June 16, 2013 at 1:56 am #90820
President Obama Celebrates Father’s Day at The White House
Obama Celebrates Father’s Day Early
The president hosted a White House luncheon with Chicago at-risk teens.
BY Joyce Jones
For young men who’s fathers aren’t around or very engaged in their lives, having the president of the United States as a periodic substitute is probably a pretty big deal. And when he invites you to the White House for lunch, that’s an even bigger deal.
Students and leaders from the Becoming a Man program at Hyde Park Academy in Chicago were among the guests President Obama hosted at a luncheon in the State Dining Room on Friday. The event also was an opportunity for him to continue a national conversation he began in his first term about how important fathers are in nurturing their families and communities.
“It is good to see all of you here, so many young people, so many outstanding dads — a few moms chaperoning,” Obama said. “Obviously, this is a great way for us to celebrate Father’s Day and just to remind ourselves, those of us who are fathers, how lucky we are.”
Being a dad, the president said, “is the best job I’ve got.”
Earlier this year, the president spoke at Hyde Park Academy about the economic proposals outlined in his State of the Union address. He also met with 16 students enrolled in the BAM program in a private session during which they shared with him the personal challenges they face and are working to overcome.
As you spend this weekend with family and friends, don’t forget JJP at TWIB.
Drop those links. Engage in debate. Give us trivia and gossip too.
And always, have a peaceful .June 16, 2013 at 1:57 am #90821
Good Morning, Everyone
Happy Father’s to all the Daddys out there!June 16, 2013 at 10:31 am #90824
now this is some bitchassness right here
GOP to constituents: Questions on ObamaCare? Call Obama
By Elise Viebeck – 06/15/13 12:00 PM ET
Republican lawmakers say they anticipate a flood of questions in the coming months from constituents on the implementation of ObamaCare, which will pose a dilemma for the GOP
People regularly call their representatives for help with Medicare, Social Security and other government programs. Yet, Republicans believe healthcare reform spells doom for the federal budget, private businesses and the U.S. healthcare system. They’re also enormously frustrated that the law has persevered through two elections and a Supreme Court challenge and believe a botched implementation could help build momentum for the repeal movement.
Some Republicans indicated to The Hill they will not assist constituents in navigating the law and obtaining benefits. Others said they would tell people to call the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
“Given that we come from Kansas, it’s much easier to say, ‘Call your former governor,’” said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R), referring to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
“You say, ‘She’s the one. She’s responsible. She was your governor, elected twice, and now you reelected the president, but he picked her.’” Huelskamp said.
“We know how to forward a phone call,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah).
“I have two dedicated staff who deal with nothing, but ObamaCare and immigration problems,” he added. “I’m sure there will be an uptick in that, but all we can do is pass them back to the Obama administration. The ball’s in their court. They’re responsible for it.”
Government officials are bracing for upheaval as ObamaCare’s biggest provisions take effect in the next seven months.
The law will affect millions of people by offering them benefits through the insurance exchanges and the Medicaid expansion. It also has massive implications for businesses as they comply with a flurry of regulations related to employee health coverage.
Polls have shown that the public is largely ignorant about the law and how it operates. This dynamic adds to the task facing the Obama administration and its supporters before the fall, when enrollment is scheduled to begin.
It also means that congressional offices — Republican and Democratic— are likely to face a slew of calls from people learning about their benefits for the first time.
This influx of constituent questions could start as early as next week, as supporters of the law kick off their Get Covered America enrollment campaign.
But interest is likely to be most intense throughout the fall and spring, as the uninsured navigate their options and after coverage kicks in on Jan. 1, 2014.
A few GOP lawmakers said they are not preparing for a lot of calls, or haven’t thought about what to do.
GOP leaders have not issued detailed instructions to their members on how to handle ObamaCare inquiries.
“We encourage them to provide the best constituent services possible,” said a House leadership aide, who added that “members determine what is best for their districts.”
“They have their own methodologies, and we respect that,” the staffer said.
House leaders have organized a group known as HOAP — the House ObamaCare Accountability Project — to organize a messaging strategy against the law that will trickle down to constituents.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/305777-gop-to-constituents-questions-on-obamacare-call-obama#ixzz2WODj0AVR
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on FacebookJune 16, 2013 at 10:32 am #90825
Georgia Republican: ‘People of color are being paid by the government’
By David Ferguson
Saturday, June 15, 2013 13:44 EDT
A speaker at this week’s conservative Faith And Freedom Coalition Conference said on Friday that the Republican Party struggles to attract minority voters because they’re “being paid by the government” in benefits. According to Think Progress, Rich Thompson, founder of the “school choice” advocacy group “100 Dads” made the remarks during a panel about the Republican Party’s attempts to draw in new coalitions of nonwhite voters.
“Right now an extremely disproportionate number of people of color are being paid by the government. Therein lies a serious problem,” said Thompson at the conference’s panel entitled “The True Rainbow Coalition: Building an Organization in Minority Faith Communities.”
“We can’t just cut everybody off instantaneously,” he continued. “But we have to have a serious conversation about how we get people to being ‘producers’ and not ‘receivers.’ So I thank you for coming this evening to find out how we can better message to people of the black community, the Latino community, and the Asian community.”
In fact, the New York Times reported that of U.S. citizens on food stamps were three times more likely to be white than black in 2012. Of the 36 million people on food stamps, 24 million were white. 8 million were black and 6 million were hispanic or another race. Nevertheless, Republicans have long used the specter of black welfare cheats to frighten other whites into cutting social programs.June 16, 2013 at 10:55 am #90826
What are ‘Liberals,’ What are ‘Progressives,’ and Why the Difference Matters
By: Crissie Brown
Jun. 15th, 2013
Not all liberals are progressive, and not all progressives are liberal. And when we discuss politics, we must recognize and respect our differences.
Although I’ll cite sources in these essays, I do not presume to declare The One True Definition for either “liberal” or “progressive.” No such definitions exist, as both “liberal” and “progressive” are what philosopher and political scientist W.B. Gallie called contested concepts:
… concepts the proper use of which inevitably involves endless disputes about their proper uses on the part of their users [that] cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone.
Simply, people disagree about what “liberal” and “progressive” mean, and none of us can prove that his or hers is The One True Definition. As a result, we often avoid the discussion entirely, assuming others understand a contested concept to mean what we intend, while they assume we understand those words to mean what they intend. More recently, cognitive linguists have explored contested concepts in the context of frame semantics:
The crucial intuition of frame semantics is that words are defined relative to a frame, and highlight certain other concepts and structures of the frame. The word “cost”, for example, is defined relative to the COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION frame, and highlights the PRICE paid by the BUYER for the GOODS. [Original emphasis.]
That is, we define words relative to other ideas that come to mind when we hear, read, or think about them. Those other ideas form the “frame” within which we find meaning for a word. Both “liberal” and “progressive” exist in the POLITICS frame and – in the U.S. – both imply opposition to “conservative.” Add to that the fact that conservatives have for decades used “liberal” as an epithet, and many people have come to believe that “progressive” is simply a euphemism for “liberal.” But those two terms have different histories and hallmarks.
Not all liberals are progressive
Liberalism is a set of ideals grounded in the social contract (rule by consent of the governed for mutual benefit), both negative liberty (freedom from unreasonable interference) and positive liberty (access to basic resources to pursue one’s goals), and both equality in law (legal rights and privileges), and equality of opportunity (social mobility). Liberalism is an ideology, and over three hundred years of history have shown that it can be robust and successful. Indeed the past three centuries can reasonably be summarized as the rise and spread of liberal ideals.
Yet liberal governments have at times stumbled. Sometimes they stumbled because they did not live up to their ideals, as seen in America’s struggle with slavery and then Jim Crow, and European efforts to reconcile liberalism with colonialism. And sometimes liberal governments stumbled because idealism led to excesses, such as the French Revolution and more recent attempts to “spread democracy.”
In short, it’s not enough to hold and celebrate liberal ideals. We must also put them into action, and recognize that implementing an ideal requires weighing the difficulties of specific challenges and searching for solutions that work.
Not all progressives are liberal
Progressivism is a problem-solving method. Historians generally date Progressive Era as 1890-1920, but the progressive method did not end with that date. The progressive method is not an ideology but a pragmatic search for solutions that work, grounded in a healthy skepticism. Thus, for example, Prohibition was a progressive project and was based on the social science of that era, but “The Great Experiment” of Prohibition failed in practice and progressives also worked for its repeal. The 20th century can reasonably be summarized as the rise and spread of the progressive method.
Yet, again, progressive governments have at times stumbled. Some have applied the progressive method toward horrific, illiberal ends, such as the Tuskegee Experiment, the Holocaust, and Project MK-ULTRA. And the progressive method is susceptible to the paralysis of analysis, to public demands for boldness and confidence, and to being out-spun by voices who don’t need data to justify criticism.
In short, it’s not enough to practice the progressive method. That method must be applied toward goals grounded in liberal ideals, and it we must recognize when it’s time to “fish or cut bait” and be willing to advocate the best solutions we can find with confidence, even as we recognize that we will need to adapt to new information and changing conditions.June 16, 2013 at 11:00 am #90827
Oprah Winfrey Network tonight
Berry Gordy, 9 pm EST : Master Class
Diahann Carroll, 10 pm EST: Master ClassJune 16, 2013 at 11:40 am #90828
the entire post is very informative
Rise and Shine….Happy Father’s Day!
By utaustinliberal 92 Comments
A president is often referred to as the father of the country. He nurtures it, guides it in the right direction, lays down policies that will not only help the country in the interim, but also ten, twenty, thirty years down the line. When his term is done, (the formative years of a child’s life) the country has either regressed or grown in leaps and bounds. In that vein, let’s take a look at how far America has progressed under Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States.
Passed the Stimulus: The Bush-led Great Recession was costing the economy nearly 800,000 jobs per month by the time President Obama took office. Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing. The economy has now created over 6 million jobs.
He oversaw the completion of the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan and also leaned on the banks and others, and recovered virtually all of the bail-out money.
Oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years.
Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.
He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan.
Along with Democrats, and almost no Republicans, implemented an auto industry rescue plan that immediately saved as many as 1 million jobs. This resulted in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world.
Signed the Democratic-sponsored Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system, and create a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown.
Signed the Democratic-sponsored Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices.
Through the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, he and Congressional Democrats provided tax credits to first-time home buyers, which helped the U.S. housing market recovery.
Initiated a $15 billion plan designed to encourage increased lending to small businesses.
Played a lead role in getting the G-20 Summit to commit to a $1.1 trillion deal to combat the global financial crisis.
Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, saved at least 300,000 education jobs, such as teachers, principals, librarians, and counselors that would have otherwise been lost.June 16, 2013 at 3:01 pm #90833
I had a talk with my apolitical Sistafriend this morning.
Of course, the discussion turned to Snowden.
Since when did giving up US Government secrets to a foreign country mean anything other than TREASON?
Did we change the definition of TREASON?
Just what did these folks think the NSA and CIA do all day long?
The NSA isn’t interested in our conversation….but, the moment you receive a call from overseas from a suspected terrorist…then hell …yeah, they’re gonna be all up in your business…
You know, I joke about Obama, but if there’s one thing that he takes seriously, it’s national security. And any muthafucka who thinks they’re gonna make Obama look bad in terms of national security….well, you betta ask somebody.
For all those who call this traitor a ‘ hero’…here’s the picture of your hero WHEN, not if, Obama gets his ass..
He’s gonna be coming off an airplane in D.C., in shackles and a Hannibal Lecter mask.
Of course, we got around to a WHITE high-school dropout getting:
a six figure job
with a security clearance.
When they gonna start profiling these White boys?
You know, if you gave a Black high–school dropout a six figure salary,
not only would you not have to EVER worry about him opening his mouth to any reporter, let alone betraying this country….
He’d be wearing a little flag pin, not only on the suit he wore to work..
but on his workout clothes…yeah, on that basketball court, zoom in on his t-shirt..there’s the flag pin…
it’d even be on his pajamas at night.
BWA HA HA AH AHA HA HAJune 16, 2013 at 3:05 pm #90834June 16, 2013 at 3:10 pm #90835
for all the Daddy’s out there who tried doing their little girl’s hair:June 16, 2013 at 3:55 pm #90836June 16, 2013 at 3:55 pm #90837June 16, 2013 at 3:58 pm #90838
The character called Barack Obama”
There are a lot of people who are trying to get in President Obama’s head these days to interpret his motivation for deciding to supply the Syrian rebels with small arms and ammunitions. As is most often the case Maureen Dowd demonstrates the most noxious element of that genre. Of course she, like some others, thinks the “boy” Barry needed to be “schooled” by the man Clinton (yes, its just that obnoxious).
Folks who aren’t into assuming these kinds of decisions resemble a sixth grade playground altercation know that when it comes to Syria – there are no good options. And so I began to think about what I knew about how the President tends to handle those kinds of decisions.
I immediately thought of the article by Michael Lewis published in Vanity Fair back in October 2012 titled Obama’s Way. At one point in the article, President Obama comments on the kind of analysis people like Dowd are engaged in.
One of the things you realize fairly quickly in this job is that there is a character people see out there called Barack Obama. That’s not you. Whether it is good or bad, it is not you.
Lewis’ article is also helpful in describing the President’s decision-making process in a similar situation – whether or not to intervene in Libya. If you’re interested in that, I’d suggest you go read page 6 of this rather lengthy article. To summarize, President Obama had a meeting with all “the principals” on his national security team. They presented him with a binary option of either a no-fly zone (which obviously wouldn’t work) or doing nothing.
The idea was that the people in the meeting would debate the merits of each, but Obama surprised the room by rejecting the premise of the meeting. “He instantly went off the road map,” recalls one eyewitness. “He asked, ‘Would a no-fly zone do anything to stop the scenario we just heard?’” After it became clear that it would not, Obama said, “I want to hear from some of the other folks in the room.”
Obama then proceeded to call on every single person for his views, including the most junior people.
And then Lewis makes this fascinating observation:
His desire to hear out junior people is a warm personality trait as much as a cool tactic, of a piece with his desire to play golf with White House cooks rather than with C.E.O.’s and basketball with people who treat him as just another player on the court; to stay home and read a book rather than go to a Washington cocktail party; and to seek out, in any crowd, not the beautiful people but the old people. The man has his status needs, but they are unusual. And he has a tendency, an unthinking first step, to subvert established status structures. After all, he became president.
So if Dowd and others think that President Obama bent to the desires of his “daddy” Clinton on the issue of Syria, I’d suggest they’re reacting out of their own projection onto a “character called Barack Obama.” Reading Lewis will give you a small window into how the man actually operates.June 16, 2013 at 4:10 pm #90839
this is a good post about GG from smartypants:
Is it possible to talk about the inequities in our justice system without mentioning race?
I guess it is if you’re two white guys.
I post this for two reasons. The first is that it is one of the most blatant examples of white privilege I’ve ever seen. Even a blue dog like former Senator Jim Webb made the racial inequities of our current criminal justice system the center piece of his attempts at reform. And if you’re going to talk about our history, how about discussing the decades when – for all practical purposes – there actually was no justice system for African American…lynching via mob violence was adequate.
My second reason is that this is the backdrop from which many of us are viewing Glenn Greenwald’s reporting these days. Its not just that he’s blind to his own white privilege, he regularly ignores whole parts of a story in order to bend it to the agenda he wants to promote. Some of us have been watching him do that for years now. Little by little others are beginning to catch on.June 16, 2013 at 4:14 pm #90840
The Top 5 Exaggerations By Glenn Greenwald On NSA!
I have analyzed Glenn Greenwald’s writing many times over the years. His slick use of rhetorical devices, and his propensity to exaggerate, jump out at me and smack me upside the head when I read his writings. I’ve compiled what I think are the top 5 exaggerations by Glenn Greenwald since the NSA story broke. These are mostly from his appearances, where he apparently feels more free to exaggerate than when he commits something to paper.
Before I get to the list, I feel it is my duty to point out Glenn’s incredible hypocrisy about the right of privacy.
In his one big case as a lawyer, defending the white supremacist Matt Hale, Glenn Greenwald was smacked down by the judge for unethically recording witnesses without their knowledge. Mr. Privacy, Glenn Greenwald, invaded the privacy of witnesses in order to defend that vile creature.
Seizing the opportunity, Defendants’ counsel (Glenn Greenwald) hit the record button and commenced surreptitiously taping the conversation with Dippold. The conversation lasted for some time, covering in detail Dippold’s contacts with Hale, the WCOTC, and various other parties having an interest in the underlying litigation. Dippold never asked if Defendants’ counsel was taping the conversation. Nor did Defendants’ counsel make any representations to Dippold suggesting that the conversation was or [**4] was not being taped. [...]
Approximately one month later, Plaintiff discovered the existence of another tape. This tape pertained to a conversation between Defendants’ counsel and Ian Sigel, another witness in the case. [...]
Plaintiff moved to compel disclosure of these tapes, arguing that this conduct was unethical and therefore vitiated any attorney work-product privilege that may have attached to these recordings, and sought a protective order prohibiting any further recordings. The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel’s conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;” and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating “a lawyer shall not … use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of [another] person.”
Now to the top 5 exaggerations by Glenn Greenwald on the NSA story.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.