Hoodies for sale, and is there justice for women
and children in Florida

A-merry-cans are such a loving bunch, and they are also very creative.

"A shooting range target of a person in a hoodie with cross hairs on the chest, a bag of Skittles tucked in a pocket and a hand holding a can resembling iced tea was pulled from an online sales site, a Florida TV news station reports, but not before raising concerns of its connection with teen shooting victim Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder charges. He initially told investigators he shot Martin in self-defense.
WKMG Local 6's story said in an email exchange with reporter Mike DeForest that the unidentified seller wrote, "My main motivation was to make money off the controversy." The seller did not disclose how many paper targets were made, but said in an email, "The response is overwhelming. I sold out in 2 days."
Some of those targets were sold to two Florida gun dealers, according to the seller.
According to an advertisement for the targets posted on a popular firearms auction website, the sellers stated they "support Zimmerman and believe he is innocent and that he shot a thug," [Source]
I hope that these Neanderthals don't think that they are actually helping their boy's case.

"This is the highest level of disgust and the lowest level of civility," Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara said in the news piece. "It's this type of hatred?that's what this is, it's hate-mongering?that's going to make it more difficult to try this case."
The attorney is also concerned the targets will further inflame the community."
Yes my sheet loving friends, you might want to wait until after the trial to show your ignorance.

I really have to wonder what is going on down there in Florida. A woman is about to get 20 years for standing her ground against an abusive husband, and if you are the parent of a black child...well


"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: M. Henry, 704-***-****
libertyjustice2012@gmail.com
FLORIDA?S APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS CRIMINAL CONVICTION OF 13 YEAR OLD BLACK CHILD FOR NOT TELLING A WHITE OFFICER HER NAME Orlando, Florida May 4, 2012. The salient facts of M.H-R?s case are outlined in the attached Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed in the Supreme Court of the United States on April 26, 2012. The Supreme Court is this child?s last hope to find the Justice that has eluded her for 2 ½ years. This announcement is intended to bring public scrutiny to her unlawful arrest, prosecution and violations of her First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights as guaranteed to every American. Every person who values the principles of democracy and protections of the American Constitution is urged to support our petition that Florida Statute § 843.02 is unconstitutional. M.H-R was charged with "obstruction" for not providing her name when she was stopped by police for intelligence gathering.

The State?s actions were not based on Constitutional privilege, legal precedent or statutory authority. Rather, these actions were clearly biased and intended to intimidate, harass, and deny her due process under the law. The government of Florida used its considerable power and vast resources to divest M.H-R of her civil rights and to deny her what every American is entitled to as a matter of law?freedom from unreasonable searches, seizure, and to be treated fairly and impartially in the administration of justice. There is no legal or moral justification for the State?s actions.
The adverse consequences of bullying a child are well established. Whether a child is bullied by other children or at the hands of the government, the consequences are devastating. She has been grievously injured as a result of her arrest, prosecution and conviction. She endured significant punishment, fear, and intimidation for asserting her rights. When she was arrested on Halloween 2009, she had committed no crime under any Florida law. The ramifications of the State?s interaction with this child should be equally troubling and repulsive to all Americans.
This child and her family yearns for the wisdom, peace and understanding to know what was legal, just or proper about the State?s actions and its consequences. The consequences of Florida?s actions include:

? A significant amount of money wasted in seeking Justice that never came ? An illegal arrest which caused physical and psychological injuries to a child ? An illegal sentence that was harsh and improper for a 13 year old child ? Harassment from the Department of Juvenile Justice occurred at her small Christian private school, wherein she was removed from class during final exams for questioning ? Unprecedented legal proceedings against her, causing excessive absences from school resulting in the child falling behind in her studies ? Denied the opportunity to leave the state of Florida and when her grandfather died on her birthday she was not able to attend his funeral ? Arrested, transported in shackles, handcuffs and detained for more than 21 days without an adjudicatory hearing ? Appearance in Court proceedings in an orange jail jumpsuit ? A criminal conviction despite no legal, statutory or Constitutional authority"

Thank you Marie, I hope you don't mind me posting your Writ.
Please keep me informed.













Read The Full Article:
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2012/05/hoodies-for-sale-and-is-there-justice.htm
l

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Romney's Strategy Call the Kettle Black

enlarge

Two funny things happened this week on Mitt Romney's way to the White House. First, the man who cried "let Detroit go bankrupt" announced "I'll take a lot of credit" for President Obama's million-job saving rescue of the American auto industry. But just as telling was the Republican's claim that, despite Obama's "Forward" campaign slogan, it was the President who was "looking backward." After all, Mitt Romney isn't merely offering an even more reactionary resurrection of George W. Bush's failed policies. As it turns out, from his charges on immigration reform and women's issues to labeling Obama an out of touch "Marie Antoinette" and so much else, Romney's strategy is call to the kettle black.

(Click a link below for the details on each.)

• "Looking Backward"
• "Fairness"
• "Out of Touch"
• "Spent Too Much Time at Harvard"
• "Hide-and-Seek Campaign"
• "Broke His Promise to Hispanics"
• "Respect Women in All Those Choices That They Make"

"Looking Backward"

In April, the RNC's Alexandra Franceschi gave away the game when she explained that even after the calamitous Bush recession which began over four years ago, the2012 GOP economic platform would be the Bush program, "just updated." As a quick glance at Mitt Romney's proposals shows, Franceschi has a gift for understatement.

Romney, after all, is promising massive tax cuts which would deliver the lion's share of their winnings to the very richest Americans, his family included. (His 20 percent across-the-board tax cut is simply a tired retread of Bob Dole's failed 1996 plan, one that nevertheless steers a third of its benefits to the wealthiest one-tenth of one percent of Americans.) He nevertheless pledges to balance the budget even while boosting defense spending. And this latest scion of a proud Republican family would like to privatize Social Security and leave Americans to fend for themselves in the private health insurance marketplace.

Undaunted, Romney slammed the President this week in East Lansing, Michigan:

"Looking backward won't solve the problems of today, nor will it take advantage of the opportunities of tomorrow," Romney said. "His are the policies of the past. The challenges of the present and the promise of tomorrow must be met by a new and bold vision for the future, and I will bring it."

Despite the conclusion of the nonpartisan CBO and the overwhelming consensus of economists that Obama's actions saved the U.S. from "Great Depression 2.0," Romney has insisted for months that the President "made the economy worse." Unfortunately for Mitt, "we are not stupid."

"Fairness"

Barack Obama has made "fairness" a central theme of his reelection campaign. And with good reason. After all, at a time of record income inequality and the lowest federal tax burden since 1950, Both Mitt Romney and his budgetary twin Paul Ryan would deliver a massive tax cut windfall for the rich, paying for it by gutting the social safety net each pretends to protect. Each would end Medicare as we know it with a premium support gambit that would dramatically shift health care costs to America's seniors. While increasing defense spending, the House Budget Chairman and the GOP frontrunner would repeal the Affordable Care and leave at least 30 million people without insurance. And despite their mutual pledges to end many tax loopholes and deductions to fund their gilded-class giveaway, neither Paul Ryan nor Mitt Romney has the courage to say which ones. As a result, these supposed deficit hawks would actually add trillions more in red ink to the national debt.

Nevertheless, Romney used the occasion of his Northeast primary sweep three weeks ago to portray himself as the crusader for fairness:

"We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends' businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next."

Afterwards, The Democratic Strategist translated Romney's cynically transparent gimmick, "We will twist and distort the concept of fairness to justify bashing government workers, crushing labor unions and privatizing public schools."

"Out of Touch"

Four years ago, the campaign of John McCain - a hundred-millionaire who literally lost count of how many homes he owned - unsuccessfully tried to portray Barack Obama as an out-of-touch, arugula-eating elitist who vacationed in exotic Hawaii. Now Mitt Romney has branded President Obama a modern day Marie Antoinette, an "out of touch" occupant of the White House whose message to financially struggling Americans is "let them eat cake."

That might not be the wisest strategy.

To be sure, Romney's repeated and comical failures to present himself as a "man of the people" have only deepened his yawning empathy gap. Romney, who explained that over the last decade "my income comes overwhelmingly from some investments made in the past," joked with jobless voters that "I'm also unemployed." The $250 million man similarly declared himself part of "the 80 to 90 percent of us" who are middle class, when just the "not very much" $374,000 he earned in speaking fees last year puts him in the top one percent of income earners. Whether or not he really enjoys firing people, Mitt Romney almost certainly never pooped in a bucket during his time as a missionary at a toney Paris mansion. (Who else would lecture a child about his plans to divvy up his estate among his 16 grandchildren or endorse rooftop canine waterboarding?) And there's no doubt that the man who spent $12 million to buy his third home (none of which are located on "the real streets of America") didn't win any friends when he offered this prescription for the housing market crisis:

"Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom, allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up."

It's no surprise Mitt Romney believes income inequality should only be discussed in "quiet rooms." But it certainly didn't help matters when his wife Ann joked "Mitt doesn't even know the answer to that" when asked how many dressage horses she owns while her husband slanders Democrats as "the party of monarchists." It's no wonder his ally and Massachusetts GOP Senator Scott Brown urged Romney to release his tax returns:

"He's in a category, a lot of those folks are in categories that we don't really understand."

Brown was only saying what most Americans were thinking when he acknowledged that Romney is living in "a different world from me."

"Spent Too Much Time at Harvard"

Part of Romney's different world centered on Harvard. In 1971, Ann and Mitt Romney headed to Cambridge, Massachusetts. There, Mitt completed a "terrific" four year program to get his JD and MBA at Harvard Business School.

Thirty seven years later, Romney continues to claim Barack Obama "spent too much time at Harvard" learned what he knows about the economy by "hearing about it at the faculty lounge at Harvard."

Ironically, even with small children and Mitt in school, Ann avoided the "dignity of work" because "Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time. The stock came from Mitt's father." That history might explain why Romney offered this advice in March to college students struggling to pay for his education:

"If you can't afford it, scholarships are available, shop around for loans, make sure you go to a place that's reasonably priced, and if you can, think about serving the country 'cause that's a way to get all that education for free."

Pell grants, schmell grants.

Later, Mitt told college students to borrow money from their parents to start a business, advice his son Tagg took to the tune of $10 million.

"Hide-and-Seek Campaign"

Following the dust-up over Obama's open mic comments to former Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, Mitt Romney accused the President of running a "hide-and-seek campaign."

"He does not want to share his real plans before the election, either with the public or with the press," Romney said. "By flexibility, he means that 'what the American public doesn't know won't hurt him.' He is intent on hiding. You and I will have to do the seeking."

Romney must have been looking in the mirror. Because hiding his past record and future plans is a cornerstone of the Romney 2012 campaign.

Mitt didn't merely arrange for his computers in the Massachusetts governor's office to be scrubbed. After delivering 23 years of tax returns to John McCain in the vain hope of securing the number two slot on the ticket four years ago, so far Romney has only released two to the American public. And as he and his wife Ann ("unfortunately" the world now knows how "successful in business" Mitt has been.) made clear, even that limited disclosure was done grudgingly:

"I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide."

Romney's penchant for withholding vital information from voters is no accident. As the former Massachusetts Governor inadvertently revealed in an interview with the Weekly Standard, his opacity is by design, a lesson learned from losing the 1994 Senate race:

"One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don't care about education," Romney recalled. "So I think it's important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we'll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I'm not going to give you a list right now."

Asked to get specific about his self-proclaimed "bold" tax plan, Mitt Romney decided discretion is the better part of valor. As he explained earlier this month, Romney in essence responded, "I'm not going to tell you":

"So I haven't laid out all of the details about how we're going to deal with each deduction, so I think it's kind of interesting for the groups to try and score it, because frankly it can't be scored, because those kinds of details will have to be worked out with Congress, and we have a wide array of options."

Mitt revealed why he was refusing to lay out "all of the details" during a very revealing December interview with the Wall Street Journal:

"I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election."

Unfortunately, what Mitt Romney branded "demagogues" most Americans call "voters."

"Broke His Promise to Hispanics"

"We're going to be able to get Hispanic voters," Mitt Romney assured big-dollars donors last month, adding, "We're going to overcome the issue of immigration." How the Republican presidential nominee plans to do that is another matter.

After all, John McCain captured only 31 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2008. A recent Pew Research poll shows Democrats enjoy a three-fold (and growing) advantage among registered Latino voters. As it turns out, the GOP's list of Republican Latino candidates includes some who are neither. Worse still, Mitt's high-profile backing by SB 1070 author Russell Pearce may put GOP stronghold Arizona in play. And on top of it, Romney is rapidly alienating Hispanics with his hardline rhetoric on immigration, talking points that include vetoing the DREAM Act and encouraging even long-time illegal immigrants to "self-deport."

But Mitt Romney may still have one or two more cards up his sleeve.

The first approach is to blame President Obama for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the face of total Republican opposition. As MNSBC reported in April:

Romney nonetheless predicted that, by November, the economy would trump immigration as a driving issue for Hispanic voters, and he vowed also to remind the Hispanic community that, despite promises of comprehensive immigration reform by Obama, Democrats ultimately fell short in passing legislation in their two years in control of Congress and the White House at the start of the president's term.

The second gambit is for Mitt Romney to simply do what he does best: change positions. As conservative columnist Fred Barnes explained, that's part of the plan:

According to a Romney adviser, his private view of immigration isn't as anti-immigrant as he often sounded.

Bettina Inclan, the Republican National Committee's Hispanic outreach director, confirmed that a Romney turnabout is imminent:

"I think as a candidate, to my understanding, he's still deciding what his position on immigration is. I can't talk about what his position is going to be."

It will be whatever it needs to be. After all, he's running for office, for Pete's sake.

"Respect Women in All Those Choices That They Make"

For months, the now pro-life Mitt Romney has trailed President Obama by large margins among women voters. Seeking to capitalize on the manufactured flap over Hilary Rosen's offhand remark last month that Ann Romney "has actually never worked a day in her life," Mitt proclaimed that "all mothers are working mothers." As it turns out, Romney's Rule is means-tested. Put another way, on Mitt's Animal Farm, some mothers are more equal than others. As he explained during his 1994 Senate run against Ted Kennedy:

"This is a different world than it was in the 1960s when I was growing up, when you used to be able to have mom at home and dad at work. Now mom and dad both have to work."

Now, as the severely conservative and severely condescending Romney insisted in January, women who receive welfare must work outside the home, even if their children are very young:

"I wanted to increase the work requirement," said Romney. "I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, 'Well that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work."

Just not if the individual is his wife.

As Ann Romney explained in an October 1994 interview, their dignity was provided by Mitt's father George:

"Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time.

The stock came from Mitt's father. When he took over American Motors, the stock was worth nothing. But he invested Mitt's birthday money year to year -- it wasn't much, a few thousand, but he put it into American Motors because he believed in himself. Five years later, stock that had been $6 a share was $96 and Mitt cashed it so we could live and pay for education."

$250 million dollars later, the dignified Mrs. Romney now claims their wealth can't be quantified. As she lectured voters in January:

"I understand Mitt's going to release his tax forms this week. I want to remind you where our riches are: our riches are with our families," Ann Romney said. "Our riches, you can value them, in the children we have and in the grandchildren we have. So that's where our values are and that's where our heart is -- and that's where we measure our wealth."

As Rosengate reached its crescendo, Ann Romney explained, "My career choice was to be a mother." She then added:

"We have to respect women in all those choices that they make."

Just not when those choices involve their own bodies and their own health. And that message to the women of America is the exact opposite of the one Mr. and Mrs. Romney sold to the women of Massachusetts.

In March, Governor Romney caused a firestorm when he casually announced, "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that." While he later clarified that "what I want to get rid of is the federal funding of Planned Parenthood," he shouldn't have stopped there. After all, Mitt Romney wants to end all funding for Title X, the only federal program devoted to family planning. But as Ruth Marcus documented last year, that's only a small part of the health care services Title X provides for lower-income American women:

The inevitable result of eliminating Title X funding would not only be more abortions - it would also be higher bills for taxpayers footing Medicaid and welfare costs for poor children. Guttmacher found that every public dollar invested in family planning care saves $3.74 in Medicaid expenditures for pregnant women and their babies during the first year of care. Imagine the lifetime savings.

And then there is the other "important work" that Pence cited: 2.2 million Pap smears, 2.3 million breast exams, nearly 6 million tests for sexually transmitted infections.

Mitt's positions on Planned Parenthood, women's health care and reproductive rights have always depended on whether he was running for office inside or outside of liberal Massachusetts. Now, they happen to be the opposite of Barack Obama's - and the opposite of respecting all the choices women make.

(This piece also appears at Perrspectives.)

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/romneys-strategy-call-kettle-black

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Langston Hughes asked, "What happens to a dream
deferred" It's not a bad question for a whole lot of 21st-century Americans

Ruby Dee and Sidney Poitier as Ruth and Walter Lee Younger in the 1961 film version of A Raisin in the Sun, directed by Daniel Petrie

What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore --
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over --
Like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
Like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?
-- Langston Hughes
(quoted in the program for The Morningside Players' production
of Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun)

"[Arthur] Miller?s outrage at a capitalist system he wanted to humanize has become our cynical adaptation to a capitalist system we pride ourselves on knowing how to manipulate. For Mr. Miller, Willy [Loman]?s middle-class dreams put the system that betrayed them to shame. In our current context, Willy?s dreams of love, dignity and community through modest work make him a deluded loser."
-- Lee Siegel, in a May 3 NYT op-ed piece,
"Death of a Salesman's Dreams"
by Ken

Sometimes things just sort of fit together.

If I were a more au courant culture consumer, I would probably be trying to strong-arm my way into Mike Nichols's blockbuster-hit Broadway revival of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, with Philip Seymour Hoffmann as the disintegrating Willy Loman, but while I'm prepared to believe that the production is as good as people are saying, I'm just not up to either the hassle or the expense. Then again, talented as Nichols is, I've had experience of seeing him turn a play of genuine depth, Tom Stoppard's The Real Thing, into an audience-wowing spectacle about a millimeter deep.

Which perhaps made me especially receptive to the NYT op-ed from which I've quoted above, in which Lee Siegel suggests that the audiences who can afford this revival of "the most devastating portrait of punctured middle-class dreams in our national literature" are likely to find themselves sneering smugly at that pathetic loser Willy Loman, which is even less what Miller had in mind than the sloppily sentimental sympathy for Willy elicited by the play's original director, Elia Kazan.

In our time of banker hustlers, real-estate hustlers and Internet hustlers, of suckers and ?muppets,? it is unlikely that anyone associates happiness and dignity with working hard for a comfortable existence purchased with a modest income. Even what?s left of the middle class disdains a middle-class life. Everyone, rich, poor and in between, wants infinite pleasure and fabulous riches.

Mr. Miller?s outrage at a capitalist system he wanted to humanize has become our cynical adaptation to a capitalist system we pride ourselves on knowing how to manipulate. For Mr. Miller, Willy?s middle-class dreams put the system that betrayed them to shame. In our current context, Willy?s dreams of love, dignity and community through modest work make him a deluded loser.

Perhaps there is a simple, unlovely reason ?Death of a Salesman? has become such a beloved institution. Instead of humbling its audience through the shock of recognition, the play now confers upon the people who can afford to see it a feeling of superiority ? itself a fragile illusion.

So no high-living Death of a Salesman for me. Instead last night I found myself in a modest but hearty basement theater a couple of blocks south of 125th Street for opening night of The Morningside Players' revival of Lorraine Hansberry's 1959 play A Raisin in the Sun, directed by that fine actor Arthur French. And by coincidence, as I watched this still-powerful drama of a struggling three-generation black family on Chicago's South Side in 1956 contemplating a move into heretofore all-white Clybourne Park, I still had rolling around my head the comment offered Wednesday by CA-02 congressional candidate Norman Solomon, that unique mix of rolled-up-sleeves activist and serious thinker, in response to President Obama's declaration of support for marriage equality.

Norman's comment is worth reading in full, along with the comments of three of the other Blue America-endorsed candidates, as I passed them on in my Wednesday post. (And whose campaigns, I'm obliged to remind you, you can support on our Blue America page.) But this is the part I was thinking about:

President Obama's endorsement of gay marriage is controversial nationwide. But new steps for human rights always are.

The first time I went on a picket line -- to integrate a whites-only apartment complex -- the concept of fair housing was controversial. That was in 1966.

Today, while some Democrats like to talk about reaching across the aisle, I advocate reaching toward the stars of our ideals.

That's how civil rights laws became reality.

A Raisin in the Sun is more than a half-century old now, and American society has changed a lot in that time, and at the same time a lot hasn't changed, while a lot else has changed for the worse. As I've suggested at the top of this post, that line of Langston Hughes's, "What happens to a dream deferred?," has increasingly come to cross racial lines.

There was something way too present last night about the scenes in which the Clybourne Park white neighborhood protectionist Karl Lindner (Michael C. O'Day) came into the Younger family's home (the cramped apartment in which Lena and her late husband, Big Walter, raised a family while their dream of a real home and a better life slipped away) and, hoping to buy them out of their intention to move into his neighborhood, kept referring to "you people" and "your people."

The Morningside Players' Raisin in the Park obviously doesn't have the gloss of a Mike Nichols-directed Broadway extravaganza, but It's surely a tribute to Arthur French's direction that in this humble but serviceable venue, the whole cast engaged at least this audience member in the characters' inner urgencies, with all those overlapping and clashing layers of hope, disappointment, frustration, and bitterness in the members of the Younger family -- Carol Carter as Lena, the mostly serene faith-suffused matriarch; Leopold Lowe and Georgia Southern as her 35-year-old Walter Lee and 20-year-old Beneatha; Tonya Edmonds as Walter Lee's wife, Ruth; and Brandon Khalil as Ruth and Walter Lee's young son, Travis.

Perhaps the play's sweetest moment came when Travis produced the gift he had bought for his grandmother, based on her thwarted lifelong dream of having a garden of her own. In the Younger family's lives a lot of dreams have been deferred\, but the most tangible residue is the scraggly potted plant Lena has nurtured as a substitute for that long-dreamt-of garden. At the end of the play I couldn't take my eyes off that damned plant -- or Lena, or Travis's gift. That struck me as an excellent sign of how successfully I had been caught up in the family's struggles and hopes.


I don't want to slight the remaining cast members, including the actors who play aspiring doctor Beneatha's very different suitors, Mervyn Morris and DeLance Minefee; I just didn't have occasion to mention them. The Morningside Players have performances of A Raisin in the Sun this week and next, Thursday-Saturday nights at 7:30pm and Saturday-Sunday afternoons at 3pm, in the TMP Theatre, 100 La Salle Street -- two blocks south of 125th Street, just east of Broadway.
#

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2011/05/raisin-in-sun.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Power And Perspective

The National Association of Manufacturers courageously condemns the undemocratic tyranny of five teenagers in California.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/kIY3hLdUInw/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Testimony: Homosexualist Homociders like Judas
Iscariot Took Roofies and Licked Hillary's Anus to Turn Her All Lebanese

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/daKDW/~3/Aipq_w28vtw/testimony-homosexuli
st-homociders-like.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Popular Culture (Music) 20120511: Still More
Moodies

I was going to take a break from this series and write about the 1969 TeeVee show Turn-On.  It aired only one episode, and some stations cut the feed during the show, and some Mountain and Pacific Time Zone stations never aired it at all.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.docudharma.com/diary/29855/popular-culture-music-20120511-still-more-m
oodies

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

"People Died for the Right to Vote"

By @KYYellowDog

And don't you ever fucking forget it.

Via Steve Benen:

Down with Tyranny describes it as Lewis "shaming" Broun into withdrawing, and that's the biggest takeaway here: What repugs are doing - not just on gay rights, but on women's rights, on global warming, on the budget, on helping the poor, on saving the middle class, on growing the economy - everything, repugs are shameful.

Lewis shows that it is not just possible but easy to shame them into backing down and backing off if you are not afraid to stand up and argue passionately for human and civil rights.

Repugs are bullies. And bullies are cowards. And cowards always back down when confronted by righteous courage.


Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/w_CodoV0sLk/peopl
e-died-for-the-right-to-vote

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

WE DO Campaign Strikes Back Against Amendment One
Lesbian Seeking Marriage License Arrested

As I mentioned yesterday, the Campaign for Southern Equality's WE DO Campaign, peaceful direct actions protesting marriage inequality, launched its latest series of events at county offices in North Carolina in the wake of the passage of Amendment One.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/s042ez4u0L0/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Americans buried under debt

Reblogged from Economy:

Lots of American families are underwater…and not just on their mortgages.

About one out of every five U.S. households owe more on credit cards, medical bills, student loans and other debts not backed by collateral than they have in savings and other liquid assets, according to a new University of Michigan report published Tuesday.

The precariousness of Americans’ financial situations has become increasingly on display since the mortgage crisis precipitated the Great Recession.

Read more… 196 more words

Read The Full Article:
http://kmareka.com/2012/05/11/51790/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Austerity crushes UK economy more than previously
thought

Ya don't say? What a shock to hear that austerity is failing miserably because the GOP keeps telling us that it's the only thing that will save America. As long as you ignore the fact that jobs growth is better under Obama than it was under Bush and that austerity keeps dragging down the UK and Europe, austerity is probably great. Ignorance is bliss.Britain?s economy may have shrunk more...

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/1Dovdcywkt4/austerity-crushes-uk-ec
onomy-more-than.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!