Video: Creative kid creates box arcade

Here's a link to the story, but if you have 11 minutes to spare, it's a really cute video story. Thanks to the help of the internet, the young kid made a splash with his creativity. Read the rest of this post...

Gingrich complains about Fox News bias

Priceless.

"I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through," Gingrich said during a meeting with Tea Party leaders in Delaware on Wednesday, according RealClearPolitics.com, which said it was granted access to the private event. "In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we're more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That's just a fact."

The former House Speaker blasted the Roger Ailes-led network, blaming Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of Fox News owner News Corp., for the bias.

"I assume it's because Murdoch at some point [who] said, 'I want Romney,' and so 'fair and balanced' became 'Romney,' " Gingrich said. "And there's no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches Fox."

Read the rest of this post...

"Dead White Men" and a debate over semantics at Kenyon College

One of the lesser-known perks of going to a small college is that the school can set up a system where anyone can send an email that reaches the entire student body - at Kenyon we call it "allstu" - without creating total chaos. This system is generally used as  the go-to resource for finding lost keys, promoting your band's concert or finding a ride to the airport. But, as is the case for any unregulated message board on the Internet, allstu also generates its fair share of flame wars (with an added twist: since personal email accounts are used, real names are attached to what is said).

Earlier this week such a war erupted. A group of students announced that they will be performing a play this weekend entitled "Dead White Men," in which a black teenager's (unarmed) best friend is shot by a police officer, and the teenager is out for revenge. A quote used in the promotion for the play read, "if white people are the problem, I'll be the solution." The play is expected be a reaction to the Trayvon Martin case and has already pushed some uncomfortable buttons relating to racial issues.

Shortly after the play was announced, one student, notably a student of color, pointed out the double standard that the director was creating. He argued that they were endorsing the very racist feelings and actions that the play was supposedly denouncing. What, he asked, would the reaction be if this play was advertised instead:

"If black people are the problem, then I'm the solution" --come see my play about how black neighborhoods have consistently higher instances of crime and how the most dangerous person in a young black man's life is another young black man and not us whites---and yes, it is us vs. them.

Several students jumped to the play's defense. As one student replied:

Claiming that making bold statements like [the director's] against white people is racist, then maybe you should realize that to be racist requires both using discrimination AND POWER. Based on our system of oppression today, it is white people who have privilege, i.e., power. So one can be non-white and prejudiced against whites, but not racist.

At this point the "allstu war" escalated further. Can racism exist without institutional backing? Is it really impossible for people of color to be racist? As another student said:

If a white person feels threatened by a prejudiced non-white person, there may be a power differential on an individual level in which it's entirely legitimate for the white person to feel powerless. That kind of dynamic does not, however, reach the level of institutionalized racism.

These questions highlighted the semantic differences between the two sides. Those defending the play were separating racism from prejudice by tying the word "racism" to a history of discriminatory policies and cultural norms. To them, racism was more than just prejudiced thoughts or actions; to qualify as racism those prejudiced thoughts and actions needed to be supported by a system which endorsed their manifestation. This was a distinction that those offended by the play did not make. For them, racism was a characteristic that could be assigned to an individual, regardless of whether or not that characteristic was supported by a higher authority.

This allstu war serves as a reminder of the extent to which words and definitions matter in a public discourse. What started as an argument about racism quickly became an argument about semantics - about what the definition of racism really was (further complicated by the fact that different dictionaries vary in their definitions of the word). The email exchange raised important and timely questions about how we define race and racism in this country. They are questions can only be answered through continued discussion and debate, as I'm sure will take place on the unregulated message board below. Read the rest of this post...

Can the slide to war with Syria be stopped?

According to the public account the US and allies would very much like to take a more active role (i.e. start a war) against Syria and the only thing holding them back is the opposition of Russia and China in the UN security council. This has led Russia to put pressure on Syria which has in turn led the Syrian government to agree to a ceasefire which few people expect to last. Meanwhile Turkey is mobilizing its army in case the Syrian civil war spills further into their territory. There have already been shots fired across the border with Turkey and Lebanon and three people are dead as a result.

Now consider an alternative explanation of the same facts. Let us assume that the last thing Obama wants right now is to become involved in a new war at the start of a general election campaign. It was not Obama's idea to take action Libya, that was the work of Cameron and Sarkozy. Nor has the liberation of Libya been an unqualified strategic success for the US. It is certainly good for the war on terror, Gadaffi supplied bullets and bombs to terrorists while Bin Laden was still wearing diapers. But as with the fall of East Germany, the loss of a strategic enemy is always a disaster for the military-industrial complex: how can they justify their existence if peace were to accidentally break out?

The fall of Syria is certainly an unqualified lose-lose proposition for Iran, Israel and Russia. Iran would lose their principle regional ally and their post Iraq war claim to being the emerging regional super power. While this part would be good for Israel, the regime that replaces Assad is almost certain to be more hostile to Israel. Either it will be a democratic regime and the people will demand that it takes a hostile position or it will be a dictatorship and picking fights with Israel will be the likely method of distracting those discontented with the regime.

Russia would lose as the wave of governments being toppled by popular discontent spreads northwards towards the corrupt ex-Soviet satellites surrounding the Caspian Sea. Also the Russia faces the embarrassing position of having been on the losing side of every major international engagement they have been involved in since the defeat in Afghanistan. Since then they lost control of Western Europe, watched the breakup of the Soviet empire and picked the losing side in the Bosnian war and in Libya.

A war in Syria is the last thing any party would want right now. The outcome can only damage the interests of every party other than Turkey which is re-emerging as the real regional super power in the wake of the Arab Spring. But even in Turkey the civilian government cannot exactly be sure of the loyalty of the military which not so long ago was running the country as a dictatorship.

So another explanation of what we can observe is this: The Russian veto currently allows the US and allies to be vocal in their support of the Syrian opposition without the need to take any action against it. The government of Turkey is looking for excuses to avoid being dragged into the war and has agreed to overlook the insult to their territory in return for the current temporary ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered into Homs.

The situation is a house of cards and there are numerous triggers that could bring it down. China is already disengaged and Russia is getting visibly tired of its role. The incursions into Turkey are becoming more frequent and at some point the Turkish government is going to find it hard to persuade the army to ignore the insult. If we get to that point, Turkey is almost certain to invoke the NATO charter under article 4 (consultation). But they may have the right to invoke article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) which would render the UN discussion moot.

We appear to be facing a long, slow slide into war against the will of almost every government concerned and it is very hard to see how it can be stopped. The one positive note is that it is highly unlikely that Russia would engage to protect the Assad regime but it will be yet another blow to their dignity. Read the rest of this post...

Two ways of looking at Hilary Rosen's remarks—Ann Romney "has never worked a day in her life"

By now everyone with too little to do has heard about Hilary Rosen's comments about Ann Romney (see below), and many electrons have been killed in tweets, posts, and otherwise weighing in.

In among the mush, I found these two posts — at the extremes of the spectrum and fully mush-free — enlightening. I agree with both, actually.

■ First, what Rosen said:

“What you have is, Mitt Romney running around the country saying, ‘Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what: his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.”

Click here to see the CNN video.

■ Now comments from tbogg, my favorite blogging prose stylist. The whole post is worth reading — it's a brief, well-structured piece with classic beginning-middle-end in a tight bundle. A taste (asterisks and paragraphing mine):

The Umbrage Game

Conservatives are working themselves up into another one of their poutrage lathers because Hilary Rosen said something truthful, and hence, mean about Ann Romney whom Mitt Romney has recently tried to pass off as I’m Every Woman because Mitt has lady problems outside the home and they’re not the buy-your-mistress-a-bauble-to-make-it-go-away kind.

By the time you read this in the morning, conservative moms and the usual cast of professional conservative aggrievement mongers will be in high dudgeon proclaiming how stay-at-homedness has been slandered and impugned and maligned and how Hilary Rosen (and therefore all Democrats) might just as well have s**t all over little Austin and Madisyn’s after-school Rice Krispie Treats.

Because there is no greater calling than to stay at home and raise your children, providing of course that you don’t have to make ends meet by taking a minimum wage job, maybe two if you’re a single mom, and also there are those times when you skip a meal so that your kids can eat because there isn’t enough food in the house for everyone, and also you hope that none of the kids gets sick because you can’t afford health insurance and, oh yes, the car has been making a funny noise lately and … well, you get the idea.

Which was Hilary Rosen’s point.

Ann Romney is a nice lady. I know lots of nice ladies like Ann Romney who, as it so happens, live in the same neighborhood as Ann and Mitt Romney because my daughter went to the same private schools and played soccer with their sons and daughters. ...

Again, read the whole thing. The part that follows this is very well thought through, and there's a nice surprise ending.

■ At the other end of the Rosen spectrum, here's Zaid Jilani at the amazing Republic Report. He says, yes, Rosen is a Democratic strategist, but she's also very much more (h/t nignog63, one of my favorite Twitter tipsters):

Hilary Rosen Thinks Moms Don’t Have Real Jobs, But She’s The Corporate Mouthpiece Who Killed Napster

... [H]er real job — the way she has made money for a long time — has been advocating for the positions of wealthy corporations, sometimes to the detriment of consumers, including those hard-working stay-at-home parents.

As head of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Rosen engaged in hyper-aggressive lawsuits and other tactics to force the closure of the popular file-sharing service Napster. She also pushed for draconian laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that helped stifle free expression and fair use of files.

Rosen currently works at SDKnickerbocker, a “strategic communications and public relations” firm that fronts for powerful corporations like the controversial Washington Post-owned Kaplan subprime for-profit colleges and food companies looking to weaken the administration’s nutrition goals. ...

As if that's not enough (subprime for-profit colleges? eww) Jilani has more; for example, the phrase "BP" comes up.

It's a sterling career, lobbying. The business of doing anything for money is a fine little business indeed.

Offered for your amusement.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Carney gets pummeled over LGBT Executive Order at WH briefing

Rarely do LGBT-related issues get this much time at a White House briefing, but the White House decision yesterday to punt on issuing an executive order establishing LGBT non-discrimination for federal contractors is garnering a lot of attention. We cross-posted this at AMERICAblog Gay and also wrote about the decision, which The Washington Post called a "stinging setback," here and here.

Whoever made the decision to say no to the executive order made a bad decision. During today's press briefing, Sam Stein tweeted:

some sharp questions for carney on why obama will sign other executive orders but not one outlawing LGBT discrimination for fed contracters

And, there were many sharp questions. Watch the video courtesy of Igor Volsky:

If the White House thought they had contained this issue, they were wrong. It's not going away. And, that excuse about wanting to pass ENDA instead, well, it's just not credible.

And, just to confirm that it's not going to go away, we got this via press release;

Within hours of the White House announcement, the “We Can’t Wait!” campaign received a $100,000 cash infusion from liberal donor Jonathan Lewis, the son of major Democratic philanthropist Peter Lewis.

Quotes from Jonathan Lewis:

“This isn't a broken promise President Obama can blame on Congress. He has not been able to provide a single valid reason for why he is now refusing to sign the executive order protecting LGBT workers. It has become increasingly clear that this decision is based on cowardice rather than principled leadership."

“Over the past several years the LGBT advocacy groups have jumped through hoops for this administration, conducting extensive research and polling -- more than has been done for any similar executive order -- and now the only impediment is President Obama."

“This is nothing short of craven election-year politics, a game Obama told us he would not play.”

Jonathan Lewis and his father, Peter, are major contributors to progressive causes. And, by major, I mean they give millions.

How is it that Team Obama has made another bad political calculation when it comes to the LGBT community? Have they learned nothing? This was another serious miscalculation.

Although, some are happy about the White House decision:

The loudest voices against nondiscrimination laws such as these have been from social conservatives. Ashley Horne of CitizenLink, an affiliate of Focus on the Family, welcomed the White House decision.

"We see this decision as one that recognizes that sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies are not necessary," she said in a statement. "Rather, they are often used to silence free speech, particularly the speech of people of faith."

I'm sure Focus on the Family will rally behind Obama's reelection now. Surely, that crowd will be hosting fundraisers, doing Get-out-the-vote and supporting Obama. Surely.

BTW, the White House did send a press release today titled, "We Can’t Wait: Protecting Taxpayer Dollars from Wasteful Payment Errors and Fraud." So wasteful payments can't wait, but non-discrimination can. Read the rest of this post...

Why do we hate photos, but not reflections, of ourselves?

Photo via Shutterstock

I was thinking of the former, then googled it, and came across the latter.  Meaning, it's not just an issue of why so many of us hate so many photos of ourselves, even when everyone else says we actually look good in any particular photo we still hate it, yet when looking in a mirror we do often do think we look pretty good (certainly we're more approving of ourselves in a mirror more often than we are of ourselves in a photo).  So it's not just an issue of self-esteem - or else we'd always be critical of our reflections in a mirror too.  It seems that we tend to be far more critical when looking at a photo, and only a photo of ourselves.  Yet we're not nearly as critical when looking at photos of others, so it can't just be the uniqueness of photography - there has to be a mixing of the uniqueness of you and the medium in question.

Why do you think that is?  (Just opening things up for little non-political discussion.) Read the rest of this post...

Drinking helps problem solving skills

Drinking photo
via Shutterstock

And no, it's not from the research team at The Onion. Medical Daily:

Scientists found that men who either drank two pints of beer or two glasses of wine before solving brain teasers not only got more questions right, they also were quicker in delivering correct answers, compared to men who answered the questions sober.

While the latest findings go against the traditional beliefs that alcohol impairs analytical thinking and rational thoughts, lead author Professor Jennifer Wiley of the University of Illinois at Chicago discovered that alcohol may enhance creativity problem solving by reducing the mind’s working memory capacity, which is the ability to concentrate on something in particular.

“Working memory capacity is considered the ability to control one’s attention,” Wiley told the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS). “It’s the ability to remember one thing while you’re thinking about something else.”

Read the rest of this post...

FDA proposes "voluntary" reductions of antibiotics for animals

Rx photo via
Shutterstock

Because "demanding" such a reasonable request would sound too socialist?

When cows were first given antibiotics decades ago, consumers were told it would never have an impact on humans. We now know that the drugs such as antibiotics and steroids given to animals do impact humans. That's why there's a problem with some antibiotics no longer working on humans, and why an increasing number of young girls have breasts far before their time.

Kindly asking industry to do the right thing is weak, and ignores the real world problems (it also ignores the fact that the administration asked Wall Street to do the right thing and how did that work out for them?). But hey, it's not socialist and the administration wants to avoid that tag at all costs.

The Food and Drug Administration called on drug companies Wednesday to help limit the use of antibiotics in farm animals, a decades-old practice that scientists say has contributed to a surge in dangerous, drug-resistant bacteria.

Antibiotic drugs like penicillin are routinely mixed with animal feed and water to help livestock, pigs and chickens put on weight and stay healthy in crowded barns. Scientists have warned that such use leads to the growth of antibiotic-resistant germs that can be passed on to humans.

The FDA has struggled for decades with how to tackle the problem because the powerful agriculture industry argues the drugs are a key part of modern meat production.

Joe reports on AMERICAblog Gay that rather than require federal contractors not discriminate against gays, the administration is simply going to "urge" them not to discriminate. Good luck with that. Read the rest of this post...

Howard Dean has been lobbying without disclosure for 3 years—and recommends buying both sides

Howard Dean via Shutterstock

First, I want to say why I'm writing this post. It's because I hate this stuff.

Money buys the world, both the Dem side and the other. In fact, I've said far too many times — the goal of Money is to enable Republicans and neuter the Dems. It's why the rachet works.

And by Money I mean the big boys (Our Betters) who own both sides of every bet. Money is why progressives never win, even when Democrats do.

Case in point, Howard Dean. Lee Fang, writing at Naked Capitalism (my emphasis and some reparagraphing*):

One of the biggest problems with lobbying in Washington D.C. is the extent to which so many influence peddlers work behind closed doors, refusing to disclose their clients or register their work with the ethics office. Newt Gingrich became the poster boy for this phenomenon[.] ...

But Gingrich isn’t the only politician working as an unregistered lobbyist. I have uncovered video that shows liberal icon Howard Dean discussing his government affairs work for corporate interests.

Dean has been lobbying without disclosure for about three years. In 2009 after his stint as chairman of the Democratic Party, Dean joined the law/lobbying firm McKenna, Long & Aldridge as a non-attorney “Strategic Advisor.” The firm’s lobbying practice has a wide range of clients, from health care, to insurance, to even Keystone XL beneficiary TransCanada.

The firm website says Dean “focuses on health care and energy issues, as well as providing expertise derived from his extensive experience in public office.” The firm seems to advertise Dean as a lobbyist, despite the fact Dean has not registered as a lobbyist.

Howard Dean's not alone in this. The same charge has been levied against Tom Daschle — another (ahem) Democrat — one who also "not-lobbies" the health care industry.

But back to Dean. During his not-lobbying talks, Mr. Princple advises his not-clients to support both sides of the health care world, if they must support someone. Fang again:

I clipped a portion of a video posted online by McKenna, Long & Aldridge that features Dean discussing the post Citizens United campaign finance world along with former Republican Party chief, Michael Steele. Dean candidly disclosed that he works primarily with health care corporations, and that he advises that if they do contribute, they should contribute to both Republicans and Democrats[.]

You really do need to read this, and watch that embedded video (it's only two minutes, and fascinating).

Let me be clear — Howard Dean is not evil. The advice he gives in the video is very good, the kind of thing a pro should say. He's worth his money, seriously.

But his progressive values do not trump his careerism; they don't even trump his party loyalty (which progressives should not have, in my view). He's therefore not, and will likely never be, the Great Progressive Hope — except in a fooled-you ad campaign selling rhymes-with-soap.

And he's also not fairly characterized in his media appearances, according to Fang:

What’s more troubling ... is how Dean uses his powerful platform as a pundit and political leader without disclosing his work as an influence peddler.

Did I mention I hate this stuff?

Which brings up the obvious twin questions:

• What does a real Progressive Coalition look like?
• If we're going to try to win — really take a shot — where's the best leverage?

But that's for later. For now, thank you, Mr. Fang, for this kind service. Better to know than not.

GP

*Why I sometimes reparagraph quotes. Typography is all about situation. If a page uses wide margins and lots of leading (inter-linear spacing), paragraphs can be long without being formidable (example here). But if a page has narrower columns and tighter spacing, paragraphs must be shorter, or the reader will encounter the "wall of type" problem, at which point the eyes glaze over. Neither layout is bad or good, as long as paragraph length adapts. For example, that first blockquote above was just two paragraphs in the original, and I cut some of it out. Another example — this paragraph here; most of you likely didn't read it all. Proof enough? (Yes, I did that on purpose. This should have been broken at least in thirds.) Read the rest of this post...

Bush regrets "Bush tax cuts" name, but not the cuts

After complaining about the popular name for his disastrous tax cuts for the rich, Bush then goes on to sell the benefits of his tax cuts for the rich. Despite there being no evidence to support the common right wing theory that tax cuts spur investment, Bush continues to promote this false theory. After all, what is Mitt Romney doing with the tax cuts that he received besides adding an elevator for his cars or tearing down his $12 million house and building something larger?

If the country is looking for something to boost the general economy and not just a few workers, tax cuts for the ultra rich is a bad idea. CNNMoney:

"I wish they weren't called the Bush tax cuts. If they were called someone else's tax cuts, they'd be less likely to be raised," he said in introductory remarks at a conference at the New York Historical Society.

The former president repeated the argument often used by Republicans -- that eliminating those tax cuts for the wealthy, as Democrats have proposed, would hit small businesses and hurt hiring.

"If you raise taxes on these so-called rich, you're really raising taxes on the job creators," he said at the conference, which was sponsored by the Bush Institute, which he opened after leaving office. "And if the goal is to create private sector growth, you have to recognize that the best way is to leave capital in the treasuries of the job creators."

Read the rest of this post...

Ceasefire in Syria, but doubts remain

At this point, a day or two of calm is helpful and Annan is right that it might help bring in relief supplies. But long term, there is little chance of this holding or being a meaningful ceasefire. Al Jazeera:

The deadline has passed for a ceasefire in Syria to come into effect as part of a peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, the UN-Arab League peace envoy, but Western leaders have already expressed doubts about whether the Syrian government will honour the deal.

Syria told Kofi Annan in a letter that it would halt all fighting by Thursday morning but reserved the right to respond to any attack by "armed terrorist groups".

Since rebels, loosely organised across Syria's provinces, do not obey a set chain of command, there is no guarantee they will obey the ceasefire either.

Read the rest of this post...