Lindsay Graham’s stupid, nasty, sophmoric crack about Pelosi’s nips and tucks demands one course of action: Pelosi must compile and publish a list of all the old, rich, white Republicans in the House and Senate who regularly expend their ill-gotten gains on Viagra. Tell us who and how much.
The alacrity with which her “people” are bandying around right-wing catch phrases like “politics of envy,” denotes an unwillingness on the part of her campaign team to antagonize Wall Street, and thus an inability to construct a platform voters will be able to distinguish from what the opposition customarily peddles (though the GOP may just run rings around her by running to her left).
“Politics of envy,” of course is a copycat GOP-derived slogan designed to shift attention from the brutal economic engineering that has devastated this country’s middle class as well–so what else is new?–its poor (which now includes enormous swaths of the formerly-middle class.)
She’s still trying to triangulate, and it will very likely cost her the presidency once again.
That’s what Representative Grayson rightly calls the inevitable result of the current U.S. syndrome whereby “every time we see something on our computer screens that we don’t like, we go ahead and bomb it.”
So now we have Fox operative Andrea Tantaros picking up the GOP refrain of the moment and tootling the anti-Semitism jingle.
I am waiting for Barbara Boxer to slap down Tantaros the way she so brilliantly did Giuliani.
And Fox gets the use of our air waves for free to spew this filth!
Spoke to an eighty-nine-year-old woman in New England today; she was out snowshoeing for an hour this afternoon!
First, one GOP-er lobs out of left field a scurrilous, preposterous claim about a Democratic big wig. The claim is so vicious and out-there that it knocks the recipient on his/her back foot. (And you know how easily–if I may mix figurative expressions–Democrats get the wind taken out of them).
Then, one-by-one other GOP-ers take up the scurrilous refrain as if they’re singing a round. Then when there’s an outcry, they say they’re tewwibly, tewwibly sorry, and of course they would never dream of saying what they just said.
That’s called affirmation by negation. You can thank one of my college rhetoric teachers for being supplied with that factoid.
At least the Democrats seem slightly less gobsmacked by the latest assault (s).
Jeb Bush’s foreign policy advisers are the same dishonest, incompetent global menaces who guided his brother’s hand into the disastrous wars that Obama is now perpetuating.
Bill Berkowitz at buzzflash for truth out explains exactly why these people should be behind bars instead of preparing to direct another admnistration into more international carnage and conflalgration.
And on the (in this case not) boob tube, Melissa Harris-Perry rightly jeers.
Now vacant: the retail space that housed the small, unique, independent Ballet Shop on Broadway, just around the corner from Lincoln Center.
I spent many an hour browsing and many a dollar purchasing there thirty and more years ago.
Recently it was some type of of Verizon or other mega-telecom outlet, and, rents being as astronomical as they are, it now stands empty.
Residential rents too are out of sight in the area, which is why so many of the performers who make Lincoln Center hum now live long distances away from it.
Our successive mayoralties have done virtually nothing to ensure that Manhattan stays a thriving capital of the performing arts.
Columbus Avenue, where so many dancers used to live, was also once a concentration of small businesses; it is now so impersonal and pretentious that a resident described living near it as living inside of a mall. Gentrification hardly seems even to do justice to what’s happened there.
What happens when the support systems and the ancillary industries and communities are allowed to wither is that the foundation for a Lincoln Center begins to erode.
The Barre Flies sample (and of course review) Justin Peck’s new work for New York City Ballet. You know where to go.
Sahil Kapur at Talkingpointsmemo quotes prominent law professors claiming that Chief Justice Roberts is concerned with preserving the integrity of the Supreme Court and that’s why he won’t go along with the current suit targeting Obamacare.
If Justice Roberts does vote to allow the intention of the law to be upheld–thereby adhering to a bedrock principal of judicial construction–it will be to give himself cover to continue to take an acetylene torch to democracy as it has previously existed in this country, to continue his attack on civil society as we’ve known it, on the rights of the individual vs. the corporation, on the right to vote, et. al., et. al.
Kapur himself understands that while Robert voted to save Obamacare in 2012, he did so as a means to an end, to advance radical conservative ideology, by calling the requirement that people be insured a penalty. He was also able then to simulate the appearance of objectivity while actually diminishing the law by ruling that the states could opt out of Medicaid expansion.
As previously noted on talkingpoints, the defense in the current litigation is advancing the argument that the integrity of the SC rests on its not getting behind a blatently political law suit. That of course is true–the last semblance of credibility and objectivity will go out the window if Roberts sides with the rest of the right-wing-extremist majority.