Here?s a little something to enjoy, posted in honor of the final print edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:
While the total count of advertisers, local and national, who have abandoned Rush Limbaugh has reached upwards of 150, there's a handful still sticking around. Among them, according to Radio-Info.com, is The New York Times.
The Times had ads in all three hours of Rush Limbaugh's Tuesday show, on Cumulus-owned WABC (770). Here?s a quick look at some of the other ads heard on WABC ? Amberen ... Winning Our Future, a pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC. Zyvestra ... General Steel ... Hillsdale College ... Hoover ... Insperity ... A lawsuit attorney specializing in mesothelioma cases. Tax Resolution Services ... Total Transformation ...One of those, Tax Resolution Services, had said on March 5 that they had "decided to join other advertisers and suspend our sponsorship of The Rush Limbaugh Show." Apparently that suspension is over, which makes a point we've been talking about for a few weeks now?too many of these advertisers will temporarily suspend, and just come back.
Still buying that blue jeans and work shirt bullshit Romney's been handing out?
Basement In Mitt Romney's New Mansion To Be Bigger Than Entire Mansion He Tore Down
Democrats swarmed when news broke last year that Mitt Romney had bought a $12 million mansion in La Jolla, California -- only to tear it down to build a house on the same land with four times the square footage. Romney bristled at the story, insisting that he was only doubling the size if you don't count the basement and garage.
Today's Wall Street Journal has a little more info on that basement in a trend piece on how ultra-wealthy home owners are building huge portions of their home below ground in order to appear less ostentatious from the outside. According to the plans for Romney's new home, the underground space will be 3,600 square foot. That's 600 square feet bigger than the entire mansion that the Romneys are replacing.
Having met earlier this week and declared that regardless of public opinion, the Catholic bishops aren't giving up their losing war on women's health. Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has come up with a brand new rhetorical strategy to counter the growing consensus that the Church doesn't care about women, and it's sure to be a winner:
Nuh uh. No, really. That's the argument. Nuh uh:
When it comes to the health of women, their babies, and their children, the Catholic Church is there, the most effective private provider of such care anywhere around.Cardinal Dolan cites, as his nuh uh evidence, stirring tales of "fresh water projects" in "impoverished, thirsty countries throughout the third world," all because of the good work of Catholic Relief Services. These wells enable young girls to do other things with their lives?like go to school?instead of having to spend hours every day carrying water to their villages from the nearest water source. It's an important program, no doubt, but it doesn't exactly prove that the Church is "the most effective private provider" of health care for women.
But hey, it's evidence enough, according to the cardinal:
And now understand why Catholics rightly bristle when politicians and commentators characterize the Church as backwards and insensitive when it comes to women?s health.Actually, no. Because "Catholics" aren't bristling; they, like the rest of the country, oppose the Church's attempt to inject its dogma into our health care policies. The only "bristling" is from the bishops, who are frustrated that they can't even get their own laity to follow the Church's rules on sex.
But nuh uh, says the cardinal:
We just want to be left alone to live out the imperatives of our faith to serve, teach, heal, feed, and care for others. We cherish this, our earthly home, America, for its enshrined freedom to do so. Those really concerned about women?s health would be better off defending the Church?s freedom to continue its work.The Church is, of course, still perfectly free to "serve, teach, heal, feed, and care for others." No one forced it to pull its funding from services for the homeless because the director supports marriage equality; the Church came up with that one all on its own.
The Church is still "free to continue its work," including spending millions of dollars on lobbying and pursuing its new "get tough" policy to shut down Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). No one is standing in the way there either.
The cardinal is even free to spend his time using his blog to smear children who claim to have been molested by priests. Since that's apparently an important part of the Church's devotion to caring for women and children.
The cardinal's right about one thing, though:
We?re on the offensive when it comes to women?s health, education, and welfare, here at home, and throughout the world.At this point, does anyone really doubt that the Church is on the offensive when it comes to women's health? With all of its hand-wringing and multi-million-dollar lobbying against women's health care, it's actually perfectly clear just how offensive the Church really is.
In the words of Cardinal Dolan:
Just to be clear, what the resigning midlevel exec in the GS London office said in his New York Times op-ed was that the culture at Goldman Sachs was such that its clients were being bilked by trading schemes knowingly designed to rip them off, while the[...]
Read The Full Article:
?While the president does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples,? said Cameron French, his North Carolina campaign spokesman.This is good news, not just to the extent it helps defeat the amendment, but also because it signals a continuing evolution of President Obama's views on marriage equality. Yesterday, Sam Stein and Amanda Terkel reported on the push to add a plank to the Democratic Party platform supporting marriage equality. According to their report, Obama campaign officials and senior Democrats are concerned about such a plank and the implications that it would have given President Obama's stated opposition to marriage equality. According to the report, they've been pushing a cautious hurry up and wait approach rather than the throw it in reverse one, apparently hoping that the issue will just disappear rather than wanting to overtly oppose it.
?That?s what the North Carolina ballot initiative would do ? it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples ? and that?s why the President does not support it.?
But as Greg Sargent and Joe Sudbay both argue, the issue is going to come to head in August no matter what. And given that reality, the question the Obama campaign and DNC officials should be weighing isn't whether the party platform can get out ahead of the president on marriage equality, it's whether the president (or his operatives) can afford to do anything that might get in the way of the party adopting a pro-equality plank.
Today's statement suggests that President Obama understands this. Obviously, he doesn't need to worry about a mad rush of gay activists to the Republican Party, but being on the right side of this issue boosts enthusiasm in a tough election year during which he needs an energized team.
Moreover, when President Obama makes moves?like his statement today?that bring him closer to supporting marriage equality and freedom, it is consistent with his political brand. I don't think anyone really believes he fundamentally opposes marriage equality, especially given the statement he made today. Obviously, he still hasn't completed his evolution, but at least he's going in the right direction. Heading the wrong way?and trying to block the marriage equality plank would be heading the wrong way?would seem like a cynical political calculation made out of fear.
Fortunately, if today's announcement is an indication of what's to come, that's not the direction he's heading. And this is one of those occasions where doing the right thing is also good politics. He might not have the power to make marriage equality the law of the land with the snap of his fingers, but you can be damn sure that supporting it would provoke a furious reaction from Republicans similar to the birth control debate, strengthening the hands of the right-wing Republicans like Rick Santorums and putting the G.O.P.'s anti-gay bigotry on full display for all to see. And when the public pulls back from the Republican Party in response, we'll all have a good laugh as they accuse President Obama of having trapped them. Yes, he'll have trapped them ... into saying what they really believe.
The 2012 Jefferson Jackson Dinner Friday, May 11, 2012 Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center 1101 Lincoln Street, Columbia, SC 6pm - Chair's Reception 7pm - Dinner with Keynote Speaker: Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick
Tickets and sponsorships are available now. Click here for more information.
Read The Full Article:
The crux of heated protests and controversy for the last year, out of the blue, Republicans just lost control of the Wisconsin state senate. [...]
Read The Full Article:
Dems are pushing the not altogether plausible idea that Mitt Romney is more extreme on women's issues than Rick Santorum. [...]
Read The Full Article:
TPM is changing its sign in system for commenting. This change is a move to a much more secure and seamless login process, which will end all of the issues you've experienced in recent weeks regarding signing in, changing your avatar, etc. More after the[...]
Read The Full Article: