Haley Watch: The Governor's star turn

As reported yesterday, our fashionable governor took the podium at the Republican National Convention last night, camera-ready for her big close-up, and the reviews are in.

How'd she do?

For those of you lucky enough to miss it, SC Governor Nikki Haley read Barack Obama the riot act:

Haley then accused the Obama administration of launching an all-out assault on her state.

"The hardest part of my job continues to be this federal government, this administration and this president," Haley said, going on to say that "Obama will do everything he can to stand in your way," even if you play by the rules.

According to Haley, her state had attempted to implement "one of the most innovative illegal immigration laws in the country," bring jobs to South Carolina through a deal with Boeing and enact a voter ID measure, only to have the Obama administration bring lawsuits against them.

The Justice Department has sued South Carolina over its immigration law and voter ID measure over concerns that the legislation put the state in violation of various civil and voting rights acts. Obama's National Labor Relations Board eventually dismissed a union lawsuit against Boeing, which Haley suggested was a response to the state getting "loud."

Haley got a standing ovation for her support of voter ID laws, saying that it was a natural step when identifications were required to pass through airport security or purchase Sudafed from a drug store.

Really?

And here we thought it was just her overall incompetence that made her...totally incompetent. Instead, she blames her incompetence on the president. Good work if you can get it, and this song-and-dance has obviously taken Nikki all the way to the podium in Tampa.

Actually, the "hardest part of her job" appears to be the job itself, which she seems patently unable to do. As the Charleston City Paper correctly pointed out, she can't even talk to the South Carolina press, and prefers to model clothing for Vogue magazine instead:

Nikki Haley has refused to speak with members of the press, both those of the state's two largest and most influential dailies, the Post and Courier and The State, as well as the state's two alt-weeklies, The Free Times and the Charleston City Paper. On one occasion, Haley even ran away from reporter Renee Dudley.

How is this habitual scampering away from reporters, the fault of President Obama?

Hard-core conservatives like Will Folks, however, weren't having any. He ably picked apart the fine points of Nikki's speech. Folks gives away his Ron Paul-partisanship, when pointing out that:

[The] fight over Boeing was clouded by the fact that the company relies extensively on billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded subsidies doled out from both the state and federal governments.

Aside: It's a sad day when it's up to libertarians to do the job of (snort) "liberals," pointing out how working-class taxpayers regularly foot the bills for big business. This might be why Democrats do so poorly around here. It's usually been up to the Paulites to highlight CORPORATE welfare, while the rank-and-file Repubs natter on about "government handouts." I still remember our counter-demonstration at the local Republican debate, when Ron Paul supporters were the only ones to applaud one protester's sign, "Drug testing for corporate welfare recipients!" They loved it, as Will Folks would probably love it. The regular Republicans rolled their eyes and ignored us. (Same as they do with corporate welfare.)

Nikki Haley initially marketed herself as a Tea Party Republican, all ready to challenge the status quo, and she has instead rolled her eyes and ignored the malcontents, just like the rest of the big-money Repubs. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. One hopes the Tea Party-affiliated Republicans in this state will not sit back and simply allow her to shit all over them, in her breakneck-climb to the cover of Newsweek, her fashion spread in Vogue, and the Conservative Book Club bestseller's lists.

At left: Governor Haley's photo from The New York Times Magazine. (Since she is afraid to talk to the South Carolina press, we have to go to national media to find pictures of her.)




The Charleston Post and Courier reports:

Haley’s star status has been on display here for days. Monday morning, she won a standing ovation from Florida’s GOP delegation. Georgetown County GOP Chair Jim Jerow, who is at his first convention, was there and noted Haley “is growing in her job.”

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who had the biggest moment at the GOP convention four years ago, said Haley’s speech would be a good honor for the state and for her as an individual.

He said she needed to make the home team proud, please the “chattering class” in the media and make a personal connection. “I think she’s going to do really good,” he predicted.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., agreed with Graham’s prediction. “She’s going to showcase the state well. She always does,” he said. “It’s got to help her. I’m focused on how it helps us as a party. She’s going to be the face of the party.”

World-class stupidity as the "face of the party"! Well, they didn't mind hosting Dubya for eight years, so this isn't too surprising.

Growing in her job? WHAT, pray tell, does that mean? Sounds like an internship, rather than an elected office.

NPR says it's all about being a minority female. They are pushing her out front because they feel they have no choice:

It's become a perennial problem for Republicans, but not one that the party yet knows how to solve.

Recent polls show GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney taking a drubbing among minority groups, badly trailing President Obama among Hispanics, Asians and single women.

One recent poll showed Romney's support among African-Americans at 0 (yes, zero) percent.

In a sense, this is nothing new. As long ago as 2001, Rich Bond, a former head of the Republican National Committee, told The Washington Post: "We've taken white guys about as far as that group can go. We are in need of diversity, women, Latino, African-American, Asian."

What has changed is that minority voters now make up a large and growing share of the electorate. Between 1992 and 2008, the non-Anglo portion of the electorate doubled, to 26 percent from 13 percent, as measured by exit polls.

According to a recent National Journal analysis, Romney will need the percentage of white voters to remain at 74 percent nationwide — and he'll have to take 61 percent of that white vote — in order to win.

"This year or 2016 will be the last time Republicans can do as well as they've done in recent decades with [just] a strong showing among white voters," says Henry Olsen, vice president of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "At some point in the not so distant future, Republicans have to start doing better among minorities or they will not win elections."

One way the party is hoping to speak to minority voters is by having minority officeholders speak to them. The GOP's convention lineup this week is loaded with high-profile minorities, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (Thursday), former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (Wednesday) and Govs. Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Brian Sandoval of Nevada (who spoke Tuesday) and Susana Martinez of New Mexico (Wednesday).

Haley claims to be all about bringing minorities and women into the Republican Party. Um, since when?

Well, since she was elected and they gave her the script, of course:

"It's offensive to me as a woman and as a minority that Democrats can go and say, 'That party hates you,' and can get away with that," Haley told an editorial board from Gannett and USA Today on Tuesday.

Haley suggested that her party offers a welcoming home to many minority voters and is a good fit for them on issues such as the economy and jobs.

The "We Built It" theme of the Republican Convention, actually tramples all over minority people, who built most of the South, where the convention is. It tramples all over the maids and janitors who are cleaning up all the balloons and streamers and vodka-puke that the Republicans leave behind. Ann Romney's maids and assistants, the overworked-seamstresses who sew Nikki Haley's designer wardrobe, the lighting technicians and the retail/fast-food grunts and the hotel clerks and secretaries, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE who keep everything going. And they/we built it too.

And if you persist in NOT seeing this, Republicans, you will fail.

Your cartoon-convention, scrambling to find minorities and women to put on stage and on camera, is just that, a cartoon.

Governor Haley goes nationwide tonight

Governor Nikki Haley, Vogue-vetted fashion plate, models her trademark designer duds, while mouthing some indecipherable nonsense in Tampa at the Republican Convention. Since she has proudly bankrupted the working class of South Carolina, this is the closest the rest of us will ever get to designer clothes, so you might want to tune in tonight at 10pm to see what she wears.

~*~

The good news is, maybe she will get a national gig and GO AWAY.

The bad news? Tonight, the unbearable Haley-fawning reaches a fever pitch... Newsweek, Vogue, Christiane Amanpour, The View, a hardcover biography and now she is at last ready for prime time. All this prepping, all this hoopla, and you can almost hear em sing THERE SHE IS, MISS AMERICA... as she struts those infamous mega-pricey stilettos up to the GOP podium. This is it! She's ready for her close-up, Mr DeMille!!!

Some of the up-and-coming politicians who have historically been selected for this coveted time-slot at past conventions include Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

Yes, our little Nikki has hit the big time. And all she's done is creatively manage her dad's books and dodge an ethics investigation. Oh yeah, and receive endless genuflection from the national press as an attractive Indian-American female star for the GOP; currently the youngest governor in the country.

As Newsweek famously summed her up two years ago:

[The GOP's] freshly anointed gubernatorial nominee arrived: Nikki Haley, 38 years old and Indian-American, wearing a snug, saffron-colored suit and stilettos you could impale a small animal with. Only a few months ago, she was an obscure state representative. Then former Alaska governor Sarah Palin endorsed her, the Tea Party movement embraced her, and she proceeded to dispatch a U.S. congressman, the lieutenant governor, and the attorney general in the Republican primary and runoff. Now she’s the hottest thing in South Carolina politics. And if she wins in November, becoming the state’s first female and first nonwhite governor, she’ll likely rocket to national prominence and secure a spot in the GOP firmament.

Yes, and here we are.

Ron Paul draws thousands of eager, dedicated young kids to the Republican Party and hosts raucous Republican rallies, yet he is denied a speaking spot at the Republican Convention, while our governor, a walking disaster (albeit a very fashionable one), who can't even make sure our roads are repaired, is officially anointed as the hot new thing.

As Ayn Rand would say, choke on it, Congressman Paul, life isn't fair.

And all because she endorsed Romney early and allowed Mitt and Ann (as well as every other Republican presidential candidate) to use the Governor's mansion as a Motel 6, on our dime. She has just given her staff big raises (again, on our dime), but is nonetheless heralded as a fiscal conservative and Tea Party true-believer. And just wait till she gets started on her newest melodramatic role, "military spouse"--a role she coincidentally landed just in time for the convention.

It's enough to make you sick.

Like, really sick.

And hey, I ain't the only one. Her jilted lover, blogger Will Folks, is even more nauseated than the state's lefties are.

For him, it's personal, as he offers an amazing (and quite comprehensive) a laundry list of her offenses at his conservative blog, FITSNews. He reminds everyone of what is now known as the Savannah River Sellout, and fulminates at some length. (Preach it, Will!)

But in the end, we are just huffing and puffing. It's Haley's night. I've got some DVDs, some Marx Brothers, some American Dad, and if it gets too painful, I will not subject myself to lengthy torture. After all, I live here under Queen Nikki's rule, and I am tortured every time I drive down Woodruff Road, taking my life in my hands.

The only good thing about Romney possibly winning the election, is that Queen Nikki will undoubtedly be dispatched elsewhere. (But then, what about the rest of the country?)

I'm afraid there is no good outcome, and either way, we all lose.

Enjoy the speech... and the fashionistas among you may want to play "name that designer!" while you watch. Bring those anti-nausea meds.

Young evangelicals politically depart from their elders

Saturday's Greenville News article on young evangelicals suggests they have different priorities than their elders. Fascinating! We can make some important political converts in this group, I think.

Some excerpts from Ben Szobody's in-depth piece titled, No presidential candidate has excited young evangelicals:

It’s not the loudest group of voters, but the fate of the 2012 presidential race and even the future fortunes of the Republican Party may partly hinge on a swelling group of independents loosely defined as young evangelical Christians.

Polls and people in tune with the generation say many in the group find themselves politically adrift, amid a bitter campaign that so far features very few of their concerns.

In a shift that may seem radical in the framework of left-right politics, some voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and now support Ron Paul. They may have wanted to transcend partisan politics four years ago and now feel that pulling back on government is the best option left, say a sampling of voters and those who work with them.

The group doesn’t tend to vote in primaries, and the current field of Republicans is seldom touching on their vital subjects. But to lose their vote may mean to lose a generation for good, Christian and political figures say.

“I think a lot of young evangelicals are going to feel politically homeless,” said Tim King, communications director for the social justice group Sojourners who himself fits the demographic.

For his generation, King said abortion matters but the concern for children now includes issues such as child trafficking, mercury levels that affect fetuses, the spread of AIDS and clean water access.

These problems may rope in some big political solutions: social safety nets, churches doing more and a focus on a person’s individual behavior.

This is fabulous news!

One of the problems with young evangelicals that I have noticed, is an easily-offended sensibility. Kids from evangelical and/or home-schooled backgrounds (and due to Bob Jones University, a home-schooler hub, we have a PARCEL of them represented locally, so I know whereof I speak) have been raised in a sequestered environment. They are not allowed to watch TV at BJU, for example; similarly, lots of the home-schooled kids have been extremely overprotected. When they get out into the real world, it can be overwhelming and confusing.

I see this disparity between the young and old evangelicals, as resulting from their experiences in being in sudden contact with liberal Christians, non-Christians and mass-culture in general. The realizations come fast and furious: Wait, how can we be anti-abortion without caring about what actually happens to children after they are born? This starts them thinking in all kinds of new political ways, as they see what Cardinal Bernardin called "the seamless garment"--the concept that "life issues" include war, poverty, the environment, immigration and other global concerns.

Across the nation this week, 53 percent of Republicans were more enthusiastic about voting than usual, compared to 45 percent of Democrats, Gallup reported. But among voters ages 18 to 29, enthusiasm fell by 28 percent since 2008, and by 21 percent among 30- to 49-year-olds.

There’s been little political polling since 2008 focused on young Christians in particular, though a new book by Barna Group President David Kinnaman describes the top reasons many are veering from traditional churches and their positions.

Nearly a quarter of 18- to 29-year olds said Christians “demonize everything outside the church,” while 22 percent said the church is “ignoring the problems of the real world.”

It’s not necessarily that young Christians are apathetic, or less concerned about moral causes than their parents, or disillusioned after voting for Obama, say voters themselves and those attentive to their concerns.

Instead, they say many have a much broader view of how to change society after the Religious Right generation that preceded them. Politics is just a piece, and abortion is just one of the important social issues in play.

“The reality is, there are a lot of people who are actually thinking more broadly about these concerns,” said Paul Blumer, an active churchgoer, owner of Streetside Catering and president of Food for Life, a ministry that feeds the homeless at Triune Mercy Center near downtown Greenville.

He’s frustrated with his voting options but is part of a segment of young Christians who see the poor as their urgent, long-ignored cause. He’s currently trying to get a homeless man and his three children out of a hotel and into a home with another family.

“Here’s what people said to me when I took this on,” Blumer said. “‘You better call DSS.’ And I thought, what is going on with us? Why is it that we continue this constant shrugging of our responsibility as Christians off to government agencies, putting our trust in them as if they will perform the duties that will save these children’s lives?”

Among the current GOP candidates, Blumer likes Ron Paul’s libertarianism but knows he’s unlikely to win and dislikes the way Paul himself is treated as a savior.

“The Republican Party has terrible problems in this area,” said Brent Nelsen, a political science professor at Furman University, a former statewide Republican candidate for office and a founding member of Redeemer Presbyterian Church. “They’re not appealing to the demographics that are growing.”

This includes both young and Hispanic voters, Nelsen said, noting that Obama retains a big advantage among youths, though the Republican Party has recovered some of them since 2008.

The Republican candidates for president, by questioning Obama’s theology or making clear appeals on traditional moral grounds, are talking to “old-school” conservatives who vote in primary elections, he said.

Meanwhile, the “peace-and-justice” movement in evangelical churches is growing, and voting habits tend to lock in during a person’s younger years, Nelsen and King said.

“We’re not talking about the end of the Republican Party as we know it,” he said, adding that the demographic is still relatively small.

Still, if Republicans don’t address what young Christians care about — such as human trafficking or AIDS in Africa — both Nelsen and King say the party risks losing them for good.

Daisy winks, that might not be such a bad thing. Some of us think their dogmatic conservativism may have an unintended positive benefit: they will drive the kids away and ultimately self-destruct. (Some already can't get away fast enough.)

Szobody claims these young people have "a different view of how Christians interact with culture.":

King lays out the timeline this way: The social gospel movement of the 1920s and 1930s aimed at transforming institutions, which was followed by an emphasis on saving individual souls, and then the Religious Right generation sought to use politics as a tool. Preserving prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments in courthouses and “under God” in the pledge while fighting abortion and gay marriage were their causes.

Now, King describes a Christian generation that sees everything from art to writing to building stronger neighborhoods as ways to change others’ view of the world and be a witness for Christ. This effort encompasses environmental concerns, a compassionate approach to immigration and a focus on poverty.

This broader set of interests means that young Christians are often very conservative on the matter of abortion, for instance, but don’t vote on that single issue, King said. They might urge a young woman not to have an abortion, but then question whether the church is prepared to support her and her child.

It’s not a generation exposed to major social movements like the civil rights effort, but he said Occupy Wall Street seems to have hit this nerve: For the first time, they were pushing a cause, their friends were on the news and the world was paying attention.

For the Christians in the crowd, King said a shift from Obama in 2008 to Paul this year isn’t as large as it may seem. They believe Paul is the guy who would end the wars, and is serious about ending the collusion between big business and government — issues Obama underscored in the last election.

Nelsen knows friends who have gone from Obama to Paul, and he said they thought Obama favored personal freedoms but see his actions in office as reliant on the state. That makes Paul the new choice.

Blumer’s view is decidedly libertarian, and he blames “RINOs”* for failing to take up important social causes. In the general election, he said he may write in Paul’s name, or “Jesus Christ.”

Given the options, it’s always a risk that young Christians may not vote, King said.

Still, he said it’s no accident that after 40,000 college students raised $3.3 million to fight modern-day slavery at a January conference in Atlanta, Obama mentioned the effort in his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast.

“President Obama has an opportunity to make the case, but it’s not a done deal,” he said.

Among the youth overall, Obama currently polls well ahead of both Santorum and Mitt Romney.

Meanwhile, Republicans have to think to the future, Nelsen said, noting the conservative student groups on Furman’s campus have split into Republican and libertarian camps.

“The young people are up for grabs, ideologically, and I don’t think either party has figured out how they’re going to handle this libertarian wave,” he said.

As I said, fascinating. Hoping some of the disaffected will show up at our Occupy events... hey, we got MOVIES, yall!
We hope to see some of you politically-aware young evangelicals. Your input and participation is welcome!

Stay tuned, sports fans.

*RINO= Republican In Name Only. (They refer to libertarians and liberals.)

Newt Gingrich wins SC Primary

At left: Newtie gloats, photo by Jeff Siner of the Charlotte Observer.




I knew Newtie would win, simply from all the signs. They started small, and within the past week, they exploded into banner-sized "NEWT 2012" screaming at us from every interstate exit all over the county.

Simply put: a Catholic vs a Mormon? A Catholic will win. Santorum, also Catholic, brought in the #3 spot, with Ron Paul (who didn't spend much money here), bringing up the rear. Looking at it from a fundamentalist point of view, there is no contest. Certain old-school Christians still don't trust Mormons.

Speaking personally, Mormonism seems to be the most interesting thing about Mitt Romney, otherwise, he is just another rich, Republican hack politician, like the rest of them. But I am not a typical South Carolina voter, of course.

Nonetheless, Newt's big win surprised a lot of people, particularly after (second) ex-wife Marianne Gingrich gave her famous "Newt wanted an open marriage" interview. This segued into CNN's John King asking Newt about her accusation during the debate (first question!), and Newt's robust, cheeky response. (go to about 2:30 here) I guess the Republicans appreciate Newt at his most bratty. (I hope so, since there is plenty more where THAT came from.)

More:

Gingrich routs Romney (The State)

South Carolina primary: Newt Gingrich basks, looks ahead to long race (Politico)

Gingrich: S.C. 'decided to be with us in changing Washington' (CNN)

Newt wins SC primary (CBS video)

Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina (UK Guardian)

Gingrich wins South Carolina primary (Washington Post)

Yall need to congratulate me for getting through this whole post without making fun of Callista's hair.

Ron Paul in Greenville

At left: Presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul today in Greenville.



What does it mean that so many working class people packed into a drafty, cold, wet airplane hangar to listen to a rather unremarkable-looking 76-year-old doctor talk mostly about his interpretation of the Constitution?

And they hollered, screamed, and stomped appreciatively?

I dunno, but as usual, I am impressed. I met about a half-dozen or more people I knew, too. I can confidently tell you that I could never say the same about any other Republican candidate... and possibly even the Democrats, at this stage of the game.

The Ron Paul folks (see below) are real people and I like them. They are friendly, and not a single one said anything nasty about the Obama bumper stickers I have not gotten around to scrubbing off my car. One sign on the back of a pick-up, pointedly read: DEMOCRATS-YOU CAN VOTE IN PRIMARY! (You certainly don't see signs at other candidate's rallies, openly asking for votes from 'the other side'.) Just like the last time, I enjoyed the event.

Until someone can explain away Ron Paul's populism, I can't dismiss it. On my radio show tomorrow, I will be addressing the race-baiting politics of the South Carolina primary, which have notably been from Newt Gingrich, not Ron Paul. I will be talking about why Ron Paul is considered by many to be the most progressive choice at this point.

One out of four young African-American males is in prison (the percentage may even be higher here in South Carolina), largely due to the failed and expensive drug war. The sorrowful end-results of the drug war have decimated black communities, and left heartache, gangs and poverty in their wake. (Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs coke-fiends have all of their bills and legal fees paid for by OUR money.) Of all candidates, left and right, only Ron Paul calls for a total end to this barbarism.

And it must be underscored, this is a radical and anti-racist position.

However, I must be honest... I am disappointed the Paul campaign here in South Carolina has radically downplayed the good doctor's anti-drug war positions. Recent Greenville News articles did not mention Ron Paul's controversial positions a single time, even though it certainly was news the last time he debated here! Ordinarily, I would attribute this to the usual shoddy job by the Greenville News, and yet, I noticed the info table at the rally today featured position papers about the Patriot Act, Civil Liberties in general, and virtually everything else but the drug war specifically. Hmm. Why not? (The mainstream media keeps repeating that Paul has 'widespread youth support'--surely they know his opposition to the drug war is a big reason why?) Is this because they believe their best chances are with conservatives here in the Palmetto State?

I think Ron Paul's anti-drug-war politics are a big draw with Independents, liberals and other civil-libertarians, and in fact, I am disappointed the Paul campaign didn't target minority communities with political ads seeking crossover voters and support. (Or would that compromise support among conservatives?)

If the guy with the pickup truck gets it, surely the people running the campaign, can too?

~*~

I saw my old comrade, the venerable Ted Christian, who ran for congress against Bob Inglis in 2008. He informed me he would be voting for Ron Paul "from now on."

I offered that Dr Paul was 76 now and probably would not run for president again.

"I don't care, I will keep on voting for him after he's dead," he said. He then informed me that the van outside with "Ron Paul 2012" on it, was his.

Not at all surprised.


Below, some photos of the rally, starting off with Ted's van--and that's Ted and me in the last photo. As always, you can click to enlarge.

Occupy and Walkupy

Hey, you crazy kidz! My apologies for intermittent internet woes, keeping me from bringing you all the straight dope on the South Carolina primary.

Well, what can I say?

We are averaging about one robocall every 2-3 hrs or so. I assume this is because I voted in the Republican primary in 2008 (for Ron Paul, a deliberate act of strategic voting that I will be repeating on Saturday). These damn phone banks are harassing the hell out of us... I assure you, I have no desire to talk to Rick Santorum or Newtie, who have virtually wallpapered my neighborhood with their annoying signs. Newt's people seem to be focused on internet exits, while Santorum's people are targeting particular neighborhoods, concentrated with born-agains. Newtie wants it all!

I'd like to thank author Jeff Sharlet for being on my radio show Saturday to talk about Occupy writers. (I did not hear him as well in the studio as you could hear him on the air. Not sure I understand the reason for this broadcast phenomenon.) THANK YOU, JEFF! I was a nervous wreck with someone so important on my show and hardly slept at all the night before. (Does this stuff happen to Rush Limbaugh and those people?)

I am still learning, and it is at such moments that I realize how far I have to go.

On Saturday, after the show, there was a march in support of Occupy in Columbia, and my consiglieri, Gregg Jocoy, was quoted in the news account! As I said, no sleep at all, and I just didn't have it in me to march around Columbia. However, on Sunday, your plucky heroine was back with Occupy Greenville at Bergamo Square; a local hip-hop group, High Stakes, showed up to lend their support. (2nd photo at left) A Ron Paul supporter also dropped by and wished us well. I didn't see a single other campaign worker, from any other campaign. (I guess they don't have many face-to-face folks, and would rather just bleat bullshit in random robocalls.)

Tonight we welcome Walkupy with a potluck! I have made my trusty Curry-Lentil soup, just for them.

From Spartanburg Herald-Journal:

Spartanburg County residents might have seen them during the weekend, a group of 18 walkers trekking through the Upstate, ranging in age from 18 to 63.

They are part of Walkupy, a march to raise awareness for the Occupy Wall Street movement, said Darrin Annussek, a participant from Philadelphia. The group carries American and peace flags. One participant flies a Texas flag as they walk, and another bears the Veterans for Peace flag.

On Sunday, they were headed into Greer from Duncan, along Highway 290. Today, they’ll head to Greenville.

“We invite anyone to walk for a day, or a few hours,” Annussek said.

Annussek, 36, joined Walkupy in Philadelphia. The original march began in New York and went to Washington, stopping for a visit at the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. memorial there.

Annussek has been walking since the beginning of November, he said.

“It’s amazing meeting people,” said Annussek, who left his job as a career counselor to participate in Walkupy. “There seems to be a general understanding that something has to be done to change the country. We’re getting the word out for social change.”

Annussek used to live in Inman, and he said the group’s reception in the South has been amazing. A participant of the recent Occupy Spartanburg demonstration downtown assisted the Walkupy group over the weekend, helping the marchers find accommodations. Annussek said the marchers have camped out and stayed in a couple hotels but mostly have received lodging from churches and private homes.

It will be great to meet you all at last. My soup rocks, and its vegan too.

Hope you all had a great Martin Luther King Jr holiday!

Vermin Supreme for president

Newt avoids confrontation with Occupy protestors



Quote from above-linked account:

The protesters waved signs and chanted, supporting two competing candidates in the Republican primary: Ron Paul and an individual named Vermin Supreme, who wore a rubber boot on his head and danced while speaking through a megaphone.

Is this a great country or what?

Bachmann Bails

At left: Cover of The Madness of Michele Bachmann by Ken Avidor, Karl Bremer and Eva Young.


Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign is history. Those of us who planned elaborately-amusing blog posts making fun of her husband's pray-away-the-gay therapy are profoundly disappointed. I was looking forward to at least a few more weeks of the Michele-and-Marcus follies. Gone after the Iowa caucus? She can't even make it to New Hampshire? Lightweight!

Bachmann placed sixth in Iowa. How Michele Bachmann went bust is explained by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post:

What happened in the 144 days between those two dates was a mix of bad luck, bad strategy and a candidate who opted for a national rather than Iowa-focused campaign, according to a series of conversations with former strategists and advisers to the Minnesota Republican. That series of factors created a potent concoction that left Bachmann out of money and options less than 24 hours after the first vote of the 2012 presidential primary.

“At the end of the day, voters liked her but didn’t see her as the party nominee or their president,” said Ed Rollins, Bachmann’s one-time campaign manager. “She didn’t make the sale.”

What's next for Michele Bachmann? asks Alex Pareene of Salon:

Michele Bachmann, a deeply deluded and irresponsible religious fanatic who until this week was apparently seriously running for president of the United States, has slunk back home to her oddly shaped Minnesota congressional district to brood on her future.

Politico declares her a “lock” for reelection, but that depends on whether or not she runs. She effectively promised not to, but that promise may have been predicated on her remaining a legitimate presidential candidate. (Minnesota law prohibits running for two federal offices at once.)

Bachmann is not a lock because she’s particularly beloved in her district — as longtime Bachmann critics have been at pains to point out to the national media, she never wins Stillwater, her district’s largest city, and she has tended to win tight races with help from third-party spoilers — but because she is hugely popular outside her district, with a nearly endless supply of Christian right cash.

It’s fun (“fun”) for political observers to imagine her going up against Sen. Amy Klobuchar, but that would be nuts even for Bachmann. If she couldn’t beat Ron Paul in Iowa among Republican voters, she’s not going to win a statewide election in more-liberal Minnesota against a popular incumbent.

What I wanna know is, how did we ever get stuck with this person on the national stage? People like this are usually consigned to the outback, aren't they? How could anyone take her seriously as a presidential candidate?

Pareene mentions that:

It has been honestly disturbing to watch as a woman who was a local joke when I left Minnesota years ago rose to become not just a larger joke but then suddenly a national figure of some influence and seriousness, and that her rise was abetted by precisely the qualities that made her a joke in the first place — her vicious small-mindedness and bigotry and self-evident idiocy — is what makes people deeply cynical about the intelligence and decency of Other Americans not like themselves, to the detriment of our politics. So to see her roundly rejected is cause for some small celebration, even as hateful troll Rick Santorum rides his resentment-fueled momentum into the next contests.

So, honestly, who cares what Bachmann will do next? The future Bachmann deserves is one of total obscurity. It would almost be appropriate if this avowed “non-politician” remained an uninfluential absentee House of Representatives backbencher. Though it’d be much more satisfying if, say, Minnesota legalized gay marriage and Marcus divorced her to marry Ted Haggard at a wedding officiated by Keith Ellison.

Bachmann may not be making any detailed plans for the future, considering that she believes she’ll be raptured away any day now, which both I and her apocalyptic death cult would likely agree would be a good thing for all involved.

We could never get that lucky... although I think she'd be great on a reality TV show: Praying Away The Gay with Michele and Marcus.

Oxygen network? Lifetime?

Onward and Upward

At left: Occupy Greenville has kept our plucky heroine from dissolving into hopelessness during her long period of unemployment this year: THREE CHEERS FOR THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT, which has restored many folks' faith in America.

~*~

I used to wonder why people (usually women) deleted their blogs. No longer. I get it now.

As net-denizens Google various religious-and-Christmas-oriented-posts I have written over the past four-and-a-half years, I feel theologically and emotionally bereft. I was so certain, and now I am not.

Or rather, I am certain that uncertainty is the state of humanity. I no longer unequivocally declare that particular existential points of dogma are true, except to say, this is what I feel right now. This is what I believe is true right now.

And this is, in fact, what we are always saying, we just don't seem to realize that our personal truths collide over time. We re-arrange the biography to make our wildly different, disparate truths make sense. But they simply don't.

This is because we are not the same people we were.

The person that started this blog is me, yet it is another me, a past-me. I do not agree with everything the past-me wrote, in fact, I wince at a good deal of it. I can understand why people feel the need to delete that which makes them embarrassed and makes them wince. And women, specifically, can find this nearly intolerable. On the above-linked thread, Feminist Avatar wrote:

I almost deleted my blog as I was fed up with discussions going on in my online community, which I disagreed with and felt had been done so many times before, with no resolution. And, my gut response was- get out of here- and I think I saw leaving my blog up as leaving a part of myself 'there'; in that conversation, even tho' I wasn't and hadn't posted in ages.

A wiser person than me once said that women were more reluctant to 'let go of the authorial signature' than men (that is to stop owning their words- seeing cultural products as a creation of society and context rather than individuals), because they had only recently won the right to own them in the first place (ie women's right to a public voice is historically new and hard won). Perhaps, as a result, when we need to walk away from particular online communities or just the internet as a time suck, we feel we can't leave something of ourselves there- we can't stop owning our words (even if they may be out of date or not where we are any more). And perhaps, because of that sense of ownership, if we move beyond those ideas or no longer agree with them, we also can't leave them out there, as it is no longer us.

Yes, I understand that, as well as the Buddhist concept of impermanence.

~*~

I nearly titled this post "Can Ron Paul win the Iowa primary?" and then thought the better of it. Nah. But I am once again voting strategically for the good doctor, as I did in the last South Carolina Republican primary four years ago.

I heartily recommend Conor Friedersdorf's piece in The Atlantic, titled Grappling With Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters--currently up to a whopping 633 comments. The money quotes:

Do I think that Paul wrote the offending newsletters? I do not. Their style and racially bigoted philosophy is so starkly different from anything he has publicly espoused during his long career in public life -- and he is so forthright and uncensored in his pronouncements, even when they depart from mainstream or politically correct opinion -- that I'd wager substantially against his authorship if Las Vegas took such bets. Did I mention how bad some of the newsletters are? It's a level of bigotry that would be exceptionally difficult for a longtime public figure to hide.

For that reason, I cannot agree with [The Weekly Standard's Jamie] Kirchick when he concludes that "Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing -- but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."

On the other hand, it doesn't seem credible that Paul was unaware of who wrote the execrable newsletters, and although almost a million dollars per year in revenue is a substantial incentive to look away from despicable content, having done so was at minimum an act of gross negligence and at worst an act of deep corruption. Indeed, Paul himself has acknowledged that he "bears moral responsibility" for the content.

Given its odiousness that is no small thing.

For the record, I certainly agree. I also agree with this quote--although regular readers might recall that as a true believer, I defended both Jeremiah Wright AND Bill Ayers:

For me, the disconnect between the Ron Paul newsletters, which make me sick, and Paul's words and actions in public life, which I often admire, put me in mind of the way I reacted when candidate Barack Obama was found to associate with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, both of whom had said execrable things. I couldn't defend any of it. But I could never get exercised about the association in exactly the way that writers like Victor Davis Hanson wanted, because it seemed totally implausible that if Obama was elected he would turn out to secretly share the convictions of the Weather Underground, or hope for God to damn America. It always seemed to me that those relationships were the unsavory product of personal ambition. I don't mean to suggest that the two circumstances are entirely analogous, but I do find it hard to believe that if Paul were elected, he'd turn out to be a secret racist, implement policies that targeted minorities, or drum up support by giving speeches with hateful rhetoric.

And then, he makes the points I wish I had been smart enough to make, says the things I wish I had been smart enough to write. YES!:

[Congressman Ron Paul] has a long history of doing what he says when elected, and no more.

"How could you vote for someone who..."

Isn't that a thorny formulation? I'm sometimes drawn to it. And yet. We're all choosing among a deeply compromised pool of candidates, at least when the field is narrowed to folks who poll above 5 percent. Put it this way. How can you vote for someone who wages an undeclared drone war that kills scores of Pakistani children? Or someone who righteously insisted that indefinite detention is an illegitimate transgression against our civilizational values, and proceeded to support that very practice once he was elected? How can you vote for someone who has claimed to be deeply convicted about abortion on both sides of the issue, constantly misrepresents his record, and demagogues important matters of foreign policy at every opportunity? Or someone who suggests a religious minority group should be discriminated against? Or who insists that even given the benefit of hindsight, the Iraq War was a just and prudent one?

And yet many of you, Republicans and Democrats, will do just that -- just as you and I have voted for a long line of past presidents who've deliberately pursued policies of questionable-at-best morality.

In voting for "the lesser of two evils," there is still evil there -- we're just better at ignoring certain kinds in this fallen world. A national security policy that results in the regular deaths of innocent foreigners in order to maybe make us marginally safer from terrorism is one evil we are very good at ignoring.

Prison rape is an evil we're even better at ignoring.

It is a wonderful thing that Americans are usually unable to ignore the evil of outright racism. It hasn't always been so. The change is a triumph. But important as rhetorical issues of race and ethnicity are in America, we're by necessity choosing the lesser of two -- or three or seven -- evils when we pick a candidate. And so it's worth complicating the moral picture with some questions we don't normally consider when we talk about race.

For example: What American policy most hurts people who'd be a minority group in this country? I'd say cluster bombs, missiles and bullets that inadvertently kill them while we try to kill terrorists or convert tribal or sectarian societies into democracies. Or perhaps an even graver harm is done by the subsidies we give to agribusinesses, destroying Third World agricultural markets and opportunity. To think of the damage done over the decades by sugar dumping in Haiti alone! And isn't it uncomfortable to think about how race and nationality is implicated in the priority we assign to folks who suffer from the aforementioned policies? The policies aren't rooted in personal racism, like the lines in racist tracts -- sugar dumping is rooted in an amoral agricultural lobby that wants to enrich itself -- yet it's hard to imagine such policies would persist as uncontroversially if "people like us" were the victims.

In the U.S., the War on Drugs arguably does the most grave damage to poor communities, especially in black and Latino neighborhoods, where the majority of arrests take place, though whites use drugs more often. The greatest threat to an ethnic minority in the United States isn't that doctrinaire libertarians are going to reverse the Civil Rights Act -- it's that Muslim Americans or immigrants are going to be held without trial in the aftermath of a future terrorist attack because we've allowed our and their civil liberties to erode.

Were it 1964, I'd never vote for Paul, precisely because my desire to protect and expand liberty would've placed the highest priority on the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Paul once said in a speech that "the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty," despite the fact that it clearly enhanced the individual liberty of blacks, the group the state was most implicated in transgressing against.

But it is not 1964. Other injustices better define our times. In 2012, when accused terrorists are held indefinitely without charges or trial, and folks accused of drug possession have their doors broken down by flash-grenade wielding SWAT teams in no-knock raids, Paul would arguably protect the rights of racial, religious or ethnic minority groups better than Obama, regardless of whether Paul is now or ever was a racist, and irrespective of the fact that Obama, as the first black president, has in some ways transformed Americans' thinking on race. (LBJ, who signed the Civil Rights Act, was not know for his personal progressivism on race or women's rights, but he nonetheless backed policies that had powerful consequences for women and minorities).

What I want Paul detractors to confront is that he alone, among viable candidates, favors reforming certain atrocious policies, including policies that explicitly target ethnic and religious minorities. And that, appalling as it is, every candidate in 2012 who has polled above 10 percent is complicit in some heinous policy or action or association. Paul's association with racist newsletters is a serious moral failing, and even so, it doesn't save us from making a fraught moral judgment about whether or not to support his candidacy, even if we're judging by the single metric of protecting racial or ethnic minority groups, because when it comes to America's most racist or racially fraught policies, Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them.

Read it all, and at least a few of the hundreds of brawling comments, well worth your while if you care about the Republican primary and the next election.

~*~

Check out our show tomorrow, where we will be doing a year-end round-up. In upstate South Carolina, join us at 9am on WFIS radio, 1600 AM and/or 94.9 FM on your radio dial. We have online streaming, so drop by.

And winding up with some holiday tackiness/nostalgia. At left: The Great Southern Shopping Center in Columbus, Ohio, my hometown. As you can see by the cars, this photo was probably taken some time in the early-to-mid 60s, and certainly, my fondest Christmas-shopping memories come from this period. (This shopping center was only a short distance from one of my very favorite and beloved Drive-In movie theatres, which I know I have rhapsodized about here before.)

The shopping center featured the SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD in miniature, and we used to walk around them as kids, taking photos and gawking as if they were real. Surely, this was as close as most of us were ever going to get. My absolute favorite was the Taj Mahal, which apparently even had real water for awhile, but mostly I remember dried-up water with dirt and leaves in it. Unfortunately, my dogged net-searches could NOT bring up the Taj Mahal or Eiffel Tower, presented right alongside Woolworth's and hardware stores and everything else. At Christmas time, the tacky Christmas lights and faux-evergreens were draped around the SEVEN WONDERS OF THE WORLD, and we thought it was the greatest thing we had ever seen.

Confession: I still think it was, but I have since learned how uncool it is to say so.

Thanks to Otherstream for the photo of little-Pisa, which brought back a nice Christmas memory.

PS: And if you have never read Truman Capote's amazingly wonderful A CHRISTMAS MEMORY, you should. Too wonderful for words, but get out those kleenex.

Random Monday notes and warnings

As every single Star Wars movie has said at least once: I have a very bad feeling about this. PLEASE brothers and sisters in the Occupy movement, do not underestimate a cutthroat conservative politician who is afraid of losing their base, and what they might do to keep that base happy.

Occupiers are planning to defy Governor Haley's unconstitutional 6pm curfew at the State House in Columbia. My best Deadhead vibes are with them, as well as my warnings. My Tarot counseled me in no uncertain terms, not to go. Reshuffled, threw it again, even worse the second time. I decided that since I have no bail money, I would sit this one out. If I had a lawyer at the ready and bail money, I would be taking part.

Nikki Haley is weathering several scandals right now, and Occupy Columbia is popularly regarded as one of these. Conservatives want her to sweep the place, and "get tough" on Occupy. She finally did, and the nineteen arrests were greeted as a positive by conservatives.

Haley is currently dealing with an ethics-based lawsuit:

COLUMBIA -- A top Republican donor and critic of Gov. Nikki Haley asked a court Thursday to decide whether she broke ethics laws while she was a member of the South Carolina House. Haley discounted the lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed in circuit court in Richland County by John Rainey centers around Haley's jobs as a fundraiser for the Lexington Medical Center and with an engineering firm that has state contracts.

The lawsuit is the culmination of months of digging by Rainey, former chairman of the state Board of Economic Advisors, who first raised questions about Haley's work in 2010 during her campaign for governor.

Rainey, a longtime Republican activist, declined comment on the suit Thursday, as did his lawyer, Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian.

"There's nothing there," Haley said during a visit Thursday to the Alcoa aluminum plant in Goose Creek. "He needs to get a life," she said, referring to Rainey. "It's a silly vendetta."

The lawsuit accuses the Republican governor of working as a lobbyist for the hospital, and of soliciting lobbyists to donate to its foundation.

It also accuses her of failing to disclose information on campaign filings about her work for Wilbur Smith, and of not recusing herself from a vote benefiting the employer, as well as not explaining on another vote why she did recuse herself.

"Haley exploited her public office for personal financial gain by trading on her influence and office to benefit corporations that were paying her money," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit accuses Haley, first elected in 2004 to represent Lexington in the House, of lobbying the state Department of Health and Environment Control on behalf of Lexington Medical, as it sought permission for a new open-heart surgery center.

In addition, fiscal conservatives have been livid over her well-publicized "jobs junket" to France and Germany.

Governor Haley has unfairly baited and trashed Occupy Columbia from the beginning. Therefore, I am worried that she will use a crackdown for political gain, and as a diversion tactic.

Please, everybody, be careful and be prepared.

~*~

Required reading: At Religious Right Forum, GOP Candidates Weep and Proselytize. Yes, it's as bad as you think it is.

What's funny is how Newt and Ron Paul can't quite get with the program. They are congenitally unable to act a fool in public:

Herman Cain lost his composure when talking about he was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer; former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, Penn., came apart a bit when berating himself for having stayed emotionally distant from his youngest daughter, who has a grave genetic disorder that has twice brought her close to death.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minn., told of how her father abandoned her family, leaving her mother to sell their wedding gifts -- "all the pretty dishes" -- at a garage sale. Apparently lacking a personal story to match theirs, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Ga., summoned the tale of a friend's gravely injured child to simultaneously choke up and rail against the health-care reform law signed by President Barack Obama.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry talked of finding Jesus. Rep. Ron Paul, Texas, gave hints of Christian Reconstructionist leanings, but proved himself inept at public soul-bearing. Asked to reveal some personal difficulty, he talked of how injury cut short his high school track career, but then said he realized it wasn't that big a deal.

Another example of why people like Ron Paul: even when he tries to be all touchy-feely and play the Dr Phil game, on some level, his sensible side just won't play along with the okey-doke. He's a doctor, remember?

Newt also tries hard, but his Ebenezer-Scrooge-personality inevitably shows itself, no matter what he does. Now he has added a moral-mea-culpa page to his website, pandering to the Religious Right that is still skeptical of his serial monogamy and general assholery.

I am not surprised Newt has surged to the front of the pack, what with sexual harassers, stoners and religious flakes embarrassing the GOP. He IS smart (like a fox) and the Republicans are long-tired of being shamed by conservative stupidity. Newt, college lecturer and shape-shifting busybody, is the flavor of the hour.

~*~

Glenn Greenwald accurately speaks my thoughts aloud, asking WHY children of rich politicians and commentators get hired by the media, as if they have a clue? Meritocracy? Say what?:

I really don’t understand what those angry, lazy losers in the Occupy movement are so upset about. America is a meritocracy; if you work hard and prove your skills, you get ahead. The winners deserve what they have because they have earned it. And when all else fails, we have a media filled with insurgent outsiders who will be relentless watchdogs over those in power because that’s what our media outlets are: true outsiders there to check the most powerful factions.

Even more encouragingly, we have a media that ensures that diverse views are heard; Chelsea Clinton previously worked at a $12 billion hedge fund and her former-Goldman-Sachs-banker husband earlier this year launched his own hedge fund with “two guys from Goldman,” so she brings a depth and diversity of perspetive that is sorely lacking in our news (true, CNN boldly features Erin Burnett — the former Goldman, Sachs employee and current fiancé of a top Citigroup executive — but nothing can compete with Chelsea Clinton’s rich, impressive journalism background).

And now, we can add Meghan McCain to that list, along with Luke Russert, Imogen Lloyd Webber and Jenna Bush.

Meritocracy? Only if you have the merit to be born to somebody important.

~*~

Have I mentioned that I don't like the fact that there is a movie called "The Kids Are Alright"--since there is also an old documentary about The Who by that name? Please be original enough to think up original names for your movies! If you can't, even if you are Lisa Cholodenko and directed one of my favorite movies of all time, I will boycott your cutesy mainstream movie.

Be advised!

Below: Check out the bemused expressions on the faces of folks floating by in the boats. Keith was adorable! Roger still hadn't morphed into a fashion plate, so you may not even recognize him.


The Kids Are Alright - The Who

Is Rick Perry stoned?

Some of you might have seen Texas Governor Rick Perry's amazing meltdown last night, during the CNBC Republican presidental debate. It was PAINFUL. He couldn't remember the names of government agencies, after proclaiming they ought to be abolished. "Which ones?" he was asked. Perry just lost it, for several seconds. Long... seconds... and then he said "Oops!" which was as weird as anything else.

Congressman Ron Paul helpfully tried to goose his memory, which made me think of dad trying to coach their kid in a spelling bee. Just awful!

I was mucking around in my kitchen, with garbage bags, cat food and such, listening to the debate. You usually don't need to watch these things, and I find that when I listen and don't watch, I hear very clearly whether the politician-in-question knows what they are actually talking about or not. Thus, when Perry's sudden-silence occurred, I heard it before I saw it. At first, I thought my cable had gone out. And then I heard, um, um, um, er, uh... oops.

Holy shit, did I really hear that? I did! "Perry is done!" I happily bellowed to Mr Daisy, and quickly logged onto Twitter to assess the instant damage.

It was bad.

I bet Rick Perry could name his three favorite drinks -- @chaplinlives

Will 'Oops' be Perry's campaign epitaph? -- @CNN Political Ticker

Top Perry fundraiser calls campaign "over" -- @TPM (Talking Points Memo)

That quiet "oops" Perry said at the end of his brain-cramp was rather poignant, the soft splat of his presidential hopes. -- @James Wolcott

Xanax. I think it's Xanax. Not booze. -- @pattonoswalt

now we all know why Perry said he might skip the debates -- @downwithtyranny

And finally, for the win, Andy Borowitz, who kept tweeting hilarious one-liners throughout the remaining debate:

"Mr. Perry: can you name three states other than Texas?" "California, Oklahoma... um... nope."

Rick Perry's candidacy is coming dangerously close to qualifying as a prank.

Rick Perry: "I would like to abolish Social Security because I can't remember my goddamn number."

Rick Perry Briefly Forgets Own Last Name

I used to believe in evolution, but Rick Perry is a pretty strong argument against it.

Rick Perry: "Before I answer that question, could somebody hold my hair while I vomit?"

Rick Perry: "We need to transition from Social Security to Living Social."

Thus, I laughed myself sick through the rest of the debate, which included Herman Cain referring to Nancy Pelosi as "Princess Nancy." (Serious question: Are these people for real?)

After Perry's embarrassingly bizarre speech in New Hampshire (which is where I got the screen-captures for this page), this will just bury him. After that speech, there were lots of rumors that he was high, even among the GOP. After last night, there can be little doubt.

For my part, I'm glad I rescinded my first prediction. I thought any conservative southern white male who Loves Jesus could easily win South Carolina, but after the last debate that featured Perry's extended goofiness, I decided he wasn't ready for prime time. And now, we see he is a Texas Stoner(tm)! He needs to join up with Congressman Paul for a Free the Weed ticket.

And get some PRIDE, dude. Next time they ask you something, answer "Who the hell cares?" like a proper pothead. Why look dumb if you don't have to? Go for the brazenly stoned vote, and hold your head up! If you can.

(giggles)

~*~

ANNOUNCEMENT:

Occupy Greenville, along with MoveOn and other Occupiers from around the Carolinas will be meeting the Rethuglicans in person at Wofford College in Spartanburg on Saturday, for the CBS Saturday night debate. We will be giving them a HEARTY SOUTH CAROLINA WELCOME! If you would like to join us, come on down, it's gonna be a party!

Map to Wofford here. We can't go onto campus (undoubtedly why they chose the venue), but we will be at the entrance to Wofford on Church Street. Yes, we have a permit. Be law abiding, remember, this is Jesusland. Join us if you can.

Make signs, bring warm bodies, we love the children and the dogs and all of that.

BRING IT!

Weekend in review, Monday morning quarterbacking

Daisy on the radio!


I'm still at it, going into my third month. Can you believe? I remain an amateur, but working on it. I started my show with some unexpected feedback on Saturday: "What's that hum?" I said, right out loud. Yes, just like the blog, I BLURT THINGS OUT, and so far, I am proud to say that doesn't include a single cuss word. In fact, I read a news story on the air (from Rolling Stone, see below) and the f-word was in it; I blanched, actually censored myself and successfully skipped over it.

Whew, that was close.

The podcast is up, and we are working on tarting up the show for advertisers. PLEASE advertise on my show! We are doing all the commercials ourselves, just like Rush Limbaugh, unless someone has one of their own they feel strongly about and prefer to use. (Since we are concentrating on small businesses, most do not have their own ready-made commercial.)

Contact my producer (I love saying that), Gregg Jocoy, on Facebook. Or just drop me a line, email is in my profile.

~*~

What-all I covered on the show this week:

The recent Republican debate in Las Vegas was one topic; we specifically applauded Ron Paul's brave remarks about "Empire building"--which we heartily agree with. We segued into conversation about the death of Libya's despised leader, Muammar Ghaddafi. (I also repeated a tasteless joke, that he was executed because nobody could agree on the spelling of his name.) Gregg admitted he couldn't watch the execution footage, whereas I admitted I watched it several times... interesting gender-reversal there!

~*~

As stated above, I read a segment of a Rolling Stone piece by Matt Taibbi, titled The Real Housewives of Wall Street:

But if you want to get a true sense of what the "shadow budget" is all about, all you have to do is look closely at the taxpayer money handed over to a single company that goes by a seemingly innocuous name: Waterfall TALF Opportunity. At first glance, Waterfall's haul doesn't seem all that huge — just nine loans totaling some $220 million, made through a Fed bailout program. That doesn't seem like a whole lot, considering that Goldman Sachs alone received roughly $800 billion in loans from the Fed. But upon closer inspection, Waterfall TALF Opportunity boasts a couple of interesting names among its chief investors: Christy Mack and Susan Karches.

Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley's investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.

The technical name of the program that Mack and Karches took advantage of is TALF, short for Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility. But the federal aid they received actually falls under a broader category of bailout initiatives, designed and perfected by Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, called "giving already stinking rich people gobs of money for no fucking reason at all." If you want to learn how the shadow budget works, follow along. This is what welfare for the rich looks like.

And there is the dreaded "fuck" that I almost said on the air! Eeep!

Although this is a story from back in April, I feel that it illustrated what the Occupy movement is all about, as well as the intricacies of the Bail-Out that benefited the rich, exclusively. I don't think if you or me applied for that loan (who even knew such loans existed?), that we would get it. These things are earmarked for the rich, and middle class people (never mind actual poor people who really do need the loans), need not apply.

At left, BEST PHOTO EVER, from yesterday's successful Greenville Occupation. (Local priest from Anderson, whose name I didn't get, standing beside Swami Shantji.) More photos HERE.

We also talked about the ongoing Occupation, and how successful it has been. Neither Gregg nor I expected it to take off nationwide. We heard from one Occupier via phone! I'd love some more calls, especially locally. Please call me next Saturday morning, 9-10am, WFIS radio... live streaming is available.

~*~

Other links of interest:

>> Creepy story about how the evil junk-food makers/demons are using psychology and "neuromarketing" to reach the teenagers. It's all true!

>> Student writing in The Nation: Why I Occupy.

>> More than 200 Indian girls whose names mean "unwanted" in Hindi have chosen new names for a fresh start in life:

A central Indian district held a renaming ceremony Saturday that it hopes will give the girls new dignity and help fight widespread gender discrimination that gives India a skewed gender ratio, with far more boys than girls.

The 285 girls — wearing their best outfits with barrettes, braids and bows in their hair — lined up to receive certificates with their new names along with small flower bouquets from Satara district officials in Maharashtra state.

In shedding names like "Nakusa" or "Nakushi," which mean "unwanted" in Hindi, some girls chose to name themselves after Bollywood stars such as "Aishwarya" or Hindu goddesses like "Savitri." Some just wanted traditional names with happier meanings, such as "Vaishali," or "prosperous, beautiful and good."

>> Tea Party to American business: Stop hiring! Well, no WONDER we have a high unemployment rate... the Tea Partiers are trying to squeeze us deliberately.

>> Toxic Algae turning Florida rivers green. Gross!

~*~

I am currently reading Joe McGinniss' fabulous muckraking book about Sarah Palin... from which I learn that young hell-raiser Track Palin was on Oxycontins and never finished high school before Sarah and Todd prevailed upon him to enlist and go to Iraq as good political PR for the family. There's so much dirt in this book (for instance, as mayor of Wasilla, she fired the local librarian for not censoring books), that I hardly know where to begin. Hoping to do a "fun facts about Sarah Palin" post when I have finished the entire book, since I am madly jotting down the gossip for all of you to enjoy.

Short version: Some people are disgusting, thoroughly fraudulent pigs, who will say and do anything for money and/or power.