

Will it play for independent voters? Some say indes won’t care. My prediction: he will lose a chunk of independent voters who yearn for a SERIOUS political discussion by SERIOUS candidates.

And how is this playing in the media? The Reuters article below is just one article that is not exactly the kind of image a candidate who wants to win over independent voters would want:

Controversy over the “birther” movement hung over a meeting in Las Vegas on Tuesday between Mitt Romney and high-profile supporter Donald Trump, whose comments about President Barack Obama have put the Republican presidential candidate in an awkward spot.

Trump has again raised doubts about whether Obama was born in the United States, an issue that is most passionately pursued by conspiracy theorists and which Romney has tried to avoid as he focuses on attacking the White House’s economy record.

“A lot of people are questioning his birth certificate,” Trump said on CNBC on Tuesday. “They’re questioning the authenticity of his birth certificate.

“I’ve been known as being a very smart guy for a long time. I don’t consider myself birther or not birther but there are some major questions here and the press doesn’t want to cover it,” he said.

Romney has said he believes Obama was born in the United States but he has drawn fire from Democrats for not distancing himself from Trump, who has alleged Obama was born in Kenya and is thus not eligible to be U.S. president.

Romney was to appear with Trump, who once had presidential ambitions of his own, at a fundraiser in Las Vegas. Romney also is likely to clinch the Republican nomination on Tuesday night at the Texas primary where he is expected to pick up scores of delegates and reach the target of 1,144 needed.

The LA Times’ headline is “Donald Trump rages in CNN meltdown over Obama ‘birther’ issue”:

Donald Trump is seething over the President Obama “birther” issue — and the latest target of his wrath is CNN.

In an interview Tuesday, the real estate magnate and “Celebrity Apprentice” overseer got into a war of words with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, castigating the network for what he dubbed “inaccurate” reporting and ridiculing its low ratings.

At one point, Blitzer said that Trump was beginning to sound ridiculous. “I think you sound ridiculous,” Trump shot back via telephone.

Trump has been a leading proponent of the theory that Obama either was not or may not have been born in the U.S. This view is a focal point of attacks on the administration from some critics, although the state of Hawaii has offered documents that say Obama was indeed born there. Most leading GOP politicians have shied away from the issue, but it persists, particularly at a grass-roots level. Trump is keeping the issue alive even as he brandishes his support for the presumed Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, Romney inched into the birther waters a bit himself. The Huffington Post:

At an afternoon event at a furniture warehouse in Las Vegas, Romney did not mention Trump’s remarks, but also made a comment that touched on the topic of a president’s birth place.

He said that a local restaurant owner, in a conversation earlier in the day, told him that he’d like the change the Constitution.

“‘I’m not sure I could do it,’ he said. ‘I’d like to have a provision in the Constitution that in addition to the age of the president and the citizenship of the president, and the birth place of the president being set by the Constitution, I’d like it also to say that the president has to spend at least three years working in business before he can get the job of president,’” Romney said the man told him.

Romney’s campaign message is that he understands the economy and Obama doesn’t. But this comment appeared to be an attempt by the Romney campaign to signal that it is not worried by Trump’s remarks.

In other words: let the birther demonization begin or, rather, resume?

And, also, let me get this straight:

Future Presidential candidates should be required to spend three years working in business?

What would that have done to someone like….Ronald Reagan?

So while Romney wants to require future Presidents to have background in business, Trump is giving the President — and voters who want to see candidates talk about the issues and challenges facing our country rather than hear talk radio show talking points or regurgitated blog posts — the business.

Writes Andrew Sullivan:

All I can say is that Romney’s embrace of Trump and passive letting go of Grenell are signs of personal weakness, not strength.

And I’m betting many independent voters will conclude just that.

In the least surprising news of the week, Mitt Romney has officially clinched the Republican Nomination for President.

CNN, Fox and MSNBC have all made their projections.

This of course will not have much impact on the views of hard core Ron Paul supporters, who continue to cling to the theory that Paul will somehow overcome the realities of math (something Mike Huckabee had a problem with in 2008).

To those who insisted that there was no way the GOP could avoid a brokered convention… well you know.

John Darkow, Columbia Daily Tribune, Missouri

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

“The study concludes that media sources have a significant impact on the number of questions that people were able to answer correctly. The largest effect is that of Fox News: all else being equal, someone who watched only Fox News would be expected to answer just 1.04 domestic questions correctly — a figure which is significantly worse than if they had reported watching no media at all.”

It would be nice to write here that Fox is the only culprit in the big media dumb-down. Alas, based on my own nightly search for good domestic
coverage, flipping back and forth between ABC, CBS, and  NBC in a desperate search for some real information, I rarely come away satisfied.

Almost every night they all spend so much time on ads for things like in-grown toenails and erectile dysfunction that there isn’t much time left over to report the news. And during the contracted time period supposedly devoted to actual news, they waste additional time on house ads disguised as news. When they deign to do a real news story at all, it tends to be one of those feeding frenzy pieces that have been done to death everywhere. Hard issue coverage of any kind is a rarity.

My choice for a good broadcast news station based in the Fairleigh Dickinson study and my own observations? None of the above.

—

Here’s a link to my youtube movies about The Big Belch

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=BigBelchGraphicNovel&view=videos

And one to my blog about creating The Big Belch.

Every political campaign exaggerates and dissembles. This practice may not be admirable — it’s surely one reason so many Americans are disenchanted with politics — but it’s something we’ve all come to expect. Candidates claim the right to make any boast or accusation as long as there’s a kernel of veracity in there somewhere.

Even by this lax standard, Romney too often fails. Not to put too fine a point on it, he lies. Quite a bit.

“Since President Obama assumed office three years ago, federal spending has accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history,” Romney claims on his campaign website. This is utterly false. The truth is that spending has slowed markedly under Obama.

An analysis published last week by MarketWatch, a financial news website owned by Dow Jones & Co., compared the yearly growth of federal spending under presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Citing figures from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, MarketWatch concluded that “there has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.”

Quite the contrary: Spending has increased at a yearly rate of only 1.4 percent during Obama’s tenure, even if you include some stimulus spending (in the 2009 fiscal year) that technically should be attributed to George W. Bush. This is by far the smallest — I repeat, smallest — increase in spending of any recent president. (The Washington Post’s Fact Checker concluded the spending increase figure should have been 3.3 percent.)

In Bush’s first term, by contrast, federal spending increased at an annual rate of 7.3 percent; in his second term, the annual rise averaged 8.1 percent. Reagan comes next, in terms of profligacy, followed by George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and finally Obama, the thriftiest of them all.

The MarketWatch analysis was re-analyzed by the nonpartisan watchdogs at Politifact who found it “Mostly True” — adding the qualifier because some of the restraint in spending under Obama “was fueled by demands from congressional Republicans.” Duly noted, and if Romney wants to claim credit for the GOP, he’s free to do so. But he’s not free to say that “federal spending has accelerated” under Obama, because any way you look at it, that’s a lie.

Another example: “(Obama) went around the Middle East and apologized for America,” Romney said in March. “You know, instead of apologizing for America he should have stood up and said that as the president of the United States we all take credit for the greatness of this country.” That’s two lies for the price of one. Obama did not, in fact, go around the Middle East, or anywhere else, apologizing for America. And he did, on many occasions, trumpet American greatness and exceptionalism.

Romney offers few specifics, but the conservative Heritage Foundation published a list of “Barack Obama’s Top 10 Apologies” — not one of which is an apology at all.

One alleged instance is a speech Obama gave to the Turkish parliament in 2009, in which he said the United States “is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history … (and) still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.” If the folks at Heritage and at the Romney campaign don’t know that this is a simple statement of fact, they really ought to get out more.

Romney does single out the following Obama statement from a 2009 interview: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Romney says this acknowledgement — that others might have as much national pride as we do — means Obama doesn’t really believe in American exceptionalism at all.

But in the same interview, Obama went on to say he was “enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world,” and to tout U.S. economic and military might as well as the nation’s “exceptional” democratic values. So he should be accused of chest-thumping, not groveling.

I could go on and on, from Romney’s laughable charge that Obama is guilty of “appeasement” (ask Osama bin Laden) to claims of his job-creating prowess at Bain Capital. He seems to believe voters are too dumb to discover what the facts really are — or too jaded to care.

On both counts, I disagree.

Eugene Robinson’s email address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group. His column is licensed to run on TMV in full

I have not said anything because I have been too busy remembering, honoring and writing about those heroes.

(Mr. Hayes has apologized since.)

But now that Memorial Day is over and we can feel “comfortable” again — at least until the next Veterans Day or Memorial Day — about sending our non-heroes into harm’s way I will say something about that again.

I say again, because I have called all our fighting men and women — not only those who die in battle — “heroes.”

And, just as I expect it to happen again, I received an earful then, but that goes with the territory.

Reacting to a column, “Why It’s Wrong to Equate Military Service With Heroism,” written by retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. William J. Astore, wherein the colonel discussed all the technical, logical and semantic reasons why our fighting men and women should not be collectively called “heroes,” I wrote:

I am one of those misguided, clueless people who, when writing about our military men and women slugging it out in Iraq and Afghanistan, engaged in combat, just trying not to get killed or maimed by an IED, or just driving a truck with supplies across the desert, instinctively and invariably refers to them as “heroes.”

I went on to give my reasons as to why I call our servicemen and women heroes.

I know that not everyone of our fighting men and women fits the definition of “hero.” I call them collectively heroes out of general, across-the-board respect and admiration for them, and out of deep gratitude for the sacrifices they make for our country.

Those who fit the strict definition of “hero” will still be singled out, recognized, honored and “celebrated” with the appropriate military awards and decorations designed and reserved for just such acts of valor and heroism. I do not believe the “real heroes” would begrudge their brothers and sisters in arms from being referred to as “heroes.” As a matter of fact, real heroes do not feel they are heroes at all.

I categorically reject the opinions of those who say that creating such a class or league of “heroes” would play down the brutalizing effects of war, would justify, even glorify war and would desensitize us to the cruelties and atrocities of war.

The American people overwhelmingly reject the Iraq War and want our nation to end the war in Afghanistan. They overwhelmingly condemn the atrocities committed by a handful of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in all wars.

I do not believe that by supporting our troops, by calling them heroes, Americans approve of every war or attach a connotation of “nobleness” to every military action our leaders take us into. Americans are intelligent enough to make distinctions between the policy decisions that take our nation into war and the troops who are called upon to fight those wars — heroically.

I believe that taking issue with symbolic, laudatory labels for our troops — even though those labels may be overly generous — in order to condemn wars and in order to condemn those who sent our troops to war is wrongheaded.

Moreover, I believe that in taking issue with those who would call our troops “heroes,” to cite the “ennoblement” of German militarism during World War I or the Nazi atrocities during World War II — which included the Holocaust — is an affront to the intelligence and to the moral compass of the American people.

I totally oppose the Iraq war and question our continued involvement in Afghanistan. I have written frequently and strongly about my opposition.

And yet, I still call those men and women who have fought and continue to fight in those wars “heroes” — and I will continue to do so with all due respect to those who disagree with me.

As I concluded my previous piece on this issue:

Astore is correct that “[I]n rejecting blanket ‘hero’ labels today, we would not be insulting our troops.” That is because our troops “collectively” cannot be insulted. Just as calling them heroes does not cheapen true acts of heroism, nor does it justify, humanize or glorify war. Governments and politicians who take us into war might justify and glorify wars, not the troops who fight and die in them.

A Vietnam War era veteran, who did not see combat and who is not a hero, but who will always call our troops collectively, perhaps allegorically, but above all, earnestly heroes.

CODA:

In June 2011, while we were still in Iraq, the Stars and Stripes published this preface to their section called — you guessed it — “Heroes.”

I thought I would be appropriate to quote it here:

After nearly a decade of war, it’s easy to become numb to it.

You read the newspaper, you watch the television and it just keeps coming, one day after another until it all runs together. You mourn the dead and you celebrate the victories, but you can’t allow yourself to feel too deeply or it becomes too much. If you’re one of the 99 percent of Americans not actively fighting this country’s battles, war is difficult to understand.

But we must try. We owe it to the 1 percent.

For them, it’s not complicated. It’s not about surges and drawdowns and Capitol Hill bickering. For the men and women who will lace up their boots in Afghanistan or Iraq today, their only goal is to complete the mission and lie down to sleep at night one day closer to coming home.

It’s not easy. Sometimes completing an ordinary mission requires extraordinary heroism. These are the stories you’ll find in the seventh edition of Stars and Stripes’ Heroes special section.

The servicemembers profiled here never sought glory. Though many later received valor medals, they sought only to succeed and survive and to protect the one standing beside them. Most of them made it home safely, some didn’t. Others are still at war today.

To understand, we must know their stories.

We owe it to the 1 percent.

To read the stories of these heroes, please go here

A cry against judicial activism came from Southern conservatives when the Warren Supreme Court in a 9-0 landmark decision in 1954, Brown v Board of Education, declared state laws unconstitutional that authorized separate public schools for black and white students. The Court decided that these laws violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This overturned Plessy v Ferguson which in 1896 had ruled in favor of state supported segregation. Subsequently, in 1973, in Roe v Wade, the Court struck down anti-abortion laws that had been enacted by many states, by a 7-2 margin. Conservatives again saw this as judicial over reaching by the Court.

Since that decision, the Court has ruled a number of times limiting the scope of Roe v Wade with conservative approval. In 1980, it validated the Hyde Amendment, prohibiting federal funds from being used by indigent women for abortions. In Rust v Sullivan in 1991, it upheld regulations that banned abortion counseling and referrals from family planning clinics that received federal funds. In a number of other cases since, it has favored further restrictions on women’s rights to choose abortion. Since these rulings upheld state and federal laws, they could be considered judicial restraint rather than activism.

Other rulings by the Supreme Court have overturned local laws restricting use of guns and upheld laws that expanded gun rights. These decisions affirmed the conservative outlook of the Court, with judicial activism evident in the first instance when legislation developed by elected bodies was ruled invalid. Rulings narrowing the scope of the 1966 Miranda decision about a criminal suspect’s right to remain silent reinforced the Court’s leaning to the right, as did decisions regarding privacy, free speech and immigration.

However, the major manifestation of the Court’s conservative judicial activism came with its Citizen’s United ruling in 2010 that overturned decades of laws and precedents that had attempted to control campaign spending. Statutes had existed limiting corporate contributions in election campaigns since 1906, the most recent of which was the McCain-Feingold Act passed in 2002. This had been upheld by the Court in a 5-4 decision in 2003 in McConnell v Federal Election Commission. Then Citizens United overrode past precedent to strike down the provisions of McCain-Feingold that limited corporate spending in federal election campaigns, saying it went against the First Amendment that protected freedom of speech. Conservatives had previously argued that judicial activism was only credible when protecting rights that were present in the text of the constitution, or if intent of the framers of the constitution had been evident. These criteria were not met in this bald act of judicial activism by the Court, unleashing Super PACs upon the country.

The question now remains how the Supreme Court will rule on the Affordable Care Act. Given the Court’s recent history of conservative judicial activism, it seems likely the justices will either find the entire Act or the individual mandate unconstitutional. When this decision is handed down, one can not expect any cries against judicial activism to come from the right.

Resurrecting Democracy

A VietNam vet and a Columbia history major who became a medical doctor, Bob Levine has watched the evolution of American politics over the past 40 years with increasing alarm. He knows he’s not alone. Partisan grid-lock, massive cash contributions and even more massive expenditures on lobbyists have undermined real democracy, and there is more than just a whiff of corruption emanating from Washington. If the nation is to overcome lockstep partisanship, restore growth to the economy and bring its debt under control, Levine argues that it will require a strong centrist third party to bring about the necessary reforms. Levine’s previous book, Shock Therapy For the American Health Care System took a realist approach to health care from a physician’s informed point of view; Resurrecting Democracy takes a similar pragmatic approach, putting aside ideology and taking a hard look at facts on the ground. In his latest book, Levine shines a light that cuts through the miasma of party propaganda and reactionary thinking, and reveals a new path for American politics. This post is cross posted from his blog.

Image via Shutterstock.com

MSNBC’s First Read poses these questions:

*** Playing the Trump card: Here’s a little thought exercise: What if a chief Obama surrogate/fundraiser happened to be the nation’s foremost critic of the Mormon faith, who argued that it was nothing more than a cult? Or what if the Obama campaign was holding a fundraising contest with a celebrity who believed that 9/11 was an inside job? Or even if Obama held a joint fundraiser with Bill Maher? It’s hard to differentiate those hypotheticals from Mitt Romney’s association with Donald Trump, who in recent days has said that hitting Obama with Jeremiah Wright is fair game and that there are still doubts about Obama’s place of birth. The Romney-Trump association tonight includes a fundraiser with “The Donald,” as well as an upcoming fundraising dinner contest with him. Why hang out with someone — multiple times — who could overshadow you, for all the wrong reasons? Could you imagine John McCain or George W. Bush doing something similar?

Actually, you can’t. It’s because they had backbone.

Increasingly, Romney most resembles this:

UPDATE: There is a lot of blog reaction to Romney refusing to distance himself from Trump HERE. I disagree with those who say it doesn’t matter. It’s going to chance off some independent voters who are turned off by the birther narrative — and not because of politics but because of the mentality it reflects and says about those who don’t repudiate it. Romney may raise some money by wooing Trump and in his choice of words basically legitimizing him; Trump will start grabbing some headlines since that’s what he does, Romney will be asked to respond and it’ll distract from Romney’s economic message.

The problem is that there are few buyers. The facilities for sale are elaborate to the point of esoteric. I mean, who really needs a piggery?  Maybe we can use it as a home for retired politicians, if we can get them to retire.

Emad Hajjaj, Jordan

So much for the Syrian government’s cover story in the Houla killings that took 108 lives and shocked the world with images of scores of dead children lying side by side: the UN says most victims were summarily executed…period:

Most of the 108 victims of the Houla killings in Syria were executed, the United Nations said Tuesday – an announcement that triggered a coordinated worldwide expulsion of Syrian diplomats.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights says its monitors found that fewer than 20 died from artillery fire. It was first thought the majority of the deaths were caused by artillery fire.

Images of bloodied, young bodies laid out in a shallow grave after Friday’s onslaught triggered shock around the world and underlined the failure of a six-week-old U.N. cease-fire plan to stop the violence. [TMV Editor's Note: WARNING here are those disturbing, tragic graphic video images via You Tube]

Syrian authorities blamed “terrorists” for the massacre, among the worst carnage in the 14-month-old uprising against Assad, which has cost about 10,000 lives.

In an effort coordinated by Britain, several nations – including Canada, Australia, France and Germany – responded to the U.N. findings by expelling diplomats, as ITV News reported. Syria’s charge d’affaires, Ghassan Dalla, the country’s topranking diplomat in London, was among those ordered to return to Damascus.

The Guardian:

Britain, France, the United States and three other European countries are expelling the ambassadors of Syria in protest at the massacre of more than 100 people, including scores of children, in Houla near Hama last weekend.

The co-ordinated international diplomatic action came as Kofi Annan, representing the UN and the Arab League, met the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, in Damascus “to convey the grave concern of the international community about the violence in Syria” and the prospects for the implementation of his apparently failing six-point plan.

Australia also said it was expelling the Syrian ambassador. It is understood that the US will follow suit. Germany announced it was expelling the Syrian envoy, and Spain and Italy are due to do the same.

Syria has flatly denied responsibility for the atrocity, calling it a “terrorist massacre”.

France’s president, François Hollande, was the first European leader to announce the expulsion of the ambassador, describing it as “not a unilateral decision but in consultation with our partners”. Britain’s decision was due to be made public by William Hague, the foreign secretary, shortly afterwards.

It was not immediately clear why other members of the 27-strong EU had not joined in.

Britain withdrew its ambassador and in effect closed its embassy in Damascus on security grounds earlier this year. That meant there was little to lose by taking this punitive step. But its effect will be largely symbolic. Syria’s ambassador, Sami Khiyami, left London some months ago. The charge d’affaires, Ghassan Dalla, was given the news when he was called into the Foreign Office. Two other Syrian diplomats have also been told to leave the UK.

Many Republicans have demanded the U.S. take stronger action in various forms: covert, arming rebels, Polls have found sentiment in Europe for UN intervention and little interest among the U.S public for American intervention amid Iraq-Afghanistan war fatigue.

She contends that Hillary Clinton faced a double edged, razor-sharp sword, and fell on it: the news media’s treatment of her was different as First Lady, Senator and as the country’s first viable female Presidential aspirant, not just because she was a woman, but because she was Hillary Clinton. She had some baggage to shed, started effectively shedding it, and Team Obama made it their mission to make sure they loaded her up with more of it.

Today, “The Hillary Effect” is more relevant than ever. There is increased speculation about whether Hillary Clinton will run for President one day. Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh’s near slanderous rants against law student Sandra Fluke? Sexism in the media — even from media types that Marsh would otherwise agree with (no one is spared whether they work at Fox News, Talk Radio or MSNBC like Chris Matthews) — is an underlying theme in “The Hillary Effect.” Mitt Romney’s allegations of “character assassination” by team Obama on the Bain Capital issue and the issue of GOP Super PACS trying to destroy Barack Obama by negatively defining him? A chapter in her book “Eating Your Own” puts the practice into context in factual and analytical detail. A small excerpt:

You certainly won’t get the view I saw of Obama versus Hillary from [Obama campaign manager] David Plouffe’s book….Because I assure you, the story Plouffe tells, while true for him, is only half complete…The Obama campaign was anything but a “new kind of politics,” but most of the media sucked it up like an intoxicating elixir though there were a very few exceptions who saw it…

She notes that Obama “was actually the establishment candidate, the media’s choice as well, with Hillary the outsider…” and later writes:

Barack Obama’s candidacy was obviously historic, but so was Hillary Clinton’s. They were both firsts — equal, except to the media covering the race. As with Plouffe’s rewriting of primary history, the Obama campaign’s negative campaigning got a pass. After all how else could he beat the bitch?

Marsh is also extremely tough on Republicans (which is precisely why on some book selling websites along with real reviews you’ll see some name-calling” reviews” partisans often put on to try and denigrate a book that they clearly have not even READ when written by someone on the other political side). And she’s also tough as nails on on Team Hillary for their catastrophic mistakes of judgment, hubris and campaign implementation which helped produce a President Barack Obama.

But the real meat of “The Hillary Effect” is Marsh’s analysis of the long range impact of what Hillary Clinton tried to do, failed to do due to her campaign’s mistakes and, in the end, actually did.

Marsh convincingly makes the case that The Hillary Effect’s impact was huge on America (much bigger than The O’Reilly Factor’s). Why?

If Hillary Clinton didn’t exactly break “the glass ceiling,” Marsh details how her primary wins broke the chandelier a few feet away from the ceiling — and how the shards of shattered chandelier produced opportunities for GOP conservative women such as the anti-Hillary Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Marsh takes no prisoners when pointing out the sexist statements, sexist assumptions and behavior of many male political and media figures from both parties.

When you read “The Hillary Effect” you’ll find yourself saying, “Hey! That’s right! I never realized that before” — and you’ll increasingly notice how this pattern of sexist perceptions and sexist throw-away comments persists to this day (a baloney ceiling remains).

Marsh is supremely armed with the qualifications and skills to write this book. By 2008 she had evolved — and not by branding design — into the highest profile, most respected pro-Hillary blogger on the Internet, culminating in a Washington Post profile. Today, she calls herself a “recovering partisan.” What has not changed is her take-no-prisoners style of blunt writing; her interest isn’t in making media or political best buds to advance her career (she certainly won’t with the honestly in this book), but to give readers her best take.

And “The Hillary Effect” is the best take on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, its significance and its impact on what was to follow and is unfolding.

PERSONAL NOTE: I started linking to Taylor Marsh a few years after the December 2003 start up of The Moderate Voice. I didn’t always agree with her, but she always made her case with solid analysis rather than name calling or the kind of lash out posts (lashing out at parties, other blogs and blog writers) that you see on so many weblogs. About a year ago I invited her to cross-post some posts on TMV as a Guest Voice Columnist. I was and remain a fan.

When her book came out, I offered her an ad on TMV for free since we had one more remaining spot that we could give away for free. And then I ordered the book myself to read on my Kindle. She didn’t even know I had it until a few weeks later. A few months later I told her I loved it and had told my sister about it. I asked Taylor if she had an old copy she could mail to my sister to read.

So here is a disclaimer:
NOTE: Taylor Marsh provided a free print copy of her book to my sister and it’s my understanding she extended a free copy to just about anyone in media who would consider reviewing it or mentioning her book in a column.

This review was on my to-review list many months before she sent the book to my sister (FYI, I have 12 more items on my backlogged list for review here on TMV, including Robert Caro’s new LBJ book and the latest Godfather spin off novel).

How much do I like “The Hillary Effect?” This much: I read it once and it’s still on the front page of my Kindle because I’m reading it again so I can soak in the analysis and enjoy the no-nonsense, blunt, yet-supported-by-facts Taylor Marsh style.

So on yours truly there may be: “The Taylor Marsh Effect.”

On a TMV scale of five stars “The Hillary Effect” gets five stars (required reading for political junkies and aspiring and practicing journalists and bloggers).

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

That is the outlandish premise of Lillyhammer, Netflix first original series. And while the series abounds with cliches, it is hilarious as Johnny, played to perfection by Steve Van Zandt and backed by an all-Norwegian cast, soon discovers that being an unemployed immigrant is not easy. Johnny resorts to his old ways, which include buying a restaurant and getting what he wants through intimidation, when necessary, and sometimes worse.

Van Zandt is, of course, a legend. He played Silvio Dante in The Sopranos, is the longtime rhythm guitarist in Bruce Springsteen’s E Street Band and has his own solo career.

Reviews have been mixed since all eight 45-minute episodes of Lillyhammer became available through webstreaming in February. Some critics were put off by the cliches (one local tells Johnny that “You seem to know a lot about guns and pistols for a restaurant guy”) and others found the subtitles annoying. Meh.

Van Zandt, who co-produced Lillyhammer, has described it as a “dramedy” and there indeed are dramatic elements. A local constable believes that Johnny is a terrorist in Norwegian mufti who was released from Guantánamo Bay and is up to no good, the mob boss he ratted out gets wind of his whereabouts, and other shenanigans. But it is over-the-top funny with only dollops of violence.

“We’re pushing the envelope as far as violence is concerned,” Van Zandt told an interviewer. “[The Norwegians] just don’t have any — they don’t allow it. You can have sex in prime time there, but violence is not cool.”

* * * * *

When I shuttered the pied-à-terre and I moved to the mountain retreat fulltime, I bid an unfond adieu to a $50 a month cable television bill. Beyond Turner Classic Movies, The Weather Channel and occasional sports, the other 80 or so channels had gone unwatched.

For about $1,000 — or less than two years worth of cable — I bought a 37-inch HDTV, a Blu-Ray DVD player, wireless Internet router and a Roku, a marvelous little box through which we webstream movies, television and other content that are mated to a 10-year-old Sony amplifier-tuner and Bose speakers and an eight-year-old MacBook laptop. Oh, and two ridiculously expensive HDMI cables, which are Digital Age counterparts of RCA cables.

Roku streams Netflix, Amazon, Crackle and dozens of other channels, including the estimable TED Talks. Netflix sets us back $16 a month for both DVDs and webstreaming, while Amazon is substantially free because we are Amazon Prime members, and Crackle, TED Talks and many other channels are just plain free.

There will be some additional expenses en route to webstreaming nirvana.

Speaking of the Olympics, we will want to watch the London Games this summer, but not what NBC Sports wants us to watch, which is lots of swimming, gymnastics, track and field and . . . did I say gymnastics? We will be able to cherry pick events and watch them at our leisure. Without commercial interruption.

Shaun Mullen is an award winning journalist and blogger. “Report From 20 Paws Ranch,”
which is the name of his mountain hideaway, usually appears on Mondays.