At a campaign stop in Golden, CO today, Gov. Sarah Palin repeated — for the tenth time — her thoroughly debunked claim that she said “thanks, but no thanks” to Congress for federal funding for the Bridge to Nowhere:
PALIN: And that infamous Bridge to Nowhere, I did tell Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” — if we wanted a bridge up there we were going to build it ourselves.
The McCain campaign and its surrogates have now repeated the lie 34 times, according to a ThinkProgress count:
During the September 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeadestated that, on NBC's Meet the Press,Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) said, "I'd like to see [Gov.] SarahPalin's tax returns, please. And I also would like to see a -- her having anon- -- put together a nonpartisan panel and agree to have a nonpartisaninvestigation on the trooper issue with the -- her ex-brother-in-law. So herewe go, it's looking in the background." Kilmeade then asserted,"When you air-drop 60[...]
Read The Full Article:
They're showing Clare Boothe Luce's satire of her gender again on Turner Class Movies tonight and, in the year of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, memory brings back one of the most famous--and fascinating--political women of the past century.
As the new editor of McCalls in 1965, I inherited her as a columnist after my predecessor hired her to balance Eleanor Roosevelt with a conservative icon. But now Mrs. Roosevelt had died, and, to my discomfort, I was left with the caustic writer, a former member of Congress and Ambassador to Italy, wife of America?s most powerful publisher, known for consigning enemies to publicity hell, as she did a respected politician by noting her problems with him went back to ?when Senator Wayne Morse was kicked in the head by a horse.?
After cocktails at lunch, I said earnestly, "Since you and I disagree about so much politically, I don?t see how we?re going to work together. We might keep making each other uncomfortable.?
With a dazzling smile, she answered, ?Why don?t we try? I promise never to make you uncomfortable.?
She kept her promise. For the next three years, she wrote charming, sometimes touching pieces on manners, morals and culture, carefully skirting politics.
We would meet for lunch, spend a few minutes talking about the column, then argue amiably about politics. In her early sixties, Clare was a seductive storyteller and shrewd observer. When I told her about trying to protect Jacqueline Kennedy from embarrassment only to have her cancel an interview and give it to a competing magazine, Clare said sweetly, ?The Kennedys leave no good deed unpunished.?
She talked often about her husband. Their turbulent marriage had settled into a kind of prickly peace, and she loved telling stories at his expense, about his misadventures as ?the world?s worst driver? and his cantankerousness. They had just built a house in Hawaii, and the new cook asked, ?How does Mr. Luce like his eggs?? ?Any way,? Clare answered, ?that you can?t cook them.?
She liked men but was an affectionate skeptic. "They say women talk too much," she once said. "If you've worked in Congress, you know the filibuster was invented by men." And: "A man's home looks like his castle on the outside. Inside, it's more like his nursery."
Early in 1967, after Luce died suddenly, I went to see her. Dressed in black, Clare seemed pale and fragile. In a disembodied voice, she talked about how free his life had been of suffering, how even death had come without pain. As always, her tone was wryly affectionate with an undercurrent of anger.
Just before I left, her voice softened. ?The people from Time Inc. came yesterday,? she said, ?and I made up my mind not to cry, so I put on false eyelashes...?
She looked at me. ?But I don?t have them on now,? and broke into tears.
On the way out, I reminded myself Clare had been an actress, but if those tears were a performance, it was a good one.
Read The Full Article:
When I set out to write Whatever It Takes, I wanted to accomplish two things. The first was, simply, to tell a story. I wanted to describe the life and work of Geoffrey Canada and chronicle his attempt to build the Harlem Children's Zone, an ambitious and well-funded nonprofit that stretches across 97 blocks of central Harlem. And I wanted to tell the stories of the children and parents in Harlem who are using the organization's resources to try to improve their lives.
But as well as offering what I hoped would be an engaging story, I also wanted to use the book to investigate a few questions that I found intriguing and hard to answer.
The main question was one that is disarmingly straightforward and yet infuriatingly complex: Why are poor people poor?
More questions followed from that one: Why do poor children tend to grow up into poor adults? Why, specifically, do poor kids have such difficulty succeeding in school and, later on, in the world of work?
And perhaps most importantly: What, if anything, can we do to solve those problems?
In the book, I briefly trace the history of the American debate over these questions, from the poorhouse through the New Deal to the War on Poverty. And I argue that over the last decade or so, we've entered into a new and crucial chapter in that debate.
The idea at the center of this new chapter is that inequality today is mostly a question of a skills gap. Poor children turn into poor adults because they don't have the opportunity, either at home or at school, to gain the skills they need to succeed. But if we can find a way to help those kids acquire those skills, they have a very good chance at success.
One thing that's especially interesting to me about this new moment is that the critical research and re-thinking that's going on is taking place in two separate spheres at once. There are academics studying this stuff, just as in every era. (A week ago, I wrote an article in the New York Times Magazine that mentioned two academics whose work I think is especially important, James Heckman and Susan Neuman.) But this time, a lot of the most innovative thinking and experimentation is happening closer to the ground, in the ranks of nonprofit organizations like Teach for America and New Leaders for New Schools, in the offices of school superintendents and philanthropists, and in classrooms across the country.
These academics and practitioners come at this issue from different directions. But they're all now trying to answer the same question: Which interventions in a poor child's life are most effective at providing him with the skills he needs to succeed?
One of the most impressive new answers to that question, as I wrote in the New York Times Magazine back in 2006, can be found in a growing network of high-performing charter schools, mostly middle schools. That network includes the Knowledge Is Power Program, or KIPP, schools, as well as networks like Uncommon Schools and Achievement First and Green Dot, all of which are achieving remarkable results with low-income students.
The Harlem Children's Zone (as I wrote last week on Slate) is another impressive answer, one that I think may turn out to be even more influential. Geoff Canada's model draws on both data from researchers like Heckman and the experiences of practitioners like KIPP. It combines two intensive, extended-day K-12 charter schools with a whole network of social supports: a parenting program and an all-day pre-kindergarten and after-school tutoring and family counseling and a health clinic. It offers children in the Zone cradle-to-college support, a "conveyor belt," as Canada puts it, that surrounds children in Harlem with the same kind of emotional nurturance and intellectual stimulation that children in middle-class and upper-middle-class communities take for granted.
Barack Obama has embraced the Harlem Children's Zone, pledging to replicate it in 20 cities across the country if elected. And last week, in his speech on education reform, Obama voiced his support for a whole new set of educational innovations. (And no, they didn't include sex education for kindergarten students.) With any luck, the remaining weeks of the campaign will be about issues like education and poverty as much as they are about lipstick and pigs.
I'm grateful to Lila Shapiro and TPM for inviting me here this week, and I'm looking forward to hearing from the other participants - who will be posting soon, I hope - as well as from TPM's readers. Thanks for joining the discussion.
Excerpts from Barton Gellman's new book -- The Angler -- have been running in the WaPo. (Part I and Part II) Despite everything I know about Dick Cheney's reckless disregard for balance of powers and[...]
Read The Full Article:
In most of Chicago, you can know how far you've gone if you follow the numbers: 8 city blocks equal a mile. It's a mile from Diversey to Addison, from Halsted to Ashland. So a quarter mile is only 2 blocks, from Addison to Grace, from Ashland to Ravenswood. Heck, I walk twice that distance to get to the train in the morning.
So a quarter mile isn't a long distance. But apparently, a quarter mile into Iraq makes a big difference, or at least, this is what the McCain campaign has noted in the latest revision of America's fun game, "Where the f%$k has Sarah Palin been?"
To be fair, this time Gov. Palin hasn't said she went into Iraq. In her interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC, Palin finally admitted having gone to Mexico -- her first admission to this. She also clarified that she had been to Canada -- her first admission to this as well, though the campaign had previously corrected the original report to include our neighbor to the North. (More on her "trips" to Mexico and Canada later.) But Palin did not mention Iraq as a place where she has been.
Bookmark/Search this post with: buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati Technorati Tags: Be-Elected Chad Rubel Sarah Palin Charlie Gibson Alaska curiosity knowledge Joe Biden Canada Mexico Iraq
It is stories like this that make me weep for my country. When people so low, so completely divested of a moral compass, can impact an election to the detriment of the whole nation. John McCain knows only too well how these kind of sleazy, win-at-all-cost tactics work and should be the FIRST person to [...]
Read The Full Article:
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources organized a Bipartisan Energy Summit Friday morning. Numerous Senators and experts showed up, as did a standing-room-only crowd of hundreds.
During the hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island asked a question:
WHITEHOUSE: Gentlemen, we’re in the middle of a near total mortgage system meltdown in this country. We have a health care system that burns 16 percent of our GDP, in which the Medicare liability alone has been estimated at $34 trillion. We’re burning $10 billion a month in Iraq.
This administration has run up $7.7 trillion in national debt, by our calculation. And there is worsening evidence every day of global warming, with worsening environmental and national security ramifications. In light of those conditions, do any of you seriously contend that drilling for more oil is the number one issue facing the American people today?
(Long silent pause during which nobody answers.)
WHITEHOUSE: No, it doesn’t seem so.
A Siegel has more here.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave no indication Friday of what his plans are for dealing with this week's energy battle, in which at least two, and possibly four, energy packages could be voted on. He gave kudos to the so-called "Gang of 10" (now the Gang of 20), a bipartisan group that has been working on a comprehensive energy plan since July.
The plan, which includes $84 billion of incentives and subsidies for renewable energy, conservation and efficiency, would also permit oil and gas drilling 50 miles and more off the coasts of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, if those states agree. According to CongressDaily (subscription-only), Reid has agreed to permit a vote on the gang's proposal this week after a Democratic proposal is considered. The Dem proposal will probably be introduced by Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman.
"Transforming our economy from one based on fossil fuels to one based on clean energy will not happen overnight," Bingaman said at the summit. "It will require investments in the range of $45-to-50 trillion." But he added that the goal was "attainable if we encourage private investment in clean energy today."
While half the 20 Senators who have signed onto the gang's proposal are Republicans, many members of the party are having trouble with it. Among them is Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, who told the Chattanooga Times Free Press: "I’m afraid the Senate proposal is drinking out of a straw when we need to have a fire hose."
Wamp supports a proposal that the House Democratic leadership agreed to last week. This would permit drilling 50-100 miles off the coasts of all states that agree, and 100-200 miles off the coast without state approval.
There's another opponent of the gang's plan, too, a close friend of convicted influence-peddler Jack Abramoff, who once said: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
The bipartisan Gang of 10 has introduced a compromise energy bill that would close tax loopholes enjoyed by oil companies, but to Americans for Tax Reform, led by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, that amounts to a tax increase.
"On net, this ‘compromise’ is a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge because it increases net income taxes" on oil companies, the group said in a news release. "Repealing [the tax breaks] is estimated to cost over 600,000 American jobs and will do nothing to lower gas prices or stimulate production."
The energy proposal rolls back tax breaks for oil companies that were enacted three years ago.
An unknown number of Republicans don't think even the House compromise package goes far enough on drilling. They would prefer to let the 27-year-old moratorium on most off-shore drilling expire on September 30. If it does, oil and gas drilling could theoretically occur as close as three miles off shore anywhere companies are willing to bid on a federal lease.
As I noted below, the big press story of the campaign is shaping up to be how reporters are and will react to McCain's deliberate strategy of full-court-press lying. The corrupt, though normal, approach is for reporters to try to dig up whatever Obama[...]
Read The Full Article:
Palin repeats the Bridge to Nowhere lie this morning in Colorado ... You'll note that while Palin is continuing to restate the lie, there's a tone of defensiveness in her voice this morning, since they clearly know they've been caught. [...]
Read The Full Article: