OBAMA VIDEO THAT WILL MAKE YOU CRY!!!

PALIN INTERVIEW VIDEO: ALASKAN SLEIGH HAIR!!!

Some Republican operatives think its CHIC. I think its MOOSE. It seems that the ‘up-do’ is an everyday thing for Palin - us in the MAINLAND call it “Prom Hair”. I mean, my God! you’re a woman – you have the luxury of VERSATILE HAIRSTYLES – why has Palin been wearing hers the same way for 15 years?? I saw it on YOUTUBE!!! Can someone give Ugly Betty here a lesson in STYLING HER HAIR? gosh.

Now that the GOP has put her on the “brainwash machine” for 2 weeks without Press having a go at her, she’s ready to spew her venom. When they picked her, their biggest fear is that she would become conscious that the “Straight Talk Express” is really the “Lying Attack Caboose” and would have a nervous breakdown, abandoning the campaign. Now they’ve got “their girl” on board…. 

Watch this beauty queen “not blink” during her responses, such a well-rehearsed, cunning little snake. Watch her denounce her own words for that matter!

CAN PALIN HELP WINEHOUSE?!?!!

With a pregnant daughter, a son who is a former drug-addict, a forbidden affair, a case in court (October 31st her we come! I can’t wait until they jail her lying ass) and her own newly tortured and super-scrutinized existence…Palin needs to do something useful for the world besides make John McCain look younger and tell lies at fundraising rallies!

Amy Winehouse is a PILLAR of contemporary Pop music and culture.  She must be maintained for posterity. Everyone loves her, and wants her off of crack cocaine!. Sarah Palin is billing herself as a ‘maverick’ and ‘America’s Top Mom’ (and Snowsurfer, whatever the hell that is). Amy needs a ‘mothers love’, and Sarah Palin is just the one to do it!

After all, Palin is supporting her daughter (and the little bastard that knocked her up; his myspace page says he ‘doesn’t want kids’ ironically) throughout her embarassing illicit pregnancy! Palin probably wouldn’t be as judgemental, and has that ‘Alaskan Charm’…plus the broad cooks moose stew! Obviously Palin has lots of experience in dealing with young wayward deviants, like her two sons (who are notable drug users), and her daughter Bristol, who has recently been YOUTUBED (gasp), smoking marijuana at a party when she was 15.

Since Palin didn’t actually stop the “Bridge To Nowhere”, maybe she can work her magic on Winehouse, by encouraging her to get off drugs, cooking her a good meal, and sharing with her about how everybody is ‘out to get her’!

Yes Sarah, cooperate in the investigation! clear your name! (as if)

No?

BUSH HAS BANKRUPTED AMERICA!!!

BUSH HAS BANKRUPTED AMERICA

MADAME PRESIDENT RAWLINGS-BLAKE: “YOU DON’T KNOW ME, WE AREN’T FRIENDS”

MADAME PRESIDENT RAWLINGS-BLAKE: “YOU DON’T KNOW ME, WE AREN’T FRIENDS”

As if the Baltimore City Council didn’t have enough negative ink to fill a bath tub, tonight’s public hearing on The “Live Performance Bill” (08-163), revealed a telling ‘unraveling at the seams’ amongst the ranking officials – and a weary and hostile City Council President Stephanie Rawlings Blake, or should we call her “Madame President Rawlings-Blake”?.

Since the bill’s introduction in 2008, there has been stiff opposition from musicians, artists, music enthusiasts, promoters, and venue owners regarding the language of the legislation. Never before has there been such activism surrounding an issue in recent times.

Community leaders and figures in Baltimore’s budding entertainment scene are outraged at a potentially license-riddled and artistically restrictive future, where venues (banquet halls, clubs, taverns, bars of all sizes) would need to apply for and purchase an (estimated) $1500-$2000 license to perform any type of live or recorded performance. Similar to publishing companies such as ASCAP and BMI, who target entertainment venues and secure millions for copyright owners – Baltimore City proposes that they need money, and Baltimore’s entertainment scene can and will provide it.

Even POETRY recitals are included in this newly proposed legislation (with the blessing of Baltimore City’s potential Office Of Hospitality Services; a $315,000 venture). Every type of conceivable performance could potentially be addressed – including the very promotion of any entertainment venue, event or activity involving entertainment in Baltimore City. Almost like BMI or ASCAP (mechanical royalties and publishing fees) charging venues for performing (or playing) music publicly anywhere in town – for pay, or for free – venues (and groups) must pay, sayeth the city council.

Between meetings, amendments have been made to the bill in response to the aspects with the most dense opposition, morphing the bill to such a degree that it is almost a completely new document. There is no longer a ‘department’ of hospitality services, but there is still a ‘director’ of a department which legally no longer exists, type-o or political and budgetary conspiracy?. Will the director do all of this work for Baltimore city by him/herself? The document may say so…

There are other issues raising red flags. The consensus is that the community does not want the bill passed in any shape or form. However, the City Council is still moving the legislation through the hearing process while the wheels are falling off of it, and while public support continues to wane dismally.

District 14 city rep., Mary Pat Clarke abruptly left the hearing midway to attend a “community meeting” almost scoffing at the lack of progress. “I think we need to just take this all back to zoning, we are far beyond the real issues here” she said . At one point, she seemed to have physically displayed a distaste for the proceedings, joking that Baltimore City’s legislation was “hard to read”.

This was a notable remark, since the legislation apparently does away with entertainment zoning – but provides several other peculiar restrictions and opportunities for costly community and venue clashes. She eluded to a dangerous and (conflict producing) language that we could “do without in this bill, we don’t want to go too far” she said.

The resounding tone of the hearing kept going back to the rejection of the bill all-together. At one point, night club owner Patricia Hoyt approached the microphone to voice her concerns.

“Why are churches and adult-entertainment venues [the notorious block] exempt to these new procedures, licenses, fees, and legislation. They host more performances than anyone – I can’t even do KARAOKE in my bar without this new license!”.

A Baltimore City official summoned from the front row responded saying basically that “adult-entertainment venues and churches are exempt because [adult entertainment venues and churches are exempt].” Hoyt responded in subdued outrage, since her question was skirted, and felt insulted by the cavalier disregard for her concerns. The audience responded in kind.

“I don’t trust your intentions” spat one attendee in his testimony. “Even if your intentions are good, putting a bill like this on the book spells trouble for any new administration after this one” he said. The President of the City Council, albeit silent throughout the entire evening began to come alive with her characteristic ‘grace under fire’.

In a poised, quiet, lawyerly tone she began to take responsorial hand-offs from the committee chair, district 1 rep. James Kraft to address attendees directly. A strange shift for her (in dealing with “her baby”), while an almost frustrated posture began to evolve in the proceedings.

Musician/Bar Manager Laura Richardson approached the mic to testify before the council. As many attendees have never spoken before large groups (and the City Council as well), Richardson revealed her own discomfort in the formal setting, and kept referencing her experiences as a musician dwelling in the counterculture of Baltimore city’s metal scene.

Richardson’s easygoing and blowsy testimony brought a lightness to the already very tense meeting. The folksy Goth, Richardson began to explain her perspectives in the rejection of the bill – but there was something in the air. Rawlings-Blake appeared to be very interested in Richardson’s testimony, and waited until just the right moment to interject.

Richardson casually called the city council President “Stephanie” in the midst of her improvisational tangent. Bad move. Rawlings-Blake propped up for her response to this error. Etiquette and strict decorum are the calling cards of Sheila Dixon’s city council – and Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has replicated this quality within her administration as well.

“[You don't know me, and we aren't friends. You do not know me, have never met me, and we are not friends. We've never been friends. You do not address me by my first name - period.]“; in improvised, conversational order. These were the words that sparked a frightening page-turn in the drama surrounding the Live Performance Bill, and the ardent public opposition and organizing surrounding it.

Richardson retreated in fear, “What should I call you?” she whimpered. “[Madame, Madame President. Madame President Rawlings-Blake, Council President Rawlings-Blake, President Rawlings Blake - any of these, but you do not call me by my first name. You don't know me]” (in improvised, conversational order) she roared. The audience cringed in shock, audible gasps throughout the audience and poor Richardson, shaking before the microphone left the moment emblazoned in the minds of all present.

“I just don’t know what to say, I…I can’t say anything [else]” surrendered Richardson, retreating from the room in shock.

“You all should be glad that we didn’t push this bill through on Tuesday morning at 10 am, during my committee hearings. We really could have done that – but we didn’t.” smarted the committee chair, district 1 rep. James Kraft in another responsorial from the stage.

What does this mean? Is this new ‘public hearing’ model the last that they will offer? because we are not pandering to their will? will they “push bills through on Tuesday at 10 am” from now on? These words were a glimpse into a most disturbing mind set and culture, which has pervaded Holliday Street for so long.

Madame President Rawlings-Blake added “this transparency has never been seen before, this is why we are opening this up to the public. we are doing this for the community”, but it was far too late for her – the energy of the session was too detached. We had heard enough.

One sinister admonishment from the committee chair, District 1 rep. James Kraft that could be characterized as condescending and rogue, and one sweeping rebound from Rawlings-Blake, to preserve at least one ounce of decency in the midst of this most discouraging hearing.

In her responsorial following the Richardson situation, Madame President Rawlings-Blake noted that she felt [offended] that an earlier respondent said “I don’t trust your intentions” during his testimony. “We take this from people, we take this” she said.

Although elected officials are elected to office, many feel a certain hubris, and even become offended when the public does not submit to their iconoclastic will. Many elected officials feel that leadership means that “what they say goes” – instead of a more servile leadership perspective. Has Madame President Rawlings-Blake fallen prey to the political “God-syndrome”? Is this ‘Dixon-esque’ hubris just coming to bear for Baltimore City?

In political leadership, there is always vast opposition, but the underlying tone amongst the City Council panel was one of frustration. Was this Rawlings-Blake’s biggest issue? that the public does not “trust” the Baltimore City Council? Ask indicted city rep. Helen Holton or our Mayor, Mayor Dixon about “trust” in this election cycle.

We shall see…

Next hearing

APRIL 23RD – 6:30pm-8:30pm
in Federal Hill

1040 William Street

Paulson’s New Program: Free, Unlimited Credit For Every American!

Paulson's New Program: Giving People Money They Can't Afford To Spend

The news is as old as the Magna Carta. The consumer is broke. He does not have a dime. He is out of work. He is defaulting on his home equity loan, and the bank has reposed his credit card. It may be best to let his spending rest while his catches his economic breath.

Henry Paulson has other ideas. He wants to help people to borrow money that they cannot repay, now or in the near future.

According to The Wall Street Journal, "Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, seeking to ease strains in the consumer credit market, plans to announce Tuesday the formation of a program to increase the availability of auto loans, student loans and credit cards."

The head of the Treasury is concerned that people who want credit can't get it. But, they can't afford it either.

The latest program points to the Achilles Heel of the entire $700 billion Paulson program. It provides capital to people, businesses, and programs which cannot be revived by the money nor can they sustain any of the economic improvement which the cash initially brings them. The backing of Citigroup (C) and AIG (AIG)–in the case of the insurance company, not Paulson's money–has only served to point out that they stand on clay feet. The cause of their p

via 24/7 Wall St.: Paulson's New Program: Giving People Money They Can't Afford To Spend

Presidential Pardon for ‘Obama Girl’?

President-elect Obama has been swept into his presidential role a bit ‘early’ and finds himself taking the reigns in order to ’restore confidence’ to the financial markets. With so much going on, Obama’s friends from the campaign are being attacked by enraged Republican Pundits!  

After heralding the fantasmagora and viral-video excesses of the presidential campaign, can ‘Obama Girl’ be spared the jaws of the vampiric, bitter, Republican Pundits such as Bill Oreilly with a statement from the Obama Campaign?

Obama: “Hey O’Reilley, Obama Girl is off-limits.”

Barack, we need you to help Obama Girl. Its time to pay back the people who got you elected.

MCCAIN WRINGING HIS COLD CLAMMY HANDS!!

In an interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Barack Obama was asked about the increasingly nasty attacks on him by the McCain campaign. (Transcript)

Obama: In what aspect, Charlie?

Just kidding. The Democratic nominee went at the question head-on, and pointed out that the seemingly shameless McCain has, indeed, shown some:

Obama: Why don’t we just clear it up right now? I’ll repeat again what I’ve said many times. This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois . . . And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that . . . I’ve ‘palled around with a terrorist’, all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points…

I am surprised that, you know, we’ve been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn’t willing to say it to my face. But I guess we’ve got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.

Obama showed, during the debate, that he has earned his reputation as a cool customer. It will be interesting to see how he reacts if McCain does raise the attacks at the next debate. As Mo Rocca observed, people may expect more of a fight out of Obama.

I can’t see Obama escalating a confrontation like that. I can see him calmly rebutting McCain in a way that amplifies the contrast in the temperaments of the two men. Aside from everything else in this campaign, Obama’s coolness has emerged as a major factor in earning voters’ trust.

McCain, by contrast, has seen his campaign grow desperate, throwing punches wildly at Obama like a toddler having a tantrum. It may make for good political theater, and whip the base into a froth, but it’s cold comfort for struggling Americans deciding with whom to entrust their fates.

STILL IN HOT WATER: TROOPERGATE CONTINUES.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) – An investigator hired by Alaskan lawmakers to probe abuse-of-power allegations against Gov. Sarah Palin was free to finish his work by a deadline set for a week from Friday after a state judge dismissed a lawsuit seeking to block the probe.

The investigation is looking into whether Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, and others pressured Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire a state trooper who was involved in a contentious divorce from Palin's sister, and then fired Monegan when he wouldn't dismiss the trooper. Palin says Monegan was ousted over budget disagreements.

Judge Peter Michalski on Thursday threw out the lawsuit filed by five Republican state legislators who claimed the investigation had been manipulated by Palin enemies who wanted to produce a damaging report just weeks before Election Day. Their attorney, Kevin Clarkson, said the legislative body that ordered the investigation had exceeded its authority.

But Michalski agreed with defense attorney Peter Maassen, who argued that the Legislature has broad authority to investigate the governor. The mere appearance of impropriety does not mean any individual’s right to fairness was violated, Michalski wrote in his decision.

“It is legitimately within the scope of the legislature’s investigatory power to inquire into the circumstances.”

PACKIN’ UP – MARION WILLIAMS (DEDICATED TO GEORGE BUSH!!)

 

Pack your bags George!! Get Ready To GO!!!!

WE’LL SOON BE DONE – CLARA WARD (DEDICATED TO GEORGE BUSH)

Will we ’soon be done’ with his besmirchment of the presidency? Soon – we shall!

CLARA WARD SINGERS – DIDN”T IT RAIN (BAILOUT SONG)

GOP AUTHORIATIAN INFLUENCE!

By John W. Dean  |  July 14, 2006

CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATISM and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners’ bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest — none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today’s so-called conservatives are quite radical.

For more than 40 years I have considered myself a “Goldwater conservative,” and am thoroughly familiar with the movement’s canon. But I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House, which has created a Nixon “imperial presidency” on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra.

What true conservative calls for packing the courts to politicize the federal judiciary to the degree that it is now possible to determine the outcome of cases by looking at the prior politics of judges? Where is the conservative precedent for the monocratic leadership style that conservative Republicans imposed on the US House when they took control in 1994, a style that seeks primarily to perfect fund-raising skills while outsourcing the writing of legislation to special interests and freezing Democrats out of the legislative process?

How can those who claim themselves conservatives seek to destroy the deliberative nature of the US Senate by eliminating its extended-debate tradition, which has been the institution’s distinctive contribution to our democracy? Yet that is precisely what Republican Senate leaders want to do by eliminating the filibuster when dealing with executive business (namely judicial appointments).

Today’s Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik’s classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham’s guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in “conserving” this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.

Candid and knowledgeable Republicans on the far right concede — usually only when not speaking for attribution — that they are not truly conservative. They do not like to talk about why they behave as they do, or even to reflect on it. Nonetheless, their leaders admit they like being in charge, and their followers grant they find comfort in strong leaders who make them feel safe. This is what I gleaned from discussions with countless conservative leaders and followers, over a decade of questioning.

I started my inquiry in the mid-1990s, after a series of conversations with Goldwater, whom I had known for more than 40 years. Goldwater was also mystified (when not miffed) by the direction of today’s professed conservatives — their growing incivility, pugnacious attitudes, and arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their thinking. He worried that the Republican Party had sold its soul to Christian fundamentalists, whose divisive social values would polarize the nation. From those conversations, Goldwater and I planned to study why these people behave as they do, and to author a book laying out what we found. Sadly, the senator’s declining health soon precluded his continuing on the project, so I put it on the shelf. But I kept digging until I found some answers, and here are my thoughts.

For almost half a century, social scientists have been exploring authoritarianism. We do not typically associate authoritarianism with our democracy, but as I discovered while examining decades of empirical research, we ignore some findings at our risk. Unfortunately, the social scientists who have studied these issues report their findings in monographs and professional journals written for their peers, not for general readers. With the help of a leading researcher and others, I waded into this massive body of work.

What I found provided a personal epiphany. Authoritarian conservatives are, as a researcher told me, “enemies of freedom, antidemocratic, antiequality, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, power hungry, Machiavellian and amoral.” And that’s not just his view. To the contrary, this is how these people have consistently described themselves when being anonymously tested, by the tens of thousands over the past several decades.

Authoritarianism’s impact on contemporary conservatism is beyond question. Because this impact is still growing and has troubling (if not actually evil) implications, I hope that social scientists will begin to write about this issue for general readers. It is long past time to bring the telling results of their empirical work into the public square and to the attention of American voters. No less than the health of our democracy may depend on this being done. We need to stop thinking we are dealing with traditional conservatives on the modern stage, and instead recognize that they’ve often been supplanted by authoritarians.

John W. Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, just published his seventh nonfiction book, “Conservatives Without Conscience.”