<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
    <title>A Blue View</title>
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.ablueview.com/atom.xml" />
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/" />
    <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:weblog-1574284</id>
    <updated>2013-01-18T12:05:51-05:00</updated>
    <subtitle>I scour the Web so you don&#39;t have to: news, analysis &amp; commentary from a progressive perspective.</subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.typepad.com/">TypePad</generator>
    <entry>
        <title>1,013 People Have Died From Guns Since Newtown</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2013/01/1013-people-have-died-from-guns-since-newtown.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2013/01/1013-people-have-died-from-guns-since-newtown.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833017d40275308970c</id>
        <published>2013-01-18T12:05:51-05:00</published>
        <updated>2013-01-18T12:05:51-05:00</updated>
        <summary>Slate is providing a fantastic public service that should terrify the NRA: &quot;an interactive, crowdsourced tally of the toll firearms have taken since Dec. 14&quot;. Use it. Add to it. Be appalled by it. How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown? The answer to the simple question in that headline is surprisingly hard to come by. So Slate and the Twitter feed @GunDeaths are collecting data for our crowdsourced interactive. This data is necessarily incomplete. But the more people who are paying attention, the better the data will be. You can help us draw a more complete picture of gun violence in America. If you know about a gun death in your community that isn’t represented here, please tweet @GunDeaths with a citation. (If you’re not on Twitter, you can email slatedata@gmail.com.) And if you’d like to use this data yourself for your own projects, it’s open....</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gun Control" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html" target="_blank">Slate</a> is providing a fantastic public service that should terrify the NRA: &quot;an interactive, crowdsourced tally of the toll firearms have taken since Dec. 14&quot;. </p>
<p>Use it. Add to it. Be appalled by it.</p>
<h3 style="padding-left: 30px;">How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?</h3>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The answer to the simple question in that headline is surprisingly hard to come by. So <strong><em>Slate </em></strong>and the Twitter feed <a href="https://twitter.com/GunDeaths" target="_blank">@GunDeaths</a> are collecting data for our crowdsourced interactive. <a href="http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2013/01/gun_deaths_in_america_since_newtown_about_this_project.html">This data is necessarily incomplete</a>.
 But the more people who are paying attention, the better the data will 
be. You can help us draw a more complete picture of gun violence in 
America. If you know about a gun death in your community that isn’t 
represented here, please tweet @GunDeaths with a citation. (If you’re 
not on Twitter, you can email <a href="mailto:slatedata@gmail.com?subject=Gun%20Deaths%20Tip/Error&amp;">slatedata@gmail.com</a>.) And if you’d like to use this data yourself for your own projects, it’s open. You can download it <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AmjG42aUKrlodEhxVkxhaFI1OEM2anUyd20ySWFnS2c&amp;output=csv" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">
<a class="asset-img-link" href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833017ee79b9df1970d-pi" style="display: inline;"><img alt="GunDeathsSinceNewtown" class="asset  asset-image at-xid-6a00e5502640718833017ee79b9df1970d" src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833017ee79b9df1970d-500wi" title="GunDeathsSinceNewtown" /></a><br /><br /></p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>58% Support Stricter Gun Control Laws Today, A 12 Year High</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2013/01/58-support-stricter-gun-control-laws-today-a-12-year-high.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2013/01/58-support-stricter-gun-control-laws-today-a-12-year-high.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833017c35f878b8970b</id>
        <published>2013-01-18T09:11:00-05:00</published>
        <updated>2013-01-18T12:19:21-05:00</updated>
        <summary>While I bemoaned the fact that Only 44% Support Stricter Gun Control Laws, A Record Low in a post on Oct 9 2009, the situation today is quite different: More from Gallup.</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gun Control" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>While I bemoaned the fact that <a href="http://www.ablueview.com/2009/10/only-44-support-stricter-gun-control-laws-a-record-low.html" target="_blank">Only 44% Support Stricter Gun Control Laws, A Record Low</a> in a post on Oct 9 2009, the situation today is quite different:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">
<a class="asset-img-link" href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;" target="_blank"><img alt="Guncontrolpoll" class="asset  asset-image at-xid-6a00e5502640718833017ee79bb61c970d" src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833017ee79bb61c970d-500wi" style="border: 1px solid #000000;" title="Guncontrolpoll" /></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx" target="_blank">More</a> from Gallup.</p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Does &#39;Moochers Against Welfare&#39; Explain It?</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2012/02/does-moochers-against-welfare-explain-it.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2012/02/does-moochers-against-welfare-explain-it.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833016762848ae6970b</id>
        <published>2012-02-17T14:23:54-05:00</published>
        <updated>2012-02-17T14:25:19-05:00</updated>
        <summary>At the end of the mind blowingly counterintuitive post The More Dependent on the Government You Are, the More You Want to Cut It! I asked, Anyone have any ideas as to what could be going on? Though I doubt Paul Krugman reads A Blue View, he did try to answer my question in his column today, Moochers Against Welfare But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations. First, there is Thomas Frank’s thesis in his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”: working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues. And it’s true that, for example, Americans who regularly attend church are much more likely to vote Republican, at any given level of income, than those who don’t. Still, as Columbia University’s Andrew Gelman points out,...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Pres" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Governing" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        
        
<content type="html" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;At the end of the&amp;nbsp; mind blowingly counterintuitive post &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ablueview.com/2012/02/dependency-on-the-federal-government-is-inversely-related-to-ones-desire-to-cut-the-federal-govt.html&quot;&gt;The More Dependent on the Government You Are, the More You Want to Cut It!&lt;/a&gt; I asked,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style=&quot;padding-left: 30px;&quot;&gt;Anyone have any ideas as to what could be going on?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Though I doubt &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=opinion&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Paul Krugman&lt;/a&gt; reads &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ablueview.com/&quot; target=&quot;_self&quot;&gt;A Blue View&lt;/a&gt;, he did try to answer my question in his column today, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=opinion&quot; target=&quot;_self&quot;&gt;Moochers Against Welfare&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style=&quot;padding-left: 30px;&quot;&gt;But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who  want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style=&quot;padding-left: 30px;&quot;&gt;First, there is Thomas Frank’s thesis in his book “What’s the Matter  With Kansas?”: working-class Americans are induced to vote against their  own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues. And it’s  true that, for example, Americans who regularly attend church are much  more likely to vote Republican, at any given level of income, than those  who don’t.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style=&quot;padding-left: 30px;&quot;&gt;Still, as Columbia University’s Andrew Gelman points out, the really  striking red-blue voting divide is among the affluent: High-income  residents of red states are overwhelmingly Republican; high-income  residents of blue states only mildly more Republican than their poorer  neighbors. Like Mr. Frank, Mr. Gelman invokes social issues, but in the  opposite direction. Affluent voters in the Northeast tend to be social  liberals who would benefit from tax cuts but are repelled by things like  the G.O.P.’s war on contraception.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style=&quot;padding-left: 30px;&quot;&gt;Finally, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many  beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place  in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security  recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40  percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government  program.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style=&quot;padding-left: 30px;&quot;&gt;Presumably, then, voters imagine that pledges to slash government  spending mean cutting programs for the idle poor, not things they  themselves count on. And this is a confusion politicians deliberately  encourage. For example, when Mr. Romney responded to the new Obama  budget, he condemned Mr. Obama for not taking on entitlement spending —  and, in the very next breath, attacked him for cutting Medicare.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What do you think?&amp;nbsp; Does he explain it? (And don&#39;t forget to check the comments on the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ablueview.com/2012/02/dependency-on-the-federal-government-is-inversely-related-to-ones-desire-to-cut-the-federal-govt.html&quot; target=&quot;_self&quot;&gt;original post&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div id=&quot;_mcePaste&quot; class=&quot;mcePaste&quot; style=&quot;position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: 0px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow: hidden;&quot;&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/opinion/krugman-moochers-against-welfare.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=opinion&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>The More Dependent on the Government You Are, the More You Want to Cut It!</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2012/02/dependency-on-the-federal-government-is-inversely-related-to-ones-desire-to-cut-the-federal-govt.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2012/02/dependency-on-the-federal-government-is-inversely-related-to-ones-desire-to-cut-the-federal-govt.html" thr:count="1" thr:updated="2012-02-14T16:29:00-05:00" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301676256d976970b</id>
        <published>2012-02-14T13:00:23-05:00</published>
        <updated>2012-02-14T13:13:00-05:00</updated>
        <summary>If you haven&#39;t read this excellent NY Times story, Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It, yet you should. One section of it, however, just blew me away: One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the people will inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. The theory is that citizens who get more than they pay for will vote for politicians who promise to increase spending. But Dean P. Lacy, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College, has identified a twist on that theme in American politics over the last generation. Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates. Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Pres" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Governing" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>If you haven&#39;t read this excellent NY Times story, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?pagewanted=1&amp;ref=politics" target="_blank">Even Critics of Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It</a>, yet you should. One section of it, however, just blew me away:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the people will  inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. The  theory is that citizens who get more than they pay for will vote for  politicians who promise to increase spending.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">But Dean P. Lacy, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College,  has identified a twist on that theme in American politics over the last  generation.<strong> Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to  cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the  federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the  dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates.</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits  tend to support Democratic candidates</strong>. And Professor Lacy found that the  pattern could not be explained by demographics or social issues.</p>
<p>This was so mind blowingly counterintuitive, I wrote to the reporter who provided <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451268" target="_blank">the reference</a> so I (and you) could delve deeper.</p>
<p>Anyone have any ideas as to what could be going on?</p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>The Future of the Washington Monument</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2011/09/the-future-of-the-washington-monument.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2011/09/the-future-of-the-washington-monument.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833015391f95172970b</id>
        <published>2011-09-30T09:42:33-04:00</published>
        <updated>2011-09-30T09:42:33-04:00</updated>
        <summary></summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833014e8bed4015970d-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="Toles09302011" class="asset  asset-image at-xid-6a00e5502640718833014e8bed4015970d" src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833014e8bed4015970d-320wi" title="Toles09302011" /></a></p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>GOP Fiscal Hypocrisy On Taxes</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2011/08/gop-fiscal-hypocrisy-on-taxes.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2011/08/gop-fiscal-hypocrisy-on-taxes.html" thr:count="1" thr:updated="2011-09-01T12:21:57-04:00" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833015434ff80a3970c</id>
        <published>2011-08-31T08:03:27-04:00</published>
        <updated>2011-08-31T08:03:27-04:00</updated>
        <summary>In today&#39;s NY Times, Bruce Bartlett, an economist who has held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul, defended Republicans opposed to extending the payroll tax cut that helps working people. Here&#39;s Bartlett&#39;s second argument against extending the payroll tax cut: The payroll tax cut helps many workers who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax savings. How many people who agree with this line of reasoning will still agree when it is applied to extending the Bush tax cuts do you think? The Bush tax cuts help many wealthy people who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax savings. Close to zero I bet.</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economic recovery" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Hypocrisy" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Policies" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In today&#39;s NY Times, Bruce Bartlett, an economist who has held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush  administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp  and Ron Paul, defended&#0160; Republicans opposed to extending the payroll tax cut that helps working people.</p>
<p>Here&#39;s Bartlett&#39;s <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/the-case-against-a-payroll-tax-cut/?ref=business#preview" target="_blank">second argument </a>against extending the payroll tax cut:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The payroll tax cut helps many workers who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax savings.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How  many people who agree with this line of reasoning will  still agree when it is applied to extending the Bush tax cuts do you think?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Bush tax cuts help many wealthy people who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax savings.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Close to zero I bet.</p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>How Much Will Your Town Lose If Prop 3 Passes?</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/10/how-much-will-your-town-lose-if-prop-3-passes.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/10/how-much-will-your-town-lose-if-prop-3-passes.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330134886310e2970c</id>
        <published>2010-10-22T08:45:33-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-10-22T08:46:32-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Truly scary amounts: check out your town.</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Local" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Truly scary amounts: <a href="http://votenoquestion3.com/" target="_blank">check</a> out your town.</span></p>
<blockquote><a href="http://votenoquestion3.com/" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="No-on-3" class="asset  asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330133f5432c5e970b" src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133f5432c5e970b-320wi" style="border: 1px solid #000000;" title="No-on-3" /></a></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>There&#39;s A Sucker Born Every Minute</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/10/theres-a-sucker-born-every-minute.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/10/theres-a-sucker-born-every-minute.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301348856093a970c</id>
        <published>2010-10-20T08:11:26-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-10-20T08:11:26-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Dana Millbank summarizing the Tea Party: A movement of the plutocrats, by the political professionals and for the powerful. Here&#39;s the rest of his Wash Post column: On the morning of Oct. 14, a cyber-insurgency caused servers to crash at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The culprits, however, weren&#39;t attacking the chamber; they were well-meaning citizens who overwhelmed the big-business lobbying group with a sudden wave of online contributions. It was one of the more extraordinary events in the annals of American populism: the common man voluntarily giving money to make the rich richer. These donors to the cause of the Fortune 500 were motivated by a radio appeal from the de facto leader of the Tea Party movement, Glenn Beck, who told them: &quot;Put your money where your mouth is. If you have a dollar, please go to . . . the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and donate today.&quot;...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Local" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101906085.html?hpid=opinionsbox1" target="_blank">Dana Millbank</a> summarizing the Tea Party: </span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">A movement of the plutocrats, by the political professionals and for the powerful.</p>
<p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Here&#39;s the rest of his Wash Post column:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">On the morning of Oct. 14, a cyber-insurgency caused servers to crash at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The culprits, however, weren&#39;t attacking the chamber; they were  well-meaning citizens who overwhelmed the big-business lobbying group  with a sudden wave of online contributions. It was one of the more  extraordinary events in the annals of American populism: the common man  voluntarily giving money to make the rich richer.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">These donors to the cause of the Fortune 500 were motivated by a radio  appeal from the de facto leader of the Tea Party movement, Glenn Beck, <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/glenn-beck-calls-for-largest-day-of-fundraising-for-chamber-of-commerce/">who told them</a>:  &quot;Put your money where your mouth is. If you have a dollar, please go to  . . . the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and donate today.&quot; Chamber members,  he said, &quot;are our parents. They&#39;re our grandparents. They are us.&quot;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">They are? Listed as members of the <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/about/board/board-directors">chamber&#39;s board</a> are representatives from Pfizer, ConocoPhillips, Lockheed Martin,  JPMorgan Chase, Dow Chemical, Ken Starr&#39;s old law and lobbying firm, and  Rolls-Royce North America. Nothing says grass-roots insurgency quite  like Rolls-Royce -- and nothing says populist revolt quite like the U.S.  Chamber of Commerce. In describing the big-business group as &quot;us,&quot; Beck  (annual revenue: $32 million) provided an unintended moment of clarity  into the power behind the Tea Party movement. These aren&#39;t peasants with  pitchforks; these are plutocrats with payrolls.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">There is genuine populist anger out there. But the angry have been  deceived and exploited by posers who belong to the same class of  &quot;elites&quot; and &quot;insiders&quot; that the Tea Party movement supposedly deplores.  Americans who want to stick it to the man are instead sending money to  the man.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Consider the candidates on the ballot next month who are getting Tea Party support. In the Connecticut Senate race, there&#39;s <a href="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Linda_E._McMahon">Linda McMahon</a>, who with her husband has a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022103981.html">billion-dollar pro-wrestling empire</a>. The challenger to Democratic <a href="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Russell_Feingold">Sen. Russ Feingold</a> in Wisconsin, <a href="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Ron_Johnson">Ron Johnson</a>,  is a millionaire manufacturing executive. The former head of Gateway  computers, Rick Snyder, is spending generously from his fortune to win  the Michigan governor&#39;s race.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">In New York, the Republican gubernatorial candidate is developer Carl  Paladino, with a net worth put at $150 million. And Rick Scott, running  for governor in Florida, has a net worth of $219 million from his career  as a health-care executive. Then there&#39;s California, where the  Republican Senate nominee is former Hewlett-Packard chief executive  Carly Fiorina and the gubernatorial candidate is former e-Bay boss Meg  Whitman.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Democrats have their phony populists, too. Billionaire Jeff Greene, who  cashed in on subprime mortgages, made an unsuccessful attempt at the  U.S. Senate nomination in Florida. But more often this year, it&#39;s the  Democrats who are defending themselves against the &quot;elite&quot; allegation.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&quot;The elite&#39;s fear and loathing of the tea party movement is rooted in the recognition that the real change is only now coming,&quot; <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/29/tea_party_movement_is_a_revival_of_the_middle_class.html">writes Tony Blankley</a>,  the conservative commentator who exempts himself from the elite label  even though he worked for the speaker of the House and now toils for a  prominent PR firm. The Tea Party, he wrote, will &quot;constrain the elite&#39;s  economic and cultural hegemony.&quot;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Oh? Who will do this constraining of the elite&#39;s hegemony? Why, people  such as the Tea Party&#39;s Senate candidate from Alaska, Joe Miller (Yale  Law School); and from Kentucky, Rand Paul (Duke Medical School), and  from Colorado, Ken Buck (Princeton University).</p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;">
</p>
And who will be helping these anti-elite elites get into office? Well,  there&#39;s FreedomWorks, a Tea Party outfit run by Dick Armey, the former  Republican lawmaker whose last job was with a big lobbying firm. His  deputy at FreedomWorks is Matt Kibbe, who worked for none other than the  U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">There&#39;s also the Tea Party Express, the creation of longtime Republican  consultant Sal Russo. A colleague at Russo&#39;s consulting firm pitched the  Tea Party Express idea as a way to boost the company&#39;s bottom line.  According to an internal e-mail intercepted by the New York Times, it  came from a &quot;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/us/politics/19russo.html">desire to give a boost to our PAC and position us as a growing force/leading force</a>.&quot;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The guy who put together the Tea Party &quot;Contract From America&quot;  previously worked on Rudy Giuliani&#39;s presidential campaign. Another Tea  Party group, Americans for Prosperity, has been lavishly funded by the  billionaire Koch brothers.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">A movement of the plutocrats, by the political professionals and for the  powerful: Now that&#39;s something Tea Partyers should be mad about.</p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>How The Recession Affected Rich And Poor</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/10/how-the-recession-affected-rich-and-poor.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/10/how-the-recession-affected-rich-and-poor.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013487eb78f3970c</id>
        <published>2010-10-02T12:08:12-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-10-02T12:08:12-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Jonathan Chait: Michael Linden and Heather Boushey break down how the recession has hit different income groups: The remedy, of course, is to cut tax rates for the highest-earning 2%.</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economic recovery" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"><a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78099/how-the-recession-effected-rich-and-poor" target="_blank">Jonathan Chait</a>:</span></p>
<div>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/getting_priorities_straight.html">Michael Linden and Heather Boushey</a> break down how the recession has hit different income groups:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><img alt="" height="450" src="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/09/img/getting_priorities_straight_change.jpg" width="360" /></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The remedy, of course, is to cut tax rates for the highest-earning 2%.</p>
</div></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Calling The GOP&#39;s &quot;Pledge&quot; To Reduce The Deficit A &quot;Political Document&quot; Just Acknowledges It&#39;s A Lie</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/calling-the-gops-pledge-to-reduce-the-deficit-a-political-document-just-acknowledges-its-a-lie.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/calling-the-gops-pledge-to-reduce-the-deficit-a-political-document-just-acknowledges-its-a-lie.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133f4b26b5d970b</id>
        <published>2010-09-29T06:57:07-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-09-29T07:00:16-04:00</updated>
        <summary>I hope every deficit hawk Tea Partier reads this Davide Leonhart column ... if you know any, pass it on: In their Pledge to America, Congressional Republicans have used the old trick of promising specific tax cuts and vague spending cuts. It’s the politically easy approach, and it is likely to be as bad for the budget as when George W. Bush tried it. The sad thing is, a truly conservative approach to the deficit does exist. You can find strands of it among Republican governors, some of the party’s current Congressional candidates and the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan. The brief version might sound something like this: The federal government has outgrown its ability to pay for itself. Our economic future and even our national security depend on solving the problem. Yet President Obama has expanded health insurance, increased education spending and escalated a war...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">I hope every deficit hawk Tea Partier reads this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/business/economy/29leonhardt.html?_r=1&amp;hp" target="_self">Davide Leonhart</a> column ... if you know&#0160; any, pass it on:<br /></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>In their <a href="http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/solutions/a-pledge-to-america.pdf" title="The pledge in full (PDF).">Pledge to America</a>,   Congressional Republicans have used the old trick of promising  specific tax cuts and vague spending cuts. It’s the politically easy  approach, and it is likely to be as bad for the budget as  when <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about George W. Bush.">George W. Bush</a> tried  it.</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The sad thing is, a truly conservative approach to the deficit does  exist. You can find strands of it among Republican governors, some of  the party’s current Congressional candidates and the ranking Republican  on the House Budget Committee, <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/paul_d_ryan/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Paul D. Ryan.">Paul Ryan</a>.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The brief version might sound something like this: The federal  government has outgrown its ability to pay for itself. Our economic  future and even our national security depend on solving the problem. Yet  <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Barack Obama.">President Obama</a> has expanded health insurance, increased education spending and  escalated a war of choice. Elect us, and fiscal responsibility won’t  have to wait in line.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The detailed plan would start in the same place that Republican campaign  rhetoric does, with rooting out waste and bloat. Some tasks, like mail  delivery and air traffic control, <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/xviiin3-3.html" title="Article from the Cato Policy Report.">could be privatized</a>.  The federal work force could be reduced, and pay for federal workers <a href="http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/overpaid-federal-workers" title="Cato Institute piece on federal wages.">could be cut</a>. Federal aid to states could be cut, too.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">But then comes the crucial difference.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Actual fiscal conservatives acknowledge that these steps do not come anywhere close to solving <a href="http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1112" title="Congressional Budget Office blog post.">the long-term deficit</a>.    By 2035, the deficit (even without counting interest payments on the  federal debt) is on course to reach $1.9 trillion, according to the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congressional_budget_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Congressional Budget Office, U.S.">Congressional Budget Office</a>. If you reduced domestic discretionary spending to its share of the economy under <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ronald_wilson_reagan/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Ronald Wilson Reagan.">Ronald Reagan</a> and then eviscerated it an additional 20 percent, you would shrink the deficit by all of $100 billion.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>The bulk of the deficit problem instead comes from three popular programs,  <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicare/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="Recent and archival health news about Medicare.">Medicare</a>, <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/social_security_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about Social Security.">Social Security</a> and the military, and they  happen to be the ones the Republican pledge  exempts from cuts. But it’s  impossible to fix the deficit without  making cuts to these programs or raising taxes. To suggest otherwise is  to claim that 10 minus 1 equals 5.</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">“We as Republicans need to realize that you can’t just cut off the welfare queen and balance the budget,” says <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/rand_paul/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Rand Paul.">Rand Paul</a>,  a Senate candidate in Kentucky, who has some extreme views on other  issues but is evidently pro-arithmetic. “The only way you’ll ever get  close to balancing the budget is if you look at the entire budget.”</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>When they’re not talking for quotation, some Republicans will explain  that the pledge is, of course, a political document: although it may not  spell out specific budget cuts, the party is willing to make them. But I  think this view misreads recent history.</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Republicans controlled the White House and Congress for much of 2001 to 2006, and they <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html" title="Previous column on the making of the deficit.">turned a big surplus into a big deficit</a>.   In the last two years, they have opposed several Obama administration  plans for reducing the deficit, including cuts to Medicare, weapons  programs and farm subsidies, as well as tax increases on the affluent.  Given this history, my colleague Ross Douthat <a href="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/the-case-against-the-pledge/" title="Blog post from Mr. Douthat.">concluded that</a> the pledge “might create a larger deficit than the Obama alternative.”</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">In short, <strong>the pledge imagines a world without tough choices, where we  can have low taxes, big government and a balanced budget. And therein  lies the path to ever larger deficits.</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">•</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The essential question for any would-be budget balancer is how large the federal government should be.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">For most of the last century, the government has been getting bigger. Its spending equaled about 2 percent of <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/gross_domestic_product/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about the U.S. gross domestic product.">gross domestic product</a> in 1900, 14 percent just after World War II and, after ballooning to  almost 25 percent during the financial crisis, will fall to  23 percent  in the next few years.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">There is a good argument that the government <em>should </em>grow as  societies become richer. Once people can afford the basics, they want  services that the private sector often does not provide, like a strong  military, good schools, generous medical care and a comfortable  retirement, as Matt Miller, a McKinsey &amp; Company consultant and  former Clinton administration official, <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/club-wagner/" title="Previous blog post on Wagner’s Law.">has pointed out</a>.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">To me, this pattern argues for making tax increases a big part of the  deficit solution. Maybe taxes would eventually rise to 23 percent of  G.D.P., rather than 19 percent, as under current policy. Spending could  then be cut from the 26 percent it is scheduled to reach in 2035, yet  still be high enough to afford <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/magazine/01Economy-t.html" title="Previous article on economic growth.">the investments</a> that lead to prosperity. After all, the Internet, the highway system  and the biotechnology sector all began as government programs.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Conservatives counter that governments just as often allocate resources  badly, and there is something to this. It’s the small-government case  that Mr. Paul, Mr. Ryan and governors like <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/mitchell_e_jr_daniels/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Mitchell E. Daniels Jr.">Mitch Daniels</a> of Indiana and <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/christopher_j_christie/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Christopher J. Christie Jr.">Chris Christie</a> of New Jersey are making.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="https://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/q-z/taxes-debt/" title="Mr. Paul’s page on taxes and debt.">Mr. Paul emphasizes</a> wasteful military spending that lines the pockets of military  contractors rather than protecting the country. A bipartisan task force  of military experts <a href="http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/1006SDTFreport.pdf" title="Report on the deficit and the military (PDF).">has identified</a> cuts that would eventually equal almost 1 percent of G.D.P.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">On Social Security, <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/marco_rubio/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Marco Rubio.">Marco Rubio</a>, the Republican Senate candidate in Florida, <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/article1085537.ece" title="Article on Mr. Rubio and his Social Security stance.">has suggested</a> raising the eligibility age. Two other Republican Senate candidates, <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/sharron_angle/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Sharron Angle.">Sharron Angle</a> of Nevada and <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/joe_miller/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Joseph W. Miller.">Joe  Miller</a> of Alaska,  have  gone  further, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/joe-miller-transition-out_n_703683.html" title="Huffington Post piece on phasing out Social Security.">suggesting a phaseout</a> of Social Security. In the long run, changes to Social Security could save even more money than military cuts.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">But the biggest cause of looming deficits is Medicare. Mr. Daniels, a possible 2012 presidential candidate, recently told <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/newsweek_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Newsweek.">Newsweek</a> that he <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/10/why-the-gop-should-listen-to-mitch-daniels.print.html" title="Profile of Mr. Daniels.">favored</a> Medicare cuts. Mr. Ryan has been willing to get specific. For  everyone now under 55, he wants to turn Medicare into a voucher program  that’s much less generous than the program is scheduled to be.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Mr. Ryan’s <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf" title="Congressional Budget Office analysis of the blueprint (PDF).">budget blueprint</a> offers an especially pointed contrast with the pledge. The Ryan plan  calls for holding taxes at around 19 percent of G.D.P. and suggests  specific cuts to bring spending in line. The pledge calls for  even  lower taxes — while offering almost no detail on spending cuts.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Which seems more credible?</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Unfortunately, elected Republicans have often backed away from their own fiscally conservative ideas when pushed. Mr. Ryan <a href="http://paulryan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=208539" title="Mr. Ryan’s statement on the Ppledge.">says he supports</a> the pledge. Ms. Angle  <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/us/politics/18vegas.html" title="Article on Ms. Angle’s campaign.">has reversed</a> herself on Social Security. Mr. Daniels has said tax increases should  be an option, but that will be a tough position to keep in a  presidential campaign.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">And I get it. Voters don’t like having their taxes raised or their benefits cut. I don’t like it, either.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">But, <strong>remember, when politicians tell you that they are opposed to tax  increases, Medicare cuts, Social Security cuts and military cuts,  they’re really saying that they are in favor of crippling deficits.</strong></p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>The Daily Show Nails The GOP For Their &quot;New&quot; Ideas</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/the-daily-show-nails-the-gop-for-their-new-ideas.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/the-daily-show-nails-the-gop-for-their-new-ideas.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013487ad0965970c</id>
        <published>2010-09-24T07:07:52-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-09-24T07:07:52-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Not only is the GOP&#39;s Pledge hypocricital, but it&#39;s far from new: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Postcards From the Pledge www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Humor" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">Not only is the <a href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/the-gops-hypocrisy.html" target="_blank">GOP&#39;s Pledge hypocricital</a>, but it&#39;s far from new:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="font: 11px arial; color: #333; background-color: #f5f5f5;" width="360">
<tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com" style="color: #333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td>
<td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-23-2010/postcards-from-the-pledge" style="color: #333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Postcards From the Pledge</a><a></a></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px; background-color: #353535;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; width: 360px; overflow: hidden; text-align: right;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<object data="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:360001" height="301" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360">
<param name="data" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:360001" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" />
<param name="flashvars" value="autoPlay=false" />
<param name="src" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:360001" />
<param name="wmode" value="window" />
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />
</object>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<p>&#0160;</p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>The GOP&#39;s Hypocrisy</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/the-gops-hypocrisy.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/the-gops-hypocrisy.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330134879ba5d7970c</id>
        <published>2010-09-23T07:39:28-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-09-23T07:41:25-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Ezra Klein: &quot;America is more than a country,&quot; begins the GOP&#39;s &#39;Pledge to America.&#39; America, it turns out, is an &quot;idea,&quot; an &quot;inspiration,&quot; and a &quot;belief.&quot; And the GOP wants to govern it. Their policy agenda is detailed and specific -- a decision they will almost certainly come to regret. Because when you get past the adjectives and soaring language, the talk of inalienable rights and constitutional guarantees, you&#39;re left with a set of hard promises that will increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, take health-care insurance away from tens of millions of people, create a level of policy uncertainty businesses have never previously known, and suck demand out of an economy that&#39;s already got too little of it. You&#39;re also left with a difficult question: What, exactly, does the Republican Party believe? The document speaks constantly and eloquently of the dangers of debt -- but offers a raft...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/the_gops_bad_idea.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">Ezra Klein</a>:&#0160;</span>&#0160;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&quot;America is more than a country,&quot; begins the GOP&#39;s &#39;<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/GOP_pledge_09222010.pdf?hpid=topnews">Pledge to America</a>.&#39; America, it turns out, is an &quot;idea,&quot; an &quot;inspiration,&quot; and a &quot;belief.&quot; And the GOP wants to govern it.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Their policy agenda is detailed and specific -- a decision they will  almost certainly come to regret. Because when you get past the  adjectives and soaring language, the talk of inalienable rights and  constitutional guarantees, you&#39;re left with a set of hard promises that  will increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, take health-care  insurance away from tens of millions of people, create a level of policy  uncertainty businesses have never previously known, and suck demand out  of an economy that&#39;s already got too little of it.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">You&#39;re also left with a difficult question: <strong>What, exactly, does the  Republican Party believe? The document speaks constantly and eloquently  of the dangers of debt -- but offers a raft of proposals that would  sharply increase it. It says, in one paragraph, that the Republican  Party will commit itself to &quot;greater liberty&quot; and then, in the next,  that it will protect &quot;traditional marriage.&quot; It says that &quot;small  business must have certainty that the rules won&#39;t change every few  months&quot; and then promises to change all the rules that the Obama  administration has passed in recent months</strong>. It is a document with a  clear theory of what has gone wrong -- debt, policy uncertainty, and too  much government -- and a solid promise to make most of it worse.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Take the deficit. Perhaps the two most consequential policies in the  proposal are the full extension of the Bush tax cuts and the full repeal  of the health-care law. The first would increase the deficit by more  than $4 trillion over the next 10 years, and many trillions of dollars  more after that. The second would increase the deficit by more than $100  billion over the next 10 years, and many trillions of dollars more  after that. Nothing in the document comes close to paying for these two  proposals, and the authors know it: The document never says that the  policy proposals it offers will ultimately reduces the deficit.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Then there&#39;s the question of policy uncertainty. The health-care law,  which is now in the early stages of implementation, would be repealed.  In its place, Republicans would write a new health-care bill. They offer  some guidance as to what it would look like, but as every business  knows, the congressional and regulatory processes are both long and  uncertain. That&#39;s joined by three sentences on shrinking and reforming  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the policy&#39;s anticipated effects on the  housing market, where the two mortgage giants are backing nine out of  every 10 new loans, are not mentioned -- and a promise to force a  separate congressional vote on every regulation with more than $100  million in economic impact, which would force businesses to figure out a  new, dual-track regulatory process.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The agenda is least confused on the subject of reducing government.  Though it says little about specific cuts it would make, the pledge  includes a cap on non-security discretionary funding, the aforementioned  congressional review process for big-ticket regulations, a hiring  freeze on federal employees, and weekly votes on spending cuts. None of  these policies is spelled out in any detail, but nor are they  contradicted by other elements of the plan. If you believe, as the  Republicans say they do, in the benefits of reducing the number of  public jobs and the amount of public spending in an economy that has too  few jobs and too little spending, then this makes some sense.  Otherwise, it doesn&#39;t. And as Republicans have been hammering Democrats  over recent jobs reports where public payrolls fall and private payrolls  rise, it&#39;s not even clear that they believe this.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Of course, you could say that about most of the plan. It is hard to  believe in both deficit reduction and policies that would add trillions  to the deficit. It&#39;s also hard to warn of the dangers posed by  regulatory uncertainty and then propose changing all the rules.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">At the end of the day, America may be an idea -- but it is also a  country. And it needs to be governed. This proposal avoids the hard  choices of governance. It says what it thinks will be popular and then  proposes what it thinks will be popular -- even when the two conflict.  That, I fear, is a bad idea.</p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert Dueling DC Rallies Oct. 30</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/jon-stewart-stephen-colbert-dueling-dc-rallies-oct-30.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/jon-stewart-stephen-colbert-dueling-dc-rallies-oct-30.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301348772f8e7970c</id>
        <published>2010-09-17T14:21:23-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-09-17T14:21:23-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Lisa Moraes: Comedy Central is going to stage the mother of all marketing stunts here in Washington -- oh wait, Fox News Channel already did that. Well, anyway, the Viacom-owned network will launch the second mother of all marketing stunts in Washington on Oct. 30 when both its late-night hosts, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, host opposing rallies on the Mall. &quot;The Daily Show&#39;s&quot; Jon Stewart announced on his show Thursday night his Rally to Restore Sanity -- &quot;a rally for the people who&#39;ve been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs) -- not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy Majority.&quot; The rally will be held, Stewart&#39;s camp said, &quot;to beg America to stop shouting, throwing and drawing Hitler mustaches on people other than Hitler (or Charlie Chaplin).&quot; Immediately thereafter, &quot;The Colbert Report&#39;s,&quot; um, Colbert, announced...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Foreign Affairs" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Humor" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133f4539e2f970b-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="Stewart-colbert rallies" class="asset  asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330133f4539e2f970b" src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133f4539e2f970b-320wi" title="Stewart-colbert rallies" /></a> <br /><br /></p>
<p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2010/09/-watch-the-jon-stewart.html?hpid=artslot" target="_blank">Lisa Moraes</a>:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Comedy Central is going to stage the mother of all marketing stunts  here in Washington -- oh wait, Fox News Channel already did that.</p>
<p>Well, anyway, the Viacom-owned network will launch the second mother  of all marketing stunts in Washington on Oct. 30 when both its  late-night hosts, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, host opposing rallies  on the Mall.</p>
<p>&quot;The Daily Show&#39;s&quot; Jon Stewart announced on his show Thursday night  his Rally to Restore Sanity -- &quot;a rally for the people who&#39;ve been too  busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or  are looking for jobs) -- not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy  Majority.&quot; The rally will be held, Stewart&#39;s camp said,  &quot;to beg America  to stop shouting, throwing and drawing Hitler mustaches on people other  than Hitler (or Charlie Chaplin).&quot;</p>
<p>Immediately thereafter, &quot;The Colbert Report&#39;s,&quot; um, Colbert,  announced his Keep Fear Alive rally, with instructions to &quot;pack an  overnight bag with five extra sets of underwear -- you&#39;re going to need  them. Because  to Restore Truthiness we must always ... Shh!!! What&#39;s  that sound?! I think there&#39;s someone behind you! Run!&quot;</p>
<p>Comedy Central promises the Rally Rivalry will be &quot;bigger than  Nixon/Kennedy, Ali/Foreman, Aniston/Jolie, 50 Cent/Nas, Joe/The Volcano,  Alien/Predator, Bunny/Fudd and Ecks/Sever combined.&quot;</p>
<p>But both men are operating in the shadow of FNC&#39;s prime-time talking  head Glenn Beck, who, back in July, announced that he would, on Aug. 28,  stage a &quot;Restoring Honor&quot; rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Imagine Beck&#39;s  surprise when he discovered that was the same day Martin Luther King  Jr. delivered his &quot;I Have a Dream&quot; speech at the Lincoln Memorial 47  years earlier.</p>
<p>We&#39;ve discovered a permit application was indeed submitted for the  Rally Rivalry, on Sept. 8 to the National Park Service by Minassian  Media, Comedy Central, and Chris Wane and Associates.</p>
<p>While the permit has not yet been issued, &quot;we do not see any hugely  outstanding issues that would prevent or bar the signing of a permit,&quot;  Bill Line, spokesman for the National Park Service, told WaPo TeamTV&#39;s  Mall Rally Correspondent, David Montgomery.</p>
<p>The permit application modestly estimates a crowd of just 25,000  people. Comedy Central apparently does not think there are very many  people with a sense of humor living within a reasonable commute of the  Mall. According to press reports, about 87,000 people showed up for  Beck&#39;s rally --  though Beck on his show dismissed that number as pure  horseradish and told his viewers they should believe no one but him and  he says the number was hooey, and to believe only his estimate. He said  &quot;a minimum of 500,000&quot; people came to his rally which, he added, was  &quot;the sixth-largest gathering&quot; on the Mall, ever and approximately the  same sized crowd as had come to the Mall for that other defining moment:</p>
<p>&quot;Ronald Reagan&#39;s inauguration.&quot;</p>
<p>The Stewart/Colbert permit application is for the north side of the  Washington Monument grounds,  which does not include the Lincoln  Memorial, Reflecting Pool or what is known as the National Mall, Line  says, what with the Monument grounds being bounded by Constitution,  Independence, 15th and 17th, and the north side is the side toward  Constitution.</p>
<p>On the other hand, he also said the Park Service and applicants are  negotiating details as we write.  Line declined to discuss specifics of  those negotiations.</p>
<p>Watch the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert announcements here:</p>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="font: 11px arial; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5;" width="360">
<tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td>
<td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-16-2010/rally-to-restore-sanity" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Rally to Restore Sanity</a></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px; background-color: #353535;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; width: 360px; overflow: hidden; text-align: right;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<object data="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:359366" height="301" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360">
<param name="data" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:359366" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" />
<param name="flashvars" value="autoPlay=false" />
<param name="src" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:359366" />
<param name="wmode" value="window" />
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />
</object>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>&#0160;</p>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="font: 11px arial; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5;" width="360">
<tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Colbert Report</a></td>
<td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/359382/september-16-2010/march-to-keep-fear-alive" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">March to Keep Fear Alive</a></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px; background-color: #353535;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; width: 360px; overflow: hidden; text-align: right;"><a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/" style="color: #96deff; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">www.colbertnation.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<object data="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:359382" height="301" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360">
<param name="data" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:359382" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" />
<param name="flashvars" value="autoPlay=false" />
<param name="src" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:359382" />
<param name="wmode" value="window" />
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />
</object>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Colbert Report Full Episodes</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">2010 Election</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/video/tag/Fox+News" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Fox News</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>A Soldier&#39;s D.A.D.T. Story Details The Personal Cost And Debunks The “Cohesion” Myth</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/a-soldiers-dadt-story-details-the-personal-cost-and-debunks-the-cohesion-myth.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/a-soldiers-dadt-story-details-the-personal-cost-and-debunks-the-cohesion-myth.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301348751c2bc970c</id>
        <published>2010-09-14T07:07:38-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-09-14T07:11:09-04:00</updated>
        <summary>At War: Since the 1993 law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” (D.A.D.T.) was enacted by Congress, more than 14,000 gay service members have been discharged, at a cost to taxpayers of $363 million over the last decade. I am one of them. I was discharged just one month ago. I am a 31-year-old West Point graduate who spent nine years in the military, served as a platoon leader in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy and commanded both a Stryker Infantry Company and a brigade headquarters company in Alaska. Many people do not even realize the D.A.D.T. policy is still being enforced, especially in light of recent legal rulings, or they think the policy merely asks us not to talk about it. But it goes much further, denying even our ability to exist legally within the military, regardless of the quality of our performance. As a result, it makes...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Afpak" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Defense" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gay Rights" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"><a href="http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-be-all-you-can-be/?ref=world" target="_blank">At War</a>:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Since the 1993 law known as “don’t ask, don’t  tell” (D.A.D.T.) was enacted by Congress, more than 14,000 gay service  members have been discharged, at a cost to taxpayers of <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-14-dont-ask-report_x.htm">$363 million </a> over the last decade. I am one of them. I was discharged just one month ago.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">I am a 31-year-old West Point graduate who spent nine years in the  military, served as a platoon leader in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in  Italy and commanded both a Stryker Infantry Company and a brigade  headquarters company in Alaska.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Many people do not even realize the D.A.D.T. policy is still being enforced, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/us/10gays.html">especially in light of recent legal rulings</a>,  or they think the policy merely asks us not to talk about it. But it  goes much further, denying even our ability to exist legally within the  military, regardless of the quality of our performance.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">As a result, it makes any gay service member a target of anyone who  chooses to make an accusation, or a casualty of any unlucky combination  of facts that might expose him or her. All someone has to do is to be  considered minimally reliable to report a service member as being gay.   An investigation results.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">I have always told people when discussing the military that “it makes  everyone better, teaching us all important values like teamwork and  selflessness.”</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">But if you are gay, I am no longer sure that is entirely accurate.   People in the military are not trained to be liars. Our mission is not  subterfuge, but that is what this policy forces those of us who are gay  to become party to, and the cognitive dissonance is immense. We are  trained to manage the fear that may descend during a firefight, but we  do not expect to live under the daily fear that our peers may sense  something different about us and report us as being gay.</p>
<h4 style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Be</strong></h4>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">While I spent every hour at work trying, like all my peers, to be the  perfect Army officer, taking care of and leading our soldiers, I also  spent every day being paranoid, worrying about who suspected I was gay,  and what they might do about it.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The paranoia is sickening, and it just eats you from within. Some  quietly slip out of the service while others, indoctrinated to serve a  cause that is just, stick it out.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The Department of Defense spends millions of dollars and dedicates  immense amounts of time to ensure the psychological welfare of our  service members remains sound.  Except if you are gay. Some gay members  of the Armed Services suffer from depression because they try to deal  with being all they can be at work, but are unable to live a life that  could make them happy.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Unfortunately, from 1993 until the spring of 2010, you could be  reported as gay by your chaplain, your doctor and even your  psychiatrist.  Nowhere in the organization could you be safe if you were  gay, even when the assistance provided could be vital.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">A colleague of mine relayed a story of a soldier whose boyfriend was  killed by a roadside blast while both were deployed. The only person the  grieving soldier could safely talk to was an Australian officer he  didn’t even know.  His most trusted teammates — members of his unit —  were not allowed to be there for him when he needed them most.</p>
<h4 style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Failure Is the Only Option</strong></h4>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">There is no way that a gay service member can navigate this policy  with honor, integrity, or self-respect intact.  Soldiers, sailors,  Marines, and airmen traditionally know virtually everything about one  another. The military is inherently a personal affair. Thus, if you are  gay and choose to have a relationship, you must isolate yourself from  your otherwise inclusive and close-knit organization, then lie about  your “housemate” and cover up where you socialized.  There go the Army  values of “honor” and “integrity” — values we all believe very deeply  in.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">If you attempt to comply, somehow, with the policy, you dedicate  yourself to the most epic and despicably unnecessary sense of loneliness  one can imagine, while working in a profession in which you desperately  need the nurturing support of others. I know; I’ve been there. You are  forced to lie when soldiers, peers or superiors ask you why you’re not  married, or anything else about your personal life.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Many service members end up in a no-man’s-land: they break the rules  (i.e. have relationships), but can never maintain something meaningful  and long-lasting because of the pervasive environment of fear and  deception that they have to maintain.  Any route you take, you may be  able to maintain your career, but you are destroyed bit by bit on the  inside each step of the way.  Part of you always feels stigmatized or  ashamed for something you cannot change, no matter how badly you might  want to.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">And no matter what you do, you are somehow failing to live up to the  military’s highest stated values, because you are an outlaw as a gay  soldier from the day you step into the military. When told to “do the  right thing” you are left with no feasible option meet that demand.</p>
<h4 style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>I Already Lived in a Post-D.A.D.T. Army</strong></h4>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">In my case, after the military learned from others that I was gay, I  served for 14 more months during investigations and administrative  actions to discharge me.  Everyone knew, so, essentially, I lived for  more than a year in a post-D.A.D.T. work environment.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">During that time, I was part of a two-officer team planning our  4,000-soldier brigade’s redeployment from Iraq to Alaska.  I did initial  planning in relation to the Iraqi elections.  I served for one year in  the brigade’s planning cell in Alaska after return from deployment.  The  unit could have sent me somewhere else, but chose not to because they  felt I made a critical contribution to the organization and they had  always respected my work.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Four months after being found out, and 10 months prior to leaving the  Army, I found myself with a boyfriend for the first time in my life,  because I was no longer scared to have such a relationship.  He and I  attended social events and dinners with my peers.  I talked about him at  work.  My life became one of full disclosure.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Amid all of that, the unit continued to function and I continued to  be respected for the work I did.  Many, from both companies I commanded,  approached me to say that they didn’t care if I was gay — they thought I  was one of the best commanders they’d ever had. And unbeknownst to me,  many had guessed I was probably gay all along.  Most didn’t care about  my sexuality. I was accepted by most of them, as was my boyfriend, and I  had never been happier in the military.  Nothing collapsed, no one  stopped talking to me, the Earth spun on its axis, and the unit prepared  to fight another day.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">There are parts of my story in the lives of all of the gay service  members who continue to serve in our military — and there are 65,000,  according to the <a href="http://www.urban.org/publications/411069.html">Urban Institute</a>.   Their commitment is immense. So dedicated are they to service that  they eschew the rights that every other soldier enjoys. Their road is  more difficult than most people realize, and we reward their  exceptionally dedicated and selfless service by undermining their  ability to live a happy, honest, and fulfilling life — all of which  would actually make them even better soldiers.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">I wish that they could tell their own stories, but in a master-stroke  of policy-making, they are under a gag order that prevents from  discussing D.A.D.T.’s impact upon them, if they wish to keep their job  serving their country.  So I have tried to tell part of my story.</p>
<h4 style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>A Policy Without Credible Rationale</strong></h4>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">A remarkably consistent string of <a href="http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/what_does_empirical_research_say_about_impact_openly_gay_service_military">research reports</a> have shown that there is no link between openly gay service members in  the United States or foreign militaries having a negative effect on  performance. Nevertheless, the “cohesion” argument remains the primary  defense for the policy.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">But in the most recent <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/127904/broad-steady-support-openly-gay-service-members.aspx#2">Gallup survey</a> of American attitudes toward gays in the military, every demographic  broadly supports gays serving openly. <strong> Among 18-year-olds to  29-year-olds — who make up the vast majority of the military force —  support for overturning the current policy is at 79 percent.</strong></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">What this shows, in fact, is that upon entrance into the military, we  are indoctrinating an otherwise very accepting group of Americans to be  more prejudiced than they were when they entered the military.   Meanwhile, some leaders paradoxically argue that we cannot make the  change because the force is not ready for it.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Using this logic, racial desegregation of the military would have  happened in MY lifetime, not my grandfather’s, simply because an  outspoken but small minority would remain opposed to it long after 1948.    In that case, we made a change simply because it was right — and  enforced the standards in a very rule-abiding military — through the  virtue of leadership.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">We spent very little time surveying our troops before desegregation,  integration of women in the service, women at the military academies,  women in fighter jets, women on aircraft carriers or submarines.  The  most instructive question whenever discrimination was an issue has  always been simple: “Can this person do the job?”</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The current D.A.D.T. policy deprives us of even being able to make an  informed decision. It functions through ignorance, which begets  stereotypes without fact. In turn that prejudice, from which good people  are forced to suffer.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The words of Harvey Milk actually ring very true: “I would like to  see every gay doctor come out, every gay lawyer, every gay architect  come out, stand up and let that world know. That would do more to end  prejudice overnight than anybody would imagine.”</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">It is for this reason alone that supporters of discrimination seek to  keep the truth hidden, gay service members in fear, and the current  D.A.D.T. policy in effect.  The only accomplishment of the policy is  mandatory ignorance.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em> Jonathan Hopkins is a former United States Army captain who was  honorably discharged in August 2010. Mr. Hopkins graduated fourth in his  class at West Point. He was deployed three times to Iraq and  Afghanistan, earning three Bronze Stars, including one for valor. He is  now a graduate student at Georgetown University’s security studies  program.</em></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><em>Here is a clip of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD35Yi3oLG0">Jonathan Hopkins appearing on The Rachel Maddow Show</a> on MSNBC in August.</em></p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Burning the Koran</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/burning-the-koran.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/09/burning-the-koran.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301348727758e970c</id>
        <published>2010-09-09T07:27:36-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-09-09T07:27:36-04:00</updated>
        <summary></summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Cartoons" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Religion" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Terrorism" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013487277252970c-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="BabinR20100909_low" class="asset  asset-image at-xid-6a00e5502640718833013487277252970c" src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013487277252970c-320wi" style="border: 1px solid #ffffff;" title="BabinR20100909_low" /></a> <a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e550264071883301348727726a970c-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="BabinR20100909_low" class="asset  asset-image at-xid-6a00e550264071883301348727726a970c" src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e550264071883301348727726a970c-320wi" style="border: 1px solid #ffffff;" title="BabinR20100909_low" /></a></p>
<p><a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134872772b4970c-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="FellP20100909_low" class="asset  asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330134872772b4970c" src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134872772b4970c-320wi" style="border: 1px solid #ffffff;" title="FellP20100909_low" /></a> <a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134872772e5970c-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="FellP20100909_low" class="asset  asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330134872772e5970c" src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134872772e5970c-320wi" style="border: 1px solid #ffffff;" title="FellP20100909_low" /></a></p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Jon Stewart, The Best Journalist On TV, Follows The Ground-Zero Mosque Money ... Right Back To Fox News</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/08/jon-stewart-the-best-journalist-on-tv-follows-the-ground-zero-mosque-money-right-back-to-fox-news.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/08/jon-stewart-the-best-journalist-on-tv-follows-the-ground-zero-mosque-money-right-back-to-fox-news.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330134867fd822970c</id>
        <published>2010-08-27T07:23:25-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-08-27T07:24:44-04:00</updated>
        <summary>If only the Democrats were as smart, and could communicate as brilliantly as Jon and team. First, they satirize Fox&#39;s, and the Right&#39;s, guilt by association reasoning: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party Then, they cleverly devastate Fox&#39;s duplicitious fear mongering with an &quot;either they&#39;re evil or stupid&quot; bit: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c The Parent Company Trap www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Fear Mongering" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Media" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Media comparison" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Religion" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Terrorism" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>If only the Democrats were as smart, and could communicate as brilliantly as Jon and team.</p>
<p>First, they satirize Fox&#39;s, and the Right&#39;s, guilt by association reasoning:</p>
<blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="font: 11px arial; color: #333; background-color: #f5f5f5;" width="360">
<tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com" style="color: #333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td>
<td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-19-2010/extremist-makeover---homeland-edition" style="color: #333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Extremist Makeover - Homeland Edition</a><a></a></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px; background-color: #353535;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; width: 360px; overflow: hidden; text-align: right;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<object data="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:350602" height="301" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360">
<param name="data" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:350602" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" />
<param name="flashvars" value="autoPlay=false" />
<param name="src" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:350602" />
<param name="wmode" value="window" />
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />
</object>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
<p>Then, they cleverly devastate Fox&#39;s duplicitious fear mongering with an &quot;either they&#39;re evil or stupid&quot; bit:</p>
<blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="font: 11px arial; color: #333; background-color: #f5f5f5;" width="360">
<tbody>
<tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com" style="color: #333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td>
<td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-23-2010/the-parent-company-trap" style="color: #333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Parent Company Trap</a><a></a></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 14px; background-color: #353535;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px 5px; width: 360px; overflow: hidden; text-align: right;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<object data="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:351494" height="301" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360">
<param name="data" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:351494" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" />
<param name="flashvars" value="autoPlay=false" />
<param name="src" value="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:351494" />
<param name="wmode" value="window" />
<param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />
</object>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle">
<td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="middle">
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td>
<td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Why let facts get in the way of the CW on Obama?</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/08/why-let-facts-get-in-the-way-of-the-cw-on-obama.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/08/why-let-facts-get-in-the-way-of-the-cw-on-obama.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301348654a5c2970c</id>
        <published>2010-08-20T07:34:06-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-08-20T07:34:06-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Ezra Klein: See if this structure seems familiar to you: Over the past two years, Barack Obama has done X. Now, his poll numbers have slipped to 44 percent. His party is slated to lose a lot of seats in the 2010 midterms. Obama&#39;s decision to do X is to blame. &quot;X&quot; can be a lot of things. Maybe it&#39;s the decision to attempt health-care reform. Or his socialist tendencies. Or his cool, professorial demeanor. In Matt Bai&#39;s latest article, John Podesta says it&#39;s Obama&#39;s pursuit of an ambitious legislative agenda. If he&#39;d spent less time passing legislation, he could&#39;ve spent more time developing and selling popular themes. In John Judis&#39;s latest article, it&#39;s the absence of populism in Obama&#39;s speeches and policies. The problem with the essays is that they don&#39;t consider the counterfactual. What if Obama had done not-X? Would things really be better for him? How do...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack&#39;s Popularity" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Polls" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;"><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/if_only_obama_had.html" target="_blank">Ezra Klein</a>:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>See if this structure seems familiar to you: Over the past two  years, Barack Obama has done X. Now, his poll numbers have slipped to 44  percent. His party is slated to lose a lot of seats in the 2010  midterms. Obama&#39;s decision to do X is to blame.</p>
<p>&quot;X&quot; can be a lot of things. Maybe it&#39;s the decision to attempt  health-care reform. Or his socialist tendencies. Or his cool,  professorial demeanor. In Matt Bai&#39;s latest <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/us/politics/19bai.html?_r=2&amp;hp">article</a>,  John Podesta says it&#39;s Obama&#39;s pursuit of an ambitious legislative  agenda. If he&#39;d spent less time passing legislation, he could&#39;ve spent  more time developing and selling popular themes. In John Judis&#39;s latest <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/76972/obama-failure-polls-populism-recession-health-care">article</a>, it&#39;s the absence of populism in Obama&#39;s speeches and policies.</p>
<p>The problem with the essays is that they don&#39;t consider the  counterfactual. What if Obama had done not-X? Would things really be  better for him? How do we know they wouldn&#39;t be worse?</p>
<p>Sadly, we can&#39;t hit rewind on the cosmic VCR and persuade Obama to do  the other thing in the name of science. But we have had a number of  presidents who did very different things, and that gives us some basis  on which to make judgments. Let&#39;s start with approval ratings. Gallup&#39;s <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx">system</a> will let me compare only four presidents at once, so I chose the last  three presidents who entered office amid a recession and didn&#39;t have a  country-unifying terrorist attack in their first year. That gives us  Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. The dashed line is an  average of all recent presidents. Click on the graph for a larger  version.</p>
<p><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/08/obamaapprovalcompared-23961.html" onclick="window.open(&#39;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/08/obamaapprovalcompared-23961.html&#39;,&#39;popup&#39;,&#39;width=784,height=247,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39;); return false"><img alt="obamaapprovalcompared.jpg" height="143" src="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/08/obamaapprovalcompared-thumb-454x143-23961.jpg" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0pt auto 20px;" width="454" /></a></p>
<p>Obama&#39;s current approval rating of 44 percent beats Clinton, Carter  and Reagan. All of them were between 39 percent and 41 percent at this  point in their presidencies. And all of them were former governors who  accomplished less legislatively than Obama has at this point in his  presidency. That seems like a problem for Bai&#39;s thesis. At least two of  them are remembered as great communicators with a deft populist touch.  That seems like a problem for Judis&#39;s thesis.</p>
<p>Now let&#39;s look at midterm results. The following graph shows the  change in House seats for the president&#39;s party in every first-term  midterm election since 1900.</p>
<p><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/first-term_presidential_midterms_since_1900.png"><img alt="first-term_presidential_midterms_since_1900.png" height="274" src="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/08/first-term_presidential_midterms_since_1900-thumb-454x274-23964.png" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0pt auto 20px;" width="454" /></a></p>
<p>The pattern here is obvious: Losses, and big ones. Except for FDR&#39;s  first midterm and George W. Bush&#39;s post-9/11 victory, there&#39;ve been no  gains at all.</p>
<p>Now, this is a bit of an imperfect comparison. When the president&#39;s  party controls more seats, it can lose more seats. In 1982, Republicans  had 192 seats in the House, and they lost 26 of them. Democrats  currently have 253 seats in the House, and Larry Sabato <a href="http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/category/2010-house/">predicts</a> they&#39;ll lose 32 of them. That&#39;s actually a smaller percentage than what the Republicans lost under Reagan.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">There&#39;s plenty to criticize in Obama&#39;s policies and plenty to lament  in his politics. But when it comes to grand theories explaining how his  strategic decisions led him to this horrible -- but historically,  slightly-better-than-average -- political position, I&#39;m skeptical. There  are enormously powerful structural forces in American politics that  seem to drag down first-term presidents. There is the simple  mathematical reality that large majorities are always likely to lose a  lot of seats. There is a terrible and ongoing economic slump -- weekly <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/38768328">jobless claims</a> hit 500,000 today -- that is causing Americans immense pain and  suffering. Any explanations for the current political mood that don&#39;t  put those front and center is, at the least, not doing enough to  challenge the counterfactual.</p>
</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Watch Ted Olson Calmly Demolish The Right&#39;s Fig Leave Arguments Opposing Marriage Equality</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/08/watch-ted-olson-calmly-demolish-the-rights-fig-leave-arguments-opposing-marriage-equality.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/08/watch-ted-olson-calmly-demolish-the-rights-fig-leave-arguments-opposing-marriage-equality.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133f3159ddc970b</id>
        <published>2010-08-15T11:53:29-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-08-15T11:56:10-04:00</updated>
        <summary>After watching this, it is clear there is no rational basis for opposing marriage equality. In fact, conseravative attorney Olson makes a great argument at the end as to why this should be a conservative, not just liberal, crusade. (Read the transcript.) Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gay Rights" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Judiciary + Supreme Court" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Law" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">After watching this, it is clear there is no rational basis for opposing marriage equality. In fact, conseravative attorney Olson makes a great argument at the end as to why this should be a conservative, not just liberal, crusade. (<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/ted-olson-debate-over-judicial-activism-and-same-sex-marriage" target="_blank">Read</a> the transcript.)<br /></span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">
<script src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4305716&amp;w=466&amp;h=263" type="text/javascript"></script>
<noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript></p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>The Fanaticism Gap</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/08/the-fanaticism-gap.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/08/the-fanaticism-gap.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133f2f7bd87970b</id>
        <published>2010-08-10T08:59:53-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-08-10T08:59:53-04:00</updated>
        <summary>It tuns out that Tom Toles, the Wash Post&#39;s excellent cartoonist, is as good with his words as his pen: The great part about not remembering everything is that you can see the significance of the things you do remember. The Bush-Gore recount in Florida is one of those things. I remember thinking as the argument was raging that there was a certain asymmetry in the emotional approach the two sides brought to the controversy. You might have expected that the Bush side, having demonstrably and unequivocally received fewer votes nationally than their opponents, might have approached their claims to a disputed, technical electoral college victory with just a tiny bit of trepidation and humility. But it was just the other way around. The Gore side gingerly focused on the undercounts, whereas, if memory serves, the overcount ballots would have given them Florida and the White House. But, regardless, they...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span style="font-family: verdana,geneva;">It tuns out that <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/08/gap_years_the_great_part.html" target="_blank">Tom Toles</a>, the Wash Post&#39;s excellent cartoonist, is as good with his words as his pen:</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The great part about not remembering everything is that you can see  the significance of the things you do remember. The Bush-Gore recount in  Florida is one of those things. I remember thinking as the argument was  raging that there was a certain asymmetry in the emotional approach the  two sides brought to the controversy.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">You might have expected that the Bush side, having demonstrably and  unequivocally received fewer votes nationally than their opponents,  might have approached their claims to a disputed, technical electoral  college victory with just a tiny bit of trepidation and humility. But it  was just the other way around. The Gore side gingerly focused on the  undercounts, whereas, if memory serves, the overcount ballots would have  given them Florida and the White House. But, regardless, they seemed  almost apologetic in asking for anything at all.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The GOP, on the other hand, roared into action, demanding to be given  the election forthwith, which the Supreme Court obligingly handed them,  once again demonstrating that the court&#39;s lip service to constitutional  rigor is really in the shape of a kiss to Republicans. In hindsight,  the lesson is that conservatives act as though they feel on a gut level  that any Democratic president is simply illegitimate, PER SE, and will  do anything to stop or undermine one. This is currently known as the  &quot;enthusiasm gap,&quot; but I think it might be better called the &quot;fanaticism  gap.&quot; And what do you do about that?&#0160;<em></em></p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Poll: Opposition To Health Reform Continues To Decline</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/poll-opposition-to-health-reform-continues-to-decline.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/poll-opposition-to-health-reform-continues-to-decline.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013485d3b2d8970c</id>
        <published>2010-07-29T07:54:34-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-07-29T07:54:34-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Wash Post: Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday. Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The approval level was the highest for the legislation since it was enacted in March, after a divisive year-long debate. In April, the poll found 46 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed. Though the legislative battle is over, the political tug-of-war continues. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting to shape public opinion on the issue in hopes of influencing the fall elections. Among Republicans, opposition to the law remained steady at 69 percent, but the intensity of that opposition ticked...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack&#39;s Popularity" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Health Care" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Polls" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072900004.html" target="_blank">Wash Post</a>:</p><blockquote><p>
Opposition to the landmark <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/">health care overhaul</a>
 declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according 
to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.
</p>

<p>
Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063000438.html">a month ago</a>, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to <a href="http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8084.cfm">the poll</a> by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
</p>
<p>
The approval level was the highest for the legislation since it was 
enacted in March, after a divisive year-long debate. In April, the poll 
found 46 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed.
</p>
<p>
Though the legislative battle is over, the political tug-of-war 
continues. Democrats and Republicans have been fighting to shape public 
opinion on the issue in hopes of influencing the fall elections.
</p>
<p>
Among Republicans, opposition to the law remained steady at 69 percent, 
but the intensity of that opposition ticked upward. Fifty-three percent 
of Republicans said they had a &quot;very unfavorable&quot; opinion of the law 
this month, up from 50 percent in June.
</p>
<p>
Independents, who can tip the balance in elections, split 48 percent to 
37 percent in favor, compared with 49 percent to 41 percent a month 
earlier. The intensity of opinion among this group showed little change;
 just less than a fifth expressed a very favorable view, and just more 
than a quarter expressed a very unfavorable view.
</p>
<p>
The legislation was passed by Democratic majorities in the House and 
Senate and was signed into law by a Democratic president, and over the 
past month Democratic support for the legislation grew. Seventy-three 
percent of Democrats expressed a favorable opinion, up from 69 percent 
in June. Fifteen percent of Democrats expressed an unfavorable opinion, 
down from 19 percent in June.</p><p>A third of Democrats held a very favorable opinion of the health care overhaul.
</p>
<p>
The public remains split into rough thirds as to whether the law will 
leave their own family better off, worse off or unchanged, the Kaiser 
Family Foundation reported.
</p>
<p>
The poll found that misconceptions about the legislation persist, 
including the &quot;death panel&quot; falsehood propagated by opponents of the 
legislation.
</p>
<p>
&quot;A year after the town meeting wars of last summer, a striking 36% of 
seniors said that the law &#39;allowed a government panel to make decisions 
about end of life care for people on Medicare&#39;, and another 17% said 
they didn&#39;t know,&quot; Kaiser Family Foundation chief executive Drew Altman 
wrote.
</p></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Democrats Maintain Advantage on Generic Ballot, 48% to 44%</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/democrats-maintain-advantage-on-generic-ballot-48-to-44.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/democrats-maintain-advantage-on-generic-ballot-48-to-44.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013485d3b67c970c</id>
        <published>2010-07-29T07:30:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-07-29T07:30:00-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Gallup: Democrats have a 48% to 44% advantage for the week of July 19-25 in Gallup tracking of registered voters&#39; preferences for the 2010 congressional elections. This marks the second straight week in which Democrats have held an edge of at least four percentage points. Although Republicans have moved to a four-point or higher advantage on three separate occasions, this is the first time either party has held an advantage of that size for two consecutive weeks. Republicans and Democrats have been tied on average across the 21 weeks of Gallup&#39;s tracking. Republicans&#39; Enthusiasm Lead Persists Republicans continue to be substantially more enthusiastic about voting, as they have been since March. Their current 18-point lead in voting enthusiasm is down slightly from last week&#39;s 23-point lead, but it remains slightly higher than the average 16-point lead they have enjoyed since tracking began in March. Overall enthusiasm for voting was little...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Polls" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/141557/Democrats-Maintain-Advantage-Generic-Ballot.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup</a>:</p><blockquote><div class="articlemain clearfix item2"><div class="synopsis">Democrats have a 48% to 44% advantage for the week of July 19-25 in 
Gallup tracking of registered voters&#39; preferences for the 2010 
congressional elections. This marks the second straight week in which 
Democrats have held an edge of at least four percentage points.
<p style="text-align: left;"><img alt="Candidate Preferences in 2010 Congressional Elections, Among Registered Voters, by Party ID" border="0" height="306" hspace="0" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bqzeib_fneuvxwx3askjsw.gif" width="588" /></p>

<p>Although Republicans have moved to a four-point or higher advantage 
on three separate occasions, this is the first time either party has 
held an advantage of that size for two consecutive weeks. Republicans 
and Democrats have been tied on average across <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/127439/Election-2010-Key-Indicators.aspx">the 21 weeks of Gallup&#39;s tracking</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Republicans&#39; Enthusiasm Lead Persists</strong></p>
<p>Republicans continue to be substantially more enthusiastic about 
voting, as they have been since March. Their current 18-point lead in 
voting enthusiasm is down slightly from last week&#39;s 23-point lead, but 
it remains slightly higher than the average 16-point lead they have 
enjoyed since tracking began in March.</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><img alt="Registered Voters&#39; Enthusiasm About Voting in 2010, by Party ID" border="0" height="387" hspace="0" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/95cgb15xwuqm3vje8xox7w.gif" width="545" /></p>
<p>Overall enthusiasm for voting was little changed last week. 
Thirty-four percent of registered voters say they are very enthusiastic 
about voting, compared with 36% a week prior and an average of 33% so 
far this year.</p>
<p><strong>Bottom Line</strong></p>
<p>This past week marks the second time since March that either party 
has held any type of edge on the generic ballot for three consecutive 
weeks. Exactly what is behind the uptick in support for Democrats is not
 clear, although <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/141440/Democrats-Jump-Six-Point-Lead-Generic-Ballot.aspx">last week&#39;s gains</a>
 coincided with the passage of the financial reform bill. Independents 
continue to be more likely to say they will vote for the Republican 
rather than the Democratic candidate, while both Republicans and 
Democrats maintain more than 90% allegiance for their party&#39;s 
candidates.</p>
<p>Democrats&#39; improved position on the generic ballot is counterbalanced
 by the continuing wide advantage Republicans have in voting enthusiasm.
 This GOP enthusiasm gap foreshadows a typical Republican turnout 
advantage in midterm election voting, meaning that Democrats need a 
substantial lead on the registered voter generic ballot to offset their 
turnout disadvantage. Still, the results show that expectations of an 
assured Republican landslide in the congressional elections this fall 
are not a foregone conclusion.</p>
<p>Gallup&#39;s final generic ballot measure, based on likely voters, has <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/24493/Election-Polls-Accuracy-Record-Midterm-Congressional-Elections.aspx">since 1950 closely matched the total percentage of votes cast nationally</a>
 for Democratic and Republican candidates in all 435 U.S. House races --
 a statistic that bears a predictable relationship to the number of 
House seats won by each party. Gallup does not screen for likely voters 
until closer to Election Day, but historically, Republicans&#39; turnout 
advantage in midterm elections widens the Republican-Democrat gap in the
 GOP&#39;s favor. Thus, if these numbers held through Election Day, the two 
parties would likely be closely matched at the ballot box.</p></div></div></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Sunday Afternoon Relaxation</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/sunday-afternoon-relaxation.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/sunday-afternoon-relaxation.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330134854a106f970c</id>
        <published>2010-07-11T00:03:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-07-11T00:03:00-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Some people have way more patience than I ... an amazing video (how long did it take him to create??):</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Misc" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;">Some people have way more patience than I ... an amazing video (how long did it take him to create??):</p>

<blockquote>
	<object height="385" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMoKcsN8wM8&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xd0d0d0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sMoKcsN8wM8&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xd0d0d0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" /></object>
</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Happy July 4th Subjects ... I Mean Citizens</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/happy-july-4th-subjects-i-mean-citizens.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/happy-july-4th-subjects-i-mean-citizens.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013485326666970c</id>
        <published>2010-07-04T10:27:10-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-07-04T10:27:10-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Wash Post: &quot;Subjects.&quot; That&#39;s what Thomas Jefferson first wrote in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence to describe the people of the 13 colonies. But in a moment when history took a sharp turn, Jefferson sought quite methodically to expunge the word, to wipe it out of existence and write over it. Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated. Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word &quot;citizens.&quot; No longer subjects to the crown, the colonists became something different: a people whose allegiance was to one another, not to a faraway monarch. Scholars of the revolution have long speculated about the &quot;citizens&quot; smear -- wondering whether the erased word was &quot;patriots&quot; or &quot;residents&quot; -- but now the Library of Congress has determined that the change was far more dramatic. Using a modified version of the kind of spectral imaging technology...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Misc" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525.html" target="_blank">Wash Post</a>:</p><blockquote><p>
&quot;Subjects.&quot;
</p>
<p>
That&#39;s what Thomas Jefferson first wrote in an early draft of the 
Declaration of Independence to describe the people of the 13 colonies.</p><script>&lt;!--
var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );
document.write(&#39;&lt;s\cript src=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525_StoryJs.js?&#39;+rn+&#39;&quot;&gt;&lt;/s\cript&gt;&#39;) ;
// --&gt;
</script><script src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525_StoryJs.js?1445739198"></script>

<p>

<a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013485326601970c-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="float: right;"><img alt="Citizens" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e5502640718833013485326601970c " src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013485326601970c-320wi" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px 5px;" /></a> But in a moment when history took a sharp turn, Jefferson sought quite 
methodically to expunge the word, to wipe it out of existence and write 
over it. Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only
 one was obliterated.
</p>
<p>
Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word &quot;citizens.&quot;
</p>
<p>
No longer subjects to the crown, the colonists became something 
different: a people whose allegiance was to one another, not to a 
faraway monarch.
</p>
<p>
Scholars of the revolution have long speculated about the &quot;citizens&quot; 
smear -- wondering whether the erased word was &quot;patriots&quot; or &quot;residents&quot;
 -- but now the Library of Congress has determined that the change was 
far more dramatic.
</p>
<p>
Using a modified version of the kind of spectral imaging technology 
developed for the military and for monitoring agriculture, research 
scientists teased apart the mystery and reconstructed the word that 
Jefferson banished in 1776.
</p>
<p>
&quot;Seldom can we re-create a moment in history in such a dramatic and 
living way,&quot; Library of Congress preservation director Dianne van der 
Reyden said at Friday&#39;s announcement of the discovery.
</p>
<p>
&quot;It&#39;s almost like we can see him write &#39;subjects&#39; and then quickly 
decide that&#39;s not what he wanted to say at all, that he didn&#39;t even want
 a record of it,&quot; she said. &quot;Really, it sends chills down the spine.&quot;
</p>
<p>
The library deciphered the hidden &quot;subjects&quot; several months ago, the 
first major finding attributed to its new high-tech instruments. By 
studying the document at different wavelengths of light, including 
infrared and ultraviolet, researchers detected slightly different 
chemical signatures in the remnant ink of the erased word than in 
&quot;citizens.&quot; Those differences allowed the team to bring the erased word 
back to life.
</p>
<p>
But the task was made more difficult by the way Jefferson sought to 
match the lines and curves of the underlying smudged letters with the 
new letters he wrote on top of them. It took research scientist Fenella 
France weeks to pull out each letter until the full word became 
apparent.</p><p>&quot;It&#39;s quite amazing how he morphed &#39;subjects&#39; into &#39;citizens,&#39; &quot; she 
said. &quot;We did the reverse morphing back to &#39;subjects.&#39; &quot;
</p>
<p>
France said the possibility that the erased word was &quot;subjects&quot; came up 
during a talk she gave to library donors and visitors about how to study
 historical documents without harming them. France had determined that a
 word existed beneath &quot;citizens,&quot; and she asked the group for ideas. One
 woman called out &quot;subjects,&quot; and library staff members immediately 
realized that she was on to something. The intensive work on the 
document soon began.
</p>
<p>
The erased word is on the third of the draft&#39;s four pages, in the 
section that addressed grievances against King George III and outlined 
his incitement of &quot;treasonable insurrections.&quot; The sentence is not found
 in the later Declaration of Independence, but &quot;citizens&quot; is used 
elsewhere in that document and &quot;subjects&quot; is not.
</p>
<p>
Scholars previously determined that Jefferson had been writing his early
 version based on the first draft of Virginia&#39;s constitution, where the 
words &quot;our fellow subjects&quot; appear.
</p>
<p>
Finding Jefferson&#39;s erased word is the library&#39;s greatest accomplishment
 using its new technology, but several other projects are in progress. 
The imaging device, for instance, found thumb and fingerprints on the 
Gettysburg Address using infrared light, and library researchers are 
seeking to determine whether they are President Abraham Lincoln&#39;s.
</p>
<p>
Light outside the visible range has also brought to life details of 
Pierre L&#39;Enfant&#39;s design for Washington and notes on papers of Jefferson
 and Benjamin Franklin.
</p>
<p>
Van der Reyden said the research and discoveries illustrate why it&#39;s so 
important to keep and protect original documents. The erased &quot;subjects,&quot;
 she said, could have been detected only from Jefferson&#39;s original 
draft.
</p></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Is Health Insurance Reform Becoming More Popular?</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/is-health-insurance-reform-becoming-more-popular.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/is-health-insurance-reform-becoming-more-popular.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133f1fcabef970b</id>
        <published>2010-07-01T07:43:14-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-07-01T07:52:22-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Untitled Document Wash Post: The health-care overhaul gained popularity from May to June, according to a new tracking poll. The results suggest that the Obama administration&#39;s promotion of the legislation may be paying off or that the public may be warming to the law as early provisions take effect. The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 48 percent of the public had a favorable view of the law in June while 41 percent had an unfavorable opinion. A month earlier, the split was 41 percent favorable to 44 percent unfavorable. The latest survey results were not much different from those in March, shortly before the law was enacted. Then, at the end of a bitter year-long battle, 46 percent said they supported the proposed legislation while 42 percent opposed it. Since President Obama signed the law, Democrats and Republicans vying for advantage in the fall elections have been fighting to...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Health Care" />
        
        
<content type="html" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC &quot;-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN&quot; &quot;http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd&quot;&gt;
&lt;html xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;
&lt;head&gt;
&lt;meta http-equiv=&quot;Content-Type&quot; content=&quot;text/html; charset=utf-8&quot; /&gt;
&lt;title&gt;Untitled Document&lt;/title&gt;
&lt;/head&gt;

&lt;body&gt;
&lt;p style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/30/AR2010063000438.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Wash Post&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
The health-care overhaul gained popularity from May to June, according 
to a new tracking poll.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The results suggest that the Obama administration&#39;s promotion of &lt;a href=&quot;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/&quot;&gt;the
 legislation&lt;/a&gt; may be paying off or that the public may be warming to 
the law as early provisions take effect.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float: right;&quot;&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133f1fca84c970b-popup&quot; onclick=&quot;window.open(this.href,&#39;_blank&#39;,&#39;scrollbars=no,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39;); return false&quot; style=&quot;display: inline;&quot;&gt;&lt;img  title=&quot;Health-care_reform_gains_in_last_four_polls_&quot; alt=&quot;Health-care_reform_gains_in_last_four_polls_&quot; class=&quot;asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330133f1fca84c970b &quot; src=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133f1fca84c970b-320wi&quot; style=&quot;margin: 0px;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133f1fca778970b-popup&quot; onclick=&quot;window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false&quot; style=&quot;display: inline;&quot;&gt;&lt;img  alt=&quot;_and_disapproval_drops&quot; class=&quot;asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330133f1fca778970b &quot; src=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133f1fca778970b-320wi&quot; style=&quot;margin: 0pt;&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 
&lt;/div&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
The Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 48 percent of the public 
had a favorable view of the law in June while 41 percent had an 
unfavorable opinion. A month earlier, the split was 41 percent favorable
 to 44 percent unfavorable.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8082.cfm&quot;&gt;latest 
survey results&lt;/a&gt; were not much different from those in March, shortly 
before the law was enacted. Then, at the end of a bitter year-long 
battle, 46 percent said they supported the proposed legislation while 42
 percent opposed it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Since &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama&quot;&gt;President Obama&lt;/a&gt; signed the law, Democrats and Republicans 
vying for advantage in the fall elections have been fighting to shape 
how the public perceives the historic legislation. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060800872.html&quot;&gt;administration has been spotlighting&lt;/a&gt; potentially 
crowd-pleasing elements as they are phased in, including a provision 
that will allow many parents to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/26/AR2010062604326.html&quot;&gt;keep young adult children on their insurance policies&lt;/a&gt; 
until age 26, and another provision that is helping some &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052703271.html&quot;&gt;Medicare beneficiaries&lt;/a&gt; narrow a gap in their prescription
 drug coverage.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&quot;Overall, roughly a third of voters say that a candidate who voted for 
the health reform law will be more likely to get their vote, a third say
 less likely, and a third say it doesn&#39;t really matter,&quot; said the 
foundation, which studies and distributes information about health-care 
policy.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
When voters were pressed to choose the issue most important to them, 
&quot;economic concerns came out on top, with 29 percent naming either the 
economy or unemployment,&quot; the foundation said. Thirteen percent 
mentioned dissatisfaction with government, 12 percent mentioned health 
care, and 9 percent each pointed to the Gulf Coast oil spill and the 
budget deficit, the survey found.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The full impact of the health-care legislation will not be felt until 
2014, when some of the most far-reaching and controversial elements take
 effect. Those include an end to discrimination by insurers based on 
preexisting conditions and a requirement that everyone carry health 

insurance.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8082.cfm&quot;&gt;Kaiser 
tracking poll&lt;/a&gt; was conducted June 17 through 22 and has a margin of 
sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points, the foundation 
said. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt;Also &lt;a href=&quot;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/health-care/is-health-care-getting-more-po.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;see&lt;/a&gt; Chris Cillizza&#39;s more overtly political analysis of the Kaiser poll. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;/body&gt;
&lt;/html&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Elena Kagan: The Borshct Belt Comic</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/elena-kagan-the-borshct-belt-comic.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/07/elena-kagan-the-borshct-belt-comic.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301348521fbcb970c</id>
        <published>2010-07-01T07:32:07-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-07-01T07:43:44-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Jonathan Capehart: Without question, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s “Christmas” retort to Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) will be the most memorable moment of her confirmation hearings. Graham asked, “Christmas Day bomber. Where were you at on Christmas Day?” Kagan, whose day job is solicitor general of the United States, seemed confused by his query and started answering him seriously. But Graham cut her off and said, “No. I just asked where you were at on Christmas.” Kagan’s response -- &quot;Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant&quot; -- was brilliant in its humor, timing and the self-effacing manner in which it was delivered. Despite the laughter in the chamber, it was one of those “only in New York” references that might go over the heads of a few folks. Even Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) admitted that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained it to him before the hearing. Then...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Humor" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Judiciary + Supreme Court" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Religion" />
        
        
<content type="html" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;p style=&quot;font-family: Verdana;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/elena_kagan_the_great_comedien.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Jonathan Capehart&lt;/a&gt;:
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
	&lt;p&gt;Without question, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s “Christmas” 
retort to Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) will be the most memorable moment
 of her confirmation hearings. Graham asked, “Christmas Day bomber. 
Where were you at on Christmas Day?” Kagan, whose day job is solicitor 
general of the United States, seemed confused by his query and started 
answering him seriously. But Graham cut her off and said, “No. I just 
asked where you were at on Christmas.”&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;object classid=&quot;clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000&quot; codebase=&quot;http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0&quot; id=&quot;flashObj&quot; width=&quot;486&quot; height=&quot;412&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;movie&quot; value=&quot;http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/19407224001?isVid=1&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;bgcolor&quot; value=&quot;#FFFFFF&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;flashVars&quot; value=&quot;videoId=105228931001&amp;playerID=19407224001&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;base&quot; value=&quot;http://admin.brightcove.com&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;seamlesstabbing&quot; value=&quot;false&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;allowFullScreen&quot; value=&quot;true&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;swLiveConnect&quot; value=&quot;true&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;allowScriptAccess&quot; value=&quot;always&quot;&gt;&lt;embed allowfullscreen=&quot;true&quot; allowscriptaccess=&quot;always&quot; base=&quot;http://admin.brightcove.com&quot; bgcolor=&quot;#FFFFFF&quot; flashvars=&quot;videoId=105228931001&amp;playerID=19407224001&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true&quot; name=&quot;flashObj&quot; pluginspage=&quot;http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&quot; seamlesstabbing=&quot;false&quot; src=&quot;http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/19407224001?isVid=1&quot; swliveconnect=&quot;true&quot; type=&quot;application/x-shockwave-flash&quot; width=&quot;486&quot; height=&quot;412&quot;&gt;&lt;/object&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Kagan’s response -- &quot;Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese 
restaurant&quot; -- was brilliant in its humor, timing and the self-effacing 
manner in which it was delivered. Despite the laughter in the chamber, 
it was one of those “only in New York” references that might go over the
 heads of a few folks. Even Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) admitted that 
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained it to him before the hearing. Then
 Schumer kindly pointed out that Chinese restaurants are the only places
 that are open on Christmas Day, which is vital in a city where making 
reservations IS making dinner. For those of you out there who are in 
need of a similar cultural life raft, take a look at this instant 
classic video from Saturday Night Live. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;object width=&quot;454&quot; align=&quot;middle&quot; height=&quot;283&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;allowScriptAccess&quot; value=&quot;always&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;allowFullScreen&quot; value=&quot;true&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;movie&quot; value=&quot;http://widget.nbc.com/videos/nbcshort_at.swf?CXNID=1000004.10045NXC&amp;widID=4727a250e66f9723&amp;clipID=50599&amp;showID=61&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;quality&quot; value=&quot;high&quot;&gt;&lt;param name=&quot;bgcolor&quot; value=&quot;#000000&quot;&gt;&lt;embed allowfullscreen=&quot;true&quot; allowscriptaccess=&quot;always&quot; bgcolor=&quot;#000000&quot; quality=&quot;high&quot; src=&quot;http://widget.nbc.com/videos/nbcshort_at.swf?CXNID=1000004.10045NXC&amp;widID=4727a250e66f9723&amp;clipID=50599&amp;showID=61&quot; type=&quot;application/x-shockwave-flash&quot; width=&quot;454&quot; align=&quot;middle&quot; height=&quot;283&quot;&gt;&lt;/object&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Check out Kagan&#39;s other funny moments &lt;a href=&quot;http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/last-comic-standing-kagans-funniest-moments-yesterday.php&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.
 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>The Daily Show On The False Energy Promises Of Presidents; Now 8 In A Row</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/the-daily-show-on-the-false-energy-promises-of-presidents-now-8-in-a-row.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/the-daily-show-on-the-false-energy-promises-of-presidents-now-8-in-a-row.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133f1b8dcac970b</id>
        <published>2010-06-24T07:51:09-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-06-24T07:51:09-04:00</updated>
        <summary>A devastating critique ... what&#39;s wrong with us? The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cAn Energy-Independent Futurewww.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Energy" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Environment" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;">A devastating critique ... what&#39;s wrong with us?</p><blockquote>
	<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="font: 11px arial; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5;" width="360"><tbody><tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">An Energy-Independent Future</a><a></a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: #353535;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; width: 360px; overflow: hidden; text-align: right;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="301" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:312470" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360" wmode="window" /></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Concord Ma -- First In The Nation To Ban Bottled Water</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/concord-ma-first-in-the-nation-to-ban-bottled-water.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/concord-ma-first-in-the-nation-to-ban-bottled-water.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013484ccc0e0970c</id>
        <published>2010-06-23T07:21:05-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-06-23T07:21:05-04:00</updated>
        <summary>NY Times (watch their accompanying video report): Henry David Thoreau was jailed here 164 years ago for refusing to pay taxes while living at Walden Pond. Now the town has Jean Hill to contend with. Mrs. Hill, an octogenarian previously best known for her blueberry jam, proposed banning the sale of bottled water here at a town meeting this spring. Voters approved, with the intent of making Concord the first town in the nation to strip Aquafina, Poland Spring and the like from its stores. In orchestrating an outright ban, Mrs. Hill, 82, has achieved something that powerful environmental groups have not even tried. The bottled water industry is not pleased; it has threatened to sue if the ban takes effect as planned on Jan. 1. Officials here have hinted that they might not strictly enforce it, but Mrs. Hill, who described herself as obsessed, said that would only deepen...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Environment" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Local" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;">NY Times (<a href="http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/06/22/us/1247468102494/battle-over-the-bottle.html" target="_blank">watch</a> their accompanying video report):</p><blockquote><p> <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/henry_david_thoreau/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Henry David Thoreau.">Henry
 David Thoreau</a> was jailed here 164 years ago for refusing to pay 
taxes while living at Walden Pond. Now the town has Jean Hill to contend
 with.		 

</p><div class="articleInline runaroundLeft">
 
Mrs. Hill, an octogenarian previously best known for her blueberry jam, 
proposed banning the sale of bottled water here at a town meeting this 
spring. Voters approved, with the intent of making Concord the first 
town in the nation to strip Aquafina, Poland Spring and the like from 
its stores.		</div><p>
In orchestrating an outright ban, Mrs. Hill, 82, has achieved something
 that powerful environmental groups have not even tried. The bottled 
water industry is not pleased; it has threatened to sue if the ban takes
 effect as planned on Jan. 1. Officials here have hinted that they might
 not strictly enforce it, but Mrs. Hill, who described herself as 
obsessed, said that would only deepen her resolve.		</p><p>
“I’m going to work until I drop on this,” she said. “If you believe in 
something, you have to persist and you have to have a thick skin.”		</p><p>
Tom Lauria, a spokesman for the<a href="http://www.bottledwater.org/"> 
International Bottled Water Association</a>, questioned why Mrs. Hill 
would single out bottled water when there are so many other things 
packaged in plastic. “Some people in the industry kind of respect her 
because of her age and her vision,” he said, “but we believe that vision
 is distorted. There are far worse products to pick on than water.”		</p><p>
Mrs. Hill’s crusade began a few years ago when her grandson, then 10, 
told her about the so-called Pacific garbage patch, a vortex of plastic 
and other debris floating between California and Hawaii, thought to be 
twice the size of Texas.		</p><p>
She researched and homed in on bottled water, finding that millions of
 plastic bottles were disposed of daily and that most were not recycled.
 While most opponents of bottled water have sought piecemeal change, 
like getting government agencies to stop buying it, Mrs. Hill wanted her
 affluent, erudite town to take a bolder step.		</p><p>
“The bottled water companies are draining our aquifers and selling it 
back to us,” she said, repeating her pitch from the town meeting in 
April. “We’re trashing our planet, all because of greed.”		</p><p>
Mrs. Hill’s presentation compelled some 300 voters to support the ban. 
But days later, town officials said the ban appeared unenforceable. They
 have asked the state attorney general’s office for guidance.		</p><p>
“It’s our responsibility to carry out the wishes of town meeting, but 
we’re struggling a little with how to do that,” said Christopher Whelan,
 the town manager. “It’s still up in the air what will happen on Jan. 
1.”		</p><p>
Mr. Lauria said the bottled water association would consider suing if 
the attorney general’s office signs off on the ban. “It’s a completely 
legal commodity, and to ban it runs afoul of interstate commerce 
considerations,” he said.		</p><p>
As for Mrs. Hill, Mr. Whelan said she belonged to a long tradition of 
town residents channeling Thoreau and other big-thinking forbears.		</p><p>

</p></blockquote>
<p>“She’s the classic Concordian who conceives of an idea and doesn’t take 
no for an answer,” he said. “She’s a strong-willed citizen who is very 
committed to the environment, so in a lot of ways she’s typical of this 
place.”		</p><p>
Mrs. Hill said she developed an activist streak as a teenager during 
World War II, when she spent a summer working in a New York City 
parachute factory. She discovered that employees got no paid vacation, 
and tried to stir a revolt.		</p><p>
“I went to a local union office,” she said. “Here I was, only 16, and 
they said, ‘Get lost, kid.’&#0160;”		</p><p>
After that, she stopped agitating but read a book a night and honed her 
research skills as a clerk at Life magazine. She got married and raised 
four children here, returning to activism only about 15 years ago when 
she fought a plan to build a visitors center in a historic meadow.		</p><p>
Mrs. Hill’s current battle is lonely, despite the overwhelming support 
of voters who attended the April meeting. She reached out to <a href="http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/">Corporate Accountability 
International</a>, an advocacy group in Boston that gave Mrs. Hill a 
PowerPoint presentation to help make her case. But most of her work — 
researching online, passing out pamphlets at church — has been solitary.
		</p><p>
She recently organized a screening of “Tapped,” a documentary about 
abuses in the bottled water industry. A representative from Senator <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/john_kerry/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about John Kerry.">John Kerry</a>’s
 office came — Mrs. Hill had threatened not to vote for him otherwise — 
but the crowd she had hoped for did not.		</p><p>
She has critics, including some who dismiss her as a retiree with too 
much time on her hands.		</p><p>
“Oh, I know,” she huffed, “this little old lady in tennis shoes butting 
into everyone’s business. It’s annoying and it’s not true. I’m not 
meddling; I’m trying to accomplish a legitimate goal.”		</p><p>
Mrs. Hill attributes the popularity of bottled water to the widespread 
belief that everyone needs eight glasses worth a day.		</p><p>
“People thought, ‘Oh God, got to have my water,” she said, waving a hand
 dismissively. “If you did that, you’d spend the whole day in the 
bathroom!”		</p><p>
She does not drink enough water herself, she allowed; orange juice, milk
 and Scotch are higher on her list. For those who do sip water all day, 
she has some characteristically blunt advice.		</p><p>
“Get yourself a nice Thermos,” she said. “I’ll give you one if you 
want.”		</p><p>
Mrs. Hill made a point of finding out how many public water fountains 
Concord has — 11 — and sharing their whereabouts in a letter to the 
local newspaper, <a href="http://www.wickedlocal.com/concord/">The 
Concord Journal</a>. She also approached a local merchant to suggest 
selling Thermoses instead of bottled water.		</p><p>
“He was not impressed by that at all,” she said. “The stores aren’t 
happy about it.”		</p><p>
Her movement suffered a blowback last month, when a water main break 
forced a boil-water order in the Boston area for several days. The 
pursuant clamor for bottled water gave some in Concord, which was not 
affected, second thoughts about a ban.		</p><p>
Mrs. Hill never flinched.		</p><p>
“People got hysterical,” she said. “All they had to do was boil their 
water for one full minute and that would be fine.”		</p><p>
In a crisis — or whenever they wanted — the people of Concord could 
always get bottled water elsewhere, Mrs. Hill said. Nor could the ban 
stop them from stockpiling water from big-box stores, a loophole that 
does not vex her for now.		</p><p>
“I’m not prepared to take on Costco at this point,” she said. “Maybe 
when I get a rest, I will.”		</p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Jon Stewart On The GOP &amp; Their Shakedown Charge</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/jon-stewart-on-the-gop-their-shakedown-charge.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/jon-stewart-on-the-gop-their-shakedown-charge.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013484ba81f2970c</id>
        <published>2010-06-22T13:30:36-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-06-22T13:30:36-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Starting at about 2:30 minutes in ... The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10cDay 62 - The Strife Aquaticwww.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Energy" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Environment" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Fear Mongering" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;">Starting at about 2:30 minutes in ...
</p><blockquote>
	<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="353" style="font: 11px arial; color: #333333; background-color: #f5f5f5;" width="360"><tbody><tr style="background-color: #e5e5e5;" valign="middle"><td style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; text-align: right; font-weight: bold;">Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style="height: 14px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 1px 0px 5px;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-21-2010/daily-show--15080-pt--1" style="color: #333333; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">Day 62 - The Strife Aquatic</a><a></a></td></tr><tr style="height: 14px; background-color: #353535;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 2px 5px 0px; width: 360px; overflow: hidden; text-align: right;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/" style="color: #96deff; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allownetworking="all" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="autoPlay=false" height="301" src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:313048" style="display: block;" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="360" wmode="window" /></td></tr><tr style="height: 18px;" valign="middle"><td colspan="2" style="padding: 0px;"><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" height="100%" style="margin: 0px; text-align: center;" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="middle"><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.indecisionforever.com" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Political Humor</a></td><td style="padding: 3px; width: 33%;"><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party" style="font: 10px arial; color: #333333; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tea Party</a></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>&quot;Obama uses powers to expand federal rights, benefits for gays and lesbians&quot;</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/obama-uses-powers-to-expand-federal-rights-benefits-for-gays-and-lesbians.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/obama-uses-powers-to-expand-federal-rights-benefits-for-gays-and-lesbians.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133f19073d3970b</id>
        <published>2010-06-22T07:19:34-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-06-22T07:19:34-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Wash Post: In the past year and a half, President Obama has quietly used his powers to expand federal rights and benefits for gays and lesbians, targeting one government restriction after another in an attempt to change public policy while avoiding a confrontation with Republicans and opponents of gay rights. The result is that scores of federal rules blocking gay rights have been swept aside or reinterpreted by Obama officials eager to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly backed the president&#39;s 2008 campaign. Among the changes: Gay partners of federal workers will now receive long-term health insurance, access to day care and other benefits. Federal Housing Authority loans can no longer consider the sexual orientation of applicants. The Census Bureau plans to report the number of people who report being in a same-sex relationship. Hospitals must allow gays to visit their ill partners. And federal child-care subsidies can...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gay Rights" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062104709.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">Wash Post</a>:</p><blockquote><p>
In the past year and a half, <a href="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama">President
 Obama</a> has quietly used his powers to expand federal rights and 
benefits for gays and lesbians, targeting one government restriction 
after another in an attempt to change public policy while avoiding a 
confrontation with Republicans and opponents of gay rights.
</p>
<div id="body_after_content_column">
<p>
The result is that scores of federal rules blocking gay rights have been
 swept aside or reinterpreted by Obama officials eager to advance the 
agenda of a constituency that strongly backed the president&#39;s 2008 
campaign.
</p>
<p>
Among the changes: Gay partners of federal workers will now receive 
long-term health insurance, access to day care and other benefits. 
Federal Housing Authority loans can no longer consider the sexual 
orientation of applicants. The Census Bureau plans to report the number 
of people who report being in a same-sex relationship. Hospitals must 
allow gays to visit their ill partners. And federal child-care subsidies
 can be used by the children of same-sex domestic partners.
</p>
<p>
On Wednesday, the Labor Department is expected to announce that federal 
officials have rethought the Family and Medical Leave Act, concluding 
that under the law, a gay federal employee may take leave to care for a 
child with a gay partner.
</p>
<p>
Individually, none of the changes is especially dramatic. But taken 
together, they significantly alter the way gays and lesbians are viewed 
under federal law.
</p>
<p>
The administration&#39;s effort, made largely under the radar -- and outside
 the reach of Congress -- has alarmed opponents of gay rights, who 
accuse the president of undermining traditional marriage even as he 
speaks about respecting it.
</p>
<p>
&quot;He&#39;s been a supporter of married mothers and fathers in name only,&quot; 
said Jenny Tyree, a marriage analyst for CitizenLink, an affiliate of 
Focus on the Family. &quot;He speaks very passionately and touchingly about 
how he grew up without a father. And yet there is this huge disconnect 
in how he&#39;s undermining that same opportunity for other children.&quot;</p><p>In a Father&#39;s Day statement Sunday, Obama called fathers &quot;our first 
teachers and coaches, mentors and role models&quot; and said that &quot;nurturing 
families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and 
mother, a single father, two fathers, a stepfather, a grandfather, or 
caring guardian.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Tyree called the inclusion of &quot;two fathers&quot; in the proclamation a &quot;very 
troubling&quot; decision to promote a &quot;motherless family.&quot;
</p>
<p>
But gay rights advocates have greeted the changes as evidence that Obama
 has not abandoned them -- even as he has frustrated some by failing to 
act quickly on campaign promises to repeal the federal Defense of 
Marriage Act and bring an end to the military&#39;s &quot;don&#39;t ask, don&#39;t tell&quot; 
policy.
</p>
<p>
&quot;The administration is moving the executive branch to really provide 
interpretations that will change the lives of millions of [lesbian and 
gay] people for the better,&quot; said Fred Sainz of the Human Rights 
Campaign.
</p>
<p>
Winnie Stachelberg, a senior vice president at the Center for American 
Progress, praised Obama for finding creative ways to unravel policies 
that she said have long been unfair to gays. </p><p>
&quot;This administration has really opened up the toolbox that it alone has 
access to, to address the problems faced by gays and lesbians,&quot; she 
said.
</p>

<p>

</p></div></blockquote>
<p>Obama remains under pressure from some members of the gay community to 
move more quickly and forcefully on the major battles with Congress. A 
group of activists interrupted his speech at a Democratic fundraiser in 
California last month, yelling that he should do more to end the &quot;don&#39;t 
ask, don&#39;t tell&quot; policy.
</p>
<p>
He will probably hear similar complaints Tuesday night, when he hosts a 
Gay and Lesbian Pride Month event at the White House for the second year
 in a row.
</p>
<p>
Administration officials are quick to note their legislative successes. 
The president signed a federal hate crimes bill into law that for the 
first time provides protections against crimes committed on the basis of
 sexual orientation. And the Senate is one vote away from ending the 
military&#39;s controversial policy on service by gays and lesbians.
</p>
<p>
But aides said the administration has purposely sought to take other 
actions to circumvent those battles.
</p>
<p>
&quot;While many of the items of concern to the [lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
transgender] community require Congress to act, the president has also 
taken many steps that don&#39;t require a change in the law,&quot; said Shin 
Inouye, a White House spokesman. &quot;The president and his administration 
remain committed to achieving equality for all, and it&#39;s clear that 
we&#39;re moving forward.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Obama&#39;s orders have relied largely on authority the president has to 
reshape the federal government, much in the way that <a href="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/George_W._Bush">George
 W. Bush</a> used the levers of the federal bureaucracy to relax 
government restrictions on oil and gas exploration on federally 
protected land. In April, Attorney General <a href="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Eric_Holder">Eric H. 
Holder Jr.</a> reinterpreted the Violence Against Women act to cover 
partners in a same-sex relationship. In remarks Monday to gay employees 
at the Justice Department, Holder promised more of the same.
</p>
<p>
&quot;Too many of the challenges that confronted the LGBT community 16 years 
ago . . . confront us still today,&quot; he said at the department&#39;s 
celebration of gay pride month. &quot;Too many of the same obstacles that 
existed then remain for us to overcome. Too many talented men and women 
cannot, in the words of this year&#39;s motto, &quot;serve openly, with pride.&quot;
</p>
</div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>A New &#39;Morning-After Pill&#39;: More Effective, More Controversial</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/a-new-morningafter-pill-more-effective-more-controversial.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/a-new-morningafter-pill-more-effective-more-controversial.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330134840e3217970c</id>
        <published>2010-06-12T09:26:01-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-06-12T09:26:01-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Wash Post: A French drug company is seeking to offer American women something their European counterparts already have: a pill that works long after &quot;the morning after.&quot; The drug, dubbed ella, would be sold as a contraceptive -- one that could prevent pregnancy for as many as five days after unprotected sex. But the new drug is a close chemical relative of the abortion pill RU-486, raising the possibility that it could also induce abortion by making the womb inhospitable for an embryo. The controversy sparked by that ambiguity promises to overshadow the work of a federal panel that will convene next week to consider endorsing the drug. The last time the Food and Drug Administration vetted an emergency contraceptive -- Plan B, the so-called morning-after pill -- the decision was mired in debate over such fundamental questions as when life begins and the distinction between preventing and terminating a...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Abortion" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Women" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061103522.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">Wash Post</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A French drug company is seeking to offer American women something their European counterparts already have: a pill that works long after &quot;the morning after.&quot;</p>
<p>The drug, dubbed ella, would be sold as a contraceptive -- one that could prevent pregnancy for as many as five days after unprotected sex. But the new drug is a close chemical relative of the abortion pill RU-486, raising the possibility that it could also induce abortion by making the womb inhospitable for an embryo.</p>

<p>The controversy sparked by that ambiguity promises to overshadow the work of a federal panel that will convene next week to consider endorsing the drug. The last time the Food and Drug Administration vetted an emergency contraceptive -- Plan B, the so-called morning-after pill -- the decision was mired in debate over such fundamental questions as when life begins and the distinction between preventing and terminating a pregnancy. Ella is raising many of those same politically charged questions -- but more sharply, testing the Obama administration&#39;s pledge to keep ideology from influencing scientific decisions.</p>

<p>Plan B, which works for up to 72 hours after sex, was eventually approved for sale without a prescription, although a doctor&#39;s order is required for girls younger than 17. The new drug promises to extend that period to at least 120 hours. Approved in Europe last year, ella is available as an emergency contraceptive in at least 22 countries.</p>

<p>Ella is being welcomed by many U.S. advocates for family planning and reproductive rights as a much-needed additional form of emergency contraception. Opponents of the drug, however, argue that the French company and the FDA would be misleading the public by labeling ella as an emergency contraceptive. Its chemical similarity to RU-486 makes it more like the controversial abortion pill, which can terminate a pregnancy at up to nine weeks, they say. RU-486 has soared in popularity since approval 10 years ago in the United States, raising the possibility that ella (ulipristal acetate) might become ubiquitous in American women&#39;s medicine cabinets.</p>

<p>
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>&quot;With ulipristal, women will be enticed to buy a poorly tested abortion drug, unaware of its medical risks, under the guise that it&#39;s a morning-after pill,&quot; said Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, which led the battle against Plan B.</p><p>Plan B prevents a pregnancy by administering high doses of a hormone that mimics progesterone. It works primarily by inhibiting the ovaries from producing eggs. Critics argue it can also prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb, which some consider equivalent to an abortion.</p><p>Ella works as a contraceptive by blocking progesterone&#39;s activity, which delays the ovaries from producing an egg. RU-486, too, blocks the action of progesterone, which is also needed to prepare the womb to accept a fertilized egg and to nurture a developing embryo. That&#39;s how RU-486 can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting and dislodge growing embryos. Ella&#39;s chemical similarity raises the possibility that it might do the same thing, perhaps if taken at elevated doses. But no one knows for sure because the drug has never been tested that way. Opponents of the drug are convinced it will. &quot;It kills embryos, just like the abortion pill,&quot; said Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.</p><p>Critics fear that women who do not realize they are already pregnant will use the drug, unwittingly giving themselves an abortion.</p><p>&quot;The difference between preventing life and destroying life is hugely significant to many women,&quot; said Jeanne Monahan, director of the Family Research Council&#39;s Center for Human Dignity. &quot;Women deserve to know that difference.&quot;</p><p>They also fear some women will try to use ella to abort a fetus, putting themselves at risk for potentially life-threatening complications that have been reported among a small number of women using RU-486, and possibly damage their developing child if it doesn&#39;t work.</p><p>Proponents dismiss those concerns, saying that ella has been tested only within five days of unprotected sex and there is no evidence that it works as anything other than a contraceptive. Ella appears to be about twice as effective as Plan B in preventing pregnancy, and its effectiveness remains constant for at least 120 hours. Plan B begins to lose its effectiveness almost immediately and becomes ineffective after 72 hours.</p><p>&quot;There is an great unmet need out there for emergency contraception that is effective as this for so long,&quot; said Erin Gainer, chief executive of HRA Pharma of Paris. Studies involving more than 4,500 women in the United States and Europe show that ella is safe, producing minor side effects including headaches, nausea and fatigue, she said.</p><p>The company has no plans to test ella as an abortion drug, but it did not appear to cause any problems for the handful of women who have become pregnant after taking the drug, she said.</p><p>&quot;We&#39;re very clear on the fact that this is indeed a contraceptive -- a method of prevention of pregnancy,&quot; Gainer said.</p><p>But based on the FDA&#39;s repeated delays in approving the sale of Plan B without a prescription, Gainer and others said they feared the accusations might influence the agency.</p><p>&quot;FDA should be a &#39;Just the facts ma&#39;am&#39; organization,&quot; said Susan F. Wood, an associate professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services who resigned from the FDA to protest delays in making Plan B more accessible. &quot;I&#39;m hoping the FDA will take that position.&quot;</p><p>&quot;The people who are opposing this are not just opposed to abortion,&quot; said Amy Allina, program director at the National Women&#39;s Health Network. &quot;They also opposed contraception and they are trying to confuse the issue.&quot;</p><p>If ella wins approval, it will likely inflame a long-running debate: whether doctors have an obligation to write prescriptions for medication they oppose on moral or religious grounds and whether pharmacists have an obligation to fill them. Many doctors and pharmacists refuse to write or fill prescriptions for Plan B, or refer patients elsewhere for it.</p><p>&quot;My suspicion is that more pharmacists will wish to opt out of dispensing ulipristal than any other of the previous drugs,&quot; said Karen L. Brauer, Pharmacists for Life International president.</p></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Post Poll: &quot;Growing disapproval&quot; of Tea Party; Obama&#39;s Approval &quot;fairly steady&quot;</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/post-poll-growing-disapproval-of-tea-party-obamas-approval-fairly-steady.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/post-poll-growing-disapproval-of-tea-party-obamas-approval-fairly-steady.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301348382ba96970c</id>
        <published>2010-06-08T09:16:10-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-06-08T09:18:11-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Wash Post: As voters head to the polls Tuesday for a crucial set of primary elections, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds antipathy toward their elected officials rising and anti-incumbent sentiment at an all-time high. The national survey shows that 29 percent of Americans now say they are inclined to support their House representative in November, even lower than in 1994, when voters swept the Democrats out of power in the that chamber after 40 years in the majority. The poll also finds growing disapproval of the &quot;tea party&quot; movement, with half the population now expressing an unfavorable impression of the loosely aligned protest campaign that has shaken up politics this year. And at a time when Republicans anticipate significant gains in House and Senate elections, there is also fresh evidence of the challenges facing the GOP. Six in 10 poll respondents say they have a negative view of...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060800016.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">Wash Post</a>:</p><blockquote><p>
As voters head to the polls Tuesday for a crucial set of primary 
elections, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds antipathy toward 
their elected officials rising and anti-<a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicsglossary/election/incumbent/">incumbent</a> sentiment at an all-time high.
</p>


<script>
&lt;!--
var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );
document.write(&#39;&lt;s\cript src=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060800016_StoryJs.js?&#39;+rn+&#39;&quot;&gt;&lt;/s\cript&gt;&#39;) ;
// --&gt;
</script><script src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060800016_StoryJs.js?2163234175"></script>

<p>
The national survey shows that 29 percent of Americans now say they are 
inclined to support their House representative in November, even lower 
than in 1994, when voters swept the Democrats out of power in the that 
chamber after 40 years in the majority.
</p>
<p>
The poll also finds <strong>growing disapproval of the &quot;tea party&quot; movement, 
with half the population now expressing an unfavorable impression</strong> of the
 loosely aligned protest campaign that has shaken up politics this year.
</p>
<p>
And at a time when Republicans anticipate significant gains in House and
 Senate elections, there is also fresh evidence of the challenges facing
 <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicsglossary/party-affiliated/Republican-Party/">the GOP</a>. <strong>Six in 10 poll respondents say they have a 
negative view of the policies put forward by the Republican minority in 
Congress, and about a third say they trust Republicans over Democrats to
 handle the nation&#39;s main problems</strong> ...</p><p>
Elected officials nationwide are feeling their <a href="http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicsglossary/Congressional/constituent/">constituents</a>&#39; dissatisfaction. In the new Post-ABC poll, 
69 percent of all Americans say they are either dissatisfied or angry 
with the government, and 60 percent say they are inclined to look for 
other candidates in November, the most ever in a Post-ABC poll.
</p>


<script>
&lt;!--
var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );
document.write(&#39;&lt;s\cript src=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060800016_StoryJs.js?&#39;+rn+&#39;&quot;&gt;&lt;/s\cript&gt;&#39;) ;
// --&gt;
</script><script src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060800016_StoryJs.js?9685102823"></script>

<p>
Democrats are likely to suffer disproportionately from the tough 
climate: They are in the majority in both houses of Congress and are 
defending many more districts than Republicans. The public sees little 
improvement in the nation&#39;s direction or the state of the economy. Six 
in 10 say the country is on the wrong track and 88 percent rate the 
economy as not good or poor, with just 30 percent saying it is 
improving.
</p>
<p>
Yet <strong>Democrats </strong>maintain at least one advantage: They<strong> hold a double-digit 
edge over the GOP as the party that people trust to handle the country&#39;s
 main problems.</strong>
</p>
<p>
Another big element that may mute the threat to Democrats is that <strong>the 
GOP has not gained significant traction. Most Americans </strong>-- including 
nearly a third of self-identified Republicans -- <strong>say they are 
dissatisfied with or angry at the policies of congressional Republicans.</strong>
 These numbers have changed little since last November, despite the 
GOP&#39;s focus on offering a more concrete agenda rather than simply 
Democratic proposals.
</p>
<p>
<strong>Obama&#39;s overall approval ratings have remained fairly steady. </strong></p><p>
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>More than 
half of those surveyed, 52 percent, say they approve of the way he is 
handling his job, and for the first time since last fall, half approve 
of how he is dealing with the economy.
</p><p>
There are new vulnerabilities in public perceptions of the president, 
however, that may provide fresh openings for Republicans to reframe the 
debate. Nearly half, 48 percent, now say that Obama does not understand 
the problems of people like them, the highest of his presidency. For the
 first time, a slim majority of independents say Obama is out of touch 
with their problems. Most Americans continue to view the president as a 
strong leader, but the proportion has declined.</p></blockquote>
<p>
</p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Historic Milestones Crossed In American&#39;s (Especially Men&#39;s) Acceptance Of Homosexuality</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/historic-milestones-crossed-in-americans-especially-mens-acceptance-of-homosexuality.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/historic-milestones-crossed-in-americans-especially-mens-acceptance-of-homosexuality.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133f035ee55970b</id>
        <published>2010-06-05T11:04:28-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-06-05T11:04:28-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Just as the right fears, it&#39;s only a matter of time. Charles Blow: Last week, while many of us were distracted by the oil belching forth from the gulf floor and the president’s ham-handed attempts to demonstrate that he was sufficiently engaged and enraged, Gallup released a stunning, and little noticed, report on Americans’ evolving views of homosexuality. Allow me to enlighten: 1. For the first time, the percentage of Americans who perceive “gay and lesbian relations” as morally acceptable has crossed the 50 percent mark. (You have to love the fact that they still use the word “relations.” So quaint.) 2. Also for the first time, the percentage of men who hold that view is greater than the percentage of women who do. 3. This new alignment is being led by a dramatic change in attitudes among younger men, but older men’s perceptions also have eclipsed older women’s. While...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gay Rights" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Polls" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;">Just as the right fears, it&#39;s only a matter of time. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05blow.html?ref=opinion" target="_blank">Charles Blow</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>
Last week, while many of us were distracted by the oil belching forth 
from the gulf floor and the president’s ham-handed attempts to 
demonstrate that he was sufficiently engaged and enraged, Gallup 
released a stunning, and little noticed, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold.aspx">report
 on Americans’ evolving views of homosexuality</a>. Allow me to 
enlighten:		</p> 
<div class="image">
<img alt="" height="1050" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/06/06/opinion/06blowimg/06blowimg-articleInline.jpg" style="float: left; margin-right: 15px; margin-bottom: 10px; border: 0px none;" width="190" />
</div>
 <p>
1. For the first time, the percentage of Americans who perceive “gay and
 lesbian relations” as morally acceptable has crossed the 50 percent 
mark. (You have to love the fact that they still use the word 
“relations.” So quaint.)		</p>

<p>
2. Also for the first time, the percentage of men who hold that view is 
greater than the percentage of women who do.		</p>

<p>
3. This new alignment is being led by a dramatic change in attitudes 
among younger men, but older men’s perceptions also have eclipsed older 
women’s. While women’s views have stayed about the same over the past 
four years, the percentage of men ages 18 to 49 who perceived these 
“relations” as morally acceptable rose by 48 percent, and among men over
 50, it rose by 26 percent.		</p>

<p>
I warned you: stunning.		</p>

<p>
There is no way to know for sure what’s driving such a radical change in
 men’s views on this issue because Gallup didn’t ask, but that doesn’t 
mean that we can’t speculate. To help me do so, I called <a href="http://creativepromotionsagency.com/mk/biography.htm">Dr. Michael 
Kimmel</a>, a professor of sociology at the State University of New York
 at Stony Brook and the author or editor of more than 20 books on men 
and masculinity, and <a href="http://www.human.cornell.edu/bio.cfm?netid=rsw36">Professor Ritch 
Savin-Williams</a>, the chairman of human development at Cornell 
University and the author of seven books, most of which deal with 
adolescent development and same-sex attraction.		</p>

<p>
Here are three theories:		</p>

<p>
1. The contact hypothesis. As more men openly acknowledge that they are 
gay, it becomes harder for men who are not gay to discriminate against 
them. And as that group of openly gay men becomes more varied — 
including athletes, celebrities and soldiers — many of the old, 
derisive stereotypes lose their purchase. To that point, a Gallup <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/118931/Knowing-Someone-Gay-Lesbian-Affects-Views-Gay-Issues.aspx">poll
 released last May</a> found that people who said they personally knew 
someone who was gay or lesbian were more likely to be accepting of gay 
men and lesbians in general and more supportive of their issues.		</p>

<p>
2. Men may be becoming more egalitarian in general. As Dr. Kimmel put 
it: “Men have gotten increasingly comfortable with the presence of, and 
relative equality of, ‘the other,’ and we’re becoming more accustomed to
 it. And most men are finding that it has not been a disaster.” The 
expanding sense of acceptance likely began with the feminist and civil 
rights movements and is now being extended to the gay rights movement. 
Dr. Kimmel continued, “The dire predictions for diversity have not only 
not come true, but, in fact, they’ve been proved the other way.”		</p>

<p>
3. Virulent homophobes are increasingly being exposed for engaging in 
homosexuality. Think Ted Haggard, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6rSjrBhUIA">the once fervent 
antigay preacher</a> and former leader of the National Association of 
Evangelicals, and his male prostitute. (This week, <a href="http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/ted-haggard-starting-new-church-gay-people-welcome-gay-marriages-not-so-much.php">Haggard
 announced that he was starting a new “inclusive” church</a> open to 
“gay, straight, bi, tall, short,” but no same-sex marriages. Not “God’s 
ideal.” Sorry.) Or George Rekers, the founding member of the Family 
Research Council, and his rent boy/luggage handler. Last week, the 
council claimed that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would lead to an 
explosion of “homosexual assaults” in which sleeping soldiers would be 
the victims of fondling and fellatio by gay predators. In fact, there is
 a growing body of research that supports the notion that homophobia in 
some men could be a reaction to their own homosexual impulses. Many 
heterosexual men see this, and they don’t want to be associated with it.
 It’s like being antigay is becoming the old gay. Not cool.		</p>

<p>
These sound plausible, but why aren’t women seeing the same enlightening
 effects as men? Professor Savin-Williams suggests that there may be a 
“ceiling effect,” that men are simply catching up to women, and there 
may be a level at which views top out. Interesting.		</p>

<p>
All of this is great news, but it doesn’t mean that all measures 
relating to acceptance of gay men and lesbians have changed to the same 
degree. People’s comfort with the “gay and lesbian” part of the equation
 is still greater than their comfort with the “relations” part — the 
idea versus the act — particularly when it comes to pairings of men.		</p>

<p>
As Professor Savin-Williams told me, there is still a higher aversive 
reaction to same-sex sexuality among men than among women.		</p>

<p>
For instance, in a February New York Times/CBS News poll, half of the 
respondents were asked if they favored letting “gay men and lesbians” 
serve in the military (which is still more than 85 percent male), and 
the other half were asked if they favored letting “homosexuals” serve. 
Those who got the “homosexual” question favored it at a rate that was 11
 percentage points lower than those who got the “gay men and lesbians” 
question.		</p>

<p>
Part of the difference may be that “homosexual” is a bigger, more 
clinical word freighted with a lot of historical baggage. But just as 
likely is that the inclusion of the root word “sex” still raises an 
aversive response to the idea of, how shall I say, the architectural 
issues between two men. It is the point at which support for basic human
 rights cleaves from endorsement of behavior.		</p>

<p>
As for the aversion among men, it may be softening a bit. Professor 
Savin-Williams says that his current research reveals that the 
fastest-growing group along the sexuality continuum are men who 
self-identify as “mostly straight” as opposed to labels like “straight,”
 “gay” or “bisexual.” They acknowledge some level of attraction to other
 men even as they say that they probably wouldn’t act on it, but ... the
 right guy, the right day, a few beers and who knows. As the professor 
points out, you would never have heard that in years past.		</p>

<p>
All together now: stunning.		</p>

</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Belt Tightening Finally Comes To The Pentagon</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/belt-tightening-finally-comes-to-the-pentagon.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/belt-tightening-finally-comes-to-the-pentagon.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301348329648f970c</id>
        <published>2010-06-04T07:04:57-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-06-04T07:06:42-04:00</updated>
        <summary>It took the Great Recession and a Democratic President but it seems the Defense Dept. might actually start cutting back on the annual growth of its budget. The NY Times: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ordered the military and the Pentagon’s civilian bureaucracy to find tens of billions of dollars in annual savings to pay for war-fighting operations, senior officials said Thursday. His goal is $7 billion in spending cuts and efficiencies for 2012, growing to $37 billion annually by 2016. Every modern defense secretary has declared war on Pentagon waste and redundancy. And there have been notable, but relatively narrow successes, in closing and consolidating military bases or in canceling a handful of weapons systems. But if Mr. Gates’s sweeping plan is fully enacted, none of the armed services or Pentagon civilian agencies and directorates would be immune from the pain of annual cost-cutting, which would become institutionalized...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Defense" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;">It took the Great Recession and a Democratic President but it seems the Defense Dept. might actually start cutting back on the annual growth of its budget. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/us/politics/04pentagon.html?ref=politics" target="_blank">NY Times</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Defense Secretary <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/robert_m_gates/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Robert M. Gates.">Robert M.
 Gates</a> has ordered the military and the Pentagon’s civilian 
bureaucracy to find tens of billions of dollars in annual savings to pay
 for war-fighting operations, senior officials said Thursday.		 

</p>

 <p>
His goal is $7 billion in spending cuts and efficiencies for 2012, 
growing to $37 billion annually by 2016.		</p>

<p>
Every modern defense secretary has declared war on Pentagon waste and 
redundancy. And there have been notable, but relatively narrow 
successes, in closing and consolidating military bases or in canceling a
 handful of weapons systems.		</p>

<p>
But <strong>if Mr. Gates’s sweeping plan is fully enacted, none of the armed 
services or Pentagon civilian agencies and directorates would be immune 
from the pain of annual cost-cutting, which would become 
institutionalized across the Defense Department.		</strong></p>

<p>
The spending guidelines were delivered orally to senior military 
officers and civilian officials before Mr. Gates’s departure this week 
for an Asian security conference in Singapore, and the official signed 
guidance will be issued over coming days.		</p>

<p>
The goal is to force all of the Defense Department agencies and 
organizations, and all of the armed services, to save enough money in 
their management, personnel policies and logistics to guarantee 3 
percent real growth each year, beyond inflation, in the accounts that 
pay for combat operations.		</p>

<p>
Current budget plans project growth of only 1 percent in the Pentagon 
budget, after inflation, over the next five years.		</p>

<p>
“Given the nation’s fiscal situation, there is an urgency to doing this,
 rather than shifting more of the nation’s resources toward national 
defense,” William J. Lynn III, the deputy defense secretary, said in an 
interview.		</p>

<p>
Mr. Gates’s spending orders offer a considerable incentive to the armed 
services. Each dollar in spending cuts found by a military department 
would be reinvested in the combat force of that branch, and not siphoned
 away for other purposes.		</p>

<p>
Senior officials acknowledge that powerful constituencies are expected 
to line up in opposition to cuts of favorite programs — with criticism 
anticipated from the defense industry, Congress, military headquarters, 
Pentagon personnel and retirees.		</p>

<p>
“We will need to address the reasons things are in the budget in order 
to be able to reduce overhead,” Mr. Lynn said. “We are going to have to 
be engaged in dialogue with industry, with Congress, with other 
agencies, with the White House and inside the Pentagon — all the 
stakeholders.”		</p>

<p>
The new directives are aimed at three distinct areas of spending.		</p>

<p>

</p>

</blockquote>
<blockquote><p>The first is management and personnel, overhead, logistics and base 
operations, and support missions.		</p>

<p>
The second is the war-fighting accounts themselves. Major targets for 
the next fiscal year already identified by the Pentagon leadership, and 
supported by the White House, include canceling a program to buy an 
alternative engine for the F-35 warplane and ending production of the 
C-17 cargo aircraft. Officials said a range of lower-priority programs 
would also be under review.		</p>

<p>
The third area is Mr. Gates’s own Defense Department staff and agencies.
		</p>

<p>
Pentagon agencies that handle specialized tasks like missile defense and
 commissaries, as well as Mr. Gates’s directorates for such matters as 
personnel and readiness, policy, intelligence and public affairs, will 
be ordered to reduce costs by trimming personnel and streamlining 
business practices.		</p>

<p>
Mr. Gates set a deadline of July 31 for receiving details on programs 
and personnel to be cut and a description of savings in management 
practices to be included in the budget proposal for the next fiscal 
year, 2012. Two-thirds of the ordered savings must be an actual money 
transfer from noncombat accounts to the war-fighting budget, while 
one-third can be found in efficiencies and eliminating redundancies and 
overhead.		</p>

<p>
The specific instructions are included in three unclassified guidance 
documents signed by Mr. Gates — one to the armed services, one to the 
Pentagon’s primary agencies and directorates, and one to the global 
combatant commands.		</p>

<p>
For fiscal year 2012, the departments of the Army, <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/us_air_force/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the U.S. Air Force.">Air 
Force</a> and Navy — which includes the Marine Corps — must each find $2
 billion in savings, while the rest of the Defense Department must find 
$1 billion in savings. By 2016, each military department must have $10 
billion in savings, with $7 billion across the rest of the Pentagon.		</p>

<p>
“You are not going to be able to do it just on pure efficiencies,” Mr. 
Lynn said. “You are going to have to eliminate lower-priority programs. 
You are going to have to find headquarters that you don’t think you 
need. You are going to have to find staffs that you think you can cut.”	
	</p>

<p>
The drive for finding savings to guarantee real growth in spending on 
combat missions was first laid out by Mr. Gates in a speech in early May
 at the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum in Kansas.		</p>

<p>
Among the vexing spending problems identified by Mr. Gates was the 
continuously rising cost of health care. Mr. Gates said the nation owed 
quality health care to those in uniform, their families and veterans, 
but pointed out that members of the military health care system had not 
been charged increases in premiums for 15 years — even though the 
program’s annual cost had risen to $50 billion from $19 billion a decade
 ago.		</p>

<p>
“Health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive,” Mr. Gates 
said. Officials said that changes to the military health care program 
would be considered, but that no decisions had been made.		</p>

</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>&quot;Same-sex partners of federal workers can apply for benefits&quot;</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/samesex-partners-of-federal-workers-can-apply-for-benefits.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/06/samesex-partners-of-federal-workers-can-apply-for-benefits.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013482ca6b76970c</id>
        <published>2010-06-02T07:19:25-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-06-02T07:19:25-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Wash Post: The same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal workers can start applying next month for long-term health-care insurance, the Office of Personnel Management said Tuesday. President Obama signed a memo last June extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers, including access to the government&#39;s Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program. On Tuesday, OPM essentially broadened the definition of relatives eligible for the program to include same-sex domestic partners of eligible federal workers, U.S. Postal Service workers and federal retirees. OPM will not extend access to opposite-sex domestic partners, because they can obtain the insurance through marriage, &quot;an option not currently available to same-sex domestic partners,&quot; the agency wrote in Tuesday&#39;s Federal Register. OPM said same-sex couples can visit www.ltcfeds.com to complete a form that states they are each other&#39;s domestic partner and intend to stay together indefinitely. The federal worker must submit the form to their...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gay Rights" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060103686.html" target="_blank">Wash Post</a>:</p><blockquote><p>
The same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal workers can start 
applying next month for long-term health-care insurance, the Office of 
Personnel Management said Tuesday.
</p>

<p>
<a href="http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama">President
 Obama</a> signed a memo last June <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/06/eye_opener_same-sex_partners_g.html">extending some benefits</a> to same-sex partners of federal 
workers, including access to the government&#39;s Federal Long Term Care 
Insurance Program. On Tuesday, OPM essentially broadened the definition 
of relatives eligible for the program to include same-sex domestic 
partners of eligible federal workers, U.S. Postal Service workers and 
federal retirees.
</p>
<p>
OPM will not extend access to opposite-sex domestic partners, because 
they can obtain the insurance through marriage, &quot;an option not currently
 available to same-sex domestic partners,&quot; <a href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-13015.htm">the 
agency wrote</a> in Tuesday&#39;s Federal Register.
</p>
<p>
OPM said same-sex couples can visit www.ltcfeds.com to complete a form 
that states they are each other&#39;s domestic partner and intend to stay 
together indefinitely. The federal worker must submit the form to their 
employer. Couples will not be required to provide further proof of the 
relationship, OPM said, because that &quot;would impose a greater burden on 
domestic partners than other qualified relatives.&quot; The agency said it 
does not ask opposite-sex couples for bank statements or other proof of 
marriage.
</p>
<p>
Tuesday&#39;s ruling applies only to FLTCIP, no other federal health-care or
 insurance programs. Same-sex partners must answer the same questions 
about their health as other qualified relatives, and are not guaranteed 
to be approved for coverage. Eligible federal workers do not need to be 
enrolled in FLTCIP in order for a same-sex partner to apply or be 
eligible, OPM said.
</p></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Once DADT Is Repealed, The Military Faces A Broad Range Of Decisions: Married Housing Anyone?</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/once-dadt-is-repealed-the-military-faces-a-broad-range-of-decisions-married-housing-anyone.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/once-dadt-is-repealed-the-military-faces-a-broad-range-of-decisions-married-housing-anyone.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013482805562970c</id>
        <published>2010-05-29T09:48:15-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-29T09:51:12-04:00</updated>
        <summary>As this NY Times story makes clear, the military is no different than civilian society: no longer being forced into a closet is far from nondiscrimination and equality. &quot;Gays in the military&quot; is going to be a political issue for a long time I beleive. For opponents of the ban against homosexuals serving openly in the military, the steps by Congress this week to repeal the policy, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” were a major victory. But now they are girding for what may be an equally difficult task: the transition to a force where straight and openly gay servicemen and women live, work and fight alongside one other. Some homosexuals in the military say they are worried about how that process will work and whether they will be treated differently if they publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation. Some raised concerns about being harassed, assigned to separate barracks or...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Defense" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gay Rights" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;">As this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/politics/29gays.html?ref=us" target="_blank">NY Times</a> story makes clear, the military is no different than civilian society: no longer being forced into a closet is far from nondiscrimination and equality. &quot;Gays in the military&quot; is going to be a political issue for a long time I beleive.</p><blockquote><p>
For opponents of the ban against homosexuals serving openly in the 
military, the steps by Congress this week to repeal the policy, known as
 “<a class="meta-classifier" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/d/dont_ask_dont_tell/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about Don&#39;t Ask Don&#39;t Tell.">don’t ask, don’t tell</a>,” were a major 
victory. But now they are girding for what may be an equally difficult 
task: the transition to a force where straight and openly gay servicemen
 and women live, work and fight alongside one other.		</p> 

<p>
Some homosexuals in the military say they are worried about how that 
process will work and whether they will be treated differently if they 
publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation. Some raised concerns 
about being harassed, assigned to separate barracks or shunned by 
colleagues who had been friendly before.		</p><p>
“In an idyllic world, getting rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and saying 
‘Everyone here is welcome’ is great,” said a 29-year-old lesbian in the <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/us_army/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the U.S. Army.">Army</a> 
National Guard, who asked that her name be withheld because she could 
still be discharged under the rule.		</p><p>
“But the policy actually allowed for a lot of protections,” the soldier 
said. “Getting rid of it completely without modifying it is kind of 
worrisome. The number of incidents against gays in the military is going
 to increase.”		</p><p>
Indeed, both opponents and supporters of the ban say a host of thorny 
practical questions will face the Pentagon if Congress gives final 
approval to legislation allowing the repeal of the ban, which could 
happen this summer.		</p><p>
Will openly gay service members be placed in separate housing, as the 
commandant of the Marine Corps has advocated? What benefits, if any, 
will partners or spouses of homosexual service members be accorded? Will
 all military units be required to treat homosexuals the same? And what 
training will heterosexual officers and enlisted troops receive to 
prepare them to serve with openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/us_marine_corps/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about United States Marine Corps">Marines</a>?
		</p><p>
“The reality is, getting rid of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ doesn’t ensure 
that all lesbian and gay service members will be equal on that day,” 
said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the <a href="http://www.sldn.org/" title="group’s Web site">Servicemembers 
Legal Defense Network</a>. “There will continue to be challenges to make
 full equality for gays and lesbians in the armed forces a reality.”		</p><p>
Similar questions were asked when blacks were allowed to integrate 
previously all-white units. But that transition was not without its 
difficulties too, including instances of racial violence.		</p><p>
A Pentagon panel has begun studying the issues around gays serving 
openly as part of a broad review of homosexuality in the military, which
 will include surveys of thousands of service members and their 
families. The panel, led by Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of the <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/us_army/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the United States Army.">United
 States Army</a> in Europe, and Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s top legal
 counsel, is supposed to deliver its report by Dec. 1.		</p><p>
Under an amendment moving through Congress, once that report is 
finished, the White House and senior Pentagon leadership must certify 
that repealing the ban will not be disruptive to the military. Once that
 certification is made, final repeal will occur within 60 days.		</p><p>
The House approved the amendment on Friday as part of the bill 
authorizing more than $567 billion in Pentagon programs and spending. 
The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the amendment on Thursday, 
and the full Senate is expected to take up the authorization bill later 
this summer.		</p><p>
“It could be late 2011 before this is implemented,” said Alex Nicholson,
 executive director of <a href="http://servicemembersunited.org/" title="group’s Web site.">Servicemembers United</a>, a nonprofit 
organization.		</p><p>
Supporters of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” who still hope they can stop it 
from being repealed, fear the effect on the military if it is.		</p><p>

</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Elaine Donnelly, a leading supporter of the ban on homosexuals serving 
openly, said she expected major fights over housing issues, including 
whether gay couples should be allowed to live together on bases, as 
married heterosexual couples are. “Same-sex couples in family housing 
will become a reason for families to decline re-enlistment or a change 
in station,” she said.		</p><p>
Ms. Donnelly, president of the <a href="http://www.cmrlink.org/" title="group’s Web site.">Center for Military Readiness</a>, a nonprofit
 policy group, also predicted fierce debate over rules governing 
antidiscrimination policies toward homosexuals. She said she and other 
supporters of the ban worried that service members who oppose 
homosexuality on religious grounds would be denied promotions, a policy 
she called “zero tolerance” toward anti-gay discrimination.		</p><p>
“Over a period of time, not all at once, people who find themselves out 
of step with zero tolerance will not re-enlist,” she said.		</p><p>
Mr. Nicholson called such concerns “political posturing,” asserting that
 tens of thousands of gay people already serve in the military, many 
open to their closest peers, without problems.		</p><p>
Gay advocates said that federal law would prohibit same-sex spouses from
 receiving the financial and health care benefits that heterosexual 
spouses receive from the military. But they said some privileges, like 
hospital visitation rights, might be given to same-sex partners. That 
issue, too, is likely to be a subject of much debate, they said.		</p><p>
Many service members interviewed this week said they knew homosexuals in
 the military and did not mind serving alongside them.		</p><p>
“If you trust a soldier with your life, that’s what is most important, 
not being gay,” said Specialist Kevin Garcia of the Army, who has done 
two tours in Iraq and is now stationed at Fort Sam Houston in San 
Antonio.		</p><p>
But Keith Johnson, a petty officer first class with the Coast Guard and a
 former Marine, said he opposed homosexuality on religious grounds and 
thought repealing the ban would hurt morale. “If I don’t know, it’s a 
whole lot better than someone parading it around in my face and me 
having to deal with it,” he said.		</p><p>
More than 13,000 service members have been discharged for homosexuality 
since the law was enacted in 1993, though the rate of discharges has 
declined. One of those who was discharged, Joseph Rocha, a former petty 
officer third class, said he planned to join the Navy again if the ban 
is repealed. “My heart is set on becoming an officer,” said Mr. Rocha, 
24. “Before yesterday, that wasn’t an option.”		</p></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>DADT Cartoons</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/dadt-cartoons.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/dadt-cartoons.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133ef5109c1970b</id>
        <published>2010-05-29T09:30:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-29T09:30:00-04:00</updated>
        <summary></summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Cartoons" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gay Rights" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>
<a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133ef5108c3970b-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="FellP20100528_low" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330133ef5108c3970b " src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133ef5108c3970b-320wi" /></a> 

<a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013482805937970c-popup" onclick="window.open(this.href,&#39;_blank&#39;,&#39;scrollbars=no,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39;); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="BenneC20100528_low" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e5502640718833013482805937970c " src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013482805937970c-320wi" style="border: 1px solid black;" title="BenneC20100528_low" /></a>
</p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>The One Document That Crystallizes The Difference Between Obama &amp; Bush</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/one-document-that-crystallizes-the-difference-between-obama-bush.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/one-document-that-crystallizes-the-difference-between-obama-bush.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e550264071883301348215ea83970c</id>
        <published>2010-05-27T06:45:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-27T07:10:17-04:00</updated>
        <summary>This NY Times report on Obama&#39;s &quot;New Foundations&quot; strategy makes the diff clear: he is an intelligent, sophisticated thinker not blinded by hegemonic fervor as was his predecessor: President Obama’s first formal National Security Strategy argues that preserving American leadership in the world hinges on learning to accept and manage the rise of many competitors, and dismisses as far too narrow the Bush era doctrine that fighting terrorism should be the nation’s overarching objective. In a 52-page document that tries to balance the idealism of Mr. Obama’s campaign promises with the realities of his confrontations with a fractious and threatening world over the past 16 months, Mr. Obama describes an American strategy that recognizes limits on how much the United States can spend to shape the globe. An America “hardened by war” and “disciplined by a devastating economic crisis,” he argues, cannot sustain extended fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan,...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Defense" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Foreign Affairs" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Terrorism" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;">This <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/28strategy.html?hp" target="_blank">NY Times</a> report on Obama&#39;s &quot;New Foundations&quot; strategy makes the diff clear: he is an intelligent, sophisticated thinker not blinded by hegemonic fervor as was his predecessor: 
</p><blockquote><p><a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Barack Obama.">President 
Obama</a>’s first formal National Security Strategy argues that 
preserving American leadership in the world hinges on learning to accept
 and manage the rise of many competitors, and dismisses as far too 
narrow the Bush era doctrine that fighting terrorism should be the 
nation’s overarching objective.		 

</p><div class="articleInline runaroundLeft">
 
 
 
</div>


 <p>
In a 52-page document that tries to balance the idealism of Mr. Obama’s 
campaign promises with the realities of his confrontations with a 
fractious and threatening world over the past 16 months, Mr. Obama 
describes an American strategy that recognizes limits on how much the 
United States can spend to shape the globe.		</p>

<p>
An America “hardened by war” and “disciplined by a devastating economic 
crisis,” he argues, cannot sustain extended fighting in both Iraq and
 Afghanistan, while fulfilling other commitments at home and abroad.		</p>

<p>
<strong>“The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders 
alone,</strong>” Mr. Obama writes in the introduction of the strategy being 
released on Thursday. <strong>“Indeed, our adversaries would like to see America
 sap our strength by overextending our power.”		</strong></p>

<p>
That line is just one of many subtle slaps at President <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about George W. Bush.">George W. 
Bush</a>. Much of the National Security Strategy, which is required by 
Congress, reads as an argument for a restoration of an older order of 
reliance on international institutions, updated to confront modern 
threats. While Mr. Bush’s 2002 document explicitly said the United 
States would never allow the rise of a rival superpower, Mr. Obama 
argues that America faces no real military competitor, but that global 
power is increasingly diffuse. <strong>“To succeed, we must face the world as it
 is,”</strong> he says.		</p>

<p>
The principal author of the report, Ben Rhodes, a deputy national 
security adviser, noted in an interview that Mr. Obama’s move to replace
 the <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/group_of_eight/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Group of Eight">G-8</a> 
nations with a broader group, called the <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/group_of_20/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Group of 20.">G-20</a>, 
that includes China, India and Brazil, recognizes this reality. “We are 
deeply committed to broadening the circle of responsible actors,” Mr. 
Rhodes said.		</p>

<p>
Although the administration has put renewed focus on the war in 
Afghanistan and escalated <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the Central Intelligence Agency.">C.I.A.</a> drone strikes against militants,<strong> the 
strategy rejects Mr. Bush’s single-minded focus on counterterrorism as 
the organizing principle of national security policy.</strong> Those efforts “to 
counter violent extremism” — Mr. Obama avoids the use of the word 
“Islamic” — “are only one element of our strategic environment and 
cannot define America’s engagement with the world.”		</p>

<p>
<strong>He goes on to argue that “the gravest danger to the American people and 
global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, 
particularly nuclear weapons.” And he dwelled on cyber threats, <a class="meta-classifier" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="Recent and archival news about global warming.">climate change</a>, and America’s dependence on 
fossil fuels as fundamental national security issues</strong>, issues that 
received relatively little or no attention in Mr. Bush’s 2002 document, 
although his administration focused on them more in its second term.		</p>

<p>
“It is a rather dramatic departure from the most recent prior national 
security strategy,” <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/susan_e_rice/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Susan E Rice.">Susan Rice</a>,
 the American ambassador to the <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the United Nations.">United
 Nations</a>, said in an interview.		</p>

<p>
Mr. Bush’s 2002 document articulated a vision of American power that 
foreshadowed the American involvement in Iraq. Mr. Obama’s version 
could fuel the ongoing debate about whether his philosophy expands or 
constricts American influence.		</p>

<p>
Critics already argue that Mr. Obama does not place enough importance on
 fighting terrorism or fully embrace America’s singular role in the 
world as he seeks the favor and cooperation of other nations.		</p>

<p>
A section on the use of force makes no mention of pre-emptive attacks 
against countries or non-state actors who may pose a threat, as Mr. Bush
 did in 2002, just six months before the invasion of Iraq. But Mr. Obama
 does not explicitly rule out striking first.		</p>

<p>
“While the use of force is sometimes necessary, we will exhaust other 
options before war whenever we can, and carefully weigh the costs and 
risks of action against the costs and risks of inaction,” he says. When 
it is necessary, he adds, “we will seek broad international support, 
working with such institutions as <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/north_atlantic_treaty_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.">NATO</a> and the <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Security Council, U.N.">U.N.
 Security Council</a>.”		</p>

<p>
Mr. Bush’s aides said they would not seek a “permission slip”’ for such 
actions. Mr. Obama phrases that idea differently, writing, “the United 
States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend
 our nation and our interests, yet we will also seek to adhere to 
standards that govern the use of force.”		</p>

<p>
<strong>Mr. Obama also defines national security more broadly than his 
predecessor did, making the case, for example, that reducing the deficit
 is critical to sustaining American power. He emphasizes issues like the
 economy, education, climate change, energy and science. </strong>In that way, he
 tries to<strong> draw a broader theme linking his presidency to the notion of a
 “new foundation,” the phrase he previously has coined as a slogan for 
his domestic program. <br /></strong></p><p><strong>“Our national security begins at home,” the 
strategy says. </strong></p><p>

</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Still, for all its self-conscious rejection of the Bush era, the 
document reflects elements of continuity. For example, it does not 
disavow using the state secrets act to withhold information from courts 
in terrorism cases, although it argues for prudent and limited use. It 
also insists that “we will maintain the military superiority that has 
secured our country, and underpinned global security, for decades.”		</p><div class="articleInline runaroundLeft">
 
 
 
</div><p>
The document does not make the spread of democracy the defining priority
 that Mr. Bush did, but it embraces the goal more robustly than is 
typical for Mr. Obama, a reflection of a struggle within his 
administration about how to approach a topic that became so associated 
with Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama commits to “welcoming all peaceful democratic 
movements” and to “supporting the development of institutions within 
fragile democracies.” But he also broadens the goal, by saying “We 
recognize economic opportunity as a human right.”		</p><p>
And the document offers assessments of several flashpoints that seem 
drawn from wording used by the last administration. For instance, it 
says that if North Korea and Iran abandon their nuclear programs, “they 
will be able to proceed on a path to greater political and economic 
integration with the international community” but if not, “we will 
pursue multiple means to increase their isolation.”		</p><p>
It calls on China to take on “a responsible leadership role” and vows to
 “monitor China’s military modernization program and prepare 
accordingly” while saying that disagreements on human rights “should not
 prevent cooperation on issues of mutual interest.”		</p><p>
It lays out a vision of a “stable, substantive, multidimensional 
relationship with Russia” but promises to “promote the rule of law, 
accountable government and universal values” within Russia and “support 
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia’s neighbors.” And it
 reaffirms that the United States is “building a strategic partnership” 
with India and that “we welcome Brazil’s leadership.”		</p><p>
<strong>The bottom line, argued Ms. Rice, is that the security of the United 
States is inextricably linked to that of people everywhere. “By 
necessity, we need to build to the greatest extent possible cooperative 
relationships not only with traditional allies but with new allies,” she
 said.	</strong>	</p><p>
In a speech on Wednesday previewing the strategy, John Brennan, the 
president’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, said it 
offers a sharper definition of America’s struggle with radicalism.		</p><p>
<strong>“Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic,”</strong> he said 
at the <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/center_for_strategic_and_international_studies/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the Center for Strategic and International 
Studies.">Center for Strategic and International 
Studies</a>, a research organization in Washington. “Our enemy is not 
terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to
 live in fear.”		</p><p>
<strong>He also rejected the terms jihad, holy war or Islamists because “there 
is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, 
women and children.” Instead, he said, “our enemy is <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Al Qaeda.">Al Qaeda</a> and
 its terrorist affiliates.”		</strong></p><p>
Mr. Brennan noted the spate of attacks and attempted attacks lately 
inside the United States, some by American citizens or legal residents. 
“This is a new phase to the terrorist threat, no longer limited to 
coordinated, sophisticated 9/11 style attacks but expanding to single 
individuals attempting to carry out relatively unsophisticated attacks,”
 he said. “As our enemy adapts and evolves their tactics, so must we 
constantly adapt and evolve ours, not in a mad rush driven by fear, but 
in a thoughtful and reasoned way.”		</p></blockquote>
 




 

<p></p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>U.S. Is--By Far--The Most Popular Country To Migrate To</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/gallupdgallupevery-day-migrants-leave-their-homelands-behind-for-new-lives-in---other-countries-reflecting-this-desire-rat.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/gallupdgallupevery-day-migrants-leave-their-homelands-behind-for-new-lives-in---other-countries-reflecting-this-desire-rat.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133ee47f840970b</id>
        <published>2010-05-22T10:00:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-22T11:00:37-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Gallup: Every day, migrants leave their homelands behind for new lives in other countries. Reflecting this desire, rather than the reality of the numbers that actually migrate, Gallup finds about 16% of the world&#39;s adults would like to move to another country permanently if they had the chance. This translates to roughly 700 million worldwide -- more than the entire adult population of North and South America combined ... The United States is the top desired destination country for the 700 million adults who would like to relocate permanently to another country. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of these respondents, which translates to more than 165 million adults worldwide, name the United States as their desired future residence. With an additional estimated 45 million saying they would like to move to Canada, Northern America is one of the two most desired regions. The rest of the top desired destination countries (those where...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-Million-Worldwide-Desire-Migrate-Permanently.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup</a>:<br /></span><blockquote><p>Every day, migrants leave their homelands behind for new lives in 
other countries. Reflecting this desire, rather than the reality of the 
numbers that actually migrate, Gallup finds about 16% of the world&#39;s 
adults would like to move to another country permanently if they had the
 chance. This translates to roughly 700 million worldwide -- more than 
the entire adult population of North and South America combined ...
</p><p>The United States is the top desired destination country for the 700 
million adults who would like to relocate permanently to another 
country. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of these respondents, which translates
 to more than 165 million adults worldwide, name the United States as 
their desired future residence. With an additional estimated 45 million 
saying they would like to move to Canada, Northern America is one of the
 two most desired regions.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img alt="ldes48nkd0e" border="0" height="370" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ldes48nkd0e-ircytvwaiw.gif" width="600" /></p>
<p>The rest of the top desired destination countries (those where an 
estimated 25 million or more adults would like to go) are predominantly 
European. Forty-five million adults who would like to move name the 
United Kingdom or France as their desired destination, while 35 million 
would like to go to Spain and 25 million would like to relocate to 
Germany. Thirty million name Saudi Arabia and 25 million name Australia.</p>
<p>Roughly 210 million adults around the world would like to move to a 
country in the European Union, which is similar to the estimated number 
who would like to move to Northern America. However, about half of the 
estimated 80 million adults who live in the EU and would like to move 
permanently to another country would like to move to another country <em>within</em>
 the EU -- the highest desired intra-regional migration rate in the 
world.</p>
</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Compare The Financial Overhaul Bills &amp; See Who Won Or Lost</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/compare-the-financial-overhaul-bills.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/compare-the-financial-overhaul-bills.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133ee47e66b970b</id>
        <published>2010-05-22T08:30:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-22T10:11:31-04:00</updated>
        <summary>The Senate on Thursday approved a far-reaching financial regulatory bill, 59 to 39. Democratic Congressional leaders and the Obama administration must now reconcile it with the House bill that was passed in December. Read the news article. View a graphic that compares the bills. See which companies/industries are the winners and which the losers.</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economic recovery" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><span class="summary" style="font-family: Verdana;">The Senate on Thursday approved a far-reaching 
financial regulatory bill, 59 to 39. Democratic Congressional leaders 
and the Obama administration must now reconcile it with the House bill 
that was passed in December. </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/20/business/20100520-regulation-graphic.html" target="_blank"><span class="noWrap refer" style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/business/21regulate.html">Read</a>
 the news article. </span></a></p><p><span class="summary" style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/20/business/20100520-regulation-graphic.html" target="_blank">View</a> a graphic that compares the bills.&#0160;</span><span class="noWrap refer" style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052104874.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank"><br /></a></span></p><p><span class="noWrap refer" style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052104874.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">See</a> which companies/industries are the winners and which the losers.<br /></span></p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Obama Begins To Seize The Day ... By Promoting Centrist Energy Policies</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/obama-begins-to-seize-the-day-by-promoting-centrist-energy-policies.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/obama-begins-to-seize-the-day-by-promoting-centrist-energy-policies.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133ee47d966970b</id>
        <published>2010-05-22T08:00:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-22T09:50:58-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Tom Friedman will not be happy. A NY Times analysis: There is very little upside for the Obama administration in the ecological and economic disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The government has come under sharp criticism for underestimating the size of the discharge and for coddling the oil industry for too long. Until now, perhaps distracted by the critics or because it did not appear that his overall energy agenda was moving forward, President Obama has not made use of the disaster in an overtly political way. But on Friday — a full month after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon — he made clear that he also was not going to let the moment go to waste, announcing plans to impose stricter fuel-efficiency and emissions standards on cars and, for the first time, on medium- and heavy-duty trucks. He said the oil gushing from the crippled BP...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Energy" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Environment" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/opinion/19friedman.html?src=me&amp;ref=opinion" target="_blank">Tom Friedman</a> will not be happy. A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/science/earth/22assess.html?ref=us" target="_blank">NY Times</a> analysis:</p><blockquote><p>There is very little upside for 
the Obama administration in the ecological and economic disaster 
unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The government has come under sharp 
criticism for underestimating the size of the discharge and for coddling
 the <a class="meta-classifier" href="http://www.nytimes.com/info/oil/?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about oil.">oil</a> 
industry for too long.</p><p>Until now, perhaps distracted by the critics or because it did not 
appear that his overall energy agenda was moving forward, <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Barack Obama.">President 
Obama</a> has not made use of the disaster in an overtly political way.	
	</p><p>
But on Friday — a full month after the explosion on the Deepwater 
Horizon — he made clear that he also was not going to let the moment 
go to waste, announcing plans to impose stricter fuel-efficiency and 
emissions standards on cars and, for the first time, on medium- and 
heavy-duty trucks.		</p><p>
He said the oil gushing from the crippled BP well in the gulf 
highlighted the need to move away from dirty and dangerous fossil fuels 
toward a cleaner energy future. And he signaled that he intended to use 
the accident to continue to push his broader policy priorities, 
including legislation that would put a price on climate-altering 
emissions and increased federal aid for American industries in the 
global race to dominate the clean energy technology sector.		</p><p>
“We know that our dependence on foreign oil endangers our security and 
our economy,” Mr. Obama said in a Rose Garden announcement. “And the 
disaster in the gulf only underscores that even as we pursue domestic 
production to reduce our reliance on imported oil, our long-term 
security depends on the development of alternative sources of fuel and 
new transportation technologies.”		</p><p>
Put more starkly: the road Mr. Obama is sending us on to his dreamed-of 
carbon-free future will be slick with oil for many years to come.		</p><p>
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards">
</a></p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-fuel-efficiency-standards">Friday’s
 announcement</a> extended rules on exhaust reduction for cars and 
light-duty trucks and proposed new greenhouse gas pollution limits for 
medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The new rules build on an agreement the
 administration reached with automakers a year ago. Mr. Obama was able 
to broker that deal by taking advantage of existing executive authority 
and the near-desperate desire of the struggling auto companies for a 
single national fuel-efficiency standard, rather than a patchwork of 
conflicting state and federal rules.		</p><p>
Mr. Obama faces a much steeper path to an agreement limiting carbon 
dioxide emissions from other sectors of the economy, including electric 
power companies and heavy manufacturers. That will require a negotiated 
deal with a variety of regulation-averse industries like coal and oil 
and the lawmakers who represent their interests.		</p><p>
There is no Rose Garden ceremony in sight for that fundamental remaking 
of the American economy.		</p><p>
There are limits to what the president can do unilaterally, and, as the 
president himself has acknowledged, getting 60 votes to pass a sweeping 
energy bill through the Senate will require significant concessions on 
nuclear power, coal and, yes, <a class="meta-classifier" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/offshore_drilling_and_exploration/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about offshore drilling and exploration.">offshore drilling</a>.		</p><p>
“This is a small but commendable step,” said Michael Levi, an energy and
 <a class="meta-classifier" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="Recent and archival news about global warming.">climate change</a> expert at the <a class="meta-org" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/council_on_foreign_relations/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about Council on Foreign Relations">Council on Foreign Relations</a>. “The president should
 indeed be using the moment to focus people on the need to reduce U.S. 
dependence on oil, foreign and domestic,” he wrote in an e-mail message.
		</p><p>
“Big political moves, though, will require more,” Mr. Levi continued. 
“They will require sustained and focused advocacy from the president. 
People will not make any intuitive link between the tragedy in the gulf 
and legislation that raises electricity prices. For most Americans, the <a class="meta-classifier" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/oil_spills/gulf_of_mexico_2010/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about oil spills.">oil 
spill</a> is tragic, but jobs and the economy are still the clear number
 one. The oil spill can help focus people’s attention, but it will take 
something else to close the deal.”		</p><p>
The president’s Friday announcement came against a backdrop of an 
administration scrambling to both respond to the crisis in the gulf and 
to appear to be responding to the crisis. There has been a daily 
drumbeat of press releases, conference calls, denunciations of BP and 
announcements of investigations and reorganizations intended to showcase
 the vigor of the government’s action.		</p><p>
Yet even as the oil has continued to gush beneath the gulf, the 
administration has not been shy about acknowledging the reality that a 
third of domestically produced crude oil comes from offshore and that 
undersea reserves will continue to be an important source of American 
energy for decades. On March 31, Mr. Obama announced a significant 
expansion of offshore oil development, just three weeks before the 
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, a policy shift long in the 
making and unfortunate in the timing.		</p><p>
Interior Secretary <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/ken_salazar/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Ken Salazar.">Ken Salazar</a>,
 charged with both leasing the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling and 
protecting it from the ravages of oil development, reminded Congress 
this week that the administration was pursuing what he called a 
“balanced” energy strategy for the future that included substantial and 
expanded offshore exploration.		</p><p>
“Offshore development is a necessary part of that future,” Mr. Salazar 
told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week. But he
 emphasized that new safety and environmental safeguards would have to 
be put in place before extensive new drilling was permitted.		</p><p>
Thus the president’s options are both defined and limited. There will be
 more offshore drilling, but the rules of the game have now changed.		</p><p>
As Mr. Obama put in on March 31, “Given our energy needs, in order to 
sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our businesses 
competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel
 even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable homegrown 
energy.”		</p></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Senate Passes Financial Overhaul Giving &quot;Obama his second major legislative victory of the year&quot;</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/senate-passes-financial-overhaul-giving-obama-his-second-major-legislative-victory-of-the-year.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/senate-passes-financial-overhaul-giving-obama-his-second-major-legislative-victory-of-the-year.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133ee261139970b</id>
        <published>2010-05-21T07:34:01-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-21T07:35:00-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Wash Post: The Senate approved far-reaching new financial rules on Thursday aimed at preventing the risky behavior and regulatory failures that brought the economy to the brink of collapse two years ago and cost millions of Americans their jobs and savings. The final vote, just after 8:30 p.m., was 59 to 39. Four Republicans voted in favor of the bill, and two Democrats opposed it. &quot;When this bill becomes law, the joy ride on Wall Street will come to a screeching halt,&quot; Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said after the vote. The 1,500-page measure, shepherded through the Senate by Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the banking committee, seeks to reshape both Washington and Wall Street. In providing for the most profound remaking of financial regulations since the Great Depression, the legislation would create a new consumer-protection watchdog housed at the Federal Reserve to prevent abuse in mortgage, auto...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003503.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">Wash Post</a>:</p><blockquote><p>
The Senate approved far-reaching new financial rules on Thursday aimed 
at preventing the risky behavior and regulatory failures that brought 
the economy to the brink of collapse two years ago and cost millions of 
Americans their jobs and savings.
</p>


<script>
&lt;!--
var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );
document.write(&#39;&lt;s\cript src=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003503_StoryJs.js?&#39;+rn+&#39;&quot;&gt;&lt;/s\cript&gt;&#39;) ;
// --&gt;
</script><script src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003503_StoryJs.js?8374434251"></script>
<div id="body_after_content_column">
<p>
The final vote, just after 8:30 p.m., was 59 to 39. Four Republicans 
voted in favor of the bill, and two Democrats opposed it.
</p>
<p>
&quot;When this bill becomes law, the joy ride on Wall Street will come to a 
screeching halt,&quot; Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said after the 
vote.
</p>
<p>
The 1,500-page measure, shepherded through the Senate by Christopher J. 
Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the banking committee, seeks to reshape both
 Washington and Wall Street.
</p>
<p>
In providing for the most profound remaking of financial regulations 
since the Great Depression, the legislation would create a new 
consumer-protection watchdog housed at the Federal Reserve to prevent 
abuse in mortgage, auto and credit card lending. It also would give the 
government power to wind down large failing financial firms and set up a
 council of federal overseers to police the financial landscape for 
risks to the global economy. Moreover, the legislation would establish 
oversight of the vast market in financial instruments known as 
derivatives, impose new restrictions on credit rating agencies and give 
shareholders a say in corporate affairs.
</p>
<p>
Passage of the measure marks a milestone in President Obama&#39;s efforts to
 tackle the financial abuse and excess that contributed to the crisis 
and prevent another meltdown.</p><p>The vote gives Obama his second major legislative victory of the year, 
following the March passage of his landmark health-care bill. &quot;Our goal 
is not to punish the banks,&quot; he said in the White House Rose Garden 
hours before the final vote, &quot;but to protect the larger economy and the 
American people from the kind of upheavals that we&#39;ve seen in the past 
few years.&quot;
</p>
<p>
The bill now appears headed to a House-Senate conference committee, 
where a handful of lawmakers will work to resolve differences between 
the two chambers. House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank 
(D-Mass.) said he aims to wrap up that task in short order.
</p>
<p>
&quot;I think the president will sign this bill before the Fourth of July,&quot; 
he said.
</p>
<p>
Thursday&#39;s vote hinged in large part on Democrats&#39; ability to win over 
key Republicans.
</p>
<p>
Leaders successfully courted GOP Sens. Olympia J. Snowe and Susan 
Collins, both of Maine, in part by including in the final bill 
provisions that each wanted. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) also 
backed the bill. Equally critical was the last-minute push to win over 
Scott Brown (R), the Senate&#39;s newest member.
</p>
<p>
Brown&#39;s vote was secured partly through the help of Frank, his 
Massachusetts colleague. In an interview, Frank said Brown called him 
Wednesday evening as Frank was working out on the elliptical machine in 
the House gym. Brown wanted assurances that Frank would fight in 
conference to preserve provisions in the House bill that protect large 
and solvent Massachusetts institutions, such as State Street and 
Fidelity, from &quot;unnecessary intrusion&quot; by government regulators. Over 
the next 24 hours, Frank sent Senate leaders two letters stating his 
position, and Brown indicated that &quot;on that basis, he could vote for 
cloture,&quot; Frank said.<span style="font-family: Verdana;"> <br /></span></p><p>
Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.) 
voted against the legislation because they said parts of it did not go 
far enough.
</p>


<script>
&lt;!--
var rn = ( Math.round( Math.random()*10000000000 ) );
document.write(&#39;&lt;s\cript src=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003503_StoryJs.js?&#39;+rn+&#39;&quot;&gt;&lt;/s\cript&gt;&#39;) ;
// --&gt;
</script><script src="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003503_StoryJs.js?387557724"></script>

<p>
Consumer advocates who pressed for tough regulations said that the bill 
falls short in places but that they are delighted it passed.
</p>
<p>
&quot;No bill that deals with big issues is ever perfect, but the Senate&#39;s 
Wall Street reform package will go a long way toward preventing the 
kinds of abusive practices that brought our economy to its knees,&quot; 
Elizabeth Warren, head of the Congressional Oversight Panel and an 
advocate of the new consumer watchdog, said in a statement.
</p>
<p>
But financial and business groups called the bill flawed. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">&lt;<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003503_2.html?hpid=topnews" target="_blank">Continue reading</a>.&gt;</span></p>
</div></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>What Tuesday&#39;s Elections Really Foretell: The Death Of Bipartisanship</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/what-tuesdays-elections-really-foretell-the-death-of-bipartisanship.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/what-tuesdays-elections-really-foretell-the-death-of-bipartisanship.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330134812b4302970c</id>
        <published>2010-05-20T06:45:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-20T06:45:00-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Republican pollster Glen Bolger&#39;s analysis rings very true to me: Analysts are pointing toward last night’s primary results (the defeat of Arlen Specter, Trey Grayson, and the run-off for Blanche Lincoln) as – when combined with Bob Bennett and Alan Mollohan’s defeats – proof of anti-incumbency and anti-Washington establishment. The top story in the New York Times today is titled “Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents.” And an anti-incumbent mood definitely exists. Voters overwhelmingly disapprove of Congress, and say all incumbents should be turned out. However, with the exception of Mollohan, the nomination defeats (or major troubles at this point for Lincoln), are politicians who were punished for their votes and efforts that strayed from the party line. My polling for Republican incumbents who face challengers show that most are in strong shape to win renomination because they are generally perceived as fighting the Obama-Pelosi efforts to increase the...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;">Republican pollster <a href="http://pos.org/2010/05/the-death-of-independence/" target="_blank">Glen Bolger</a>&#39;s analysis rings very true to me:</p><blockquote><div class="entry">
				<p>Analysts are pointing toward last night’s primary results (the 
defeat of Arlen Specter, Trey Grayson, and the run-off for Blanche 
Lincoln) as – when combined with Bob Bennett and Alan Mollohan’s defeats
 – proof of anti-incumbency and anti-Washington establishment. The top 
story in the New York Times today is titled “Specter Defeat Signals a 
Wave Against Incumbents.”</p>
<p>And an anti-incumbent mood definitely exists. Voters overwhelmingly 
disapprove of Congress, and say all incumbents should be turned out.</p>
<p>However, with the exception of Mollohan, the nomination defeats (or 
major troubles at this point for Lincoln), are politicians who were 
punished for their votes and efforts that strayed from the party line. 
My polling for Republican incumbents who face challengers show that most
 are in strong shape to win renomination because they are generally 
perceived as fighting the Obama-Pelosi efforts to increase the size and 
scope of government, and to spend money in a way that makes previous 
administrations seem Scrooge-like.</p>
<p>Senator Specter’s loss was actually a double defeat. Because he voted
 for the stimulus package, he baited Pat Toomey into switching from the 
Governor’s race to the Senate race. Specter’s poll numbers in a GOP 
primary were far too weak to win a primary – he choose to switch parties
 rather than retire. However, his previous support for George W. Bush 
and other Republicans (and GOP policies) meant Democratic voters 
couldn’t trust him. Specter’s once legendary ability to both annoy and 
please conservatives, moderates, and liberals caught up to him in this 
time of hyper polarization.</p>
<p>Lincoln is facing the same traumas from the left – she is perceived 
by many unions and liberals as not supportive enough of their agenda, 
and thus not worthy of renomination.</p>
<p>An incumbent all but in name, Charlie Crist should be in that same 
body count of politicians who “lost” their party’s nomination for not 
being orthodox enough. His support for the stimulus package made him 
persona non grata among a GOP primary electorate looking for someone to 
fight against the framework of bigger government spending more money.</p>
<p>Not every incumbent is endangered for renomination. However, those 
who face anger from the grassroots, coupled with a challenger candidate 
with the resources to get their message out, have challenges.</p>
<p>This post is not to bemoan the choice of BOTH parties’ primary 
electorate to choose confrontation over compromise. It’s simply 
analyzing the results from a different angle. It’s not just 
anti-incumbency coursing through the veins of the primary electorates, 
but it is supercharged by a distrust of the other side. Like unicorns 
and rainbows, bipartisanship is going to be rarely spotted over the next
 few years.</p>

							</div></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Today&#39;s Tea Party Cartoons</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/todays-tea-party-cartoons.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/todays-tea-party-cartoons.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330134813a855c970c</id>
        <published>2010-05-20T06:32:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-20T06:32:00-04:00</updated>
        <summary></summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Cartoons" />
        
        
<content type="html" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
&lt;div xmlns=&quot;http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml&quot;&gt;&lt;P&gt;
&lt;a style=&quot;display: inline;&quot; href=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134813a8439970c-popup&quot; onclick=&quot;window.open(this.href,&#39;_blank&#39;,&#39;scrollbars=no,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39;); return false&quot;&gt;&lt;img  title=&quot;DavieM20100520_low&quot; style=&quot;border: 1px solid black;&quot; class=&quot;asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330134813a8439970c &quot; alt=&quot;DavieM20100520_low&quot; src=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134813a8439970c-320wi&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 


&lt;a style=&quot;display: inline;&quot; href=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134813a8453970c-popup&quot; onclick=&quot;window.open(this.href,&#39;_blank&#39;,&#39;scrollbars=no,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39;); return false&quot;&gt;&lt;img  title=&quot;Ta100520&quot; style=&quot;border: 1px solid black;&quot; class=&quot;asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330134813a8453970c &quot; alt=&quot;Ta100520&quot; src=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134813a8453970c-320wi&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 


&lt;a style=&quot;display: inline;&quot; href=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133ee09628d970b-popup&quot; onclick=&quot;window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false&quot;&gt;&lt;img  class=&quot;asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330133ee09628d970b &quot; alt=&quot;{51d34332-2a29-4b17-be0a-8fca69c5379d}.gif&quot; src=&quot;http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133ee09628d970b-320wi&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Sex Lives of Supreme Court Justices</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/sex-lives-of-supreme-court-justices.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/sex-lives-of-supreme-court-justices.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133edeef339970b</id>
        <published>2010-05-20T06:28:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-20T06:28:00-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Michael Kinsley nails it: Now that the sex lives of Supreme Court justices have become grist for commentators, we are finally free to discuss a question formerly only whispered about in the shadows: Why does Justice Antonin Scalia, by common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court, have nine children? Is this normal? Or should I say &quot;normal,&quot; as some people choose to define it? Can he represent the views of ordinary Americans when he practices such a minority lifestyle? After all, having nine children is far more unusual in this country than, say, being a lesbian. Let me be clear: the issue is not the fact that Scalia has chosen to have nine children. That is his personal business. The question is whether he is an extremist advocate of the so-called &quot;Nine Children Agenda.&quot; Can he deal open-mindedly with children’s issues when he has so many himself? Can...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Gay Rights" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Judiciary + Supreme Court" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/editor-at-large/view/article/Sex-Lives-of-Supreme-Court-Justices-8" target="_blank">Michael Kinsley</a> nails it:</p><blockquote><p>Now that the sex lives of Supreme Court justices have become grist for 
commentators, we are finally free to discuss a question formerly only 
whispered about in the shadows: Why does Justice Antonin Scalia, by 
common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court, have nine 
children? Is this normal? Or should I say &quot;normal,&quot; as some people 
choose to define it? Can he represent the views of ordinary Americans 
when he practices such a minority lifestyle? After all, having nine 
children is far more unusual in this country than, say, being a lesbian.<br /><br />Let
 me be clear: the issue is not the fact that Scalia has chosen to have 
nine children. That is his personal business. The question is whether he
 is an extremist advocate of the so-called &quot;Nine Children Agenda.&quot; Can 
he deal open-mindedly with children’s issues when he has so many 
himself? Can he persuade his children to recuse themselves when 
appropriate (or, in the vernacular, &quot;Just shut up, will you? I’m trying 
to write an opinion here.&#0160; Sweetheart, could you please come and take 
him…stop climbing up my leg…watch it with that glass of water, buddy…no,
 that’s some condemned prisoner’s brief that daddy has to reject, so 
don’t …would somebody please take this kid…LOOK OUT for the… Jesus H. 
Christ, how am I supposed to get any work done&quot;?).<br /><br />Speculation is
 already rampant about why Scalia chose nine children over a more 
conventional lifestyle. Is he a sex maniac? That suspicion naturally 
arises. But perhaps once he started, he just never got around to 
stopping. Or maybe he just likes children. In recent days, Scalia’s 
friends have rushed to his defense, going out of their way to portray 
him as a model of sexual restraint.&#0160; &quot;Every Friday a bunch of us used to
 go down to this bar to pick up women,&quot; one of his college roommates 
recalls. &quot;We’d always ask Nino if he wanted to join us, but he always 
said he was too busy studying. Frankly, we thought he was gay.&quot;</p></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Welcome To Arizona (cartoon)</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/welcome-to-arizona-cartoon.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/welcome-to-arizona-cartoon.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330134813a869f970c</id>
        <published>2010-05-20T06:15:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-20T06:15:00-04:00</updated>
        <summary></summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Abortion" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Fear Mongering" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Race" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">&#0160;
<a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134813a85db970c-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="BenneC20100520_low" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330134813a85db970c " src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330134813a85db970c-320wi" /></a> <br /></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Don&#39;t Believe The CW On Last Night&#39;s Elections</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/dont-believe-the-cw-on-last-nights-election.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/dont-believe-the-cw-on-last-nights-election.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330133edeed6cc970b</id>
        <published>2010-05-19T06:58:37-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-19T07:08:39-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Nate Silver (make sure you read Nate&#39;s comments about the most important race of the night at the end, the one with truly November impacting implications): There were five races that we were tracking closely over the course of the evening -- and I&#39;ve already seen analysts drawing flimsy conclusions from each of them. Pennsylvania -- Democratic Senate primary The results: Joe Sestak defeats Arlen Specter, 54-46. The conventional wisdom: This was a stunning repudiation of the Democratic establishment. The reality: Certainly, Specter had the support of a lot of Very Important People, including the President, many unions, and the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. But in many cases, it seemed perfunctory. The White House elected not to send either Barack Obama or Joe Biden to the state in the closing days. The unions were nominally supporting Specter, but were concentrating their cash in Arkansas and elsewhere. As Sestak began...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Elections: Other" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/what-tuesday-really-meant.html" target="_blank">Nate Silver</a> (make sure you read Nate&#39;s comments about the most important race of the night at the end, the one with truly November impacting implications):</p><blockquote><p>There were five races that we were tracking closely over the course of 
the evening -- and I&#39;ve already seen analysts drawing flimsy conclusions
 from each of them.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #3333ff;">Pennsylvania 
-- Democratic Senate primary</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The results:</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Joe Sestak</span> defeats <span style="font-weight: bold;">Arlen
 Specter</span>, 54-46.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The 
conventional wisdom:</span> This was a stunning repudiation of the 
Democratic establishment.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The 
reality:</span> Certainly, Specter had the support of a lot of Very 
Important People, including the President, many unions, and the mayors 
of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. But in many cases, it seemed 
perfunctory. The White House elected not to send either Barack Obama or
 Joe Biden to the state in the closing days. The unions were nominally 
supporting Specter, but were concentrating their cash in Arkansas and 
elsewhere. As Sestak <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/white-house-case-for-specter-support.html">began
 to emerge as the superior general election candidate</a>, their support
 grew even more tepid. This was an <span style="font-style: italic;">important</span>
 win, and the netroots progressives who championed Sestak&#39;s campaign 
deserve all the credit in the world. But something can be <span style="font-style: italic;">dramatic</span> without being especially <span style="font-style: italic;">surprising</span>. Joe Sestak is a 
mainline, lunchpail Democrat who defeated a very unpopular 
Republican-turned-Democrat who ran an awful campaign and who 
Pennsylvania Democrats weren&#39;t used to punching their ticket for. No 
huge shock there.<span id="fullpost" style="display: inline;"><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #ff0000;">Kentucky -- Republican Senate primary</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #ff0000;"><br /></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The results:</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Rand Paul</span> defeats <span style="font-weight: bold;">Trey Grayson</span>, 59-35.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The conventional wisdom:</span> This was a 
stunning repudiation of the Republican establishment.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The reality:</span> Because of Paul&#39;s 
impressive 24-point margin of victory, almost any explanation you might 
proffer probably contains some element of truth. But for all his 
libertarian and tea-party dressing, Paul <a href="http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/">in fact ran on a fairly 
conventional, conservative platform</a>. He&#39;s pro-life, anti-gay 
marriage, anti-immigration ... there are only the faintest hints of 
libertarianism here. This was probably a good thing for him because 
Kentucky, which has traditionally been socially conservative but 
economically moderate, is pretty much kitty-corner to the libertarian 
side of the political quadrant. This was actually very clever, in a lot
 of ways -- Paul&#39;s last name (and decision to affiliate himself with the
 tea party) gained him national attention and fundraising and earned 
media, but to people in Kentucky, he ought to have been a very 
comfortable choice who was somewhat more fresh-faced than his rival. The
 branded product beat the generic one.<br /><br />Paul might have some 
trouble in general election, especially after somewhat underwhelming 
turnout in the primary (Democratic turnout was actually 60 percent 
higher, although Democrats enjoy a substantial registration advantage in
 Kentucky). But that&#39;s more because of his inexperience and <a href="http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Campaign-Manager-Rand-Paul-Refused-Graysons-Call/4ySo1O6X002sD-bHqhyNyQ.cspx">standoffishness</a>
 and less because of his platform<span style="font-weight: bold;"> ...<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #3333ff;"></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #3333ff;">Arkansas -- 
Democratic Senate primary</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span>
</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span id="fullpost" style="display: inline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The results:</span> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Blanche 
Lincoln</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold;">Bill Halter</span> 
head to overtime. Lincoln has 45 percent of votes counted so far 
tonight, and Halter 43 percent, but a majority was required to avoid a 
run-off.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The conventional 
wisdom:</span> Lincoln spent too much time hanging out in the middle of 
the road and got run over.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The 
reality:</span> There are parallels between what Rand Paul accomplished 
in Kentucky and what Bill Halter did in Arkansas. As I mentioned 
earlier, Kentucky is not a particularly good state for real 
libertarians. Likewise, Arkansas is not an especially good state for 
netroots progressives, who are mostly <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/in-backing-insurgents-republicans-face.html">white,
 liberal, and college-educated</a>, whereas the state&#39;s <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225969/">Democratic primary 
electorate</a> is 61 percent non-college, 64 percent non-liberal, and 
contains a fair number of black voters.<br /><br />Halter endeared himself 
to national progressives and to unions with his vocal support of the 
public option, giving him money, momentum and media attention. But to 
Arkansasans, he was a relatively familiar face (as the sitting 
Lieutenant Governor) who ran a relatively non-ideological campaign, 
railing against corruption, bailouts, and wishy-washiness, as 
challengers of all political persuasions are doing. Halter came out 
against cap-and-trade, on the other hand, and tried his best to avoid 
taking a position on contentious social issues.<br /><br />Certainly this is
 a rough environment for moderates, but Lincoln made matters worse by <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/advice-to-blanche-lincoln-speak-softly.html">drawing
 unnecessary attention to herself on health care</a>, and by picking the
 wrong issues to moderate upon: <span style="font-style: italic;">yes on
 TARP, no on the public option</span> is a set of positions that very 
few rank-and-file Democrats (or voters of any kind) will share. And she 
was a very incumbent-y incumbent in an environment where incumbents are 
not popular.<br /><br />Of course, we should not yet be speaking about her 
in the past tense; Lincoln could still win the run-off. But I suspect 
that the presumably superior enthusiasm of Halter&#39;s voters will pay off 
for him in three weeks. Turnout was actually not bad in Arkansas -- in 
fact, it slightly exceeded turnout in the 2008 Presidential primary -- 
but I don&#39;t know if Blanche Lincoln is the sort of person for whom 
people are going to get up off the couch to vote for twice in one month.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #993399;">Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District -- Special
 election</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The 
results:</span> Mark Critz (<span style="font-weight: bold;">D</span>) 
defeats Tim Burns (<span style="font-weight: bold;">R</span>), 53-45.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The conventional wisdom:</span> A big, 
clutch win for Democrats.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The 
reality:</span> Neither outcome would have been surprising here. The 
polling showed a toss-up, and the district (with a PVI of R+1) is close 
to the national median. <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/benchmarking-pa-12.html">There&#39;s
 a lot of variance in open-seat elections for the House</a>; even in an 
environment like 2008, Democrats would have had about a 30 percent 
chance of losing this seat, and even in one as relatively poor for them 
as 2004, they would have had about a 40 percent chance of winning it.<br /><br />Still,
 the 8-point margin of victory was surprising. As I wrote yesterday 
morning: &quot;It&#39;s really only if one of the candidates wins by 
middle-to-high single digits ... that [PA-12] might tell us something&quot;, 
and Critz met that threshold.<br /><br />Republicans have some decent 
excuses; they may have been harmed by the fact that there was a 
contentious Democratic Senate primary occurring at the same time, for 
instance, and the DCCC seems to have a peculiar knack for winning 
special elections. The Democratic candidate ran against his party&#39;s 
health care bill! But make no mistake: there are garbage cans being 
kicked, and consultants being sworn at, at NRCC headquarters right now. 
 And the Republicans may need to engage in some self-reflection about 
whether <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBqDmechvT4">nationalizing
 the race</a> will be the optimal strategy in each of 50 distinct states
 and 435 distinct Congressional Districts.</span></p></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Reduced Income, Not Increased Spending, Is Driving Up Government Debt</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/reduced-income-not-increased-spending-is-driving-up-government-debt.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/reduced-income-not-increased-spending-is-driving-up-government-debt.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e55026407188330134811fc744970c</id>
        <published>2010-05-19T06:35:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-19T07:16:30-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Ezra Klein: The financial crisis and the resulting recession have coincided with a rapid run-up in American -- and global -- government debt. A lot of people, understandably enough, assume that this is the product of government spending. The stimulus was expensive, and the bank rescues seemed expensive, and we just passed a health-care reform plan, and that must be why the deficit blew up. The IMF, in a new report (pdf), explains that that&#39;s not the case. &quot;Of the almost 39 percentage points of GDP increase in the debt ratio, about two-thirds is explained by revenue weakness and the fall in GDP during 2008-09,&quot; they write. Check out the graph atop this post: New spending isn&#39;t nearly as large a contributor to the increase in debt as reduced revenue is. The mechanism here is simple enough. As Paul Krugman explains it, &quot;the financial crisis has made us permanently poorer,...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Congress" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economic recovery" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Economics + Business" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/" target="_blank">Ezra Klein</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
	<p><img alt="economix-14imfdebt-custom1.jpg" class="mt-image-center " height="395" src="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/economix-14imfdebt-custom1.jpg" style="text-align: center; margin: 0pt;" title="economix-14imfdebt-custom1.jpg" width="451" /></p>

<p>The financial crisis and the resulting recession have coincided with a
 rapid run-up in American -- and global -- government debt. A lot of 
people, understandably enough, assume that this is the product of 
government spending. The stimulus was expensive, and the bank rescues 
seemed expensive, and we just passed a health-care reform plan, and that
 must be why the deficit blew up.</p>

<p>The IMF, in a <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fm/2010/fm1001.pdf">new report</a>
 (pdf), explains that that&#39;s not the case. &quot;Of the almost 39 percentage 
points of GDP increase in the debt ratio, about two-thirds is explained 
by revenue weakness and the fall in GDP during 2008-09,&quot; they write. 
Check out the graph atop this post: New spending isn&#39;t nearly as large a
 contributor to the increase in debt as reduced revenue is.</p>

<p>The mechanism here is simple enough. As Paul Krugman <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/misimformation/">explains
 it</a>, &quot;the financial crisis has made us permanently poorer, which 
among other things reduces revenue.&quot; Recessions reduce income, reducing 
income reduces taxable income, and that in turn reduces the revenue that
 normally keeps governments out of debt. </p>

This isn&#39;t just an interesting explanatory point, though. It&#39;s a 
reminder that the most important thing we can do to reduce the deficit 
in the long run is to do whatever it takes to get economic growth back 
up to speed. The more willing we are to accept permanently higher 
unemployment and permanently lower growth, the harder it&#39;s going to be 
to get our debt under control.
</blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Sunday Afternoon Relaxation</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/sunday-afternoon-relaxation.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/sunday-afternoon-relaxation.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013480e93df2970c</id>
        <published>2010-05-16T12:05:08-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-16T12:05:08-04:00</updated>
        <summary>New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Abortion" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Humor" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Women" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><object height="430" width="480"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://media.theonion.com/flash/video/onn_player.swf?videoid=14393&amp;embedded=true&amp;host=http://www.theonion.com" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="videoid=14393&amp;embedded=true&amp;host=http://www.theonion.com" height="430" src="http://media.theonion.com/flash/video/onn_player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" wmode="transparent" /></object><br /><a href="http://www.theonion.com/video/new-law-requires-women-to-name-baby-paint-nursery,14393/">New Law Requires Women To Name Baby, Paint Nursery Before Getting Abortion</a></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>May 8, 2010: The Day The Republican Party Began To &quot;Crack Up&quot;</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/may-8-2010-the-day-the-republican-party-began-to-crack-up.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/may-8-2010-the-day-the-republican-party-began-to-crack-up.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013480e8f6ce970c</id>
        <published>2010-05-16T10:35:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-16T12:13:42-04:00</updated>
        <summary>Dana Milbank: Future historians tracing the crackup of the Republican Party may well look to May 8, 2010, as an inflection point. That was the day, as is now well known, that Sen. Robert Bennett, who took the conservative position 84 percent of the time over his career, was deemed not conservative enough by fellow Utah Republicans and booted out of the primary. Less well known, but equally ominous, is what happened that same day, 2,500 miles east in Maine. There, the state Republican Party chucked its platform -- a sensible New England mix of free-market economics and conservation -- and adopted a manifesto of insanity: abolishing the Federal Reserve, calling global warming a &quot;myth,&quot; sealing the border, and, as a final plank, fighting &quot;efforts to create a one world government.&quot; One world government? Do our friends Down East fear an invasion from the Canadian maritime provinces? A Viking flotilla...</summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".GOP/Conservatives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Race" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Society" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p style="font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051402450.html" target="_blank">Dana Milbank</a>:</p><blockquote><p>
Future historians tracing the crackup of the Republican Party may well 
look to May 8, 2010, as an inflection point.
</p>

<p>
That was the day, as is now well known, that Sen. Robert Bennett, who 
took the conservative position 84 percent of the time over his career, 
was deemed not conservative enough by fellow Utah Republicans and <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/sad_to_see_bob_bennett_lose.html">booted out of the primary</a>.
</p>
<p>

<a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013480e94190970c-popup" onclick="window.open(this.href,&#39;_blank&#39;,&#39;scrollbars=no,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39;); return false" style="float: right;"><img alt="StreeM20100516_low" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e5502640718833013480e94190970c " src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013480e94190970c-320wi" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px 5px; border: 1px solid black;" title="StreeM20100516_low" /></a> Less well known, but equally ominous, is what happened that same day, 
2,500 miles east in Maine. There, the state Republican Party chucked its
 platform -- a sensible New England mix of free-market economics and 
conservation -- and adopted a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/www.mainegop.com/PlatformMission.aspx">manifesto of insanity</a>: abolishing the Federal Reserve, 
calling global warming a &quot;myth,&quot; sealing the border, and, as a final 
plank, fighting &quot;efforts to create a one world government.&quot;
</p>
<p>
One world government? Do our friends Down East fear an invasion from the
 Canadian maritime provinces? A Viking flotilla coming from Iceland 
under cover of volcanic ash?
</p>
<p>
I was pondering this mystery while on the elliptical machine this week 
and watching Glenn Beck (I find he increases my heart rate), when I 
heard him inform his viewers that &quot;they&quot; -- President Obama and friends 
-- &quot;are creating a global governance structure.&quot;
</p>
<p>
<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592785,00.html">&quot;Social
 and ecological justice and all of this bullcrap,&quot; Beck told his 
viewers,</a> &quot;is man&#39;s work for a global government.&quot; Beck -- who is 
second in popularity only to Sarah Palin among the type of Tea Party 
activists who <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/maines_new_republican_party_pl.html">hijacked the Maine GOP</a> -- tossed out phrases such as 
&quot;global standards&quot; and &quot;global bank tax&quot; -- all part of a conspiracy by 
the &quot;global government people.&quot; He further provided the news that &quot;Jesus
 doesn&#39;t want a cap-and-trade system.&quot;
</p>
<p>
Not once did Beck refer to the big news events of the day, such as 
Afghan President Hamid Karzai&#39;s visit to the White House or the Gulf of 
Mexico oil spill. It was as if he had created a parallel universe for 
his 2-million-plus viewers. Similarly, on Monday, when Obama nominated 
Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Beck omitted that news in favor of a 
fanciful administration attempt to restore the broadcast Fairness 
Doctrine. On Tuesday, USA Today had the headline <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm">&quot;Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950&quot;</a> (the 
nonpartisan Tax Foundation put it at <a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/26292.html">1959</a>);
 Beck skipped that, instead saying he doesn&#39;t want changes to the 
Internet &quot;at least until people aren&#39;t worshipping Satan, you know, in 
office.&quot; (<a href="http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201005100067">Beck
 maintained later</a> that he really wasn&#39;t &quot;saying that Obama was a 
Satan worshipper.&quot;)</p><p>Beck justifiably credited his viewers for &quot;what happened to Bob Bennett 
in Utah.&quot; He warned: &quot;People in Washington, you should be terrified.&quot;
</p>
<p>
We <em>should</em> be terrified -- particularly the Republicans, whose 
party is turning into this One-World-Government, Obama-worships-Satan, 
Jesus-opposes-climate-bill mélange. And Beck is only part of the 
trouble. Consider these GOP milestones of recent days:
</p>
<p>

</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>In the Alabama gubernatorial race, <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/Alabama_candidate_denounces_lie_that_he_believes_in_evolution.html">a conservative attack ad charged</a> that a Republican 
gubernatorial candidate &quot;recently said the Bible is only partially 
true.&quot; The outraged candidate reaffirmed his &quot;belief that this world and
 everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God.&quot;
</p><p>
In Utah, just a couple of days after Bennett&#39;s fall, conservative Rep. 
Jason Chaffetz talked about <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmNlYzg5NGZkNDAwOWUxMDljOTFjOTZiNzAxMjY0MTQ=">trying to topple none other than Sen. Orrin Hatch</a> (89 
percent lifetime conservative rating) in 2012.
</p><p>
In Arizona, Sen. John McCain, who once said a fence is the &quot;least 
effective&quot; way to secure the border, continued his fight against a 
conservative primary challenge by releasing an <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/mccain_complete_the_danged_fen.html">ad demanding, &quot;Complete the danged fence.&quot;</a> ...</p><p>The Maine Republicans a week ago rejected a platform proclaiming that 
&quot;we believe that the proper role of government is to help provide for 
those who can not help themselves&quot;; that &quot;we believe in ensuring that 
our children have access to the best educational opportunities&quot;; and 
that &quot;every person&#39;s dignity, freedom, liberty, ability and 
responsibility must be honored.&quot;
</p><p>
In its place, they approved a document invoking the Tea Party movement 
and Ron Paul and insisting that &quot;health care is not a right.&quot; The new 
platform demands: &quot;Eliminate motor voter&quot;; &quot;Reject the UN Treaty on 
Rights of the Child&quot;; &quot;Eliminate the Department of Education&quot;; &quot;Arrest 
and detain . . . anyone here illegally, and then deport, period.&quot;
</p><p>
It was a swap they will come to rue</p></blockquote></div>
</content>



    </entry>
    <entry>
        <title>Kagan Nomination Cartoons</title>
        <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/kagan-nomination-cartoons.html" />
        <link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://www.ablueview.com/2010/05/kagan-nomination-cartoons.html" thr:count="0" />
        <id>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00e5502640718833013480e949d4970c</id>
        <published>2010-05-16T10:30:00-04:00</published>
        <updated>2010-05-16T12:19:05-04:00</updated>
        <summary></summary>
        <author>
            <name>A Blue View</name>
        </author>
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term=".Dems/Progressives" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Barack Obama" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Cartoons" />
        <category scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" term="Judiciary + Supreme Court" />
        
        
<content type="xhtml" xml:lang="en-US" xml:base="http://www.ablueview.com/">
<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>
<a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133edb6f7a5970b-popup" onclick="window.open( this.href, &#39;_blank&#39;, &#39;width=640,height=480,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39; ); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="Supremenomination" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330133edb6f7a5970b " src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133edb6f7a5970b-320wi" /></a></p>

<p>
<a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013480e94844970c-popup" onclick="window.open(this.href,&#39;_blank&#39;,&#39;scrollbars=no,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39;); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="{bf915b51-744f-4723-881f-c63b48d4d278}.gif" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e5502640718833013480e94844970c " src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5502640718833013480e94844970c-320wi" style="border: 1px solid black;" title="{bf915b51-744f-4723-881f-c63b48d4d278}.gif" /></a> 


<a href="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133edb6f7f3970b-popup" onclick="window.open(this.href,&#39;_blank&#39;,&#39;scrollbars=no,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0&#39;); return false" style="display: inline;"><img alt="{80cb4125-7c1c-4839-9d8a-627dcdc73305}.gif" class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e55026407188330133edb6f7f3970b " src="http://kloris.typepad.com/.a/6a00e55026407188330133edb6f7f3970b-320pi" style="border: 1px solid black;" title="{80cb4125-7c1c-4839-9d8a-627dcdc73305}.gif" /></a> </p></div>
</content>



    </entry>
 
</feed>

<!-- ph=1 -->
